Sitting of 26 June 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aberdare Canal Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

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

    EDUCATION GRANTS.
    Mr. ROBERT MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether the question of altering the Regulations which govern the making of education grants by the Special Grants Committee has been under his consideration; and whether any alteration is proposed?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Roberts): Representations have been made to me on certain points connected with the grants that may be made by the Special Grants Committee for the care and education of children, and these are having my consideration. I am not yet in a position to say whether
    558
    any alteration of the present procedure can properly be made.
    Mr. MORRISON: If I put down a similar question in a fortnight's time, will the Minister then be in a position to make a definite announcement on this matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes: I hope to be able to do so by that time.

    PRE-WAR NAVAL PENSIONERS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Minister of Pensions when a reassessment of pension on the Jerram scale will be made in the case of those pre-War naval invalided pensioners who were called up for service and served during the great War?
    Mr. ROBERTS: An Order in Council dealing with reassessment in these cases has been under discussion with the Departments concerned. In am taking steps to secure the issue of the Order at the earliest possible date.
    Major YERBURGHasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will direct that the retired pay of naval officers who had retired before the War, were employed during the War, and died or were disabled as the result of their war service should be reckoned as earned income, as is done by the Treasury for purposes of Income Tax assessment, thus permitting such officers or their widows to reckon such retired pay when claiming alternative pension?
    Mr. ROBERTS: For alternative pension, the question to be determined is the loss of earning capacity consequent on the disablement or death of the officer or man concerned. For this purpose, in accordance with legal advice, service-retired pay or pension is properly regarded as income and not as earnings, the latter term being used in its ordinary sense of remuneration for work performed concurrently with the earnings. I am assured that this interpretation is, on the whole, of greater advantage to officers and men than the interpretation suggested.

    EDENHALL HOSPITAL, MUSSELBURGH.
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that considerable hardship and irritation is being caused

    559
    by the officer in charge at Edenhall Hospital, Musselburgh, in imposing unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions on the men under his charge and in using questionable methods in applying the Regulations dealing with ordinary breaches of discipline; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to securing greater harmony than at present prevails?
    Mr. ROBERTS: At a recent inspection of this institution by medical officers, including a neurologist, two cases of complaint were brought forward, but in neither instance was the complaint established. I am not aware of any justification for the general charge made against this officer, whose conduct of the institution, which I have personally inspected within the past few days, appears to be highly efficient. I should add that neurasthenic patients to whose treatment the hospital in question is devoted, at all times offer special difficulties in management, and the recent medical inspection showed that cases of varying types which could not suitably be associated with others had been admitted to the institution. This has now been put right by the transfer of certain cases to more suitable institutions under the Ministry.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Minister of Pensions whether any compensation has been given to British ex-prisoners in Germany; if so, under what circumstances and to what extent?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Time spent as a prisoner of war by a member of the armed forces of the Crown is regarded as within the active service rendered by him for the purpose of Ministry Warrants, and any disability shown to be attributable to or aggravated by such imprisonment can be considered for the grant of compensation under the conditions laid down in the Warrants.
    Mr. ALDEN: Had anything been granted to civilians?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That I cannot say, but if the hon. Member wants the information I shall try to get it.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: On what basis is the compensation awarded?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot give that information off-hand, but I shall be pleased to get it if the hon. Gentleman puts a question down.

    ROYAL BERKSIRE REGIMENT (G. H. HAWKINS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether his personal attention has been called to the case of George Harry Hawkins, of 4, Great Western Street, Barton Bill, Bristol; whether he is aware that Mr. Hawkins enlisted on 15th February, 1917, and served with the Royal Berkshire Regiment for two years and one month, including 15 months in France; that he was admitted to hospital in France on 11th October, 1918, suffering from neurasthenia, due to being blown up by a shell: that he was found to be unfit for military service, and was discharged in March, 1919, the disability being assessed at rates varying from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. during the period between that date and October, 1922; that the Ministry decided in October, 1922, that he was suffering from congenital amentia at the time of his enlistment: whether he is aware that Mr. Hawkins has developed tuberculosis, which is becoming rapidly worse: and whether, seeing that Mr. Hawkins was accepted as sound on enlistment, he will make some special provision for the compassionate treatment of this case?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am looking into the facts of this case and will communicate later with my hon. Friend.

    ADVISORY COUNCILS.
    Major YERBURGHasked the Minister of Pensions how many of the new advisory councils it is proposed to set up; how these councils are constituted; what are their exact functions: and what proportion of ex-service men it is proposed to appoint to each council?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is proposed to establish eight of these councils composed of representatives of war pensions committees, disabled ex-service officers and men, and such other persons as I may appoint. The total membership of the councils will vary, but in every case there will be at least five representatives of ex-service organisations. The councils will consider reports of various kinds upon the work of the Ministry, and it

    561
    will be open to them to make recommendations to me on matters of policy or administration.
    Mr. STURROCK: Will Members of this House be represented on these councils as in the case of the old councils?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir: they will be included in the persons indicated that I myself may appoint.

    ORPHAN CHILDREN.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions how many orphan children his Department is responsible for, and in what manner they are dealt with: how many of them are in schools: how many are otherwise provided for: and is his Department responsible for the whole cost of maintenance of such children?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind children taken under my care under Section 9 of the War Pensions Act, 1918. There are 3,181 such children, of whom 2,413 are boarded out in private homes and 768 are in institutions because of mental or physical infirmities, for training or for other reasons. These children, so far as they are of school age, are attending elementary schools or are receiving appropriate education in the institutions. The pensions payable for these children are in accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant, and are supplemented where it is necessary in order that proper provision may be made.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are any reports received from time to time from the institutions in which these children are?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir; every care is exercised to get full information as to their treatment.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. JOHN GUESTasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the failure of many appellants to the final appeals court to understand the medical precis supplied them by the Ministry in preparation for such appeal, and also their inability, owing to illness or the effect of wounds, to adequately present their case, he can now say that the pension authorities will make some suitable provision by which the appellant in presenting his claim may have the assistance of his local doctor, who is in most instances familiar with the case?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Under the rules made by the Lord Chancellor, the tribunal is required to assist any appellant who, through ignorance or otherwise, is unable to make the best of his case. Moreover, the tribunal is empowered at its discretion to summon before it expert or other witnesses to give oral evidence. Any question as to an extension of this provision would be a matter for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these privileges of which he has spoken as having been granted to these men are of very little avail, and that, despite them, there is a real demand, particularly in the case of the ex-service men themselves, in favour of having an independent representative apart from the tribunal itself?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will take note of what my hon. Friend says, and make the necessary inquiries.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Major YERBURGHasked the Minister of Pensions whether any ex-service men have been discharged from the staff of the Ministry of Pensions since 1st March, 1924; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The number of ex-service men employed in the Ministry of Pensions on the 1st March last was 12,283 and on the 1st instant the number was 11,691. The decrease in the numbers was due largely to normal wastage by resignation, etc., the number of discharges the same period due to reduced volume of work and changes in administration being approximately 220.
    Mr. AYLES: How many of these men were transferred to other Government Departments, and how many of them had the chance of being transferred to other Government Departments?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot give any explanation of that to-day.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (RODEO PERFORMANCES).
    Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home

    563
    Department what are the specific acts of cruelty charged against the officials of the Rodeo at Wembley in respect of which the police are applying for summonses?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): While the cases are pending I cannot make any statement but can only refer the Noble Lord to Press reports.
    Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in answering a question the other day, say that there had been no warrants taken out against the cowboys, yet I see in the paper yesterday that three or four of these gallant men have had summonses issued against them?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid the memory of the noble Lord is at fault. I did not say that no summonses had been taken out. What I said was that it had been suggested that I had the power to take them out, but that I said that I wished to proceed against somebody higher than the cowboys.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what is the position with regard to the bullock-roping and bullock-wrestling competitions at Wembley; whether he is aware that last week a large number of police who attended the Stadium in the morning under his orders either to witness or prevent the competitions were turned out of the premises: and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Steer-roping as previously carried out has been discontinued, but I understand that the exhibition authorities have given sanction to a modified form of steer-roping, named the "break away," which was introduced yesterday for the first time. I am informed that in this form of contest the steer is not thrown, as the rope which is thrown round his horns is attached to the sadde by a piece of string which breaks as soon as pressure is brought to bear and the steer goes free. Steer-wrestling has not been discontinued. No attempt was made to interfere with the police in the execution of their duty on the occasion referred to, and the, last part of the question therefore does not arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a fact that the police were turned out last week to the number of between 100 and 150 as stated in the papers?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I thought I had answered that point.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman think of applying the same method to the patient oxen." [HON. MEMBERS: "Chestnut!"]

    OMNIBUS DRIVER'S (EYESIGHT TEST).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary whether the police are making arrangements for an eyesight test for drivers of omnibuses?
    Mr. HENDERSON: For many years the production of a certificate of physical fitness has been required, and this certificate includes the question of vision.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are there not a good many men able to drive quite safely with spectacles, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of these men wearing spectacles while their tests are being taken?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Well, my hon. Friend knows the difficulty almost better than I do. I can only say I will look into that aspect of the case.

    ATTACK ON BRITISH SOLDIERS (QUEENSTOWN).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Home Secretary, whether the Wood-Renton Committee has completed its inquiries into the recent Queenstown outrage and decided upon the amount of compensation payable to the victims?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): I have been asked to reply. The Wood-Renton Commission is dealing with these cases as the victims of the outrage become convalescent. It would be against the interests of the patient to assess the compensation before ascertaining the full effect of the injury, and it will consequently be some time before all the cases are dealt with. Awards have been made in five cases of

    565
    minor injury as well as in the case of the man who was killed, and other cases have been heard this week.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Would the right hob. Gentleman say whether any ex gratia payments are being made to the victims on account?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes: there is the case of a mother and the sister £1,250 has been paid in that case. I know there are other cases where amounts have been paid in anticipation.

    M. EDVARD SOERMUS (EXPULSION ORDER).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether an order has been issued to a Russian violinist, M. Edvard Soermus, to leave this country by 31st July; and what is the reason for this order of expulsion?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The position is that Mr. Soermus was removed from this country in 1919 under a deportation order, and that the effect of such an order is to require the alien to remain out of this country. At the beginning of this year I was strongly urged to allow him to come here for a month to visit his wife and children, and as the grounds put forward for allowing this seemed to me in all the circumstances to be exceptionally strong, I went the length of revoking the deportation order so as to make such a visit possible. Soermus came here for a few days in February, but had to leave at once to give some concerts abroad, so another visit of one month to see his family was authorised in April. He then started giving concerts, and an application was made to me to alter the conditions of his landing to enable him to stay here till 31st July. I acceded to this also, though it involved allowing a visit more than three times as long as, and for a different purpose from, that for which he was given leave to land: but I felt that I had really reached the limit of exceptional concessions which I could properly give in this case and intimated that I could not give him any more. If, however, Mr. Soermus will apply to me, giving his definite plans for the future, I am prepared to consider whether the public interest in his concert performances is sufficient to justify my postponing the date for the termination of his visit.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's courtesy and consideration in this matter, will he state what is the objection to this violinist remaining here, and is he aware that he plays to working-class audiences and the receipts of his concerts go to support starving children in Leipzig?
    Mr. FERGUSON: Is it fair that this man should have been deported and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) allowed to remain here?
    Sir G. DOYLE: What was the reason for the expulsion of this man in 1919?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The expulsion was not carried out under me, and I have not even taken the trouble to inquire. If I receive an application for him to stay on here permanently I will look into the whole of the facts.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Should it not have been an essential point preceding all inquiries on the matter to investigate what was the reason for his original deportation?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, in the event of a permanent application.
    Sir H. CRAIK: No.
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is where we differ. When a man's wife and family are here, if the man wishes to come over for a temporary period, it seems to me to be a strong case for allowing him a temporary permit.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the wife of Soermus is an English woman who has lived in this country all her life, and that his child was born in this country; and further, that he was deported in 1918 under a general Order under which no charge was brought against any particular individual, because of the general condition of Russia?
    Mr. BECKER: Is this man not taking a job away from an English violinist?
    Mr. HENDERSON: In reply to the last supplementary question, I do not think he has taken a job away from any Englishman. All the points stated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Wall-head) are strictly accurate.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Home Secretary if he can state the conditions under which French, Italian, German, Belgian or Polish artists, musicians and singers are allowed to enter this country and remain indefinitely, according to the success or failure of their performance; and whether, in view of the non-political conduct of M. Edvard Soermus, he will accord to him the privileges open to the nationals of other countries?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The conditions depend on the circumstances of each case: in some cases of the kind indicated a Ministry of Labour permit may be necessary. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.
    Mr. MILLS: Is it within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that the deportation of this particular artist was in no way due to political activities of any kind?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already intimated to the House that, if I receive an application for a permanent residence, the whole of the circumstances will be taken into consideration.

    CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Home Secretary whether there exists any Court of Appeal for the inmates of the criminal asylum at Broadmoor similar to the Court of Criminal Appeal provided for prisoners; and, if not, will this question be included in the terms of reference for the Royal Commission on Lunacy?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, Sir. A verdict of guilty but insane is technically a verdict of acquittal from which no appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal can lie. The proper authority to consider representations with respect to such a case is the Home Secretary. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. Questions of criminal responsibility are, I understand, outside the scope of the Royal Commission on Lunacy.
    Mr. MILLS: Would it be possible for the Home Secretary to take one representative case, such as the person named True, and examine whether or not this man is in a fit condition to be tried for
    568
    his crime, in view of the newspaper statement as to his activities recently?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think it is very important that I should have notice of such a question as that.

    HORATIO BOTTOMLEY (PRESS ARTICLES).
    Mr. JAMES GARDNERasked the Home Secretary whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the prisoner, Horatio Bottomley, in connection with writing the Press articles and the smuggling of the articles out of the prison: whether Bottomley has been allowed the usual one-fourth remission for good conduct appropriate to the part of his sentence he has served; can he say if the Press articles were smuggled out of Maidstone Prison, and by whom: whether action, if any, has been taken against any individual for smuggling the articles out of the prison; and if he is prepared to reconsider the cases of the two officers who were dismissed for another minor offence?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No disciplinary action has been taken against Bottomley in connection with the incident referred to. With regard to the second part of the question, remission depends upon the number of marks earned by good conduct and industry, and the convict's release on licence will be considered when he has earned the necessary number of marks. I have no information as regards the third part of the question. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative. As regards the fifth part, I find no ground, on the information in my possession, for reopening the case of the two officers referred to who were dismissed for a grave offence.
    Mr. GARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present regulations make provision for the punishment of a prisoner where warders have been dismissed in cases like this?
    Mr. FERGUSON: Are the Socialist Members afraid of Bottomley coming back to the House?
    Mr. McENTEE: Was it not the hon. Member's party who brought Bottomley here?

    NOTTINGHAM GAOL (CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS)
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that since the closing of the Derby gaol prisoners for trial at Derby assizes are conveyed from Nottingham gaol to Derby by train, and that they are marched through Nottingham and Derby stations handcuffed together; and whether, in view of the fact that Derby and Nottingham are only 15 miles apart, he could arrange for these prisoners to be conveyed by motor-van and so avoid exposing men, a proportion of whom are subsequently found not guilty, to the disgrace of a public appearance in chains?
    Mr. HENDERSON: This is mainly a matter of expense, but the Prison Commissioners are now considering whether any alternative arrangements are practicable.

    FATAL ACCIDENT, BELGRAVE SQUARE.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident which occurred at the south-west corner of Belgrave Square on Friday last; is he aware that the Home Office had been previously warned by the late Sir J. D. Rees, a former Member of this House, about the dangers arising from traffic at this particular place; and whether any and, if so, what precautions have since then been taken to minimise the danger?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The circumstances attending the fatality are well known, and as both drivers were at the time taken into custody and stand remanded on a charge of causing the death of the lady, no further comment is at this time desirable. The previous questions by the late Sir J. D. Rees have been borne in mind and instructions given to the police to be on the alert to prevent fast or inconsiderate driving. It is difficult to see what further steps can be taken, but the matter will be further carefully considered.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Has an officer been stationed at that point?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot answer that off-hand.

    TRUANT SCHOOL, QUAKER'S YARD, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Home Secretary if he has received a petition from the Monmouthshire County Council and other public authorities against the withdrawal of the licence of the Quaker's Yard truant school; is he aware that this institution has been in existence since 1894 without a complaint against it, that it affords easy facilities to parents to visit their boys while detained at this school, and that the population served by this school has increased by half-a-million since it was erected; and will he, therefore, in deference to the strong feeling on this question, agree to withdraw the request for the surrender of the licence?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have received the petition referred to, and it is under my consideration, and I am receiving a deputation on the subject to-day. I cannot make any further statement at present.

  EDUCATION.

    ST. PHILIP'S MARSH, BRISTOL.
    Mr. BAKERasked the President of the Board of. Education whether he is now able to announce the date on which the building of a new school in the St. Philip's Marsh area, Bristol, will be commenced; whether he is aware that the site was purchased in 1913, and that there has been an urgent necessity for increased accommodation during the whole of the intervening period; and whether, having regard to the bad conditions under which the teachers and scholars are working, he will do everything possible to expedite the commencement of work on the new school?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The Board have long been aware of the unsatisfactory conditions in the area in question. Plans both for the new infants' school and for the re-arrangement and improvement of the present school have been submitted, but require further consideration by the authority and the managers. I shall continue to do everything possible to expedite the commencement of work on the new school.

    THORNHILL.
    Mr. GAVAN-DUFFYasked the President of the Board of Education if

    571
    he is aware that the large number of children resident at Thornhill have to travel over a mile of dangerous road to Egremont (Cumberland) in order to attend school; and, having regard to the necessity of having the proposed new school at Thornhill completed before the winter weather sets in, will he have the plans of the new school, which are now said to he in his Department, passed at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board are aware that a large number of children resident at Thornhill attend school at Egremont. Full details of the local education authority's proposals for the provision of a new public elementary school at Thornhill have only recently been submitted to the Board, and are now receiving their careful consideration. I have given instructions that the case shall be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

    DEAF MUTES (TEACHERS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the fact that the teaching of the English language to deaf mutes, whether by means of the finger alphabet or by the more difficult method of speech and lip-reading, is a work which demands a specially trained teacher, what steps his Department is taking to provide an adequate supply of teachers who are fully qualified to undertake this important work?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The University of Manchester provides a special course of training for teachers of the deaf, which is recognised and assisted by the Board. Teachers who do not take this course before taking a post in a school for deaf children are expected, as a rule, to qualify themselves by passing an examination approved by the Board in the methods of teaching in schools for deaf children.

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. AYLESasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the case of local education authorities desirous of raising the school-leaving age to 15 years, he will consider sympathetically the grant of maintenance allowances for children over 14 years of age in those cases where the family income is below
    572
    a reasonable standard to be fixed by the local education authority in consultation with the Board of Education?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I should certainly view with sympathy proposals for increased provision of maintenance allowances for children over 14, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule VII of the Code, which are designed to secure that the children receiving them shall derive educational advantage from the prolongation of their school life.
    Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for not starting these maintenance allowances until the age of 14? Why should they not start from birth?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: That is a question of policy which we can discuss on the Estimates.

    TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the last inquiry into the whole question of technical education dates back to the year 1881: and whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will consider the advisability of instituting a new inquiry into the whole question of technical instruction in relation to the problem of education generally?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: It is true that no general investigation into technical education has been undertaken since the year 1881; but I have no reason to suppose that there is any widespread demand for the institution of a similar inquiry now, and I am myself of opinion that more advantage is to be expected from the sectional inquiries into different departments of technical education which are now being undertaken in many places than from a general investigation of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be advisable to hold such an inquiry, in view of the necessity of training boys for the building trade and similar trades?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the fact that for 40 years since that inquiry great attention has been paid to the whole subject, and a great advance in knowledge has been made, and that a general in-

    573
    quiry of this sort might much more hinder than advance the operations of the local authorities?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am perfectly prepared to consider the matter, but at present there is no great demand for it. Sectional inquiries, such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville) are going on.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any deputation from any of the technical colleges, or from the Association of Technical Institutions?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Not on that question. I have not been asked for such an inquiry.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the President of the Board of Education what is the certain proportion of scholars that school authorities are required by Regulation to admit free to secondary schools; whether these scholars are admitted free at the cost of the local ratepayers, whether their educational abilities are certified to be fit for it or not; and what proportion of these scholars complete their full time at the secondary schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The minimum percentage of free places required to be offered annually is ordinarily 25 per cent. of the total number of pupils admitted to the school during the previous year, but a lower percentage is allowed in particular cases. The primary responsibility for offering free places rests upon the local education authority or governing body providing the school. Whether the cost of a free place at a school not provided by an authority falls upon the rates depends upon the nature and extent of the rate aid, if any, given to the particular school. No candidates, whether free-place or fee-paying, may be admitted unless they pass the necessary entrance test. All pupils are expected to stay at least until the age of 16. Of the 25,000 free-place pupils who left in the school year 1921–22, 61·5 per cent. were over 36, the average age of leaving being 16 years 5 months. These figures represent an improvement on previous years, and the improvement is still continuing.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to compel some
    574
    local authorities who charge extraordinary fees for secondary education to reduce them?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: That is a different question, but I am considering it.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feepaying pupils in secondary schools are inferior in calibre to those given free places?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I think that that is too bold a generalisation.
    Sir C. YATE: Is the test imposed on entrants to these schools one that is really commensurate with their benefiting by their studies?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir, the test is quite an effective one, taking the country all round.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will give particulars of the conditions under which commissions are obtained from the ranks in the Royal Air Force: if it has been decided that commissions shall be given to non-commissioned pilots: whether such commissions will be open to competition among the non-commissioned officer pilots at home and abroad: and if such commissions are permanent?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): As the reply is rather long, T will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    A limited number of boys enlisted as aircraft apprentices who have completed three years' training as such are selected twice a year by the Air Council for cadetships at the Royal Air Force Cadet College, with a view to qualification for permanent commissions in the general duties branch of the Royal Air Force. In addition, non-commissioned officer pilots may be specially recommended for permanent commissions in the general duties branch by air officers commanding at home or abroad, provided that (1) they are qualified and employed as pilots, (2)

    575
    they are not less than 21 years of age, (3) they are considered likely to make efficient officers in every respect, (4) they have reached a certain educational standard. A third avenue to promotion to commissioned rank is that open to warrant officers of the medical branch, who may be specially recommended for permanent commissions as medical quartermasters under conditions similar to those in force in the Army. I would add, as regards the second of the above three classes of candidates for commissions, that it is the intention of the Air Council to limit the award of commissions to a very small number of outstanding recommended candidates until more experience of the working of the scheme has been gained.

    CANTEEN MANAGER, FARNBOROUGH.
    Captain BRASSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Mr. Mackay, a canteen manager at Farnborough, who had been declared substitutable and the vacancy advertised by the joint substitution board, has now been declared non-substitutable without any reference to that board: and whether he can state the record of service of Mr. Mackay during the War and the reason for the reversal of the previous decision?
    Mr. LEACH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part., the reason for the retention of Mr. Mackay, who was medically unfit for service in His Majesty's Forces in the War, was given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie), on 29th April last.
    Captain BRASS: May I ask, from the point of view of Mr. Mackay—I do not want it to be said that I am reflecting in any way on his services—whether there was not an ex-service man who might have taken his place?
    Mr. LEACH: There was not one who was regarded as substitutable, but in view of the representations made to me by the officers at Farnborough and the local ex-service Civil Service. Associations, I think I did right to retain him.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Does the chairman of the Joint Substitution Board approve of the action taken by the Air Ministry?
    Mr. LEACH: I could not say.

    MEXICO.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the Mexican position: whether it, is intended now to send the Hohler Mission to Mexico: and, if so, when?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): I have at present nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to hon. Members on the 23rd instant in regard to this matter.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the position of Mrs. Evans?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I have had no further information about Mrs. Evans, but one of the staff of the Consul-General is being sent to investigate and report.
    Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand that no decision has been arrived at with regard to the Hohler Mission?
    Mr. PONSONBY: Not yet.

    INCOME TAX (NON-RESIDENT PRINCIPALS).
    Sir G. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax in regard to the taxation of agents on behalf of non-resident principals; and, if so, when?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): It is not the intention of the Government to introduce at present legislation dealing with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.
    Sir G. DOYLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman's question was whether we had any intention at present. We have no intention to do so at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a highly technical subject—(HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

    577
    —and, from those cheers, I think it is one which may very easily be highly controversial.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    CONFERENCE OF AMBASSADORS.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Prime Minister what are the functions and duties of the Conference of Ambassadors; what purpose is served by the continued existence of this body: and whether or not he proposes to maintain indefinitely a British representative on the Council??
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to a reply given to the hon. Member for Hackney North (Mr. J Harris) on the 25th February. The British representative will continue to take part in the discussions of the Ambassadors' Conference so long as its work is unfinished.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a lot of the work done by the Conference of Ambassadors could be better dealt with by the League of Nations?
    Mr. CLYNES: I think the question of the functions of the Conference was covered in the reply given by the Prime Minister some time ago.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: When is it anticipated that the work of the Conference will come to an end?
    Mr. CLYNES: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not the pre-Election policy of the Labour party to dispense with the Conference of Ambassadors altogether?
    Mr. CLYNES: There is no change in the Election policy of the Labour party.
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how often the Conference of Ambassadors has sat during the last month?
    Mr. CLYNES: Not without notice.
    Major COLFOX: Is there any likelihood of the post-Election policy of the Labour party being put into operation?

    MILITARY INTER-ALLIED COMMITTEE.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Prime Minister whether there is still a British representative on the Military Inter-Allied Committee at Versailles under Marshal Foch; what functions are discharged by this Committee and whether the British military attaché in Paris is a member of the Committee?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): I have been asked to reply. The answers to the first and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Committee act in an advisory capacity to the Conference of Ambassadors on all military matters referred to that body.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Are we to take it that our military attaché is a subordinate of Marshal Foch?
    Major ATTLEE: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should take that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If the Ambassadors' Conference was dispensed with, should we not get rid of these costly officials?
    Major ATTLEE: You would still have a military attaché at Paris. There is only one extra officer involved in the duties performed in connection with the Inter-Allied Committee.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see if it is not possible for the Ambassador to agree to take on, dilutees?
    Major ATTLEE: That question should be put to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman accurate in stating that only one officer is attached to this Committee? Is it not, rather, that there is one officer attached to the military staff of the military attaché?
    Major ATTLEE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct and I am equally correct. What I said was, that there were two officers who would be there whether this work was being done or not, but only one additional to the ordinary establishment.

    GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received for the month of May from the German Reparation Recovery Act, and the amount received for May, 1923?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In May, 1924, £138,000; in May, 1923, £688,000.
    Sir F. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the difference?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is in exact proportion to the reduction in the percentage.
    Sir F. WISE: Roughly half a million?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Just over half a million.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what compensating advantage the country has derived from this loss of revenue?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If the Noble Lord will address that question to the innumerable commercial associations which made representations in regard to this matter, I have no doubt that they will be able to inform him that they have got considerable advantage.

    LUNACY LAW (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange that adequate facilities be given to the inmates of asylums to bring to the notice of the Royal Commission circumstances and conditions which, owing to the secrecy prevailing in lunacy institutions, do not usually come under the cognisance of the medical officers in charge thereof?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): It will rest with the Royal Commission to decide what procedure they will adopt to inquire into the points to which my hon. Friend refers or receive evidence upon them. The Royal Commission will also have full power to visit mental hospitals in order to acquaint themselves with the conditions prevailing.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister if he will give some indication as to how soon it is his intention to appoint the promised Royal Commission
    580
    to inquire into the defects in the Lunacy Law and administration and what are to be its composition and terms of reference?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: A statement was published on Tuesday giving the composition and the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and a copy will be sent to my hon. Friend.

    DEBATES (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists among hon. Members regarding the allocation of time for Debate between Members of the Front Benches and other Members of the House; and whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire and report as to the best method of allocation of time so as to secure that private Members have full opportunities for taking part in Debate?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can only speak for the Members of the Government Front Bench, who are fully sensible of the desirability of making their speeches as brief as circumstances permit: bat I have no doubt that right hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the Gangway will be equally prepared to co-operate in this matter. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that the appointment of a Committee would serve the purpose my hon. Friend has in view.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the recent Debate on the Housing Bill not one word was said about the state of rural housing, although numbers of Members wished to raise that question
    Mr. CLYNES: The question I am asked relates not to quality, but to length.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that it is not in accordance with the recent practice of the House that when a Bill originates in Committee the Minister should make a long speech in moving the Second Reading, but should formally move it and reserve himself for a reply to the Debate?
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member was the first recently to complain of the brevity of a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is introducing

    581
    a totally irrelevant matter. May I ask him whether on the irrelevant occasion to which he refers it was unnecessary for the Minister to open, but if he did open be should have done something better than he did.
    Mr. BECKER: Is it not the sense of Members generally that speeches should be restricted to 15 minutes?
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for any hon. Member of the House to impute motives?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, but I do not discern an imputation here.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it to you, Sir, that this matter should be carried a little further? We now have three Front Benches and a swollen list of Privy Councillors. I think some sort of Committee under your Presidency might look into the question of the length of speeches and the order of Debate.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now making a speech at the wrong time.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (OVAL CRICKET GROUND).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the cricket match between Surrey and Derbyshire at the Oval Cricket Ground on Wednesday and Thursday, 18th and 19th June, the charge for admission to the ground was is., including Entertainments Duty, the same as it was before the tax was reduced; and why this concession has not been passed on to the public?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a similar question on the 19th June, I have no information as to the reasons for the charges levied by particular entertainment proprietors.
    Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in this case, as is others, he would make full inquiry, and on the Finance Bill be prepared to make a full statement of the position?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As I have informed the hon. Member more than once, I am making inquiries into the matter. I
    582
    understand he has put down an Amendment to the Finance Bill with the object of raising the matter, and I shall then be prepared to make a statement.
    Major COLFOX: What progress, if any, has the right hon. Gentleman made?

    GRETNA FACTORY (SALE).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any scheme ready for the use of the factory at Gretna for the purpose of industrial production on the lines of the Pearson Committee's Report in event of a fair price not being realised at the public sale of Gretna properties?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): If the contingency referred to by the hon. Member should arise, the position regarding the property at Gretna will be further considered.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In the event of these buildings not being sold, will the hon. Gentleman consider letting them, in view of the numerous applications there are to rent houses?
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any reserve price has been placed upon the public sale of Gretna factory?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir. A reserve price will be placed on each lot.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Has any valuation been ordered of the break-up value of any of these buildings in order to ascertain what can be obtained for them in any other way supposing the reserve price should not be reached?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I need hardly say the fullest information is in possession of the Department, but obviously it would be very wrong to divulge it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is a violation of Socialist principles to sell this property?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think not, because at present, if any attempt were made to deal with it, it would only be at very considerable national loss, and we are anxious to avoid that.
    Mr. HARDIE: On what ground does the hon. Gentleman state that it would be a considerable loss, since they have made no investigation as to what could be manufactured there at a profit?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it be a violation of Socialist principles to run them at a loss?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the serious waste and deterioration of national property at Gretna, he will appoint a small committee composed of Members of this House to visit Gretna and report upon the best uses to which the properties could be put in the national interest?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs on the 12th May.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Member aware of the extraordinary divergence between the facts and figures with which he appears to be supplied on this question and the statements made by the people on the spot?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is true that there is considerable difference of opinion, but I have looked into the matter very carefully and I am satisfied that we have given an accurate statement of the case. The decision to dispose of Gretna was taken in 1921. No offer has been received for the whole of the property, but small parts have been sold. An auction will be held next month, and if that fails we shall have to consider the whole position.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the Pearson Committee examined this question and gave a list of industries that could be profitably carried out at Gretna, and has he looked into the report of that Committee and seen how far it applies at the present moment?
    Mr. HARDIE: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the buildings will not be sold until his Department gets an instruction from this House that they have to sell them?
    Mr. STURROCK: In deference to the views which prevail amongst hon. Members behind him, will the hon. Member consider the application of Gretna to a scheme of nationalisation of industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If the House will forgive me, I will only say this, especially in view of the auction which must take place next month, that an hon. Member opposite is putting down a question on this subject a night or two hence and on that occasion I intend to make a full statement regarding Gretna.

    MINT (RUSSIAN COINAGE).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the arrangement entered into with the Russian Government for the coinage of money at the Mint; will he state what is the amount of coins to be minted here; whether the British Government supply the silver; whether the Russian Government pay to the Mint the full cost of the work; and whether any profit on the transaction is made by the Treasury?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Royal Mint are striking 40,000,000 silver half-rouble or "poltinnik "coins for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from bullion which has been purchased by the Soviet Union. The agreed charges for manufacture are based on the charges made for analogous coinages struck at the Mint for Colonial or foreign Governments, and allow of a fair profit to the Mint. The manufacturing charges are met by the Soviet Union on each shipment of five million pieces, half in advance, and half on delivery in Russia.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the ordinary staff of the Mint being employed, or have extra men been pint on to do the work?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot pledge myself, but as far as I know the ordinary staff of the Mint are quite capable of doing the work.

    AIRSHIP CONSTRUCTION, GERMANY.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his Department has any details of the airship which has been built in Germany for America; and can he give any details as

    585
    to its size, passenger-carrying capacity, speed, number of its crew, and its probable cost?
    Mr. LEACH: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The details as to size, etc., of the airship, known as Z.R.3, which has been built in Germany for the United States of America, are understood, from published statements which have appeared, to be as follows:
    Size.

    Cubic capacity, 2,475,000 cubic feet.

    Length, 656 feet.

    Height, 101 feet.

    Diameter, 90·75 feet.

    Passenger-carrying capacity, 25 to 30 passengers.
    Speed:

    Maximum (estimated), 75·8 miles per hour.

    Cruising (estimated), 67·12 miles per hour.

    Number of crew: 24 persons.
    Probable cost: Information not available.

    YUGO-SLAVIA (TRADE FACILITIES).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the present financial condition of Yugo-Slavia, which has balanced its budget and stabilised its currency, he is prepared to advise the Trade Facilities Act Committee to extent the same sympathetic consideration to projects relating to the development of British trade in Yugo-Slavia as now obtains in the case of other European countries?
    Mr. LUNN: It is presumed that the hon. Member has in mind the Exports Credits rather than the Trade Facilities scheme and I have, therefore, been asked to reply. The Advisory Committee of the Export Credits Department are giving sympathetic consideration to applications respecting business with Yugo-Slavia. In the past three months sanctions have been granted in respect of 12 applications relating to that country, and only one application has been refused.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Member aware that the natural resources and possibilities of this country are very great, and that the Committee ought to be in fullest sympathy with any application that is made?
    Mr. LUNN: I do not think I could add anything beyond what I have said in my answer, that practically all the applications have been granted.

    GOLD STANDARD.
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the widely held opinion that the policy of a return to a gold standard by further deflation, as laid down by the Cunliffe Committee, is likely to result in an increase of unemployment, the Government will reconsider their policy on this question?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before this question is answered, may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it contains a statement of opinion on a very controversial subject. Is it right to say in a question that there is a "widely held opinion"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the objection. Hon. Members often think that their opinions are widely held—even the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a rule of the House that matters of argument are excluded from questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is anything objectionable in the statement. The hon. Member suggests that there is a widely held opinion. He takes the responsibility for that statement.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that such expressions of opinion will be permitted in other questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall use my discretion in each case. I see nothing harmful in this question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Is there not a large and increasing balance of opinion in favour of the conclusion proposed by the Cunliffe Committee?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the hon. Member is quite as capable as I am of forming a conclusion in regard to that matter. It must be, of course, a matter of opinion.
    Mr. SIMON: Is the present policy of the Government that laid down in the Cunliffe Committee's Report?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Generally. It has been stated more than once during the present Session since this Government came into office. I think I may summarise it like this, that as far as this is a matter of Government policy we have said that we are opposed to inflation, that we are generally guided by the Report of the Cunliffe Committee, and that we hope to see a return to the gold standard as soon as possible.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (POLICE).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the reason why his Department is pressing the Admiralty to substitute marine pensioners for the police employed at the naval dockyards is that a departmental economy in wages can be secured because of the lower rate at which marine pensioners can be obtained: and whether, having regard to its effect upon wider national questions, especially unemployment, he will reconsider his decision and cancel his request to the Admiralty?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am unable at present to make any statement on this question, which is still the subject of confidential discussion between the two Departments.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: How does it come about that the hon. Member who puts this question has information as to a secret discussion?

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Treasury Return Cmd. 2150, dealing with staffs employed in Government Departments: whether, during the month of May, reductions took place in the Pensions, Labour, and other Departments of over 600 per-
    588
    sons; and what number of these found employment in other Departments by means of transfer?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The Return in question relates to the month of April. The reductions in the staffs of certain Departments, which are correctly stated, include cases of resignation as well as discharge. The staffs of other Departments increased during the same period by more than 400; but it would be impossible without very elaborate inquiry to ascertain how many of the individuals discharged have since been reallocated to other Departments.
    Mr. AYLES: Will the hon. Gentleman see that as far as possible no actual discharges do take place and that where persons are found to be superfluous in one Department they are transferred to another?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is exactly what we have tried to do, and I am glad to be able to Say that we have achieved a very considerable measure of success.

    PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
    Mr. JAMES GARDNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that pensions awarded under Article 1163 of the Royal Warrant of 1914 are based on pre-War rate, he will introduce such Amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Bill of 1924 as will permit of pensions awarded under this Article receiving the increases authorised under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This matter is one to he considered in the framing of the Royal Warrant under which corresponding benefits to those provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, and the Bill now before the House will be granted to military pensioners. Perhaps the hon. Member will address a question to the Secretary to the War Office on the subject.

    HORSES (EXPORT).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of worn-out horses which have been sent out of England to the Continent during the last 12 months?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): No worn-out or decrepit horses are exported from this country. The Ministry's Regulations, which are very strictly enforced, provide that all horses exported must be examined by the Ministry's veterinary inspectors and certified as being in every sense sound working horses.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Is the hon. Member aware that before the examination takes place worn-out horses have to walk many miles?
    Mr. BECKER: If I put another question clown, will the hon. Member give me figures of the number of horses that have been exported to Spain for bull-fighting?
    Mr. SMITH: I will give the hon. Member any information that I have.
    Mr. HOFFMAN: Has the attention of the hon. Member been drawn to the statement made by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as to the treatment that is being meted out in France to these animals sent over for butchery, and will he make representations to France in regard to the matter?
    Mr. SIMPSON: Has not this point been inquired into by the Minister of Agriculture and their Report published a few days ago?
    Mr. SMITH: In answer to the Supplementary question as to the treatment of horses in France, we have only jurisdiction on this side of the channel, but we take all steps possible to see that the export of horses is carried out under proper conditions. I do not think it is possible to do anything on the other side of the channel, but I will inquire.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the President of the Board of Trade on what dates notices were published inviting owners of British claims against Russia to register them with the Board of Trade: in what papers on each occasion were the notices published; and what other steps, if any, were taken to invite such owners of claims to register?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Notices were issued to the
    590
    Press generally on the 5th September, 1918, and the 1st June, 1922, and were widely published, and attention has been drawn to the register from time to time, both in this House and in utterances outside. There exist also unofficial bodies who have made it their business to put possible claimants in touch with the Department.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the hon. Member aware that the notices were only published in the Board of Trade Journal and the Gazette?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I can deny that categorically now. If the hon. and gallant Member desires, I will send him particulars.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    PLIMSOLL LINE.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade when a decision is likely to be taken as to the advisability of restoring the Plimsoll load-line on British ships: if he is aware of the urgency of this question: and if he is satisfied with the present survey and inspection of ships so far as seaworthiness is concerned?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The Plimsoll line has never been removed and still regulates the loading of all British ships. The Regulations have been altered from time to time, and the last alteration made in 1906, which allowed some modern ships to load more deeply, was challenged on the ground that it caused danger to life. The matter was investigated by a committee, who found that the revised load-line was on the whole sufficient to ensure the safety of vessels, although in some cases it had made the ships less comfortable. The committee prepared revised Regulations which had to stand over owing to the War, but these draft Regulations are being submitted to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, on which all the interests connected with shipping are represented. I have no reason to think that the present system of survey and inspection of ships is inefficient, but I am looking into the question whether the staff is sufficiently strong at all the ports.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade, in an answer given in

    591
    this House, stated that the arrangements made for the inspection of ships leaving port were not such as to ensure that a vessel could not leave port without complying with the regulations laid down, and has anything been done to make it clear that no vessel can leave a British port without conforming to these regulations?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am quite aware of the answer of my right hon. Friend, and I pointed out yesterday that if you doubled the staff of surveyors you could not make arrangements for every ship to be inspected before leaving port, but I do feel that the present arrangement is not inefficient.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not a fact that a British ship, after being surveyed, may leave a British port and never come back to a British port, but sail under the British flag, say, in Indian waters and be lost there with all on board. Has that happened?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On the face of it—I must look into it further—it does not seem to be the fault of the British survey staff.

    CLYDE STEAMERS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now inform the House of the result of the negotiation with the railway companies whose passenger steamers ply on the River Clyde in respect of the hours of labour worked by engineers and stokers upon these steamers; if he can say how many unemployed engineers could be absorbed into employment if the railway companies observed a 48-hours working week; and if he is aware of the urgency of this question, in view of the holiday season being already well advanced?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am sorry I am not yet able to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks, and I would suggest that he should repeat his question at a later date. There will be no avoidable delay in dealing with this matter, but, as I informed the hon. Member on 19th June, as there is no question of inefficiency or unseaworthiness, the Board of Trade can only ask the companies to consider whether some arrangement can be made which would obviate
    592
    any just cause of complaint on the score of long hours. I am not able to state how many more engineers would be employed if a 48-hour week were introduced, as this would depend on the number of boats running.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the week ending 21st June the captain and crew of the p.s. "Talisman," a Clyde steamer owned by the London and North. Eastern Railway Company, were engaged for 86 hours 10 minutes; that the captain and crew of the p.s. "Lucy Ashton," owned by the same railway company, were engaged for 79 hours and 20 minutes: whether these vessels operate under the Maritime Act or the Railway Regulations; and, in view of the unemployment on the Clyde among engineers and seamen, he can say what steps it is proposed to take to end these excessive working hours?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: From such inquiries as it has been possible to make in the time, it appears that the hours given in the question are not overstated. I understand that the decisions of the National Maritime Board would apply to these vessels. The Board of Trade are asking the railway companies to inquire into the matter and see whether some arrangement can be made which would remove any justifiable cause of complaint.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Board of Trade exercise, through the Postmaster-General, pressure on these companies, who are now receiving a subsidy to carry His Majesty's mails upon these boats on which the men are working for 90 hours a week?
    Mr. BECKER: Have the crews of these boats objected to these long hours?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is true that these boats carry some mails, but the amount of money involved in the carriage of the mails is very small indeed, and I do not think that that could be used as a lever against the companies on this question. In answer to the second question, I have been looking into some of the cases and I do know that some of the men feel aggrieved at their position.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman use all the influence that he has, and all the influence of the Labour

    593
    Government, to bring pressure to bear on these companies, as there is no doubt that they have influence if they will exercise it. If this was a case of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—but because it is engineers on the Clyde, this is the kind of answer we get, and that does not satisfy us.

    WAR MEMORIAL
    Lord STANLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish any information as to the progress which is being made in commemorating those officers and men of the mercantile marine who lost their lives through enemy action during the War.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am informed that the Imperial War Graves Commission have had this matter under consideration for some time, and that, having been in consultation with organisations representing the Mercantile Marine, they hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

  INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.

    FALSE PRESS REPORTS.
    BRIGADIER - GENERAL SPEARS(By Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an interview given by the French Prime Minister to the Belgian newspaper "L'Independance Beige "in which he stated that in the event of a premeditated attack by Germany he has received a firm promise that, as in 1914, England would be at the side of France and Belgium, and that he has the assurance of a definite pact binding England, France and Belgium: whether this statement is correct, and, if so, why the information was withheld from the House of Commons.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald): I was much surprised on my arrival in town this morning to find that the conversations which took place between the French Premier and myself last week-end have been made the subject of gross mis-representation and falsification in certain newspapers. No communications in the sense of these reports have been made to me. The official communiqué covered the whole
    594
    ground of the conversations, and the statement which I made in reply to the Leader of the Opposition on Monday indicated quite accurately and fully the line of our thoughts as to the immediate steps that should be taken to get an agreement between the Allies upon how the Experts' Report should be put into operation. Certain statements, in particular regarding communications made by the French Government to our Ambassador in Paris, are particularly mischievous, and Lord Crewe authorises me by telephone this morning to say that they are sheer fabrications. So far as I have been able to study reports of the character referred to in the question, they are based upon confusion or upon pure imagination.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As the right hon. Gentleman refers us to the communiqué, has his attention been called to the discrepancy between the French and English versions of the communiqué; and can he say which is the one which correctly describes what was the agreement arrived at at Chequers? For instance, the words appear in English as "the conversation revealed general agreement." The expression appears in the French version as "accord complet," which is a different thing. Then the expression "common determination" in English, appears in the French communiqué as "un pacte moral." Which is the communiqué to which the right hon. Gentleman refers? This is really a very serious matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have looked at both communiqués and I really fail to understand the very serious discrepancy that is alleged to exist between them. According to the English translation the expression is as my right hon. Friend has said, "general agreement." The other, the French form, is "accord complet." Both expressions are intended to mean exactly the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The term "general agreement" is meant to express this: complete agreement."[HON., MEMBERS: "No!"]
    The PRIME MINISTER: "General agreement" was meant to express this: that on a survey of the questions which faced us we were generally in agreement.

    595
    The French "accord complet," as I understand it, means that we were in complete accord in the survey, and in the method of approach that we should adopt to a solution. I am perfectly certain—there is no doubt whatever about it, because I have a very clear recollection of the circumstances in which the conversation took place—on that particular point. With reference to the other point, as to the moral concord or moral pact, the two responsible heads considered that the expression used in English conveyed in English precisely the same meaning that the French words conveyed in French.
    Captain BENN: Adverting to the first question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman as regards the statements in "L'Independance Belge" whether made by M. Herriot or not, does he repudiate them as being an account of the incident?
    Mr. AYLES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that there is no kind of undertaking with regard to a defensive military alliance as far as his conversations with M. Herriot are concerned?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Absolutely. As far as the other question is concerned, I have no information either that M. Herriot gave an interview or that it is correctly reported, and I decline to say anything about it.
    Mr. HOPE: May I ask if the communiqués were drawn up by the same interpreter or by different persons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They were drawn up together in consultation with the responsible authorities on both sides.
    Captain BENN: May I ask for a specific answer? Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate this statement in "L'Independance Belge" as representing what took place at the interview?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Prime Minister intend to give an interview himself to a number of journalists, as has been stated, and, if that be the case, would he consider rather the making of a statement in this House, if a further statement is required?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, if a further statement is required, I shall make it in this House and not to journalists.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that any statement on this matter will be made in this House before being communicated either to the Press or to a meeting of the Labour party?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: May I ask, in regard to the matter of the translation of documents, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention was drawn to a leading article appearing two months ago in one of the French papers, in which he was referred to as "étudiant MacDonald," while they French Prime Minister was referred to as "étudiant Poincaré"?

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    REPRESENTATION AT WASHINGTON.
    Mr. BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the question of the representation of the Irish Free State at Washington?
    Mr. THOMAS: As I informed the House on Monday, His Majesty's Government have been asked by the Irish Free State to request the Government of the United States to receive a Minister Plenipotentiary accredited by His Majesty to the President, and furnished with credentials enabling him to take charge of all affairs relating only to the Irish Free State. I must remind the House that His Majesty's Government agreed to similar application from the Canadian Government in 1920. We are bound by the Treaty as made by our predecessors and ratified by Parliament to give the Irish Free State the same facilities which would be given to the other Dominions. The request from the Irish Free State was clearly within the terms of Article 2 of the Treaty, and His Majesty's Government had no hesitation in agreeing to the principle. A communication to that effect was sent to the Governments of the other Dominions.
    A number of details remained to be settled, and as the Government of the Irish Free State, in view of the magnitude of interests of the Free State in the

    597
    United States and of the urgency of certain questions, were anxious that the step should be taken at once, I suggested that the communication to be sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington should be settled in personal consultation with the Free State Minister for External Affairs. As a result of these consultations, the Ambassador has been asked to approach the Government of the United States in the matter.
    The proposal upon which we arrived at an agreement is that, while the Free State Minister would be the official channel of communication with the United States Government for dealing with matters exclusively affecting the Free State, the principle of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1923 as to the negotiation, signature and ratification of Treaties and, in particular, of that part of the Resolution which relates to the conduct of matters affecting more than one part of the Empire, would apply generally to all questions with which he dealt. If any doubt should arise whether any particular question exclusively concerned the Free State, the point would, if possible, be settled by consultation between the Free State Minister and the Ambassador. If the matter could not be settled by such consultation, it would be referred to the British Government and the Free State Government.
    In order to meet the possibility that any particular question might in its initial stages be exclusively of concern to the Free State, and might subsequently prove to be of concern to other parts of the Empire, the Free State Minister would keep in close contact with the Ambassador.
    While the Free State Minister would not purport to deal with matters affecting the Empire as a whole, the assistance of the Ambassador and his staff would be at his disposal, if desired. The Ambassador would not, however, be in any way responsible for action taken by the Free State Minister, nor would the latter be in any way subject to the Ambassador's control.
    In this, as in all other matters relating to Ireland, His Majesty's Government have been guided by the principles laid down by the Prime Minister in the first paragraph of the statement which he made to the House on the 4th June. As my right hon. Friend then said, the Irish
    598
    question is no longer a matter at issue between parties in this House. To us on this side of the House, as to my hon. Friends opposite, the Treaty embodies a final settlement of Anglo-Irish relations, made once for all, with no ulterior purpose. I regret that the significance of these words has not been fully recognised.
    There are people in both countries who continue to urge that demands for a Republic in Ireland, if made, should be conceded. Once for all, let it be understood that any such demand would receive from His Majesty's present advisers the same reply and no other than that which it would, I believe, have received from either of the two previous Governments which have been in office since the Treaty was signed. We shall carry out the letter and spirit of the Treaty ourselves as the Government of the Irish Free State has done in the past and as we look to all future Governments in the Free State to do in the future.
    While the utterances to which I refer attract little attention in this country, they give rise to hopes and fears elsewhere which are not destined to be realised in fact. We believe that peace and friendship can be maintained with Ireland by the establishment of the Free State as a self-governing Dominion of the British Commonwealth and in no other way. It is for that reason that we are glad to see the Irish Free State assuming all the privileges to which she is entitled under the Treaty in common with Canada and the other Dominions.

    BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
    Mr. AYLES(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make any statement with regard to the threatened lock-out by the building trade employers of their employés.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I have arranged to meet the employers' and operatives' representatives separately to-morrow morning. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is not for me to say more at the present time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House what the business will be for next week?
Mr. CLYNES: On Monday: Finance Bill, Committee.
Tuesday: Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill, Second Reading; Old Age Pensions Bill, Second Reading; Auxiliary Air Force and Air Force Reserve Bill, Report. We hope also that it will be possible on that day to take some small Orders, which will be announced later.
Wednesday: Finance Bill, Committee.
Thursday: Supply, Scottish Estimates.
I may add that we shall ask the House to agree to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night, as previously intimated, in order to complete the remaining stages of the London Traffic Bill and Orders 6—Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, consideration of Lords Amendment—and 9—Old Age Pensions, Report. Should those Orders be completed within a reasonable time, we hope for the passage of Orders 7—County Courts Bill, Report—and 8—Post Office (London) Railway Bill, Second Reading, in the event of there being no real opposition to them.
Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be much more convenient, both for the Minister and for the House, to take the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on two successive days, instead of taking the first part of the discussion on Monday, interposing other business on Tuesday, and then finishing on Wednesday? Would it not be better to have it on Tuesday and Wednesday or on Monday and Tuesday?
Mr. KIRKWOOD: How is it that we are only getting one day for Scottish affairs?
Mr. SPEAKER: We can have only one day at a time.
Mr. CLYNES: There are two reasons why Tuesday's business is to be as announced. One is a public engagement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other is that we want as speedily as possible to pass the Pensions Bill into law.
Sir K. WOOD: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Committee stage of the Housing Bill?
Mr. CLYNES: I am not quite sure, but I am hopeful that we may begin the Committee stage of the Housing Bill the week after next.
Mr. BALDWIN: With reference to the business for to-night, which the Lord Privy Seal has announced, I think he is expecting too much to take Orders 7 and 8. We on this side of the House see no objection to taking Orders 5, 6 and 9, which means a fair amount of business, but if we are to have the County Courts Bill and the Post Office (London) Railway Bill taken at 2 o'clock to-night, I think it is too much.
Mr. CLYNES: I agree, and in my closing observations I said that it was not intended to take them at any late hour. If there be real objection to our taking Orders 7 and 8, we will not press them.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to take the Report of the Navy Votes to-night?
Mr. CLYNES: If the business of Supply be not finished at Eleven o'Clock, we shall not attempt to take the Report.
Mr. B. SMITH: Could not the right hon. Gentleman in future see that the House has at least a day's work in front of it when it meets and so save the large expense of Members having to get home by other means than the railway late at night? Last night the House was adjourned at 9.15, and we could have gone on and saved another late sitting to-night.
Ordered,
"That the proceedings on Government business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMIITEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Captain Sidney Herbert; and had appointed in substitution: Major Ropner.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Pacific Cable Board Bill, with an Amendment.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers upon the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the supply of electricity in London; and for other purposes."[London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply of and confer further powers on the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company: and for other purposes."[North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further and better provision with respect to the supply of electricity in the administrative county of London: to confer further powers upon certain of the companies supplying electricity within the said county; and for other purposes." [London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the County of London Electric Supply Company, Limited, with reference to the supply of electricity in the County of Essex; and for other purposes." [County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords.]
Lanarkshire, Hydro-Electric Power Bill [Lords],
London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords],
London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

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

        MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a stun, not exceeding £8,560,339, 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 Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes, and Payments to Associations and Local Education Authorities for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations) including a Grant-in-Aid."—[Note: £5,500,000 has been voted on account.]
        Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        I rise to move this reduction in respect of the salary of the Minister of Labour, and also to make one or two definite proposals with reference to the recent Tube strike in London. I rise principally as a London Member. London, during the last six months, has suffered the inconvenience and loss resulting from three great strikes. I think I shall be able to show in the course of my remarks that, although the last strike, the Tube strike, principally affected London, none the less every other great city in the land has a very real interest in the solution of the problems to which it gave rise. It seems to me that as industry becomes more organised, as one trade grows more interlocked with another trade, and as the intensity of organisation becomes greater in an industrial country like ours, so the danger grows of great services of public utility being held up, it may be by quite
        636
        a few people, and the whole life of the country being put out of gear. The recent Tube strike is a very good illustration of the truth of what I have just said. That, hon. Members will remember, was the case, not of a great Labour movement organised by the accredited trade unions, but a movement of quite a few practically unknown individuals. The strike committee, I understand, was composed of nine men, men unknown, so I am informed, in the Labour movement generally, men with no large strike fund behind them, and men acting in the teeth of the Labour leaders and of the Government. Yet this very small, unofficial, discredited movement none the less put London to a great measure of inconvenience and loss, and it looked at one time as though it were going to spread much further and hold up altogether the life of the capital of the Empire.
        The strike had certain special features connected with it. As I say, it was not an authorised strike. It was not an ordinary labour dispute between the union leaders on the one side and the employers on the other. The labour leaders from the very first, I understand, condemned it. No one could have condemned it in stronger language. Let me remind hon. Members of the words that were used by Mr. Cramp, the Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, the union mainly concerned—
        "This"—
        said Mr. Cramp—
        "is a fight between order and mob law. It is only one manifestution of an underground movement taut has been going on for a considerable time. Almost every large union in the country has been afflicted by this foul disease. Wherever it has temporarily established a hold, disaster to the workers has invariably followed. So far as I am concerned, I will neither compromise with nor bow down to a handful of people who are conducting this wretched business. It seems to me that what is needed"—
        and here I draw the attention of hon. Members particularly to the words of Mr. Cramp—
        "in the British Labour movement at the present time is greater courage in dealing with all these disruptive elements."
        In view of that condemnation by one of the most influential labour leaders, I think that I need not say anything more to emphasise what I have said, that this was a strike, not between the unions and the employers, but between various ele-

        637
        ments in certain of the unions concerned. There was another peculiar feature in this dispute. I am quite aware that wage grievances entered into it to some extent, but, in following the details of the dispute, the fact that strikes me is that these wage grievances affected, so I understand, the whole body of railway shopmen and not the shopmen and the power department men of the London electric railways only. That being so, I ask myself, why was it, when this was a common grievances of the great body of railway workers, the Underground Railway and the power station in my own constituency at Lots Road were picked out? I can come to no other conclusion than that the Underground Railway and the London power stations were regarded as very vulnerable key points which it was easy—particularly easy—for the extremists to attack. Be that as it may, the fact remains that a small number of unknown individuals, in the teeth of both their leaders and the Government, were able to embarrass London life and to put many thousands of Londoners to great inconvenience, and it looked at one time as if they would hold up the life of the capital of the Empire altogether. In view of that we ought to have more information than we have yet received from the Minister of Labour as to the origin and nature of this dispute.
        The first request I desire to make is that there should be set up at once a special inquiry—whether it be by some impartial individual or by a Select Committee, or by the Department chiefly concerned, into the origin of this very remarkable and significant dispute. We want to know what was its origin. Was it simply an ordinary wage dispute? I think I have said enough to show it was not. Was it due to internecine battles between various unions and various labour leaders? If it were, I think the public ought to know. I cannot myself see why the public should be sacrificed to the internecine battles going on within the Labour movement. Was it, on the other hand, due to what is known as the minority movement in the Labour movement? The minority movement, it seems to me, standing as I do outside the Labour movement, is one of the greatest dangers to organised labour in this country. If the dispute was due to that, the public surely ought to know. In the
        638
        last generation labour negotiations have proceeded upon the basis of collective bargaining, and it has been assumed that the labour leaders are entitled to speak for the men behind them. If the minority movement is going to smash that organisation, it will make collective bargaining altogether impossible.
        If I wanted any confirmation of what I am saying, I need not go further than refer to the words used by Mr. Bramley in an article in the "Daily Herald" this morning, in which he says very much what I am saying—in much worse language no doubt. He said that no trade union official should meet employers without a definite assurance that the members of the union would remain loyal to the policy and principles which he was authorised to act upon. Ii this strike is the first conspicuous example of the success and strength of the minority movement which will step by step undermine the whole organised labour movement, Members of this House ought to know the facts, and the public outside should also be told them.
        Again, was the strike due to Communist propaganda? I have always taken the view that sooner or later the British working man would regard Communist propaganda as a despicable foreign, imported agitation, and accordingly as he understood it better he would less and less allow it to influence him. But I own that when I read certain answers of the Home Secretary to two questions put to him last week my confidence was somewhat shaken, and I wondered whether there was not more Communism in this dispute than I had at first imagined. The right hon. Gentleman, it will be remembered, was asked first of all whether Communist activities had entered into the labour disputes that were going on. His answer was "Yes." He was asked further whether foreign money was still being used to foster those activities. The answer was "Yes." In view of these admissions by the Home Secretary—the Minister directly responsible for intelligence of this kind—I say there is every reason to suspect that there was Communist influence behind these disputes, and that the public has a right to know what it was. Further, if I needed confirmation of that suspicion I could point to the Press communiques made by the Labour party during the strike, in which

        639
        it was expressly stated that the strike was dominated by Communist influence. That being so, and in view of the very serious features connected with the strike to which I have drawn attention, I make my first demand, namely, that the Minister of Labour should at once institute a special inquiry—whatever may be its form—into the origin of this very significant dispute.
        That brings me to the second proposition that I have to put before the Committee. The inquiry which I have just asked for deals with the past. It deals with the origin of the strike. But it seems to me the features of that strike are so significant that it is incumbent both on the Government and on the Members of the Houses of Parliament to take some steps with reference to the future. The strike seemed to show how easy it is for a few people to hold up the whole life—a very few people, whether it be employers or employed; I am not weighting the scales one way or the other—for a very few people in a highly developed industrial State to hold up the whole life of the community. For a time the main danger to the State came from armed rebellion. In my view, that danger has passed. The danger to-day is not from any armed rebellion, but it is the holding up of one of the utility services of the community by a few people. The Tube strike was an instance of what I mean. There it dealt with the power stations—one of the key positions of industrial society in the chief city of the country I say that the time has come when the Government of the day, whatever that Government may be, ought to have more information than I believe it has at its disposal at the present time. It ought also to have a more definite policy than it has at present. Again let me take this case as my example.
        I have listened to all the observations of the right hon. Gentleman apposite, I have followed the course of his attitude towards this dispute, and I say, quite candidly, I really do not know what the policy of the Minister of Labour is towards the stopping of one of these great public utility services. I remember that on one occasion he said very boldly he was going to protect labour and to ensure the maintenance of these services, and then,
        640
        almost in the same breath, he declared that until the railways were nationalised he had very little interest in the conduct of them. Then, again, he condemned, as I understood him, the unofficial strike, but on the same clay he put his Ministry at the disposal of the strikers to act as a medium between them and the union that had hitherto refused to recognise them or to have anything to do with them! In view of this uncertainty and obscurity, I think we ought to have some much more definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he is going to do when a strike of this kind breaks out again, as well it may.
        I think he should go even further, and I am going to put before the Committee my second proposal, namely, that the time has now come for a comprehensive inquiry—whether it be by Royal Commission or by Select Committee, or whatever form of Committee may be desirable—into the whole problem of the protection of the community against the holding up of the public services, on which it depends for its employment and existence.
        As the right hon. Gentleman knows, several distinct proposals have already been made for dealing with the problem. There is the proposal, for instance, into which I would not be in order in going into in detail, now contained in Lord Askwith's Bill, namely, that there should be a compulsory inquiry in the case of certain scheduled industries into disputes before a strike takes place. I understand that the Government are not prepared at present to take up that Bill. If that be so, it makes it more incumbent on them to consider other alternatives for dealing with this very urgent problem. There is the proposal for compulsory arbitration. To that proposal obviously many objections may be urged. Then there are proposals connected with the administration of the Conspiracy Act, 1875. There, again, I can see many objections to proceeding by means of an Act of that kind. Obviously, the great thing is to try and obtain agreement, and it may well be that the putting into motion of obsolete powers under an Act of 20 or 30 years ago might do much more harm than good. Then there is the possibility, to which I think hon. Members must give attention, of treating the key men in certain sections of public utility services in some special way, giving them a certain definite status, and,

        641
        as a return for that, ensuring that any sudden strike of this kind is made impossible. I say, quite frankly, that with the information at my disposal I am not prepared to dogmatise or to say which of these particular lines of approach is the best one to follow, but I do say, in view of the lessons that are to be drawn from the Tube strike, in view of the fact that it has been proved how easy it is for a few key men to hold up the whole life of the country, and how possible it is that attempts of this kind may be frequently repeated, and repeated with far greater danger to the community, that the time has come for a full inquiry into this question, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to-day to say, before the Debate closes, that the Government realise the gravity of this problem and are prepared to give an inquiry on the lines that I have suggested.
        Mr. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has envisaged a very serious condition of affairs, and he appears to think that the Government in some respects were remiss in what they had done. He proceeded to state that sundry solutions had been put forward to deal with events of this kind, and then, as he advanced each of those solutions, he said that to it there were insuperable objections. So the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to urge upon the Government a definite policy, but to reject any definite policy of any kind himself. The only one to which he at all inclined was that certain key men in these industries should be put in a special position, should, presumably, not be allowed to sir should be compulsorily levied, should be reduced, in fact, to the condition of slaves.
        Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: As they would be in Russia.
        Mr. MOSLEY: A Conservative proposal, supported, apparently by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), who, in his special pleadings for the Conservative party, usually advances solutions which are sometimes applied to the present condition of Russia, as two extremes often meet. Personally, I am not an authority on Russia, but the hon and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent interfered so freely in the affairs of that country, at so great a cost to the Government of his own country, that
        642
        possibly by now he is a greater authority upon Russia than I can claim to be. The right hon. Member for Chelsea advanced the usual Conservative idea that behind any protest against conditions which may be intolerable—and, I think, in this respect the conditions of many of these men were very bad—there cannot possibly be a legitimate wage grievance, there cannot be a striving to raise the standard of life, but there must be some dark and sinister conspiracy, financed by money from abroad. That is the eternal Conservative and reactionary idea. It is not a new conception at all. It is not one which, for the first time, has been advanced in this particular respect when we find a handful of men, unauthorised by the great trade unions, taking action on their own account. It is a Conservative argument which has been advanced against the right of labour to strike for better conditions under every conceivable circumstance. It was one which was put forward by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) during the great railway strike of 1919. On that occasion, in the struggle of that great union against the battering down of their wages, they were headed by their accredited leader, that wild revolutionary who now sits at the Colonial Office, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs put forward exactly the same kind of plea as was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite this afternoon. He promptly telegraphed off to his constituency in these terms:
        "The Government has reason to believe that it [the strike] has been engineered for some time by a small hut active body of men who wrought tirelessly and insidiously to exploit the labour organisations of this country for subversive ends. I am convinced that the vast majority of the trade unions of this country are opposed to this anarchist conspiracy."
        That was a conspiracy headed by the right hon. Gentleman who is at present the Colonial Secretary; and so you find, all through the history of trade unionism and labour organisation in this country, the same plea advanced from the reactionary benches. I, for one, would strongly deplore isolated action of this kind, which tends to break up, or may tend to impair, the great union organisation by which such infinite benefit has been achieved for the whole Labour movement. I am not one who would like to see that kind

        643
        of action taken, but, at the same time, I challenge any hon. Gentleman on the opposite benches to say by what method any Government can interfere with the right of a man to withdraw his labour. What other method can they impose upon this country, except that advocated, apparently, by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent, namely, compulsory labour?
        Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I never have advocated conscript labour, and the reason why I interjected a moment ago was this, that the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) is a great admirer of the Soviet power in Russia, who do conscript labour, and who refuse to allow any workmen to strike under any conditions whatever.
        Mr. MOSLEY: I do not know on what grounds the hon. and gallant Member says I am an admirer of the Soviet power. I say that methods of this kind may or may not have been employed in Russia—I do not know—but the reason why emergency measures were there taken was because the hon. and gallant Member and his friends were organising attacks upon that Government, and at the expenditure of millions of money on the part of this country, which occasioned that Government in the early stages of the revolution to fight and to struggle for their existence. If I may come away from the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke, and back to the point, the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that in some way the Government of this country were to blame. He did not say so in so many words, but it has been said in his Press and from those benches, that the handling of industrial disputes by this Government has been extremely bad.
        Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Hear, hear!
        Mr. MOSLEY: I hear that sentiment applauded. Then how do hon. Members opposite account for the fact that during the first five months of this year, when a Labour Government has been in office, the number of working hours lost in industrial disputes has amounted to only 2,963,000? If this rate is preserved throughout the year, that is to say, about 7,000,000 working hours will be lost during this year owing to industrial disputes. Let us take preceding years, with Con-
        644
        servatives and their friends in power. In the year 1919, not just under 3,000,000, but nearly 35,000,000 working hours were lost through industrial disputes. At a time when the methods of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs were being pursued, when inflammatory telegrams denouncing trade union leaders were being despatched about the country, some five times the number of working hours were lost through industrial disputes. In 1920 some 26,000,000 hours were lost, in 1921 about 85,000,000 hours were lost, and in 1922 some 19,000,000 hours, while in the last year of pure Conservative Government over 10,000,000 hours were lost owing to industrial disputes. From those simple comparisons, taken from official returns, it could at least appear that the members of the Labour Government were more successful than those of their predecessors. A Conservative always thinks that there is only one solution for an industrial dispute, and that is a display of force. Since Labour came in we have found another solution, a display of reason. [Laughter.] Well, it has worked.
        The result of it is that, despite the great legacy of industrial disputes left by the systematic attack upon wages delivered from those benches for years past, there have in -fait been far less working hours lost than under any preceding Government since the War, and now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with his assertions and ideas and suggestions of foreign money, and Bolshevists and revolutionaries working subversively in this country. We have had before that kind of suggestion. The Conservative Government was so inspired by those ideas last year that being convinced that 110 British subjects were engaged in revolutionary performances, they, on the advice of their Attorney-General, deported them to Ireland. The Attorney-General was defeated by the laws of the land, of which he had displayed himself sublimely ignorant, those men were restored to their freedom, and, a subsequent action in a legal form being taken, only two out of the 110 were found guilty. Now, when we find the Conservative party coming forward with similar assertions of revolutions and Bolshevism and all the rest of it, are we not entitled to deduct at least 98 per cent. from the validity of those statements? Ninety-eight per cent. exactly was the margin of error into

        645
        which the Attorney-General wandered last year, a wide margin of error even for a well-paid lawyer.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into that question. It would be quite out of order, and he has already made his point.
        Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Let him go on.
        Mr. MOSLEY: My point, though I will not further develop it, was that it is always the custom of the Conservative benches, when they find any conditions of unrest or even of political agitation, to ascribe the origin of them to Bolshevist and subversive motives which are financed from foreign sources, and I was endeavouring to point out that people who, in such calculations, have proved themselves so far wide of the mark in the past cannot be trusted to make a very correct diagnosis under present conditions. In fact, to come back to the practical issue, as I have pointed out, during the power of the party opposite far more hours were wasted in these matters than are at present, as a direct result of the inflammatory and provocative methods pursued by their Government. Instead of a Government stepping in, intervening with conciliation and with reason, bringing the parties together for a quiet discussion of their differences, you saw Hyde Park lined with lorries, Mr. Churchill assuming Napoleonic attitudes, every sort of mountebankery and absurdity being pursued in face of our own fellow-countrymen as if we were in face of foreign enemies, and during all that period when they were licking the boots of M. Poincaré they were shaking a truncheon at their own fellow-countrymen. The result of it all has been to prolong and accentuate industrial unrest, and to leave to this Government a heritage of trouble with which they have grappled in a manner that was never rivalled by their predecessors. I trust that the Minister of Labour will continue his present methods of conciliation, and will never revert to the provocative policy of his predecessors.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We are engaged in the usual Thursday afternoon amusement of the Conservative party of attempting to reduce the hard-earned salary of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Every Thursday afternoon an attempt is made to reduce
        646
        the salary of the Minister by £100, and every Thursday it is either withdrawn or defeated in the Lobby. Apparently they are now getting rather tired of the amusement, judging by the state of the benches opposite. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) spoke as a London Member I see very few Members for London on the benches opposite.
        Sir K. WOOD: Where are the London Liberal Members?
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is a Conservative day. The Liberals have not complained against the Government in this matter, and I must say, when the right hon. Baronet puts on his most impressive manner—and it is very impressive, indeed, if he will allow me to say so—and talks of this great affront to the corporate life of London, where are the serried ranks of his supporters? On the Terrace! The right hon. Baronet is a most accomplished debater, and, knowing that he had an extremely weak case, he was sufficiently wise to employ very moderate terms, but the inspiration came from the more sensational newspapers and the sort of statements made up and down the country on Conservative platforms and faithfully dealt with by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I can imagine a secret session of the inner council of the Third International at Moscow, and I can understand the high functionaries taking their emissaries to task for having accomplished so little in the bourgeois countries with the money supplied, and I can understand the emissaries quoting the statements of the right hon. Baronet and his friends, and the statements in the newspapers about the agitators who came into this country with forged passports, and being responsible for 3,000,000 hours of lost labour under this Government and for 35,000,000 hours under the other Government. These gentlemen, on their trial in the inner circle of the sanctuary of the Third International at Moscow, will be able to quote the right hon. Baronet as their witness for the defence of the very poor results they have, as a matter of fact, produced in this country and other so-called bourgeois countries.
        What is all the fuss about? It is very inconvenient to have the Tubes stopped, and I daresay many people were put to

        647
        a grave loss of time, and so forth. But, so far as I can learn—and I live in London, and am inconvenienced in the same way—the crowd, when they knew that the men were striking in order to get a week's holiday a year on full pay, when the First Division of the Civil Service get at least six weeks a year on full pay, when the naval ratings and officers get a fortnight and more, and when skilled engineers are striking for a minimum of £3 10s. a week, when the price of living is rising, I think the masses of people thought they were not unreasonable, and, I think, refused to believe the stories about the Bolshevist conspiracy, and all the rest of it, which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. I say there is nothing to complain of at all. When we consider the conditions of this country, the contrasts between the excessive expenditure and extravagance of a certain class, and the poor conditions in which so many of our countrymen live, I think it is very surprising that there are not more industrial disputes.
        The Government have powers at the present time to deal with all these matters. I believe I am right in saying that. All they have to do is to come to this House, and ask for a state of emergency to be declared, and they have full powers to run any services required by the public. If that be the case, and they have the power to take over the railways, the trams, and the electric power stations, and to run them if this House approve of their doing it, I do not see why this special inquiry, for which the right hon. Baronet asks, is needed. I think they would be very foolish, without taking over the whole system by the constitutional method I have described, to adopt the suggestion of using the Air Force or naval ratings to try and break a strike in that way, as it would bring out other sections, and make things worse. We hear very little complaint about lock-outs from the other side. I thought the right hon. Baronet would have had something to say about the threatened stoppage in the building trade. He did not suggest any foreign money or foreign agents in regard to building capitalists. They were only exercising their right not to employ men if they so wished, and I do not think he can ask us to interfere with working
        648
        men in determining to withhold their labour. Next time I would like to see Government have a trial trip, and taking over the great concerns, as they are entitled to do constitutionally, by an Act which a former Government put on the Statute Book.
        In connection with that, I would ask my right hon. Friend to act very quickly when the Final Report of Sir Donald Maclean's Committee is produced in connection with casual labour at the docks. I did not hear anything from the right hon. Baronet about the devastating stoppage recently at the docks, to the very great detriment and loss of the whole body politic. Those strikes are caused, I am afraid, by the shocking conditions under which clock labour is employed in this country. The casualisation of dock labour is a wicked disgrace to the present system of co-called civilisation we enjoy in this country. We have had an Interim Report from Sir Donald Maclean's Committee, and I hope my right hon. Friend has been advised in advance what is to be proposed in the Final Report, and has a Bill ready to introduce into this House for the decasualisation of dock labour. If he will do that, it will be a most practical means of preventing one of the most fruitful causes of stoppage of work.
        The right hon. Baronet also referred to the danger of these hold-ups by key men. What did he mean in that connection by his reference to armed rebellion? Did he mean armed rebellion by the strikers? Was he thinking of the threatened rebellion on the Ulster question supported passively by his party before the War? That was the last threat of armed rebellion here of which I have heard. Was he thinking about that? I think we might have had something a little more concrete from the right hon. Baronet. These generalities may be of some comfort in other countries who do not wish our system of society too much good. Our communists and agitators or revolutionists and those from abroad will always try to-stir up trouble. Their success will depend on the state of mind of the workers. If the workers are satisfied, and are given a fair chance, if they think the goods produced by the work of all are fairly distributed, then the efforts of those agitators will be unavailing; but if you have manifest injustices on the part of great masses of men, as in the case of these skilled men with regard to the grant of wages,

        649
        holidays and so on, they are, of course, ready to listen to suggestions of withholding their labour and penalising the whole community.
        I think I am not misrepresenting Liberal opinion when I say our cure for these things is to remove the causes, not to ask for these special inquiries, and that if these strikes do take place, before they reach the magnitude which would call for a special emergency inquiry, I must say I think the only function of a Government, apart from trying to settle matters by agreement, as my right hon. Friend has tried to do, not without success, is to keep order and to hold the ring. Men have the power to withhold their labour, and if volunteers wish to work on the railways, I think they must be protected, but that is quite different from organised strike-breaking. I hope the Conservative party will press their reduction to a Division, and I hope it will be as soundly beaten as on previous occasions.
        Sir K. WOOD: We have just had two characteristic speeches from two hon. Members opposite, such as we might expect from them in their present circumstances. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), I hope, has now genuinely satisfied his new comrades that he is one of them, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.- Commander Kenworthy) has also satisfied them that there is no need for a Labour candidate in the Central Hull Division. With those matters, I hope, satisfactorily disposed of, I would venture to remind the Committee that London is by no means satisfied, and does not regard the experience it has recently undergone with anything of the satisfaction which the two hon. Gentlemen appear to indicate.
        5.0 P.M.
        Perhaps memories are short, and, certainly, people in this country are very patient and will put up with a good deal, but I venture to remind the Committee that only a short time ago London, for no discovered reason, was held up, as my right hon. Friend has already indicated to the House, by eight or nine men, and very serious discomfort, inconvenience and loss was inflicted, mainly, upon the working class of this capital city. I am amazed to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are supposed to associate themselves with the, interests of the people, saying
        650
        that their rights and their position can be disregarded on a matter of this kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Bull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) indicated some grievances which, he stated, the men who were concerned in this lightning strike had put forward. I venture to suggest that he should leave these grievances to the proper trade unions who have to look after them. If he consults the executive of the trade unions of the men affected, I venture to say that they will not thank him for suggesting to the Committee this afternoon that they are not competent to deal with the interests of these men. I have sufficient faith in trade unionism to think that if there were any circumstances of a kind such as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull has indicated, the trade union concerned—a particularly powerful one and thoroughly efficient—is well able to look after the interests of these people. It is, therefore, idle to put before the Committee the suggestion that anything of this kind was concerned in the unfortunate, dispute that has just happened.
        I speak strongly on the matter, because this strike was not only aimed at the working people of London, but at the trade unions themselves. Anyone who pretends—I do not say this offensively—that there was some great issue at stake is serving a bad turn, indeed, to the trade unionists of this country. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said they did not know anything about Communism being at work, or operating. I can forgive the hon. Member for Harrow not knowing much of what has been said by hon. Members of the present Government, because he has only just joined them, but the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is a very observant Member of the House. Let me remind him of what has been said by hon. Members of the Government, in the House, during the past few lays. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece) put a question on the 19th of this month, asking the Home Secretary whether his Department had received any reports
        "indicating that the recent and existing irresponsible labour troubles are connected with efforts to spread Communist and kindred doctrines; and whether he will make inquiries to see if this is the case."
        What did the Home Secretary reply? He did not reply in the sort of fashion that

        651
        hon. Gentlemen have indicated this afternoon, and say, "There is nothing in This is all a bugbear." He said in his reply, which took the form of a very carefully written answer—
        "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative."
        That was as to whether his Department had received any reports indicating that the Labour troubles were connected with efforts to spread Communist and kindred doctrines. Then, he said, so satisfied was he with the reports:
        "I do not think that it is supplement the sources of already at my disposal by inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th, June, 1924; col. 2339, Vol. 174.]
        How can any hon. Member who is supposed to have any friendly leanings to the present Government question this statement of the Home Secretary? There was another hon. Member, belonging to the same party as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. I refer to the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Sir Robert Aske), who asked the Prime Minister
        "Whether the Government is in possession of information showing that Communist organisations in this country are in receipt of, or have received money grants from foreign revolutionary societies; and, if so, whether he will state the sources from which the money emanated."
        The House will recollect that five minutes ago both hon. Members were laughing and scoffing at suggestions of that kind, as though all the money was expended long ago, that it was given to the "Daily Herald." This is+ the reply given by the Home Secretary on the question of money. The other was on the question of the efforts of the Communists. The Home Secretary made a complete admission that so far as he was concerned in the responsible office he is now occupying, that he was in possession of this information. He said:
        "It would not conduce to the public interest to disclose such information as we possess on the particular point to which the lion. Member adverts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1924; col. 2360, Vol. 174.]
        As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull knows, when a Minister takes up an attitude of that kind, he does not say that he is not going to give the information because it is trivial information, or because it is of no account. He
        652
        says that obviously, having regard, I suppose, to the extent of his information, he does not propose to give it in the interests of the public. I can understand that, because only to-day there is reported in the Press—[An HON. MEMBER "Which?"] I will give it in a minute. There is reported in the Press a meeting of the Third International. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which newspaper?"] From the "Daily Express," I think it is. Hon. Members will not question this. This is what is reported at a meeting of the Third International now being held in Moscow where, I understand, a British delegate attended, a Mr. Murphy. A Reuter telegram says:
        "Mr. Murphy stated that the British Communist party was small, but growing as serious force. For instance, he added that the recent strike of railway workers broke out on the initiative of Communists and without the sanction of the trade union."
        In another connection, and on the same occasion, some gentleman who will be known better to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull than to myself—Zinovieff or someone, made the following references to Britain:
        "England is now the chief task of the next International. If we succeed in creating a mass Communist party there, half the European victory will have been achieved. We must not see too low a value on what is going on in England. We must organise a daily Communist party and create a left flank of grade unions. We must set to work in the British Colonies."
        Hon. Members laugh at that but I may remind them that certain questions on this same matter were up only a few days ago, and confirm all these statements made by these gentlemen here. Certain questions were also put 17o the Prime Minister, and he made an extraordinary reply. He was asked whether he had got evidence of what was bringing about all these serious troubles in this country. The reply he made was this, that he had got no positive proof. Well, I suppose very few have positive proofs of most things in life. Generally, things have to he sifted, but there is no doubt that from the reply of the Prime Minister, this can be said, I think, without contradiction by the Minister of Labour, that there is sufficient prima facie evidence in the possession of the Government to warrant an inquiry into this matter, and it is upon this that my right hon. Friend has based his application

        653
        to the House this afternoon. This is not an ordinary trade dispute. There is un- doubtedly, from the evidence I have given to the Committee, a sufficient prima facie case for this matter to be investigated. Why should it not be investigated? Why should not the public know? Why should not hon. Members of the London constituencies, and, for the matter of that, other places affected by the strike, know? Why should nut they know what has brought this about? Why is the Labour Government taking up this attitude of secrecy? The Minister of Labour was asked the day before yesterday whether he would cause an investigation to be made into the matter, and he declined. What can be the possible reason? What reasonable position can be put forward by the Minister of Labour why this investigation should not take place? If it is going on, it is far better for the people of the country to know it. If it is of the trivial character that the hon. Member for Harrow indicates, let them know that, too. To anyone who can put on one side any party feelings or political prejudice, there is undoubtedly a prima facie case for an investigation into this disastrous dispute.
        An hon. Gentleman opposite—I forget which enthusiastic person it was—on behalf of the Minister of Labour, asked what we had to complain about in regard to the particular conduct of this strike. I will allude to the stupid statement he made at the beginning of the strike, namely, that
        "as the railways are not nationalised, it is certainly not our business yet to maintain these services."
        I think there is reason for complaint. He started with a wrong conception of this strike. At that time he was apparently ignorant of what was happening. I observe that the "Daily Herald "did say on the day the strike took place that they repeatedly warned their leaders who, I hope, include the Minister of Labour, that this outbreak was going to take place. The right hon. Gentleman said:
        "If it had occurred in Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds, or Manchester, very little would have been beard of it. It never would have come before this House."
        An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
        Sir K. WOOD: An hon. Gentleman still agrees with him. The very reason
        654
        why this strike took place on the London railways was owing to the fact that it was in the heart of a capital city. Let me say there was no more reason, from the point of view of merits, why a strike should have broken out on the London Electric Railways than on any other line. Why was this particular railway centred upon? Because a few men operate quickly. That was the sole reason. Everybody here interested in these strikes will agree with me that that undoubtedly was the reason. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour starts off OR his illustrious career in connection with this strike, thinking it was sonic sort of affair that might have broken out in Glasgow, Birmingham, or elsewhere! Therefore, I say in that he began wrong. When this matter was raised in the House on the day of the Adjournment, he said it was impossible to recognise a body—that was tile irregular strikers—which neither the trade unions nor the railway companies would recognise, and that the Government would not recognise anybody except that body which was capable of negotiating a settlement. What did the right hon. Gentleman do You would have thought, after those brave words, he would have stuck to his guns, not on his own account particularly, but for the sake of standing by the trade union leaders who declined to recognise these men, and who refused to recognise them right up to the end of the strike. The right hon. Gentleman's heart gave way. What did he do? He actually allowed this unofficial body which was not recognised by the trade unions themselves—
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the trade union leaders had recognised the strike, would the hon. Gentleman have considered the strike just?
        Sir K. WOOD: I was saying that the Minister of Labour remarked to my hon. Friend here that he would have nothing to do with these people. It was very necessary that he should maintain that attitude. That was the last speech that he made in the House. Yet about the middle of the strike he issued this official communication from the Ministry of Labour:
        "At the request of the Unofficial Committee conveyed by Mr. Akehurst and Mr. Creed, Sir David Shackleton met the Committee this evening and heard their statement."

        655
        What right, having regard to the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman had given the House, had he to take that line'? The communication went on—this is part of the official communication which was issued by the Minister of Labour—
        "They expressed a desire to meet the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen and asked Sir David Shackleton to convey that request to the officials of the union."
        The statement ends:
        "Sir David agreed to do this, it being clearly understood that the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen were free to deal with the request as they chose."
        Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, if these people wanted to convey a message to the trade union leaders, say to them: "Go yourselves, take your own message"? Why did he use an official of the Ministry of Labour to act as a messenger boy between these men who had caused the strike, and the trade union leader who refused to have anything to do with them? I venture to say that the reason the strike ended was not due to any particular effort of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was due largely to the courageous attitude adopted by the trade union leaders themselves. It was largely due to the common sense of the railway workers who took the union's advice in the end: and it was also due—quite contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said—to the fact that the whole of the public opinion of this country was against the strikers. Whenever you have these three things happen you will find strikes will end. I myself cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his efforts in connection with this matter.
        I think, if I may say so quite respectfully to him, he took up much the attitude of his supporter who spoke in a previous Debate, the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor). On that occasion the hon. Member said:
        "In this case on the tube railways we have a dispute that is unwise, that has not the support of the union executive. It is a most difficult situation. When we see two men fighting in the street if we try to separate them when they are in the full flush of their anger we find that neither one nor the other is prepared to break away; but if you give them a little time
        656
        and let one get a little the better of the other, intervention would then be much more likely to succeed."
        I suppose the hon. Gentleman was apparently assuming the London public to one of the combatants, who, at any rate, was not getting the best of it at the moment. But I do say that, so far as Parliament is concerned. We have got very little to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon this afternoon. Therefore, in conclusion, I say, speaking on behalf of a very large number of people in London and on behalf of an important London constituency, we have a right to demand an inquiry into this matter, not because it is an ordinary trade dispute—it is not that; but because there are features about it, and there is evidence in the possession of the Government—they themselves admit it is prima facie evidence—that it would be in the interest of good government, and for the future convenience and safety, not only of the people of London, but the whole of the industrial community, that we should have an inquiry. I very respectfully support the demand which has been made by my right hon. Friend. It is a just demand, and a demand which no Government, having regard to the functions of good government in this country, should deny.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not propose to say a word about the recent dispute. My right hon. Friend will deal with that and the various statements made. But perhaps I may be allowed to say that "a little learning is a dangerous thing," and in regard to industrial dispute. I can also say, as an old Minister of Labour, that a little knowledge is absolutely fatal. I want to take up a another part of the speech of my right hon. Friend who alluded to the future, and made some comments up what we ought to do in regard to the disputes generally. I want to claim the attention of the Committee for a very, very short time. In the first place, whether it has any connection with what has keen said or not, there is bound to be a lot of unrest to-day. Of course there is! The War left untold hardships, anxieties and dislocations on every hand, and the working classes have not been immune from these things any more than have any other class. As a matter of fact I rather think that they have had it a bit harder, because the cost

        657
        of living has been 176 per cent. above pre-War. It is still 71 per cent. above pre-War. With the exception of the last two months, since last May, it has been going up again.
        Unemployment has been more persistent than at any period in our long industrial history. Look at the lack of housing accommodation at suitable rents, which is making the lives of thousands of these people intolerable! Look at the wage cuts! The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) took the wage cuts during 1921 in many of the organised unions, but not in those alone. The wages of over 7,000,000 workpeople were cut by about £6,000,000 per week. In 1922, in a good many cases, there was another cut of about 4⅓ millions of money per week. In 1923 there were cuts of another half a million. Do hon. Members think there is not going to be unrest when these things are taking place? The hon. Member for Harrow called attention to the loss on working hours in 1924, and put it down to greater skill, and to the cleverness of the present Government. It is not a matter that the Government can take credit for, if I may say so. In 1924 wages have shown, so far, a slightly upward tendency, although the cost of living, with the exception of two months, has been steadily going up since last May. This has been suggested as the reason, the happy reason, that there has been less justification for disputes, because there has been less loss of working hours in 1924—not the reason given by my right hon. Friend.
        As regards these cuts I do not say they were not inevitable. I do not discuss that. What I know is this: that you will not make a disagreeable thing more pleasant by telling the people that it is inevitable. Do not let us ever forget, wherever we sit, that a 5 per cent. cut on a £2,000 a year income may mean an alteration of future plans; it will have an effect upon the savings; it may affect projected holidays and indulgences of that sort; but 5 per cent. on £200 a year—that is a real readjustment in the standard of living, a standard which is very often itself rather perilously near the subsistence level. With worries and anxieties on all hands, can industrial unrest be wondered at? I hope I may be allowed to say this too, that the unrest is certainy not assuaged—quite the contrary—
        658
        by the teaching day after day of the extreme Socialist. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!" and "Question!"] I am not asking questions. I am making a statement, and I hope I may be allowed to say that in its campaign for the abolition of private interest, the extreme Socialist manages to work in some pretty bitter things about the capitalist employer. He manages to work in day after day pretty scornful and pretty indignant things about the condition of the class which he terms the wage-slave class. His definite purpose—I hope I do not misrepresent him—is, so far as I can gather, to embitter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] and to worsen the relations between employers and employed.
        Upon my soul, Mr. Young, when I think of some of the things that are pumped into the working men day after day, I wonder they do any work at all: I wonder, I say, they do any work at all for the class which is presented to them as their natural-born enemies. It is, I say, in favour of good British sense that no little of it is accounted hot air. It goes off their backs like water off the back of a duck. [An HON. MEMBER: "But hot air does not go down one's back!"] That observation does not cook my goose! There may never be a Socialist Government in power in this country. [An HON. MEMBER "It is inevitable!"] My hon. Friends may think so, still, where there is this teaching day after day it is undoubtedly creating a very serious prejudice to industrial efficiency, and the extreme Socialist has a pretty effective ally in the employer who says to the workmen: "Here you are, here is your wage, take it, go away, nothing else concerns you." How can anybody expect in the year 1924, after 54 years of compulsory education, to keep workmen in blinkers in that way? That is the situation, and I hope I have stated it quite clearly. Unless we can infuse this thing with a new spirit we are going to come down very badly. In any case, our task will be heavy. We have to find work for one million more people than before the War. We have to meet new rivals with a heavy load of debt, and with taxation which has prevented us equipping ourselves for the new conditions and competition in the way our trade rivals have done. Look at these appalling facts. Take the five years since the Armistice. The total number

        659
        of working days lost during those five years by strikes or lockouts was 177,900,000, or, at an average wage of 10s. a day, a loss of purchasing power of £88,950,000. You do not need to he an economist to see the effect of that on other trades not concerned in the industrial dispute. What are we going to do? There are two things we shall lot get. You will not get compulsory arbitration, and it really does not help to go on clamouring for it, and it has not been proved to us that it has in any way been successful to any appreciable extent.
        The second thing is that you will not get the British working man to undertake, under no circumstances, never to down tools. What you can do, and what you ought to do, is to create a spirit or an atmosphere in which conciliation and negotiation, as against conflict and strife, will be the overwhelming impulse. That means you have to replace suspicion and distrust by goodwill and confidence. You have to establish an identity of interest between employer and employed. The greatest thing that has been done in this direction has been accomplished by the development of the Whitley conception, the round table habit, between employer and employed. My experience of life is that most people improve on acquaintance, and why not let these two sets of people improve on acquaintance, and get to know each other? I was delighted when the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Murrell) succeeded in carrying the Second Reading of his Industrial Councils Bill. I know that my hon. Friends above the Gangway rather pooh-pooh that Measure, and it is not a system upon which the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division would pronounce a benediction.
        Mr. MAXTON: A malediction!
        Dr. MACNAMARA: However much the hon. Member might pronounce a benediction upon any system, it would be useless unless there is good will behind it. There is another point I wish to raise that the workmen will have to be given greater security. In our time any amount has been done to exorcise the haunting shadow which dogs the footsteps of every self-respecting man, the fear of the day of accident, sickness and unemployment, and the fear of living in
        660
        an impoverished old age. The last word has not been said about these things, and we are on the way to make them more complete. Everybody is agreed in this House that if you want security for capital, you must have security for labour. I want to deal for a few moments with the existing machinery for dealing with industrial disputes. I wish to refer to the Industrial Relations Department of the Ministry of Labour, and that most admirable instrument the Industrial Court.
        With regard to the Industrial Relations Department, I could not very well over-estimate or over-state the value of its efforts. It consists of a very small number of highly tactful, diplomatic third-party negotiators, sonic at Montagu House and some in the large industrial centres. I am quite sure that not one person in ten thousand has any idea of the valuable contribution which this little band has been making, and is making, in the cause of industrial peace. But when their efforts break down, the headlines in the newspapers get busy, and the unfortunate Londoner, going home with his newspaper, says, "Another strike," and throws h s arms up in despair. I can say, and so can the Minister of Labour, that for every single case where this has happened, we could disclose a dozen, if not a score of cases, where tactful, diplomatic third-party intervention has moved the difficulty away, and has anticipated and set aside the possiblity of a strike. With reference to this Industrial Relations Department, the Geddes Committee reported:
        "With the knowledge that in the end there will be Government intervention neither side will have the same incentive to make the final proposals which might lead to a settlement of the dispute, and we suggest that the discontinuance of this branch of activity should be considered by the Government."
        I always thought that that finding was a great mistake. If you take the work done by this Department on the narrow ground of finance alone this little band have saved their salaries a hundred times over by the loss which they have obviated by their efforts. I hope we shall hear no more of the, discontinuation of the Industrial Relations branch which, under the pressure of the rather unworthy and very shortsighted anti-waste campaign, was severely cut down almost to a nucleus crew basis. I appeal to the Minister on this point,

        661
        and I may say I expressed the same view when I was responsible for this Department. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will tell us exactly how that Department stands now, and whether his policy will not be to encourage it and strengthen it where necessary.
        I want to say a few words about the administration of the Industrial Courts Act. For the purposes of industrial disputes that Act furnishes a standing Industrial Court to which the disputants, if they agree, whether the dispute has started or not, may have recourse. It provides alternative methods of arbitration, and although its decisions are not legally enforceable, they have a formidable moral force, and are invariably loyally carried out by both sides. If one or the other of the parties decline to go to that Court, then the Minister of Labour has another string to his bow, and he coil order a. Court of inquiry whether the dispute has actually broken out or not, or whether the parties desire to have an inquiry or not. The Court of Inquiry is, in fact, a recognition of the public interest as the third party in the dispute. Here it is that. I think, in connection with Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, there is room for a review of policy. Naturally, the negotiator, when contemplating whether he shall apply Part holds out as long as he can in the hope that the parties will settle the matter themselves. Be shares the British prejudice in favour of people settling their own affairs, more especially when he comes from Lancashire, as the Minister of Labour does. In the bulk of cases it follows that you have the Court of Inquiry, after the strike or lock-out has taken place.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: You refused to do that, and now you are asking somebody else to do a thing which you have refused to do.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I said there was quite a natural prejudice in favour of people settling their own affairs. Sometimes we are landed into a dispute before the Court of Inquiry has taken place. Sometimes prejudice has been introduced before the Court of Inquiry has started, and when the Report of the Court is issued, it exercises a profound influence, anti it is not always anti-labour. Where the public interest is involved, I think the interval might be used so that the public
        662
        might get, through the medium of a Court of Inquiry, some authoritative statement—
        Mr. BUCHANAN: Both parties have to agree.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is mistaken. Under Part I of the Act they must agree, but that is not the case under Part II, and therefore the Minister of Labour has another string to his bow. He may order a Court of Inquiry whether they like it or not, although they may both disagree. The findings of the Court are not legally enforceable, but it is a great tribute to the British people to be able to say that, without exception, they are accepted.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: There is the question of the engineering trade.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, hut the point is that Part II can be applied whether the disputants like it or not. All I am putting is, where the public interest is manifestly going to be involved, cannot we use the time prior to the outbreak of the dispute in putting into the hands of the public an impartial statement of the facts and merits of the case, before the public interest has in fact begun to be prejudiced? I am not preaching compulsory arbitration, which we certainly shall not get. I am not asking the British workman to give up his right to down tools, but I am asking that the public, the third-party interest, should have the facts before its interest has begun to be prejudiced. I have lived with this problem for two and a half years, and that is my only apology for stating to the Committee in this short time the experiences I have had and the lessons I have learned.
        The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I have listened to a discussion that has been very courteously conducted, with the exception of two statements made by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), one of which was that I was stupid in my actions, and the other that I was in ignorance of what was going on. Ordinarily I should decline to trouble myself with gratuitous impertinences of this kind, but as it is not the first time this has occurred, it might be taken as a mark of weakness if I passed them by. I am going to leave

        663
        the matter now, and give the hon. Gentleman a chance to come back, and then—
        Mr. REMER: May I say that my hon. Friend asked me to let him Know, and I have sent a message to him?
        Mr. SHAW: Then I will deal with these matters of controversy when he is here. Let me turn to the case that has been made out for the reduction of my salary, apparently based, as it must be based, on the assumption that in some way the Minister has neglected his opportunities, for, certainly, it is scarcely likely that a Minister's salary would be reduced unless there was a claim that his duty had been neglected. I am going to deal with that as regards the five months of this year, beginning with two strikes that were inevitable—the railway strike, in which negotiations of one kind and another had been going on for two or three years, and the dock strike, in which a grave issue had been raised by a certain answer. In spite of the fact that this legacy was left to us, fewer days were lost in disputes during those five months than in the corresponding five months of last year, so that the accusation that I have been negligent in my duty comes badly from Members of a Government which, without the complications I had, actually had a greater loss in the same time last year than I have had this year. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, next time he moves a reduction of a Minister's salary, at any rate to move it after having made inquiries as to what the record of his own Government was. It comes very badly indeed from a Government with a legacy of over 3,000,000 days lost in the corresponding period last year, to accuse the Minister and want to reduce his salary because he has only lost 2,900,000.
        I hope I have made that position fairly clear. Whoever else has a reason to move a reduction of my salary with regard to strikes, the last Government certainly does not possess that reason, for its record is worse than ray own, and, if I may say so with due respect, the record of the last five months, if repeated during the remainder of the 12 months, will be a better record than that of any year in recent history. That is the work of the present Government. I challenge contradiction when I say that, based on
        664
        those five months, and taking the number of days lost, it is a record better than that of any year in recent history. I will now pass from the record of the Government to the gratuitous impertinence of the hon. Member for West Woolwich, who, with an air of solemnity, intended, I suppose, to be Napoleonic—but which certainly reminded me of the gravity of a stuffed owl—
        Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to compare an bon. Member of this House to "a stuffed owl"?
        The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I do not know whether the hon. Member takes exception to that expression.
        Sir K. WOOD: I assure you I have no objection.
        Mr. SHAW: I will compare the hon. Gentleman to something else. I will quote Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice"—
        "There are a sort of men, whose visages
        Do cream and mantle like a standing pond;
        And do a wilful stillness entertain,
        With purpose to be dress'd in an opinion
        Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit;
        As who should say, "I am Sir Oracle,
        And when I ope my lips let no dog bark.'"
        What is the hon. Gentleman's record on this matter? Before the strike had lasted 24 hours, he wanted to know if the Government were going to run the services. Twenty-four hours afterwards he said he did not mean it, and when I asked, "What do you mean "he said, "I mean what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said several weeks or months ago in an American paper." When I asked him a plain question, he occupied a column of the OFFICIAL. REPORT reading extracts from American papers that had no more to do with the strike about which he was talking Shan they had to do with the differential calculus. That is the hon. Gentleman's method of conducting a controversy. I prefer to deal, as I did on the last occasion with the noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who said what he wanted, and with the right hon. Gentleman, who also said what he wanted, than with the politicians who talk of stupidity and ridiculousness and the rest of it without, apparently, knowing what they mean.
        Sir K. WOOD: And stuffed owls!
        Mr. SHAW: Let me refer to the strikes that have taken place, about which the right hon. Gentleman began to speak. I have already dealt with two of them, and have shown that, whatever else we could be accused of, we certainly could not be accused of responsibility for either the railway strike or the dock strike. That was before we came into power at all. We were very successful in getting them settled. That was our responsibility, and we did it, and the result of our efforts is shown in the figures. The most successful year, or part of a year, in recent years, from the point of view of loss of work, is the year in which we are now. I am told that as industry becomes organised, the danger of public services being stopped increases. I am not prepared to accept that contention, and the results of the last few years' work do not justify it. As organisation has increased during the last few years, stoppages have been fewer in number and conciliation has been used oftener. The facts are against the contention.
        Sir S. HOARE: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to make clear what I meant. I am afraid did not. I did not mean organised labour when I said that: meant industry generally—the actual physical side of industry, apart from the human side.
        Mr. SHAW: The facts do not justify that assumption. The facts show that there is more conciliation now, and more settlement now, so that the facts are against the assumption that in some way highly organised industry means greater calamities than before. There is just one thing that I ought to say on this point about the public. I have stated in this House over and over again that the public has a right to know what are the circumstances in any dispute that is a serious inconvenience to it. I do not retract one word from that statement, but I want the public itself to remember one little thing. I have had something to do with negotiations in regard to strikes, and in one case—I am not particularising, because I do not want names To he guessed—I said to the leader of the workers, "Just remember what this means to the public." He said, "Do you think I do not know what it means to the public as well as you do? We cannot move without inconveniencing the
        666
        public, but here is the position: What does the public think about our wages or our conditions so long as it is served? Let the public remember us, let the public show a friendly interest in our conditions and wages, and then it will be time for us to arrange our work on the lines of the public interest." Whatever one may think about that declaration, it is a declaration that is worth considering. The public will never get working men to consider it first and foremost until it shows that it is prepared to consider what the working man is doing, and what his conditions are, first and foremost, as well. Working men who are running national services owe a duty to the public, and the public owes a duty to the working men. When both sides carry out their duty there will be no danger of public services being stopped.
        6.0 P.M.
        Now let me turn to the strike that has been described, and on which we are asked for an inquiry. I do not think it is necessary that an inquiry should be held on this dispute, because, as a matter of fact, we know pretty well what the dispute was about, how it began and how it ended, and, in our opinion, there are no concealed facts. The fact of the matter is that certain craftsmen were brought some time ago under what is known in the railway world as Award 728, and in London there were what the men alleged to ho grievances of a serious and substantial character in the way in which this award was applied. When the award was made, the London Electric Railways were not included in it, and had nothing to do with it, but they applied it, and certainly there has been a measure of dissatisfaction ever since in the railway shops. Some of the men alleged that the companies had used this award to down-grade the men and to pay them less than their craftsmanship and skill entitled them to receive. I am not taking sides in the matter; I am merely giving the facts as they were presented to me, without arguing either on one side or the other. The Lots Road men, of whom the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, also believed that they had grievances which ought to be remedied. Then, suddenly, an unofficial movement sprang up, led by two men named Akehurst and Cressey. Both of these men are trade unionists, and they led the unofficial strike that was so violently condemned by

        667>
        the secretary of the railwaymen's union. We have no proof whatever that Akehurst and Cressey are. Communists. We have no proof whatever that the committee was Communist. We have no evidence to show that this strike was the outcome of -Communism at all. Consequently, knowing that we have no proof, it would be folly to come before the House and say that in our opinion this is a Communist strike. But there was a complication in this strike. The Electrical Trades Union had a grievance for their men at Lots Road. They met the company in a perfectly constitutional way. The railway company replied that they would not come to a decision until they had seen the other railway companies, and you got the strange conglomeration, so to speak, of an unofficial strike with an official strike tacked on. In that emergency the Government was asked what its position was, and its position was quite plainly stated. The House was told we had no sympathy with this unofficial strike and that all the resources of the Government would be used to prevent the four essential services—light, water, food and power—from being stopped. These facts were known to the strikers and to everyone else, and the result was that the strike died away with a minimum of inconvenience, ordinary negotiations were reinstated and we got easily out of a difficulty that at one time threatened not only to stop the railways in London, but to stop the power of London. That is the Government's record in this strike—easily, quietly, without any sensational manoeuvres just working to get the strike stopped. I told the House in response to a question, that it was impossible to tell them the moves which had been adopted by the Government, because that would imply the giving away of certain private conversations that took place between certain representative men. Does the House really expect that a Minister who in his work calls for the advice of representative men from all classes is going to say, "What we did was to talk over matters with So-and-So, then to go to So-and-So as the result and discuss with him." I decline, House or no House, to give away private conversations. I ask the Committee to take the result and to believe me when I say it is impossible for me to tell them exactly the procedure
        668
        which was adopted without giving away certain private conversations which took place, which is an absolute impossibility on my part.
        We are asked why were the underground railway and Lois Road picked out. Here again I want to make a plain and categorical declaration. I want to say quietly, but none the less firmly, that the Government believe this type of strike which is being referred to is not only dangerous and inconvenient to the public but is just as dangerous to the trade union movement. We had neither part nor lot in it, nor had we any sympathy with it, and certainly sporadic outbursts of this kind, against custom and against agreement, that threaten national services, will find us in the same position we were in in this strike, and if necessity arises we shall remember that we are the guardians of the public interests amongst which most strongly in our mind is the trade union interest itself. I do not doubt that these men thought they could get their grievances remedied by a lightning strike. I believe they made a profound mistake and that was the worst way of ever getting their grievances, remedied and that it would be infinitely better calmly to negotiate, and if the employers had wasted time to have made their case known to the public. Do not assume that, it is always the workers who are at fault. I have never yet heard a word from the other side in condemnation of the employers. It is always the workers. Is it a strike? Then it is wrong. No inquiry as to the conditions or wages. That will never bring peace in the industrial arena. The only way to bring peace is to non both eyes and look at both sides, and when you begin to do that and take the whole question out of party politics we shall be able to get nearer a solution. I cannot agree to a Committee of Inquiry into this strike because I believe we know already what the strike arose out of. We know there is no evidence that there was any sinister movement of a foreign character behind it, and we are also of the opinion that continually to advertise the, Communist movement is to give it an asset which I am surprised hon. Members opposite will insist on giving it. If they would let it alone, if they would cease to advertise it, it would die of inanition. There are some things

        669
        which help the Communist movement tremendously. An ordinary Communist expression is "a shivering bourgeois." I have used it before, and the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) put on the cap. It was not intended for him at all. If the Communists believe they are frightening the public, that is one of their aims in life, and surely we ought to have a sufficient sense of our dignity and sufficient calmness and common sense not to continually give these advertisements when the circumstances really do not demand it. It is true that the strike was Clue to what is ordinarily known as a minority movements. It is perfectly true that these minority movements are not helpful to the big trade unions. It is not true, S6 far as we have the facts, that it was a Communist agitation. Let me call attention to a very serious fact. In English law it is no crime to have an opinion. If a man is, as I think, foolish enough to have Communist ideas, he is no more foolish, in my opinion, than he is if he has Conservative ideas. We all look at things through our own spectacles and from our own angle. How can a Conservative ever understand why a man is a Labour man? How can a Labour man ever understand why a man is a Conservative—a radical difference of opinion which is, I suppose, due to our brain cells being formed in different convolutions. But there it is, and it is no crime to hold an opinion. The Government will not under any circumstances attempt to suppress opinion, but the Government certainly will take action at all times to prevent violence arising from opinions, and will do its best to stifle violent movements at their birth.
        Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Violence against the general public in the form of a general strike?
        Mr. SHAW: I have already dealt fairly extensively with the general public and I am sorry I cannot go back. We cannot give these investigations, because we do not consider them necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know what we had been doing. We went out of our way, certainly, to make plain what we were going to do—that we were going to stand behind the public. He asked me what are we going to do if another strike of this kind breaks out. That is a purely hypothetical question and the only answer I can give him
        670
        is that we will do the best we can, and if it is as good as last time it means a very early ending to a difficult dispute. We are asked what is our idea with regard to compulsory arbitration. We shall not submit a proposal to the House for compulsory arbitration. We are asked what we will do with regard to Lord Askwith's Bill. Under that Bill the penalty imposed for a working man is a minimum of £2 a day and a maximum of £10. I leave it at that. It is quite evident that we shall not support Lord Askwith's Bill so long as it contains Clauses of that description. We do not hold that the time has come for any full inquiry. There are no abnormal circumstances except the abnormally low amount of days lost by strikes, which is all to the good. Does the right hon. Gentleman who smiled at that doubt my word? If he does I will read him the figures.
        Sir S. HOARE: I do not doubt your word.
        Mr. SHAW: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked us to give emergency powers to run the railway services. He agrees there with the hon. Member for West Woolwich. When the strike had been on for 24 hours he wanted us to start running the services, but it is not so easy to do, and I doubt whether the combined genius of the hon. Member for Central Hull and the hon. Member for West Woolwich would be able to run them, and we, being merely practical, everyday men, would never dream of intervening when it could not be done by gentlemen of the type T have named. We are asked to put on one side party feeling in this matter. I wish we could. It is a matter of the most vital importance that, whatever else should be considered outside the atmosphere of party feeling, this question of strikes should be. I am going to try to describe exactly the machinery that is at the disposal of the Government. Short of compulsory arbitration itself I think we possess every power that is necessary. From the Conciliation Act, 1896, to the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, we have various powers. If a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may take any steps to promote a settlement. I stated in answer to a question to-day that if a deadlock exists

        671
        in the building trade and apparently neither side is prepared to approach the other, I can ask both sides to meet me. That, in my opinion, is the first and the best work of the Labour Ministry, the work of conciliation, the work of coming in when the two sides have failed to agree, and getting them to talk together again with a view to coming to a settlement, and if necessary to make a suggestion when a deadlock comes which will overcome the difficulty. Since this Government came into office, at least one dispute has been settled on a suggestion made by the Minister, and what is true of myself I suppose is true of every Minister who has ever held the position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North - West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who made an exceedingly helpful speech, called attention to the fact that for every dispute that broke out no one could calculate the number of disputes which have been settled without a strike, and what he said is in my own experience perfectly and absolutely true. There are a number of disputes which are settled by the Department, but which otherwise would inevitably have ended in strikes or lock-outs.
        We were asked by the right hon. Gentleman to try to get a different atmosphere. We try by every means in our power, and we have succeeded to a fairly considerable extent. We have introduced counsel when previously counsel had broken down. We have been instrumental in settling disputes that were ending in strikes. When it comes to the point of giving information to the public, when in the history of the Labour Ministry has that been done to the extent which it has been done during the last five months? Let me give the House an idea of what has taken place. Prom 1e1e to the end of 1923 there were five Courts of Inquiry. Since this Government came into office there have been the docks dispute, the London tramways dispute the railway shopmen's dispute, the coal mining dispute, and a dispute at Leith. All these disputes have formed the subjects of Courts of Inquiry. We have clone as much, and have given evidence of it, in five months as has been done by other Governments in five years, and then we are told, "Take £100 off your salary: you have not done enough! "Apparently, if the Labour Government do not do more
        672
        in five months than other Governments have done in five years, they are not doing their duty. A very tine compliment to pay the Minister of Labour! An unintended, but nevertheless a fine compliment! "You are not doing your duty unless you do a tremendous lot more than we did." I am satisfied with that unintended compliment.
        May I quote a few words about an authority that will be received with respect on the other side If I may give a word of advice, I would ask hon. Members opposite to read the "Morning Post" of 28th April last, and they will get more solid argument, and more solid knowledge as to the position of working-class conditions and the possibilities of working-class peace than they will ever get by attempting to make attacks on the salaries of Ministers. I quote this authority because I know it will be admitted to be perfectly sound on the other side. My hon. Friends on this side are acquainted with journalism rf a different type.
        Coming down to what the Americans call "brass tacks," what are the facts? This Motion is to reduce my salary, apparently, because I have not done my duty in regard to strikes. I say that our record is better than that of any Government in the last 10 years. As far as publicity is concerned, we have clone more than any other Government. As far as putting the public service into a safe position is concerned, we have gore further than any Government in the lo years. We intend to continue in that way. We are not going to ask for at necessary powers. We have powers sufficient to reduce disputes to a minimum. We have been told that if we followed the Canadian method we should get an Improvement. Bad as our record is, taking population into account, our record as infinitely better than the Canadian record.
        Taken all round, I stand here with absolute confidence, and I say that while I may be guilty, taken in comparison with other people who have occupied this office, and taken in comparison with the late Government, whose friends wish to reduce my salary, I have no reason to be ashamed.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the dock labour arrangement?
        Mr. SHAW: That was the result of a settlement brought about under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour, an agreement being entered into between the two sides to go into the question of the decasualisation of dock labour, with the serious view of coming to an arrangement. I asked a right hon. Gentleman who was formerly a Member of this House, Sir D. Maclean, to take the Chair at that Committee. The Committee have presented an interim Report. In introducing the Unemployment Insurance Bill I told the House that I made a reservation with regard to special schemes, and that I hoped the House would make a reservation, with regard to decasualisation at the docks. If this Committee is able to suggest a scheme that would help towards decasualisation of labour at the docks, it can be taken for granted that this Government will help in that direction. In fact, any Government will help to remove what is one of the greatest dangers not only to industrial peace but to the lives of the workers in the industry. We are prepared to do that, without distinction of party.
        The one thing we have to do is to prove to the working man that his case is getting real and adequate consideration. It is no use the public foaming at the mouth when it feels inconvenience, unless it is prepared to consider the position of the man who causes the inconvenience. You cannot expect the tram driver or the train driver to pay a too scrupulous regard to the public if they never take any interest in his conditions, and yet when he is driven to strike they growl at him. Unless we open both our eyes and try to look at the workman as a proposition that is human, and as a person who ought to have good conditions, and unless we recognise that the men who work in public services ought to he treated in such a way as to make it unlikely that they should want to strike, we cannot hope to avoid strikes.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to dock labour, can we have the assurance that we are not going to rise until a Bill has been introduced for decasualisation?
        Mr. SHAW: I cannot say anything about the Bill for decasualisation. The Committee has not finally reported, and we do not, know whether they will report in favour of such a Bill. If the industry
        674
        is able to settle the matter by a supplementary scheme, which is in my view, the best way, no Bill will be required. We could then secure the object we desire without the necessity for a formal Bill. I welcome the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West. Camberwell that we need a different atmosphere. Those of us who are taking part in the Government have no sympathy with these sporadic lightning strikes, and we desire, as far as we can, without infringing the liberty of the subject, to do what we can to prevent them: but we will not attempt to interfere with the fundamental liberties of the subjects to hold their own opinions and to withdraw their labour if they so desire.
        We are not prepared to use the Army and the Navy indiscriminately in trade disputes, but we are prepared to do all that we can by conciliation in every possible way to help things along, and we are, above and beyond all things in disputes of this kind, ready to give all the essential facts to the public. If those facts cannot be got without special inquiry, we will give an inquiry. There is no need for a special inquiry at the present time. On broad, general grounds there is nothing that needs a special inquiry. There is nothing that needs a special departure. There is no specific phenomenon different from what has existed in the past years, and we decline to give an inquiry, not out of discourtesy, but simply because that we do not believe an inquiry is necessary.
        Mr. MAXTON: I want to say a few words from a slightly different angle from Chat of my right hon. Friend. As I understand the proposition that has been laid before the Committee to-day by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), it is that the strike which took place on the London tubes was not approved by the trade unions of this country, that it had for its purpose some other object than the immediate avowed object of improving the working conditions of the men, and that, therefore, an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances is necessary, because there is a suspicion that this lightning: strike was fomented and organised by Communists, and that that Communist effort was financed from foreign sources.

        675
        I suggest that that is a very wrong principle to introduce into this House. One or two interrupters have referred to the projected lock-out by the employer in the building trade. I have as much justification for the suspicion that this lock-out in the building trade has something more behind it than the immediate excuse that the employers in the building industry are giving, and I have as much right to suspect that there is as much evidence in support of my suspicion of the motives underlying this threatened lockout as hon. Gentlemen opposite have for their suspicion in the present case. I have a right to suspect that this threatened lock-out is a political scheme to destroy the very fine housing arrangement that has been come to by the Minister of Health. Is that unfair? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]
        Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Trade union leaders themselves say that is not the case.
        Mr. MAXTON: Communist leaders deny the case as alleged against them.
        Viscountess ASTOR: Do you believe the Communist Leaders?
        Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lady asks whether I believe the Communist leaders. The three principal officers of the Communist party of Great Britain have been my close, intimate, personal friends foe 20 years, and I have less reason to doubt the high motives, the absolute unselfishness and the great courage of these men in the service of the common people than I have to doubt the same qualities of the Noble Lady in the service of her class.
        Viscountess ASTOR: I am sorry. That is all I have to say.
        Mr. MAXTON: The chairman of the Communist party of Great Britain has been in this House on several occasions with me. He is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). Could anyone desire a greater testimonial of respectability than that? Whatever motives you may search for in this matter, you need not waste your time searching for the motive that these Communist activities are carried out and developed by men who are for personal financial gain or for the sake of any low motives of one description or another. I do not make the suggestion that the employers'
        676
        threatened lock-out in the building trade is due to the activities of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and I do not make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend that he should investigate the matter and hold an inquiry into the affairs of the party opposite and find out the source of their funds, or that detectives from Scotland Yard should be told off to conceal themselves below the platform at the conferences of the party opposite, in order to find out the desperate plots that are being hatched.
        One would gather from the speeches which have been made in several quarters of the Committee that hon. and right hon. Gentleman have all been wildly enthusiastic in their endeavours to build up official trade unionism, and that they always welcomed a strike where it was properly carried by a majority vote. I am not a very old man, but I can remember when practically every trade union which is now established in a state of respectability in this country was being hounded about from pillar to post in the same way as those who are at the back of the unofficial strike. There are Many hon. Members on the benches with me who, because they attempted to form a branch of a trade an in the factory or workshop in which they were engaged were turned out by their employers, and not only that but the fiery cross was sent round to all the employers in the districts, warning them against, employing these men because they dared to form an association for the uplifting of themselves and their fellow-workmen. You are not, going to make me believe, whatever you may do with the Minister of Labour, that you are now anxious to encourage the development of trade unions, and to bless their strike when they have it, but nut when these other men come out on strike.
        I have brought several men out on strike unofficially. When you bring men out on strike under the aegis of a great trade union, after a majority vote, you can say to those men. "As long as you are out on strike we w ill try to give you week by week at least a subsistence allowance," but if you bring a body of men out on strike unofficially you have got to say to them: "Here is your grievance. Is it so substantial as to justify you in walking out of the shop, in giving up your whole means of livelihood? You will get nothing from your trade union

        677
        or from the Employment Exchange, and nothing from any public sources. Is your grievance sufficiently great to justify you in coming out?" You may take it that it is a very serious substantial grievance that will compel a man to risk his all, and the health and comfort of his dependants, by coming out on strike against unfair conditions. I can see an argument for the abolition of the official strike. The great big, powerful trade union has usually got sufficient mass power, sufficient agents of publicity, sufficient political influence to get its claims not only ventilated in a constitutional and wide way, so that there is not any very serious danger for great organisations like the railwaymen, the miners, or the transport workers to enter into agreements for conciliation and settlement of wages, but it is different for the smaller sections who are ignored. Just as the small national section of which I am a member in this House tends to be ignored in the wider interests of the great English nation, so the small workers are apt to be ignored, and they must retain in their hands the right to say: "The conditions in which I am asked to serve are degrading and undignified, and I am going to come out on strike against them."
        Every hon. and right hon. Member in this House retains the right to strike, to refuse to do a thing which he believes to be degrading. The late Attorney-General. I am sure, time and time again in the course of his professional career has said to persons who came to him asking him to do work, "No, the job is not right. The conditions are intolerable. I could not find it in keeping with my dignity as a decent man to take your job and therefore I refuse it." Other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the investment of their capital go on strike every week. I understand that that is how the biggest incomes are made. They are made by knowing when to go on strike in the making of investments, and I am going, so far as I can, in this House of Commons, to stand tin for the same right for any workman who withholds his labour as for any capitalist who withholds the use of his capital from the service of the community.
        I have been accused very often by right hon. Gentlemen opposite of making errors of the head more than of the heart, and my heart is always touched when I am told about strikes against the community,
        678
        but I wonder who this mystical community is? When the miners go on strike, it is everybody else except the miners. When the railwaymen go on strike, it is everyone except the railwaymen. When the transport workers go on strike, it is everyone else except the transport workers. Do you think that these men are a collection of fools? When you have got the miners, the railwaymen, the transport workers, the textile workers, the agricultural workers, the shipbuilders and the engineers, you have got a very small amount of public opinion left. You have a very small amount of general public, and each one of these groups, which I have mentioned, understands quite well what the other fellows are fighting for when they are out on strike, and on every occasion they have the moral and very often the financial support of these men.
        With reference to Communist men. I am not a Communist. These men who lead this party in this country are my personal friends. I understand them. I know what their political fear is. It, is that this system, under which the industries of this country and other countries are carried on, cannot persist. They see flaunting wealth all round about, and alongside it is abject poverty, and they hear hon. Members opposite always saying that nothing better can be expected for them, but that the workers have got to work harder and lay more bricks per day, and be longer at work, that they have got to speed up and have better organisation, and no new hope for the working class in the future is ever to be allowed by hon. Members below the Gangway or on the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
        Mr. MASTERMAN: No such suggestion has ever come from below the Gangway.
        Mr. MAXTON: if I followed the Debate on Imperial Preference correctly the other night hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had some suggestion for protecting the standard of life of the working class of this country. It was a silly suggestion, but they had a suggestion, but the one argument of hon. Members below the Gangway was "allow free world competition to operate and then there will be an abundance of cheap food, and what does it matter supposing that those who belong to the working classes

        679
        have no money with which to cheap food?"
        Mr. FINNEY: Your own Chancellor of the Exchequer—
        Mr. MAXTON: I am not going to take any responsibility. These men say that the working class will not go on tolerating this indefinitely. They see that, with the production of the world steadily increasing every year. Even in the bad times they see the Super-tax payments mounting up. Even in the presence of these international financial troubles the great trouble with which very many seem to be faced is the increase of wealth. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) went to America to try to make a decent settlement of the American Debt they said, "Do not send us all our debt all at once. Try to find some means of sending a small amount of goods each year for the next 60 years, because we have got so much wealth here already that any more which you send us will only hamper us." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking with reference to the reparation proposals contained in the Dawes Report, made exactly the same appeal. He said that if Germany gets on to her feet she has so developed her equipment and her potential capacity for work production that when she once gets going ahead she will simply snow under this country and every other other country with the abundance of goods which she will produce.
        These men who inspire these unofficial strikes—if they do inspire them, I do not blame them—think that one of the greatest assets which this nation has is that its men are not merely a collection of dumb driven cattle. They have got the fighting spirit, the spirit to fight about the things that matter around them, and the greatest asset that any nation can have is this genuine pluck and courage among the working classes. These men say that the working classes will not tolerate this starvation in the midst of plenty. All these schemes which are put forward may appeal to benevolent-minded peope like the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and myself—we are kindly-disposed people, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary—
        680
        who are comfortably housed day by day, but these other people are not, and they say, "If we have got to starve and lead a life of degradation let us fight it out, without letting the crash come, as soon as possible and get it over."
        We on these benches differ from that point of view in this that, unlike them, we think that the crash which they think is inevitable may be avoided if all sections of this House rise to a sense of that ideal, and are able to say not merely that they have sympathy, but that they can produce year by year tangible evidence, to the common people, that as the increase of wealth continues in this country so the standard of life in every direction will improve and that there will be better houses, better wages, more leisure and a less arduous day, and not merely say that they always have sympathy with the working man. But unless this House can actually produce the goods hon. Members opposite are wrong believing that, if they discredit the Minister of Labour and the Labour Government in various directions, then following the old principle of the swing of the pendulum either Liberals or Conservatives will come back, I tell them that they will not do anything of the kind. These people are giving this House of Commons and political action its last chance.
        An hon. Friend reminds me of Kelvin-grove. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to regard the retention of that seat as a wonderful victory, but do they realise what it means, that in that constituency in the city of Glasgow, a fairly mixed constituency, which was placed in 1918 by myself, as political organiser for the city of Glasgow Labour movement, in the 13th place from the Labour point of view among the 15 divisions of Glasgow, a few weeks ago there were 11,000 men and women, who were not Communists, but who had this point of view that they were prepared to cast their vote for a mart who said: "The House of Commons is no use to you. The House of Lords is no use to you. The Monarch is no use to yen. The existing system is no use to you. The sooner you smash it up and build up a new one the better." When so many people in a constituency of that kind say such a thing, it is a matter to which it is worth while to give serious attention. We want to join with every well-disposed

        681
        person in this House who is prepared to avoid this crash by giving these people a life which they can tolerate and which we can justify.
        Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The points which I wish to raise in this Debate are of an non-controversial character, and I hope I shall not have the same effect upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour as my hon. Friend the. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) seems to have upon the Minister of Labour. Apparently the hon. Member acts upon the Minister of Labour like a red rag on a bull. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), in the very animated speech which he delivered, said the Conservative party only pursued a policy of repression. As a Conservative of long standing, I differ entirely from that point of view. I bold that the only way to prevent strikes and industrial unrest and to safeguard the institutions of this country is to identify those institutions with the happiness and welfare of the people. That is a sound Conservative doctrine, shared in. I am sure, by every hon. Member on this side. If we are to fight Communism, we must see that wages and conditions of labour in our industries are such as will commend those industries to the people of the country. We must remove injustices and hardships.
        It is from that point of view that I, as a Conservative, wish to bring to the notice of the Ministry of Labour what I think is a scandal to this country, namely, the conditions prevailing in the catering trade. I do not mean to say that the catering trade is seething with Communism or that the young ladies who wait upon us at tea are in alliance with Trotsky, but the conditions under which a very large section of them have to work constitute a scandal and a disgrace. What is also a scandal and a disgrace is that those conditions have been known to the Labour Ministry for three or four years. As long ago as 1919 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir B. Horne) caused an inquiry to be made into conditions in the catering trade, and in 1920 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara, after a conference, issued draft. Orders, but unfortunately he only issued those Orders in a tentative manner. Four Orders were issued, one dealing with
        682
        workers in the light refreshment and dining-room trade: a second with hotels, boarding houses and restaurants; a third with public-houses, and a fourth with fried-fish shops. Those draft Orders were issued some three years ago, yet, though we have now had a Labour Government in office for some time, these Trade Boards have never been set up.
        Why does the Labour Ministry hesitate? Is it contended there has been any improvement in the conditions in the catering trade since the inquiry to which I refer? If so, I have ample evidence to the contrary. I have here the results of a most careful investigation into the conditions of the workers in the catering trade. I am not able to give my authority publicly or give the names of the shops or even of the towns in which these cases occur, but I can communicate them privately to the Ministry or to anybody who doubts their accuracy. Let me give the case of a worker who works from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., and on one day per week has two hours off. Her wages as a kitchen hand are 7s. 6d. a week. In another similar case the wages are 6s. a week. Three meals are allowed per day—bread and margarine. There is another case of four young girls, ages varying from 14 to 19, working in a kitchen underground from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. They get out at 10.20 p.m., carrying in a newspaper parcel what they have been given for supper. I do not wish to weary the House, but I should like to give one or two other cases. Here is one where the hours are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and the wages are 6s. per week, and this worker sends 3s. out of her 6s. to a widowed mother. In another case from North London the hours are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the wages 7s. per week plus food. The work is very hard, but the worker finds it difficult to get other work. In another case the hours are 7.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and the wages 12s. per week, and the worker sometimes assists in the shop. In another case the hours are 7.30 a.m. to 6 p.m., the wages 10s. per week, two meals a day, and tips amounting to about 3s., and, in addition to waiting, the worker scrubs floors. Here is ample evidence that there is a crying need for the setting up of these trade boards, and I urge upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to set about this business at once. The hon. Member who spoke last inveighed

        683
        against the industrial system of the country, but the industrial system is quite capable of improvement if only we get the proper spirit in the Government of the day.
        With the permission of the House I desire to raise another non-controversial subject namely the unemployment which exists among highly disabled ex-soldiers. We had an interesting Debate the other day and what I hope will prove a useful Bill was introduced, but no matter how many Bills we pass making it compulsory for employers to employ disabled ex-soldiers, we cannot compel any employer to employ a thoroughly unemployable man. I am afraid there are many utterly unemployable highly disabled ex-soldiers in this country. There are 600 highly disabled ex-soldiers in my own constituency. They are not all unemployable. If trade were good, some are capable of working at their own trades, and others might be transferred to other trades, but there are over 100 who are utterly unemployable, and as pensions are not fixed upon earning capacity, they have not enough on which to live. I do not think you can force these men upon industry. A Committee under the Chairmanship of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) came to the conclusion that it was undesirable to put pressure upon industry, but suggested that special provision should be made for the employment of these ex-soldiers. The Committee went on to say that there were institutions in this country which ought to be encouraged, enlarged and multiplied, and they recommended the encouragement of institutions such as the Lord Roberts Workshops, and the construction of factories on private lines.
        The Government grant for institutions to give employment to ex-soldiers is on the whole fairly generous. The Government make up one-half of any loss, and give a fairly good training grant, and allows a certain small sum of money to be advanced on mortgage for the starting of these institutions. Would it not be possible to get other institutions started if a more generous grant were given for the initiation of schemes? I have in mind the fact that in my own constituency the King's Roll Committee is contemplating the possibility of starting a factory for the employment of these highly disabled
        684
        soldiers, but the difficulty is to get enough money together to start the factory, purchase machinery and so forth. I ask the Labour Ministry to give a more generous grant for the initiation of these schemes. It is a scandal that we should have thousands of highly disabled soldiers, eating their hearts out, with no employment and not sufficient sympathy. We ought to do the right thing by them. As I say, I do not believe in trying to force them into industry, but we should set up industries for them. They fought for the community, and it is the duty of the community to do the right thing by them. I know the Labour Minister is sympathetic towards the ex-service men. I have evidence of that, and I hope I have not appealed to him on this question in vain.
        Mr. CHARLETON: I do not usually intervene in these Debates, and am rather content to stay in the background, but on this occasion I feel I ought to say something as a member of the Executive of the National Union of Railwaymen. I know a little about this strike and about the men who were on strike, and had I not known that there was a tail-end to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) I should have treated the whole thing as a comedy. One would imagine that these strikes did not happen very often. I am on a committee attending to these matters every week, and sometimes we have three or four unofficial strikes going on at once. This London tube strike happened to be rather spectacular, an-I it has afforded a peg on which to hang attacks on the working-class movement gene Billy. The right hon. Baronet said that the unofficial strike committee consisted of nine men and he proceeded to set up the hypothesis that these nine men were running the movement. As a matter of fact, the movement represented by these nine men is what we call the unofficial shopmen's movement which has been in existence for several years.
        7.0 P.M.
        We of the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen have been trying to co-ordinate all these efforts and direct them on common-sense lines, but these men have been driven to desperation. On the Great Central Railway a few months ago men who were putting in a full week's work were also going to the guardians for

        685
        a subsistence wage. One can imagine the feelings of the men when I tell the House that there are labourers getting 35s. a week, and fitters getting £2 10s. and £2 15s. They cannot live decently on these wages. Can hon. Members wonder that in these circumstances the men sometimes kick over the traces. The right hon. Baronet (Sir S. Hoare) suggests that Communism is at the back of this movement. The whole thing is absurd. These men are friends of mine; they are younger men than I am and more full of boyish, animal spirits. These men see visions, as all our young men must do. The young men at Oxford have their "rags," but in their case it is put down to boyish spirit. When men strike on behalf of their wives and children you call them hooligans and Communists, and all that sort of thing. The right hon. Baronet said that we were holding up the life of the community Just imagine the stopping of a few tube trains holding up the life of the community! In summer-time people often walk, and it is a good thing to make them walk now and then, it is much better for their livers. The right hon. Baronet also paid a tribute to my friend Mr. Cramp. It is not long ago that most Members on the other side of the House were cursing Mr. Cramp. Let me tell the House that the National Union of Railwaymen is launching an all-grade movement, and, if the railway companies do not give us a fair deal, we shall be compelled to stop the railways of the whole country again, and then I am inclined to think you will be cursing my friend Mr. Cramp again.
        The origin of this movement was due to the fact that the railway company have played fast and loose with our men. Let me take the London and North Eastern Railway Company. There are three or four ways of paying men who are doing the same job on that railway. We have been asking for nearly two years that the company should co-ordinate the railways and pay the fitters and labourers and others in the same way all over. What are they doing? They are refusing to pay them in the same way, with the result that they play one group off against another. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) suggested that we ought to have more goodwill. I quite agree, but let us
        686
        examine what goodwill has been in the past as far as the railway companies and their employés are concerned. My father was an engine driver and became a foreman. He was knocked down and lost his leg and could not work for 15 months, and, after having a job of many pounds a week, they gave him 24s. a week when he resumed after 15 months.
        I am not a very rabid fire-eater, hut what did the railway companies do to me simply for my trade union activity, especially during the 1911 dispute? They victimised me, and, when the Board of Trade set up an inquiry and proved that I had been victimised, the company did not, even then, do the fair thing and admit it. They did not even give me hack my engine, but gave it to a man whom they called loyal. Goodwill is all right, but we must have it all round. Another friend of mine was injured between London and Southend driving an engine which was over 15 years old. He is walking about paralysed to-day, and he gets about half the amount of his wages. We, his fellow workers, are keeping him. He was injured through a worn-out engine which ought to have been scrapped years ago. Yes, let us have goodwill, but it must be on both sides Hon. Members opposite always look round for some way of suppressing the worker when he becomes a little powerful. I was recently looking at some records in the Record Office, when I was doing a little study in industrial and economic history, and I found that the Duke of Wellington and others in his day were nervous that they had not enough soldiers to keep off any rising. The right hon. Baronet, I believe, said we might do something for the key-men. Does he mean bribe them to betray the rest of their fellows? Does he mean to pay more to the men at Lots Road in order that they may let the others down?
        Viscountess ASTOR: Of course not!
        Mr. CHARLETON: Let me remind the Noble Lady and the Committee that that was what the railway companies tried to do in 1919. I took part in those negotiations. They asked the locomotive men and the signalmen, who were key-men, to remain in their jobs while they attempted to crush the other men, but, owing to the loyalty of the signalmen and the drivers and the locomotive men, that attempt failed.
        Viscountess ASTOR: My point is, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) was not defending the railway companies.
        Mr. CHARLETON: But he condemned the men. The Noble Lady, when she gives us her periodical lectures, always talks about good will, but I say that good will should be on both sides. The right hon. Baronet referred to rebellions, and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) alluded to the Irish Rebellion and another one. But he did not mention the other one which is going on, and which inscribes on its banners "B. F." I do not know whether he is in favour of that or not. I would say, in conclusion, that I, as a member of the National Executive of the National Union of Railwaymen, would welcome an inquiry into this last dispute, and the men who took part in it would do so, also. But I am afraid this Amendment is based upon the cry of "Bogey, bogey!" I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite know that changes have got to be made, and I suppose they will agree with Tennyson, when he said in his immortal poem
        "Our little systems have their day,
        They have their day, and cease to be."
        Marcus Aurelius also said, in his "Meditations"
        "Society is in a state of flux."
        I remember, when the Snowden Resolution, as we call it, was being discussed, that Sir Alfred Mond said that Socialism had been tried in China some centuries ago and had failed, but he did not say—
        The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see that this is in Order. The hon. Member must keep to the point.
        Mr. CHARLETON: I was trying to justify my criticism of the references to Communism. What I was going to say was that Sir Alfred Mond did not say that all other systems had been tried and had failed. All the great systems have been tried and have gone to decay or have grown Phoenix-like into new systems, and so will this system. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite want to uphold this system by force. That is impossible. These men who took part in this unofficial strike are good men who were driven to desperation by the condition of their wives and families. Not one of the men
        688
        has in him a touch of Communism at all. What I believe you are doing is to give the Communists an advertisement which they do not deserve. If you will get down to the real case put up by these railway shopmen, if you will have an inquiry into that and bring pressure to bear on the railway companies to give these men a living wage, you will hear no mare of these unofficial strikes.
        Sir DOUGLAS HOGG: After listening with interest to the speeches which have come from the benches opposite, I want, if I may, to ask the Committee to return to the matter which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) brought before the Committee when he moved this Reduction. In a speech which I think both sides will admit was a speech of studied moderation my right hon. Friend made two requests. First of all, he asked for a special inquiry into the causes of the late strike which affected our tubes and, secondly, he asked for some impartial body to be set up which would investigate the methods of avoiding strikes in what are called the key industries, and the very grave public inconvenience and loss which such strikes necessarily entail. I confess that the reception which the Minister of Labour gave to bet ft those requests leaves me with a feeling of profound disappointment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will press this Reduction to a Division. Let me take the two requests separately. First of all, there was the request that we shall have an inquiry into the causes of the late tube strike. I venture, to submit to the Committee that if ever it case was proved out of the arguments adopted against it this case has been so proved. The Minister for Labour tells the Committee that it has not been proved that this strike was due to Communist influence. He tells the Committee, further, that it is not proved that the strike was fomented by funds sent by any foreign organisation. Yes, bet will the Minister tell the House that is were proved that that is not the case? If it, were proved that that were the cause of the to strike, or that that was the method by which the strike was financed, the right hon. Gentleman might fairly say that there was no need for inquiry because he knew the facts. But when he admits that it is not proved, and yet at the same time his colleague

        689
        the Home Secretary tells us that he has information that this was the cause, and that was the method of finance—
        Mr. SHAW: Of this dispute?
        Sir D. HOGG: Certainly.
        Mr. SHAW: I never said the. Home Secretary said it was proved that the Communists were responsible for this strike.
        Sir D. HOGG: The right hon. Gentleman has not followed me: probably it is my fault. I did not suggest that he said this was proved. What I said was that the Home Secretary said, in answer to a question, that he had information to that effect. Let me read the answer to the question that was asked the Home Secretary on the 19th June. The right hon. Gentleman was asked
        "Whether his Department had received any reports indicating that the recent and existing irresponsible labour troubles are connected with efforts to spread Communist and kindred doctrines; and whether he will make inquiries to see if this is the case?"
        The answer of the Home Secretary was:
        "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1924; col. 2339, Vol. 174.]
        Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) wish to quarrel with that answer of the Home Secretary? Does he accede to it, or does he recede from it? If he accepts it, then we have two responsible Members of the Government, one telling us that there is information in the possession of His Majesty's Government that these irresponsible labour troubles are connected with efforts to spread Communist doctrines, and the other telling us that it is not proved that they are so connected. Could there be a clearer case for an inquiry as to the origin of the strike? But let me pass from the Home Secretary, and look at what the Labour Press Service, edited by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. W. Henderson), said about this strike. Mind you, there is no doubt about what he was referring to, and this is what he said on the 5th June, in his communique:
        "The unofficial strike in the railway shops of the London Electric and Great Western Railways threatens to take effect this week."
        690
        We know, unhappily, that it did. The communique goes on—
        "It has been fomented by an unofficial committee dominated by Communistic influences."
        Was that true or was it false? If, when the Labour Press Service told the public that this strike had been fomented by an unofficial committee dominated by Communistic influences they were telling the public what they did not believe to be true, was it not a shocking betrayal of their duty to the public? If they did believe it to be true, and if the right hon. Gentleman merely says it is not proved whether it is true, could there be a stronger ground for inquiry? On the 21st Juno there was published a paper probably more familiar to hon. Members opposite than it happens to be to me, a paper called "Forward," and this is what it said about that strike last Saturday:
        "There is no doubt that the strike was openly and without hesitation fomented and encouraged not so much to raise the railway shopmen's wages as to harass and weaken and finally destroy trade unionism."
        Then the article went on to say:
        "These assaults are directed by foreign secret service money. That is a serious thing to say, but alas, there are serious grounds for saying it.
        It is not the Tory Press who are telling these tales of Russian money financing the strikes, and when the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), with all the zeal of a newly-created pervert, gets up in this Committee and denounces the statement as to foreign secret service money as Tory reactionary lies, he might have taken the trouble to study the organ of his own new party. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Charleton) told us this was a strike caused by men suffering from a sense of intolerable grievance against the railway companies which employ them, and he referred to his friend Mr. Cramp. But Mr. Cramp does not seem to describe the strike quite in that way, for this is what he said on the 12th June:
        "This is a fight between order and mob law. It is only one manifestation of an underground movement which has been going on for a considerable time. Almost every large union in the country has been afflicted by this foul disease and where it has established itself disaster to the workers has invariably followed."
        Does the hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Cramp was treating this strike as a strike of workers against an intolerable

        691
        grievance, when he speaks of it as "a foul disease" and "an underground movement going on for a considerable time." We have got some outside information in regard to this underground movement. Only a month ago the "Pravda," the organ of the Russians to whom "Forward' referred in the article I quoted, report Trotsky as saying:
        "You must maintain ties with the work of the Communist International, particularly with the struggle in Britain, where slowly—more slowly than many of us wish—but irresistibly the Communist mole in Britain is burrowing under MacDonald's stronghold."
        Can even the Minister of Labour, with all his affection for similes borrowed from natural history, find a more apt description of the underground movement? We on this side of the House like to ascertain the facts by an impartial inquiry. [An HON. MEMBER: "On Irish matters?"] Certainly, on Irish and other matters, and the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me knows the facts were ascertained in regard to Irish matters. This Reduction is, in effect, a Motion asking for an inquiry into the facts. Neither my right hon. Friend who moved it nor myself when asking for that inquiry are going to assume that the facts are as stated in the Socialist Press or as stated in the Communist Press from the Russian side. Rut when these assertions are made, when the Minister for Labour tells us that they are not proved, surely it is about time we had an inquiry as to whether or not they are true. I do not want to take up too much time. I have dwelt so far with the first of the two requests which my right hon. Friend has put forward, and I say that on the statements which have been made in the House this evening, the case for an inquiry is made out with overwhelming force. It is no good for the Minister for Labour to say that our sense of dignity and our common sense ought to prevent us from inquiring into these things. The ostrich may be a very ornamental bird, but it is not a very wise one.
        I pass from the request for a special inquiry to the second object of my right hon. Friend's Resolution, and that is a request for a general committee, or some small impartial body, to investigate whether or not it is possible to prevent strikes in key industries which cause so much inconvenience to the public. An
        692
        hon. Member asks, "Why key industries? "May I tell him I am referring specially to those industries the paralysis of which particularly affect London as a whole. It is a melancholy spectacle to see how entirely the Minister for Labour, whose duty it is, in (air view, to safeguard the interests of the public, seems to regard the public as an entirely secondary consideration. With an air of profound self-satisfaction, I will not say like a stuffed owl but rather perhaps like a peacock, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that he is a most wonderful Labour Minister, because in his time, after he left out two of the five most important strikes that had taken place, there had been fewer hours lost by strikes than in the corresponding period a year ago.
        Mr. SHAW: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, but I included all the strikes.
        Sir D. HOGG: I accept the correction, of course, but the point I am making remains. I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's self-satisfaction is even greater than I had imagined. He said that in all the strikes during the last five months the number of hours lost was less than during the corresponding five months of last year. The right hon. Gentleman had already heard the explanation given in advance by the right hon. Member for North Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) that last year there were still, unfortunately, going on, re-adjustments of wages arising out of the first War boom and the slump that followed, and it is natural that workers should be more inclined to strike when wages are being reduced than at other times. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman entirely missed the criticism of my right hon. Friend. The point which my right hon. Friend made was not as to the total number of hours lost by strikes, but as to the damage done to the public by this particular kind of strike. It is all very well to say there are only forsooth 3,000,000 hours lost by strikes in five months, but how many hours have been lost by men and women in my constituency and in the constituency of my right bon. Friend who have been prevented from getting to and from their work by the strikes which have wholly disorganised the transport service

        693
        of London? It is the character of the strike which we regard as a serious matter urgently requiring inquiry.
        The right hon. Gentleman tells us he is ready to concede that the public have a right to know the circumstances of the strike. It is an unhappy thing for the public if their selected champion and guardian thinks that is the only right which they possess. But even if he thinks that is their right he does not seem inclined to allow them to exercise it in practice, because, when we ask for an inquiry, he tells us he will not give us one because it happens that the charges made have not been proved. Therefore this right which he concedes they have but which he will not allow them to exercise is not a very satisfactory or complete vindication of the position. The public right is not merely to be informed of the circumstances of a strike, but it is to be protected against that strike by the Minister of Labour. [An. HON. MEMBER: "What about the building trade?"] The building trade at present, in spite of every encouragement from the Minister of Health, has not begun to strike, and, therefore, I do not think that that interruption is of much value to the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
        Let us deal with the strikes which have taken place, and let us see what the position is with regard to them. It is said, and it is rightly and truly said, that the British workman will not give up, and ought not to be asked to give up, his right to strike. Nobody suggests that he should. Equally, it is true, I think, that the British workman ought to be protected in his right to give his labour when he wants to, and I am not quite sure that hon. Members opposite are quite such ardent champions of that right, although it is just as important. Granted, as it is, that the British working man has a right to withhold or to give his labour as he pleases, it is also a fact that when, as is to-day the case, the whole public convenience and the whole public industry of this country are dependent on the smooth working of certain industries, the public have a right to be assured that every possible step is taken to prevent the smooth working of those industries being interfered with, interfered with, of course, by either side. I am not throwing all the blame, and I do not think I shall be misunderstood as
        694
        doing so, on one side or the other. In some cases it may be one side, and in some cases it may be the other, but the party that is not at fault, and the party that suffers for the fault, is the public, and it is the public interest that I am championing this evening, it is the public interest which induces my right hon. Friend to press for this inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman opposite so contemptuously brushes aside.
        The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said truly that the real cure for strikes 'is probably to be found in goodwill on both sides. I think there is great truth in that observation, but, if it be true, that is a very good reason why the present Government of all others are least capable of dealing with strikes. How can we expect them to promote goodwill on both sides when their own individual records have consistently been records of stirring up strife and ill-will. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] I hear protests, and, of course, the Committee has a right to challenge me to give any evidence in support of that charge. I shall give it at once.
        Mr. AYLES: It is a wholesale charge
        Sir D. HOGG: Let me take, first of all, the Independent Labour party, to which most of the leaders of the Government belong, and let me refer to a Conference, at which no less a person than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the Chair. This is a resolution which was passed in 1920 by the Independent Labour party conference:
        "It therefore condemns all attempts to bring about any rapprochement between Labour and Capitalism, or any method of compromise aimed at arriving at a more amicable relation between Labour and Capitalism short of the total abolition of the capitalist system."
        HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !
        Captain Viscount CURZON: You give yourselves away every time.
        Sir D. HOGG: Does the Committee think that that resolution breathes a spirit of encouraging goodwill between Labour and Capital? [An HON MEMBER: "Capitalism, not Capital."] Does the hon. Member really think that a party which "condemns all attempts to bring about any rapprochement between Labour and Capitalism"—he may have as many "isms" as he likes—"or any

        695
        mode of compromise aimed at arriving at a more amicable relation between Labour and Capitalism" is a party which is encouraging goodwill between employers and employed? The Committee will judge. Let us now pass to something more recent. In May of last year there was an International Congress at Hamburg, and I see that among the delegates from this country were the present Prime Minister, the present President of the Board of Trade, the present Home Secretary, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the present Minister of Transport, and I know not how many other Ministers, hon. and right hon. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Shaw."] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not leave him out by intention.
        Mr. WALLHEAD: I wish to correct the right hon. Gentleman in one particular, and that is that the present Prime Minister was not present at the Conference at Hamburg. He can take that from me.
        Sir D. HOGG: I accept at once, but the report stated that he was there. It is, however, no doubt mistaken, and I apologise to the Prime Minister, but I think I have a fairly representative lot without him, and we will put in the Minister of Labour as a worthy substitute. This is what happened as the first resolution at that Conference:
        "The Labour and Socialist International…is a union of such parties as accept the principle a the economic emancipation of the workers from capitalist domination and the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth is their object, and the class struggle which finds its expression in the independent political and industrial action of the workers' organisations as a means of realising that object."
        [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman is not even ashamed of it now. How can one wonder that a party which acclaims ideals such as that is incompetent to create or foster a spirit of goodwill? I have a whole series of quotations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read them!"] I think at least I have given enough to make the point clear. That is the reason, why we, on this side, view with profound distrust the efforts of this Government, not because they want strikes—I am not suggesting that—but because they have incapacitated them-
        696
        selves from dealing with them in the only practical way. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell told us the right principles upon which to go, and I am asking, and my right hon. Friend is asking, that we shall have a Committee set up to find out how best to effect that way. The right hon. Gentleman again was quite satisfied and said: "I do not want any Committee have ample powers to deal with the situation, and I need no others." The right hon. Gentleman is condemned out of his own mouth. Either he has powers which are adequate to prevent this inconvenience to the public and he did not use them—because nobody can doubt that the public were inconvenienced—or else he did not have the powers, and then he will not even let us have a Committee to find out how to get them. I care not on which horn of the dilemma he impales himself: off neither of them will he be able to wriggle.
        We say that we believe that the last possible point has not been reached in improving the conditions between Capital and Labour and in protecting the public interest in these grave industrial disputes. We believe that sonic of the various methods which have been adumbrated, some of them in another place, some of them in the daily Pres!;, some of them in articles and discussions in which many of us take an interest, might provide some practical means of protecting the public, whose interest we regard as paramount. [An HON. MEMBER: "The working class."] Does the hon. Member not realise that the working class are part of the public? It is the old fallacy of splitting the community up into separate sections and setting there all against one another, which is doing more than anything else to ruin the industrial welfare of this country. It is that spirit that we want to stamp out. It is the sense of co-operation that we want to encourage, a real method of preventing these disputes between employers and employed reaching the last desperate method of what is really industrial warfare, namely, the strike or the lock-out, and thereby wreaking their harm not only on the employers and on the employed, but on the public, whose interests are affected, but who have had no voice in creating the dispute. It is because we wish to deal with that problem that we beg of the Minister of Labour even now to give way upon this

        697
        vital point, to treat it, not as a party question—indeed, it ought not to be—but to treat it as a question in which there may at least be some hope for the better well-being of the community at large, if only he will have search made to find out, and I am sure, if he will co-operate with us in seeking it, he will not find us slow to second his efforts to achieve the success which we all desire.
        Mr. CECIL WILSON: I doubt whether the Communist movement has ever had such a magnificent advertisement as in the speech of the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir a Hogg), who has just sat down. If this underground movement has been going on for a long time, why did not the late Government tackle it? If it be true that the Communist mole is burrowing under the MacDonald stronghold, and succeeds in the effects of that burrowing, where is there going to be more rejoicing than on the benches opposite? The Lord Chancellor in a late Government said, some few months ago, that they had seen more strikes since the Socialist Government came into office than they had ever seen in any similar period. At that time, according to the "Labour Gazette," there were 159 disputes going on, but during the years when he was Lord Chancellor, during the same period, there were, in 1921, 163; in 1922, 196; and in 1923, 165, so that he was entirely wrong in that statement.
        On this whole question of disputes, I should like to compare the position during the first five months that the late Government was in office with the position during the first five months that the present Government has beer in office. In the first period, in 1922–23, there were 9,100 workpeople who, at the commencement of that period, were involved in disputes, and during those five months that number rose to 86,000. During the five months of the present. Government, in the first month there were 82,000 involved in disputes, and that number was reduced to 36,200. As regards the aggregate working days lost, during the first period they rose from 68,000 to 834,000, and during the present period, the last five months, the working days lost have been reduced from 629,000 to 398,000. In the first period, under the policy of "tranquility," for every 100 workpeople involved in disputes at the commencement of the period, there were 940 at the
        698
        end, and for every 100 working days lost at the beginning of the period, there were 1,226 during the last month of that, period: whilst under this policy of so-called "unrest," for every 100 workpeople involved in disputes at the beginning of the period, there were only 44 during the last month of the period, and for every 100 working days lost at the beginning, there have only been 63 lost during the remainder of the period.
        It may be suggested that it is not quite fair to take the first five months which do not quite correspond, and, therefore I will take the first five months in each of the last three years, and the disputes for the first five months in each year were: 231 in 1922, 247 in 1923, and 254 in 1924. So that there was a more rapid increase in the disputes in the five months of last year than there has been in the corresponding period this year. While it is true that the number of workpeople involved last year in all disputes was not so large, when we come to the number of days lost, we find that in 1922 the average was 38, in 1923 the average was 14, and this year it is only an average of Therefore, whatever comparison we choose to make, it is all to the advantage of the last five months. What are the causes of these disputes referred to in the "Labour Gazette"? Reduction in wages in the first five months of 1922 accounted for 131. In 1923, it dropped down to 84, and in 1924 to 20. The disputes due to applications for advance in wages were none in 1922, 9 in 1923, and 77 in 1924. Therefore, the position is that, comparing 1923 with 1924, while the disputes arose in 1923 in regard to reductions in wages, in 1924 a great number have arisen in consequence of applications for advance in wages. That, I venture to suggest, is due to there being an entirely new outlook, and the realisation on the part of those to whom these disputes more particularly refer that then, is a stronger position now than in 1923. Tranquility has meant something else than reduction. Tranquility meant 43 disputes on questions of trade unionism for the five months in 1923, whereas, during the last five months, there have only been six disputes on those questions. Again, I venture to suggest, that is because of the entirely new atmosphere and outlook in the whole of these industrial matters.

        699
        Reference has been made to some of the disputes which have gone on during the last few months. There was a dispute is January this year in connection with railway enginemen. Negotiations were taken in hand by the General Council of the Trade Union Congress. I am not aware that the last Government ever had the advantage of suggesting, or being involved in, negotiations with the General Council of the Trade Union Congress. There was a strike of dock workers in February of this year. A court of inquiry was set up, and the result was that it came to an abrupt termination, because the case that had been put up, not in the precise form in which the men's demand was made, but in a very similar form, was granted as the result of that court of inquiry. In March there was a coal mines dispute, and again a court of inquiry was set up. With regard to the tramway and omnibus strike recently, we have to remember that it was in December, 1923, that notice was given to the employers of a desire for an increase in wages. A strike did not at once take place. The strike took place because it appeared there was going to be no proper dealing with the men's request. It involved 16,000 tramway men and 20,000 omnibus men, and undoubtedly caused a considerable amount of inconvenience, but the complaints from the public were not strong, because they recognised the justice of the men's demands. There was a court of inquiry set up. These are the words of the first paragraph of that Report:
        "Throughout the inquiry the merits of the claim on behalf of the workers for an increase of wages were not seriously questioned."
        Surely if the matter had been faced in the way in which it ought to have been faced, the public ought not to have been inconvenienced with the justice of the demand. Going back a little further than this year, again and again there were disputes threatened, and disputes actually taking place, and the Minister of Labour then repeatedly used the same expression—"I am keeping in touch." There was no inquiry suggested in regard to them. When inquiry was suggested by us from the benches opposite, the matter was brushed aside altogether. There were two disputes which might have developed very seriously indeed. There was the building trade dispute
        700
        and the dispute with regard to agricultural wages. Who came in and settled those disputes? Not the Ministry of Labour, but the present Prime Minister. Requests were repeatedly made for inquiries in regard to those disputes, and they were not granted, but if ever there was a display of goodwill, if ever there was a desire for a real expression of goodwill, it was with regard to the action the present Prime Minister took in those two disputes. We have got to recognise that there are always two sides to every dispute. Our desire to ascertain the causes for the unrest has been repeatedly refused by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is our duty to endeavour to find out what those causes are and remove them, but it never was clone until to-day. Instead, there has been every attempt made, not to improve conditions but to create unrest, and while it may be excellent tactics from a particular point of view, we expect something better from statesmanship.
        Major KINDERSLEY: I listened with considerable interest to an hon. Member on the other side drawing a distinction between capital and capitalism. Is this a sign of dawning intelligence on the part of hon. Members opposite, or are they getting ready for the time when capitalism, as they are pleased to call it, is destroyed, and drawing that distinction, they will then be allowed to keep their capital? The question of the underground strike, and the inquiry for which we are asking, is being laughed out of court by hon. Members opposite, because they say that we on this side have a sort of bee in our bonnet on the subject. We have heard that often before. I rather think the first speech I made in this House was on the subject of industrial disputes, and I then called attention to the activities of the Communists in the Labour party and in the labour organisation. The idea was treated with some amusement by, I think, the Lord Privy Seal, but I was not at all surprised when the Labour party's own Press informed us that this strike which we are discussing to-night was caused by Communist influence. Everybody knows this influence exists. No doubt the Government, and no doubt some hon. Members opposite, have seen a document which is known as the thesis of the Third International. I have quoted it at some length,

        701
        and I do not want to quote it again, but the methods that are advocated in that document are the very methods which we have seen in operation. Here is a definition of Communism:
        "Communism seeks the overthrow of Capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of an International Soviet Republic."
        8.0 P.m.
        The Minister of Labour thinks, apparently, that any opinion may be held in this country, but I would ask him whether it does not go rather further than holding opinions if you belong to an organisation which, on its own showing, is out to establish in this country an International Soviet Republic? Does the Minister of Labour take that as the aim of Communism? There is no answer. Everybody knows that is the object of the Communist organisation in this country, and it may interest the Minister of Labour to know that the United States of America, when they were considering the question of the recognition of Russia, appointed a Committee to go into the question, and here is their report. It is an official White Book of the American Government. No doubt the Cabinet, before recognising Russia, read this book, because it is extremely interesting from that point, of view, and it gives the reason why America very wisely did not recognise her. I wish to read a section. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it all!"] I should be glad to read it all if hon. Members would like me to do so.
        "It is believed that the evidence presented by the Department of State at this hearing has conclusively established three facts: First, the essential unity of the Bolshevik organisation known as the Communist Party, so-called Soviet Government, and the Communist International, all of which are controlled by a small group of individuals, technically known as the Political Bureau of the Russian Communist Party; second, the spiritual and organic connection between this Moscow group and its agent in this country—the American Communist Party, and its legal counterpart the Workers' Party. Not only are these organisations the creation of Moscow, but the latter have also elaborated their program and controlled and supervised their activities. While there may have existed in the United States individuals, and even groups, imbued with Marxist doctrines prior to the advent of the Communist International, the existence of a disciplined party equipped with a program aiming at the overthrow of the institutions of this country by force and violence, is due to the intervention of the Bolshevik
        702
        organisations into the domestic political life of the United States. The essential fact is the existence of an organisation in the United States created by and completely subservient to a foreign organisation striving to overthrow the existing social and political order of this country."
        I maintain that the Communist party in this country are in exactly the same position, and that every word I have read out of the findings of this American Commission can be applied word for word to the Communist party in this country. This is an international revolutionary organisation. [Laughter] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh. They know it quite well. We are not fools on this side. I am not saying that this organisation is very large, but I do say that it is very well organised, and it is supported by foreign money. I should like to quote the Colonial Secretary on this subject. It is very interesting. Here is a, quotation from the "Morning Post "of 20th February, 1922. It is a very excellent paper, and it is only a report of what the Colonial Secretary said—of what Mr. J. H. Thomas, now Colonial Secretary, said at Sheffield, at a railwaymen's demonstration. He said:
        "Mr. Thomas went on to speak of the action for libel he took against a certain journal and repeated that these people were acting under the influence of Russia, and were paid by Russian money. 'Not only can I prove that Russian money is behind it,' he declared, 'that it has come into the country and is being used, hut I am going to say that regardless of all the consequences the British public shall have the details in public which I have had before me in private.'"
        I ask the Colonial Secretary to come down to the House to give us these details.
        Mr. MILLS: Was not that speech made during the tenure of office of a Conservative Government, and, if so, why were steps not taken then by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues?
        Major KINDERSLEY: I was not in this House at the time. If I had been in the House, and if information had been available, I should have made strong representations on the matter, but I cannot be responsible for my party before I entered it. There is another quotation from the Colonial Secretary. He gave an interview to the "Evening

        703
        Standard, "which was quoted in the "Morning Post" of 5th August, 1922, and this is what he said:
        "The 'Evening Standard' states that when yesterday he was asked to tell the story of how the damages were paid, Mr. Thomas said, 'You know how 'The Communist' vilified me, how I vindicated myself, how they declared I would never get a brass farthing, and how I made them bankrupt. The pinch came then. I was able to take the important step of examining their pass-books for the whole period covered by the libel, and a public examination was about to be made by the Receiver in Bankruptcy, when an announcement was made that my costs and damages had been paid.'
        "You say that you examined their passbooks,' observed the interviewer. 'Can you tell me what you discovered?' 'Oh, that, is another story,' Mr. Thomas replied. 'It will be a gem.'
        I always like the Colonial Secretary's "gems," and I hope he will come down before the Debate closes and give us this information, for which the public are still waiting. There is no doubt whatever of the existence of this organisation. The Minister of Labour is not able to deny in this House that that organisation was responsible for this last strike. All we ask is that there may be inquiries and that the public may know the facts. Nobody would be more delighted to find that the Communist organisation is not in strength in this country, but I think there is considerable evidence to show that they are very active, and that they are well supplied with funds. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) threw derision on the idea that the Communist party in this country was worth considering, and the Minister of Labour took the same view. I thought it was only right that the Committee and the public should hear this very interesting document read, for after all, this is an official publication of a friendly country, the United States of America, and these conclusions were arrived at after hearing a very large amount of evidence. I am perfectly certain that what applies to the Communist party in America applies equally to the Communist party here, and therefore, it is absurd to ignore the question altogether. Surely, if it is as the Labour Minister said, and there is no danger in the activities of this party, it would be better if we had this inquiry, so that we might settle it once and for all. Why not let
        704
        the public know about this party—and it is a revolutionary party I Why not let the public know if it is really a thing we can ignore altogether? I beg to support.
        Mr. WALLHEAD: The Conservative party without a bogey would be a sight for the gods. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last talked about the Communist party being a revolutionary party. It is not the only party in this country that has been called "revolutionary" by the party opposite. Long ago the Syndicalist was the bogey, and long before that the Socialist party itself was one, and the party I belong to myself, the Independent Labour Party, has always been regarded as a particularly bad bogey. One has succeeded the other with sickening regularity, and hon. Gentlemen have now the fear in their hearts of the last bogey, the Communists. One would gather that their great fear is that the Communist party is undoing the trade union movement, whose interest hon. Members opposite have at heart. They are afraid that the Communist party will take away the trust in the trade union leaders, whom they all admire now so explicitly. It is not so long since hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite were the biggest opponents of trade unions in the country. If there has been opposition to the present trade union movement, it has come from the forces represented on the benches opposite. The trade union movement of the country has got to where it is, not because of any help which hon. Members opposite have given to it.
        Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: It is the hon. Gentlemen to whom the hon. Member refers who first allowed trade unions and passed a Measure, which made them legal.
        Mr. WALLHEAD: I know why they did it. The old two parties in the past always opposed every Measure of progress till they were compelled to pass it by the pressure of public opinion. Then they played the game, in Disraeli's words, of "dishing one another." and gave a measure of reform which they hoped would stave off the larger issues. The attitude towards trade unions on the part of wealth, power, position, the platform, the pulpit and the Press has been one of bitter opposition and they have all combined together to light the forces to which they now do homage, and which

        705
        they are now afraid; may be broken by the intrusion of the Communist party. That brings me to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Sir D. Hogg) when he spoke of what he called the "class struggle." We never made the class struggle. It has been our task to explain what we found already existing. When the working people of this country became disgusted with the antics of the old political parties, and strove to form their own political party, and levied themselves for the purpose of paying a paltry salary of £200 a year, who was it forbade them to spend their own money to pay their own men to come here and represent them on the Floor of the House? The forces of the hon. Gentlemen opposite! When the working classes of this country were disgusted with the Press of the country because the Press always opposed them, and because, in time of stress, they never found a friend in it, and when they decided to found their own newspaper, hon. Gentlemen opposite invoked the law to prevent them from establishing such newspaper. These are specific instances of what we call class trouble!
        Sir GERALD HOHLER: What about the "Daily Herald"?
        Mr. WALLHEAD: So the representatives of hon. Gentlemen on those benches below the Gangway tried to smash the "Daily Citizen." These are historical facts. There is no need to discuss them. These are two contemporary instances—an expression of that struggle which hon. Gentlemen opposite now so loudly deplore. We did not make the class struggle. Of course there is a class struggle!. In modern society now, what you have is two classes of persons struggling for the possession of the larger share of the balance remaining after administrative expenses and wages have been paid. On the one side you have the holders of capital; on the other side the wage earners. One wants to get as large a profit as he can out of the matter: the other wants to get as large a payment for his services as he can. So long as that remains, we shall have this eternal struggle as to who shall have the largest proportion of the surplus. It is not a question of good-will on one side or the other, or of good-will all round. It is a stern economic battle that
        706
        cannot be disregarded. Those who do disregard it are disregarding one of the salient features of modern industrial life. It does not matter how the thing is talked about. We shall never get anything different to what we are getting now.
        There has been a great deal of talk of a fundamental change in the methods of wealth production. Hon. Members who have spoken have talked about ways of handling strikes, and have condemned the methods of the present Government. They have talked about the proper way of dealing with strikes and strikers. There have been strikes during the time the present Government have been in office. There is also this to be said: that there has not been a display of force used in any single struggle or lock-out since the present Government came into office—
        Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: And never will be!
        Mr. WALLHEAD: Why should the hon. Member he so alarmed at that? Force ought not to be used if reason can prevail. A strike is a method for an immediate purpose, and to meet some present need. I remember a strike amongst the railway men in, I believe, the year 1913. I was a resident of Manchester, where the strike was. The Lord Mayor and those connected with the civic administration of Manchester did not want the presence of the military in the city. They came to an arrangement with the leaders of the men on strike, and the latter said: "We will guarantee that there shall be no disorder of any kind whatever: we will guarantee that the strike shall be conducted along properly constituted and constitutional lines." In spite, however, of the protests of the local authorities, in spite of the protests of the men themselves, I believe it was Mr. Winston Churchill, who then occupied the place my right hon. Friend now occupies, who insisted on sending troops and guns into Manchester for the purpose of cowing the men into submission. That is one instance. If hon. Members opposite think that is the proper way of handling strikes, I tall them that they will always have trouble, and they will deserve to find it, because that is what they are looking for. There is the case of Tonypandy. There is the case of Llanelly, where there was shooting, and innocent men were killed. It was nothing more than legalised murder in

        707
        view of the conditions obtaining at that time. When hon. Gentlemen opposite plead for a proper handling of strikes, and seem to think little of the methods of the present Government, again I say that under these methods there has not been an armed man on the streets, nor a policeman who has drawn his truncheon, and these strikes have been settled without the use of force in any way whatever.
        Just one word or two about the question of special conditions for or getting together, a superior class of workmen to be engaged in key industries. As far as the tubes are concerned that is a key industry. Electricity is regarded as a key industry. But mining also is a key industry. If, therefore, you are proposing to put certain workmen into a superior position you have to consider one or two other things. Reference has been made here to-night that the people thus placed in control of key industries are not to do this, that, or the other. I represent a mining division. I have in my constituency men working at the pithead for 28s. and 30s. a week. I have skilled men working underground there, and when they have put in a whole week's work laborious, distasteful, dangerous work—their week's earnings will come to about £2 5s. What is the use of talking in such a case about good will? These men will never submit to what Gentlemen opposite wish to impose upon them. They should not, and I shall back them up in the struggle they are making. If it be said that industry can not pay, I reply: "What is that to them? "They see the picture newspapers. They can read them—can they not? Do they not see the newspapers that hon. Gentlemen publish? Do they not see pictures of Monte Carlo? Do they not know of the wealth that is spent week after week and month after month in this country of ours? Are they not told in the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and they can read it for themselves day by day—and when they, in spite of their poverty, are asked to suffer a further reduction of wages, does it seem an acceptable thing? They read day by day of the enormous masses of wealth left behind by certain individuals. You cannot have a man die and leave a fortune of £5,000,000, £4,000,000, or £3,000,000 as known to poverty-stricken
        708
        men, toiling night and day for a miserable pittance, and expect that you are going to have order in your society! You ought not to have order. You ought not to be allowed to have rest, or to have corn fort of soul when these things continue to exist. You talk about the proper way of dealing with disputes. You prate about goodwill. We desire these things, but some of us are here as the mouthpiece of the people who are inarticulate, and they have sent us here to say what we do. I hope that this struggle that is going on will go on until they receive the treatment that they deserve.
        What a curious thing it is that in this key industry of mining a bucket of coal to-day is, metaphorically, worth a ton of coal 50 years ago! Coal is one of those valuable products which society handles and modern science deals with, and although this valuable product becomes more valuable day by day the men who get it cannot obtain a living. When you tell them that your industries do not pay, it leaves them cold. Your profits are nothing to them, and when you place your inability to make profits on one side of the scale and their inability to feed their families and obtain a decent living on the other side of the scale, it dips down in their favour every time. I hope the Committee will say what it really thinks about this matter. You can only get rid of the difficulty that troubles you by means of a fair and square deal with the working people, and only by this means will you be able to rid yourselves of the fear that will continually dog your footsteps.
        Hon. Members opposite should try to understand far more than they do about the movement which sends us on to these benches instead of making trivial interjections and talking about capital versus labour. There is not a man on these benches who does not thoroughly understand what capitalism means. Outside these walls there are millions of men and women ready to tell you that when you say Socialist experiments have failed elsewhere it leaves them very cold indeed. The bulk of the people are not afraid of what Socialism may have in store for them, but they are afraid of the thing they know and of the thing which surrounds their life from day to day. I hope the vote to be taken to-night will

        709
        show that, as far as this House is concerned, it refuses to embark upon the holding of inquiries, the, necessity for which has not been shown, and the demand for which could be obviated at once if hon. Members opposite would put into operation a little bit of that good will which they are always asking other people to exercise.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The first point I wish to deal with is in connection with the catering trade, which was raised by the Noble Lord, the Member for Nottingham South (Lord H. Cavendish Bentinck). The history of this matter is exceedingly unsatisfactory. The first negotiations, with a view to establishing several trade boards, took place in 1920–21, and there seemed to be at that time, as regards light refreshment trade, an exceedingly good case for setting up a trade board. Then came the general slump with the general economy campaign, and the whole matter went into the melting pot once more. I want to appeal to a larger public upon this question. The present difficulty is, that although we have received requests from various bodies to take up the matter again, we have not got sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for an inquiry. We know from specific instances here and there that this is one of the most sweated trades, but we cannot get the evidence, and the reason why we cannot get it is, I fear, largely, because the workers are afraid of stating the facts of the case. Consequently, we are in a very difficult position with regard to the next step. I would remind all those organisations interested in securing an inquiry that the first step they should take is to send us on specific cases, and I can promise that we shall, as soon as we can justify it, most certainly enter into an inquiry and follow it up with other steps.
        With regard to ex-servicemen who are severely disabled, here again I may say that the matter raised by the Noble Lard (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) was very carefully considered with the King's Roll Committee when the present working arrangement was entered into. They did definitely discuss whether it would be better to give relief in the form of a capital grant or whether it would be better to come in with a larger deficiency
        710
        grant, and they came down in favour of the latter grant. There is no complaint about the way in which those grants are being administered. Consequently, I do not feel that it is possible to accept the suggestion that we should reconsider this question of a capital grant for initial outlay. On this subject I am afraid it is not possible to go much further.
        I want to say a word or two in reply to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Sir D. Hogg). I want to say in reply to the statement that the Minister was not definite, that I think the sense of the House may be taken to show that the Minister quite definitely and categorically stated that there was no connection between the Communist movement and the tube strike. That was a very specific statement to make, and it is hardly playing the game to say that the Minister did not reply specifically to that point. The subsequent remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, especially his references to the Minister himself, appeared to me to be rather Pickwickian, and reminded me of the old saying, "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff." The greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech went to show that he needed an inquiry to examine the faith of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and his speech seemed to be very laboured and extremely unconvincing in support of the Resolution moved earlier in the evening. I will quote a question which was put to the Home Secretary on this subject—
        "Sir W. DE FRECE asked the Home Secretary whether his Department has received any reports indicating that the recent and existing irresponsible labour troubles are connected with efforts to spread Communist and kindred doctrines; and whether he will make inquiries to see if this is the case?
        Mr. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not think that it is necessary to supplement the sources of information already at my disposal by any special inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1924; col. 2339. Vol. 174.]
        That statement clearly laid it down that in the opinion of the Home Secretary there was no case for a special inquiry.
        Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: He had the information: that is all.
        Miss BONDFIELD: And the information in his possession was merely to the

        711
        effect that efforts were being made to spread Communist and kindred doctrines. No one denies that.
        Sir W. MITCHELL: In connection with these strikes.
        Miss BONDFIELD: Not at all. The two things are not necessarily connected at all. There is not a word about strikes, either in the question or in the answer. The term that is used is "Labour unrest," and I suggest that that term may be quite properly defined by this article in the "Morning Post," by Professor Hearnshaw, in which he considers the real grievances which underlie the restlessness of the workers. Tie goes on, in several paragraphs, to explain this unrest that exists throughout the whole industrial world, and, amongst other things, he gives four heads which he regards as the fundamental reasons for this unrest. The first is "insecurity," in regard to which he says:
        "The wage-earner, living and supporting his family on a weekly income, liable to dismissal at short notice, and subject to fluctuations of trade over which he has no control, is haunted by a constant sense of insecurity which prevents him from enjoying life or from realising in tranquillity any of its higher possibilities;"
        and so on. The next head is "inadequate remuneration," and the third is "inhuman conditions." This writer in the "Morning Post" goes further than I would venture to go in claiming freedom for the worker in 20th century conditions. He says:
        "Man is by nature an outdoor animal. He needs the fresh air, the sunshine, and, above all, the occasional solitude of the country and the sea."
        That is compulsory holidays, I suppose. He goes on:
        'Life in crowded factories, thickly peopled streets, bloated towns, is eminently unnatural and unhealthy. It breeds a vague discomfort, a gnawing discontent, a sense that the constitution of things is wrong. A man cannot avoid quarrelling with people from whom he can never get away."
        He goes on to say that a condition of affairs like that is a very prolific soil for any sort of doctrines of a disruptive nature that may come along. That is precisely what we say from these benches; we do not attribute it to the imaginary danger of Communist propaganda. The fourth item is "insufficient control."
        712
        The writer points out that man in his normal and more primitive conditions was accustomed to a varied kind of life, with spells of hard work alternating with spells of idleness, with a general sense of being able to do what he liked in his own time. From that period he has passed to a period where his ancestral country-existence has disappeared—
        "Efficiency requires punctuality, regularity, steady unremitting labour, strict regimentation, prompt obedience, coordination of effort, subordination of personal initiative to central control. Hence once more a revolt of the 'hand' against his loss of freedom, and it natural desire to recover control of his own activities."
        I would suggest to hon. Members that, instead of pretending to be alarmed—because, frankly, the tone of the discussion to-day has given me a sense of complete unreality in regard to any real feeling on the part of hon. Members opposite that this Communist propaganda is really dangerous—instead of dealing with unreal dangers of that kind, they would do well to tackle the real dangers of insecurity and of lack, on the part of the workers, of any power of control over their own lives. It is such real dangers to which His Majesty's Government desire to do something to put an end. The whole tone of the remedies suggested by speeches from the other side is, roughly speaking, summed up in Lord Askwith's Bill. What does it mean in effect? It means that you are coming down on the side of coercion, of conscription of labour, of the denial of freedom on the part of any workman to withhold his labour. Are you going to go a step further, and deny the employer the right to dispense with any labour—because that is the natural corollary? I would like to know what employers are going to say to you if you try that game on. It is absolutely impossible, in the social development of this country, to go back to the idea of such coercion, either amongst workers or amongst employers.
        I am quite satisfied that this Government, at any rate, have an advantage which many Members en the opposite benches do not share. They have the advantage of a knowledge of the psychology of employers and employed, through years of negotiating experience, through years of work in industry in day-to-day contact with the development, not merely material but sociological, which Las been going on. That puts them in an

        713
        exceptionally favourable position to deal with industrial disputes. It puts them in the position of being able to go straight to the root of the trouble, because they know where to look for it. I venture to assert that the experience in regard to dealing with these disputes in the five months during which the Government has been in office has proved that right up to the hilt. I ask the Committee to let us have the Vote now. This discussion, as far as I can see, has gone on long enough to explode whatever may have been regarded as the basis of the Amendment moved from the Front Opposition Bench, and I hope we may come to a decision now without further delay.
        Sir GERALD HOHLER: I desire to address this Committee on this matter and to expose what has been going on. There was a bargain made through the usual channels that this Vote was to be taken at 8 o'clock or a little earlier. Then the Labour Members rose in their numbers and continued the Debate, and, as I have sat here, I have seen notes passed up to the hon. Lady who has just spoken, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) to cease his speech.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: May I ask what Ms has to do with this Debate?
        Sir G. HOHLER: There has been a most grievous breach of faith. I am entitled to say these things, and it cannot be denied. Hon. Members have been guilty of such a thing as that, and that is what is called honourable treatment.
        Mr. B. SMITH: On a point of Order. Is the discussion to continue on the Ministry of Labour Vote, or are we to listen to a diatribe about matters that have been passing from one bench to another? I submit that the whole matter is entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion, and I ask you, Sir, for a ruling. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is protesting about a breach of faith on account of the Debate being carried on beyond 8 o'clock, because of another matter that is arising.
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir Croydon Marks): That did not reach me. If it had, it would have been distinctly out of order.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: Is there any point in a speaker referring to the passage from the Front Bench to the benches behind of a note the contents of which he does not know, and to which he is merely applying an imputation?
        Sir G. HOMER: I thought I should bring sonic of them to their feet. It has served my purpose, and I challenge them to get up and deny it. Now I am going to turn even more closely, though that was close enough, to the Debate. All we ask is to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary by a matter of £100. We know he will not be any the worse off and we know that if we do reduce it by £100 you will not treat it as a vote of confidence and you will still go on. I wonder, in these circumstances, why the Minister of Labour in such boisterous and hectoring tones described someone else as a stuffed owl? I want to know why he did not address himself a little more to this question of why we are not allowed to have this Committee of Inquiry. His case is that there is no ground for it, and there is no Communism. I have no doubt he says it in perfect good faith. How easy to grant the inquiry. I would not say anything offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he is possessed of all the wisdom in the world on this matter. That being the position, this Debate has been full of interest. The real inner reason why he would not grant the inquiry is to be found among his supporters behind him. They were all kept quiet for a bit, but by degrees their feelings emerged. The truth is, in my view, that there are any number of hon. Members on that side of the House who hold Communistic views. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Merthyr whether he is the R. C. Wallhead who is referred to in a publication of the Independent Labour party of 20th March? I should like to know whether he is the gentleman who had the celebrated conversation with Lenin, and when one of his companions asked him what he could do to help Russia, according to the hon. Member he replied:
        "Go home and have a revolution,"
        To which the hon. Member answered,
        "I think we have done enough to help you already by the strikes we have promoted and encouraged."
        Mr. WALLHEAD: I should like to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think I said to Lenin that we would help strikes and lock-outs, because at that time there were no strikes going on at all.
        Sir G. HOHLER: My memory is very clear. I have carried that book about. Unfortunately I have not got it to-day. This was in interview in 1919. The hon. Member was referring to those anxious stages of the War through which we had gone. He said:
        "I think we have already done great things to help you by the strikes and the industrial disorder we have encouraged,"
        or words to that effect.
        Mr. WALLHEAD: Really, I must correct the hon. and learned Gentleman again. As a matter of fact, at that time I was exceedingly opposed to British intervention in Russia and I did what I could to oppose it. I would have brought men out on strike if I could, but I am not connected with the industrial movement and never was. We were not supposed to be at war with Russia, yet we were shedding British blood in Russia.
        Sir G. HOHLER: My recollection, I think, is more accurate than that of the hon. Member.
        Mr. SHAW: I happened to be present at the interview. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept my assurance that the statement he has just made, from whatever source he has got it, is a pure invention?
        Sir G. HOHLER: Of course I will accept any statement that an hon. Member of this House makes. All I have to say is that the statement is to be found in print in the report of a conference of the Independent Labour Party, held at Southport, in March, 1920, and I will lend a copy to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, when you become a Minister of the Crown your memory fades. Mine would fade, too.
        Dr. HADEN GUEST: I happen to have been in Russia as secretary to that delegation, and I was present at the interview and was taking notes. The hon. and learned Gentleman may like to refer to an article of mine on the subject. Nothing of the kind he is now stating was said about the support of strikes.
        Sir G. HOHLER: I will take an opportunity of acquainting these gentlemen of that which appears in print, circulated by the Independent Labour Party and purporting to be a report signed by the hon. Member for Merthyr. Now we have it that the Minister of Labour was there too. We know what the history of this party is. What did the Home Secretary say the other night He was repudiating his responsibilities. He said they were irresponsible utterances. We should really examine what this point and for the purpose of examining it it is very desirable to expose a little of their past—their political past. It never suggested itself to my mind when I rose that the right hon. Gentleman would so easily tumble into my net. It is wonderful what admissions you get as you go along. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and makes a speech and denies there is any foundation for it. At a time when we need to rehabilitate this country and when a great exhibition is in operation, and London is full of visitors in connection with that exhibition, we know that a lightning strike took place. By this lightning strike these men sought to take advantage of the situation, and they hoped to have everybody at their knees. They tried to get various branches of workers out, and sought to close down the power stations. Under these unparalleled and unexampled circumstances we are refused this inquiry. I am inclined to the opinion that the reason why the Minister of Labour has refused this inquiry is the tone of the speeches from the benches behind him. I refer particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr. He would encourage strikes and other things that would destroy our existing system. That is what we say communism wishes to do, and they do not mind how violently it is brought about. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), speaking to his supporters, said he deplored that they did not rise. He said:
        "If one of you will only break the window of the Labour Exchange, I should rejoice. We should be marching on."
        Hon. Members opposite may disguise facts as much as they possibly can, but the statements and the quarrels of Members of their party get noised abroad, and we realise what they are about.

        717
        We say that this strike was Communistic. The Minister of Labour tells us that he had certain conversations but that he could not give us information with regard to them. He could not tell us with whom those conversations took place. Did he talk with the Communists on the subject? We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite against capital, and the sufferings of labour. There is suffering in this world, and we all regret it, but the suffering will be worse under Socialism than anything the world has ever seen. We are told about the miners and their sufferings. We are always told that the fault lies with the capitalists. We are told that a man who employs his brains and his ability to such an extent that he, is able to find employment for others is really an incompetent man, and we are told that the whole of our present system is wrong.
        9.0 P.M.
        If hon. Members opposite are so anxious about the sufferings of people and about redressing grievances, why did not the Parliamentary Secretary respond to the appeal of the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). The Noble Lord raised a very important point as to the sweating conditions under which waiters and waitresses work. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that she would do anything definite to improve their lot. She said. "We have not enough evidence before us yet." The Noble Lord offered to give her the information privately. When we on this side try to ameliorate the conditions of the people we are met with a point-blank refusal. The Noble Lord also introduced the question as to the unfortunate ex-soldiers who are so broken clown that they are incapable of work. Did his appeal find a response from the party opposite? Suppose we did make a grant of money for these men and suppose we did run an industry at a loss for their benefit, did not this House the other day vote £77,000 a year for travelling expenses for Members of Parliament? Could not we do something for these poor men, who are so injured that they are practically past work in their industry? If the Government will introduce a Vote for that purpose we shall not object to it.
        I would press for this Committee of Inquiry. It would give great confidence to the public, which is greatly concerned
        718
        about these things. They want to know what were the grievances in this strike, and how it was promoted. We were given the names of two men who were said to have brought out the other men. I do not believe that they came out without money behind them. Who provided it? We want a Committee of Inquiry to find out where the truth is. People go home at night, and find that they cannot get back to work the following morning because in the interval there has been a strike. Everybody is disorganised, and the damage clone oh very great. These men who went on strike did not cooperate with their own union, and it was believed that, acting in this Communist manner, they could break down the Underground organisation of London, but they failed. We ought to have an inquiry, and I press strongly for it.
        Mr. KEDWARD: I think it desirable that some reply should be made to the most inflammatory speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). It was a direct incitement to violence. Whether the hon. Member meant- that I do not know, but it is the effect of his speech. It, came rather strangely from a member of the Independent Labour party, who are always preaching the gospel of brotherhood, but the hon. Member has preached the gospel of brotherhood in language of hatred, envy, spite, malice and uncharitableness. I was wondering whether he was making that frantic appeal to his own constituents when he was talking about the flaunting of wealth. There is some measure of truth in it. But when the hon. Member deals with that point he should bear in mind that there is at present a Labour Government in office, and I wonder what the poor men NV h o are getting £2 a week, and fighting ha-rd for it, thought when hon. Members above the Gangway voted to increase the salary of the Lord Privy Seal from £2,500 to £5,000 a year. [Interruption.] If you are going to deal with this question with the langauge of class hatred, then you must apply your principle all round.
        There is no use in challenging men who happen to belong to the capitalist class and possess wealth, and at the same time vote wealth to men who are leaders of the Labour movement in this country. If you really believe the things you say in this House you should set an example. [HON.

        719
        MEMBERS: "What about yourself?"] I am dealing with arguments that are put forward here, and supposed to be listened to, and I am drawing attention to the inconsistency between the fine flamboyant speeches made from the benches above the, Gangway and the action of hon. Members on the front Government Bench. I shall believe more solemnly in this better distribution of wealth when some of the hon. Members make a beginning, and when we have a gesture of a very real sort. I cannot leave this inflammatory speech without making my protest. These men again and again condemn cupidity in the rich, and appeal to precisely the same feelings in the poor. That kind of thing will not advance the Labour movement or any movement. It only means that you take one lot down from the top and put up another lot animated with the same desire. I want to refer to the elaborate promises that were made to broken and disappointed men during the last General Election. [HON. MEMBERS "What about the Liberals?"] I am dealing with the promises made by the Labour party to thousands of these men who are out of work. These promises looked very attractive, and these men find to-day that they have got the things for which they sold themselves in the same way as that in which the mouse gets the cheese—in the trap. You find that you cannot realise any of these beautiful dreams, these promises which lie like a kind of a halo around the head of impotence. I was talking to-day to some ex-service men who, at any rate, were attracted by the promises of what the Labour Government would do. They put their names down for training under the scheme of the Ministry, and they selected training for the building industry, only to wait and wait and get no scheme for training, and now they are told that it is too late to be trained, and they say—
        Mr. HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Motion, which deals with the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour, to raise the question of the training of ex-service men?
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the subject, and perhaps he could keep a little closer.
        Sir S. HOARE: The reduction which has been moved refers to the salary of the Minister of Labour, and it is perfectly open to hon. Members to raise any question whatever on matters which come within the administration of the Minister of Labour, including the training of ex-service men.
        Mr. B. SMITH: I understand that the Debate has followed a certain specific line, and has dealt with something which is called Communism. Is it not out of order for the hon. Member to travel wide of that subject?
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I find that this Vote involves matters connected with the training of demobilised officers, and therefore I think the hon. Member is in order.
        Mr. KEDWARD: I had to tell these ex-service men that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour stood at that Box and said it was a very unfortunate thing, but as far as ex-service men were concerned, their muscles were set, and it was almost impossible to train them for the building industry. When I told these two young fellows that because their muscles were set they could not be trained and that that was the view of the Labour Government, they looked at me in blank astonishment. [Interruption.] I would like to ask whether it is in order for any hon. Member to say I am not speaking the truth?
        Mr. LEE: Can the hon. Member state at what age these men joined the Army, if they are still as young as he describes?
        Mr. KEDWARD: I went to the front with boys who were 17. These men were from 22 to 27 years of age and they are told that they cannot be trained. They gave the years of their life, when they might have been trained and might have been apprenticed to a trade, to defending this country. Some of them were broken in defending it and now you say that nothing can be done for them. There was a saying once. "Too old at 40." Now they are too old at 25 to be trained in the building industry. It should go out to all the ex-service men of this country that men are treated like this. Their muscles were not set when it was a question of carrying a rifle, and it is adding insult to injury for a prominent Minister of the Crown to stand

        721
        at that Box and tell the thousands of men who were broken in that conflict and who lost the opportunity of appreticeship, that they cannot be trained now. I think it was a very grave statement to make. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard it, but I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT next day and found that was really the excuse offered why a vast number of ex-service men could not be brought into the building industry in order to build houses and relieve the people who are sweltering in the slums of this country.
        Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask what has happened to the ex-service men who were trained, by the Government as bricklayers and in other branches of the building trade during 1920? Are not every one of them on the streets to-day? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the unions!" and "Ask the employers!"]
        Mr. KEDWARD: The hon. Member says every one of these men is on the streets. I was speaking to an employer to-day who has a man trained under that scheme, and I will give the hon. Member the name of the employer if he desires. This man knew nothing about the trade before his training, and now that -employer tells me he is the leading hand and the best bricklayer in his employment. That is what has happened to one of them and that is, what would happen to scores more of them, but the Labour party are afraid to take the necessary steps. They encourage trusts on the one hand and close corporations on the other, and in the meantime the people who suffer most are the un-employed and- the people who have been looking in vain for houses.
        Mr. BECKER rose—
        HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
        Mr. BECKER: This is a question which should be discussed, and there is ample time at our disposal in which to discuss it, and I decline to be rushed in what I am going to say. I have not had the pleasure of listening to the whole of this Debate, but I heard the Minister's statement, and I was greatly moved by the pathetic way in which he appealed to the Committee not to reduce his salary by £100. His chief theme was that this Government in five months of office had proved a better Government than any other
        722
        Government for the last 10 years. I do not know why he confined himself to 10 years; he might as well have said 100 years or for that matter 1,000 years, the fact being that the Government have done absolutely nothing.
        Viscount CURZON: The Wash.
        Mr. BECKER: Yes, the work at the Wash is their one monument so far, and I hope they will find some of the jewels which one of the kings lost there. The question has been raised in this Debate as to why the Minister will not institute an inquiry into the recent disastrous strike. We are told that these strikes are inevitable, and that three strikes a year should not be regarded as an overdose. We have only had two up to now as far as transport services are concerned. It is perfectly true that the people of the country, the ordinary citizens, should receive a certain amount of consideration, but hon. Members on the other side seem to take the view that the workers are entitled to more consideration than the general public. The last strike was waged by several different and contending parties, and undoubtedly there was a Communist element among them. I do not say that trade unions are Communistic in their attitude or methods, but there is a strong Communist movement within the unions, and some distinguished Members on the other side have said so, and it has been said that the movement even threatens the security of the unions. We were told during the strike that it was a strike against the unions, that the unions did not want it, but that men who were a menace to the security of trade unionism were bringing out the workers. I think the Communist has a certain amount of reason on his side when he seeks to attack the trade unions. I do not think the Labour party can go to the country and say, "Look at this perfectly good union, which is not calling a strike, and look at these horrible men who are trying to break the union. You must stand behind us, strengthen the unions, and help us to support them." I rather sympathise with the Communist in this matter. I do not sympathise with his views, but, I ask, why should union leaders who, once they are elected, seem to hold their positions for life, be the only people who can call a strike?
        Mr. KIRKW00D: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that what he is stating is not true, and that the trade union leaders cannot call a strike.
        Mr. BECKER: I am sorry I could not understand what the hon. Gentleman said, so I cannot reply to him. But I see no reason why anyone should not call a strike if he has the power to do it. If I were a workman—[Interruption]—I suppose the hon. Members opposite probably have not seen one for a long time—if I were a working man, and worked in a section of the shop which was vital to the factory, if I had power among 10, 20 or 30 men, and said, "Look here, we are going to have certain conditions and better wages. Stand by me: we are going to strike." Why am I not entitled to do so as well as some of the big, pompous individuals, who come down to address the men? That is what is happening. That is the tendency. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The tendency at the moment among Communists is to show the men that some of the trade union leaders who call them selves Socialists do not know anything about it. Now I am coming to the point. The reason I advance why the Minister will not make an inquiry into this matter is because it would disrupt the Government. There are two distinct parties on the Front Bench. You have the real Socialist, who is respected and admired, and the trade unionist. What is going to be the effect of the inquiry? One side of the party, the Socialist side, if they were real Socialists, would not tolerate strikes. Then what would the inquiry do? It would set up a distinct breach in this Parliamentary party. The Socialist and trade unionist interests are two different things: that is why I submit hon. Members opposite do not want an inquiry.
        I think hon. Members will agree there are two distinct trains of thought in the Labour party. I quite understand the outlook of the Socialists, and that it is quite a logical thing to be a Socialist. But I do not see how you can have a party one thing and have the vested interests another. You cannot have an inquiry with vested interests, people who are absolutely dictators, in a way. They cling on to their jobs. On the other side, you have theorists who spend their lives in quite humble living and great thought.
        724
        I do not see how this Government will ever have an inquiry into strikes for similar reasons. I feel certain that, unless the attitude of the Government is going to be a proper Socialistic attitude, instead of a half-and-half three-legged-sort-of-a-dog attitude, we shall have no chance of getting this inquiry, or an opportunity of really finding out and getting at the bottom of this perpetual unrest, and perpetual strikes, and perpetual hold-ups of the people. It is not done for better money, better conditions, but to replace one leader with another, or to superimpose one influence on another. That is what is going on, and unless there is some inquiry so that a finger can be put on the spot, these strikes, one after another, will go on until in the end they will disrupt the delicate organisation with which we built up our trade, that is, our transport.
        Transport is the life blood of this country. It should never be allowed to stop. It does not matter who goes in to stop the transport. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not increase wages, if that is so?"] I am coming to that. I do not see how gentlemen earning something like £3,000 a year can go to these men and say they are earning a starvation wage. The man who can talk about it is the man who is living on it. I myself am only too anxious to see people have good wages. It is disgraceful for a man to be kept on the starvation line all the time and without any other prospect. This country is developing into an old man's country. The young man has very little opportunity. I appreciate this point, and I should like the younger man to have more chance. But how is lie going to do it when he has this octopus on his back and he is told that the minimum wage is so much and the maximum wage so much. How can a country like Great Britain, with 45,000,000 people in. an extraordinary small area, survive without adequate means of transport? I quite agree that the men must be paid a decent wage, but how are the employers going to pay it if there are continual strikes which make them lose money? How can they pay more wages. There should be proper negotiations through the proper channels. There are channels through which agreements are made and they should be stuck to. It is not fair that the agreements should not be stuck to because the men who make them have not

        725
        the power to make the men stick to them. As they go on they will lose their power more and more until they will lose it altogether and this disorganisation, which is so obvious to any onlooker, will get to such a pitch that you will render the whole country prostrate. We shall then have to get a Conservative Minister to rescue the country from the mess into which it has fallen. We shall have someone to go in and make an inquiry in a proper businessike way.
        What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, "I am the finest Minister in the finest Government that has been produced for 10 years, because I am doing nothing. Therefore do not reduce my salary by the £100." As he is doing nothing, he might as well do it on less money. The time will come when this question will have to be look at from a national, sensible point of view, not from the narrow, vested interest point of view of the trade unionists, with people in high office drawing large money and having big motor cars to go to see the men on strike. The time is coming when that has got to stop. You are taking the contributions from the workers, but for what? You are doing exactly the same thing as is said in the arguments put up against the idle rich. Something has got to be done in the very near future, for I am informed that Communism is making vast strides in trade unionism. I am not very anxious to see these people too strong. I want to stop the rot setting in, because until something more convenient can be substituted for trades unions, we want to keep them in being until they can be finally smashed, but we do not want them smashed until there is some better scheme to take their place.
        I suggest such a scheme will be found in proper craft unions, possibly, on Russian lines, but without any vestige of these everlasting class politics in them. I do not want to see unions specially set up for political purposes. Neither do we want to see these flimsy structures replaced by Communists. I ask the Minister, for his own sake, to institute an inquiry into the operations of those Communists. They are a grave menace and a growing danger to this country. Some of them get money from abroad in order to try and disrupt authority, and they start by trying to disrupt the
        726
        weakest authority, which is the political trade union, and, after that, they will try to wreck the whole country. If the Minister wishes to keep his full salary, let him change his mind and order this impartial inquiry. I look on this as a very serious matter. I regard Communism as a sign of rot and cancer in the body politic of this country. Hon. Members opposite should themselves have the courage to support such an inquiry as I am asking for, so that they may squash this bad thing under heel. Let the right hon. Gentleman give way for once. I have never known him give way before, but I think he is a man of honour, and, seeing that the whole safety of the country is at stake, as well as the safety of trade unionism, on which he and his supporters are dependent, let him order an inquiry into this Communist agitation.
        Viscount CURZON: As one who at the last election and the election before was faced by Communists, and as one who represents one of the four Red boroughs left in London, I am glad to have an opportunity of intervening in this Debate. My constituency is one of those which are called "dormitory "constituencies. A great many of the people resident in it work on the other side of the river or "up West," as they call it. They have seen on no fewer than three occasions this year their means of getting to their work impeded by people who have declared more or less unauthorised strikes, and have endeavoured to hold up the transport system of London. This is done with a great object; it is part of a great scheme. I should like the House to realise that these lightning unauthorised strikes are not really spasmodic evidence of dissatisfaction with wages or conditions of labour. If they were the grievances would be represented through the ordinary recognised trade union channels. But these strikes are really part of a great scheme which is aimed at what I may call the vital industries of this country. The promoters of the strikes believe that if they can hold up industries vital to the well-being and welfare of the public they will add to the general sum of misery and discontent.
        Most hon. Members opposite, as well as the Government, are members of the Socialist party. Socialism is a creed of

        727
        despair. It is founded on the misery and discontent of the people. The more misery and the more discontent you find amongst the people generally the more support you will get for the Socialist party and for the more extreme Radical party. I live sufficiently close to my opponents in South Battersea to know what they are after. I refer, of course, to my Red opponents in Battersea, who get their support mainly from Ireland, but who have other resources which they prefer to keep as far as possible in the dark. They have sources of income of which I well know. Hon. Members opposite may think this is a chimera on my part; it is an actual fact. When I find people going about in South Battersea, or just across the border in North Battersea, people who are not in affluent circumstances, when I see them going into public-houses, when they are known to be in possession of large sums of money, it becomes a significant fact, and it should give hon. Members opposite some idea of the power there is behind this Communist movement. I believe hon. Members opposite, who speak honestly, will not venture to deny that there is a definite plot against this country. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) laughs. He has disclaimed, I know, any association with the Communist party. But there are some of us here who doubt his disclaimer. He represents, as I do, one of the few Red Boroughs in London and we know perfectly well that he is in close association with even if he does not belong to the Communist party. We know, too, that whenever any question comes up which touches the Communist party or their interests, he will be on his feet to defend them. I judge people as I find them, and I judge Communists very largely by their friends. I know if I attack any interest with which the Communist party is associated I shall find the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley jumping up and either speaking or interrupting me. I anticipate that, and he should not hesitate to interrupt me.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I shall not hesitate.
        Viscount CURZON: I will invite the hon. Member in his own interest to be a little careful. Some of us on this side
        728
        make a very careful study of him, not only here but outside the House too, and we know that if he does not actually belong to the Communist party, there is nothing that happens ill the trade union world, in the Socialist world, or in the Communist world in the East End of London that he does not know every single thing about. He might not be associated, but he knows all about it, and I say that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is quite one of the most dangerous people in this country.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: Draw your sword!
        Viscount CURZON: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burgh (Mr. Kirkwood) interrupts me. He owes his seat here to the activities of the Red Irish in Glasgow, and of course he interrupts me. To return to my point, here is a definite plot aimed at the life of the great community of London. If the Communists get their way, they will hold up transport and all the essential services London. I have met members of the Communist party as have most Members of this House, and they have been quite open and frank. In fact, I respect those members of the Communist party whom I have met, for their extreme frankness. They are definitely aiming at the destruction of what we would call the Kerenskvs of Labour, what they call the "duds" of the Labour party, and the "duds" of the Labour party comprise most of the people who sit on the Front Government Bench. I put a question yesterday in this House to the Prime Minister, asking whether the Government had definite information with regard to the Communist party. The Colonial Secretary ha: told us on a previous occasion, when there was a great suit in which he was engaged, that he had definite evidence with regard to Communist activities in this country, and the expenditure of money. I do not know whether he has intervened, or whether he intends to intervene, in this Debate, but I cannot imagine a more suitable occasion for his intervention and for him to tell us definitely what grounds he had for making that statement. I know he had grounds, and I cannot imagine a better platform for him to choose than the present occasion. I am perfectly convinced of this, that the Communist party comprise some of the most able and virile elements amongst the supporters of hon. Members opposite. They

        729
        support them, not because they like them, most of them, but because they think it is a very good way of getting power into their hauls. The public in this case have a right to be considered. It is not a question of employer or employed, of fair wages or of unfair wages, of hours or anything of that sort. The public of London, as I know them, only want just one thing, and that is that labour should get a fair remuneration for its services. They would like to sec general agreement reached. The average member of the public is not in the least concerned with our, so to speak, very petty squabbles in this House.
        All that the general public wish to see is a fair arrangement, fair to the worker and employer alike. They want to see that labour is contented and getting its proper remuneration, but they do resent, and will resent at the succeeding election, when one may come, as I hope it will at a not far distant date., the fact that the Government Front Bench, who have the knowledge, as they have admitted—as the right hon. Member for Derby and the Home Secretary have admitted—who know all these things, and apparently, so far as the general public are concerned, they do not lift one little finger to protect or to help them. The public are absolutely helpless in this matter. If the Government continue in their policy of inaction, if Members behind them continue to support them in this, I can tell them that at the last Election and at the Election before I came across many supporters of hon. Members opposite, and if there was one thing that impressed me it was this, that they smelt castor oil round every corner. We have heard a lot about the initials "B.F." Those initials stand for British Fascisti, and if hon. Members want a Fascisti movement to succeed in this country, they cannot do better than submit to the policy advocated from the Front Bench to-day, namely, Do nothing. If the Front Bench continues not to lift hand or foot to protect the public in this country, the public, and the British public of all publics, will not be slow to take measures to protect itself.
        Lieut. - Colonel MEYLER: You are preaching revolution.
        Viscount CURZON: If a Fascisti movement comes into being in this country, you will have it on your slop-chits, as we say in the Navy. It will be
        730
        the inaction of the Government that may bring it into being. I do not want to see a Fascisti movement here. I do not believe it is necessary, but personally I would join it if I were convinced that the Government did not mean to deal with this situation as they ought to deal with it.
        The public have a right to be protected, and will insist on being protected. I will go to my constituency, and I will be able to hold successful meetings there on that one point alone, if on no other, as a Tory member opposed to Socialism. I would invite the Government not hastily to turn down the plea which has been put forward from the Front Opposition Bench. You look at it from a party point of view. You are thinking all the time from a party point of view. May I urge, may I even plead, with hon. Members opposite, to take the reasonable and common-sense view? Let the country know the facts. If they do, the country will judge fairly. I say this, that no strike has the slightest chance of succeeding unless it has the public behind it. Let us know the facts. If labour in London, if railway workers or any other transport workers in London, are badly paid, if they work hours that are too long, let the public have a chance to decide for itself what the right solution should be, but, at any rate, let us have a fair and impartial inquiry, which will let us know exactly where we are, instead of wild statements from the Government. Bench, some saying that they know all about these funds and these secret organisations, and others, like the right hon. Gentleman whose Vote is under discussion, pooh-poohing the whole thing. He knows better than anybody that he is on very thin ice when he does it. He knows better than anyone else on the Government Bench, probably, where these funds come from, what is the organisation behind them, and what their objects are, and I invite hire, in his own interest, to take a long view, because his future is as involved in it as mine is, perhaps, not to turn down hastily the plea which has been brought forward, and to grant the public of London the inquiry for which they have asked. At any rate, let there be action and a promise of action, which they have a right to expect from the Government.
        Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount

        731
        Curzon) has on several occasions in this House—and I do not complain—made attacks on me in connection with the Communist party, and I should like to state exactly where I stand in this matter. It happens that I am a person who believes in communal ownership of the means of life, to be used by the people for the service of the people, and to that extent I am a Communist. I have never joined the Communist party for two simple reasons. I do not believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the dictatorship of monopolies, or the dictatorship of anyone. I believe in democracy, pure and simple. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) always rebukes us when we interrupt her, and r would be very much obliged if she would hold her tongue just for a minute. I said that I believed in communal ownership, and that I believe in democracy. The Communist party believe that you can only secure Socialism or Communism by violent methods. I dissent from that entirely, and I have given hostages to that point of view at three Elections when jingoism has been rife, and I have gone down.
        I have never complained about going down. I stood for what I believe, and I was beaten, but no man—not even the Noble Lord—has a right to charge me with insincerity, and not standing for what I believe. At any rate, the Noble Lord said he was watching me very carefully. I simply say that my record in public life is as clear as his is, and over and over again I have fought elections, and have gone down, on matters of principle. I have done what I wanted to do, and I do not complain. When a man does that, he has no right to complain if people do not agree with him, or if he is beaten in the fight. I have never given it up, and the reason I speak here now is to declare my faith that neither the violence of Communists nor the violence of Imperialists will ever make the world one scrap better than it is. Then the Noble Lord said that in the East End of London I knew everything that was going on, and he inferred that that is a place where the Communist party are strong. It happens that there is not a single Communist branch in Bow and Bromley or Poplar. The Noble Lord said he knows, and has been watching.
        732
        He has been watching to such an extent that he does not know there is not a single Communist branch in the two constituencies that make up the Borough of Poplar.
        Viscount CURZON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? Would he deny that the majority on the Poplar Borough Council are Communists?
        10.0 P.M.
        Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly I deny it. Entirely I deny it, and the Noble Lord is talking sheer, undiluted nonsense, and showing complete ignorance when he says that. The Noble Lord has posed as an authority, as one who knows, and yet he knows nothing about the very simplest elementary truth. That shows the value of the sort of speech to which we have just listened. Further, if the Noble Lord knows anything, he must know perfectly well that the men who organised the late strike wrote to the newspapers, and deliberately repudiated any association with the Communist party. They are not members of the Communist party; they are simply members of the National Union of Railwaymen. He makes statements about Poplar, and he knows nothing about it. He knows nothing about the genesis of the late strike, or he would know that that strike was stared, whatever happened afterwards, out of the fact that for months and years men were suffering under grievances that were not being redressed at all, and their patience was exhausted. The appeal to-night is for an inquiry. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker), when we asked him why this investigation was not set on foot during the late Government's term of office, or that of the Government before, he did not give us an answer. The real reason is that every Home Secretary knows just as well as I know that the Communist party, from the point of view of violent revolution, is absolutely and completely inept. It could not bring off a revolution even in Richmond.
        Mr. BECKER rose—
        Mr. LANSBURY: Richmond does not really count. The fact is that all this talk of a red peril is sheer, undiluted nonsense. There is no red peril. The British workman, as the Committee were told to-night, in language which, if hon. Members can only understand it, gave the clear truth about this. If this House does its job properly in regard to social and

        733
        industrial affairs, there is no possibility of red peril, or red revolution or anything of the kind. It is true what the Committee were told, that this place is on its trial, and I would like to say this to hon. and right hon. Members. We are here occupying the places that men have occupied for centuries, of men who legislated on entirely different questions, and in an entirely different manner from that which is needed to-day. You could not possibly give votes to all the millions of men and women to whom you have given them to-day, you could not educate the people as you are educating them to-day, without this House being called upon to make great changes in the social conditions of the people. It is useless to think that things can remain as they are.
        I will tell you what helped to make me a Socialist. I formerly belonged, in my unregenerate days, to the Liberal party, and I was as enthusiastic then as I hope I am now, and I went canvassing night after night during the period when you had to put people on the register. I went to a door in one of the worst streets in Bromley-by-Bow. I knocked at it, and a woman dressed in a sack came to that door. This was 35 years ago, and the street is just as foul now as it was then. That woman came to the door in a sack in which were holes cut out for her arms to go through, and a hole for her head to go through. She asked me what I wanted. I said, "I want to speak to your husband." She said, "He is not in. What do you want with him?" I said, "I want to know if he is on the register. I want to get him his vote." She swore, and said, "What is the good of the vote to me?" I went home and thought about that, and now I say to you, What is the good of a vote to the poor of this country, if it is not going to be used to alter the conditions of life? Landlords have occupied these benches, and have legislated for their class. Capitalists have occupied them, and they have used their powers to make laws to enable commerce to go free.
        Sir H. CROFT: Who gave them the vote?
        Mr. LANSBURY: What you have to face now is that the common people who have got the vote are clamouring at the door for you to deal with the problems of life that come home to them every day.
        734
        If you fail, then the Communists must have their chance. If we are not able to deal with the social problem, then the Communists will have their way with the ordinary people, and they deserve to have their way, and we shall deserve anything that happens to us. I would like to join with my colleague who made a speech earlier in the night. I am sure that everyone who listened to it must have felt in their hearts that he was speaking truth. I would like to appeal to the Committee as to whether it is not time that we gave up this talk about a small handful of men, a small group of men, many of whom I am proud to think of as friends. After all, I am not ashamed to say you are my friends. Why should I not? These men believe in the thing for which they are fighting. They are only a handful. Instead of trying to hound them out of public life, try to understand them, and try also to understand just this, that we are dominated by party policy.
        The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) Member for one of the divisions of Manchester is continually appealing to us to put housing and unemployment out of the region of party. Why should we not settle down to these questions and argue them out without party bias? We are not prepared to do this because we know our reasoning and our facts will compel you to vote with us and do the things we want done. We are not afraid of a Round Table sort of business to deal with social problems. The last thing I want to say is that you are not the people to complain when other people take up arms. You are not the people to cry shame on those who arm and those who believe in violence and destruction. I sat in this House when Lord Carson, Mr. F. E. Smith, and other men advocated violent, bloody revolution, and organised for it. I tell you hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, you are the people who first started this business of reliance on force; you are the people who told the nation that you had a right to arm when this House was going to pass a law of which you disapproved. What these people do, what the Communists have done, is simply child's play to what you actually did. You raised and drilled an army and broke your oaths. Your Privy Council oaths, the oath you took at the Table. You did it all.

        735
        What for? Not to lift people up; not to lift the load of care from women and children. You know perfectly well that you did it merely because you were opposed to political change. You taught the British people. The late Lord Roberts taught the soldiers, when their conscience told them not to do a certain thing, they had the right to say they would not do it. You told the British people that when a law was passed they disagreed with, they would have an armed rebellion against it. You are reaping what you have sown, but 01.1r people are too intelligent. The ordinary—
        Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. Are hon. Members on this side of the Committee to be permitted to go into this question? I ask your ruling, Sir, whether we are entitled to introduce a large discussion on questions which arose many years ago.
        The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The discussion has been pretty wide, but at the same time I think the hon. Member was coming to his peroration.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I have heard so many stupid statements made that, although I did not intend to make a speech, I could not sit still any longer, and we have roamed from Paris to Peru. We have been charged with every crime under the Decalogue. What I will say is, that the British people, some of whom we represent, and the ordinary common workman, have too much intelligence to follow the example of Galloper Smith, Lord Carson, Lord Londonderry, Lord Balfour and the other men who once sat on these benches, yes—and the Duke of Northumberland too. We are going to use the forms of this House, we are going to alter the forms of this House, and are going to use representative institutions in order fundamentally to change the social and economic conditions of our time. I stand here as a Socialist, one who believes in the communal ownership of the land, the minerals and all the means of life. I would not sit hereamoment to cloak the means with which we hope to attain our ends. We shall get control of the Government and use the Government machinery. I do not mean the control of this or that Government, but we shall be absolutely in power in
        736
        the majority, for the purpose of making laws, as your classes made them in the past,. We shall make them not for the interests of a class but in the interest of the community. I deny that we represent a class. We claim to represent the workers. Later on, we shall represent them in the majority. When you take the workers who work by hand or brain, who is it that counts? We want to see on these benches people representing the majority of the workers, who will use their power, use this House, use this Parliament far the purpose of getting control of the land and all the means of life. Yon represent capitalism, you represent landlordism.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has taken rather longer over his peroration than I expected. He is going a little bit wide of the point. We are discussing strikes.
        Mr. LANSBURY: This is all right. I have told you already, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that I did not come to the House to speak, but I mean to speak now.
        Lord APSLEY: I only wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will explain exactly what he does mean—whether Communism, State control, Government ownership, or does he mean some form of co-operative organisation?
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to answer that question.
        Mr. LANSBURY: We are discussing strikes and the origin of strikes, and I have been endeavouring to explain exactly what I mean. I say that I want industry organised on a basis of service, co-operative service, so that whenever the good things of life are produced those who produce them shall use and share them. That is all. I said just now that hon. Gentlemen opposite belong to the capitalist class, and the simple proof of that is—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better address himself to me.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then keep hon. Members in order on the opposite side.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I was saying also just now that whenever we get anything we do not earn ourselves we get it at the expense of those who do earn it. There is no way of getting rich by writing bits

        737
        of paper. The railwayman works. The man at the docks works. Other classes of workers work; and they have got to carry hon. Members on both sides of the House, and myself, too, on their backs all the time. I want to see that those men who build good houses live in good houses; that those who grow food shall be able to eat what they need of it, and that those who do these various things shall enjoy the results of their labour which, in effect means that all the good things of life which are socially produced shall be socially shared by all those who do the necessary work of the nation—[Interruption and HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN rose—
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: Hon. Members opposite never expected to get it just like that!
        Mr. D. HERBERT: I should like for a few moments to make reference to—[Interruption and HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: You have never kept them in order.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should address me and not hon. Members opposite.
        Mr. HERBERT: I should like to address myself to the question which has been particularly in our minds, that is the method of dealing with strikes. It is only a few days ago that I heard the hon. Gentleman opposite say that neither he nor others had much love for strikes. When they say they object to them I can only believe they mean what they say, that hon. Members opposite hate strikes as much as we do. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I give them credit for what they have said on the point. I should like, however, to ask the Minister why in this matter of strikes and disputes which, after all, whatever may be said about it, is agitating the minds of a great number of people, there should not be the inquiry for which we ask? There can be only one explanation of the attitude which has been taken up in refusing this inquiry, and it has been shown by the speeches of hon. Members opposite. As a matter of fact the Minister of Labour would be only too pleased with the result if such an inquiry showed that there was
        738
        no danger from the International or the Communist party, and he would be equally pleased if the inquiry showed some means of dealing with any influence of that party which existed in this country.
        If that is so, why cannot the Treasury Bench have the courage of their opinions, in spite of the views of some of their followers who are less experienced. It is perfectly clear that the only reason for the refusal of this inquiry is that hon. Members on the back benches opposite do not want an inquiry. If they do not want an inquiry, is it because they think it will be no use or are they afraid of the result? If hon. Members opposite will not give me an answer to that question, then I ask the Minister of Labour to answer it, and say whether he refuses this inquiry merely because he thinks it would do no good, or because he is afraid of the inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman says he refuses because he thinks it will do no good, I will tell him that a large number of people who voted for his party at the last General Election will bitterly regret that there has not been an opportunity for inquiry into this question and they will regret that the Colonial Secretary has not redeemed the promise he made on this subject.
        By this refusal the party opposite have not added to the confidence which will be felt in them by the class they represent. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are now endeavouring to prevent my words being heard. There is the one subject which they have endeavoured to stop being discussed, and they have tried to get it ruled out of order. It is the one subject upon which they have funked discussion, and that is the ex-service men. They have tried to stifle discussion about the grievances of a most deserving class, namely, the ex-service men who are at present out of work. I hope that this will go out to the country and that they will take note of the two most outstanding features to-night at this debate. First, that the Minister has refused this inquiry, that he has given us no good reason for doing so, that his party have done their best to prevent the claim of ex-service men being heard in this House to-night.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I have wondered, having only been in the House a comparatively short time, whether this

        739
        House sometimes assembles for serious work or only for comic work. It is a remarkable thing, and I hope strangers who are in the Gallery will take note of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make that observation. It is quite out of order.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: If I have made an observation which I ought not to make, I apologise, but it is certainly remarkable how hon. Members on the other side can make most sincere speeches on things that they know are sheer profound hypocrisy. There is one thing which appears to have been omitted in the Debate to-night and I am going to assert deliberately omitted. We were treated to a very wonderful harangue by an ex-Attorney-General. What I want to know is whether he and hon. Members opposite were not aware as they must have been aware of this elementary legislative fact, that this House has said that strikes are legal. We start the discussion to-night on the basis that strikes are perfectly legal in this country. What I want to know is, who are we and what authority have we got to defeat that statutory right. How can we inquire into the right to strike, when the right to strike is declared by Statute itself. It would be an absurd impertinence. In spite of the fact that the Conservative party have been for years the authors of all sorts of troubles in the way of strikes, there never has been an attempt on their part to inquire into the cause of the strikes, and the reason is that they were the cause themselves and it is very well known to them.
        They have another reason for wanting an inquiry on this occasion, and it is a malicious and sinister reason. Anyone who has listened to the discussion will have that fact well impressed upon his mind. They have exploited to-night's discussion for the purpose of deliberately throwing upon this party something that they know to be false—deliberately throwing imputations and accusations of Communism for the purpose of trying to drag us through the mud of their own Press to-morrow morning. I am sure those who have been in this House long enough to have heard the sort of speeches the
        740
        ex-Attorney-General has made will realise this. It does not matter what he says so much. He is merely a type. It is the sort of type that when it goes to bed at night sees all sorts of shadows of Communists and Bolshevists running round the room and underneath the bed. It is the sort of type that, when it kneels down to pray, prays to the Lord that He will destroy every Socialist, every Labour man, every Communist and every Revolutionary. When he goes to bed at night he gets all sorts of nightmares of Socialism and when he wakes in the morning he asks the Lord to do away with Socialism and the Labour party. The truth is this. The Conservative party are becoming not only profoundly dissatisfied with, but apprehensive of the longevity of the Government of Labour, and, having refused the workers the right to work, they now want to take away from them the right to strike. There are people on this side of the House who are not Bolshevists. There are people who have unimpeachable political antecedents, and sonic of endeavour, by methods of stability, to work out a means whereby that revolution which you are fearing and which you are bringing on by your tactics may be averted. I belong to the North. I represent what is practically a miners' constituency. Does it lie in the mouth of any representative on those benches to say in sincerity a word in favour of miners after what they have done? The opposition talk about the right to strike. Why are these things done? Why are there strikes? What did you do with the miners? Did you not promise them an inquiry, and if the Commission said the nationalisation of mines was right you would give it to them? What did you do with the mines when you decontrolled them in the very face of the solemn agreement you made with the miners? You people on the other side talk—of course you must talk—
        The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member must not address Members on the other side.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: It is purely due to my Parliamentary ignorance. Hon. Members opposite talk about raising strife. If they would only be fair to themselves, and examine their association with the situation in Ireland in the past, they would sit silent in prayer instead of

        741
        being busy and abusive. A suggestion has been made that there ought to be a two-fold inquiry into the recent tube strike, one branch of the inquiry to investigate the cause of the strike, and the other branch of the inquiry to investigate the means whereby future strikes may be avoided. I hope that the people who read this Debate to-morrow in the country will realise that this House did not simply come into existence last week, and that strikes were not initiated for the first time when we had the recent tube strike. The people in the country will know that a great deal of Parliamentary time has been taken up by hon. Members opposite demanding that we should inquire into the cause of strikes, and they will want to know why the Conservative party, until they thought they could drag us through the mud of Communism, did not deal with the matter years ago.
        Let met demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of hon. Members opposite. They talk about the rights of the public. It is a solecism, the funniest thing I can imagine, to hear hon. Members opposite talk about the rights of the public. What do they mean? They do not know what they mean. However, the phrase looks well in type. Who are the public? If hon. Members come to the county of Durham, they will find that the public in the ratio of 7 to 3 are connected with the mining industry, and I would remind hon. Members that, although they may be Members of Parliament, they are no greater than the smallest member of the public outside. We on this side are fighting for the public. We have been champions of the public rights for many years. [Interruption.] I am not like hon. Members opposite, who stand up and have nothing to say, and then sit down after saying it. The public would long since have got their rights if we had been in office instead of the Conservative party. I do not wear a rough suit. I do not go into the mine. I belong to the most honourable profession in the world. [Interruption.] I belong to a class of people who want to see this country grow greater and greater, and happier and happier. But I warn hon. Members opposite that if they want to avoid the mischief of which they have been the long and active authors they must change their hearts and change their
        742
        minds. The hon. Baronet the other night—
        Sir H. CROFT rose—
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not insist in standing up to speak while the hon. Member for Barnard Castle is addressing the Committee.
        Mr. TURNER - SAMUELS: The hon. Member the other day referred to Liberal Members as lackeys, patient oxen—beasts of burden. Well let me tell him that I would sooner be a beast of burden than a beast of prey. What I cannot understand, and what I am certain the country cannot understand, is this. We have been told about the shibboleth of "labour versus capitalism." That is a very convenient cry of the Conservative party. Anything with poison and malice is quite natural to the Conserative party. What I cannot understand, and no respectable thinking person can understand, is this. Before we came into power the country was told—[Interruption]—that here we have got a pack of thieves and robbers—[Interruption]—who are going to overthrow the Constitution, and now they find that we are not prepared to overthrow the Constitution, because we are nursing it, cultivating it,
        Mr. FERGUSON rose—
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must try to restrain himself.
        Mr. FERGUSON: I am restraining myself.
        Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to describe lion Members as "thieves and robbers"? [HON. MEMBERS: He did not!"] He was pointing at these benches when he used the words "thieves and robbers."
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is mistaken. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that hon. Members on his side of the House had been so described by hon. Members on the other side.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I ask hon. Members to try to listen to reason for once. We are trying to cultivate the Constitution, and we do not want the country to be destroyed, because we intend that this country is going to be the inheritance of our people. We do not want any revo-

        743
        lotions in this country, and so long as the Labour party are in office there will be no revolution in this country. The only chance there ever was of a revolution was when the Conservative party were in office, and the only reason why the Leader of the Opposition went to the country last year was because he wanted to avoid the advent of revolution, by his going out of office.
        Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Have any of the references made by the hon. Member for the last seven minutes anything to do with this Vote?
        Mr. MONTAGUE: On a further point of Order. May I ask who began to waste time in the Committee this afternoon?
        The CHAIRMAN: The whole discussion during the last hour seems to have gone pretty wide of the Vote.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: Moreover, Mr. Chairman, what can you expect of the pupil when he gets such examples from his teachers opposite?
        Mr. FERGUSON: This attempt to do Harry Lauder out of a job is a disgrace to the House.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: We on tins side do not want to do anybody out of a job, we want to put people in jobs. I ask hon. Members opposite if they did not hear to-day a speech by an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow, who is constantly being referred to as a "wild man"? Could anyone have listened to a more sober, earnest and sincere appeal? That hon. Member told us what happened in Kelvingrove, and in conclusion I ask hon. Members on the other side not to be responsible for making every city in this country another Kelvingrove.
        Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope not to take up more than five minutes of the time of the Committee, and I hope not to imitate the vivacious, but rather irrelevant. Debate to which we have been listening for a considerable part of this sitting. My sole object is to remind those hon. Members, who care to have their memories recalled to it, of what we are voting upon, before the Division takes place. I have listened to many speches with great pleasure, and to others with
        744
        pleasure that was, perhaps, not so great. I congratulate, if I may be permitted to do so, my right hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbary), who spent the best part of his days in the Liberal party, and whom, we hope, we shall see in the Liberal party again. In any ease, so far as these two Gentle men are pleading for the "gingering up" of the Government towards social reform, they are quite in conformity with the work we have been doing during the last six months.
        Here, however, we are confined to a much narrower proposition, namely, the Motion which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). That Motion does not, as some people seem to imagine, propose definitely that we should vote for an inquiry into a strike, or into any strike. Many of us are quite prepared to vote for an inquiry into strikes, and any special Motion for an inquiry with a view to possible legislation in connection with these most disastrous industrial disputes would, I can assure hon. Members opposite, receive considerable sympathy from Members on this side of the House. That is not the Motion that is now before the Committee, and it is not the Motion on which we shall be called upon to vote. The Motion is a Vote of Censure on the Minister of Labour. It is a Motion for the reduction of the salary which is voted for the Minister of Labour, and it is a Motion which, by all constitutional precedent—which we on this side have no intention of breaking without protest—must, if it be carried, mean the resignation of the Minister of Labour. We are never going to allow, as long as we can protest, the position that the Executive shall be independent of the legislator—that the legislator can carry reductions in the salaries of Ministers without the Ministers at the same time resigning.
        Therefore, the question comes to my mind whether, on this particular question and on this particular issue, my friends and myself should vote for the resignation of the Minister of Labour. If the Minister of Labour does evil, we shall be only too prepared to move a Motion for the reduction of his salary, but this Motion is specific. It is in connection with what he did or did not do in connection with

        745
        the strike on the London tubes a few days ago; and I have been wondering to myself what exactly hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have done that would have been different from what the Minister of Labour has done, and what they have put in their programme or in their speeches to-day whien would lead us to think that, if they had been in the position of my right hon. Friend—whom I have freely criticised in the past, and am prepared to criticise again in the future—they would have been enabled to say that he ought to resign. I have listened for seven hours to occasional intermittent dealings with that particular subject, and I have not heard one single argument which leads me personally, apart from any connection with party interests, to say that the Minister of Labour has either been guilty of sins of omission or of commission which would lead me to demand to-night his resignation. We have heard a lot about Communism in Poplar, we have had the vague, wild, most foolish, vivacious, and
        most humorous speeches: we have had references to "beasts of prey" as contrasted with "beasts of burden." We have had a response, for the first, time, to an appeal made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to the Front Bench to keep quiet in order that the Committee might hear the rhetorical efforts of the Back Benches—an appeal which has to some extent been justified, and now my final conclusion in this matter is that we should not vote for this Amendment. We are not asked to vote for a Committee of Inquiry. We are not asked to express an opinion on a specific act done or not done by the Minister. We are asked to reduce his salary. I see no reason for voting for that, and I propose to urge my hon. Friends around me not to support the proposed reduction.
        Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,560,239, be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 245.

        Division No. 111.]

        AYES.

        [10.59 p.m.

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

        Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

        Kindersley, Major G. M.

        Ainsworth, Captain Charles

        Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

        King, Captain Henry Douglas

        Apsley, Lord

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

        Lamb, J. Q.

        Ashely, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

        Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

        Deans, Richard Storry

        Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

        Astor, Viscountess

        Dudgeon, Major C. R.

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

        Atholl, Duchness of

        Edmondson, Major C. R.

        Lumley, L. R.

        Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

        Edmondson Major A. J.

        M'Connell, Thomas E.

        Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

        Eleveden, Viscount

        MacDonald, R.

        Balfour, George (Hamspstead)

        Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

        Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

        Barnston, Major Sir Harry

        Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

        Makins, Brigadler-General E.

        Becker, Harry

        Ferguson, H.

        Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

        Forestier-Walker, L.

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

        Berry, Sir George

        Galbraith, J. F. W.

        Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

        Betterton, Henry B.

        Gates, Percy

        Meller, R. J.

        Blades, Sir George Rowland

        Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

        Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

        Blundell, F. N.

        Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

        Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

        Bourne, Robert Croft

        Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

        Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

        Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

        Guest, Capt. Hn. F.E. (Glousestr., Stroud)

        Moles, Thomas

        Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

        Guiness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

        Brass, Captain W.

        Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

        Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

        Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

        Burman, J. B.

        Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

        Butt, Sir Alfred

        Harland, A.

        Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

        Calne, Gordon Hall

        Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

        Oman, Sir Charles William C.

        Cassels, J. D.

        Hartington, Marquess of

        O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

        Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

        Penny, Frederick George

        Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

        Hennessey, Major J. R. G.

        Perring, William George

        Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

        Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

        Raine, W.

        Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

        Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

        Rankin, James S.

        Chamberlin, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

        Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

        Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

        Clarry, Reginald George

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

        Remer, J. R.

        Clayton, G. C.

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

        Rentoul, G. S.

        Cobb, Sir Cyril

        Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

        Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

        Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.

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

        Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, (Hereford)

        Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

        Horne, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

        Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

        Cope, Major William

        Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

        Ropner, Major L.

        Cory, Sir Clifford

        Huntingfield, Lord

        Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

        Illife, Sir Edward M.

        Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

        Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

        Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

        Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

        Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

        Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

        James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

        Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

        Curzon, Captain Viscount

        Jephcott, A. R.

        Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

        Dalkeith, Earl of

        Joyson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

        Shepperson, E. W.

        Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

        Kay, Sir R. Newbald

        Simms, Dr John M. (Co. Down)

        Kedward, R. M.

        Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

        Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

        Winfrey, Sir Richard

        Smith-Carington, Neville W.

        Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.

        Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

        Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

        Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

        Wise, Sir Fredric

        Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

        Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

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

        Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

        Wragg, Herbert

        Spero, Dr. G. E.

        Waddington, R.

        Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

        Stanley, Lord

        Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

        Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

        Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

        Warrender, Sir Victor

        Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

        Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Sutcliffe. T.

        Wells, S. R.

        Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and

        Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

        Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

        Colonel Gibbs.

        Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

        NOES

        Ackroyd, T. R.

        Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

        Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

        Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

        Groves, T.

        Maxton, James

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

        Grundy, T. W.

        Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

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

        Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

        Middleton, G.

        Alstead, R.

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

        Mills, J. E.

        Ammon, Charles George

        Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

        Mond, H.

        Aske, Sir Robert William

        Harbord, Arthur

        Montague, Frederick

        Attlee, Major Clement R.

        Hardle, George D.

        Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

        Ayles, W. H.

        Harris, John (Hackney, North)

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

        Baker, Walter

        Harris, Percy A.

        Moulton, Major Fletcher

        Banton, G.

        Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

        Muir, John W.

        Barclay, R. Noton

        Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

        Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

        Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

        Hastings, Sir Patrick

        Murray, Robert

        Barnes, A.

        Haycock, A. W.

        Murrell, Frank

        Batey, Joseph

        Hemmerde, E. G.

        Naylor, T. E.

        Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

        Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

        Nichol, Robert

        Birkett, W. N.

        Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

        Nixon, H.

        Black, J. W.

        Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

        O'Grady, Captain James

        Bondfield, Margaret

        Hillary, A. E.

        Oliver, George Harold

        Bonwick, A.

        Hindle, F.

        Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Hirst, G. H.

        Owen, Major G.

        Briant, Frank

        Hobhouse, A. L.

        Paling, W.

        Broad, F. A.

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

        Palmer, E. T.

        Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

        Hodges, Frank

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Buchanan, G.

        Hoffman, P. C.

        Perry, S. F.

        Buckle, J.

        Hogge, James Myles

        Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

        Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

        Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

        Phillipps, Vivian

        Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

        Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

        Ponsonby, Arthur

        Cape, Thomas

        Hudson, J. H.

        Potts, John S.

        Chapple, Dr. William A.

        Isaacs, G. A.

        Pringle, W. M. R.

        Charleton, H. C.

        Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

        Raffan, P. W.

        Clarke, A.

        Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

        Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

        Climle, R.

        Jewson, Dorothea

        Rathbone, Hugh R.

        Cluse, W. S.

        John, William (Rhondda, West)

        Raynes, W. R.

        Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

        Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

        Rea, W. Russell

        Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

        Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

        Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

        Compton, Joseph

        Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

        Richards, R.

        Comyns-Carr, A. S.

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Costello, L. W. J.

        Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

        Ritson, J.

        Cove, W. G.

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

        Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

        Crittall, V. G.

        Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

        Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

        Darbishire, C. W.

        Kennedy, T.

        Romeril, H. G.

        Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

        Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

        Rose, Frank H

        Dickson, T.

        Kenyon, Barnet

        Royle, C.

        Duckworth, John

        Kirkwood, D.

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

        Dukes, C.

        Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

        Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

        Duncan, C.

        Lansbury, George

        Scurr, John

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Laverack, F. J.

        Seely, Rt. Hn. Maj.-Gen. J.E.B. (I.of W.)

        Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

        Law, A.

        Sexton, James

        Egan, W. H.

        Lawrence, Susan (East Ham. North)

        Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

        Lawson, John James

        Sherwood, George Henry

        Falconer, J.

        Leach, W.

        Shinwell, Emanuel

        Finney, V. H.

        Lee, F.

        Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

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

        Lessing, E.

        Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

        Foot, Isaac

        Linfield, F. C.

        Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

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

        Livingstone, A. M.

        Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

        Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

        Loverseed, J. F.

        Smith, T. (Pontefract)

        Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

        Lowth, T.

        Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

        George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

        Lunn, William

        Snell, Harry

        Gibbins, Joseph

        McCrae, Sir George

        Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

        Gillett, George M.

        M'Entee, V. L.

        Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

        Gorman, William

        Macfadyen, E.

        Spence, R.

        Gosling, Harry

        Mackinder, W.

        Stamford, T. W.

        Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

        Madan, H.

        Starmer, Sir Charles

        Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

        Mansel, Sir Courtenay

        Stephen, Campbell

        Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

        March, S.

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

        Greenall, T.

        Marks, Sir George Croydon

        Stranger, Innes Harold

        Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

        Marley, James

        Sturrock, J. Leng

        Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

        Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

        Sullivan, J.

        748

        749

        Sutton, J. E.

        Warne, G. H.

        Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

        Tattersall, J. L.

        Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

        Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

        Terrington, Lady

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

        Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

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

        Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

        Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

        Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

        Windsor, Walter

        Thornton, Maxwell R.

        Weir, L. M.

        Wintringham, Margaret

        Thurtle, E.

        Welsh, J. C.

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

        Tinker, John Joseph

        Westwood, J.

        Wright, W.

        Tout, W. J.

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

        Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

        Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

        Whiteley, W.

        Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

        Turner, Ben

        Wignall, James

        Turner-Samuels, M.

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

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Viant, S. P.

        Williams, Daivd (Swansea, E.)

        Mr. Spoor and Mr. John

        Vivian, H.

        Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

        Robertson.

        Wallhead, Richard C.

        Williams, Lt.-col. T. S. B. (Kennington)

        Original Question again proposed.
        Several hon. Members rose—
        It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next (30th June).

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [24th June ] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Expenses.)
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—[Captain Viscount Curzon.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'placed,' in line 26, stand part of the Bill."
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): When the House adjourned the discussion on this Bill we had under consideration the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), which proposed to omit the Clause providing for the expenses of this Bill, as I think the Noble Lord himself appreciates, it is impossible at this point to reconsider the financial basis of the Bill, and we cannot meet him by removing the charge altogether from the Road Fund, but, if I understand his position, he also desires some undertaking that this House will have a proper opportunity of criticising proposed expenditure and reviewing expenditure which has been made. This also is the purpose of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris), and I think that so long as the object is secured, the hon. Member would not press the
  750
  exact words of his Amendment. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said:
  "I am not so much concerned whether this money conies from the Treasury or the Road Fund, but I am Concerned about the control of Parliament over this expenditure, and I shall certainly vote for this proposal if I do not get some assurance from the Minister of Transport on this point."
  I would like to say that I entirely agree with my right hon. friend. It was always my intention to show the staff and expenses used in connection with this Committee on my estimates, and to get approval of the House for theirs. I have examined the matter fully since the House discussed the question, and I find that, without any Amendment, the practice would be to submit an Estimate, I will be quite specific on the point. The position is as follows: If the Clause passes in its present form, the procedure in connection with the expenditure will be as follows: The estimates of the Ministry will include all expenses which are to be borne by the Road Fund under the Clause, including any expenses incurred by the Advisory Committee on holding inquiries or otherwise, and the salaries and other expenses of the Ministry's officers who are placed at the disposal of the Committee. So far as staff is exclusively engaged on work in connection with this Clause the estimates will provide separately for them. As regards staff which is partly employed, in this connection the estimates will indicate approximately the proportion chargeable to the Road Fund in this connection. These amounts will be shown again in the Appropriation-in-Aid Subhead as recoveries from the Road Fund, and could be shown as a separate item in that Subhead. The result, therefore, will be that all the expenditure in question will be open to Parliamentary criticism and will require Parliamentary sanction just in the same way as the estimates of any

  751
  public Department of expenditure which is not recoverable from outside I think it would be very difficult—I am not sure that it would not be impossible—to devise words which would be inserted in this Clause at this stage of the Bill, but I hope that the House will accept my assurance and the undertaking I have just given.
  Viscount WOLMER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we are to understand that it would be possible to move the reduction of the vote in respect of any particular item, and get that reduction against the Government?
  Viscount CURZON: The undertaking that the Minister has given is, I think, satisfactory. I object to the Road Fund, which is found by one form of traffic having to bear all the expenditure. I realise it would be impossible, as the Minister has said, to draft any Amendment which would be in order, in order to carry out my intention. I feel that the undertaking that the Minister has given should be satisfactory, inasmuch as it will re-establish Parliamentary control in this particular matter. It may be that he will not be able to give an assurance that will be binding on the Government, but I ask that he should give the House an assurance that the procedure adopted under this Bill will not be taken as a precedent for future legislation of a similar character. I do not want to press my Amendment, because it would only have the effect, if carried, of wrecking the Bill.
  Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: I am not at all satisfied with the assurance given by the Minister. I trust that my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Amendment. The The Road Fund—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up"!]—originally was for the purpose of finding the money for the improvement of the roads. Subsequently it was devoted partly to their maintenance. It is very unfair to saddle motorists with the cost of the local administration of the traffic. I understand that at the present time Advisory Committees are being formed at Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow; and if the Road Fund had to bear the cost of maintenance of the traffic in London the centres also will ask for their ad-
  752
  ministrative expenses out of the Road Fund. I want to be quite clear on this: that if the Amendment be withdrawn that the Road Fund shall not be saddled with these additional expenses. I should also like to put this point: that there should be no attempt made to prevent motor omnibuses competing successfully with the tramcars. It is quite clear from the Bill that that may be the result. In certain circumstances tramcars will be given preference over omnibuses, and I should like an additional assurance that the money of the Fund will not be used as against the omnibuses.
  Lieut-Colonel Sir F. HALL: In relation to Clause 14 I should like to follow up the suggestion of my noble Friend that the Minister should undertake between now and when the Bill is introduced into another place that an alteration should be made so as to carry out the suggestions put forward. The House will appreciate the fact that the Road Fund is money contributed by a certain part of the community, namely, out of motor taxation; and if motorists fad that they are bearing a larger, or considerable, portion of the expenditure of the Ministry of Transport, I cannot help thinking that the House as a whole will not think that it is fair or reasonable. Anyone who has taken the trouble to attend the Committee upstairs will know that the efforts of my noble Friend were directed to improving the Bill so far as possible. That is what he is desirous of doing now. I am only suggesting to the Minister that if any cases have to be taken to the Courts, it will be that Bill or Act, and not statements made in this House that will be taken as a guide. It would be a great deal better, more advisable, and more in consonance with the general carrying through of the Measures in this House if the Minister would say here and now that he is prepared to insert the words necessary to carry out the suggestions that have been made. If that could be done, I feel satisfied all parties would agree to it. I see no difficulty about a Clause being drafted to carry out the suggestions which have been made by the Minister of Transport.
  Mr. GOSLING: I cannot add anything to the statement which I have just made.
  Viscount CURZON: Does the undertaking given mean that, in the case of

  753
  other cities and other legislation, this precedent will not be followed, and that the Government will not take advantage of other funds raised for specific purposes to defray the cost of administration under this scheme?
  Mr. GOSLING: I must ask the noble Lord to be satisfied with what I have stated.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'placed' in line 26, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment made: in page 17, line 26, after the word "servants" insert the words "of the Ministry of Transport"—[Mr. Gosling.]
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. P. Harris:—"In page 17, line 28, after the word "to insert the words "be approved by Parliament and."
  Mr. P. HARRIS: I am satisfied that the undertaking which has been given will be binding not only on the present Ministry of Transport but also on future Ministries. These undertakings are generally regarded as binding on the Departments concerned and once an Estimate is prepared by any Department, the Public Accounts Committee would challenge the absence of a similar Estimate. Personally I would prefer it if the funds were provided out of the Consolidated Fund in the ordinary way. We have, however, had a very long struggle over this Bill. I do not like it, but I think it is rather late to send the Bill back to go through all the process again. I agree with the Noble Lord that it is very undesirable to have the Road Fund diverted to a purpose for which it was never intended. I go further, and think that it provides a very unsatisfactory precedent—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have now passed that point.
  Mr. HARRIS: I am prepared not to move my Amendment on the assurance of the Minister.
  Captain BENN: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.
  Captain BENN: I beg to move, in page 17, line 28 after the word "shall," to in-
  754
  sert the words "be approved by Parliament and."
  I want to ask what exactly is the objection to the insertion of these words. I am perfectly satisfied with the Minister's assurance, and am perfectly certain that so long as he is in his position it will be fulfilled to the letter, but it may be that he will not be in that position, and I should like him to tell us exactly what is the objection to these words "be approved by Parliament." If there is a valid objection, I, of course, go no further, but I should like to have an answer to that question, and therefore, pro forma, I have moved the Amendment.
  Mr. GOSLING: The words are redundant and unnecessary. I have given an undertaking, and that undertaking will be carried out as far as I am concerned, but, of course, I cannot bind others.
  Viscount WOLMER: I understood the Minister to say that the course to be followed is not a special arrangement, but is the normal course,, and that it is sufficient for our purpose.
  Mr. PRINGLE: As my name is attached to this Amendment, I think I may be allowed to explain why it was not moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). The Amendment was put down, not because it was the best way of achieving the purpose we had in view, but for the purpose of raising the question of Parliamentary control. My own view is that it is a bad way of doing it. If this were inserted in the Clause, a great many awkward questions would arise as to how approval was to be given, and it would also give a certain amount of authority to another place, which we never do in matters of finance. Consequently, when the Minister indicated that he would place the Estimate for the administration of this new Department on the Ministry of Transport Vote, giving all details and including an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Road Fund, we felt that Parliamentary control was being maintained. There are precedents, as the Noble Lord has just said. When the Roads Bill was going through the House in 1920, some question arose with regard to the Road Fund, and a similar arrangement was made by Sir Eric Geddes on that occasion, as a result of which the administration of the Road Fund is borne on the

  755
  [Mr. Pringle.]
  Ministry of Transport Vote, and any Member of the House can raise a question in regard to the administration of the Road Fund.
  It rests purely on a Parliamentary undertaking, and that is not the only case in which a Parliamentary undertaking given by a Minister whose official life has not been long, is honoured by his successor. There was another example in the present Session. A question arose as to Parliamentary control over the commutation of the Rodney pension. When the question of these perpetual pensions was before Parliament in 1889, the issue was raised whether the House of Commons would be able to discuss and reject any proposal for commutation in regard to perpetual pensions, and an undertaking was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date: and, because that undertaking was given, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to have a discussion in the House of the terms of commutation of the Rodney pension. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) decided, after considering the whole matter, that he would not trouble the House with it, but he had the right to obtain a discussion, and the House would be able to reject the proposal if it thought it desirable to do so. There we have examples of the value of undertakings. A great part of our financial procedure rests on customs and undertakings of that kind, and I think it is well that we should adhere to this valuable tradition of the House and maintain its financial control on that basis.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I entirely agree that in the object we all have in view the particular words of the Amendment are not the best method of meeting it. The Minister has made a very clear statement but the most important thing he has said was his reference to what was the practice, and that in the ordinary custom these things would come before Parliament as one of the ordinary methods of procedure. The Minister, I think, was a little taken by surprise. He did not give a definite answer to my noble Friend's question asking for an assurance that this should not be used as a precedent in case of a similar traffic Bill for Manchester, Leeds or other big towns. I am anxious to get the Bill through but my point is one of control over
  756
  expenditure. I am not satisfied that in larger matters than this the control of this House over expenditure should rest simply upon established practice, which apparently may be departed from if some Minister in future chooses so to do. In any case the expenditure in regard to this Bill is probably a very small matter, therefore I do not want to press it unduly, but even if I should not perhaps go so far as to ask the Minister for a definite undertaking on the subject I ask the House generally to see to it that the precedents which we are adopting for the purpose of getting the Bill through to-night shall never be followed in future. It is an unconstitutional method of doing it. There is one way only in which, according to our constitutional practice, the expenses ought to be provided for in a Bill of this kind. That is that they should be provided for out of monies provided by Parliament under a Clause based upon a financial Resolution, and even if the Minister is not prepared to say mole about it now I hope he will take the opportunity if he is asked, as I shall hope to be able to ask him on the Third Reading, to give an assurance that he accepts the arrangement which we are making to-night as one made under exceptional circumstances to get the Bill through and one which shall never be made use of as a precedent even if it is in an absolutely similar Bill for such a place as Manchester or Liverpool.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May I answer my hon. Friend's point, I think he need be under no fear that this will form a precedent in the case of Manchester or Liverpool or any City. That would be a private Bill.
  Viscount CURZON: I want the Minister to give us an assurance not only in the case of any other City. I want to be quite clear that the arrangement arrived at tonight, as I hope it will be accepted, will not be accepted as forming a precedent in the case of any other analogous legislation. There may be other Bills before the House embodying provisions of a very similar character where, say, an insurance fund can be raided in order to provide for the cost of a Department and thereby enable the matter to pass behind the back of Parliament. I want to he quite clear that this precedent will not be followed in the ease of other legislation. I should like him also to give an assurance on the

  757
  Third Reading that he will not make further inroads upon the Road Fund for purposes for which it never was set up. I shall be quite satisfied if he will tell me he will consider the point and deal with it on the Third Reading.
  Mr. GOSLING: I can give an undertaking that I will not make such inroads.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Definitions.)
  Amendments made: In page 17, line 43, at end, insert the words
  "The expression 'borough' includes 'metropolitan borough'."
  In page 18, line 3, after the word "car," insert the words "or trolley vehicle."
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Gosling:
  In page 18, line 5, at the end, to insert the words
  "The expression 'trolley vehicles' means a mechanically-propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by electrical power transmitted thereto from some external source."
  Viscount CURZON: Is it wise for the Minister to specify for mechanically-propelled vehicles to be driven by "electrical power" only? We are in a mechanical age, and invention proceeds very fast. Is it wise to specify the power which is to be used?
  Mr. GOSLING: I cannot meet that point by leaving out the word "electrically."
  Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 5, at end, insert the words
  "The expression 'trolley vehicle' means a mechanically-propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by power transmitted thereto from some external source."—[Mr. Gosling.]

  CLAUSE 16.—(Short Title and Commencement.)
  Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move in page 18, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
  "(2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.
  Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment previously incurred under this Act or under any regulations made under this Act or affect any legal proceeding or
  758
  remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, and any such legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, or continued, or enforced, and such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not expired."
  I understand that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, and I hope the House will approve of it. I think right hon. and hon. Members are agreed that this is only a temporary Measure. The former Minister of Transport, the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) never regarded it as permanent legislation. I was a member of a deputation which waited upon him and lie made it clear that this was a Bill to meet a particular emergency and without prejudice to any future reform of Local Government in London. The Bill has been subjected to a good deal of criticism from this side of the House, in which I have joined, and still I do not like it. Whatever may be our opinions about the fundamental principle of the Bill, we are agreed that it ought to be regarded as temporary legislation to carry us over a period of emergency and that its period of operation ought to be such as will enable this or some other Government to give attention to the reform of local government of Greater London, with a view to merging the powers conferred in this Bill and certain other powers conferred upon specialised authorities, and placing thorn upon some properly elected authority for Greater London. I think a limitation of three years is ample, and I hope that before those three years have expired the existing chaotic, undignified system of local government which we have in Greater London will be seriously looked into and that fundamental reforms will be introduced with a view to giving the people of London the right to control their own public services.
  Mr. GOSLING: This Bill is very largely an experiment, and in these circumstances I accept the Amendment.
  Viscount CURZON: I very much regret that the Minister should have hastened to accept an Amendment such as this, which was heartily opposed in the Committee, without waiting to hear the arguments that might be presented against it. If this Amendment be accepted, how will it be possible to arrive at any businesslike arrangement under this Bill? Many Members are anxious to reserve the

  759
  rights of the small man who may try to operate vehicles under this Bill. He must, of necessity, know where he is, and be able to make business arrangements under this Bill. How can he do that if he knows that in three years' time, unless Parliament decides otherwise, which is always a matter of uncertainty, the whole of this Bill will come to an end automatically and the whole of the traffic of London will be thrown into a state of still greater chaos? I have doubts with regard to a great deal of this Bill, but bad as it may be we have, at any rate, the prospect of doing something to straighten out the traffic of London.
  If this Bill is to come automatically to an end in three years, you are going to throw the whole London traffic into the melting pot. What about hon. Members opposite who speak for gas works or electric lighting companies? What is going to be their views of a Bill which imposes severe restrictions now, and in three years' time lets the whole thing go back? If this Amendment is passed it will necessitate a fresh Act in three years' time to continue the operation of this Act. If we think this Bill worth passing now the need will be doubly great in three years' time when the traffic conditions will be aggravated beyond what they are to-day. It would be madness to pass a restrictive Clause of this sort. If there is one thing required in dealing with London traffic it is elasticity. If this Amendment be carried the Minister and his successors will be unable to make arrangements with any elasticity because in three years' time down will come the closure and the Act will be done away with, whether it prove good or bad. That is not businesslike and I oppose the Amendment.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: I am glad the Minister at last makes some concessions. I moved an Amendment in similar terms in Committee, and pressed it very hard with the object of having this Bill made a temporary measure. It is some satisfaction now to know that this is not to be permanent legislation, but I am not over sanguine that this Amendment carries us very far. My experience is that once a Bill of this kind is on the Statute Book, Governments have a way of taking the line of least resistance, either by renewing it or putting it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is, however, satisfactory to have this provision in the Bill,
  760
  and I thank the Minister for making this concession, even though it is done at the eleventh hour—or half-past the eleventh hour. I hope the insertion of this limitation in the Bill will be some guarantee that the Government are going to face the whole problem of London government. One of the reasons for my strong objection to the Bill is that I consider the very fact of its passage will make more difficult the reform of London government, which is the real, sane, proper way of dealing with the traffic difficulty.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I trust the House will not allow the question of London Government to be dragged into this discussion and will not decide this matter on the views expressed with regard to that subject. I will not discuss it further than to refer to the hope expressed by the Mover of the Amendment that the time would come within three years when London would manage its own affairs. I am desirous that London should manage its own affairs but I do not think that London should manage the affairs of Watford. I am anxious moreover to see that so far as possible it shall secure a gradually increasing improvement in the traffic conditions around London. It would be a fatal blot on the Bill if it were limited to three years, so that it would be possible at the end of that period for its operations simply to come to an end, with nothing to take its place. I hope those who are interested in improving the conditions of traffic will see that the best thing to do is to leave this Measure on the Statute Book: then if and so far as it does not act, there will be a real demand from the Government of the time for its improvement. I ask the Minister to allow the House the opportunity to express the view that there should be no statutory limitation put into the Bill as to its duration and that it should be left to stand there with all its faults open to the world as a standing challenge to future Governments to see if they cannot do something better than the present Government.
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not think the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) need excite himself about this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) that when a Bill of this sort gets on to-the Statute Book it may be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuous Acts for many

  761
  years For example, I believe the Motor Car Act really expired in 1000 and it is the foundation of a great deal of the trouble which has led to this Bill but along with a great many other Acts, it is revived every year. I would not mind betting the hon Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—that there is not the slightest prospect of the question of London government being tackled within the next three years. Personally I should rejoice if it were, as I think hon. Members opposite would be much better employed in tackling questions of that sort rather than some of the schemes that are dear to their hearts So, from every point of view, as a Conservative and one who believes in moderate legislation and feeling one's way and not making fundamental drastic changes by Act of Parliament, I think it is a wise thing to limit the duration of this Bill, and I hope during the next two years hon. Members opposite will devote a great deal of attention to London government and we shall be able to review the subject when the Act expires. From the point of view of the interests I have tried to voice and that of watching the combine, it is an exceedingly desirable thing this question should come up in debate in two years' time. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea, has tried to make out that this Clause is going to injure the competitors of the combine. I do not think that is the case. If the Act expired and nothing took its place the small man would only be in the position he is now, that is, he would enjoy the ordinary privileges of a citizen of the land. The privileges that are conferred upon the combine come from this Bill and therefore I do not think the small competitor may fear the temporary nature of this Bill. Therefore I shall be regretfully compelled to vote against my Noble Friend if it be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. BECKER: I have the greatest and utmost respect for the Minister of Transport; in fact he has endeared himself to all our hearts, and I rise therefore with trepidation to criticise his action in agreeing to this three years' limit to the Bill. If he were a Socialist, which I am sure he is not, he would jump at this opportunity of perpetuating State control of such a thing even as traffic. It is a step on the way. Here we find that at the very first opportunity of getting a
  762
  grip on something which it is vital to get a grip of the Minister, without really thinking about it, suddenly saying he will agree to relax that opportunity, which is one of the things the Labour Party continually have been arguing for. What can be the reason of the Minister for jumping to this conclusion? I hope he is going to retract what he said. Perhaps it is that the Ministry of Transport is almost ready to be wound up, and ho feels that his Department will not be able to control the traffic under this Bill, because if not, there is no reason why the Minister in a Labour Government should not be in agreement to keep this control in perpetuity. What is the Party's attitude on this matter? Here is an opportunity, hon. Members will agree, to nationalise the control of the traffic. I really think that in all parts of the House, perhaps from different motives, there ire hon. Members who would like to see this made a permanent Bill, and not merely a patched up measure to last a short period. Possibly the Minister anticipates that he and the party to which he belongs will have an opportunity of extending the boundaries of London so as to cover the area brought under the jurisdiction of this Bill. I think it is very unlikely; I do not believe there is any possibility of it, and therefore I beseech the right bon. Gentleman to allow this Bill, so far as London traffic is concerned, to be placed on the Statute Book without any necessity for including it year after year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  12 M.
  Sir F. HALL: It may interest hon. Members to know that until this Bill was brought forward—it was taken over for the last Govt—we who represent London in this House never suggested that we wanted this legislation for a few weeks only to deal with the enormous congestion of London traffic. We wanted the question properly dealt with. This subject has been under consideration for the last 70 or 80 years, by Parliamentary Committees and other bodies, but this is the first time we have had any Measure brought forward to endeavour to do away with the terrible congestion in London. The Metropolis has a population of 7,000,000 which is increasing and will increase year by year, yet here are the Government proposing to put this Bill on the statute book for a

  763
  period of three years only so that at the end of that time the whole question will be brought into the melting pot again. We do not want that. We desire to know where we stand in this matter and I must confess it was to my mind extraordinary that the Minister, when this Amendment had been proposed should at once have intimated that we accepted it without first giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter. This was discussed in Committee upstairs, and nothing was done then.
  Mr. BARNES: On a point of Order. In Committee, the Minister gave an undertaking to accept this.
  Sir F. HALLat is not a point' of Order. I say the Minister should not be
  prepared to accept an Amendment of this drastic kind without giving the House an opportunity of discussing it. I sincerely trust that my hon. friends will press this matter to a division. After all the trouble we have had of having brought forward a Measure of a previous Government—a Bill good in parts—we are not going to have it put on the scrap-heap, without any opportunity of bringing forward amending Clauses. There are bound to be lots of Amendments brought forward on this Bill hereafter and I trust they House will not accept the limitation of three years.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 112.

  AYES.

  [12.2 a.m.

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Finney, V. H.

  Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

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

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

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

  Alstead, R.

  Foot, Isaac

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Asks, Sir Robert William

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

  Kedward R M.

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Gates, Percy

  Kirkwood, D.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Baker, Walter

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Lansbury, George

  Banton, G.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Law, A.

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Gillett, George M.

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Barnes, A.

  Gorman, William

  Lawson, John James

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Gosling, Harry

  Leach, W.

  Been, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Lee, F.

  Birkett, W. N.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lessing, E

  Black, J. W.

  Greenall, T.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Bonwick, A.

  Grigg, Lieut.-Co). Sir Edward W. M.

  McCrae, Sir George

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Groves, T.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Briant, Frank

  Grundy, T. W.

  M Entee V. L.

  Broad, F. A.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Macfadyen, E.

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Mackinder, W.

  Buchanan, G

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Maden, H.

  Buckle, G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  March, S.

  Chapple, Dr. William A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Marley, James

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, E.)

  Clarke, A.

  Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

  Climie, R.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Masterman Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Maxton, James

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Mills, J. E.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

  Mond, H.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Hillary, A. E.

  Montague, Frederick

  Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

  Hindle, F.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Compton, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  Costello, L. W. J.

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

  Murrell, Frank

  Crittall, V. G.

  Hodges, Frank

  Naylor, T. E.

  Darblshire, C. W.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Dickson, T.

  Hudson, J. H.

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  Duckworth, John

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

  Paling, W.

  Dukes, C.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Duncan, C.

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Perry, S. F.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jewson, Dorothea

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Potts, John S.

  Egan, W. H.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

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

  Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Raffety, F. W.

  Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

  Spence, R.

  Warne, G. H.

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

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

  Rea, W. Russell

  Spoor, B. G.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wells, S. R.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Welsh, J. C.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Westwood, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

  Whiteley, W.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

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

  Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

  Sullivan, J.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Royle, C.

  Terrington, Lady

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

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

  Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Scurr, John

  Thurtle, E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Tout, W. J.

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wright, W.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Turner, Ben

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  V'ant, S. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Vivian, H.

  Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson.

  Snell, Harry

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Remer, J. R.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Astor, Viscountness

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

  Harland, A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Bourne, Robert Croft

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Stanley, Lord

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Steel, Samuel Strang

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Cope, Major William

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthberl

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Wise, Sir Frederic

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Ferguson, H.

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

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Penny, Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Perring, William George

  Mr. Becker nd Mr. Frederick

  Hall.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  NEW SCHEDULE.
  The London Traffic Area shall include the following areas:—
  The Administrative County of London;
  The Administrative County of Middle-sex;
  The County Boroughs of Croydon, East Ham, and West Ham;
  So much of the Administrative County of Berks as comprises:—
  The Borough of New Windsor;
  The Rural District of Windsor;
  The Parish of Winkfield in the Rural District of Easthampstead;
  So much of the Administrative County of Buckingham as comprises:—
  The Urban Districts of Beaconsfield, Eton, and Slough;
  The Rural District of Eton;
  The Parishes of Amersham, Chalfont St. Giles, Chalfont St. Peter, Chenies, and Penn; Coles-hill Hamlet and Seer Green Chapelry in the Rural District of Amersham;
  So much of the Administrative County of Essex as comprises:—
  The Urban Districts of Barking Town, Brentwood, Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Epping, Grays Thurrock, Ilford, Leyton, Loughton, Romford, Tilbury, Waltham Holy Cross, Walthamstow, Wanstead, and Woodford;
  The Rural Districts of Billericay, Epping, Ongar, Orsett, and Romford;
  So much of the Administrative County of Hertford as comprises:—
  The Boroughs of St. Albans, Hertford, and Watford;
  The Urban Districts of Barnet, Bushey, Cheshunt, Chorleywood, East Barnet Valley, Harpenden, Hoddesdon, Rickmansworth, and Ware;
  The Rural Districts of Barnet, Hatfield, Hertford, St. Alban's, Ware, Watford, and Welwyn; and the detached part (lying

  767
  between the Rural Districts of Ware and Epping) of the Parish of High Wych in the Rural District of Hadham;
  So much of the Administrative County of Kent as comprises:—
  The Boroughs of Bromley and Gravesend;
  The Urban Districts of Beckenham, Bexley, Chisleburst, Crawford, Dartford, Erith, Northfleet, Penge, Sevenoaks, and Sidcup;
  The Rural Districts of Bromley and Dartford;
  The Parishes of Brasted (excluding the detached portion), Chevening Dunton Green, Halstead, Kemsing, Otford, Riverhead, Seal, Sevenoaks Weald, Shoreham, Sundridge, and Westerham, in the Rural District of Sevenoaks;
  So much of the Administrative County of Surrey as comprises:—
  The Boroughs of Guildford, Kingston-upon-Thanies Reigate, Richmond, and Wimbledon;
  The Urban Districts of Barnes, Beddington and Wallington, Carshalton, Caterham, Chertsey, Coulsdon and Purley, Dorking, East and West Molesey, Egham, Epsom. Esher and the Dittons, Ham, Leatherhead, Merton and Morden, Mitcham, Surbiton, Sutton, The Maidens and Coombe, Walton-upon-Thames, Weybridge, and Woking;
  The Rural District of Epsom;
  The Parishes of Bisley, Byfleet, Pyrford, and Thorpe in the Rural District of Chertsey;
  The Parishes of Dorking Rural, Effingham, and Mickleham in the Rural District of Dorking;
  The Parishes of Addington, Bletchingly, Chelsham, Crowhurst, Farleigh, Godstone (except the detached portion), Limpsfield, Oxted, Tandridge (except so much of the said Parish as lies to the south of an imaginary straight line drawn from the point where the western boundary of the said Parish joins the southern boundary of the Parish of Godstone to the point where the eastern boundary of the said Parish joins the southern boundary of the Parish of Crowhurst). Tatsfield, Titsey, Warlingliam, and Woldinpham in the Rural District of Godstone;
  The Parishes of Artington, East Clandon, East Horsley, Merrow, Ockham, Pirbright, Send and Ripley, West Clandon, West Horsley, Wisley and Worplesdon; and part of the Parish of Compton in the Rural District of Guildford;
  The Parishes of St. Martha (Chilworth) and Shalford in the Rural District of Hambledon;
  The Parishes of Betchworth, Buckland, Chaldon, Chipstead, Gatton, Merstham, Nutfield, and Walton-on-Hill; and Kingswood Liberty in the Rural District of Reigate.—[Mr. D. Herbert.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to move, "That the Schedule he read a Second time."
  I think it is consequential on an Amendment to the first Clause, and I only formally move.
  Mr. BECKER: I beg to second the Motion.
  New Schedule read a Second time.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move to leave out lines 6 to 9 inclusive.
  The effect of the Amendment is to exclude the county of Berkshire from the ambit of the Bill.
  Viscount WOLMER: On a point of order. Has nut, the House already agreed to an Amendment by which the members for the county of Berkshire were appointed, and: not the case of the county of Berkshire prejudged?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the noble Lord was not in the House at the time. The point was raised, and I gave a decision that I thought it would be the best way to take it as a separate issue in the new Schedule, and the Minister undertook to put the early part of the Bill in that form.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I ant very pleased to move the Amendment, not only because I am very anxious to do anything I can to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), but also because the county council of Berkshire has passed a resolution desiring that that county should be excluded from the Bill. If one can meet the wishes of the local authorities without seriously damaging the structure of the Bill, I think this House ought always to move in that direction. I think the county council are ill-advised in insisting upon exclusion, because they would, by coming inside this new Traffic Authority, receive substantial financial assistance which would help them to rebuild their bridges and remake their roads. But, after all, that is their affair, and as they wish to go outside, I

  769
  would ask the Minister of Transport to accept the Amendment and make them happy.
  Mr. GOSLING: I think the County Council are wrong, but if it is their wish I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I wish to thank the Minister for accepting the Amendment; it will cause great satisfaction in Berkshire that the authority of County Council has not been over-ridden.
  Mr. BARNES: There was, I desire to remind the Minister, very great objection and a strong feeling in the Committee against this Schedule. Directly the Committee deleted it there were strong representations to the Minister, and it was understood that it would be re-inserted on the ground that it is essential from the point of view of traffic control. But I think the Minister should give us some reason why this particular portion should be re-inserted. Personally I feel that a lot of districts are not vital from the point of view of traffic control. I accept the assurance of the Minister that they were essential, and we agreed to the re-insertion; now I see we have a group in which is the Borough of Windsor. Why has Windsor been given the exclusive right to contract out of the Schedule?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Because the County Council asked for it to be excluded from the ambit of the Bill.
  Mr. BARNES: There are Parliamentary representatives speaking on behalf of their constituencies who object to the whole principle underlying this Bill, and who have been unsuccessful in getting it rejected. The Minister, before he goes back on the position he put before the Committee, should give some valid reason why this particular section should be allowed to contract out.
  Lady TERRINGTON: Will the Minister say whether the county of Buckinghamshire has been retained in the Schedule of the Bill, and, if so, has the Minister done this in response to local representations?
  Captain BOWYER: As a representative of Buckinghamshire I, with others, object to this arrangement. It is not needed for Landon traffic control. Seeing, however, the County Coucil of
  770
  Buckinghamshire, in its wisdom, sees its way to meet the Minister of Transport and arrange for inclusion, I of course, must let it go at that.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: I am very interested in this Amendment, and think that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite may feel justified in moving the inclusion of Hampshire as a set off to Buckinghamshire. For the traffic problem along the Portsmouth Road is as difficult and complex as elsewhere. I suggest, if he so moved, it would be accepted by the Minister. What is happening is that these various local authorities are beginning to understand this Bill. I feel sure that Buckinghamshire, far away from the hubbub and excitement of London, does not appreciate what is actually being done here, and there will be a rude awakening before very long. For my own part I shall vote for the exclusion of any area, because in my opinion the smaller the area under the Ministry of Transport and the more local control is insisted upon the better I shall be pleased.
  Viscount CURZON: The lion. Member who has just spoken does not wish to include any area unless the London Comity Council are given the chance of controlling it. I cannot understand the precipitate action of the Minister of Transport on this Amendment and he has given no explanation of his decision. On the Committee the right hon. Gentleman did try to justify the inclusion of Berkshire by saying that that County was concerned with the Ascot races traffic, but that only lasts far four days in the year. Theo there is the race traffic to Epsom. What is going to be the position of the Minister of Transport while controlling the traffic in the metropolitan police area when he comes to deal with the Ascot traffic. He will be directing part of the traffic through Eton and Slough, part through say Chertsey, and part over Staines Bridge. What would be the attitude of the Berkshire County Council under those conditions? I think we should have some valid reasons given before acceding to the representations of the Berkshire County Council. Ascot is only an incident. You may have some other big sporting event, possibly in Buckinghamshire, and we must know how it is that we propose to control the traffic, and what the effect is likely to be on the

  771
  repair of the roads of Berkshire. Personally, I think that the Berkshire County Council, in objecting to being included, are short-sighted. One of the most necessary things from the point of view of both Bucks and Berks is that a new bridge should be constructed over the Thames between Eton and Windsor.
  Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: May I ask where exactly between Eton and Windsor such a bridge would be
  Viscount CURZON: I believe it has been already under consideration, and plans have been prepared according to which the road would cross the Thames just outside Eton and proceed by way of River Street and Castle Hill. If Berks and Bucks, speaking through their Members, seek to be excluded from the Bill, I think they will be short-sighted, and I think the Minister is right when he says so. I would urge him not to be in too much of a hurry to listen to the representations of these local bodies. They may be taking a far-sighted view, but, on the other hand, they may be taking a short-sighted view, and I would urge him not to be in too much of a hurry to accept Amendments of this kind, or, at any rate, to justify his attitude to the House when he does so.
  Mr. GOSLING: In answer to the Noble Lady the Member for Wycombe (Lady Terrington), I would say that the reason for keeping Bucks in is the same as the reason for taking Berks out. The Berkshire County Council asked to be taken out, but I think they were not wise, and I think that possibly before the end of this week they will wish they were in again. Still, they are an authority, and have a right to speak, and I think it is right to accept their suggestion and let them come out. I have here the decision of the Bucks County Council. The Noble Lady shakes her head, but I will read from the Minutes. The Bucks County Council were taken out in Committee, and, as soon as they heard of that, they looked upon it as a disaster. This is their report:
  "The London Traffic Bill, which received a Second. Reading in the Rouse of Commons on the 28th March last, provides for the constitution of a London and Home Counties Advisory Committee to advise and assist the Minister of Transport on various transport questions and for the establishment of an area to be subject to the jurisdiction of the
  772
  Committee, which embraces part of the Southern portion of Bucks included within the radius of 25 miles from Charing Cross. The local authorities comprised within its area are to afford mutual assistance to each other towards important road works by which they ale benefited, and, as Bucks is of considerably less rateable value than the rich metropolitan boroughs and other local authorities comprised in the area, and the inclusion of a portion of this county would be of financial advantage to the County Council. It appears, however, that the Bill has been amended in Ore Committee stage, so that Bucks is excluded from its operation. In your Committee's ten it is important that this Amendment should not be allowed to remain in the Bill, and it is proposed to approach the Members of Parliament for the county in the matter."
  Mr. P. HARRIS: They have never done so.
  Mr. GOSLING: I Might also tell the House that deputations from the Buckinghamshire County Council have come to the Ministry of Transport urging that the Ministry should pay 100 per cent. of the cost of the roads in Bucks, on the ground that the traffic over them is entirely London traffic. If the Members who ask for the exclusion of Bucks say that the traffic in Buckinghamshire is not London traffic, then tie Council are wrong in their statement. We are informed that great building developments are taking place in the South of the county, and that it is essential that by-pass roads should be constructed to relieve congestion in the populous districts, and that level crossings on highways should be superseded by bridges. I am in this position. There are some people who say they speak for the County, and one has to listen to them. The County Council has put on record what they want to be done in this case, and I accept their decision, and hope the House will see that what the County Council ask for is given to them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Did you promise the 100 per cent.
  Lady TERRINGTON rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady has spoken once.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have allowed some liberty, because I thought there was some analogy between the two cases. I think we have disposed of the question in lines 6 to 9.

  773
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Schedule, "put, and negatived.
  Lady TERRINGTON: I beg to move, to leave out lines ten to fifteen of the proposed Schedule.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Schedule."
  The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 79.

  Division No. 113.]

  AYES.

  [12.34 a.m.

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Richardson, R.

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

  Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

  Ritson, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Haycock, A. W.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Romerill, H. G.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

  Ropber, Major L.

  Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

  Hennessy, Major G. R. J.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Baker, Walter

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hirst, G. H.

  Royle, C.

  Banton, G.

  Hodges, Frank

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, A

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Becker, Harry

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Scurr, John

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Bourne, Robert Croft

  Hudson, J. H.

  Sherwood, George Henry

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Illffe, Sir Edward M.

  Smith, T. (Pontetract)

  Buchanan, G.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Buckle, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snell, Harry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jewson, Dorothea

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Clarke, A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spence, R.

  Climle, R.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Spoor, B. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

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

  Steel, Samuel Strang

  Compton, Joseph

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cope, Major William

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Crittall, V. G.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sullivan, J.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, A.

  Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Thurtle, E.

  Dawson, Sir Phillip

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dickson, T.

  Leach, W.

  Tout, W. J.

  Dukes, C.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lunn, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Egan, W. H.

  Mackinder, W.

  Warne, G. H.

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

  March, S.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Ferguson, H.

  Marley, James

  Watson W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

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

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Maxton, James

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

  Mills, J. E.

  Wells, S. R.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Westewood, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenall, T.

  Murray, Robert

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Naylor, T. E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

  Windosor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Groves, T.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wright, W

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

  Perry, S. F.

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Harland, A.

  Phillipson, Mabel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinon

  Raynes, W. R.

  NOES.

  Alstead, R.

  Black, J. W.

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Bonwick, A.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Briant, Frank

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Duckworth, John

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Birkett, W. N.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Duncan, C.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Kedward, R. M.

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

  Falconer, J.

  Lessing, E.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Finney, V. H.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

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

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Foot, Isaac

  McCrae, Sir George

  Stanley, Lord

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Gorman, William

  Macfadyen, E.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

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

  Maden, H.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

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

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Harris, Percy A.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Mond, H.

  Vivian, H.

  Hindle, F.

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

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

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Murrell, Frank

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

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

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

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

  Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

  Owen, Major G.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Horlick, Leiut.-Colonel J. N.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Raffan, P. W.

  Baroness Terrington and Mr. Har-

  Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  court Johnstone.

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Rea, W. Russell

  Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Purposes or matters for or with respect to which regulations may be had by the Minister.)
  Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 4 to 9 inclusive.
  This paragraph it is almost impossible to get through. It contemplates setting up special regulations as to traders applying generally throughout the area, and it is different from the general law of the country laid down in the Locomotives Act, 1898, and in the Motor Car Act. It is clearly undesirable, and so far as it may be necessary to deal with the question of traders, this can be done under the other provisions of the Schedule. In so far as it is not undesirable, the paragraph is unnecessary, and, in view of the extreme difficulty in inserting the paragraph, I propose to leave it out altogether.
  HON. MEMBERS: We have not heard a word!
  Mr. B. SMITH: I am rather surprised at the Minister asking that this paragraph should be removed, but I have
  rather a shrewd idea that the knowledge that this paragraph was rather impotent was discovered through an Amendment I was successful in getting carried in Committee. That was an Amendment to the effect that where a trailer was licensed for a particular road, it should carry an extra man, on the ground that more people have been killed through there being no control of trailers than there has been, on a percentage basis, by anything else in the country. That Amendment was carried practically unanimously, and to avoid the consequences of that Amendment is has been discovered that the paragraph should go out altogether. The Minister, has apparently made up his mind, but if this paragraph goes out, will never leave the matter until trailers are off the road, or until they have an extra man on them.
  Mr. RHYS: Does not, the next paragraph cover the points raised by the hon. Member?
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 96: Noes, 165.

  Division No. 114.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a.m.

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

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

  Alstead, R.

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Costello, L. W. J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Barnes, A.

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Duckworth, John

  Hindle, F.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Birkett, W. N.

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Black, J. W.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

  Bonwick, A.

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

  Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Falconer, J.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Briant, Frank

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

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Broad, F. A.

  Foot, Isaac

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Gorman, William

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  Stanley, Lord

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Murrell, Frank

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Naylor, T. E.

  Steel, Samuel Strang

  Kedward, R. M.

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Lansbury, George

  Owen, Major G.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Lessing, E.

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Terrington, Lady

  Linfield, F. C.

  Raffan, P. W.

  Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Raffety, F. W.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  McCrae, Sir George

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  Vivian, H.

  Macfadyen, E.

  Rea, W. Russell

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

  Maden, H.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Royle, C.

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

  March, S.

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

  Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F.

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

  Scurr, John

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mond, H.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

  Mr. Percy Harris and Mr.

  Montague, Frederick

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Benjamin Smith.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Potts, John S.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Raynes, W. R.

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

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Ritson, J.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Banton, G.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hodges, Frank

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Becker, Harry

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

  Sherwood, George Henry

  Bourne, Robert Croft

  Hudson, J. H.

  Smith, T. (Ponterfract)

  Buchanan, G.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Buckle, J.

  Illffe, Sir Edward M.

  Snell, Harry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Clarke, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Spence, R.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jewson, Dorothea

  Spoor, B. G.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Cope, Major William

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

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Crittall, V. G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Law, A.

  Tout, W. J.

  Dickson, T.

  Lawson, John James

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Dukes, C.

  Leach, W.

  Warne, G. H.

  Duncan, C.

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Egan, W. H.

  Lunn, William

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

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

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Ferguson, H.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Mackinder, W.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Marley, James

  Westwood, J.

  Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

  Whiteley, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Maxton, James

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Mills, J. E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gillett, George M.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Gosling, Harry

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Windsor, Walter

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Greenall, T.

  Murray, Robert

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Wragg, Herbert

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Paling, W.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Perry, S. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Mr. Robertson and Mr. Parkinson.

  Harland, A.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. RHYS: I beg to move, in page 21, line 28, at end, to insert the words "within the Metropolitan area."
  The paragraph to which the Amendment refers gives powers for prescribing the conditions subject to which and the times

  779
  at which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on streets. I know we have heard a great deal from the point of view of London traffic, but the Schedule covers a very wide area of the country, and in the purely rural areas it appears to me you are giving too much power to the Board in London over the agricultural life of those districts. In many of the areas you have fairs, and you have new arterial roads, and I am very much afraid of the possibility of an Order being made that cattle should not be moved across these arterial roads at certain hours of the day. We have had very many vexatious restrictions, and I do not want to see any further restrictions added to the difficulties of farmers in carrying on. In view of the fact that this Bill is now limited to three years, it will be quite easy to see how it is going to work.
  Viscount WOLMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It is a very important Amendment and it has only become necessary by reason of the alteration of the area to which the Bill applies on the Report Stage. As long as the Bill only applied to the Metropolitan Police area, it was perfectly right to give the Ministry of Transport the power to prescribe the conditions subject to which and the times at which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on the streets. But now we have extended the area to which the Bill applies, to a radius of 25 miles around London, unless the Amendment that my hon. Friend proposes is carried, no horse show or agricultural show which would necessitate the movement of stock without the permission of the Ministry of Transport in London could be held, and it would introduce wholly unnecessary and vexatious complications and interfere with the agricultural and farming life of those districts. I submit that now we have so widely extended the area to which the Bill applies, the power of the Ministry of Transport to control the prescribed conditions under which cattle can be moved should be confined to the previous area to which the Bill applied, namely the Metropolitan Police Area. I very much hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I think if they do not, and directly the farmers tumble to it, the Minister will have a swarm of bees about his ears.
  Mr. GOSLING: I am sure that the House does not think anyone would be so foolish as to make regulations that would do what the Noble Lord suggests. What I am afraid of is that this Amendment would prevent regulations, possibly highly desirable from the local point of view, being made in places such as Watford, where there are narrow streets.
  Viscount WOLMER: Would not the town of Watford have power to make regulations?
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. GOSLING: It would also prevent them making any regulations at all. It would prevent regulations being made, not only in the country districts, but also in the City, which is equally outside the Metropolitan police district. I would ask the Noble Lord and his colleague to withdraw their Amendment. I do not want to press too hardly in the matter, and if the House feels that this Amendment ought to be accepted. I suggest that the words "and the City of London" be added, and that the word "area" should be "district." It would then read, "Within the Metropolitan police district and the City of London." If the hon. Members will accept those alterations, then I will consent.
  Mr. RHYS: I am quite prepared to accept that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Had not the House better have it in the new form? The hon. Member had better withdraw his Amendment, and move it in the new form.
  Mr. RHYS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendrnent, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. RHYS: I beg to move in page 21, line 28, at end, to insert the words
  "within the Metropolitan police district the City of London."
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I would like to say one or two words on the reference which the Minister made to Watford. Watford is a town which labours under great difficulties by reason of the narrowness of some of its streets and other things of that kind, but it is only within a matter of months that there has been a very important cattle market moved just off the main street of the town, and there are certain cases

  781
  where there are animals feeding regularly only a very short distance from roads of great importance. It is a ease in which I suggest the Corporation of Watford know a great deal more about what is necessary than the Minister of Transport and the Advisory Committee, and I hope that in cases of this kind the Minister will see that the local authorities concerned are allowed to manage this part of the business. They will do it a great deal better in the interests of traffic than the London Ministry.
  Mr. BECKER: in Committee the Minister said that, if he accepted this Amendment, such places as Tilbury would be out of his control and he could not regulate the traffic. How does he now propose to regulate the traffic in such places?
  Major BURNIE: This Amendment, which appears to me very reasonable, seems to place the Minister in rather a difficulty. He will have to make regulations under the whole of this Second Schedule which refers to some 23 districts, and I presume the regulations will be posted throughout the whole of the area. In that case the general public will find difficulty in knowing precisely to which area the regulations refer.
  Mr. COMYNS-CARR: The County Council of Essex and other counties apparently from one document read by the Minister are under the impression that they are going to make some money out of the Bill. They ought to have the pill as well as the jam, and they should be prepared to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Minister. It would be entirely unjust to my constituents in Islington, where, I believe, there has been a cattle show once or twice, that their rural amenities should be restricted while those of Essex and Buckinghamshire are allowed to go free. I never visit my constituency without recollecting that there was a time when there was a bailiff's daughter in Islington, when the pleasantries of rural courtship were carried on on the banks of the New River. I am given to understand that there are still bailiffs in Islington, but they are different from the one referred to in the song. But Islington is entitled to all the benefits of the rural neighbourhood which are now being claimed for those county councils which desire to get
  782
  something out of the Bill. What they imagine they are going to get except trouble, I am not clear about, but it is a monstrous injustice that they should want to come in for what they think they can get, and then want to be left out of those things which they think are inconvenient. I would ask the Minister to stand by his guns and resist the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am surprised at the frivolous and indeed cynical manner in which the hon. and learned Member for East. Islington (Mr. Comyns-Carr) is opposing this Amendment. His point of view seems to be that the object of the Minister of Transport should be to inflict as many inconveniences on local authorities as he can. The Amendment will remove all inconveniences and assist local authorities to carry out the principles of the Bill in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants. I am extremely distressed to find on these Benches an hon. and especially a learned Member who will go so far as to deny to Buckinghamshire or Watford the conveniences which are denied to his own district in the spirit, not so much of the Bailiff's Daughter but the dog in the manger. I earnestly hope that he will withdraw his opposition. I can scarcely understand any Member of the House desiring to go to a Division on this Amendment which is conceived in a most reasonable spirit. All of us who know the rural districts know it will suit the convenience of all farmers for the driving of live stock from one district to another. My hon. and learned Friend knows that the driving of cattle in the streets is not a daily occurrence in his constituency as it is in more rural districts. I very strongly deprecate the cynical attitude of the hon. and learned Member and I trust the Amendment will be accepted without a. Division.
  Mr. NAYLOR: I may perhaps be permitted to remind the hon. and learned Member for East Islington (Mr. Comyns-Carr) that whether the words are inserted or not we shall still be under the control of the Minister so far as cattle are concerned. If he has his mind fixed on what takes place may I say that cattle are conspicuous by their absence in the greater part of the constituency. I would just like to remind him, as he made reference to the Bailiff of Islington, that the Bailiff's Daughter did not live in East

  783
  Islington but in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for South Islington. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect
  of a Clause (Particulars to be supplied by license holders) inserted on Consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee."
  I have to ask the House to accept an Amendment to the Clause, for it is in pursuance of a pledge given. The Amendment is proposed in order to make that pledge effective. The pledge, was given on the Committee stage.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE.—(Particulars to be supplied by licence holders.)
  "It shall be the duty of the proprietor of any omnibus (when applying for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence, to provide any form of transport service in the London Traffic Area) to supply to the Minister on such form as the Minister may determine full details of any agreement, written or verbal, for the control by loan, agreement, shareholding, or interlocking directorship, or otherwise of his business by any other company or person, and full particulars as to his holding or beneficial interest in the stocks, shares, or securities in the business of any company engaged in the manufacture or supply of vehicles, plant, equipment, or requisites for any such service.
  Failure to supply such details, or knowingly to supply false or misleading details, will render the proprietor or the responsible officer of any company providing any form of transport on the London Area on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and the cancellation of his licence."
  Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "omnibus", to the first word "to" in line 3, and to insert the words
  "which is licensed subject- to the condition that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service."
  The first Amendment necessary to this Clause is in reference to persons doing
  784
  what is required of them. The whole object of the Clause is to enable the Minister to obtain particulars from omnibus owners in order to prevent monopoly or combine.
  Mr. COMYNS-CARR: The Amendment which is being moved by the Minister is a direct attempt to reverse the decision at Which this House arrived when it was invited to decide and did decide between the respective merits of two Amendments on the Paper. One Amendment, which was accepted by the House after debate, is in the terms now appearing on the Paper in respect of which the Bill has been recommitted. The principal point of distinction between the Amendments is that one seeks to reverse the decision of the House whether it was desirable that these powers should be obtained before the licence was granted or after it was granted. It was mainly on that point that the House divided and by a large majority came to the conclusion that they preferred the Amendment in the form contrary to that which was on the Paper and which is now moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I respectfully protest against this attempt to reverse the decision come to by the House after full discussion. I regret I did not succeed in catching the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman to alter this Clause, therefore I do not understand in the least on what ground it is now suggested having regard to the decision of the House, that the Amendment now proposed should be substituted. I should just like to examine the Clauses of the Bill for one moment which deal with the question of granting licences. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the question of granting licences generally and says they are to be granted subject to certain conditions. Clause 7 deals with what restrictions may be imposed on particular streets in which particular omnibuses can ply for hire and the numbers of omnibuses in these streets. If the licence is granted in the first instance you have got rid of the really effective part of getting this information. You are really dropping out of it two things. You are resigning yourself to the position that you will only get this information with regard to omnibuses which propose to ply on restricted streets and you are abandoning any attempt to get information regarding omnibuses which ply on streets which are not restricted. It

  785
  is true that the proposed Amendment does provide for the information being given, but the only effective method of getting that information is to get it when you are in a position to say: "If I am not satisfied, I shall not grant the licence." This is really an attempt to reverse the decision of the House. I do most respectfully urge the House to have nothing to do with this attempt. It is not showing reasonable respect to the House to reverse a decision which was only arrived at a few nights ago.
  Mr. GROVES: I do not think this is an attempt to reverse the decision of the House. It is just as well to remember the conditions under which that vote was obtained. A Clause stood in the name of the hon. Member for Camberwell, also the hon. Members on the other side of the House accepted the Clause of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) as the most innocuous of the two, I pointed out that the matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: It is absolutely different.
  Mr. GROVES: I have taken the trouble to compare the Amendments. It was said that the particulars should be got before receiving a licence. The wording is:
  "When applying for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence, to provide any form of transport service in the London traffic area."
  That is any form of transport: not one route one day and not another the next like a chars-a-banc. What is proposed is more flexible and more likely to get information than adherence to the Clause as it stands.
  Captain BENN: I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill, but I have a different opinion from that of the hon. Member above the Gangway. What we fear is that London will be exploited by a traffic trust. That is why I have always opposed this Bill and stood for municipal control of traffic. The Clause says that when the company comes along for a licence you shall ask for particulars, and you will know whether they are in a trust or not. That is information to which the people of the City of London are entitled, for it is their city. The Minister says that this information should only be obtained from a smaller number
  786
  of people. Is it not desirable we should get the whole information? I cannot understand the attitude of the Members above the Gangway or of the Minister.
  Mr. GROVES: The police are the licensing authority even under this Bill.
  HON. MEMBERS: It does not make any difference.
  Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman is better informed as to details than I now am, but I have a grip of the idea that if we are to avoid a traffic combination we must have the fullest possible information. Why is it necessary that the Minister should constantly rely upon the support he gets from the other side of the House? I have spoken of the merits of the Clause. I do not wish to make any party point. I want to make the Bill good from the point of view of London. I appeal to the Minister not to press this Amendment, and to leave the Clause in the form the House determined.
  Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is always so exuberant that sometimes one suspects he hardly understands the point to which he is addressing himself. He stated he was fully seized with the general situation but not the details. As the hon. Member opposite said, the licensing authority are the police, and it is not much good requiring that information should be supplied to the Minister before the licence is granted. [HON. MENIBERS: "Why not?"] Because the information will be supplied to the Minister, and the police are the licensing authority.
  Mr. B. SMITH: I understand that the police will carry out the orders of the Minister.
  Sir T. INSKIP: The police will be the licensing authority, and there will be an appeal to the Minister. If hon. Members wish to go further, they must devise machinery for the Minister communicating the information to the police.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the police inform the Minister before they licence, it gives what we intend.
  Sir T. INSKIP: If that is desired, the hon. Member should devise some machinery for doing it.
  Mr. STURROCK rose—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given way.
  Sir T. INSKIP: I have given way three times. The clause, as drawn by hon. Members below the Gangway, if accepted, will get information whether the licence be obtained or not.
  Captain W. BENN: A very good thing to have!
  Sir T. INSKIP: It may be a very good thing to have, but it is not much good in a Traffic Bill. The object of the Minister, as I understand is to make his regulation that anybody whose omnibus is licenced shall give the information. The conditions attaching to the granting of every licence is that
  "it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service."
  If the Minister's Amendment is accepted, people who own omnibuses will not be required to give what I think are very oppressive details unless their omnibus is licensed. It must be borne in mind that when the first omnibus of the London General Omnibus Company is licenced out of four or five thousand omnibuses the whole of the information will be then in the hands of the Minister.
  Captain BENN: I never mentioned any company. I spoke of traffic combines.
  Sir T. INSKIP: I think I understand the hon. and gallant Member. When he speaks of the London Traffic Combine he means the London General Omnibus Company.
  Mr. WEBB: I have only moved this Amendment to make the Clause as watertight as we can possibly make it. I would ask the Committee to remember that it is no use putting this obligation on people on whom you do not intend to put it. The word "omnibus" is a perfectly clear expression, but apparently by the use of the word omnibus as it now stands in the Bill you are including a great deal that you do not mean to include.
  Captain BENN: It is entirely at the option of the Minister If he does not want the information he may not determine to ask for it.
  Mr. WEBB: I am trying to put this obligation where the hon Member wants to put it on the omnibus in the sense of an omnibus running on an ordinary line of traffic and maintaining a regular
  788
  service, and not to put it on a great many vehicles which the hon. Member meant to exclude or wished to exclude. I cannot put it more clearly if the hon. Member persists, I can only leave it at that. As to the next point, it has been pointed out that the Minister is not the Licensing Authority and the Amendment I have moved is to carry out the intention and the desire of the hon. Members below the Gangway. If they will look at the second Amendment they will se,: that it is made clear that where particulars have been supplied by the proprietor on the grant of a license for an omnibus, particulars need not be supplied by him on the grant of a license for any other omnibus belonging to him which is granted within a period of one year after the date of the first mentioned license. I suggest that hon. Members below the Gangway should be good enough not to be so suspicious. We are only desirous to make the Clause watertight.
  Captain BENN: Is it the fact that the Clause as drafted causes this information to be renewed when the application is made for renewal
  Mr. WEBB: Certainly that is not the intention.
  Colonel ASHLEY: As we are going to have a new Clause of some sort, we had better have one that will work. The new Clause as it stands is absolutely unworkable, and the Amendment of the Minister of Transport makes sense. It is no use him sending particulars to the Commissioner of Police. He is not the Minister and would not know what to do with them; he would put them in the waste basket. I admit it is a cumbrous form, but the Amendment of the Minister is the only way to put the Clause right. The Commissioner of Police will grant the licence in the ordinary way and the licensee then goes along to the Ministry of Transport and says "I have a licence, allow me to work on certain routes." Where there are several competitors Lord Ashfield and private owners, the Minister of Transport can then ask for particulars from all the applicants. Unless the Amendment were accepted the Clause is nonsense and unworkable.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: I am satisfied the Minister is very desirous to help us to make the Clause effective, but I think to be effective the particulars ought to be

  789
  furnished at the very earliest stage. When we agreed to re-commit the Bill, we did accept the fact that we were prepared to receive suggestions to improve the Clause, although I should have preferred that the information should be furnished forthwith.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 165.

  Division No. 115.]

  AYES.

  [1.45 a.m.

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Owen, Major G.

  Alstead, R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Hindle, F.

  Raffan, P. W.

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Raffety, F. W.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  Birkett, W. N.

  Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

  Rea, W. Russell

  Black, J. W.

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Bonwick, A.

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Remer, J. R.

  Briant, Frank

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Royle, C.

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

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

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

  Costello, L. W. J.

  Kedward, R. M.

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lessing, E.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Duckworth, John

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Terrington, Lady

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  McCrae, Sir George

  Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Macfadyen, E.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

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

  Maden, H.

  Vivian, H.

  Falconer, J.

  Mansell, Sir Courtenay

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

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

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

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen)

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Mond, H.

  Gorman, William

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Murrell, Frank

  Mr. Comyns-Carr and Mr. John

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  Harris.

  Gillett, George M.

  NOES.

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

  Gosling, Harry

  Lansbury, George

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

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Law, A.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W.

  Greenall, T.

  Lawson, John James

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Leach, W.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Baker, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Banton, G.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Mackinder, W.

  Barnes, A.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  March, S.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Marley, James

  Becker, Harry

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harland, A.

  Maxton, James

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mills, J. E.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

  Mline, J. S. Wardlaw

  Broad, F. A.

  Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Buchanan, G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Buckle, J.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Clarke, A.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

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

  Climie, R.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Cluse, W. S.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Murray, Robert

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hodges, Frank

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

  Cope, Major William

  Hoffman, P. C.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Crittall, V. G.

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

  Paling, W.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

  Perry, S. F.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hudson, J. H.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Dickson, T.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Potts, John S.

  Dukes, C.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Duncan, C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ritson, J.

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

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

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Ferguson, H.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Romeril, H. G.

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

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Rose, Frank H.

  Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Sullivan J.

  Westwood, J.

  Scurr, John

  Sutton, J. E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Tinker, John Joseph

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

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Tout, W. J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Snell, Harry

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Spence, R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Windsor, Walter

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Warne, G. H.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Spoor, B. G.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Wright, W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Stanley, Lord

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

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Webb, Rt. Hen. Sidney

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Wells, S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson

  Proposed words there inserted in the Clouse.
  WEBB: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out from the word "determine" to the end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words

  "(a) full particulars of any agreement or arrangement, written or verbal, whereby his business is controlled (whether through shareholding or nomination of directors, or as a result of a loan or other financial transactions or otherwise) by any other person who is engaged in providing any form of transport service in the London traffic area or elsewhere, or in the manufacture or supply of vehicles, plant or equipment, or requisites for any such service or in financing persons so engaged, and

  (b) full particulars as to the holding or beneficial interest of the proprietor in stocks, shares, or securites of any company which is so engaged as aforesaid.

  (2) Particulars to be supplied by a proprietor of an omnibus under this Section shall be supplied by him within fourteen days after the grant of the licence for the omnibus, and as respects any interests created or arising during the currency of a licence shall be supplied within fourteen days after such interests are created or have arisen:
  Provided that where particulars have been duly supplied by a proprietor on the grant of a licence for an omnibus, particulars need not be supplied by him on the grant of a licence for any other omnibus, belonging to him which is granted within a period of one year after the date of the first-mentioned licence.
  (3) If any person refuses or neglects to supply any particulars which he is required to supply under this Section, or knowingly supplies any particulars which are false in any material respect, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or in the case of a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which the offence continues."
  I do not know whether hon. Members will agree with me when I say that this has been redrafted to put the Clause in its proper from. If hon. Members will
  792
  look at Page 6 they will get all the information. Hon. Members will notice that there is provision for a penalty of £100 where any person refuses or neglects to supply the particulars required or supplies false particulars.
  Viscount CURZON: I desire to say only one word upon this. It is really au attempt as far as I can see to reintroduce what the London Labour Party wanted to get into the Bill upstairs. I object to it as one of the Members who have tried to do their best to protect the interests of the small busser, and the small busser should realise that if any of them become subject to the penalties of this Clause they will have the London Labour Party to thank for it. I think it is just as well they should know this. The small omnibus people do not keep large secretarial staffs like the combine, they only have one or two individuals running the omnibus, the driver and the conductor and perhaps one or two more. You are going to throw a lot of extra work on them to prepare these particulars and make them subject to the penalties for every day on which the offence continues. I hope they will not forget what the London Labour Party tried to do for them.
  2.0 A.m.
  Sir T. INSKIP: Permit me to say a word also in the sense in which the Noble Viscount has spoken. Hon. Members know perfectly well I have lifted my voice in the interests of the publicity of the finance of the undertakings, but what I object to is a new offence for people who are not always provided with the resources for defending themselves in a charge of committing the offences. If anything I prefer the language of the other Amendment except the part which enforces the penalty which was drafted by hon. Members below the Gangway. It is not so far reaching. Hon. Members may thing it does not matter whether there are new offences or not. I am sufficiently interested in the main-

  793
  tenance of liberty still to think that this House, even when aiming at an object which we all desire—publicity with regard to people who perhaps have reasons for hiding up their transactions—should not create offences which will hit people we desire to protect. The Clause is too widely drawn. The House, in its laudable desire, is putting upon the Statute Book a provision which I hope will not be a precedent.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I also have objections to these Amendments, but they are not the same as those of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip). I should have thought that this provision, so far as the small concerns are affected, would have been met by some stereotyped form which we find in many demands made by the Treasury or the Government in similar eases. I am not aware that any of us, in whatever trade we may be engaged, are greatly hindered by Government requisitions as to the extent of our trade in what means we employ, our capital, our stock, our partners, &c. I am rather astonished at the grounds on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have seen fit to oppose this Amendment. I would rather seek to oppose it on the ground that it provides that particulars shall not be provided again when particulars have already been provided in respect of one omnibus. That is to say, that when an owner, or an omnibus company, has provided particulars as to the financial condition of any one omnibus, he shall within a year not be forced to provide particulars when he engages in trade in providing omnibuses for a service or other vehicles. Within a few hours the whole financial standing of an undertaking may be altered, and it will nevertheless be unnecessary to inform the Ministry.
  Sir T. INSKIP: That is provided for.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: It is not provided for. There is no obligation to supply new details with respect to any further omnibuses which the licensee may hire or engage in the service.
  Sir T. INSKIP indicated dissent.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will interrupt me and show how I am wrong.
  Sir T. INSKIP: It is hardly worth while.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: The details which we desire should be supplied of the financial standing and arrangements entered into by any particular omnibus undertaking have to be supplied at the beginning, but when entering into an engagement with the shareholders or taking in further omnibuses new details do not have to be supplied within one year. I speak with the greatest deference to the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that I believe is right. It is because they have to supply so few particulars that I am opposing the Clause. If the Minister of Transport will do me the honour of reading out the Clause it will be seen that is what he is aiming at. He is aiming at allowing companies, whether small or great, to continue for a year without supplying further particulars. The provision of these particulars will not be a grave handicap. They can be given on a printed form such as that on which the Ministry of Agriculture requires a most detailed description of everything connected with a holding. The forms in connection with omnibuses would not be to us complex and they would not entail hardship on the small omnibus companies and small omnibus owners.
  Mr. H. MORRISON: The Noble Lord opposite throughout the proceedings has been trying to pose as the great champion of the little man. I do not remember that the Noble Lord has done a single substantial thing on behalf of the little man. The little man will have no objection to furnishing the particulars asked for by this section. He will do it quite easily and with the 'greatest simplicity. Nobody knows better than the Noble Lord that it is not the little man 'we are fighting. It is the London Traffic Combine, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) on the consistency he has displayed in this matter. He has displayed the keenest of position for the principle of what the President of the Board of Trade described as the measurement of publicity being applied. All I say is that we are conceding under this Bill important protective powers to a great commercial organisation. We are entitled to know the financial structure of that organisation. It has defied under-

  795
  standing, it has defied financial analysis even by financial experts. If it has nothing to be ashamed of it will not hesitate about giving the particulars; if it is ashamed about anything then I can understand its opposition to that proposal. If any substantial monopoly is to be conferred the Minister is entitled to know the financial structure of the organisation and kindred organisations with which it is associated.
  Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I am personally prepared to support this Amendment, but in paragraph three of the Amendment the only penalty for not giving the information is the matter of a fine. In my view the most effective penalty is the other one which is referred to in the original Clause, namely, the cancellation of the licence and I would ask the Minister whether he would not retain the power in Clause three, the power to cancel a licence in the event of any person failing to supply the information that is required as well as the more showy hut less effective power of summoning him to a Police Court and fining him £100 does not necessarily mean that that power of cancellation need be exercised in any particular case unless the Minister thinks proper. I submit that the power of cancellation ought to be given to the Minister. There is no -substance whatever in the idea that the supplying of these particulars is going to impose any burden upon the small man.
  Mr. WEBB: It will not be the Minister who will impose the penalty. The penalty will have to be presumably imposed by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The question of cancellation is not quite applicable because the owner may be the proprietor of one licence or he may be the proprietor of four thousand licences. It would be very difficult if he were prosecuted to decide how many of the four thousand should be cancelled.
  Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I regret the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me to be playing with the question. You are not bound to cancel all the licences of some particular combine or any licence merely beause in one particular instance a technical offence has been committed. But the power should be retained to cancel a licence in the case
  796
  of anybody who really shows a determination to resist supplying the information. If it really becomes inconvenient to anybody to supply this information, they will resort to any means they can to resist. You want real powers, and not comic opera powers, to compel them to do it. I submit that fining a company of this kind is nothing at all. What you want is power to bring them to heel, if necessary, and that is provided by the cancelling of licences far more effectively than by a police court fine. The right hon. Gentleman points out various matters such as that the Minister is not the licensing authority. But Parliament can provide powers for the Minister. All those things could well be got over if there is the will to get over them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add
  "(4) All particulars required to be supplied under this Section shall be treated as confidential except where the person supplying the same otherwise agrees, or where the Minister considers that it is in the public interest that they should be included in a Report to Parliament under this Act, or where the Minister considers that the disclosure of the same is requisite for the purposes of any inquiry under this Act, or, in cases where legal proceedings are taken, for the purpose of those proceedings.
  If any person discloses or publishes, in contravention of this Sub-section, any particulars which are to treated as confidential, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
  Full power is taken there to use the information in the public interest and where it is required, but protection is given against any possible use for private malice. Such a provision is usual in all cases where Parliament insists on information. I think the Clause with the addition of these words secures that the Minister can use the information for all purposes for which it is desirable that it should be used.
  Captain BENN: An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was very indignant a few minutes ago that new offences were being created, but that was a case that touched the interests of the traffic combine. Here is a case which makes it punishable by a fine of £100 for any newspaper to publish information, but there is no protest from the learned Gentleman now.
  Mr. B. SMITH: I am at a loss to understand why a great public corporation should not be asked to give a public account of its business. What is the virtue of getting these figures if they are to be hidden away in the pigeon-holes of a Government department, and only to be used in the event of an inquiry, when under the Act you can demand the figures when any inquiry is made without this Clause? The Amendment is going to give the Minister facilities to get all the essential figures, and that is immediately followed by a Clause which says that the public shall be denied access to the figures. Great undertakings like the London County Council and municipal bodies make their accounts public and why should not the accounts of these large corporations be published?
  Major BURNIE: To my mind the particulars should be filed in the same way that files are kept at Somerset House. Any small limited companies have to file particulars of shareholding at Somerset House, where they are open to inspection by any member of the public on payment of a small fee. The small companies will have no objection to furnishing the information, but the interlocking trust is one of the most difficult things to deal with. Most of the members on this side told their electors that at the first possible moment they would deal with trusts. At one of my first meetings I was asked what I would do with them. I said "If you can deal with them you had better be standing here and not me." After I was elected to this House I took the trouble to try to find out the ramifications of a trust which operates in my own district. It is one of the most difficult operations I have ever undertaken, I have been at it now for over twelve months and I am unable to find out precisely where the ramifications are. The particulars should be filed in some place where intelligent members of the public could get at them. No honest man would object to having the particulars filed, and I am surprised to think that a Labour Government is anxious to put a Clause like this into a Bill of this sort.
  Mr. B. SMITH: Would I be in Order in moving to leave out Sub-section 4?
  The CHAIRMAN: The proper course for the hon. Member is to vote against the Amendment.
  Mr. STURROCK: I regard it as extraordinary that the Government should try to put this Clause on the Committee; it is subversive of all we know about the Labour party and publicity. In a matter of the traffic of London the public has a right to the fullest publicity and I shall certainly vote against the Amendment because I believe it is altogether against public policy that there should be any reservation made in the matter of publicity.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: I have not been convinced that these words are essential. Deliberately to put this in the Bill seems to take away all the good which the elaborate Clause provided for, because the purpose of t he Clause is to find out who owns the various omnibus companies. They are very difficult to get at. Already we know that all their ingenuity has been used to give the travelling public the idea that they are three or four companies, whereas we are finding out that these really camouflage one company. I suggest that as it is necessary to give these very great powers to the Minister which he himself admits will strengthen the powers of the combine, they should be given the widest possible publicity. The public should be constantly informed of what is going on, and if, as the results of the ramifications of this Bill, the combine is being strengthened. I suggest to my right hon. friend that be should press the matter to a Division and I will vote with him.
  Viscount CURZON: It is interesting to listen to the discussion to which we were treated in Committee. There are two classes who want to carry out an anti-trust crusade. Why should we, in regulating London traffic, pass a Clause which will enable every "Nosey Parker" whether he sits on the benches above or below the Gangway to get busy about the affairs of a concern such as the combine. What do hon. Members really think they are going to get out of these investigation? Do they really think they are going to search the business of the London traffic combine? The intentions of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) are difficult to fathom. One can only imagine that he wants to make it impossible for any omnibus concern to compete with the combine on the London streets. We know that the members of the trade unions would rather like to see all the men in one

  799
  combine so that they have only to withdraw their labour from one. If any hon. Member on either side of the Gangway wants to go and find out anything about the combine what is to prevent him going to Somerset House with 1s in his pocket and finding out. I really ask hon. Members whether it is worth while going in for this piece—meal anti—trust legislation. If they want to deal with trusts and combines let them do it properly. We all know the hon. Member who comes from Bootle. Brunner Mond are in that part of the world. Does he want to find out about them?
  Major BURNIE: Brunner Mond have left four or five years ago.
  Viscount CURZON: If it is true he is in an anti-trust campaign in his constituency.
  Major BURNIE: I will be when I am sitting on the Treasury bench.
  Viscount CURZON: Let him get him down to it.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am particularly concerned as to the last three lines of the Amendment which provide that any person who discloses or publishes any particulars which are to be treated confidentially will be liable on conviction to a fine of £100. It is not very difficult to imagine the result of a provision of that sort, and I am at a very great loss to see why the Minister of Transport should have though fit to include the last three lines of this Amendment in this Bill. If hon. Members will allow me this is a point of very great substance. I would point out that any newspaper, any private individual publishing a pamphlet or article in a weekly newspaper in fact any publication whatever is liable to a fine of £100, if he publishes information which has been supplied in accordance with the provisions of this Bill to the Minister of Transport. It is not difficult for hon. Members to imagine that any journalist or any Member of this House or any subject of His Majesty may be so liable. It is in fact a point of very great substance. If the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) for instance, publishes in his admirably edited paper "Forward "particulars—I do not know whether they are true or not—that Lord Ashfield owns a percentage of shares of
  800
  the London Omnibus Company, he is liable to a fine of It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the Press and of the subject, and I press upon the Minister earnestly to withdraw the last three lines.
  Sir F. HALL: I do not think the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone) appreciates the meaning of the last three lines. It is as plain as a cabbage "any particulars which are to be treated as confidential."
  Mr. JOHNSTONE rose—
  Sir F. HALL: No, Mr. Young.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Be a gentleman!" and "Fellowship and reform!"
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: The Amendment says that particulars required to be supplied shall be confidential.
  Sir F. HALL: I refer to the last three lines. It is perfectly plain that if the Ministry of Transport says that certain information shall not be disclosed, they should have powers granted to them to provide that certain information that they consider as confidential should not be disclosed. If you do not give the Government what it asks for, then the whole law becomes useless. I sincerely trust that the Government will adhere to the whole of this Clause, and I think that by doing so no harm can possibly be done to the small owner, the combine, or anybody connected with the industry. Every Government would only be too careful to see they were not drawing a hard-and-fast line and saying no information shall be communicated.
  Mr. WEBB: The last three lines are just the common form of words which appear in certain Acts. If you are going to say that these particulars, which are required under Statute, are confidential you must go on and impose a penalty. As a matter of fact it is not the publication of facts, it is the publication of facts in contravention of this Sub-section. You may ascertain the facts for yourself, but you must not get the fats for publication from the Returns which have been made. The other view that they should not be confidential at all is a point of substance, but it must be remembered that an obligation has been placed upon a person who obtains a licence for an omnibus. Surely it is not exactly fair to require him to give

  801
  these particulars of his mortgages and loans if these particulars are not to be confidential.
  Mr. B. SMITH: They have to give them now.
  Mr. WEBB: It is not done under Statute. It does seem to me that you should only use the particulars for the purpose for which they are asked.
  Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: The particulars of an agreement are only asked for providing the business is controlled. It may be that the present Minister is very active and may well know exactly what to do, but he may go to the House of Lords. He may have a very inactive successor. We may have a Tory Government in office. I am not very old, but there is nothing sure in political life. We know the Opposition do not want this information to be supplied. Let us suppose for a moment they do come into office; what would they do with the information? What the Government are doing is quite against the tenets of the Labour party when they talk about open diplomacy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in the name of common sense to put the agreements on the Table and let us know what they arc. It ill-becomes Members of the Labour party to talk about Members below the Gangway wanting to hide things after this.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Before we proceed to a Division we ought to understand a little more clearly what is implied in regard to this matter. This information has to be ascertained. For what purpose is it to be ascertained? Is it merely for the purpose of placing it in pigeon holes where it cannot be utilised for the purpose of future discussion upon matters of public interest. The question of the newspapers is no doubt extremely important. It might be very serious to enforce penalties upon an innocent newspaper, an innocent editor or an innocent journalist. But there is a question more important than that of the Press. Is this information to be at the disposal of Members of this House? That is a point that has not hitherto been made. Is it really suggested that you are to impose a statutory obligation upon these companies for the purpose of getting information which can only be asked for if it be a legitimate matter for discussion, as for future legislation. The Members of
  802
  this House will be committing an offence punishable by fines in a Court of Justice if having been able in some way to ascertain what this information is they use it for discussion in public meetings of their constituents and explain to them matters which require attention and may require future legislation. The right hon. Gentleman has made out no case for treating this information in this way. It is most dangerous in the interests of the free Press of this country and doubly dangerous to Members of this House. I hope the matter will be reconsidered. If it is not I hope a majority of Members irrespective of parties will go in the Division Lobby in opposition.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position, which, I am sure, is the desire of the whole House or at least by an overwhelming majority. I merely rise to make two observations. Without making any allusions of any sort or any imputations against any person we have had in this House, Presidents of the Board of Trade members of great combines which are to be allowed to keep their information confidential. The second point is: I have been connected all my life with newspapers. It is entirely monstrous to impose these penalties on newspapers. You do no good to fight newspapers. We ask for publicity because these people are given a position of particular advantage. I hope the Motion will be withdrawn.
  Mr. NAYLOR: I have some hesitation in supporting the Minister on this Amendment. Whether I do or not depends on the answer I get, to a question I wish to put to him. I object to anything being regarded as so confidential that it cannot be made public if any Member of the House requires it to be public. My question is this: whether, if we include this word "confidential" and the context with which it is connected in this Bill, will it still be possible for a Member of this House to call for a return giving the particulars that are laid down as confidential in this Clause?
  Mr. WEBB: That is specially provided for where the Minister considers it is in the public interest.
  Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: In whose interest, then, are these returns being furnished?
  Mr. WEBB: These returns are being called for because I assume it is considered by the House in the public interest that the Minister should be in possession of these particulars. I am asked to withdraw these words. As a matter of fact I cannot do anything of the kind. These are the words which are put in every Bill providing for a statutory return to be rendered. They are the words of the Corn Production Act—
  Mr. MASTERMAN: What on earth has that to do with it? What is the specific object of the information to control traffic combines which are given certain advantages?
  3.0 A.M.
  Mr. WEBB: The object of getting this information is to enable the traffic to be controlled and the combines to be controlled. It is the Minister of Transport who gets the information. It is giving the power to the Minister of Transport to deal with the traffic, and to enable him to do so the House has decided to give him the right, and the House must remember that they are imposing this obligation not merely on companies but on the little man also. Surely the Committee must be aware that this Clause, with its penalties, applies equally to the owner of one omnibus.
  Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not a fact that the small omnibus owner to-day has to state, before he can get a licence, whether he has got his omnibus on hire purchase or what other method of payment, and whether he is insured for third party risks? Every form of information the small omnibus owner must give before he cart get. a licence.
  Mr. WEBB: To whom is that information given?
  Mr. SMITH: To the Commissioner of Police.
  Mr. WEBB: And does the Commissioner of Police supply the information to the newspapers? That is exactly the point. The information is supplied to a public authority and the public authority treats it as confidential. That is exactly what is proposed to be done in this case. The information is given to the Minister of Transport, but the Minister of Transport is only to make use of it for public purposes. We are not doing our duty unless we put forward this Clause with proper safeguards to prevent misuse of the in formation. These words are just the words used in other Acts.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:
  Ayes, 123; Noes, 89.

  Division No. 116.]

  AYES.

  [3.5 a.m.

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

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon George Abraham

  Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

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

  Gillett, George H.

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

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gosling, Harry

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Greenall, T.

  Law, A.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lawson, John James

  Baker, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Leach, W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Guest, J. (York, Hamsworth)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Barnes, A.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Lunn, William

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Becker, Harry

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  March, S.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harland, A.

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mills, J. E.

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Buckle, J.

  Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

  Moore-Brahazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Haycock, A. W.

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

  Clarke, A.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Compton, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Cope, Major William

  Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Crittall, V. G.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Perry, S. F.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Potts, John S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hodges, Frank

  Ritson, J.

  Dukes, C.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Duncan, C

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Romeril, H. G.

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

  Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Ferguson, H.

  Hudson, J. H.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sherwood, George Henry

  Tinker, John Joseph

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

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Tout, W. J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Spence, R.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Windsor, Walter

  Spoor, B. G.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Stamford, T. W.

  Warne, G. H.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. J.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wells, S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sullivan, J.

  Whiteley, W.

  Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson.

  NOES

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Raffan, P. W.

  Aistead, R.

  Hindle, F.

  Raffety, F. W.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  Banton, G.

  Hodge, Lieut. Colonel J. P. (Preston)

  Rea, W. Russell

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Remer, J. R.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Royle, C.

  Black, J. W.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

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

  Bonwick, A.

  Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Scurr, John

  Briant, Frank

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Kedward, R. M.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lansbury, George

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lessing, E.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Costello, L. W. J.

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Terrington, Lady

  Darbishire, C. W.

  McCrae, Sir George

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  Dickle, Captain J. P.

  Macfadyen, E.

  Thurtle, E.

  Duckworth, John

  Maden, H.

  Vivian, H.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  Marley, James

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

  Falconer, J.

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Finney, V. H.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Westwood, J

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

  Mond, H.

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murrell, Frank

  Wright, W.

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

  Naylor, T. E.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Owen, Major G.

  Mr. Percy Harris and Mr.

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Phillips, Vivian

  Benjamin Smith.

  Bill reported.
  As amended (on recommittal), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. P. HARRIS: I do not think that this Bill ought to go through its Third Reading without some protest. We have done our best both in Committee and on Report to make it a better Measure, more democratic in character, and it is the one first-class Measure which six months work of Parliament has produced. It takes away the power of governing and gives bureaucratic powers. We have endeavoured to put forward by practical Amendments methods which probably may be dealt with. The Bill is bad in itself, bad as a precedent and a bad kind of legislation, and all our principles would be abused if we were Do vote even for the Third Reading. Our aim and efforts are always to control and prevent monopoly, but anyone who studied this Bill carefully must come to the conclusion that it will
  806
  work in the direction of creating an almost complete monopoly over the travelling facilities on the streets of London. It gives power to the Minister to limit the use of certain streets and to give away a franchise without payment and without any valuable consideration to privileged individuals. It goes out of its way to say that once these streets are defined only a limited number of omnibuses are to have the use of them. Certain individuals will be in an impregnable position to withstand competition, because if any companies in the future desire to give travelling facilities to the public the Minister will be in a position to say that this franchise has already been given away. I do submit to this House—there are only a few of us who feel strongly about the Bill—that we would be lacking in our duty if we did not divide on the Third Reading.
  Mr. BECKER: For once in my life I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. This is an extraordinary far-reaching Bill. It gives power over all means of transport

  807
  except trams. I am told it is possible for the Minister to take these powers. What it is going to do is this: It is going to put us back in the position of some old-fashioned town. You are going to have roads where trams and omnibuses are now competing in narrow streets, and the Minister will have power to stop omnibuses running over these streets and give a monopoly to the trams. I can see in the rush hour a wheel coming off a coal Dart and all the people being put to great inconvenience. You are giving a monopoly to the trams, which are old-fashioned and inadequate means of transport. I think it is extremely unfair that you should stop the omnibuses from running while you are not endeavouring to stop the trains. We are threatened, indeed, with the putting on of more trams when the traffic increases on these restricted roads. The people of London will be glad, in one respect, when the three years of this Bill come to an end. We shall all sigh for the time to come, bad as the conditions are to-day. I feel convinced that by the words of this Bill it can easily be proved in the next year or two that London will be worse off. We shall have a bureaucratic department existing for work which one town clerk should be able to do. It is only another means of keeping alive a department which ought to have died two years ago; a means for extending it which may lead to the construction of an enormous building at Chiswick to house the staff. I know our party had something to do with the Bill. The good works of the Bill, whatever they may be, must be ascribed to our party. The rest I do not like. I am going to vote against this Bill. It is a very bad Bill and will go down to history as a monument to the inefficient legislation put forward by a supposed Socialist Government.
  Mr. E. BROWN: There has been a most interesting revelation of the effect of the discussion of this Bill upon public opinion by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) this evening. What happens in his division will happen in many. A large section of his constituency find that unexpected powers are given in the Second Schedule of the Bill. We may find that when the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), coming back
  808
  late to the House in his car, desires to go by a certain road, and finds himself prevented, he will use military language, and it will be unlimited. [HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw!"] All I can say is that I can only hope that when that happens the present Minister of Transport will not be there to hear him. There seems to be a general impression among the public that this Bill merely applies to omnibuses, but Sub-section (2) prescribes streets which are not to be used for traffic by vehicles of any specified class, either generally or at specified times. I differ from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). I do not agree that this Bill has been made less objectionable. The only point of improvement. I can see that the regulations are to be brought before Parliament. I shall watch public opinion carefully—at almost every street corner in London—when this Bill is put into operation. I am glad to have an opportunity of voting against it and I wish our opposition had been able to kill it.
  Major BURNIE: A great many Members of this House do not seem to realise that the cost of this Bill is to be borne out of money provided by the general public. We provincials have to face the same thing in regard to the Royal Parks. They are borne on the estimates. We pay the money and the people of London enjoy the advantages. I object to the control of London traffic being vested in a Minister of that House. The business of the House is congested already and more business of this kind should not be brought into it. I have had to stay several nights in this Chamber while some tube, or railway extension, in North London has been debated at great length by London Members. I think it would have been better for this House to have applied a little mere devolution and invested the local bodies of London with more power over their own affairs. Let them finance their own affairs and control them. This Bill is a very bad precedent. It is on these grounds I intend to go into the Lobby against this Bill.
  Question put; "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 149, Noes, 69.

  Division No. 117.]

  AYES.

  [3.27 a.m.

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Potts, John S.

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

  Harland, A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ritson, J.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hon, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

  Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Banton, G.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Russell, A. West (Tynem)

  Barnes, A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hirst, G. H.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hodges, Frank

  Scurr, John

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sherwood, George Henry

  Buchanan, G.

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Buckle, J.

  Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hudson, J. H.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Clarke, A.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Snell, Harry

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Spence, R.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spoor, B. G.

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cope, Major William

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Crittall, V. G

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sullivan, J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lansbury, George

  Thurtle, E.

  Dickson, T.

  Law, A.

  Tinker, Joseph

  Dukes, C.

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Tout, W. J.

  Duncan, C.

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker Joseph,

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Leach, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Lunn, William

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Ferguson, H.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

  Mackinder, W.

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

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  March, S.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

  Wells, S. R.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Maxton, James

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Westwood, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

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

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Murray, Robert

  Windsor, Walter

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Penny Frederick George

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perry, S. F.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson.

  NOES

  Ackroyd, T. R.

  Hindle, F.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Alstead, R.

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Raffan, P. W.

  Asko, Sir Robert William

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

  Raffety, F. W.

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  Becker, Harry

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Rea, W. Russell

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Remer, J. R.

  Black, J. W.

  Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Royle, C.

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Jewitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

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

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John

  Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

  Kedward, R. M.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Lessing, E.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Darblshire, C. W.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Starmer, Sir Charles

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Duckworth, John

  McCrae, Sir George

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Macfadyen, E.

  Terrington, Lady

  Falconer, J.

  Maden, H.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  Finney, V. H.

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Vivian, H.

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

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

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Mond, H.

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

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Murrell, Frank

  Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Briant.

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Owen, Major G.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Question put, and agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendment.
Motion made, and Question: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. A. Greenwood].
Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of duration of 13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 6.)
  Lords Amendment:
  In page 1, line 11, leave out "Twenty-six" and insert thereof "Twenty-five."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that this Amendment is a privileged Amendment. The Lords cannot make, whether by increase or decrease, a rate or the period thereof. This is obviously the period thereof.
  Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendment to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Percy Harris, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall and Mr. George Balfour.
  Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Greenwood.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment reported later, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient in connection with pensions payable to persons to whom the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1919, apply to authorise the provision out of moneys provided by Parliament of such further sums as will become payable as a consequence of providing that, for the purpose a determining the weekly rate of pension to which a person is entitled, there shall be deducted from his means as calculated under the said Acts such part, if any, of the means, hut not exceeding in any case thirty-nine pounds, as is derived from any source other than earnings."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. STURROCK: It is very important that we should talk about the position in which the Government has allowed this matter to come before the House. There is a case where the Government has not really lived up to the statement it made in the country of the end of last year.
Here we have a case in which it is quite true, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made out a case against fulfilling the obligations under which he and his supporters appealed to the country at the last General Election. That I let go because I know that Members of all parties occasionally in the heat of an election promise more than they know they can fulfil. But there is one point I would like to impress on the Government. While they have endeavoured to meet the ease of old people who come of pensionable age they have left them open as before to the most inquisitorial examination which anyone can conceive. I know so well the horrors and distrust, that that sort of examination causes, that I would like to appeal to the Government to ask if it is not possible, to meet that matter. There is no question of party about this. When old people come to the point at which they are entitled to have the old age pension you have inspectors sent down to them who literally turn their affairs inside nut in order to discover what amount of money they have put by themselves, and what they enjoy in respect of any private pension. The whole thing causes the greatest consternation in many small homes. I appeal to the Government that they could do a great deal in this matter by interpreting the intention of the House of Commons more liberally than has been done in the past, by instructing the officials to go into the cases that come before them in a more generous spirit.
Mr. WESTWOOD: I am rather amazed when I hear complaints from hon. Members below the Gangway that all the anomalies in connection with old age pensions are not removed at one sweep by the present Government. Who was it that made the anomalies? Who was it who when they introduced the Old Age Pension Bill sought to penalise married couples? All we are seeking to do at the present time is to remove barriers by the

813
proposals contained in this Money Resolution.
I do want to plead with the Government if it be possible at all to alter the method of calculation in connection with the income of the aged people who are to benefit by this resolution. I know there are at least 200,000 old people in the country who to-day will be looking to the Labour Government. I am not so much interested about looking after the rich as attending to the poor. This resolution will provide something for the poor, but I trust we are not going to continue the unfair method of calculation which seeks to credit aged persons when they have saved a certain amount of money with 5 per cent. of income on it when they may only be getting 2½ per cent. If it be possible within the terms of the Resolution I trust that the Government will allow the calculation of means to be the actual income instead of a fictitious income.
Mr. RAFFAN: I hope this matter is not to be urged from the party point of view. I share the regret expressed by many Members of the party above the Gangway that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not found it possible this year to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which considered the matter. After all, the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Bridgeton last year went a considerable degree further than the present proposals. I recognise to the full the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very grateful for what has been done, but I hope we may regard it only as an instalment, and that Members of all parties who have founded themselves upon the Report of the Departmental Committee may look forward next year or very speedily to the adoption of those proposals.
I associate myself entirely with the point made by the two hon. Members who have spoken as to the instructions which may very well be given with a view to lessening the nature of the inquiries. I was for many years Chairman of the Old Age. Pensions Committee in my own district and I am sure that my experience was the same as that of many hon. Members, and the feelings of the old people amongst whom inquiries were made were affected very materially by the particular officer who happened to be stationed at a particular place at
814
a particular time. There are officers who have acted in the most tactful way, who have carried out their duties in such a way that the Old Age Pensions Committee had every reason to be satisfied, and the old people themselves had no reasonable ground of complaint. But there are others who have felt it their duty to save the Exchequer every single penny they could scrape off the allowance the old people got. Again and again we disregarded the reports of certain officers and we sent up recommendations that they should be disregarded. I hope it will be possible so to frame instructions to these officers that these complaints may become things of the past. I would suggest, and I hope it is within the scope of the resolution that there should be an end to any inquiry as to whether members of the family are giving something. The income limit is there and we will not be able to get beyond it this year, but I do suggest that an inquiry as to whether a member of the family is giving a little assistance either in the shape of money or clothing or food is something which these people resent bitterly and rightly.
Mr. SPEAKER: We are not dealing with matters of administration under the Act. The proper place to discuss them is on the Estimate. We are dealing now with legislation.
Mr. RAFFAN: I am very much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for the indulgence which you have already given ale. I do not intend to pursue the matter further except that I think the traditions of the House and your willingness to assist, Members will enable us to put this point of view that those of us who are somewhat disappointed that we have not been able to secure greater concessions will be reconciled to a period of waiting if we can have an indication from the Members of the Government that the regulations will be interpreted in a more liberal spirit.
Mr. WEBB: I would just like to point out to the House that if we take proceedings in two stages it does not mean that the second stage will not be taken in due course. One step at a time! I would also ask the House to consider that before asking for more than a pension of £26 a year there are people who are more in need of assistance. We must consider whether some of the poorer pensioners do not need larger pensions and whether the

815
widows and children ought not to come first. I put that as really justifying the withholding of the completion of a system of universal pensions. With regard to the other point, I must not go into questions of administration, but I would say this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had various matters of that kind brought to his notice, and he intends as far as possible within limits to meet requirements.
Mr. H. H. SPENCER: This is about the only proposition to add to the expenditure of the country that I have any pleasure in voting for during this Parliament. We should all have pleasure in this belated act of kindliness to those old folk, and I am very sorry one Member of the House is trying to make some false capital out of it. It is an act of justice which should be performed without a dissenting voice.
Mr. STRANGER: This is the first occasion on which I have made any kind of attack on the Labour Government, but I do not intend to say more than a few words. Everybody who sits below the Gangway knows that the Labour Government gave these promises six months ago. They seem to have forgotten one of the most important facts of all, the withdrawal of the thrift disqualification. They made promises six months ago and now they have an opportunity of withdrawing, first of all the thrift disqualification and, secondly, if they cannot do that, to withdraw the thrift disqualification in the case of all those who are not paying Income Tax. That would have been a simple way
816
of dealing with the matter. When people reach the age of 70 years and they do not pay Income Tax it is an indication that they have not too much money. How did the Labour party get their majority? The President of the Board of Trade says the Minister of Pensions is not here. Why is he not here? He knew the matter was going to be raised. That is how they show their sympathy for the people to whom they make promises. I have never yet made an attack on the Labour Government, but this time I must.
Bill ordered to he brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Webb, Mr. Wheatley and Mr. William Graham.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL,
  "to amend paragraph (3) of Section 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
  The remaining Order were read, and postponed.
  being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'clock a.m.

EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
  SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
  STATE SCHOLARSHIPS (DOMINION UNIVERSITIES).
  STATE SCHOLARSHIPS (DOMINION UNIVERSITIES).
  ART TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  ART TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  PENSIONED TEACHERS.
  PENSIONED TEACHERS.
  WESLEYAN SCHOOL, FROME.
  WESLEYAN SCHOOL, FROME.
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL REVIEW (GUESTS "ENCHANTRESS").
  NAVAL REVIEW (GUESTS "ENCHANTRESS").
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARIES (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARIES (PENSIONS).
  SINGAPORE BASE (STAFF).
  SINGAPORE BASE (STAFF).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MRS. M. A. RICHARDSON.
  MRS. M. A. RICHARDSON.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS HOSPITAL, EWELL.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS HOSPITAL, EWELL.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. T. F. LAZELL).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. T. F. LAZELL).
  CIVIL AVIATION (IRISH SERVICE).
  CIVIL AVIATION (IRISH SERVICE).
  AERIAL PAGEANT.
  AERIAL PAGEANT.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (OMNIBUSES).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (OMNIBUSES).
  DOMESTIC SERVICE AGENCIES.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE AGENCIES.
  NATURALISATION APPLICATIONS.
  NATURALISATION APPLICATIONS.
  CHECKWEIGHING ACT.
  CHECKWEIGHING ACT.
  POLICE SERVICE.
  POLICE SERVICE.
  FOREIGN OFFICE RECORDS.
  FOREIGN OFFICE RECORDS.
  COURT OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR.
  COURT OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  NON-INDUSTRIAL STAFF.
  NON-INDUSTRIAL STAFF.
  AIR MINISTRY (LIEUT.-COMMANDER BERNARD).
  AIR MINISTRY (LIEUT.-COMMANDER BERNARD).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  TYPISTS.
  TYPISTS.
  BASIS OF EXCHANGE.
  BASIS OF EXCHANGE.
  AGRICULTURE (LABOURERS' WAGES).
  AGRICULTURE (LABOURERS' WAGES).
FINANCE BILL.
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (DEPRECIATION).
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (DEPRECIATION).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (LONDON CLUBS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (LONDON CLUBS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (WAGE AGREEMENT).
  COAL INDUSTRY (WAGE AGREEMENT).
  PASTURE BRIDGE, MEXBOROUGH.
  PASTURE BRIDGE, MEXBOROUGH.
POST OFFICE
  SORTING CLERKS, LONDON (LEAVE).
  SORTING CLERKS, LONDON (LEAVE).
  CLERICAL CLASS (UNSUCCESSFUL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES).
  CLERICAL CLASS (UNSUCCESSFUL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  WEST AFRICA.
  WEST AFRICA.
  EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.
  EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.
  IRISH FREE STATE.
  IRISH FREE STATE.
  COMPANIES ACTS.
  COMPANIES ACTS.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  II. BRITISH DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.
  II. BRITISH DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.
  TERRITORY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
  TERRITORY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
  1. SELF-GOVERNING DOMINIONS.
  1. SELF-GOVERNING DOMINIONS.
HOUSING.
  SOUTHWARK (SLUM CLEARANCE).
  SOUTHWARK (SLUM CLEARANCE).
  CONSTRUCTION (OFFICE OF WORKS).
  CONSTRUCTION (OFFICE OF WORKS).
  RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS.
  RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS.
  ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS (ABERTILLERY).
  ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS (ABERTILLERY).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS.
  MENTAL HOSPITALS.
  ST. ANDREW'S HOSPITAL, NORTHAMPTON.
  ST. ANDREW'S HOSPITAL, NORTHAMPTON.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATE FACTORY, BIRTLEY.
  STATE FACTORY, BIRTLEY.
  WOMEN (UNEMPLOYED).
  WOMEN (UNEMPLOYED).
  RELIEF WORK.
  RELIEF WORK.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMPERIAL PREFERERENCE.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL had given Notice to move, That this House profoundly regrets the decision of the Government not to endorse the Tariff Preferences proposed at the recent Imperial Conferences, or the guarantee to maintain the Sugar Preference for ten years, as also their declaration that they reserve full liberty to propose to Parliament the reduction or abolition of the duties on all the commodities to which Preference now applies, and records its belief that this unsympathetic attitude to a policy which has been unanimously approved by all the States of the Empire at successive Conferences, must seriously weaken the stability of our Imperial trade relations and prejudice the unity of the Empire.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in placing on the Paper the Resolution which stands in my name I need hardly say that, as a practical politician, I did not do so with any hope that it would influence or affect the decision at which His Majesty's Government have arrived, nor did I anticipate that it would provide a suitable opportunity for their supporters on the Bench opposite, to announce their conversion to a new policy. My first object is that the case might once again be stated. My second object is this. I know of my own personal knowledge that if your Lordships think fit to carry the Resolution by a substantial majority supposing there is a Division, it will convey profound satisfaction and some degree of comfort to the Oversea Empire. Our Oversea Dominions, the Colonies and the Protectorates are very anxious that they may be given soma reasonable ground
1014
for hoping that the last word has not been said on this question, that the door has not been once again barred and bolted. They are ready to wait and frame their own policy and actions if this country—their own home, as they call it—will only give them some reasonable ground for entertaining hope. If your Lordships see fit to adopt this Resolution it will go a long way towards giving them increased hope and confidence for the future. Therefore, it is mainly for those two reasons that I have placed this Motion on the Paper.
When I put it down I was not aware that the debate was coming on so soon in the House of Commons, but I need hardly say that as a convinced and devoted advocate of the policy of Imperial Preference I rejoice at the result of the Divisions in the other place. From all the information I have received—and I think it is reliable and accurate—if it had not been for the great pressure exercised by His Majesty's Government upon members of their Party, the majority of six by which they rejected the first. Resolution would have been turned into a considerable minority. There is time yet, but there is not too much time, and that is why I am so anxious your Lordships should record your views and opinions at this moment. I was profoundly disappointed by the decision at which His Majesty's Government arrived in regard to this particular question. I had hoped that it was one of the many questions on which a Labour Government, coming into office for the first time, might find themselves untrammelled by previous utterances; that they would find their political treasury did not contain those shibboleths which have been so often a difficulty and stumbling block to the older Parties. I hoped that they would look at this question with a wide and far-seeing vision, that they would realise all that has happened, that after these Conferences which have been held they would realise that the time has come when this country ought to meet the rest of the British Empire at least half way.
It was my great privilege and honour to be at the Colonial Office in the years 1917 and 1918 when, owing to the pressure of the war, the Prime Minister was unable to preside over any of our Conferences from first to last, and it fell to my lot to fill that honoured post. I came

1015
into the closest contact with the representatives of our Dominions. It was extremely interesting to note that while, in the first year, their spokesmen emphasised the fact that they wanted no return for the favours they bestowed upon us—there was not a suggestion (in some cases there was a denial) of the existence of any desire on their part for a return on ours—in 1918 the situation had altered. They came to the second Conference with minds greatly changed on this aspect of the case. They declared in emphatic and unmistaken language that they must have an adequate return for the policy they had adopted, and that we could not expect their people to support them in a policy which was so entirely ignored by the Government here any more than our people could support a Government here which carried out a policy which was not appreciated and recognised by those on whose behalf it was conceived. This feeling grew. After I left the Colonial Office I saw at different times a great many of our representatives from overseas and I found that they had gone a step further in the direction they had taken, for the first time I believe, in 1918. They were not only ready to ask that they should have concessions, but they were prepared to make it quite clear that their demands, or at all events their suggestions and requests, must be met.
I notice, in the course of the discussions that have taken place, that some one—I think it was a Minister—advocated the presence at these Conferences of members of the Opposition as well as members of the Government, and he went on to say that if this was adopted there would be no risk of the Conference discussing things upon which, from the point of view of the British Government, they ought not to make recommendations. That statement was obviously made by somebody who has no knowledge of the constitution of an Imperial Conference, or of the way in which its work is done. You might have every member of His Majesty's Government at the Conference, every one of whom would be prepared to argue against Preference, but that could not, and would not, prevent the Conference, if it saw fit, from dealing with the question, and, if it had a majority, passing its own Resolution, or if it were in a minority, recording its views. The
1016
whole business of the Conference, from the first day of its meetings to the last, is entirely in the hands and under the control of the Conference itself, and to suggest that, by altering its constitution, you might prevent certain things being done, is to propose such a complete change in its constitution and in its methods that I am perfectly certain that the proposal would be resisted with the greatest determination by the Oversea Dominions and Colonies; and they would be right.
I cannot help feeling that, although the Divisions, and so on, have gone against us, there are evidences abroad of a growing change in public opinion, and I look forward to the time when there will be a much more general movement in support of this policy than is possible at present. I hope that, to-day, some member of His Majesty's Government, or someone speaking for the Liberal party, may tell us in a little greater detail more fully what are the reasons that have made them run the risk of giving this offence—for it is nothing else—to our self-governing Dominions and refusing to continue the Preference which has been already accorded.
I put this in an altogether different position from the further proposal to extend that Preference by new taxes. What objections are there against that course? I can conceive of two results which, it might be feared, would follow the adoption of Preference, but I can show, I think, that they have not followed it in so far as it has been at present practised, nor is there the least risk. In the first place, it might be urged that Preference would lead to an increase in the cost of living. We know from abundant evidence that this has not been the case. It might be urged, again, that we are an island almost entirely dependent for our existence upon our supplies from foreign countries and that therefore we could not do anything which would tend to lessen those supplies. I will come to this point in a moment and I think I shall be able to prove to your Lordships' satisfaction that there is no foundation whatever for this statement; that, on the contrary, so prolific is our Empire and so inexhaustible are its resources and so manifold is their character that we could, to-morrow, supply ourselves with every one of our needs—not merely

1017
necessities—if we chose to develop the territory that is our own and that is under our own flag.
I know that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are very indignant when statements are made in speeches by members of the Party to which I belong, seeming to indicate that we think we have a monopoly of Imperial and patriotic views. We have no desire to do anything of the kind. I speak as an old Protectionist, having been one all my life, but I have always said that while those are our views they could never be translated into practical working until the great mass of the people of this country shared them and were prepared to accept them if they were asked for their endorsement. So anxious am I to secure co-operation amongst all Parties that I certainly would not say anything that could be translated into a charge against my opponents of want of Imperialism or want of patriotism. I know well that when the issue is one of peace or war, when the stakes are the honour of our country and the freedom of our people, there is no division among the Parties; all Parties act together in the common cause and are prepared to make the same sacrifices. But this is a different situation. This is a situation in which all parts of the Empire are asking the Mother Country to join with them in making one the trade of the Empire, her resources and her markets, and on that point the two Parties to which I have referred are consistent in their refusal to co-operate.
I hope it will not be regarded as offensive if I say that it seems to me that the only reason which can be advanced for this policy is that these Parties feel bound to carry out that which is really the doctrine, of a bigoted Free Trader. It is in the hope that as time goes on this may be altered that I have moved this Resolution to-day, and when we are blamed for imputing to our opponents want of patriotism, or of public or Imperial spirit, it must be remembered that these are questions upon which people are apt to regard deeds as more important than words. Certainly this is the case with our Oversea Dominions. They look for what we are prepared to do, and they think far more of that than of what we are prepared to say. If, therefore, any such inference as I have mentioned is drawn from these state-
1018
ments, it is not our fault. It is the inevitable consequence and the natural result of the policy which has been pursued by the Parties in question.
The situation to-day, and indeed ever since the war, is entirely different from anything with which this country has ever been confronted before. I find in a statement made by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons on August 2, 1916, by far the best expression of the view to which I am trying to give utterance of any that I have yet seen. I quote this statement, not with the smallest desire of bringing it up against that most distinguished man: I have no reason of the kind in my mind. I quote it solely because, with that almost matchless power of expression and language which he possesses, he seems to me to have described the case exactly as it is. He said—and I remember the speech very well—
"No one who has any imagination can possibly be blind to the fact that this war, with all the enormous upheaval of political, social and industrial conditions which it involves, must in many ways, and ought, if we are a rational and practical people, to suggest to us new problems"—
It is to the words which follow that I would ask your Lordships' special attention—
"or possibly modifications in the solution of the old ones. I would regard it as deliberate blindness to the teachings of experience if you were to say we had forgotten nothing and had learned nothing from a war like this."
Can the case be put better or in more forcible or clear language than that which I have quoted to your Lordships?
If that was the case in 1916, when the war was only two years old, before we had had the awful experiences of 1917 and the early part of 1918, how is it now, when we have found to our dismay and sorrow that the conditions of peace are thoroughly unsatisfactory, that the world is in a state of turmoil and we ourselves are suffering from trade depression and trade difficulty of the gravest kind? Surely, the attitude of public men and Parties who oppose a change of this kind is rightly described by Mr. Asquith as "deliberate blindness." I hope the time may not be far distant when we may see a greater change even than we see to-day.
I said there was one other reason which might account for this—namely, that we might be deficient in the necessary

1019
materials for our existence, and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to quote a few figures. They are the only figures which I shall quote. First, let me say that anybody who doubts the power of the British Empire to support itself cannot do better, as a first step towards learning what is the truth, than pay a visit to Wembley to see one of the most remarkable exhibitions the world has ever seen. He will find, if he makes a list of all the articles required for human life, that there is only one article which the British Empire does not possess in full, and that is oil; and British enterprise, British courage, British determination and British capital have already brought within our reach great supplies of oil which are drawn from other countries.
Let me also recommend to noble Lords the study of a most remarkable book which has just been issued, the title of which is "The Balance of Trade," by Professor Hewins. I know there are many people who dismiss Professor Hewins's information and evidence as not worth anything, because they describe him as a hopeless Protectionist, and so on. I happen to know Professor Hewins better than most people, and I venture to say that that is an utterly wrong description of him. He has remarkable knowledge and wonderful power of putting it at the command of others, and if anybody takes up the book whose mind is open and fair and who is ready to be convinced if the facts are against his existing views, a study of this book and two or three other publications which have recently been issued will convince him that there is more in this policy of Preference than he really thinks.
I have selected for my purpose the figures relating to two of the greatest necessaries of life—namely, wheat and meat. To these all others are subordinate and inferior. Without ample supplies of wheat and meat we should be at the mercy of any enemy who chose to bring a sufficient force against us. Now, what are the actual facts? The United Kingdom consumes, annually, about 140,000,000 cwt., of wheat, of which our home production averages about 36,000,000 cwt We import from the Empire 40,000,000 cwt., and I am sorry to say that under our present system we import from foreign countries no less than 60,000,000 cwt.
Now, do we resort to the aid of foreign countries because our own Empire cannot supply what we want? No! Nothing of the kind. In the first place, let me say, supposing this policy of Preference were really adopted, and there was a Joint Council of the Empire to determine how to make the best use of all the Imperial resources, there is no doubt that such rapid development would follow as would secure an immense increase in the supply of all the necessaries of life, including those two vital articles of food. But, apart from that, as things are to-day, you will see that Canada and Australia send to foreign countries 90,000,000 cwt., or 30,000,000 cwt., more than we require to import from abroad. Therefore, the question is really this. It is not merely a question of finance or statistics, or of Free Trade or Protection; the real question we have to decide for ourselves today is whether, there being this surplus within the British Empire, we are going to take advantage of it, or whether we deliberately prefer to take our supplies from foreign countries. The choice is between our own Empire and our own people on the one hand, and foreign countries on the other.
Next, with regard to meat. Australia and New Zealand send us the bulk of their exports of beef, mutton, preserved meats, rabbits and hares. Australia, incidentally, sends us no pork. Canada's exports of fresh beef are 520,000 cwt., of which only 88,800 cwt., are sent here. The exports of mutton and lamb amount to 64,000 cwt., of which we get none. Our meat supplies are about one-half of what we require. The remainder—21 per cent. of beef and 64 per cent. of mutton—comes from the Empire. Therefore the choice lies really here, as in the case of wheat, and, indeed, in the case of everything else, between the encouragement of our own Empire to supply us, and taking advantage of the Empire's resources, and continuing to rely, with all its danger and all its difficulty, upon foreign lands.
What actually happened in the course of the war? Your Lordships will remember that owing to submarine and other difficulties, and in the absence at the war of some of our best blood and muscle, we were hard set to get sufficient corn and meat, and we were largely dependent upon imports from outside. Prices rose and New Zealand, that most

1021
Imperial-minded, patriotic Dominion, and its great Prime Minister, Mr. Massey, took immediate steps to send here her supply of beef and mutton at specially quoted prices. They made great sacrifice of their profit in order that our own people might have large supplies at moderate cost.
What happened? Mr. Massey came over to that second Conference. He said to me: "This is what we have done in New Zealand, and why we have done it. And what is going on here? Our meat is being sold at a much higher price than is just and fair having regard to the price that we are asking, and my people are very angry about it." I knew nothing about it—these things were under Controllers—but I, of course, made inquiries. I found that the real fact was that they had sent us a great supply, but they could not, by themselves, send us enough, for many reasons. Your Lordships will all remember the great difficulty of shipping. We had to fall back upon foreign countries, especially Argentina. All the meat supplies coming from there were under the control and in the possession of foreign meat trusts. They had no reason, sentimental or other, to diminish their trade price, so they kept up the price of meat, and it was in order to bring it down a little and to equalise things that the cheaper meat from New Zealand was sold at a higher price. Your Lordships can imagine the indignation of Mr. Massey and his supporters when they found what had happened to the meat which they had sent from such an admirable and noble motive.
It is not, therefore, that the supplies are insufficient from this Empire, it is not that the result of Preference would be an increased cost of living; surely it must be only a rigid adherence to the old doctrines of Free Trade, and sooner or later these facts will make themselves known and will wear down the walls of opposition, and we shall see an almost, if not quite, united movement in favour of this great Imperial change.
There is one other statement which has been made by His Majesty's Government which I challenge absolutely. It is that they are debarred from even considering this question on its merits because they received a mandate at the last Election. They received nothing of the kind. There was no mandate in any constituency
1022
against Preference to our Dominions and Colonies. The question was never discussed. What was your mandate at the last General Election? How did you get it? You issued a series of pamphlets—or, at any rate, they were issued—to our unfortunate cottagers in the country villages, telling them that if they voted for us and our preferential arrangements the result would be a tax on all foodstuffs and an increase in the price of bread, meat, and clothing for their children, and there was no time, in the few days at our disposal, to get round and counteract these mendacious statements. We had to leave the matter to the chance of the consequences.
What was the result? The Liberal Party boasted of two seals won in my county, both from Conservatives, both seats that had been held by large majorities at the previous Election. And how were they won? They were won by spreading these statements broadcast through these small villages, where there is little opportunity for the unfortunate people to consult someone, or to get information, as to the real facts of the case. Women were frightened to death, and I do not blame them. It was a troop of frightened voters that voted at the last General Election. They thought that want and starvation were staring them in the face, and they voted as they did to protect not, only themselves but, still more, their little children from the empty bellies and the bare backs and legs which had been the fate of their grandfathers sixty years ago. And I should have done the same if I had believed what they believed. But that is not a mandate for refusing Preference; it is a mandate for not putting on the increased taxation and giving the extra powers that Mr. Baldwin asked for. To twist that into a mandate against Preference to our Dominions and Colonies is to turn the facts to a wholly improper use, and to describe the General Election in language which is entirely unjustifiable.
On this Question the Government really have, to-day, a free hand, subject only to the statements that they themselves individually have made. I know that, in the course of their previous career—for they did not think they would be so soon in office—they made many statements, and in the short time that they have been in office they have seen fit to change a great

1023
many of them, and to abandon a number of the aspirations which they assured the people they would be able to carry into effect. One more added to the promises that they have broken would not, I think, add heavily to the difficulties which they find in their consciences.
I say in my Resolution something about sugar. I mention it for the special reason that I have just returned from a visit to the West Indies, where I had the opportunity of discussing these problems on the spot, with planters and settlers there and those who were responsible for the government of those Islands. The long period of depression and suffering through which those Islands had passed had just seemed to them to be broken. The new arrangements in regard to sugar seemed to give them fresh hope, better chances of making a living. They were all in great spirits about it, and they told me how earnestly they hoped that those arrangements would never be given up by this or any other Government. We know now that that is all changed. I believe that one or two of your Lordships have special knowledge about this particular question and that we shall hear something about it before this debate ends. All I would say is that we must remember that it is inevitable that the residents in the West Indies should draw comparison between the treatment they receive at the hands of the. United States and the treatment they receive at the hands of this country. The United States takes them, if not into full partnership, at least into a very generous partnership. It does everything it can to advance their prosperity, while we turn a cold shoulder to them in regard to the most vital things of trade and industry. It is inevitable, therefore, that they should make this comparison.
So far, I have dealt entirely with the trade, commercial and the political aspects of this case, hut before I resume my seat I want to say one word about the greatest aspect of all from which it is to be regarded—namely, the Imperial aspect. What an opportunity we have, thanks to the prevision, the courage and the statesmanship of our predecessors. Here is a vast Empire with lands not only not fully occupied but practically vacant, with most magnificent prospects as regards the products of the soil of all kinds, agricultural and mineral, and the products of the waters, both salt and
1024
fresh. There is only one thing that is wanted and that is badly wanted.
The politics of our Oversea Dominions representatives vary, of course, immensely, but talk to any one of them and he will tell you the same thing—that there is one thing wanted if they are to offer to our people who are crowded out here the hearty welcome they are ready to extend to them. That one thing is new markets and an extension of their existing markets. Unless they obtain them, it is impossible for them to take immigrants and, what is more, as one of the Prime Ministers said to me this year, "It would not be fair or right for us to do it because we should be bringing them out without those certainties for the future which we should have if, in addition to all our other advantages, we had open markets. We are ready to welcome them at the port, to see them properly cared for and conveyed to their different stations, whatever they may be, in agriculture in all its various forms. We are prepared to give them every opportunity at the start and we are certain that they would get on; but we must have new markets."
Well, it is for this country now to decide whether they are going to help in the development of these markets themselves, or whether they are going to leave this great work to other countries and nations to do in conjunction with our Dominions. There is no doubt that whatever our policy may be, however blind it may be, however ill-conceived it may be, or they may regard it as being, nothing will ever shake their loyalty, nothing will ever decrease the devotion which they feel for our Sovereign, and for the Constitution. But it is only human nature—and why should they differ from anybody else?—that if they constantly find, day after day, week after week, all sorts of opportunities offered to them by other countries there must be a growing tendency to enter into those relations in trade and commerce with them which, though they will never weaken their loyalty and devotion to this country, will at all events not tend (it is impossible that they should) to strengthen those bonds of Empire which it is our duty to make unbreakable.
So far. I have dealt entirely with the trade, commercial and political alike on this great question. I look

1025
forward to a united Empire in the not distant future, an Empire united not only, as now, in defence and in affection, but in creating a, common trade, making common use of our various resources, treating it as one great property and not as different parts of the Empire. If we do that our children will be able to thank God that, under one Sovereign, and under a common flag, they are also able to enjoy the almost unlimited prosperity that must be their heritage if these opportunities are provided. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That this House profoundly regrets the decision of the Government not to endorse the Tariff Preferences proposed at the recent Imperial Conferences, or the guarantee to maintain the Sugar Preference for ten years, as also their declaration that they reserve full liberty to propose to Parliament the reduction or abolition of the duties on all the commodities to which Preference now applies, and records its belief that this unsympathetic attitude to a policy which has been unanimously approved by all the States of the Empire at successive Conferences, must seriously weaken the stability of our Imperial trade relations and prejudice the unity of the Empire.—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, the Government make no complaint that this Motion has been placed upon the Paper. It was, indeed, to be expected. The Motion raises very big issues, and in replying to it I would ask for consideration at the hands of your Lordships because of the exceptional difficulty which confronts the representative of the Colonial Office in dealing with the situation arising out of the Resolutions passed at the Economic Conference last autumn. This situation, however, was not brought about by the present Government, and they cannot fairly be held responsible for it.
I said that the Government make no complaint that this Motion was placed on the Paper. On the contrary, we are glad of opportunities, such as those which have been given in another place and now here, to state our position in regard to these very important matters. There has been in certain quarters in this country—of course, it did not appear from the speech of the noble Viscount and I do not suggest
1026
that it did—so much misrepresentation about these matters, so much assumption that the true path of Imperial policy must lie along the lines of Preference, so much, at any rate, of implied condemnation as anti-Imperial of those who are opposed to Preference, however honestly, that we welcome an opportunity of stating what seems to us to be the real perspective of these matters.
The noble Viscount asks that reasons should be given for the position of the Government. I will endeavour to give those reasons. The first one which I will give is one which has been given before, and the noble Viscount anticipated, I take it, that it would be given. I say that the Government are not responsible for the present position and for any difficulties and disappointments which may ensue from it. The late Government had the matter entirely in their own hands. They went into the Economic Conference with certain proposals which, naturally enough, were endorsed by Dominion representatives. Nevertheless, the then Prime Minister, who wanted not merely Preference and extensions of Preference but also to introduce a comprehensive system of Protection, decided upon a General Election. Now, the noble Viscount suggested that Preference was not an issue at the General Election.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Hear, hear.
LORD ARNOLD: I confess I was amazed to hear him say that. I will not give chapter and verse unless your Lordships desire it, but I will refer the noble Viscount, if I may, to a speech on this particular point delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: The noble Lord will pardon me, but I did not say that the question was never raised. I know, of course, that certain members of the Front Benches on both sides took part in the Election in the country. I said that in the country where the issue was decided the question of Preference was never referred to in local speeches, but taxes on food and other articles were.
LORD ARNOLD: May I say that I have some idea of what was going on at the General Election because, although I was not a candidate myself, I was following

1027
matters very closely and my experience was quite contrary to that of the noble Viscount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place quoted extracts from speeches delivered by the late Prime Minister proving, if anything can do so, that Preference was an issue at the last General Election. The Government was badly defeated. About 9,000,000 votes were cast for Free Trade as against 5,500,000 for the late Government. I say-in these circumstances that the present Government cannot, even if it wished to do so, endorse the Tariff Preference which the noble Viscount has mentioned in his Motion. I do not believe that the late Government realised the difficulty which it was bringing into being, but that cannot be helped now. I do protest, and protest most strongly, against any assumption that the present difficulties and disappointments should be laid at the door of the present Government, when it is the late Government which, through its handling of the whole affair, is to blame.
In reply to the noble Viscount I propose to confine myself a little more closely to the actual terms of his Motion than he did. The Motion on the Paper divides itself into four parts, but two of them are rather outside the area of what I might call the usual Preference issue as we have known it in this country, at any rate in past years and until just recently. I, therefore, propose to deal with the two propositions which are rather outside the main issue first, and thus clear the ground for a discussion of the main issue. The first of these two propositions is one which regrets, in the terms of the Motion, the decision of the Government not to guarantee to maintain the Sugar Preference of ½d. per lb. for ten years. This proposal to guarantee for ten years ahead a certain form for a certain tax is something entirely new in the history of British national finance. The genesis of the proposal was the undertaking given by Mr. Churchill in 1922, but apart from that, there is absolutely no precedent whatever for such an undertaking. If there is one thing more firmly embedded in the Constitution of Great Britain than another, it is that the House of Commons has supreme control over the taxes of this country year by year, and to give this desired guarantee, even if it were worth anything when given, would be an entirely new departure from established practice.
1028
But there is more than that. It should be made clear that no undertaking of this kind could have any legal obligation for ten years unless it were incorporated in a Treaty, a form of procedure, particularly with the Dominions and Colonies, for which there is no precedent. Again, no undertaking of this kind could have any definite moral obligation unless it were agreed to by all the other Parties in the State. Even if the present Government were not willing to agree to it, and they are not, the Liberal party would undoubtedly be entirely hostile. Therefore, no pledge, even if one were given, would be binding. I do not think it necessary for me to take up much time in substantiating what I have been saying on that point, because it happens that only two or three weeks ago your Lordships refused to attach any value beyond the lifetime of this Parliament to a pledge which I was prepared to give on behalf of the Government, and that was in regard to a matter which could be said, in the circumstances, to be non-controversial. The Government were willing to give a pledge, and there was agreement about the matter in question by the noble Lords opposite, including the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who was leading the Opposition. Nevertheless, I was told that no Government pledge had power to bind a future Government. Therefore, it is clear that the guarantee which is asked for is one which could have no value even if it were given.
The second proposition of the noble Viscount which is rather outside the area of the main issue as usually discussed, is the one which expresses regret that the Government reserves full liberty to propose to Parliament the reduction or abolition of the duties on all the commodities to which Preference now applies. This is, in some respects, the most astonishing part of the noble Viscount's Motion. What is the position? The chief preferences now accorded are in respect of sugar and tea. For thirty years, ever since the Labour Party was formed, it has been a fundamental part of its policy to abolish at the earliest possible moment the duties on sugar and tea in this country which fall so heavily upon the workers and on poorer classes. In this policy the Labour Party has never wavered in the smallest degree, and I may say that in the present Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made

1029
the biggest step in the direction of what is called a free breakfast table that has ever been made in one Budget. I will not, to-day, argue before your Lordships the case against the tax on sugar and tea, though, if I were to do so, I think I could prove that these taxes violate nearly every canon of sound finance.
But what does the Motion of the noble Viscount say? It expresses regret that the Labour Government, in order to be perfectly honest and so that there may be no misunderstanding, has reaffirmed its full liberty to propose to Parliament the abolition of these duties and other duties to which Preference applies. It is difficult to believe that the noble Viscount seriously proposes that, in order to keep in being a system of Preference in which it does not believe, and to which it has always been opposed, the Labour Party should now go back on all that it has ever said about the taxes on sugar and tea, and should undertake to keep these taxes in being at any rate to some extent in order that a preference on sugar and tea may be given. I cannot think the noble Viscount who, if I may say so, has a good record for consistency, really wants the Labour Party to play fast and loose with its pledges and promises and policies in the way that his Motion suggests.
I have now dealt with those parts of the noble Viscount's Motion which are somewhat outside the usual lines of this controversy, and I turn to the first part of the noble Viscount's Motion, which regrets the decision of His Majesty's Government not to endorse the Tariff Preferences proposed at the recent Imperial Conference.
The Motion, so far as the main issue is concerned, also divides itself into two general propositions, and I will deal with them in order. The first one regrets this decision of the Government not to endorse what the noble Viscount describes as the Tariff Preferences. I have already shown that in view of the result of the General Election the Government could not endorse those proposals. I will go further and say that the people, in the verdict which they gave last autumn, were right. This system of Imperial Preference involves the issue of Free Trade and Protection. It is necessary to emphasise, and I do emphasise, that Imperial Preference is, in effect, protection
1030
accorded to subjects of the Empire outside Great Britain at the expense of the taxpayers of Great Britain.
Let me take sugar, for instance. There are on sugar two rates of duty, a lower duty for the Empire products and a higher duty for the, foreign product. But the price which the British consumer has to pay is the price determined by the higher rate of duty. The foreign product which pays the higher rate of duty is and must be sold at a price which includes that rate, and the Empire product is, of course, marketed at the same price. That must be so owing to the simple economic law that there cannot be two prices for the same thing in the same market at the same time. It is, therefore, clear that Preference does involve a burden on the people of Great Britain, because the difference between the lower duty for the Empire product and the higher duty for the foreign product is lost to the revenue of this country and that means heavier taxation in other ways. The points I have been advancing must, of course, to some extent be subject to qualification in certain instances. There is, because of varying circumstances, hardly anything in the world of trade or economics which is true of every article. For instance, Preference in respect of tea is in a special position, though I will not take up time by going into the statistics about tea. Again, tobacco is in a somewhat special class. But Preference in general would operate substantially as I have stated.
I repeat that Imperial Preference involves the issue of Free Trade and Protection. It is argued that Imperial Preference is not a violation of Free Trade, but is rather a step towards greater Free Trade, because it means a lower duty on Empire products. It is this contention which has been used so much of late in advocating that on certain Empire products the duty should be remitted altogether so that these particular products should come in free. What, however, is not apparently realised is that any policy of that kind tends to stereotype more than ever the foreign duty, because under cover of the greater preference, new interests are created which will then naturally plead that the foreign duty must remain. Hence the remission of Empire duty would not really be a step in the direction of Free Trade,

1031
because, by tending to perpetuate the foreign duty, it would make the realisation of complete Free Trade very remote.
It is considerations of this kind which make the Preference policy so difficult and, indeed, dangerous. I have said before, if there is one thing more firmly embedded in the Constitution of our country than another, it is that the House of Commons has unfettered and supreme control over the taxes of this country year by year; but if varying scales of Imperial Preference are to set up, if these interlocking systems are to be constructed, if vested interests are to be created, and great expectations formed, the result must be that Parliament in this country will not be free year by year to do what it would wish. In fact, it is not going too far to say that this system of Imperial Preference is really inconsistent with the vital principle of self-government for each part of the Empire. Surely this, in itself, is an almost insuperable argument against Preference.
I pass now to the last part of the noble Viscount's Motion which affirms that the rejection of this policy by the Government must seriously prejudice the unity of the Empire. In dealing with this part of the Motion, it is necessary at once to emphasise very strongly that it is in the main based on a complete mistake. The noble Viscount says that the policy of Preference has been unanimously approved by all the States of the Empire at successive Conferences. What he omits to call attention to is that as soon as it was submitted to the people of this country for confirmation, the policy was rejected, just as it was rejected in 1906 after it was first put before the people by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. The fact is that whenever this issue has been put to the people in this country as one of the main questions of a General Election, the electors here at home have pronounced against it. Therefore, it is utterly misleading—it is entirely wrong—to suggest, as the Motion of the noble Viscount does, that this policy has been unanimously approved by the Empire.
The truth is that so far from there ever having been unanimity about this policy of Preference, the introduction of it, now about twenty years ago by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, was from the point of view of unanimity a most regrettable event in
1032
the history of our Imperial development, because of the extreme controversiality of the issues which Preference raises. Mr. Chamberlain took upon himself a terrible responsibility when he threw into the delicate and finely constructed system of our Imperial relationships this disturbing and discordant factor. Speaking broadly, all Parties in this country are at one in their pride of the Empire, and in their desire that the British Empire should develop as a great agency for the good of mankind. Many, I think I may say most, aspects of our Imperial policy command the assent of all Parties. I say then that Mr. Chamberlain took upon himself a very grave responsibility, and those who still support Preference do the same, in bringing into Imperial matters one of the most controversial subjects which it is possible to raise, thus throwing great Imperial interests into the cockpit of Party politics.
I have often wondered if the danger of introducing into Imperial relationships a policy so exceedingly contentious was sufficiently appreciated by Mr. Chamberlain. And I wonder still more if this danger was at all properly estimated by those Ministers of Great Britain who last autumn supported Preference and proposed extensions of the principle. The noble Viscount cannot for a moment be permitted to assume, as he does in his Motion, that Preference and the extension of Preference must necessarily promote the unity of the Empire. On the contrary, I say there is more risk as years go on of the unity of the Empire being imperilled by a pursuance of the policy of Preference than by refusing to go further along those lines.
I have shown that Preference adds to the burdens of the people of this country. In all earnestness I would ask whether that is likely to make the Empire more popular with the people here at home? Is that a good way to bind the Empire more closely together? Especially, is it a good way, in view of the fact that the people of the Mother Country are already much more heavily taxed than their brethren overseas? I cannot think that Imperial unity and stability are going to be promoted if the Empire is to be associated in the minds of the people of this country with heavier taxation and dearer living. I am quite unable to follow the noble Viscount in his argument that these proposals would not

1033
mean dearer living. Take one—5s. per cwt., on apples. Would not that mean dearer living? Of course it would. He did not substantiate his argument, and most of the proposals which were put before the Imperial Conference, if carried into effect, would undoubtedly mean dearer living in this country.
I desire before concluding to examine briefly, but a little more closely, the true facts of the position as regards this Preference policy. A little consideration will indisputably prove that the advocates of Preference have now been driven into a position which it is impossible to defend with any degree of success. I would remind your Lordships that in 1903, when Mr. Chamberlain first started this policy, he said, in the now classic phrase, that if you want to give Preference you must put a tax on food; and by food he meant a tax on corn and meat. The reason for Mr. Chamberlain's maxim, which was the very basis of his policy, is, of course, to be found in the nature of the products which the various parts of the Empire have for export. I will not go into these matters in great detail, but your Lordships will be aware that, in order to construct any sort of reasonably symmetrical system of Preference, it would be necessary to give a Preference on corn and meat, and also, I dare say, as Mr, Bruce, himself evidently seemed to have in mind last autumn, on wool. Unless Mr. Chamberlain's maxim is acted on, it is impossible, owing to the character of the products of the various parts of the Oversea Empire, to devise anything like an equitable scheme of Preference as between the various parts of the Empire. But this policy of taxing corn and meat was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of this country. They would have nothing to do with it. So emphatic was their verdict: that no political Party has dared to put a similar political policy before the electorate again.
That is the position which the present advocates of Preference have not overcome, and they never can overcome these cardinal and fundamental difficulties. They are driven back on an emasculated policy. The original policy of Mr. Chamberlain, profoundly though the country disagreed with it, and as we today disagree with it, was yet one of a certain breadth and comprehensiveness. That cannot be said of Preference as it
1034
stands to-day. The present policy is wholly inadequate to effect that which is claimed for it, and yet it is sufficiently serious to be a source of constant controversy, friction and difficulty, and also sufficiently serious, especially if the Government were to accept the noble Viscount's Motion, to involve a real burden upon the people of the Mother Country. I emphasise again that Mr. Chamberlain said that a tax on food was essential for Preference, meaning by that a tax on corn and meat, but that is not the policy which the noble Viscount wishes the Government to endorse. Accordingly, the Government is being blamed for rejecting a policy which Mr. Chamberlain, the author of this propaganda, himself rejected because it was not sufficient for the purposes he had in view. When, therefore, the noble Viscount tells us that the rejection of these proposals will have all the consequences which he indicates, he is really at variance with the philosophy of the originator of this policy, and it is idle to say that the rejection of these proposals will have the results which the noble Viscount suggests.
The advocates of Preference are trying to achieve the impossible. They will not put the full policy before the country because they dare not, and the lesser policy is utterly inadequate as a means of constructing a reasonably symmetrical Preference as between the various parts of the Empire. It was this difficulty which actually, last autumn, led the late Government to propose that there should be a duty of 5s. per cwt., on foreign apples coming into this country, for no other reason than to give a preference to Canadian apples. Thus, apples, which have already been dear in these post-war days, were to be made dearer still, because, under the Preference, policy, it was deemed necessary to try to do something more for Canada in order to maintain some sort of a balance. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the whole system is one which it is impossible to carry out in any complete and equitable manner. Difficulties, therefore, are constantly cropping up and will always be cropping up, and the present Government are convinced that the unity and stability of the Empire would be much more endangered by proceeding further along this path than by calling a halt now.

1035
I said at the outset that in the main all Parties are agreed about Imperial policy except as regards this question of Imperial Preference. Preference makes a great gulf between the Parties. It brings to an issue a real clash of policies, and I again say it is most unfortunate that this controversial question is apparently to be kept alive year after year. Quite apart from all I have said, I submit that no mutual satisfaction will be obtained by trying to cement the Empire more closely together by debit and credit methods. It is very distasteful to discuss great questions of Imperial relations in any spirit of bargaining, but, if he will allow me to say so, the Motion of the noble Viscount makes this difficult to avoid. Accordingly, it becomes only fair to point out that the Dominions and Colonies have already great financial advantages through their connection with the Mother Country. We, the opponents of Preference, rejoice in all such benefits for our brethren overseas; we are prepared to do great things to help them, but not by Preference. At this time of day it surely may be taken for granted that there is not in this country any anti-Imperial Party. It would be well, therefore, when we differ about Imperial policy, that we should do so with mutual tolerance, and give each other the credit for honesty of purpose. Let it be assumed that, though there may be differences of method and policy, the aim is substantially the same.
I repeat that though we on this side do not believe in Preference, the Government are prepared to do much for Imperial development. The Secretary of State, in another place, has intimated what the Government will do towards setting up an Economic Committee of the Empire. Let me refer to another vital matter. In addition to expenditure under the Empire Settlement Act, the Government has submitted to Australia a proposal under which the Mother Country is prepared for a term of years to give liberal help for the purpose of assisting family emigration to Australia. Then again, we are advancing for Colonial railway development loans running into millions, free of interest for five years. Also, in pursuance of a Resolution of the Economic Conference of last year, there is, under the Trade Facilities Act, just passed, a provision under which the Government is prepared to guarantee three-quarters of
1036
the interest on money spent in this country to help schemes of Imperial development, up to an amount of about £25,000,000.
Quite apart from all such benefits, the countries of our Oversea Empire also have the inestimable advantage of cheap capital because they are parts of the British Empire. The total amount of British money invested in our Oversea Empire is probably somewhere about £2,000,000,000. It is probably true to say that, if it had not been for the advantage which they get through being parts of the British Empire, the various countries would, on the average, have had to pay about I per cent. more for the British capital which is invested in them. On this basis, they get a benefit, through their Imperial connection, of about £20,000,000 per annum. When all these and other matters are taken into account, it becomes clear that even as a matter of cash our Oversea Empire already has much greater advantages through its connection with the Mother Country than can be given them by Preference.
Personally, as I have indicated, I deprecate the introduction into the sphere of Imperial relations of questions of financial advantages and disadvantages, but it is somewhat difficult to avoid these questions in view of the attitude of certain advocates of Preference in this country. However, for my part, I am sure that the Mother Country and the Dominions and all Empire countries overseas are each and all willing—nay, more than willing, are glad—to bear their share of Imperial responsibilities. But let us proceed, not by controversial methods like Preference, but by measures which are substantially agreed to by all Parties. Surely it is in such measures that the wisest and most fruitful lines of Imperial development and evolution are to be found.
I apologise for having spoken so long, but a great many questions are raised in the Motion of the noble Viscount. Even yet I have not been able to discuss them as fully as I would like, but other noble Lords on this side will no doubt follow me, and I hope I have said sufficient to show that the Government has good reasons for the attitude which it has adopted with regard to the subject matter of this Motion.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion to the consideration of the House has rendered, I think, not only a public but also an Imperial service, by offering to your Lordships an opportunity of registering a decision which, though it does not precisely coincide with the decision reached in another place, will not, if my anticipation be well founded, very greatly differ from the attitude which the various Parties in the other place exhibited. It was indeed a striking circumstance that with a special Whip, with, so far as I know, all the leaders of the Labour Party in the House of Commons expressing, or allowing to be expressed on their behalf, the determination of voting against the Baldwin Resolutions, the Division was so evenly balanced, that even so some six or seven members of the Labour Party refused to follow their leaders, and that eighteen or nineteen members of the Liberal Party treated the admonitions of their leaders with the same disregard. It is for us to see whether we cannot make it plain that at least there exists a body in which there is a large amount of sympathy with the view which was so nearly successful in another place.
The noble Lord had no nerd to apologise for the length of his speech. It was an interesting speech, and not particularly lengthy. In fact, there were many branches of the subject—and, in my judgment, even vital branches of the subject—which he left wholly unexplored, and on which I will say a word or two in a moment; but I could not help wondering, when I listened to his defence of the whole principle of Free Trade, whether he carried all his colleagues with him. Was his view, for instance, expressive of the economic sentiments of Lord Parmoor?
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR indicated assent.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I think those views, within historical memory, must have undergone considerable modification, because if I am not mistaken, when my noble and learned friend stood in the Election of 1006, in which Mr. Chamberlain, according to the slightly depress-
1038
ing reference of the noble Lord, was doing such irreparable mischief, my noble and learned friend used some observations in the course of that campaign which might have been thought to offer some measure of support to Mr. Chamberlain. If I am not mistaken again, when a Lancashire seat ungratefully turned back upon my noble and learned friend and he assumed the rather more congenial and rural surroundings of Buckinghamshire, he became even more pronounced in support of the very views which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has just criticised with such severity.
I would therefore ask my noble and learned friend whether he will give us the advantage of informing us when he was converted, and what converted him. It must have been a very recent conversion, because just before the noble and learned Lord became a member of this House there was much discussion in the Unionist Party as to what particular branch of Tariff Reform should be accepted as the official view of the Party. There was, for instance, a section in favour of the full policy of Mr. Chamberlain. On the other hand, there was a section which thought it unwise to go so far. Now, if I am not mistaken, I remember clear indications that during the whole of that time, and until he became a member of this House, the noble and learned Lord was an avowed supporter of a considerable measure of Tariff Reform, and I do not recall one occasion on which, until he became a member of the present Government, he gave any indication of changing his mind. If there was such an occasion, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will inform us what it was and its date.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said that the present Government had no responsibility for what had happened. In one sense he is right. Had there not taken place the Election the decision would have been in the hands of others, and a different course would have been adopted, but ho is completely wrong if he means to suggest that this Government had not, as new agents dealing with the matter, the most complete freedom to deal with it according to its merits. Therefore, the fact to which he referred more than once, that some censure might by those who care to pursue it be placed upon others,

1039
has nothing to do with the free exercise by the present Government of their discretion in the course which they took.
Let me deal with the points taken by the noble Lord. He said that the Labour Party have laboured under pledges for thirty years to give a free breakfast table. It would not in the least surprise me if that be so; indeed, if they had not made some such promise it would be a most amazing circumstance, because they have promised everything in the course of each Election. I do not suppose for a single moment that in his leisure moments the noble Lord has read all the leaflets with which the Labour Party have flooded the constituencies.
LORD ARNOLD: I know them all.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Then I can only regret that the has made no public protest, for a more dishonest collection of electioneering propaganda has never been seen in this country, or in any other country with which I am acquainted, and a very great proportion of these pamphlets openly inculcates that kind of class hatred which Ministers nightly disavow, but the success of which has placed them where they are. As I have to deal with the pledges for thirty years of the Labour Party in relation to this subject, let mc remind the noble Lord that this promise to give a free breakfast table and remove all taxes on food is not the only promise. Combined with this promise, the most expensive and grandiose reforms, which they offer no means of financing, are to be carried out. So they enjoy the electioneering advantage of taking off all taxes and at the same time of giving everything which will immediately require an immense increase of taxation.
LORD ARNOLD: This is a minority Government.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I have never heard that it was more respectable to tell falsehoods when you are in a minority. The temptation, of course, is greater but the morality remains the same. The noble Lord said the Labour party cannot play fast and loose with its pledges. I should think that it is extremely likely to play fast and loose with them in the near future, as it has already done in the few months in which it has been in power.
1040
The noble Lord's economics, if he will permit me to say so, are somewhat crude. Let me take one of his illustrations. He said that if you were to reduce the duty on Colonial sugar there would be only one consequence, and that would be to increase, or to maintain in its then ratio, the price of sugar to the British consumer. He added also that, economically, the consequences must be even more serious, because you stereotype for all time the then existing foreign duties. The argument which led the noble Lord to this conclusion may be very shortly stated. He said there cannot be two prices for sugar, and it therefore must inevitably follow that the Colonial exporter of sugar will charge the same price as the foreign exporter of sugar, with the result that no benefit whatever will accrue to the British consumer.
In whatever sphere of life the noble Lord has spent his career, apparently no part of it has been devoted to the practical problems of business, because I can assure the noble Lord that that is not the way in which these things work out. I can assure him, with some small experience, that the actual event is quite different. Docs it not occur, for instance, to the noble Lord that, with the admitted encouragement of the growth of Colonial sugar, it is conceivable that the foreigner, who must sell his sugar and realise it to some considerable extent on the English market, in order to compete with the Colonial sugar will be compelled to lower his price? There is not a country in the world of which the greatest economists have not laid down that that is a commonplace. If the noble Lord knew the discussions which preceded the adoption of the German Tariff he would know that it was conceded that that was one of the results which would follow.
The noble Lord then said that this policy has not been adopted by the, whole Empire. I think that I shall carry the noble Lord with me when I say that the policy is approved in every part of the Empire except, apparently the noble Lord believes, in this country, and every part of the Empire, including this country, appreciates that form of Preference which the Dominions extend to us, about which I am sorry to observe that the noble Lord said nothing at all. The noble Lord claimed that, in his opinion, Mr. Chamberlain made a dis-

1041
turbing and dangerous contribution to our Imperial life when he made his first Tariff proposals. When the Dominions make proposals to us in the direction of Preference, when everyone in this country gratefully accepts the Preference which the Dominions give to us, does the noble Lord dissociate himself from that advantage? Of course he docs not. The noble Lord and his friends approve the advantage, of which I will speak a little more explicitly in a minute, which this country derives from the Dominion Preferences to us.
Then the noble Lord said that Mr. Chamberlain, who at least could sec a little way ahead, realised with his broad and statesmanlike outlook upon Imperial affairs, that there must come a time when those who are giving you so much will begin to hope that It might be possible for you to do something to develop their trade. This demand would inevitably have been raised. It will be raised again one day, and I believe that one day it will be successfully raised.
The noble. Lord also claims that Preference will add to the burdens of the people of this country, and he quoted the old saying of Mr. Chamberlain, marked, whether he was right or wrong, by that singular courage which distinguished all his public utterances, when he said that for a complete system of Preference you must tax corn and meat. The noble Lord, somewhat reversing his argument, turned round, and said, that this Preference was no good, because you cannot have Preference without taxing corn and meat. Mr. Chamberlain said so, and therefore this Preference, says the noble Lord, was worthless, and we have injured nobody by removing it. On the whole, I prefer the opinions of the Premiers of the self-governing Dominions on such a point to the opinion of the noble Lord. The Premiers of the self-governing Dominions came over here, they made great journeys, some of them travelling thousands of miles, they spent week after week in what they at least believed to be fruitful discussion, and they went away one and all satisfied, and with great professions of gratitude for that which had been done for them. And then we are to be told by the noble Lord, who thinks the whole thing a fraud and a sham, and by Lord Parmoor, who was recently
1042
converted to the same view, that these things are worthless which the Colonial Premiers tell us they profoundly value.
Let me illustrate to the House how worthless the Colonial Premiers think they are. General Smuts, whose views have much in common with the views of those who are not members of my Party in politics, when he returned to South Africa, said:
"Though we have no interest in Party Government or in local politics yet the pledges made by His Majesty's Ministers must be carried out, and I cannot doubt that the carrying out of them will be undertaken by the present Government or by their successors in any vicissitudes of politics; otherwise, I foresee a very grave danger that the whole Conference system, to which we attach so great a value, will fall into discredit and fail."
Mr. Massey, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and other leaders of Dominion thought, have since expressed themselves in the same sense.
What I discerned in the speech of the representative of the Dominions in this House was the apparent complete lack of all knowledge of actual conditions in the Dominions at this moment, and the complete failure to realise the immense advantages that we in this country have already derived from the existence of those Preferences. One would have thought that the noble Lord and his Party would have been more deeply concerned, if possible, than any other Party to discover markets for the manufactured goods of those on whose behalf they profess so exclusively to speak. I had assumed it to be, at this moment, almost a commonplace that not in our lifetime will you restore the economic balance, stability, and productiveness of Europe. Is it not apparent that not in our lifetimes shall we be able to support our surplus population upon any markets which existed before the war, unless we can either restore them in their entirety or unless we can create new ones? Where are those new markets to be found if they are not to be found within our own Empire? The noble Viscount spoke with deep knowledge and with great force of the bountiful resources of that far-flung Empire.
All who have studied recent conditions in the United States of America know that that country has suffered hardly at all as the result of the world convulsion. We know that the staggering prosperity

1043
of that country has grown year by year, and decade by decade, under that system which the noble Lord is so persuaded must on principle destroy any country. What is the explanation of an accession of wealth and prosperity so astounding? Undoubtedly, one explanation is to be found in the immense demand and extent of the domestic market, and the teeming and abounding resources of that vast continent. If, with wise statesmanship, we develop them, we have resources which are not smaller, we have varieties of climate which are not less striking, and, under wise guidance, there is no reason why the volume of trade within the British Empire should not be so stimulated—and stimulated within one or two decades—as not only to provide homes for our surplus population, but to provide also our surplus populations with the means of livelihood in surroundings where they will still be breathing the spirit of English traditions and still looking with pride to the same flag under which they will live.
Yet the noble Lord completely disregards, upon this point, the lessons of the past. Take, for instance, what happened when the Canadian tariff was first given to us. At that time, as the House will remember, the exports from this country to Canada were undergoing a progressive diminution and very considerable alarm was felt both in this country and in Canada. For example, between 1892 and 1897 our exports to Canada dropped by £1,700,000. That means that one-half of that sum which would have been paid in wages was not paid and, consequently, the numbers of men represented were cither unemployed or passed into other business. When Preference was granted our exports to Canada immediately went up and they have gone up year by year until, in 1913, they had increased by an average of £1,000,000 a year, going from £6,000,000 up to £24,000,000.
I am not going to weary your Lordships with any more figures. It is sufficient for me to say that the same process has gone on in all those Dominions which have given us Preference. I can give your Lordships analogous and comparable, though, of course, not identical, figures in the case of Australia, and figures which, though smaller, point to the same practical conclusion in the case of New Zealand. Of course, noble Lords know
1044
well that India purchases more of our goods than any country in the world—far, far more than we ever sold to Germany in the old pre-war days.
Has the experience of those years nothing to teach us? Do the Government really believe that the concession of that Preference by the Dominions to us has not been very considerably responsible for the increase in our export of manufactured goods to them? The Government appear to me to contemplate the grave situation in which the country is in this respect with the most extraordinary indifference. How do noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite think that they are going to find work for the unemployed? Where is it to come from? Is it to come by exports of manufactured goods to the protected countries of the world? I may remind the noble Lord who speaks with such intellectual superiority of the demerits of Protection that he and his friends are almost alone in the world. Where are the other countries in the world who hold this view? To what device does the noble Lord look to break down the barriers which exclude our manufactured articles from so many markets of the world?
Furthermore, has he considered upon what basis and with what prospect of success our manufactured articles must compete in the future, when once Germany is restored, with the manufactured exports of Germany? We talk of Reparations, and it is right that Germany should pay the largest sum in Reparations which she can pay without impairing her capacity to pay any; but do let us keep a clear mind on the subject of Reparations. Economically, there is one way, and one way only, in which a country can pay Reparations, and that is if she is assured of and maintains an excess of her exports over her imports. Unless she has a reserve of gold there is no other way of doing it. It is no use talking about compelling people to pay Reparations in any other way, because that is the only way in which they can be paid. We are afforded the agreeable prospect of having, in the next five or ten years, to compel Germany to pay Reparations which can only be paid if her exports exceed her imports in a sufficient ratio to enable her to pay them.
The National Debt of Germany has completely disappeared. The whole of her

1045
municipal debt has disappeared with the dissipation of her exchange. Not only that, but mortgage debts all over Germany have been extinguished. We are, therefore, afforded the prospect, in markets where we should not only have no advantage against Germany but in other neutral markets of the world, of competing with a Germany which has no National Debt to pay and which does not at present enjoy the happiness of a Government which has promised quite so much as this Government has and which, as we know from the noble Lord, always keeps its pledges. Germany has not to suffer from any financial incubus but has an advantage in competing with us. Does anybody in the wide world believe that we can compete successfully with her unless we have special assistance? We cannot do it. And if we fail, we perish, because we, and we alone, need to import food for the nourishment of an industrial population which we cannot support unless our export trade flourishes. We, and we alone, are in the singular and unfortunate position that if we cannot find adequate markets we must perish. Here we have growing markets in countries which, of all others in the world, are prepared to give us special assistance, and which have given us such assistance in the past as has indicated that they are prepared to increase it in the future.
When we speak of this to a Government which has embarked upon such a dangerous policy, we are given a long catalogue of loans between countries in the Empire. I do not myself greatly value recitals either here or in the Dominions of the benefits that we have conferred upon one another. I would rather hear it recognised in Canada and Australia that we have not been without the capacity of being of some help to them, than hear that claim made in this House in excuse for not doing something which is at once reasonable and greatly valued by those who came to this country to represent the Dominions.
The noble Lord rebuked the late Mr. Chamberlain, and expressed polite regret at the callow and immature experience that has led my noble friend Lord Long to do so much harm, according to the noble Lord, by his speech in this House to-night. I would venture to remind him that there are many people in this country, not confined to one Party—there
1046
were several among his own colleagues in the House of Commons the other night—who believe that by the decision which the Government have taken they have inflicted a profound injury upon this country and upon the Empire and done mischief for which they, and they alone, must bear the responsibility. If that decision was founded upon any fundamental consistency of principle, while I should regret it I should at least respect it. How am I to respect the representatives of a Socialist Party who speak in language which would come with consistency and respectability from the Liberal Benches but sounds incongruous and illogical indeed when preached by Socialist lips?
We are told that Free Trade is a system which is required in the interest of this country. There was never in this or any other country a Party whose creed was more profoundly based upon the very spirit and principle of Protection than the Labour Party as it exists in this country to-day. What is the principle upon which they have insisted, and rightly insisted, for many years by prohibitions against the employment of sweated labour? It is obvious to everyone. It is that you are not to allow competition between the industrial strata of the Empire in order that you may buy in the cheapest market. That principle is destructive of the whole spirit upon which the teaching of Cobden rested. That is trade unionism from the first article of its creed to the last. I tell the noble Lord that in my judgment the time is not far distant when, so far as the import of manufactured goods is concerned, the working classes of this country will insist that there shall be a Tariff imposed upon unrestricted foreign importation.
Prophecy is always dangerous. I wish to embark upon it sparingly, but I would say this of the speech which the noble Lord has made to-night: that it is one which I believe will be received by your Lordships with deep regret and anxiety. I only hope that your Lordships, when we proceed to a Division, as we shall proceed to a Division upon this subject, will show that so far as this House at least is concerned we repel the decision which was reached by the Government as being unjust to the Dominions, and unfair to the whole Conference system

1047
(which had reached deliberate conclusions which ought to have been treated as outside the range of Party), and which at the same time would, if not corrected by expressions of opinion in this House and in the country, inflict great harm upon the whole fabric of the Empire.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl expressed at the beginning of his speech his sense of the gratitude that we owed to the noble Viscount who raised this Question this afternoon. I should like to associate myself with that expression, and I would include in it the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down, for he has given us an admirable exposition of the policy which underlies this whole matter of Preference. The speeches of the noble Viscount and of the noble and learned Earl Shave shown us that, it is quite impossible to limit the question to this small one of the Preferences which were proposed at the Imperial Conference. The two speeches which they have made—the first one by the noble Viscount made reference to the taxation of bread and meat—show that we cannot deal with the actual proposals of the Imperial Economic Conference without also considering the larger matters which are implicated within the small proposals. In the same way, in the last speech to which we have just listened, the noble and learned Earl, with unrivalled lucidity, explained to us how really involved in this matter is the whole question of a general tariff upon imports.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Really, the noble Earl makes a prodigious error when he says that. If he will read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find not only that I did not say that, but that I did not say anything which could be remotely mistaken for it. It does not represent my views at all, as the noble Earl will find when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to say this in regard to my speech? In case the remarks he has made in reference to me should be taken and put into a pamphlet, I desire to say that the noble Earl ignores the statement that I made in the earlier part of my speech—namely, that I was against the taxation of foodstuffs until it became the obvious wish and
1048
desire of the people. I instanced food, meat and wheat, in order to show what you could do if you chose.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry if the noble and learned Earl thinks I have in any way misrepresented him. It was far from my intention. What I was trying to point out was that the fact that in the course of his speech he dealt with these questions of general tariffs showed, as it seemed to me, that it was impossible to deal with these single isolated proposals of a policy without dealing with the whole lot. I was not at the moment trying to controvert the arguments that were used, but was alluding to the fact that both the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Earl, by mentioning these questions, proved what seemed to me to be the obvious fact that you cannot deal with these Preferences as an isolated matter. They are inherent in the general question of Protection in this country.
I think it is specially interesting to note that the noble Viscount who initiated the discussion spoke, in the first place, of the Preferences which were proposed in the Economic Conference without entirely explaining to your Lordships' House the difference that there is in regard to some of them. Some of them certainly do simply involve a reduction of the taxation which already exists, but there are a large number of them which at the same time, as your Lordships would see if you had these Papers before you, go on to propose a whole series of new or increased duties upon foreign goods. Even in regard to currants it appears to be necessary, in order to make the Preference a valid one, that there should be an increased duty. I find in the Command Paper this phrase:—
"His Majesty's Government are prepared to offer free admission to Empire currants and to consider what increase in the duty on foreign currants may be necessary to make the preference effective, such increase to come into force at a future date to be agreed upon."
Then, in Chapter III, "New or Increased Duties on Foreign Goods only," we find other dried fruits and other preserved fruits mentioned, such as raw apples, which have already been referred to, canned salmon, honey, lime, lemon, and other fruit juices and dried currants.
That being so, I think it is only fair to remind your Lordships that the Division

1049
which took place in another place the other day dealt not with the whole of these economic proposals but only with this part of them. It dealt with the reduction upon taxes which already existed, and there was no Division taken upon the other points. I think the more important matter is how far the members of any political Party are prepared to recommend in the future that there should be new taxes put upon articles of food where those duties do not exist at the present time.
Your Lordships will remember, no doubt, the references to sugar which have been made during this debate. Fortunately, we have had in this House before now a discussion upon this very matter, and the then representative of His Majesty's Government, Lord Hylton, explained in regard to sugar that the Preference had not meant a reduction in the price to the consumer in this country. There was a debate on July 16 last year, in which the noble Lord explained that the growers and producers in the West Indies had been able to obtain higher prices, practically to the full amount of the Preference, for all sugar sold in this country. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that as regards sugar at any rate, in this little woking model we find that the institution of Preference did not mean a reduction in price. There are also other disappointing features in the Preference on sugar. We find it has not led to an increase in the quantity of sugar that is grown in the West Indian Colonies. We find that, whereas before the war there was a quantity of 950,000 tons being grown in the West Indies, the estimated yield for this year is only 894,000 tons. Therefore, I think we may fairly say that you cannot prove by the Preference that has already been put into operation that you necessarily either reduce the price or increase the quantity grown.
For my own part I would associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in regard to the responsibility for the rejection of these proposals. The responsibility does not seem to me to rest with His Majesty's Government, but rather with the voters themselves who, at the last General Election, gave so overwhelming a majority against the policy which had been put before them at that Election. I should have thought
1050
that there was very little doubt indeed that at most of the meetings which took place ample reference was made to the preferential aspect of the policy which was put before the people of this country. A great deal of play was made upon the natural desire to do what we could to help the self-governing Dominions, and to meet their wishes. There were very few meetings, I think, at which a great deal of emphasis was not laid on that point. Therefore, I think that His Majesty's Government could really do nothing else but accept the mandate which had been given to them, and sweep away the Preferences as far as they possibly could.
I am not quite sure how far at the present time Preference is indeed the policy of any particular Party in the State. It seems to me that, both with regard to Preference and also with regard to a General Tariff, the official documents put forward on behalf of the Conservative Party show a certain amount of tenderness in dealing with the matter.
I desire to emphasise particularly what seems to me to be the real aspect of the Resolution moved by the noble Viscount. It means, in the first place, an increase in the duties upon the food of the people of this country. It is not necessary for me to read again the list of articles upon which, for the first time, a duty was to be placed, but I must emphasise the point once, more, that there are a number of articles upon which the Conference recommended that duties should be placed, a number of articles of food upon which these duties were for the first time to be put. That is an aspect of the matter which up to the present has not received a sufficient amount of attention.
The second point I wish specially to emphasise is the fact that the agreement to put these Preferential Duties in force would really be only a step in the direction of a full Tariff. Certainly that is the idea which is in the minds of a good many people who support Protection. In the speeches which have been made the same idea occurs. I take Mr. Massey, who, speaking in support of Preference, said:
"I look upon it that what we are doing now in only a commencement. I know that it is only a comparatively small thing, hut it is an earnest of what is to follow."
And so it goes on. Mr. Bruce, whose speeches I am sure every member of this

1051
House always reads with interest, says exactly the same thing. He looks on it as only a first step towards a general system of Tariffs. That is what he wants, and he is not, of course, to be criticised for doing so. He wants a General Tariff upon corn and meat, with which the various self-governing Dominions can supply us. It is the first step; and that is why I think it would have been an exceedingly dangerous thing if this country had endorsed the recommendations made by the late Government. When once you have imposed these duties it is extraordinarily difficult to take them off. That is shown by the difficulties there have been in removing the McKenna Duties. There you have an example of Duties which were put on for war purposes and which leading statesmen of both political Parties pledged themselves should be removed as soon as the war was over. Your Lordships know that it is only now that Mr. Snowden, after overcoming great difficulties, for which great credit is due to him, has managed to remove these Duties from the Statute Book.
We are frightened of the policy of Imperial Preference. We are frightened because we know that it was the foundation for the whole of the propaganda for Tariff Reform which was begun by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 1903. Those of your Lordships who will carry your memories back to that time will remember that it all sprang from the question of a shilling registration duty on corn. It was from that small beginning that the whole question grew. We are afraid of it today as we were afraid of it then. I am not sure that we always realise the difference there is between Preference in the form which it assumes in this country and the form which it assumes in the self-governing Dominions. Preference here means, of course, that there will be, certainly with regard to these new articles recommended for a first duty, an increase of cost to the consumer. But Preference in the self-governing Dominions means a reduction in cost; and for this reason—where you have a high Tariff and you take off a considerable proportion of it, say, 15, 20 or 25 per cent.—as I am glad to realise many of the self-governing Dominions do—it means that the consumer gets his articles for less than he would have paid if that remission had not been
1052
made. Therefore, in common with all Free Traders, I feel that consumers in the self-governing Dominions, in paying less, are reaping some advantage from the Preference given by their own Government.
I dislike very much this bargaining between the self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country, but we are bound to do it. Let me give you some rather striking figures. We provide a free market for the produce of our self-governing Dominions. All that they send to this country comes in free, with the exception of one-quarter of one per cent. That is to say, ninety-nine and three-quarters per cent. of the produce of the Dominions comes into this country free. How do they treat our produce? They put a duty upon 71 per cent. of the goods we send to them and only 29 per cent. of our goods go in free as compared with 99¾ per cent. of Dominion goods which come to us free.
We had a debate on this question early in the year. It was a very valuable debate, and the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, told us something of the difficulties, the enormous difficulties, which met our manufacturers when they tried to send out goods into the self-governing Dominions. Let me take a single example. We are glad to have all the wool which Australia will send to us. If we were looking for a considerable measure of Preference might we not fairly say that all the woollen goods we sent into Australia should go into that great self-governing Dominion as freely as we admit the raw wool which they send to us? That is not an unfair bargain to ask for, but, unfortunately, we do not find that they are likely to agree to it. The noble Viscount behind me has referred to the example set us by the United States of America in regard to Cuba, and he referred especially to the way in which the United States brought Cuban sugar into their own country. Let me remind your Lordships, not unfairly, that Cuba gives a completely free admission to all American goods which go into that country and, therefore, the two cases are not altogether upon the same basis.
We have to remember that there are a certain number of Protectionists in these self-governing Dominions who are anxious to abolish Preference, and for this reason: that it means to them that

1053
in so far as there is a reduction in the amount of Preference so far the wall which guards their own country from these imports is lowered, and it is easy for goods to come in. They are anxious that this Preference should be abolished, whereas the Protectionists here want to institute a measure of Preference as a first step towards the taxation of still more and more articles, not only food and raw materials but general and manufactured articles. For my part, I still I hope that we may hear from the Colonies and the Dominions some greater response to the ideal started by Mr. Chamberlain when he suggested that if we gave a preference to them they should give a better market for our manufactured articles. The schedule of prohibited industries has apparently disappeared from all Tariff Reform literature to-day and all that is left is a suggestion that we are to give a Preference to these self-governing Dominions.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who have expressed their agreement in the view that we, who object to a system of Preference, are just as anxious as they are themselves for the unity of the Empire, and I do not share the contempt which the noble and learned Earl threw upon the large sums of money which we lend in order to assist the Dominions. It is a matter of considerable satisfaction to us that this poor and ruined Free Trade England is able to lend to protected countries like Australia a sum of money equal to no less than £700 or £800 per household over the whole of that country. We must, I think, also remember, in welcoming these Preferences which are given to us by the self-governing Dominions, that the statesmen who propose them, and who persuade the people of their countries to adopt them, always explain that they are imposed not only as a benefit to the traders of this country, but also as an advantage to the country which itself gives the Preference. That, I think, is so in every case in which a Preference has been given.
At the present moment, of course, the trade of this country is going through difficult times, but it is interesting to recognise that, while we have increased our trade with the self-governing Dominions, so also the general proportion of our trade has increased and is the same to-day as it was before the war. The
1054
totals are naturally different, but the general proportion which our trade with these self-governing Dominions bears to our total trade is the same as it was before the war. If isolated figures were of any use, I would remind your Lordships of the fact that the trade between this country and the United States has increased by something like 100 per cent. since 1913. Without the help of Preference, therefore, we do find that our trade is able to make advances throughout the world.
May I say one final word, a word of repetition? We are afraid of these Preferences because they are only a step towards a general system. That is why it is that now, as for the last twenty years, we have been Free Traders. It is not, perhaps, altogether inapposite to remind your Lordships that in every General Election that has taken place during that period, with one exception, the people of this country have declared themselves against this system. Whether we recall the tremendous claims which are associated with the idea of a Preference which we wish to give to cur own kith and kin, or whether it be the more full-blooded appeal of the idea of helping the unemployed, the people of this country have always refused to have anything to do with it. I venture to think, therefore, that His Majesty's Government were quite right in interpreting the wishes of the people of this country by taking the step which they have taken regarding the proposals of the Economic Conference.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have addressed your Lordships, and I ask your indulgence. The noble Earl who has just sat down has made a number of remarks which, no doubt, are unacceptable to some of your Lordships, but he made one statement on a matter of which I have some special knowledge. He stated that the Preference given to the West Indies had not proved satisfactory. I should like to say that this is a misleading statement. There were two bad years of drought there, and, over and above that, the production of cane sugar is an expensive business, and results do not appear for three or four years from the beginning of the work. As the Sugar Preference was introduced in 1919, the results of development are only just beginning to show, but now, with the slap in the face

1055
which they have received, the planters see that there is no prospect of continuity, and Empire sugar development will surely decline. If sugar estates go out of production they cannot be brought back within many years, so that, if once foreign control is established, high prices will continue here.
The Resolution before the House has three bearings on Imperial relations—political, economic, and that which concerns the settlement of population. I do not propose to detain your Lordships by discussing the political point of view, which has been fully dealt with by other speakers, except to say that the action of His Majesty's Government has disjointed the policy pursued by the Imperial Government for nearly twenty years, and that this action has been taken without their putting forward any alternative constructive policy in its place. That is a very serious thing to have done. Stability and continuity are essential factors in Empire affairs. It has always been an axiom in foreign policy that there shall be continuity of action by successive Governments and the honouring of obligations. It is much more vital to this country, increasingly dependent as it is for essential supplies on Empire sources, that the decisions of Empire representatives in Conference should be given even more consideration than is given to questions of foreign policy.
There seems to be a delusion prevalent in the country that in considering Empire Preference we are doing a favour to the Dominions. Surely the subject which we are really debating is the security of our own business future. It is obvious that we are an industrial people, whose prosperity is bound up in what we can export, particularly of manufactured goods. In 1922 our total exports were of the value of £719,000,000, and of these eighty per cent. were manufactured goods. The Empire took one-third of this total; but they took nearly one-half of our manufactured goods, which is a point which an eminent statesman in another place quite forgot to mention when he talked about the one-third.
In order to judge of the future of our markets it is necessary to give the figures of the purchases per head of population in the principal countries, as stated in Parliament, for the year ending March,
1056
1924. The statement is a very brief one, and is as follows:—New Zealand, £15; Australia, £10; South Africa, £4; Canada, £3; India, 5s; France, £ United States of America, 10 s.; Germany, 14 s. 2d. These figures show that the Dominions are far and away our best customers, and as they are developing and their populations are increasing, they are, even more, our best potential customers.
At present the policy of effective Preferences is the policy of the Empire outside this country. All the great Dominions and the main groups of Colonies give us Preferences ranging from a 20 per cent. to a 50 per cent. advantage. All the great foreign countries protect their own products and those of their Dependencies by Tariffs nearly approaching to prohibition for our manufactures and for the primary products of the Empire overseas. These foreign systems act as a repelling force to what the Empire produces, whilst Dominion and Colonial Preferences are a compelling influence towards interchange between Great Britain and her Empire. Are we to refuse to take advantage of this gigantic double force for the sake of a doctrine, and thereby compel the Dominions all unwillingly to make terms with our economic rivals? A Government refusing to do this is guilty of neglecting the interests and prosperity of the people of this country.
To return, if I may, to sugar, I need not tell your Lordships that sugar has always been not only the touchstone of British politics but one of the earliest growths of the Oversea Empire. It is, to-day, the key of the Preference movement. I assume that the object of the alteration in the Sugar Duty is to give cheap sugar to the consumer, but the cheapness, to be of any use, must be continuous, and not merely momentary. The danger of the admission on easier terms of foreign sugar—and that is what the reduction in the money value of the Preference means—is that it will result in the ultimate foreign control of this market, and, although sugar may be cheap for a year or two, its price will rise as a natural result of such increased foreign control. Take the American group—the United States, Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, and so on. In 1898 America's controlled product was 12 million tons out

1057
of a total world crop of 176 million tons. In 1923 it had risen to over 7,000,000 tons out of a total production of 18,000,000 tons. Add to this the fact that the United States Preference is 10 s. per cwt., and our own Preference only 1s. 9d. per cwt. How can the Empire compete in the face of this disparity? It seems beyond dispute, in the light of these figures, that, unless the quota of Empire sugar is maintained, this market will be very soon at the entire disposal of the United States.
In my judgment the result of the failure of the Government to stabilise the Sugar Preference will be the danger of the destruction of this industry in the Oversea Empire, it will also result in foreign control of the homo market, when the consumer here will pay dearly for his sugar for a long period after a year or two of low prices. It will also mean that the ruin of the sugar-producing industry in the Oversea Empire will deprive the British manufacturer not only of the machinery of the industry but of the everyday needs of the persons concerned in it, as well as of some of his most valuable customers, not to mention the disastrous effects on Empire political relationships. Then there is also the loss of a very large amount of British capital invested in Empire sugar undertakings, and the resultant loss to the revenue here.
If I may say so, I can speak with some authority on oversea industries, for the reason that I am, as President of the Empire Producers' Organisation, in touch with all the principal Empire producers, and I think your Lordships should realise the feeling of dismay and discouragement which has been caused by the action of His Majesty's Government. With your Lordships' permission I should like to read some cables which I have received from different parts of the Empire. The South African Sugar Association, who are among the largest buyers of British machinery and supplies in South Africa, cabled to me as follows:
"Reference cables reporting possibility withdrawal Imperial Preference consternation exists among settlers who undoubtedly invented capital relying stability Preference desire call attention fact that during four years elapsed since principle Preference established and consequence thereof production increased forty per cent."
The Australian Sugar Producers' Association, whose members have just placed
1058
orders in this country for two of the largest sugar mills in the world, are dismayed at the reduction of the Sugar Preference, for the reason that Australia has become an exporter of sugar and those mills would never, have been built but for the expectation of stability of marked conditions in this country. This is what they say:—
"Producers deeply regret action Government reducing Sugar Preference which strikes severe blow Dominions. Repudiation this and other Conference decisions must have oblique effect Preferential Tariffs production maintenance integrity Empire."
I have other cables to the same effect, which, however, I will not read. Unfortunately, I see from the Press that action has already been taken to effect reductions of the Preferences in the British Guiana Tariff. What effect the reduction will have in the Mauritius industry I cannot say, but there is no question that the result will be to divert the flow of sugar to other markets. Before finally leaving this question of sugar let me say, from some knowledge of the development of this industry, that the previous margin of Preference acted as an enormous encouragement in the development of sugar-growing in the Empire, and schemes were progressing for growing sugar in Kenya Colony, Tanganyika, and many other places which, unless there is a change of policy, will never arrive at their contemplated development. I will not detain your Lordships any longer, except to ask this question: How can we expect Prime Ministers and high officials of the Empire to come here when we fail to give effect to their unanimous decisions, particularly when their decisions are no departure from the principle of the policy of the last twenty years?
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a few minutes, but I am placed in a somewhat difficult position, because, while I am a supporter of Imperial Preference, I am unable to support the Motion of the noble Viscount. It is almost a quarter of a century to-day since I entered the House of Commons During the whole of that time, and long before it, I have been a Liberal specially interested in Empire questions, and deeply anxious to explore every avenue which would tend to bind the Empire more closely together. During my three years at the Colonial Office that interest

1059
was greatly increased. I visited all the Dominions except Newfoundland, and I hope that I know something of their feelings. I had seen the Empire develop upon a Liberal policy, and yet it seemed to me that some Liberals never fully appreciated the full grandeur and possibilities of the Empire. The Conservatives were more ready to talk of the Empire and to claim credit for the Empire. That was perfectly sincere and natural on their part, and the revival of the Protectionist propaganda in the last twenty years has made it even more the case.
All our Dominions are Protectionist and have given us a measure of Preference which has been a very real benefit to our trade. We ought to say on every occasion how grateful we are for that Preference, but I do not think we should put the case too high. Lord Birkenhead used figures with regard to Canada, but he must be aware that our exports doubled in something like twenty years before 1913, and the exports to foreign countries also increased in about equal proportion. There was a general increase, and his statistics want checking by the statistics of foreign countries. Now we cannot give the Dominions the Preference that they desire because that means the taxation of food and the taxation of raw material. This country refused to listen to that, both in 1906 and in 1923. I think the country is wise. While we are so much dependent for the things we eat and our raw material upon our export trade being one-third or one-fourth of the whole production, it is absolutely essential to manufacture cheaply, and I do not see how we are to do so if we abandon our practice of Free Trade.
If Free Trade within the Empire were possible I should be willing to consider the question of Tariffs against the rest of the world, but it seems to me to be wholly impracticable. I hold in my hand an official publication from the State of Victoria in which it is said that their policy is to attempt to give Preference within the Empire consistently with the development of local manufactures. We know that it is the case, and it is likely to continue to be the case, and it is becoming the case I regret to say in India. Canada, New Zealand and South Africa are also Protectionist. The possibility of Free Trade within the Empire
1060
seems to me to be absolutely out of the question; and therefore I come to the main point to-day: What ought to be done by anybody holding my views?
Certain Resolutions were passed dealing with Preference at the Imperial Conference. My experience at the Colonial Office, and such knowledge of the Dominions as I have, make me attach great importance to these Imperial Conferences. We shall drift apart if we do not keep them up, and if we do not confer, and it is most desirable that the Dominions should retain faith in these Imperial Conferences. I know what ought to have been done. That insensate Election of 1923 ought never to have been held. There was a majority in the House of Commons then that would have passed these Resolutions on Imperial Preference. I never can understand why Mr. Baldwin was so ill-advised as to take the line he did. However, it is no use crying over spilt milk; the point is what we ought to do now.
I confess frankly I should have liked to see a more sympathetic attitude in regard to these Resolutions. On broad Imperial grounds it is necessary that the faith in these Imperial Conferences should be maintained in our Dominions. I should even have stretched a point on some of these Resolutions. I would not have put on new duties—the point to which my noble friend, Lord Beauchamp, referred—because I think that kind of thing leads to friction. But I would have continued to give Preference on any commodities that we could. I know you can argue, taking each one by itself, that they are no use, that they are more or less illusory, unless you tax food. But I do not like the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, or the phrases which he used, in regard to the whole question of Imperial Preference. If the Dominions are willing to take what seems to me, as a Free Trader, a somewhat illusory benefit, why should they not have it? It is surely worth while to make some gesture. I am not saying now what I have not said elsewhere. I wrote to the leader of my Party months ago to say what I am saying to your Lordships to-day. But, of course, I am speaking here entirely for myself.
Now I come to the Resolution of the noble Viscount. I cannot vote for it. It is rather idle to talk of a policy "unanimously approved by all the States

1061
of the Empire" when this policy—mixed up, I admit, with other proposals—was submitted to this country at a General Election and was rejected. Nor do I think it is true, still less do I think it would be wise if it were true, to say that this decision is going to prejudice the unity of the Empire. We are still the best customer of the Empire, we still have our ports open to nearly all the commodities of the Empire, and I do not believe in this talk of their going elsewhere. Why, Canada and Australia have been trying to arrange, for twenty years, a preferential agreement about wool and timber, and have been unable to do it. When this talk cools down I hope that we shall retain the affection of the. Dominions, and that they will see that there are strong and definite reasons why they should remain loyal to the British Empire.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, we all recognise in these matters the authority of the noble Lord who has just spoken, and who, I think, has more than once used the same language in this House which he has used this afternoon. Before proceeding further I want to make it absolutely clear—though I think that Lord Arnold himself made it absolutely clear—that in approaching this question we desire to do everything we can to cement the unity of the Empire, and to carry on the Imperial unity of which we are all so proud in this country, and which has had so beneficial an influence in the history of the world. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, postulates that the refusal of this Preference policy tends to the prejudice of the unity of the Empire. I think that is absolutely untrue. I think the discussion to-day, and the discussions in various parts of the Empire, show most clearly that, by introducing into our Imperial relationships a matter that undoubtedly raises Party differences in our home politics, you are much more likely to prejudice the unity of the Empire than by any unsympathetic attitude towards Preference.
The results of this are obvious already. It is very lamentable that even in this country we should dispute as a matter of Party politics over our desire for real Imperial unity. It is a matter of regret that one Party should say of another that
1062
"Unless you adopt some particular Preferential policy you are prejudicing the unity of the Empire." But it is worse, I think, when you come to the Dominions themselves. Disputes have been aroused in various Imperial Legislatures which I very much regret, on this very question, which I think ought not to have been raised at all. I have noticed the discussions particularly in Australia, where it has been intimated that the loyalty of the Dominions towards the Mother Country depended, at any rate to some extent, on the ability to obtain these preferential trade conditions. I think that is very lamentable indeed. I do not believe that the loyalty of the Empire depends upon any such thing. It is not unnatural, if you once begin to discuss such things, in reference to which you know there are differences of opinion, and on which there is not and cannot be unanimity, that those discussions should lead to the suggestion that the unity of the Empire may be imperilled unless we adopt a particular trade policy. I think nothing can be worse than that, and it is one of the reasons why those who desire Imperial unity regret that the Preference issue should have been raised in this aggravated form.
The noble and learned Earl seemed to think that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, had not dealt with matters of fact. I think the crucial instance that he took was sugar. It has already been stated, and therefore I need not repeat the figures, that in reference to sugar no benefit has accrued as regards price. That is common ground. But what appears to me perhaps more crucial is that there has been no increase whatever of production in the Empire.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Surely the noble and learned Lord is aware that there was a world shortage of sugar at the relevant period?
LORD PARMOOR: What I am saying is perfectly accurate, and the noble and learned Earl's intervention is beside the point.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I would not be guilty of discourtesy. I merely meant that that is the explanation—that there had been a world shortage.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sure the noble and learned Earl would not be discourteous, but what I am putting is the broad fact, which no one can deny, that no benefit has accrued as regards price from the Preference, and that no increase in production has accrued within the Empire. If I might take what the noble and learned Earl so often referred to, you have there an actual fact. Although I am the last person to prophesy, particularly in regard to these very intricate commercial matters, I must say that I think that if you are looking at the "interests of this country—although I deprecate looking only to the interests of this country and I think we ought to look to the interests of the Empire at large—or to the interests of the Empire at large, when you come down to concrete facts you will find there has been no benefit either to the one or to the other.
Before I turn to one or two other points to which the noble and earned Earl referred, I should like to emphasise something which I think has been forgotten: that is, the analogy which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, made regarding the terms of the noble Viscount's Resolution. What is the Resolution? I feel sure that the noble Viscount will appreciate the criticism which I wish to offer, although the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has already referred to the matter. The Resolution refers to the proposal to maintain the Sugar Preference for ten years. Under our system of Government, how can you give a guarantee to maintain the sugar Preference for ten years? You cannot interfere with the authority of Parliament. You cannot interfere with the power of Parliament to give effect to whatever may be the wishes of the people of this country. Surely there could not be a worse suggestion, if I may say so to the noble Viscount, for whose opinions I have great respect, than that the loyalty of the Empire depends upon the disregard of one of the fundamental conditions of our Constitution—namely, the power of annual review possessed by the House of Commons in matters of this kind. When one comes to analyse these matters it seems to me that one sees on every side possible causes of friction.
Let me deal with the second part of the noble Viscount's Resolution, which
1064
says that the House profoundly regrets the declaration by the Government that they reserve full liberty to propose to Parliament the reduction or abolition of the duties on all the commodities to which Preference now applies. Does the noble Viscount want to take away that power from Parliament? Let me give your Lordships a similar illustration to that already given by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. Supposing that a Parliament is elected with a mandate—I will not discuss whether there is a mandate now or not—that there shall be no further duties on sugar or tea, is it not absolutely essential that you should not place the Dominions in the position of being able to say, because a particular Parliament with a certain mandate desires to abolish the duties on sugar and tea: "You are playing false to the promises you made to us"? I think that would be a most lamentable position of affairs, and I cannot think of anything worse than to give a vote in favour of what the noble Viscount's Resolution would really mean, which is that where a Preference has once been given no subsequent Parliament is to have any power of dealing with it by revision or reduction.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I neither said nor meant anything of the kind.
LORD PARMOOR: I am taking the terms of the Resolution on which I understand we are to vote. The terms of the Resolution in this case are: "as also their declaration "—that is, the Government's declaration, and this is what the noble Viscount objects to— "that they reserve full liberty to propose to Parliament the reduction or abolition of the duties on all the commodities to which Preference now applies."
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: The noble Lord forces me to interrupt him. It is perfectly evident from his own reading of those few words of my Resolution that what I say there refers to the Government. It does not refer to Parliament. It does not propose to limit the powers of Parliament. It says that I regret in the circumstances (as I do) that the present Government chose to announce that in this particular case they would abrogate these duties, although, as the

1065
noble Lord knows perfectly well, there are cases in which other duties are to be in force for five years.
LORD PARMOOR: I should be very sorry to have any controversy with the noble Viscount, and on the constitutional point I do not think there is any real difference between us. Whether you ask for a declaration that the Government will bind itself not to alter these Preferences, or whether you say, as I understand the noble Viscount to say, that the Government should pledge itself that Parliament will not do it, no Government could make such a pledge. If a Government gave that pledge and a Parliament was afterwards elected which intended to adopt a different policy concerning duties of this kind, it would then be open to our Dominions to say: "Why did you put us in this position? You put us in the position of believing that these Preferences would be perpetual, whereas you knew"—and every lover of the Constitution in this country knows it—" that under your free system no Government could give a guarantee of that kind, and that it would be entirely dependent upon the Parliament which might be returned after a particular Election."
There are two other points in the noble Viscount's Resolution which have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, on which I should like to say a word or two. How can the noble Viscount talk of the unanimous approval of all the States of the Empire? Are we not one of the States of the Empire? Has there been unanimous approval in this country? It is because there has not been unanimous approval in this country that this policy is not at present being carried forward. When you are talking about Imperial unity and Imperial loyalty, it is absurd, to my mind, not to take into consideration the opinion expressed in the Mother Country. I am absolutely at a loss to see how, under these conditions and under the conditions of the debate which has taken place this evening in your Lordships' House, any one can possibly say that there has been an "unsympathetic attitude to a policy which has been unanimously approved by all the States of the Empire at successive Conferences."
I will not deal now with the last part of the Resolution, because I have already
1066
referred to it. I think it is by far the most important part. Had the noble Viscount, the noble and learned Earl, or the course of the debate been convincing that the policy which the Government has adopted towards Preferential Duties would prejudice the unity of the Empire, no one would vote more gladly against any policy of the kind than I should. I say frankly that I do not believe it. I say exactly the contrary—namely, that a policy in commercial matters which creates so much difference of opinion is just the sort of policy which is likely to raise very awkward questions between the various States of which our Empire is at present comprised. You are throwing among them an apple of discord so long as this is a matter in reference to which there are acute political differences.
May I say a few words next upon two points which were referred to by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead? If I may say so, I will not go back into my own history. I have been Chairman of the North-West Free Trade Union for very many years, and I think there was a time when the noble Earl's own arguments appealed to me more strongly, perhaps, for their vigour than their logic. However, I will not go back into those days. Let me deal with two matters with which, apparently, he dealt incidentally. One is the question of Reparations. I entirely agree with every word he said, though we are not discussing that point now. I do not see any way in which Reparations can be paid unless there is a surplus of German exports over imports, and I do not believe that any economist does. As I say, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl. But if that is true, the disadvantage as regards our trade or its influence on our trade is that we have committed ourselves to Reparations at all in this form. I am not going into that question at the present time; it is far too wide a question. I only wish to say that I entirely agree with the statement of the noble Earl. I do not believe that there is any way in which these Reparations can be paid without getting a surplus of exports over imports. I dare say there will be fear that there may be unfair competition with the industries of this country.

1067
There is one other point to which the noble Lord referred, and that, was in regard to trade unionists. I think he is quite mistaken in saying that trade unionists are Protectionists in the sense that he used the term. They are protectionists in the same sense no doubt as the members of the Bar are protectionists—that is to say, they seek, so far as their trade or profession is concerned, to secure the best conditions that they can. I think that is quite right. At the present time I think you will find that almost every profession is gradually becoming a protectionist body as regards the interests of its own members, in order that they may carry on their trade or profession under fair conditions.
What I want to put to your Lordships is this. The noble Lord thought that unfair conditions were likely to arise by the competition of sweated industries in other countries against the industries of this country. I happen to have come back only last week from Geneva. What is going on there? The International Labour Conference is meeting there, and that Conference is dealing with this subject. There is to be an International Convention under which the hours of labour shall be the same amongst all these competitive countries to which the noble Earl has referred.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Japan as well?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, all countries. I do not say that the proposal of a Convention has been adopted yet, but the effort is being made so as to meet what the noble Earl called unfair conditions by insisting that in all countries the working classes shall not be employed under conditions of sweated labour. That is the effort which is now being made. I sincerely hope it will be, successful. I only refer to this matter because it was mentioned by the noble Earl, for I think it is really rather outside the topic which is before your Lordships. Let me repeat, in conclusion, what I have said throughout, that we, the members of the present Government represented in your Lordships' House, do not yield to any one in the loyalty of our feelings towards maintaining in the most friendly relationship Imperial unity between all the States and
1068
Commonwealths of which our great Empire is composed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HONOURS COMMITTEE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he will give the names of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed by the present Prime Minister in pursuance of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Honours which reported in December, 1922.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In reply to the noble Marquess I desire to say that the names are: Lord Buckmaster, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Richards.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES TON: My Lords, if I may I should like, before your Lordships separate, to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord opposite on the conduct of business. I understand that the renewed debate on the Bishop of Oxford's Bill is to take place on Monday, and I believe another noble Lord on these Benches is anxious to put down another Motion for the Monday following. The question I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord is this: Does he not think that the time has now arrived when the Government might announce, with the general assent of the House, that we shall for the remainder of the Session sit on Mondays? He will remember that as a result of the Report of the Committee that examined into the matter it was suggested that the Leader of the House should act in accord with the general sentiment of the House in making any such suggestion after Whitsuntide. I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he does not think that the moment has arrived?
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess. I think the time has arrived. He will recollect that it is not only a question for the Government. We have to act with the general assent of the House. If that general assent is given, so far as the Government are concerned we would certainly for the rest of the Session have sittings on Mondays.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to smoke nuisances, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

ABERDARE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee: That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 15th and the 27th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee; That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 15th and the 27th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Report from the Joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Water).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Southern Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.