Sitting of 6 March 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Croydon Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.

NEW WRIT.

  No. 2. WESTMINSTER (ABBEY) DIVISION.
  For Borough of Westminster (Abbey Division) in the room of Brig.-General JOHN SANCTUARY NICHOLSON, deceased.—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I beg to move,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Kent (Dover Division) in the room of Major the honourable John Jacob Astor, who since his election for the said County hath vacated his seat in Parliament by sitting and voting in this House without having taken the Oath or made the Affirmation required by Law."
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I wish to take the opportunity on this Motion of getting an assurance from the Government that such an incident shall be rendered impossible in future, by the very simple expedient, which would be of the greatest convenience to all Members of the House, and save valuable days of Parliamentary time, of making provision that the Oath or Affirmation shall be taken before the Returning Officer. That method would make such an incident entirely
  1564
  impossible, and at the beginning of each Parliament would save time which is badly needed for other purposes. Whether it was a Government Measure or a private Member's Bill supported by all parties, such a Measure would command universal approval. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I very much hope that the Government will see their way to express their view that this suggestion will be favourably considered, and that such incidents will be avoided in future.
  Mr. SPEAKER: A new principle of that kind cannot be dealt with on this Motion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Of course, we all regret the misadventure which has befallen Major Astor. It might have happened to many of us, if we had been able to spend the spring in such delightful quarters as he has recently frequented. But there is an important point in relation to this. Not only is the vacation of the seat a penalty in the circumstances; there is also provided a pecuniary penalty, and in relation to that pecuniary penalty I think it is at least right that the Government should indicate what attitude they take.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are going to take the money.
  Mr. PRINGLE: As I said last evening, I would have no doubt as to the attitude of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood). I understand that on former occasions—the precedents are somewhat remote—when a mistake of this kind was made, an Indemnity Bill was passed in favour of the hon. Member who had rendered himself liable to the penalties. I would like to know whether, since this incident has been reported to the Government, they have been able to make up their minds as to what attitude they will take in regard to the pecuniary penalty. This is not an occasion on which a common informer can proceed against the offending Member. The rights of the common informer are now limited to cases under what is known as the Contracts Act, but for an occasion of this kind the penalty is one for which proceedings can be taken only by the Crown, and, as the Home Secretary is here, I have no doubt that he will be able to make a statement on the matter. We are all glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in place, and, I have no doubt

  1565
  that, as a responsible member of the Government, he will be able to make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that this mistake was one of pure inadvertence—an honest mistake—the Government could see their way to remit the penalty?
  Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether the gentleman in default is permitted to stand again in any way as a candidate?
  HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): This question has arisen so suddenly and unexpectedly that the Government have had no opportunity of considering the matter. I am rather inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Macpherson) that, as it was a mere accident, that part of the case should be very carefully considered.
  Question put, and agreed to.

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

    APPEALS.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the payment of travelling and subsistence expenses of the representatives accompanying appellants to the Appeal Courts, in order to make it easy for ex-service men to secure help in presenting their case to the House of Lords independent tribunals?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough on the 28th February, of which I am sending a copy. I may add that I am in consultation with the Lord Chancellor on the matter.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the great disabilities suffered
    1566
    by certain ex-service men and their dependants when appearing before appeal tribunals owing to their inability to do justice to their own cases; will he therefore reconsider the decision of his predecessor in refusing to allow such assistance to be given; and will he permit local pension committees to exercise their discretion and allow one of their members or an official to accompany dependants and assist them in laying their cases before the appeal tribunal, when the committees are satisfied that the appellants would otherwise be unable to have their claims adequately presented?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would remind the hon. Member that the procedure at the hearing of cases by the pensions appeal tribunal is governed by Regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. These Regulations provide, inter alia, that an appellant may be assisted at the hearing by a member of a war pensions committee, and expressly enjoin the tribunal itself to assist any appellant who, through ignorance, or otherwise, is unable to make the best of his case. I may add that full opportunity is given at the local offices of the Ministry for an appellant who so desires to enlist the help of a member of the war pensions committee.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the Minister consider this point further in view of the fact that these committees are not giving financial assistance to enable cases to be put forward where the pensioner himself is not able to state the case fully?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of assisting men to bring their own medical attendants to help them before the tribunal?
    Captain BERKELEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been publicly stated, that in cases where the appellants do not receive assistance, 90 per cent. of the appeals fail, whereas in cases where they have been assisted by the British Legion, 60 per cent. are successful?
    Major TRYON: Is it not the fact that the British Legion review their cases and pick out certain cases for appeal?
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider there is great chance of grave injustice being done to these claimants in the circumstances

    1567
    indicated; and in such cases should not the appellants receive assistance?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I shall be very happy to consider the points raised if hon. Members furnish me with specific information as to the questions put by them.
    Mr. McENTEE rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions as to this matter should be placed on the Paper.

    PERMAMENT PENSIONS.
    Captain SIDNEY HERBERTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can see his way to make permanent the pensions of all disabled ex-service men who have been in receipt of a pension for four years or more; and whether he will take steps to grant the statutory right of appeal in cases of deterioration to all pensioners in receipt of a permanent disability pension when the claim is supported by medical evidence?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Final Awards Regulations, made over two years ago in pursuance of Section 4 of the War Pensions Act, 1921, provide that every case which has been on the pension list for four years shall be considered for a final award. This is being done, and already about 220,000 final awards of pension have been made, but when it is found by medical examiation that the man's pensionable condition is likely to change materially in the near future, I do not think it would be desirable to make a final award. As regards the second part of the question, I am, as I have already announced, reviewing the administration of the Final Awards Regulations.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. G. OLIVERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can arrange that in any case where complaints are made against a war widow's conduct the woman should be informed of the name of the person making the complaint and its nature; and whether, in view of the grave injustice inflicted on many war widows by the withdrawal of their pension, he will take steps to stop all forfeiture of war widows' pensions in future?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am at present reviewing the procedure in these cases in
    1568
    consultation with the Special Grants Committee, and I will make an anouncement at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. OLIVERalso asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that in the event of an officer's widow re-marrying her pension ceases, and that in the event of the second husband dying the pension is immediately re-issued, he will take action to place the widows of non-commissioned officers and men on an equality with the widows of commissioned officers?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Pension is not restored automatically to the widow of an officer in the event of her second widowhood, but only if her financial position is such as to justify restoration. Although this provision does not extend to the widows of other ranks, they have the advantage of receiving, on re-marriage, a gratuity which is not conditioned on need and which is not given to the widows of commissioned officers. I may add that the matter was considered by the Select Committee on Pensions, who did not recommend any change.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Pensions if his personal attention was called to the case of Mrs. A. A. Blake, 487, Abbey Road, Abbey Wood, whose first husband was killed in France in 1918, whose pension ceased on remarriage to Gunner Blake, Royal Garrison Artillery, also killed as a result of war service; and whether, as it appears that present Regulations prevent this woman's pension being paid, he will take early steps to secure such powers and make them retrospective?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On a point of Order. Has it not been ruled that questions relating to the cases of particular people should not be put on the Paper for oral answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not consider that I had power to reject the question.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Pension in respect of the first husband ceased on remarriage, when the usual gratuity was paid to the widow. Her second husband had left the Army before he married her, and I am not prepared to consider any alteration of the Royal Warrant in the direction of providing pensions for widows of soldiers married after discharge.
    Mr. MILLS: In view of the answer to Question No. 4 and the attitude adopted towards the widows of officers, will the Minister once more reconsider this case?

    DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Pensions if he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take to deal with the hardships and suffering caused by the numerous reductions of dependence pensions owing to the recent revision; and whether he proposes to arrange for a reconsideration of decisions of the appeal tribunals?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The reconsideration of cases of pre-War dependence pension which had been reviewed is now in progress in accordance with the arrangements outlined in the answer given on the 18th February in reply to the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. J. Baker) of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I regret that I am not yet in a position to state the further steps which it may be found possible to take in regard to dependants' pensions generally, but progress is being made.

    WAR PENSIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Pensions if he proposes to introduce this Session the War Pensions Acts (Amendment) Bill, introduced by himself and other hon. Members last Session?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 21st February to the hon. Member for I Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou) of which I am sending him a copy.

    HOSPITALS.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE HASTINGSasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the present serious shortage of hospital accommodation for the civil population, he will consider the advisability of transferring to the civil authorities those hospitals under his charge which are no longer needed for pension cases?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hospitals controlled by my Department are ordinarily either leased from public bodies or are in the nature of temporary buildings on land held on lease. When one of these hospitals is no longer required by my
    1570
    Department its future use is a matter for the landlord to whom the land is surrendered. I may say, however, that during the past year two hospitals have been released by the Ministry to their original purposes for use by the civil authorities.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Major COLFOXasked the Minister of Pensions how many salaries of £1,100 a year or over are at present borne on the Votes of the Ministry of Pensions; how many of the recipients are ex-service men; and what were the corresponding figures for 1st January, 1924?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Thirty-four salaries of £1,100 and over (including bonus) are at present in payment. Of the recipients 18 are ex-service men. On the 1st January, 1924, the numbers were 34 and 20 respectively.
    Major COLFOX: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the reason for the difference between the 18 and the 20?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should like notice of that question.
    Major COLFOX: Is it because the present Minister and the present Parliamentary Secretary are not ex-service men while their predecessors were?

    BLIND CASES.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that there are many ex-service men who have become blind since their discharge but are not in receipt of any State aid; and whether he will give an opportunty for such cases to be sympathetically considered by his Department, with a view to pension or other assistance?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not aware of any cases of blinded ex-service men, whose condition is either due to or aggravated by War service, who are not in receipt of pension from my Department; but I shall, of course, be glad to inquire into the facts of any particular case which the hon. and gallant Member may have in mind if he will let me have details.

    NEUROLOGICAL CLINIC (BULINGA STREET).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that at the Ministry of Pensions Neurological Clinic, Bulinga Street, medical officers with good records of war service and good qualifications for psychotherapeutic treatment, are being dismissed, while other medical officers with no war service and no especial psychological qualifications are not only being retained but are getting the maximum amount of work available at this clinic, thereby prejudicing the efficiency of the clinic and the right treatment of the neurasthenic pensioners who attend there; and will he inquire into this matter in order to see that the recommendations of the Lytton Committee are carried out in the letter and the spirit?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Owing to the reduction in work, it has been necessary to effect a corresponding reduction in the part time medical staff employed at the Neurological Clinic, Bulinga Street. In selecting the officers who were to be retained, full regard has been paid, not only to their war service, but also to their qualifications for providing the most effective treatment for the pensioner. Under this arrangement, the employment of 11 neurologists (of whom nine served in the War and two did not) is being terminated. Of the 26 neurologists now giving treatment at the clinic, 23 served in the War.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My information is that they are being carried out.

    POOR LAW RECIPIENTS.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will give instructions for the collection and preparation for early presentation to the Members of the House of a return showing the number of ex-service men with their dependants receiving out-relief, those resident in workhouses, and those charged to local rates who are in mental institutions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday
    1572
    to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Kingston-upon-Hull (Mr. Lumley).
    Mr. LUMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of boards of guardians are asking for these returns?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that circumstance. The answer given yesterday was to the effect, that considerable trouble and expense to boards of guardians would be involved.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Mr. ATHOLL ROBERTSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his statement made prior to the Election in support of the policy of establishing competent ex-service men without examination, he will give immediate instructions that all pending Departmental examinations shall be stopped and that competent men at present working in Departmental classes shall be absorbed on the permanent establishment on the results of their previous work in their respective Departments?
    Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Government of South Africa established without examination all temporary ex-service men in the South African Civil Service who had given five years' satisfactory service; and whether, in view of his statement before the recent General Election, he will issue instructions that a similar course shall be adopted regarding ex-service men in Government employ in this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): As the answer is a long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The answer is as follows:
    As hon. Members are aware, effect has been given to the recommendations of the Lytton Committee in regard to the establishment of ex-service temporary clerks. I have no information as to the arrangements adopted in South Africa. The question what, if any, further opportunities should be given them to qualify for such permanent appointments as may be available falls to be dealt with by the Southborough Committee, who, I am confident, will give full consideration to the

    1573
    just claims of ex-service men. The Departmental examinations referred to are similar to those held in other Departments for affording ex-service men temporarily employed a special chance of entry to the permanent service. They are part of the machinery set up following the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, and it would be unreasonable, and, indeed, unfair, to suspend all such arrangements pending completion of the Southborough Committee inquiry.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that a disabled ex-service man, Major Barnard, was recently dismissed from the Directorate of Civil Aviation; that this officer had served satisfactorily in this Department since its inception; and that an officer with Departmental service only was retained, although this officer had not the same length of service In the directorate, and although he had at one time left the Air Ministry and been re-engaged; will he say whether this officer was in the interval employed with the same firm as the present Director of Civil Aviation; and why the order of discharge, as laid down in the Lytton Report, has on this and several other occasions been ignored in his Department?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): Lieut.-Commander Bernard, a pensioned officer of the Royal Navy, was employed by the Air Ministry at a salary of £875 (in addition to pension) in a post requiring knowledge of navigation; the post was abolished and Lieut.-Commander Bernard became redundant. No other appointment of anything like the same value to which Commander Bernard could be appointed was available, but he was told what posts were available, and he agreed that he had not the necessary qualifications to fill them. The appointment referred to in the third part of the question, i.e., that of personal assistant, was not regarded as suitable for Lieut.-Commander Bernard. I may add that no complaint about his treatment has been received from this officer, who left the Department in November last. My hon. Friend will thus see that in the circumstances no question of order of discharge arose. I may add that the order of discharge recommended by the Lytton Report is followed in the
    1574
    Air Ministry wherever practicable, but that order contemplates staff engaged upon similar work who are readily interchangeable.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why is it that when a disabled man is dismissed from a poet, it immediately becomes redundant?
    Mr. LEACH: It was done in the sacred name of economy and re-organisation.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) why, seeing that the work of the contracts and supplies branch of his Department has been carried out since its inception very largely by temporary officials and has been thoroughly satisfactory, it has now been decided to replace these ex-service men by permanent civil servants, without first offering these posts to the present holders;
    (2) whether it has been decided to replace ex-service men serving in the Directorate of Contracts by permanent officers; when it is intended to issue notices to such ex-service men; and whether, in view of the fact that such replacements will only be made in order to provide an avenue of promotion for executive officers elsewhere, and is not in accordance with the spirit of the Lytton Report or with the numerous pledges given to ex-service men by successive Governments, and repeated by the Prime Minister before the recent General Election, he will reconsider the matter?
    Mr. LEACH: It was decided in 1922 by the then Government, as part of a re-organisation of the Air Ministry, to amalgamate the old Directorate of Aircraft Supplies (which was a remanent of war organisation taken over by the Air Ministry from the Ministry of Munitions) with the Contracts Department and to unify contract supply methods through a homogeneous staff similar in character to that to which contract work is entrusted in the Admiralty and the War Office. This change was accepted by the late Government and inaugurated on 1st January, 1923, and the staff of the Directorate has been graded as executive, under the terms of the re-organisation of the Civil Service agreed to between the official and staff sides of the National Whitley Council in February, 1920. It follows that vacancies occurring in the ordinary course in the amalgamated contracts

    1575
    Department must be filled from the executive grade. Of the members of the temporary staff transferred from the Aircraft Supplies Directorate in January, 1923, who have not voluntarily vacated their appointments and who are still in the employ of the Air Ministry, some have already been offered posts in other branches, and special consideration is being and will be given to the cases of the remainder. If the temporary staff in question have gained the impression that they will be summarily discharged in order that they may be replaced by established civil servants, they are mistaken.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the Under-Secretary that an answer of that length should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to ask if the net result of that long answer means that the disabled ex-service man is squeezed out again?
    Mr. LEACH: No, Sir, not at all, and the men have no cause to fear any action of that sort.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Pensions how many temporary men and women clerks, respectively, are employed in the Pensions Issue Office on the following duties: registry work, stamping, filing, post, and life certificate examination; and how many of the men concerned were placed on these duties since the issue of the second South-borough Report?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The numbers of temporary women clerks employed on the duties in Pension Issue Office specified in the question are at present as follow:

    Registry

    275

    Stamping

    31

    Filing

    66

    Post

    24

    Life certificate examination

    27

    No male clerks are employed on stamping, filing, post, or life certificate examination, but one registry is at present staffed by men, the number of temporary clerks
    1576
    employed being 110, all ex-service. Of these, 33 have been added to the staff since the issue of the second Southborough Report.

  PRE-WAR PENSIONS (IRELAND).
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Pensions if the Bill he proposes to introduce for the increase of pre-War pensions will affect late members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Dublin police, and the civil servants of the Crown who served in Ireland previous to 1922?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given in the House on the 19th February by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Members for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) and Chester City (Sir Charles Cayzer).

  CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY).
  Mr. DIXEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the criminal law with regard to the question of insanity and the somewhat contrary decisions of the Courts in respect to the same, the Government will consider introducing legislation to deal with the matter at any early date?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I do not at present contemplate proposing any legislation on this subject.

  PENTONVILLE PRISON (OBSERVATION CELLS).
  Mr. STRANGERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are in Pentonville Prison over 20 inmates mentally and medically unfit confined in observation cells but in charge only of the ordinary disciplinary officer; that at night that disciplinary officer has a duty which requires him to walk over 20 miles; and whether in future it will be arranged to have those inmates in observation cells placed in charge of a medical prison orderly instead of a disciplinary officer?
  Mr. HENDERSON: There are 20 inmates under observation in Pentonville Prison on account of physical or mental defect; they are supervised by a discipline officer, and the officer has to do a great deal of patrolling at night, which, however, would not amount to as much as 20 miles. The cases are those known as minor observation cases. The more serious ones are treated in the hospital. The hospital staff at its present strength cannot spare officers for this duty, but, as the hon. Member was informed on the 28th February, the resources of the Prison Commission in this respect are being steadily improved.
  Mr. STRANGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these 20 cases are cases on the border line of insanity?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes. I am aware of that, and if we had the staff there would be a difference in treatment.
  Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman experiencing any real difficulties in supplementing the present staff, and is he aware that it is a very important matter from the staff point of view as well as from the inmates' point of view?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have not yet been sufficiently long at the Home Office to find out the difficulties.

  AMMUNITION (BREAKING DOWN FACTORIES).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether any factories are now engaged in breaking down cartridges or other war surplus pyrotechnics and explosives; and under what regulations?
  Mr. HENDERSON: My direct information relates only to factories not under the control of a Department of Government. There are two such factories; they are both licensed under the Explosives Act, and regulated by the general provisions of the Act and the particular conditions attached to their respective licences. I have made inquiry of the Disposal Commission and three Service Departments, with the following result: The Disposal Commission inform me that the breaking down of pyrotechnics at Slades Green has for the present been stopped. There are two other factories where certain explosives are being broken down by labour employed direct
  1578
  by the Commission and under the supervision of technical officers of the Commission. No breaking down is done at any establishment under the control of the Air Ministry. Breaking down of cartridges and other explosives is carried out by the Admiralty at Royal Naval Armament Depots under special Admiralty regulations which are the result of long experience. The work is carried out under special precautions and under expert supervision. In the case of surplus explosives where breaking down might involve undue risk, the explosives are carried out to sea and dumped in deep water in selected places. The only War Department factory engaged in breaking down cartridges, etc., is Woolwich Arsenal. The work there is carried out under special War Office regulations which have been drawn up as a result of years of experience in explosives.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it was that this firm of Messrs. Gilberts, which was working for private profit, was exempted from the Explosives Act? Was it not the fact that the work could not be done at a profit except at very great risk to the workers' lives?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to have that question on the Paper.
  Mr. MILLSasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the findings of the coroner's jury in the matter of the Slades Green explosion; and whether, in view of the admissions made under examination by responsible officials, he will order a special inquiry into this disaster?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I expect to receive at an early date the full Report which is being prepared for me by the chief inspector of explosives and the inspector of factories who attended the inquest. As soon as it reaches my hands, I will most certainly consider whether a further inquiry of any kind would be likely to yield any additional information of value as to the exact cause of the accident or as to precautions to be taken in the future.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the chief inspector of explosives why 26 girls were crowded into this shed when only three ought to have been working

  1579
  there, owing to the dangerous nature of their employment?
  Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the experts at the coroner's inquiry were of the opinion that the continuance of factories under the Disposal Board, evading the provisions of the Explosives Act, was illegal?
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: A scandal, the whole thing!
  Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that question arises.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the jury at the inquest on the Slades Green explosion recommended that all work of an explosive nature carried on by private firms should be under the Explosives Act; whether he will guarantee that this recommendation shall be carried out; and if he will grant an inquiry why the work carried on by the firm at Slades Green was exempted from the Explosives Act?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply. The work carried on at this factory was exempted from the Explosives Act by the provisions of the Act itself, Section 97 of which expressly lays down that the Act shall not apply to any factory or explosive under the control of a Department of the Government. I will, however, confer with the Departments concerned with a view to seeing whether the recommendation appended by the jury to their verdict can be carried into effect at once by administrative action.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: But this factory was on private premises, was manufacturing for private profit, and was not under the control of the Government—that is the point!

  ASSAULTS UPON CHILDREN.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Home Secretary if he has received copies of resolutions, passed by various organisations and public bodies with reference to assaults upon children, calling attention to the inadequate sentences passed on offenders, and to the need for an investigation; and whether, in order to lessen the number of these offences, he
  1580
  will appoint a Departmental Committee with wide terms of reference, including medical and legal experts, social workers, and representative women, to inquire into the whole subject?
  Mr. HENDERSON: My attention has been called to this matter, and I have arranged that a Conference shall be held at the Home Office, when the whole question can be discussed. As at present advised, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Departmental Committee.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Will medical and legal experts be called to the Conference at the Home Office?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I will take that into consideration.

  BROADMOOR ASYLUM (L. S. CAUNTER).
  Mr. MARLEYasked the Home Secretary whether two independent medical certificates were obtained in the case of Lionel S. Caunter, who was committed to Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum on 21st May, 1920; and, if so, what were the names of the signatories?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Mr. Caunter was certified insane in April, 1920, by two qualified medical practitioners and two members of the Visiting Committee of the Prison in which he was then confined. An order was thereupon made in pursuance of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, for his removal to Broadmoor, where he remained until September, 1922. Copies of such certificates, including the signatures, may be obtained by interested parties on cause shown, but it would be contrary to practice, and I think undesirable, to give general publicity to the names of the signatories.

  RABBIT COURSING.
  Mr. FOOTasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the necessity of amending the existing law so as to make illegal the organising of rabbit coursing for public entertainment?
  Mr. HENDERSON: While sympathising with the object of the hon. Member, I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking to introduce legislation this Session.

  WOMEN IN POLICE CELLS (SUPERVISION).
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a woman who was found with her clothes on fire at Vine Street Police Station on 15th February; what explanation can be given of the fact that this woman was left for two hours with means for setting herself on fire in her possession; and what are the arrangements for supervising the women in police cells?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have made inquiry into the facts and find that this prisoner had been searched in the usual way by the matron on duty at the police station, who did not find anything on her likely to do mischief. Drunken prisoners are visited every half-hour, and this woman had, in fact, been visited only a few minutes before she was found with the front of her blouse on fire. The cause of this has not been ascertained, and the prisoner refused to give any account of the matter. It is to be presumed that she had concealed some matches about her and set light to herself. I do not see how the search and supervision of women in police custody could be made so rigorous as to preclude any possibility of such an incident occurring.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Would not the appointment of women police in this case have been useful?

  PARTICULARS OF DEATHS FROM LEAD POISONING FOR THE YEAR 1922 IN THE POTTERY INDUSTRY.

  Case No.

  Sex.

  Age.

  Duration of Employment.

  Process.

  1

  M

  51

  35 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer

  2

  M

  44

  31 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Dipper.

  3

  M

  53

  Over 20 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  4

  M

  44

  Not worked since 1916

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  5

  M

  43

  28 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  6

  M

  58

  29 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  7

  M

  51

  30 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Dipper.

  8

  M

  60

  41 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  9

  M

  60

  46 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  10

  M

  40

  20 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Dipper.

  11

  M

  55

  37 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  12

  M

  61

  Over 40 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Dipper.

  13

  M

  44

  31 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  14

  M

  42

  16 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Glost placer.

  15

  F

  55

  7 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Dipper.*

  16

  F

  61

  23 years

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Aerographer.

  17

  F

  46

  Not worked since 1904

  …

  …

  …

  Warecleaner.

  * Died of cancer of the stomach accelerated by lead poisoning.

  Viscountess ASTOR: Might I also ask if a trained police woman would not be far better than the ordinary matron?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I think the Department has shown its sympathy with the appointment of women police, but I am not ready to go further than that.
  Viscountess ASTOR: We want more than sympathy; we want deeds!
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is a boomerang!

  LEAD POISONING.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that out of the 42 cases of lead poisoning notified in 1922 among workers in the manufacture of china and earthenware 17 were fatal; and whether he can give the ages and sex of those who died and state on what processes they were employed?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The numbers stated in the question are those given in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1922. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the particulars asked for, together with the duration of the worker's employment in the industry.
  Following are the particulars promised:
  Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories shows that a larger number of deaths from lead poisoning occurred in 1922 than in any previous year since 1900, he can state what steps he proposes to take in order to put an end to the loss of life in the industries concerned?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I presume the hon. Member refers only to the pottery industry. In no other industry was there a larger number of deaths from lead poisoning in 1922 than in any previous year since 1900. The hon. Member must not take the number of fatal cases from lead poisoning in 1922 as affording any indication of present conditions. In most fatal cases the disease has been contracted a long time previously, and, as the hon. Member will find from the particulars of the 1922 cases, which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the deceased had, in practically every instance, been employed for a long period of years in the industry. In fact, with few exceptions, the period of employment was not less than 20 years, and in two cases the worker had ceased to be employed in the industry some years previously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it!"] After an exhaustive inquiry by a Departmental Committee, a new code of Regulations for the industry was brought into operation in 1913, and since then there has been a great reduction in the total number of cases. Every effort is being made to reduce the number still further, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the situation will be carefully watched.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I might suggest that all answers of that length should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

  TAXI-CAB FARES, LONDON.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary what are the considerations that govern the price of taxi-cabs in London, besides those of petrol and motor tyres, that, in spite of the decrease of the cost of living since 1920, prevent any reduction in their prices below those of 1920?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I am advised that the capital cost of a cab is much higher than before the War, and so is the price of spare parts, garage, insurance, labour, and, in fact, all running costs, except petrol and tyres. I may point out that cab fares are only 50 per cent. above the pre-War level, while the general level of prices and wages is much higher.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the taxi-cab owners themselves consider that if they had lower fares they would have more people to use the taxis?
  Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the drivers who work for the owners are determined to retain the present fares as long as they can rather than be reduced to starvation?
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

  ALIENS (IMMIGRATION).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to continue the policy of the late Government and refuse the admission of aliens into this country where there is any likelihood of their taking employment from our own people?
  Mr. HENDERSON: As indicated in several recent answers to questions on this subject, it is the intention of the Government to administer the law relating to it with due regard, on the one hand, to the needs of this country, which demand vigilant control over alien immigration, and, on the other, to the desirability of avoiding unnecessary individual hardship.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SPECIAL BRANCH).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what is the present strength and annual cost of the Special Department of Scotland Yard charged with the detection and/or prevention of political crimes apart from the

  1585
  detection and prevention of ordinary crime; and whether this branch of the police service is now separated from the work of the Naval and Military Intelligence Services?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The strength of the police officers and clerical staff employed in the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police is 170, and their cost approximately £60,000 per annum. I can give no information respecting Naval or Military Intelligence Services.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, does that mean that the liaison between the special branch and the Naval Intelligence Department and M. 15 has been ended?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.
  Captain BERKELEY: What is the nature of these political crimes for which this Department is kept?

  CELLULOID FACTORY, RICHMOND.
  Mr. BECKERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a celluloid factory has been established in Townshend Terrace, Richmond; if his Department has given its authority for this; is he aware that there is strong local feeling owing to the inflammable nature of celluloid and the propinquity of many houses; and will he take steps to have this celluloid factory removed to a safer place?
  Mr. HENDERSON: About a year ago the town council asked the Home Office to intervene to prevent the establishment of this factory, and were informed in reply that the Home Office had no power to approve or disapprove of the premises being used for the purposes mentioned. I am advised that I have no power to order the removal of the factory as suggested, or otherwise intervene. Precautions to prevent fires are contained in the Regulations made under the Factory Act for the protection of persons employed in celluloid factories, and I may also draw the attention of the hon. Member to the provisions for securing the safety
  1586
  of persons in adjoining buildings contained in Section 1 of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act, 1922, the enforcement of which rests with the local authority.
  Mr. BECKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are houses all round this celluloid factory, that there is great public fear of a fire at any moment, and cannot something be done?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have already stated that this matter rests with the local authority.

  POLICE.

    DESBOROUGH COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether the Desborough Committee on police pay is still in existence; whether it has made any Report to his Department; if so, if he proposes to take any action thereon; if its Report will be circulated to Members of the House; and, if so, when?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I received from the Committee on Tuesday a communication which, with the permission of the House, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the communication:
    To the Right Hon. ARTHUR HENDERSON, M.P., His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Right Hon. WILLIAM ADAMSON, M.P., Secretary for Scotland.
    SIRS,
    1. In pursuance of our appointment, dated the 27th July, 1923, by your predecessors, we have held five meetings; we have heard evidence from Mr. A. L. Dixon, C.B., C.B.L., Assistant Secretary of the Home Office, and Sir Leonard Dunning and Major-General L. W. Atcherley, C.M.G., C.V.O. (His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for England and Wales) reviewing the steps taken on our previous Report and the main developments affecting the conditions of service of the police which have taken place since that Report was presented.
    2. We consider that the general economic conditions are extremely unsettled at the present time, and that the question of the rise or fall of industrial wages is most uncertain. Inasmuch, therefore, as it must be unsettling to any service to have repeated re-visions of their rates of pay, we

    1587
    are of opinion that it is not an opportune moment for disturbing an arrangement come to so recently.
    3. In these circumstances we feel that no useful purpose would be served by our continuing the inquiry, and ask that our reference may be discharged.
    4. We further desire to point out that if occasion should arise hereafter for review of the conditions of service of the police, appropriate machinery for dealing with such questions would appear to exist in the Police Councils which have now been constituted on the lines we recommend in our previous Report, and which, we understand, have already dealt with the question of the police bonus, raised by the Police Federation, and the measures for securing certain economies in police expenditure recommended by the Geddes Committee.
    5. In conclusion we desire to express our warm appreciation of the assistance which we have received from our Secretary, Mr. J. H. Burrell.
    We have the honour to be,
    Sirs,
    Your obedient Servants,
    DESBOROUGH (Chairman).
    GORELL.
    F. D. BLAKE.
    H. CRAIK.
    JAMES O'GRADY.
    JAMES REMNANT.
    JAS. SEXTON.

    CHIEF CONSTABLE, STALYBRIDGE.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the reasons why the Police Regulations, made under the Police Act, 1919, have not been complied with in the recent appointment of chief constable made by the Stalybridge Watch Committee; and whether his approval has yet been given to this appointment?
    Mr. HENDERSON: This appointment has been submitted for my approval in the usual way, and, after inquiring very carefully into the facts, I have come to the conclusion that the selected candidate possesses, quite apart from his short police service, special qualifications and experience within the meaning of the Regulations. In these circumstances, I cannot hold that the Regulations have not been complied with, and my inquiries have disclosed no ground upon which I should be justified in withholding my approval.
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask, in view of the fact that this chief constable is now about
    1588
    29 years of age, and a sergeant must have at least five years' police experience to qualify for the rank of sergeant, whether he thinks 12 months' probationary period is sufficient to qualify for a chief constable, and will the Regulations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an amendment of the Regulations, so that there may be no move appointments of this kind?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That matter has already been considered.
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is it not a fact that the Desborough Committee recommended that only men should be appointed to these important posts who had had considerably long and useful experience in the police force?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The officers are not appointed under what is laid down in the Desborough Committee's Report, but under existing Regulations, and, as long as the existing Regulations are maintained, I must make my appointments, or approve of appointments in harmony with the Regulations.

    MEDICAL DECISIONS (APPEALS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange that police officers returned medically unfit shall be retained in the service until any appeal against the medical decision has been disposed of; and will he consider the remission of cost to an officer lodging such appeal, whether successful or not?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The point referred to in the first part of the question is under consideration. The reply to the second part is in the negative.
    Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, and will he help to remedy, that position, because many officers find that the expense of the appeal very often precludes the appeal being made?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I will look into it.

  COVENT GARDEN THEATRE.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in the opinion of the officers of the London County Council, Covent Garden Theatre

  1589
  does not conform to the safety standard of ordinary theatres in London, either as regards exits, storage of scenery, and other matters; and whether he will bring any pressure to bear on the lessees of this theatre in order to compel them to carry out the necessary alterations in the interest of public safety?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him last, July by my predecessor in reply to a similar question. I am informed that the Lord Chamberlain has been in conference with representatives of the London County Council and the leaseholders of the theatre, and it is hoped that a satisfactory agreement may in due course be reached.
  Mr. GILBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I asked the last question no improvement has been made in this theatre, and will he impress on the new Lord Chamberlain that something ought to be done at once?

  COAL INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES).
  Mr. W. JENKINSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a large number of coal miners are working in collieries where there are continual gob fires and men suffer a good deal from the fumes emitted from the fires; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made so as to include them under the Compensation Act by a new schedule under the industrial diseases?
  Mr. HENDERSON: No complaint of injury by fumes from gob fires appears to have been received either by the Home Office or by the Mines Department. If, however, the hon. Member can furnish me with particulars of any cases of disablement caused by these fumes, the matter will be investigated.
  Mr. W. JENKINSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of coal miners and men working on hard ground are certified by medical men as suffering from silicosis, as a result of working on hard ground with drills causing dust; and whether he will provide a new schedule of industrial diseases in order that they shall be entitled to compensation?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Special powers are conferred on the Home Office by the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act of 1918 to make schemes of compensation for industries involving exposure to silica dust. A scheme is already in force under that Act for the ganister miners, and if the prevalence of silicosis among coal miners were established, a scheme could be made for the coal mining industry. Up to the present, however, the evidence with regard to coal miners is that generally they are not liable to the disease. I am informed that the Health Advisory Committee of the Mines Department is at present engaged in a renewed investigation into the effects of dust on the health of miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Mr. Speaker, there is no Rule. This is a very right question, and Members are anxious to have a reply and if the hon. Member has evidence of any cases of silicosis among coal miners, I should be glad if he would forward them to the Mines Department for consideration by the Health Committee.

  OMNIBUS DRIVER'S APPEAL (COSTS).
  Mr. B. SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of George William Thomas Turner, a London General omnibus driver, who was convicted on the 29th December of being drunk whilst in charge of his vehicle, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment in the second division, and who, on appealing against this decision on the 8th February, was successful in such appeal, in spite of which he has to pay the costs of the proceedings and is not compensated for the period of over a month during which he was debarred from following his occupation; and will he give early consideration to the necessity for revising the law on this subject, in view of the circumstances quoted above and the high cost of such appeals, which is anything between £40 and £80?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Court has a discretion as to ordering the payment of costs by either party to an appeal. In this case the Court made no order, and accordingly the appellant would have to pay, not the costs of the proceedings, but the costs incurred by himself. Whether

  1591
  in view of the discretion already vested in the Court there is need for any further legislation is a question of some difficulty, but I propose to confer with the Lord Chancellor on the issue raised.
  Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of raiding the Police Fund to reimburse the costs to this man, amounting to £80, and the loss of a month's work? Surely there is some way by which this man can be reimbursed?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have not been able to find out any way as yet, but I am prepared to confer with the Lord Chancellor on the whole subject.

  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  Mr. LUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he is prepared to assist, either by a grant or by arrangement with the management of the British Empire Exhibition, those schools which are desirous of visiting the Exhibition, but which may be unable to do so owing to the cost of the railway fares, in spite of the efforts made by the children to pay their own expenses by savings?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): This matter is at present receiving my consideration, and I will issue a statement upon it as early as possible.

  EDUCATION.

    PROVIDED SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Education if there are any provided council schools in England and Wales where no provision is made for the children to receive Christian religious instruction; and, if there are any such schools, what is the total number?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board have no more recent information upon this subject than that contained in the House of Lords Return No. 115 of 1906.

    LEAVING AGE.
    Captain RAMAGEasked the President of the Board of Education if he proposes to take any steps to make compulsory the optional provision in the Education Acts of 1918 and 1921 for raising the school-leaving age to 15 years?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I stated my position in this matter in the reply which I gave on the 21st February last to the hon. Members for South-East Essex (Mr. Hoffman) and East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), and such an advance upon that position as the hon. and gallant Member suggests would require legislation.
    Mr. HERBERT FISHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he has received any applications from the local education authorities to raise the age to fifteen?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I have already received one.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that teachers retiring at a pensionable age, or under pressure of ill-health retiring when very near to the pensionable age, have been kept waiting for their pensions, or even for an intimation of what pension will be granted, and when it will be paid, for a period of over six months; whether, in such cases, he will expedite the procedure of his department so that the possibility of inconvenience to public service may be avoided; whether he will inquire as to what has happened with regard to the special case referred to in his predecessor's answer to a question put on the 16th April, 1923, in which he stated that he had given directions that inquiry should be made into the special case to which his attention had been privately called, in which an interim award was on the point of being made; and if he is aware that no action has been taken from that day to this?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am exceedingly anxious to avoid all unnecessary delay in the issue of awards. Every effort is made to settle claims for pensions as soon as possible after retirement; but as the hon.

    1593
    Member knows, delay is unavoidable in some cases by reason of the number of applications, the number of points both of principle and practice arising upon them, and the necessity of investigating back service extending sometimes over 40 years. In cases where delay is inevitable steps are taken to mitigate hardship by means of interim awards. With regard to the last two parts of the question, the hon Member appears to have been misinformed. In the case to which he refers the original interim award was issued on the 19th April, 1923, and the claim has now been finally settled. The teacher in question has received allowances quarterly since April, 1923.
    Mr. LINFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the settlement has only been arrived at since I put the question down, and will he deal drastically with those in the Department which hold up these matters for such a long time?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not think that is the case. My information is that it was settled a year ago.
    Mr. LINFIELD: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman for his information—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. MARLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to alter the decision of the Board which deprives a teacher disabled in the war of death gratuity rights under the Superannuation Act, 1918, when such rights are granted to teachers who were classified as unfit for military service?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: This matter is governed by the statutory provisions of Section 3 of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, and not by any administrative decision of the Board of Education. The point will be borne in mind when amendment of the Act is undertaken.

    DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES.
    Mr. PERCY HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board will allow attendances at performances of Shakespeare plays to rank for grant on the 50 per cent. basis
    1594
    if organised by the London County Council and other education authorities?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board are now prepared to recognise for grant at the appropriate rate any reasonable expenditure for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member which it is within the legal competence of authorities to incur.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the Board of Education recommend a similar grant for children who also want to go to theatrical performances, are not pupils of these schools, and cannot afford to?

    CERTIFICATED TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state approximately the number of certificated teachers who are at present unemployed?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I regret I do not possess the information asked for by the hon. Member.
    Mr. COVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in this matter?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: As a matter of fact I am making inquiries, and in a week or two I may be able to give an answer.

    CENTRAL SCHOOLS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education the number of central schools established by local authorities under the Education Acts, 1918 and 1921, and also, as on the last convenient date, the number of pupils between the ages of 14 and 16 years who are in attendance at the schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The expression "Central School" as used by local education authorities in practice covers public elementary schools of several types. If the use of the term be restricted to schools organised for the purpose of giving advanced instruction such as is contemplated in Section 20 of the Education Act, 1921, the numbers are approximately as follows:—

    1595

    —

    Number of Central Schools.

    Number of Schools containing Central Departments.

    Number of Schools containing Central Classes.

    Council Schools.

    Voluntary Schools.

    Council Schools.

    Voluntary Schools.

    Council Schools.

    Voluntary Schools.

    England

    …

    …

    …

    118

    15

    14

    1

    19

    13

    Wales

    …

    …

    …

    14

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    England and Wales

    …

    132

    15

    15

    1

    19

    13

    I regret that it would not be possible for me, without disproportionate labour, to state the number of pupils of the ages specified who are in attendance at the schools.

    INFANTS' ASSISTANTS (LONDON).
    Mr. P. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education what is the present attitude of his Department to the infants assistants now employed by the London County Council in certain schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I may refer to the reply given to the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) on 21st February last, and to the Board's Circular No. 1,325, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, SOUTH YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the wooden huts used for elementary schools in various parts of South Yorkshire are wholly unsuitable from every point of view, especially from the standpoint of health; and will he take steps, as speedly as possible to urge local education authorities to replace them by permanent buildings?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If my hon. Friend will give me details of any specific cases in which temporary school buildings of the kind to which he refers are alleged to be prejudicial to the health of the children, I will make immediate inquiries. As regards the general question, while I agree that the wooden huts of the Army type used in the war are in many ways not satisfactory for school purposes, and should be replaced at the earliest opportunity, their degree of suitability varies.
    1596
    Some wooden buildings accepted by the Board have proved quite suitable for their purpose, and while there are so many arrears of building to be made up, I cannot lay it down as a general proposition that their replacement should in all cases have priority over more urgent matters.

  GOVERNMENT BILLS (DRAFTING).
  Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to deal with the subject of legislation by reference so as to make Bills more intelligible; and whether, if it is necessary to continue the present system, it can be arranged for the section, clause, or provision forming the reference to be set forth at the foot of the page containing such reference?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): Every care is taken by those responsible for the drafting of Government Bills to avoid, as far as possible, legislation by reference. I will consider whether the course which has occasionally been adopted, either of issuing a White Paper setting out enactments referred to in a Bill, or of attaching to it a Memorandum giving the substance of such enactments, should not be more generally followed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (NECESSITOUS AREAS).
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has had time to consider the recent representations made on behalf of 61 necessitous areas, covering a population of over 12,000,000 persons, for further assistance on account of the abnormal distress due to unemployment in their districts: and, if not, will it be possible to do so at an

  1597
  early date in order that the assistance available may be known when compiling their estimates of local expenditure for the new financial year?
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: This matter has been receiving very careful consideration, and my right hon. Friend hopes that an announcement will be made shortly.
  Mr. THOMSON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say more definitely what he means by "shortly," as this matter has been before successive Departments for over three years?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As early as possible.

  LITHUANIA.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether any negotiations are in process for the de jure recognition of the Lithuanian Government; and whether, in view of the de jure recognition recently accorded to the Russian Soviet Government, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of placing on a similar basis the relations between Lithuania and this country?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): His Majesty's Government accorded de jure recognition to the Lithuanian Government on the 20th December, 1922.

  TRUSTS AND RINGS.
  Mr. BECKERasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee to inquire into and report on the operations of trusts, rings, and co-operative societies in this country with a view to reducing the cost of necessities of life to the people?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The hon. Member's suggestion as to trusts and rings will be considered, but he will be aware that several committees in recent years have inquired into the operations of trade combinations.
  Mr. BECKER: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Labour party does not consider it, for the moment, good policy to attack rings and trusts?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given last week to another question, that the whole matter is under consideration.
  Mr. BECKER: Will the inquiry include co-operative societies?
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the inquiry deal with societies in restraint of trade?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Certainly; but it does not follow that all the societies mentioned in this question are in restraint of trade.

  ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government proposes to put forward any scheme for the reduction or limitation of armaments through the British representatives on the assembly of the League of Nations at the session of the assembly to be held in September next; whether such a scheme is being prepared; and whether it will be published beforehand for the information and education of public opinion in this and other countries?
  Mr. CLYNES: His Majesty's Government have not yet had time to come to final conclusions on this question, which is one to which they attach the greatest importance, but also one requiring the most careful study in all its aspects and the greatest circumspection. Things will happen one way or another long before September which must influence this matter.
  Captain BERKELEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this House will have an opportunity of discussing the whole Treaty of mutual assistance?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the question.
  Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister if he can state to what extent disarmament has proceeded in the various countries represented at the Washington Conference since the date when that Conference took place; and if the Government will bring all possible pressure to bear upon those countries who are behindhand in carrying

  1599
  out their obligations to make reductions in their fighting forces in a ratio equal to those already made in Great Britain?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply that Great Britain took steps to carry out the provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty in anticipation of the ratification of the Treaty by all the contracting Powers. Disarmament in all countries concerned is proceeding in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and it is anticipated that all obligations will be fully carried out within the periods specified.
  Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Before the Government entertain the proposition of making further reductions in the fighting forces of this country, will they satisfy themselves that other countries are proceeding on the same lines?
  Mr. AMMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be assured that all relevant considerations will be taken into account.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But you said yesterday that you intended to build without reference to other countries!

  TOWN COUNCILS (MINISTERS OF RELIGION).
  Mr. W. GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he will find time this Session for passing a Bill to remove the disqualification of ministers of religion from becoming candidates for election on town or borough councils?
  Mr. CLYNES: I recognise that it is anomalous that ministers of religion should be disqualified for membership to municipal borough councils, though no such disqualification exists in the case of county councils and other local authorities, but I regret that, in view of the difficulty of finding time for more urgent matters which it is desired to bring before the House, I cannot hold out any hope of legislation this Session.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether it is the
  1600
  intention of the Government to extend the duration of and amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
  Mr. CLYNES: This matter is under consideration, and I am not at present able to make a statement in regard to it.
  Sir F. HALL: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the Safeguarding of Industries Act will not be continued much longer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—seeing that a time limit has been placed on it by Parliament; and will he inform the House in the near future what the Government intend to do in this matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question.

  HEALTH AND UNEMPLOYED INSURANCE.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the better co-ordination of the various social services is receiving the consideration of the Government, he will appoint a Committee of Inquiry to consider a co-ordinated scheme of social insurance?
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee or Commission to inquire into the practicability or otherwise of co-ordinating the health and unemployment insurance schemes, old age pensions, and compensation for injuries, etc., with a view to centralising management and consequently reducing the cost of administration?
  Mr. CLYNES: This question is being carefully examined by the Departments concerned, and until that examination is completed it will not be possible to say what further action, whether by the appointment of a Royal Commission or otherwise, may be advisable.

  EX-ARMY RANKER OFFICERS.
  Captain BULLOCKasked the Prime Minister whether the composition of the Committee to be appointed into the case of the ex-Army ranker officers and the terms of reference will enable those concerned to place their claim themselves before that body?
  Mr. HANNONasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet had an opportunity of studying the question of the assessment for pension of ex-Army ranker officers; and whether, if no general ruling is to be given on this matter, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider individual cases of hardship upon their own merits?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have learnt, with great regret, that the other parties in the House are not prepared to co-operate with the suggestion, put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Monday, that the matter should be remitted to a Select Committee for report. The Government are convinced that only by means of an impartial inquiry of this sort can the full facts be made available for Members who desire to discuss this question on the Army Estimates. I observe that the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham Central (Captain Berkeley) has a Motion on this subject on the Paper for discussion on going into Committee of Supply, when the whole matter can be fully debated and, if necessary, a vote taken.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Instead of having a Select Committee, would it not be possible for the Government to circulate a White Paper; is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's own party, and many of us on this side of the House—and on the other side of the House, too—are already pledged to support the ex-ranker officers in their contention; and has not the appropriate opportunity always been an Amendment on the Army Estimates?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no doubt that the latter points in that question will be the subject of debate on the occasion referred to. As to the first part, I can only say that we are driven to this course in view of our offer being refused.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are we to take it that the full facts were not known to the Prime Minister?
  Mr. CLYNES: It is always possible for an inquiry to add to any previous facts that we may know.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Vote cannot be taken on the occasion he mentions without imperilling the whole of the Army Estimates for the year?
  Mr. CLYNES: I think the meaning of a "vote" will be quite understood.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FLYING HOURS (REGULATIONS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there are any regulations laying down the number of hours of actual flying per month that must be done by each member of the flying personnel; and how many hours actual flying per month is actually done by the flying personnel?
    Mr. LEACH: The answer to the first part of the question is that there are no regulations laying down the number of hours' flying. Every officer of the General Duties Branch, up to and including the rank of Wing Commander, whose medical category indicates that he is fit for flying, is required to keep himself in regular flying practice so far as the circumstances of employment and station permit. An air officer, or other officer commanding, is required to take such steps as are possible to enable officers to obtain a certain amount of flying each month, but it is not possible or desirable to lay down any regulation for any fixed number of hours. The second part of the question could only be answered satisfactorily by giving the number of hours flown by each individual pilot, which is clearly impracticable. Any figure representing the average number of hours per pilot is very misleading, since it includes those who are employed on work on the ground and carry out only sufficient flying to keep their hand in, as well as those who are engaged on full-time flying duties, but, for what it is worth, I may say that the average during 1923 was six hours per month. This figure will, of course, materially; in crease as the number of squadrons increases and as the proportion of officers employed on full-time flying duties in creases as compared with those employed chiefly on ground duties.

    TRAINING SCHOOLS (ACCIDENTS).
    Captain BERKELEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether he will make a statement accounting for the frequency of accidents at Royal Air Force training schools; whether he is satisfied that all possible precautions against accidents due to inexperience are

    1603
    taken at these training schools; whether the accident at Duxford on Monday was due to a collision in the air; whether there are regulations in force governing the simultaneous landing of aeroplanes; if so, whether these regulations were complied with in this case; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the machine at the Biggin Hill accident was trick-flying in connection with films being prepared for the Empire Exhibition at Wembley; and, if so, by whose authority Air Force pilots are required or permitted to expose themselves to additional risks for purposes connected with a commercial enterprise?
    Mr. LEACH: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The answer to the first part of the question is that accidents at Royal Air Force training schools are not unduly frequent. The number of fatal accidents per hours flown is decreasing, and it is confidently anticipated that it will continue to decrease. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    The answer to the fourth part of the question is that such regulations are contained in Air Ministry Weekly Orders. In addition to this, each unit has standing orders drawn up to suit the conditions of its aerodrome. The regulations state that the commanding officer of a unit will satisfy himself that all pilots are acquainted with the regulations in orders and instructions relating to flying, and also that every local or temporary order relating to flying is to be conspicuously posted up in every shed from which flying takes place. I cannot answer the fifth part of the question until the investigation which is at present in progress has been completed.
    The answer to the sixth part of the question is that part of the training of all fighting and bombing pilots consists in perfecting themselves in the manœuvres of air fighting. This is not stunting, as suggested in the question. It is the ordinary, everyday training of a war pilot, without which he would be useless in war. On the occasion of the flight during which Flying Officer Smith was killed, he had been practising the
    1604
    manœuvres of an air fight between a single-seater fighting aeroplane and a night bomber. A film operator had been taken up in another aeroplane in order to take a film of this practice for exhibition at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley, in order to show the training carried out in the Royal Air Force. In view of this the last part of the question does not arise.

    FLIGHT-LIEUTENANTS' PAY (EGYPT AND INDIA).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why flight-lieutenants in the Royal Air Force in Egypt receive £70 a month and on transfer to India only £50 a month?
    Mr. LEACH: At the present rate of exchange the difference is not quite so considerable as is suggested in the question, the figures being, approximately: in Egypt, flight-lieutenants entitled to allowances at married rates, £68 a month, other flight-lieutenants, £60; in India, flight-lieutenants (married or unmarried), 850 rupees or £59 a month. As regards this difference, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India on the 18th February last in regard to the pay of British Army personnel in India.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the Under-Secretary see to it that the Air officers transferred from Egypt to India do not lose so much pay?
    Mr. LEACH: All these questions will be revised in July.
    Sir C. YATE: Will not the July revision mean a reduction and not an increase of pay?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the high cost of living in Egypt?
    Mr. LEACH: All relevant matters will be carefully considered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House to inform us what business will be taken next week?
Mr. CLYNES: On Monday we shall take the Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1924–25—Vote on Account (Report stage).
On Tuesday we shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Air Estimates—(Votes A, 1, 4, 2 and 3).
On Wednesday we shall take the Trade Facilities Bill (Committee stage) and Supplementary Estimates, 1923–24.
On Thursday we shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates—Votes A and the Vote on Account.
Might I add, not as a word of complaint, but of appeal to hon. Members to co-operate with us in completing the very important financial transactions which it is essential to get through, if the business of Parliament is to be completed in the required time. We are loth to ask the House to forfeit either private Members' time, or to sit later than 11 o'clock. We desire, if possible, to avoid both courses, and, therefore, I appeal, in the public interest for the co-operation of hon. Members in this direction.
Sir K. WOOD: When does the Minister of Health propose to bring forward his proposal in relation to the Housing Bill? May I remind him that the building of houses is slowing down and the cost is going up.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates?
Mr. CLYNES: No, I cannot. It cannot come into next week's business.
Mr. BALDWIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which Vote will be put down first on Monday, and when the Air Estimates will be printed?
Mr. CLYNES: The first Vote on Monday will allow the raising of the question of unemployment in reference to the administrative steps which the Government have taken and propose to take.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  MOTOR CYCLE RACES BILL,
  "to provide for the authorisation of races with motor bicycles and motor tricycles," presented by Lieut.-Colonel
  1606
  MOORE-BRABAZON; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury, Mr. Tillett, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Mr. Purcell, Sir Robert Bird, and Sir Edward Iliffe; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

  FAIRS BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to Fairs in England and Wales," presented by Mr. COLLINS; supported by Mr. Harbord, Captain Berkeley, Mr. Hogge, Sir Walter de Frece, and Lieut.-Colonel Woodwark; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
HACKNEY AND NEW COLLEGE BILL [Lords].
Copy presented,—of Report of the Attorney General on the Bill [pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Copy presented,—of Report of the Attorney General on the Bill [pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Copy presented,—of Report of the Attorney General on the Bill [pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Copy presented,—of Report of the Attorney General on the Bill [pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Copy presented,—of Report by the Attorney-General on the Bill [pursuant to STANDING ORDER 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill,
Diseases of Animals Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the law with respect to the jurisdiction and business of the Supreme Court in England, and with respect to the officers and offices thereof, and otherwise with respect to the administration of justice in England." [Administration of Justice Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to carry into effect a Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers, and certain conventions, protocols, and declarations connected therewith."
[Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to enable the Chatham and District Light Railways Company to make provision for the repayment and extinguishment of their preference capital."
[Chatham and District Light Railways Company Bill [Lords.]

CHATHAM AND DISTRICT LIGHT RAILWAYS COMPANY BILL [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
TREATY OF PEACE (TURKEY) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £114,733,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue "Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, viz.:

    CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS II.

    £

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    120,000

    CLASS I.

    Royal Palaces

    35,500

    Osborne

    5,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    75,000

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    25,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    26,000

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    107,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    70,000

    Revenue Buildings

    393,000

    Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain

    180,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    570,000

    House Building

    5

    Housing Schemes

    100,000

    Surveys of Great Britain

    71,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    11,000

    Rates on Government Property

    740,000

    Works and Buildings in Ireland

    114,000

    CLASS II.

    House of Lords Offices

    29,000

    House of Commons

    120,000

    Home Office

    200,000

    Foreign Office

    85,000

    Colonial Office

    60,000

    India Office

    40,000

    Privy Council Office

    3,400

    Board of Trade

    400,000

    Department of Overseas Trade

    100,000

    Mercantile Marine Services

    205,000

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    Mines Department of the Board of Trade

    57,500

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    1,250,000

    Forestry Commission

    60,000

    Ministry of Transport

    50,000

  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That Item Class 2, Vote 3 (Treasury and Subordinate Departments) be reduced by £100."
  My reason for moving this reduction is the dissatisfaction that is felt by myself, certainly, and, I think, by other
  1664
  Members on these benches, with the conduct of the Government in reducing the amount due to us under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, as set forth in the Minute published as Command Paper 2065, from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. It will be within the memory of the House that this matter was dealt with in the Act of 1921 to which I have referred, and, for the purpose of better illustrating my remarks, I think I might read the Title of that Act, which is as follows:
  "An Act to provide for the application of part of the purchase price of imported German goods towards the discharge of the obligations of Germany under the Treaty of Versailles."
  The Act deals with German manufactured goods imported after the 15th April, 1921, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in due course, when he replies—I do not want to press it as a debating point; no doubt he can easily explain it—why the new arrangement only endures to 15th April, 1924, and not to any other date. I would ask the House to mark that this Act is not an Act for the purpose of putting duties, in a protective sense, upon manufactured goods coming from Germany. It is an Act purely for the purpose of collecting reparation from Germany by the method which the Government of the day thought most convenient. I was rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an answer to a question which I put to him on Tuesday last, referring to this Act, said:
  "It has nothing at all to do with Protection, and so long as I am responsible for its administration it will not be used as an instrument of protection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1924; col. 1171, Vol. 170.]
  Why did the right hon. Gentleman jump to the conclusion that we thought it had to do with Protection? I do not want to blame him too much, because he has much work to do, and, perhaps, may have been too pre-occupied to have studied the meaning of the Act, but it shows that he had no great grasp of the matter if he thought we were dealing with this subject or raising our protests from the point of view of Protection. The 26 per cent. is not and was not a protective duty at all, as I shall proceed to show. The scheme is as follows—I will not speak in pounds or marks, but merely in units: An Englishman purchases from a German manufactured

  1665
  goods, and the manufactured goods to which the Act applies are defined in one of its early Sections. The Englishman buys, and contracts to pay 100 units of money for the goods. He pays 74 units to the German, and the other 26 units he pays—or did pay until last September or November, or even up to the time of the arrangement recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to the British Treasury. The British Treasury receives the 26 units, and issues a receipt to the English importer. He hands on that receipt to the German exporter, who, in turn, presents the receipt to the German Treasury and receives these 26 units from the German Government, which 26 units, together with the 74 units he has received from the English importer, make up the total of 100 units to pay for 100 units worth of goods. There is no element of Protection in that My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced this Measure, and we supported him in it, and I do not think for a moment that he argued it from the I point of view of a protective duty. I see that he indicates by a nod of his head agreement with what I have just said. All that he had in mind was that it was a method by which 26 per cent. of the amount due to the German exporter was to be taken out of the pocket of the German Government and paid into the British Treasury towards reparation, the German Government making good the 26 per cent. to the German exporter.
  What has been the result? Up to September or November Brtish importers buying 100 units' worth of goods from Germany sent 74 units of value to Germany, and paid 26 units into the British Treasury. After these dates, to use a vulgar phrase, the German Government cocked a snook at the British Government, and, breaking the agreement, said they would not encash the British receipts. Thus, if an Englishman has bought goods for 100 from Germany since September last, he has had in many cases, to pay to the German exporter, not 74 per cent. of the units, for the German exporter would not often part with the goods unless the whole 100 units were sent to him, saying to the British importer, "If you have to pay 26 per cent. for reparation, that is your affair. If you want my goods you must pay 100, and you will have to pay yourself the 26 per
  1666
  cent. into the British Treasury." The result has been that the British importer has had to pay 126 units for 100 units' worth of goods. That is a protective duty against German goods, and we want it taken off. We object to this particular protective duty, but we do not want it taken off at the expense of the British taxpayer, as has now happened owing to the action of the British Government, but at the expense of the German revenue. Hitherto, whatever money has been received from the English importer in the form of these 26 per cent. payments has gone into the pocket of the British revenue, and has lightened our taxation over the whole country. The British importer, as a result of the reduction of the 26 per cent. to 5 per cent., does not now get his goods any cheaper or any dearer than before. All that has happened is that, by this now arrangement of surrender a burden of 21 per cent. has been transferred from the German revenue to the shoulders of the British taxpayer. We do not want this to continue.
  If the 26 per cent. duty were kept on, and the German exporter compelled the English importer to pay, it would be a clog upon the export of German goods to this country, and we do not want that at all. We say that this 21 per cent. should be transferred from the shoulders of the importer in this country to the place which it first occupied by agreement and ought still to occupy, namely, the shoulders of the German Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with flashing eye, told us, to my surprise, that
  "It has nothing at all to do with Protection, and so long as I am responsible for its administration it will not be used as an instrument of Protection."
  Why! that is the very thing we say! We object to the 26 per cent. reparations as a protective duty.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): May I ask the hon. Member to read the rest?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Shall I read the whole of it?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No, just the beginning.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I will read the question and answer.
  "Mr. SAMUEL: What objection would there have been to granting similar facilities to other Allies?

  1667
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is evidently suffering from a mental illusion."—
  a dangerous thing to say after the Harnett case.
  "He appears to be under the impression that this Reparation Act has something to do with Protection."—
  Let me now say that I had no such impression. I knew very well what if meant.
  "It has nothing at all to do with Protection, and so long as I am responsible for its administration, it will not be used as an instrument of Protection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1924; col. 1171, Vol. 170.]
  4.0 P.M.
  But it has been used as an instrument of Protection. So long as the German Government refused to honour the receipts for 26 per cent., it acted as a protective duty against the importation of German goods into England, and, so far from us wishing it to be a protective duty, we wished the 26 per cent. to be repaid by Germany to German exporters so that there should be no Protection. Protection resulted when Englishmen had to pay 100 plus 26. What do we see, now that the alteration has taken place? We have surrendered 21 per cent. 95 per cent. is paid henceforth by the British importer to the German exporter, and only 5 per cent. is paid by the British importer into the British Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may make the point that we are now getting 5 per cent. as against nothing since Germany first defied us in this matter. That is not so. The 5 per cent. is not worth much. It will cost nearly that to collect it, with the merchants' clearing expense and trouble. The result is this: Since the Act came into operation £18,000,000 has been paid into the British Treasury—so the right hon. Gentleman said himself—and the money has been dealt with under Clauses 8 and 9 of the Treaty of Versailles. We have to look forward. By refusing to make the German Government abide by its 26 per cent. undertaking, the right hon. Gentleman has given away a sum amounting in any future three years to £18,000,000, and there is no reason why that sum going into the British Treasury should not have been increased. We have surrendered 21 per cent. of this tax to Germany, and the
  1668
  German Government is not now under any obligation to transfer that original 26 per cent. in the arranged way, a very skilful way—I pay my compliments to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—into the British Treasury. But what did the geniuses at the Treasury do when they made this new bargain? They had a good fighting bargaining counter, and they asked for no benefits in return for that 21 per cent. advantage surrendered to Germany. I suppose from the brilliant speech on trade yesterday of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (Mr. Lunn) that he may have had something to do with this clever negotiation. They had not the drive and the skill to get some legitimate advantage in return for that surrender of future I reparations to the German Government amounting to £18,000,000 in the last three years. The Treasury might have said: "This is undoubtedly a great advantage to you"—the Germans could not have denied it;—"what quid pro quo, in fair play and reason, are you prepared to give us? You have certain duties on English imported goods which bear heavily upon our imports into Germany. Give us some concession there. We do not wish to be selfish. Give the concession also to France, Italy, and Belgium, so that all the Allies will come in alongside with us." We should have been satisfied, grateful, and pleased. We had a good bargaining counter. It would have helped British trade, and at the same time it would have helped our Allies. With a lack of imagination which marks those who have never had to deal with this sort of thing, the Government have utterly failed to get a single concession out of the arrangement of the slightest benefit to us in return for the 21 per cent. which we have surrendered to Germany. That is a thing that ought to have been looked into. We threw away a legitimate chance. There is another point. I see from the Board of Trade notice that the Germans are to issue Treasury Gold Bonds for the 26 per cent. and that money is to be paid to the German exporter by the German Government for the 5 per cent.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Then what does it say?
  Mr. PRINGLE: It only says that a claim for compensation can be made later
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have not the Board of Trade document before me, but my recollection is that it says:
  "The German Government will reimburse the German exporter the sums paid to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in respect of goods imported before 26th February, 1924, in gold mark Federal Treasury Bonds."
  Mr. PRINGLE: That is the 26 per cent.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, that is the 26 per cent., as I said.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Not the 5 per cent.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, later on apparently. We ought to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he made any arrangement that the Federal Bonds that the Germans are to give for the 26 per cent. will be taken by the German Government in payment of taxes and duties on imported goods at their face value. I believe that the Germans have issued various bonds on other similar occasions, and that they have not been accepted back at their face value. That is an important thing for us. Are these to be accepted by German Government at face value for taxes? After all, German firms desire to reopen trade with us and desire to treat us honourably and honestly, and so re-establish confidence. I have no doubt that in many cases they regret that we have had recently to pay this 26 per cent. into the British Treasury on top of the 100 per cent. because it puts a clog on their trade with us. They do not like to see their English customers penalised and trade upset, and they would be glad to get back that 26 per cent., and repay the English importer, and they could if these Bonds were accepted by the German Government for taxes at their face value. If the German exporters to England, having received these Treasury Bonds, could feel that they would be accepted at or about par by the German Government for taxes or for Customs duties on imports into Germany the German firms would, I expect, feel it their duty to send those bonds over to their customers in England, so that English customers could use the proceeds to reimburse themselves against the 26 per cent. which recently they have to pay into the British
  1670
  Treasury in excess of the 100 per cent., or transfer them for cash to other British merchants to use them, to pay Customs duties on goods that are exported from England into Germany. I have no doubt that that provision for this method of relief to us has escaped the notice of the Treasury. If it has, it shows further lack of foresight, and that is another reason why I now beg leave to move the reduction standing in my name.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has raised a very important point in what everybody will agree was a very reasonable speech. He raised it from the Conservative side of the House, and he outlined the situation which, as I understood him, has existed, and existed to the knowledge of the authorities in this country, ever since last September.
  Mr. SAMUEL: November.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The ordinance was in November.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman certainly said September, though I am aware that the formal ordinance of the German Government, which set out in express terms their refusal to indemnify their own manufacturers in respect of this 26 per cent., is itself an ordinance of November. But whether it be November or September, is not material for the first point that I want to make. It is quite plain, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, that, at any rate since the failure of the German Government to indemnify their own traders has been known, the British importer has suffered, and a condition of affairs has existed which was not contemplated or intended by those who first designed this scheme September, October, November, December, January—be it the whole five months or be it only three of them—what was done by the Government then in power to correct this undoubted anomaly and indeed this absurdity? It lies very oddly in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), if, as I understand, he is to take part in the Debate and press this comment against the Government, to make these criticisms, when the Government of which he was a member month after month sat silently and impotently by while this very result which the hon. Gentleman

  1671
  now deplores was to their knowledge and to the knowledge of everybody going on. Indeed, there is only one possible explanation. It could not, I am sure, have been from want of astuteness or attention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—quite impossible. The explanation is quite a different one. The explanation, undoubtedly, is that whatever may be the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken—and I do not dobut the complete sincerity with which he spoke—a great many of his party were not unwilling that there should be such a change in the working of this arrangement that there should be a highly protective duty.
  Mr. SAMUEL: As a member of the British Chamber of Commerce, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what was our view. We hoped that, as the result of representations to be made to the German Government, they would see that they were breaking their faith, and that we should get the matter reinstated. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads into our view anything other than that, I take this opportunity of assuring him that what I have said is exactly the position.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am not having any controversy with the hon. Gentleman. I am merely observing plain facts and perfectly obvious dates.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking of the reason.
  Sir J. SIMON: The plain fact is that for months before the late Government fell, the position which the present Government are endeavouring to deal with, existed, and the late Government never did anything whatever, good, bad, or indifferent, to correct that situation. I am making the observation—and I repeat it since I do not attribute indolence or inattention on the part of the late Government—that, I venture to think that that situation of impotence and inaction had something to do with the fact that they favoured a protectionist policy. That is the first point that I want to make. We shall be very interested to hear from anyone who speaks from the Front Opposition Bench and who can properly reveal the feelings
  1672
  and motives of the late Government in this matter whether the astutest intelligence on the financial side which that Government possessed—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester—did not as a matter of fact remain silent and impassive because he was not averse to what was nothing more nor less than an obvious piece of protection. It is more important to make that plain, because I agree that the effect of this arrangement so long as the German Government really did indemnify its own traders in respect of the 26 per cent., is a very much more disputable question. It is a question on which people may honestly hold different opinions. There are undoubtedly some in business who found that the scheme, when it is in full working order, might in some cases have the effect of causing the prices which the German manufacturer exporting to this country charged to rise. When you have regard to the fact that he was not going to get 100 per cent. of British sovereigns, or what represented British sovereigns, but was going to get 74 sovereigns together with a Customs receipt for 26 which his Government would then proceed to cash in terms of marks, that it was within the power of the German Government to increase the production of marks by a more active use of the printing press, and that the more marks that were printed the more the currency was inflated, then, at any rate theoretically, it was possible that the result of that arrangement, even when it was working as it was intended to work, might have been to increase the prices which the German charged for commodities that they were selling to this country over the prices at which they might have sold them if they were selling them somewhere else. I am confident that was not the object or intention of the scheme, and it is an extremely disputable point how far it in fact operated in that way. But to show that I am not without warrant, may I make one quotation from an answer which was given by the late President of the Board of Trade. On 12th January, 1923, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Darbishire) put this question to the President of the Board of Trade in the late Government:
  "If he is aware that export prices, fixed by the German Government, for goods shipped to this country are higher than the prices fixed for similar goods exported

  1673
  to France, Holland and Belgium by a percentage more or less equivalent to the 26 per cent. duty imposed here by the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; and if he will make representations to the German Government which will have the effect of placing this country on the same footing as that of other countries."
  The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, relying upon those sources of information which are specially at the service of Ministers, was:
  "I am aware that the minimum export prices fixed by the German trade control officers are in some cases higher when the goods are to be exported to the United Kingdom than when they are to be exported to certain other European countries, but the system of fixing differential export prices for different markets is by no means universal nor, so far as I am aware, is it related in any way to the levy under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1923: col. 1582, Vol. 166.]
  While, on the one hand, many persons have supposed the ultimate economic distribution effected by the arrangement of the Reparation Recovery Act might be to induce the German seller to raise the price which he would otherwise charge for the commodity he sells to this country, on the other hand, it is plain from that answer that the view of the Board of Trade in the time of the late President was, as a matter of fact, that even if such instances could be quoted, he would not admit with regard to them the relation of cause and effect. It may be so. But while that is disputable—and it is now merely interesting as a matter of economic history—one thing is not open to any dispute whatever, and indeed my hon. Friend who spoke first put it with great fairness and frankness. It is not open to the slightest possible dispute that ever since the German Government have ceased to redeem in their own currency this Customs receipt offered to them by the German exporter, from that moment there has been an obvious tendency in the working out of this scheme of a protective character, and I am very glad indeed to hear the hon. Member opposite say that as far as he and his Friends are concerned on that ground, that it has a protective effect, he for his part denounces it.
  The next question that arises is this: What is the new arrangement that has been made? I think it is all to the credit of the new Government that they have
  1674
  really lost no time in making a new arrangement. To leave things as they were was, indeed, a most ridiculous thing to do in the interest of British trade, and the new Government are to be congratulated because they have handled this matter with a determination to get a change. Whether or not the change that they have got is, in all the circumstances, the best that can be got is again, I should have thought, a very fair matter for inquiry and we shall wait to hear, of course, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have to say. But look at the way this thing has been working during the interregnum. This is the situation which right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought fit to leave month after month uncorrected. This is what happened. As soon as the German Government—whether it was last September or November does not really matter—made it plain that they were going to suspend the redemption in marks of the amount represented by the British Customs receipt, there has been an obvious tendency, of course, for the German exporter to consider in what other way he could be secured in getting the price of his goods, and the most obvious of all ways, of course, would be to say "if I am only going to get 74 per cent. of the price I quote, I had better be sure the price I quote is such that 74 per cent. of it will satisfy me," and that this is the inevitable economic consequence and the inevitable business consequence of leaving this thing uncorrected is quite beyond any dispute at all. Not only so, but the full absurdity of leaving things as they were left by the late Government can only be realised if one appreciates one thing more. Our Customs insisted that they were entitled to payment by way of import duty of a sum which bore the same relation to the amount actually sent to Germany as 26 bears to 74, and the consequence, therefore, was that in any case where, after the scheme had broken down, the British trader found it necessary to pay more than £74—to put an extreme case, to pay the whole of the £100—the Customs would not then be content with £26, but would insist upon a larger payment of about £35, because 35 bears the same relation to 100 as 26 bears to 74. Here these gentlemen are, so far as one may take the hon. Member as speaking for others on that side, having sat still

  1675
  month after month while that was going on, and now they tell the House of Commons that of course they have the greatest objection to anything which has the smallest Protectionist tendency. You have only to read the formal protest which is now made in some quarters in reference to the new arrangement to see that the new arrangement appears to some minds open to objection because it tends to remove that Protectionist tendency.
  May I address one or two questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the new arrangement. It will be material to know, and I think the Committee is entitled to know, what exactly is the advantage which attaches to the 5 per cent. It is obviously so small a percentage that, regarded as a means either of revenue or of getting reparations, it is really altogether trumpery. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether I am not right when I suggest that the cost of collection and all the complications involved in the Customs machinery are just as great if you are going to permit a payment of 95 per cent. and give a receipt for 5 per cent. as if you were going to permit a payment of 74 per cent. and give a receipt for 26 per cent.? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is the view that ought to be taken as to the expense of collecting measured in relation to this 5 per cent. In the second place, I should like to ask him what is the main reason why 5 per cent. has been fixed. I could understand it being said, and I think there would be great force in it, that it is desirable that we should keep our hand upon this particular instrument. It is, as it were, a lever which is capable of putting a particular piece of machinery in motion. Originally the lever was so moved as to enable the scheme to operate to the tune of 26 per cent. We find, as a matter of fact, whatever be the reason, that the machine will no longer give out the results which setting the lever at 26 might be expected to secure, but we have set it at a smaller figure, say 5 per cent., more for the purpose of keeping control of the machine so that we shall not shut down altogether, than from any idea that an arrangement such as 5 per cent. is of any permanent value to anyone. I think
  1676
  it would be material for the Committee to know whether that is the reason which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward. One remembers the days of the old fiscal controversy when a 1s. duty on corn, so innocent and slight as almost to escape the attention of a large part of the community, was justified and explained on the ground that it was what is called a registration duty. Is the 5 per cent. regarded more in the nature of a means of keeping the machine working at a low pressure and registering results rather than a material contribution to the poblem either of revenue or of reparations?
  Lastly, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an explanation as to the terms of the new arrangement he has made. As I understand it, it is the result of negotiations and agreement. I look at the Board of Trade Journal for 28th February last, and I find on page 271 the Government announcement in this connection. It begins:
  "An agreement has been reached between His Majesty's Government and the German Government respecting the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921."
  May I ask are there not any papers which ought properly to be published for the purpose of seeing what is the course of the negotiations and what is the reason why we have ultimately reached the conclusion stated in the Board of Trade Journal. In the second place, may I direct the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to the terms of the new arrangement, because they appear to me to differ from the old arrangement, not merely in that they substitute 5 for 26, but in matters which are much more important than that. The old arrangement was one by which if an English importer purchased from Germany £100 worth of goods he proceeded to discharge his obligation to the seller by paying £74 and sending him a Customs receipt for £26, and it was an essential part of the arrangement that upon that Customs receipt being presented to the German Treasury, the German Treasury then and there, without any delay, would give the full equivalent for that in German currency. This is the new arrangement:
  "In order to guarantee that no part of the sum levied under the Act at the rate of 5 per cent. shall be charged to British importers, the German Government agree"—

  1677
  It does not say they agree then and there to pay in satisfactory currency the equivalent of the 5 per cent. The document says:
  "The German Government agree to arrange for the compensation of the German exporters at a later date."
  I do not know what view the German trader takes of the fulfilment by the German Government of the undertaking or promise to make certain payments at certain future times, but the world at large has some reason to think, whatever the excuse or reason may be, that promises to pay sums of money at some future time have not always been such that the German Government would fulfil them on the day appointed. If the best that you can do is to say, "We have negotiated with the German Government, and the German Government have been good enough to promise not that it will cash the Customs receipt but that it will arrange for the compensation of the German exporters at a later date"—without describing what the arrangement is, without describing what the security is, without describing what the date is, without defining the date—I should have thought that it was open to question whether that particular phrase in the agreement was as satisfactory as the old arrangement. There follows a still more curious paragraph:
  "The German Government further agree"—
  There was nothing like this, as far as I know, in the old arrangement
  "to provide by decree"—
  I suppose that means by enactment—
  "that if"—
  if, mind you—
  "in any case any part of the sums levied under the Act has been charged to the British importer, the German exporter will forfeit his claim to reimbursement, and will, in addition, be subject to penalty."
  What does that mean? I labour under the grave disadvantage—and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen often remind me of it—of earning my living as a lawyer, and, therefore, naturally, I am disqualified from understanding any matter of business. If, for a moment, a person who is not ashamed to call himself a commercial lawyer may be allowed to direct attention to the language of this document, I should like to ask the Committee and the Chancellor of Exchequer, what does it mean.
  1678
  How is it expected to work? The German Government agree
  "that if in any case any part of the sums levied under the Act."
  That is the 5 per cent. which the British importer pays to the German exporter—
  "has been charged to the British importer,"
  which, I suppose, means that if in any given case the German merchant has charged the British purchaser more than he would have charged him if this scheme did not exist—but how you are to find that out without a Royal Commission, or even with one, I have not the faintest idea—and if as a result of mature economic calculation and, presumably, of conflicting evidence—
  "the German exporter will forfeit his claim to reimbursement."
  I should have thought that was an instigation to every German vendor to charge more than the 100 per cent. and to secure that he got by 95 per cent. of the total price all that he really needed. A bird in hand is better than a bird in the bush, and it is better to get paid all you need in good British cash, by the ordinary methods of exchange, by the British purchaser, than to take a portion of the price from the British purchaser in the hope that at some later date an arrangement would be made for compensation. That seems at the moment to be rather a serious objection to the language of the document.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) reminds me that there is one further point. The whole thing, as I understand it, and as appears from the document, is intended as a temporary arrangement, and it would be very unfair to treat those who are putting it forward as though they regarded the thing as a solution. Obviously, it is not meant as a solution, but as a temporary arrangement. We would like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the plans which he has in mind for some permanent arrangement are in an advanced condition, and whether he can give us any information about them, and more particularly what are they. In conclusion, it seems to be right and proper that the attention of the Committee should be called to the language of this agreement, which is rather obscure and not very satisfactory.

  1679
  I want to say on behalf of my friends and myself that we think it entirely right that the Government have not left things as they were. It was a great dereliction of duty on the part of those previously responsible that they left this thing to operate, and they have no justification, unless they are prepared to say to those who criticise them that really by lying quiet they had secured, as it were by a side wind, something which was an admirable piece of Protection. If, indeed, you add to that the McKenna duties, and if in some cases you add the Safeguarding of Industries Act duties, I should have thought that even the appetite of the most avid Protectionist, for the time being, would have been abundantly satisfied. Now it is too late to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham says he repudiates any thought of Protection.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In this connection.
  Sir J. SIMON: He tells us that he is speaking not only for himself, but as the mouthpiece of a very powerful organisation. We are grateful for that concession. We are glad that the Government have taken this matter up, but we should like to have the explanation for which I have asked, because it appears to be unfortunate that it is not possible by agreement to secure a more satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In considering the proposals of the Government to change this levy from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. it is essential to find out why this levy was first installed. It was introduced in 1921 by the Coalition Government of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), sponsored by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and warmly supported by the then Prime Minister. No objection was raised to it except by a few Members who did not challenge a Division. It was passed with the agreement of the German Government, which is a very important point.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No, it was not. The German Government did not agree until later.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: It was introduced with the approval of the German Government. The Act can be summed up as
  1680
  follows: "The effect of the Bill is twofold. It affords, with the co-operation of the German Government, a method of collecting reparation, measured according to Germany's capacity to pay, if Germany reimburses her exporters. On the other hand, if Germany remains recalcitrant and refuses to co-operate, it acts as a penalty automatically imposed upon German trade in all countries where similar measures are applied. In other words, if Germany co-operates with us under this Measure in making the payment required, German trade may proceed practically unhindered, and the German reparation debt may, pro tanto be redeemed. If Germany refuses to meet her obligations, then the economic penalty is imposed automatically upon economic default."
  By means of repeated and searching questions by hon. Members on this side of the House, and after contradictory replies from Ministers responsible, we have arrived at the following facts. From March, 1921, up to December last the receipts have been practically £18,000,000, which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer considered was the maximum that Germany could pay under the circumstances. These £18,000,000, according to a reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th February, were paid into the British revenue and treated as revenue under the heading of Miscellaneous Revenue, so relieving the British taxpayers' pockets. We are now informed that, owing to natural or unnatural regard for the German Government's fiscal system of inflation, this reparation duty or levy is to be reduced from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent., and that the £800,000 which we have been receiving every month is to be reduced to £150,000 a month. Why are the Germans to have more consideration than our own taxpayers? Evidently, the Government are not very happy about it, because although in a Treasury Minute it is stated that the reduction is to take effect until further notice, the "Board of Trade Journal" states most specifically that this reduction is only to have effect until 15th April, 1924. Why fix that date? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect that in 3½ months Germany is going to put her fiscal arrangements and her fiscal policy in order so that she can pay this amount again? Why not cancel the full duty?

  1681
  What good is 5 per cent.? The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) asked a certain question. Perhaps this is the explanation. If we look at Clause 6 of the Bill, we find the following:
  "If a Resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament for the suspension of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by Order to suspend the operation of this Act to such an extent and for such period, definite or indefinite, as may be specified in the Resolution."
  That is to say, that if the Government wish to suspend this duty altogether, they would have to get the approval of the House of Lords, which, very obviously, they could not get. Therefore, they fix it at the very lowest point they can, namely, 5 per cent., which, in my opinion, is quite useless for the purpose of revenue. Questions have been put as to whether any outside advice has been asked, whether the advisory committee of the Board of Trade have been consulted, or whether the manufacturers have been consulted before this levy was reduced. The answer given was "No," but it was stated that a large number of representations had been received from manufacturers protesting against a duty being collected from them and not refunded by the German Government. What manufacturers? Which manufacturers? I suggest that it was German manufacturers who made the application. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have suggested that this duty is in some way a Protective tariff.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it a duty?
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: A duty or a levy. Surely in view of the fact that this Reparation Act was brought in by the Coalition Government under the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, that should be sufficient answer. It is not a Protective tariff. Moreover, we have had it on the very eminent authority of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to the hon. Member for Farnham, that it had nothing whatever to do with Protection, and that as long as he was responsible for its administration it would not be used as an instrument of Protection.
  It may interest hon. Members both above and below the Gangway on the opposite side to know that since this duty has been reduced retail offices and large
  1682
  shopkeepers have been crowded with travellers and inundated with telegrams and letters from German manufacturers offering goods at reduced prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite applaud that. I want to ask those hon. Gentlemen, what is going to be the effect of this on the manufacturers in this country? Is there not enough unemployment in this country at the present time? It is a very serious question for the Labour Government, in view of their anxiety to do away with unemployment. A further reason was given in an answer to one of our questions as to why the duty was reduced. It was suggested that the German Government would not pay any more, and the Labour Government said, "Very well; will you pay 5 per cent.?" The German Government replied, "Rather; of course we will." Would not any business man jump at the opportunity of only giving 5 per cent. discount instead of 26 per cent. discount? Why is it that we are always giving way? Why is it that the Germans can always get what they want, and that all we can do is to say, "Yes. Let us have something, so long as we have something." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs stated, when dealing with German reparation last year:
  "The German Government might say, we will not pay 50 per cent., but we will pay such a percentage as will leave the employers, the producers with quite a fair margin of profit. They might say 20 or 30 per cent. That would leave them with a fair margin. What does that mean? That means practically a tax, not upon our importers, not upon our merchants, but on the industrial magnates of Germany to pay the indemnity and the compensation to the country. What is unfair in this? It is a perfectly fair proposition."
  If Germany takes up this attitude, that she is not going to pay this 26 per cent., why should we allow her goods to come into this country at all? We want work for our working people and, further than that, if we take up a strong attitude with the German importers they will find a way to pay this tax, as they have always done when it is a question of doing business Therefore I press strongly for a reduction of this Vote.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that there is an agreement that I should explain the position in the early stages of the Debate, for the purposes of the

  1683
  Debate, and if any matter of importance arises later on a reply can be given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have no complaint to make about the tone of the criticism to which the Government have been subjected, or the manner in which it has been brought forward this afternoon, and I shall try with the utmost frankness, and without any hesitation, to deal with the questions that have been raised. I do not think that it will be necessary, after the rather severe criticism of the inability or the inactivity, of the late Government during three months to deal with this question, which was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), to say much about that matter. I would like to remind the Committee that this is not a difficulty of our creation. It is one of many disagreeable legacies which we have inherited from our predecessors.
  An intolerable situation existed when we took office through the breakdown of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, and the duty devolved on us to see what could be done to meet the hardships which were being inflicted upon some, at least, of the British traders who were engaged in German trade. There were various courses open to us. We might have given up the attempt to persuade Germany to resume the payment of the 26 per cent. to her exporters. We might have come to Parliament and asked Parliament to provide some method of repeal, or we might have taken steps to compel Germany to observe her obligations under this Act, or we might have adopted the fourth course—which is what we have done—and have tried to come to some temporary arrangement with Germany for the reduction of the duty. After negotiations and conference with the representatives of the German Government we arrived at the agreement which is the subject of this discussion this afternoon.
  I do not think that it is necessary for me to say more than a word or two upon an aspect of the question which has figured very prominently in this Debate so far as it has gone this afternoon. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on behalf of himself and his colleagues declined to regard this Act as a measure introduced for the purposes of
  1684
  protection, but I think that the hon. Member cannot complain of the criticism in this respect, and he cannot have read the many speeches similar to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville), because that hon. Member has shown, in spite of certain protests which have been made, that he desires, at any rate, that this Measure, or something analogous to this Measure, should be used for the purposes of protection. I do not know if it is necessary for me to explain the nature of this Act and its operation prior to the breakdown in November last. The arrangement was, of course, that the British importer should remit to the German exporter 74 per cent. of the invoice price of the articles imported, and with that he was to send customs receipts for the remaining 26 per cent. of the price. Under the new arrangement the British importer will send 95 per cent. of the cost of what is imported and a customs receipt for 5 per cent. in place of the customs receipt for 26 per cent. which he formerly sent.
  I want to answer the right hon. Member for Spen Valley with perfect frankness. He seemed to be labouring under considerable difficulty in understanding the terms of the article in the "Board of Trade Journal," and he asked if there are any Papers which can be laid. I have already stated, in reply to questions addressed to me in the House, that there are no Papers, that the negotiations were carried on verbally. As to whether there was a reimbursement of the German exporter, I do not know that after all this is a matter with which we ought to concern ourselves. That is a matter between the German exporter and the German Government. But the right hon. Gentleman was in error in assuming that, under the old arrangement, the German exporter has recently been paid by the German Government in cash. He was not. He was paid in bonds which were known as K bonds. Under the new arrangement he will be paid in gold bonds, and these, of course, can be discounted for cash, and the K bonds will also be transferred into these new bonds. That is the explanation of what appears to be so very mysterious to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: Will the K bonds act as currency?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
  Sir F. WISE: Are they accepted at par?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The point was raised by the hon. Member for Farnham as to whether these bonds will be available for the payment of taxation. Of course they will not, as bonds, be available for the payment of taxation, but, as they can be negotiated and discounted, of course they will be available in that way.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any article in the agreement in which provision is made that, for payments subsequent to the 20th of February, such bonds will be given by the German Government?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where the agreement expressly states that for payments before 26th February these bonds will be given?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know if hon. Members have the memorandum in the Board of Trade Journal. It states:
  "The German Government will reimburse to German importers the sums paid to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in respect of goods imported before 26th February, 1924, in gold mark Federal Treasury Bonds in all cases, whether in respect of contracts prior to the 17th November, 1923, or in respect of contracts subsequent to that date."
  Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think that that refers to arrears and does not refer to future payments in respect of buying or selling.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is in respect of contracts prior to 17th November, 1923, or in respect of contracts subsequent to that date.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is all arrears.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It says:
  "Where the levy has been reimbursed in the old K Bonds the German Government will continue to apply the decree of 9th February, 1924, providing for the conversion of such bonds on presentation into the above mentioned Federal Treasury Bonds. It is understood that the proceeds of the reimbursement should be allocated in accordance with the incidence of the levy."
  1686
  I am quite prepared to concede to the right hon. Member for Spen Valley that there is a certain ambiguity in the drafting of the provision which I have quoted. I understand there was some uncertainty in regard to the incidence of the levy in particular cases. It was understood that where the German Government had not been reimbursing their own exporters, the cases of those exporters would be taken into consideration at a later date when the facts would be ascertained.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I should like him to make plain to me the other phrase which I quoted, which provides that the German Government will compensate the German exporters at a later date. Does that not indicate that the matter is in rather a vague state?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It has been agreed between the German and British Governments that it is understood that the proceeds of the reimbursement, that is the cash obtained by the German exporters, shall be allocated in accordance with the incidence of the levy. I appreciate the distinction between the future payments and what the hon. Member for Penistone calls arrears.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am referring to the "Board of Trade Journal," which says:
  "The remaining provisions of the agreement are as follows: In order to guarantee that no part of the sums levied under the Act at the above rate of 5 per cent. shall be charged to British importers, the German Government agree to arrange for the compensation of the German exporters at a later date. …"
  There is no reference there to bonds or anything else. It is merely an arrangement for compensation at a later date, and to provide by decree
  "that if in any case any part of the sums levied under the Act has been charged to the British importer the German exporter will forfeit his claim to reimbursement and will, in addition, be subject to a penalty. …"
  Then we have the paragraph which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to. It says:
  "The German Government will reimburse to German exporters the sums paid to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in respect of goods imported before 26th February, 1924, in gold mark Federal Treasury Bonds. …"

  1687
  So that you have there two distinct statements. The first is that the 5 per cent. compensation is to be arranged at a later date. In respect to payments made before 26th February, 1924, these Gold Mark Federal Treasury Bonds have to be delivered. The contention now made is that you have a provision in respect to arrears in these Treasury Bonds, but there is no provision whatever as to any formal payment for the 5 per cent.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The point made by the hon. Member was in regard to an unspecified penalty. I would refer to an ordinance which has been enacted by the German Government, dealing with this question of compensation, the last clause of which states:
  "Anyone who charges the reparation levy either in whole or in part to the English importer, directly or indirectly, forfeits all claim to reimbursement and will be subject to a fine of not more than five times the sum involved unless a higher penalty is imposed by virtue of the General Penal Code."
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay that Paper?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no reason why I should not lay the Paper. The reparation levy which the British Government levies at 5 per cent. of their value on goods imported to England since the 26th February is to be compensated to the German exporter at a later date. The British reparation certificates are to be presented to the German federal authorities on or after 1st April, 1924. The Federal Minister of Finance is empowered to publish further details as to the methods of compensation, and more particularly as to the time.
  Sir J. SIMON: It would appear, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that the situation is left in this way, that while there is an agreement that the levy shall be reduced to 5 per cent., there is no certainty at all that the German exporter will not increase his price in view of that fact, and if he does increase his price, this German ordinance will deprive him of any payment from the German Treasury, and will therefore, in effect, encourage him to Charge the British importer more than he otherwise would.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There is a very effective safeguard against that. It lies in the present economic condition of the world. Let me give a few facts. Recent figures show that Germany exports to this country much less than before the War and has a much smaller share of total British imports. Although until recently German prices have been below world market prices, this situation has been changed by the stabilisation of German currency. In January, 1923, the American wholesale index figure was 140 per cent. higher than the German figure, 107 per cent. higher in June, 30 per cent. in October, 9 per cent. in November, and in December was actually lower. The British index figure for industrial materials was higher than the German during the whole of 1920, 1921 and 1922, but by October, 1923, had fallen well below the German figure. At present, it is undoubtedly the case that German prices are well above world prices.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Then this is a protective tariff?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Perhaps I may, in answer to the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), read him the following paragraph:
  "The reparations levy, which the British Government levies at 5 per cent. of their value on goods imported to England since the 26th February is to be compensated to the German exporter at a later date."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The point put was that unless the German Government pays compensation to its exporters in bills or bonds which they can discount at par value in the world's markets, the 5 per cent. is a protective tariff.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The German Government have given a strong pledge that they are willing to carry out the agreement.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Why was it impossible to apply to the 5 per cent. the same conditions you are applying in connection with the arrears?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I should have thought that it was not possible to apply this condition to the new arrangement, but I will inquire into that matter.
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), in the course of his speech, raised the point that he put to me at question time when he asked why we had not attempted to get some quid

  1689
  pro quo when we made this arrangement with the German Government for the reduction of the import duty. He charged us with a lack of imagination. I think I might quite justifiably say that he himself showed lack of imagination in putting forward such a suggestion as he made. Let me lay down the fundamentals of this case. Why have we agreed to this reduction from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent.? We are convinced that the alternative was between 5 per cent. and nothing. Five per cent. was as much as we could get, and if we did not accept that we should have got nothing. Why? Suppose that we had put forward such a suggestion as that made by the hon. Member for Farnham. What would have been the effect? It would have meant a reduction of the German Customs duties. What would have been the effect of that? A fall in German revenue. What then would it have been necessary for the Germans to do? To resort to the old vicious system which is so largely responsible for the present economic situation of Germany inflation by means of the printing press, and a further reduction in the capacity of Germany to pay any reparations at all. If that had been done we should have been defeated in the very purpose we had in view; we should have been reducing the capacity of Germany to pay even this 5 per cent. I think that that is agreed among all parties.
  I recall a statement made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in dealing with this very point. It was a sort of prelude to the proposal last autumn that a Committee should inquire into Germany's capacity to pay. In substance the right hon. Gentleman said, "Things have been going from bad to worse, and the condition of Germany is worse and worse and worse." Therefore, if Germany was not in a position to pay the 26 per cent. Reparation Duty even then, she is not as good a position to pay to-day. We have not lost sight of the fact that this is a mere incident in the much wider question of reparations, and that we must do nothing to impair further the capacity of Germany to pay. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Farnham. If his suggestion of trying to impose a reduction of German Customs Duties had been adopted, the effect would have been that Germany would have been reduced to that
  1690
  extent in her capacity to pay even 5 per cent. Another point raised related to the cost of collecting the 5 per cent. duty. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) seemed to have a very exaggerated idea on the subject.
  Sir J. SIMON: I asked whether it was more or less.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The cost of collecting the 5 per cent. is probably the same as the cost of collecting the higher percentage. The cost of collecting the 26 per cent. was about £5,000 a month. Probably the cost will remain the same. The proceeds from the 26 per cent. were about £800,000 a month. The new percentage brings in £150,000 a month. I am asked why we have retained this duty of 5 per cent. In the first place we did not want to come to the House and ask them to annul this Act. This is the only reparation that we now receive from Germany. As a matter of fact it is more than France and Belgium have been receiving on reparation account One reason, apart from the considerations I have mentioned in regard to Germany's reduced capacity to pay, why we kept on this 5 per cent. was that we wanted to have something with which to bargain. We should have thrown away every weapon if we had asked the House to agree to a total repeal of the Measure.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: And we lost £800,000 a month.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman mentions £800,000 a month. As a matter of fact during the last three months the duty has not been bringing in anything at all from the Germans. Therefore, what the House has to consider is not that we have lost £800,000 a month. It is perfect nonsense for right hon. and hon. Gentleman to talk about the difference between £800,000 and £150,000. The choice is between the £150,000 that we are getting now and nothing that was received during the last three months. It is a fair contribution and one to which a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be indifferent in these times. The arrangement for the German Government to re-imburse the industrialists expires on 15th April; the German Government have said that they will not be able to recoup the industrialists for the goods supplied to France after 15th April.

  1691
  As the House is aware, a Committee is inquiring into Germany's capacity to pay. I hope that it will report within the next few weeks. Then the whole question of reparations will be reviewed. We did not want to give this agreement more than a very temporary character. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley asked if we had any plans as to the future. We think it extremely likely that in the next few weeks the whole question of reparations will be raised once more, and then this question will be merged in wider issues which will have to be settled We had a very difficult problem with which to deal. We have done the best that we could. We were aware that the heavier duty was placing an intolerable burden on a not inconsiderable section of traders in the country. I ask the House to endorse our action. I do not think it is perfect; I am as conscious as any hon. Member of its imperfection and of the possibility of further difficulties arising in connection with administration. But we have done the best we could in the difficult circumstances, and we have in four weeks' time succeeded in doing what the late Government failed to do in three times that period.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has just congratulated himself upon having done something in contrast with the late Government, which is accused of having done nothing. He got a hint for that self-congratulation from the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, who hastened to congratulate the Government on having done something, in contrast with the last Government, which did nothing in these difficult circumstances, and then proceeded to criticise the present Government for what they had done. I am prepared to do the same thing. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me when I have spoken that it would have been a great deal better had this Government done nothing until 15th April. They would then have had an opportunity of doing something which would be valuable, instead of doing what they have now done. I think the Committee has a just cause of complaint. We have been asking for 10 days for papers and for information on the subject, and I do not wonder that the hon. Member for
  1692
  Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville), who has been a close student of this matter, has complained. I recommend to other hon. Members his action in the matter, because at least he has made himself familiar with the case. The only paper that we have been given is a document in the "Board of Trade Gazette." The right hon. Gentleman explains that by saying that these negotiations have been verbal negotiations and that no notes, or not sufficient notes, have been kept of the conversations.
  Is that really an example of what the Labour party intend to do in their foreign negotiations? Are they going to deprive this House of any chance of checking their action, or of seeing what moved them to come to an agreement? I think the Committee has a right to complain now, and if this is a sample of what is to happen, Parliament will be continuously complaining. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself cannot explain his own agreement. He is bound to say that the last Clause is obscure. Does the Committee know what the last Clause says? As the right hon. Gentleman explained it, the last Clause means that if at a later date it is found that some importer in this country has paid the Reparation Duty instead of the German exporter, the importer in this country is to claim on the German Government for some of these bonds, and then they are to be divided, the proceeds of reimbursement to be allocated in accordance with the incidence of the levy. Imagine an importer, a trader in this country, who believes he has paid more than he ought to have paid and who succeeds in getting some bonds out of the German Government. What is the importer going to do with those bonds? Is he going round to the retail shops, chopping up little bits of bonds, and saying, "We have charged you too much and we want to give you a bit of a bond"? I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain what is meant by the words "dealt with in accordance with the incidence of the levy." Those are words in the Board of Trade document to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred as being the agreement. It is true that when he spoke himself he had to refer to another document which he has quite properly promised to lay on the Table. Why could not that and other documents have been given to us any time

  1693
  during the past week or fortnight and why should it be left be us to extract across the Table this precious document which is necessary for the understanding of the agreement. We have asked for documents several times. I myself and my hon. Friends have been asking at Question Time during the whole of the past week for Papers.
  Let me deal with one or two of the questions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded. We complain of the Government throwing away £7,750,000, and the right hon. Gentleman says that that money has not been coming in—not one penny of it—during the last three months. He said so just now, but I cannot believe that he means it. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that no goods have come into this country from Germany in the last three months? [HON. MEMBERS: "We paid the duty."] That is what, I wanted to know Then the allegation is that the British importer has been paying the 26 per cent. during the last three months. The allegation is not that the Treasury has not benefited. The Treasury has benefited to the tune of £800,000 per month during the last three months, but the Germans are said not to have paid it; the British importer is said to have paid it. The right hon. and learned Member for the Spen Valley is not likely to say that. His objection did not at all take that form, for the very good reason that the suggestion is not true. He quoted a question asked in July, 1923, and in that question it was recognised that the export prices of goods from Germany were fixed by the German Government. Is it to be supposed that the German Government deliberately fixed the price higher because of this 26 per cent. duty, and that if there is no 26 per cent. duty they are going to fix the prices 26 per cent. lower? Is it likely that the German Government, which is looking after its exports, is going to make the British consumer a present of 26 per cent. It is not in the slightest degree likely, and in all competitive goods it is extremely improbable, that any part of that 26 per cent. was added to the price. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deny that statement. The Germans got just as much as they could get for their goods. They fixed the price just so as to get into this market
  1694
  in competition with our own manufacturers and not one penny higher or lower, and we have not, directly or indirectly, paid any part of that 26 per cent. in competitive goods.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about dumping?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is another matter. I said in competitive goods, but in non-competitive goods it is quite possible that the 26 per cent. was added to the price. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer use his powers? He has powers under the Act to exempt any goods he chooses from this 26 per cent. duty—or rather the President of the Board of Trade has—and if the right hon. Gentleman thought the 26 per cent. was paid by the British importers on noncompetitive goods — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why did not you do it?"] Because we did not mind. I did not mind a bit if there was an element of Protection in the duty. I make no bones about it, and, if there was an element of Protection, I should shed no tears, but the right hon. Gentleman had it in his hands if he chose to do so, if he thought this 26 per cent. was payable by the British importer in any class of goods—it certainly was not in my judgment on the competitive goods—to exempt those goods. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently made no effort to get the 26 per cent. from the German Government. He mentioned four alternatives, one of which was to try to get it—to compel Germany to pay 26 per cent.—but that was not the alternative he adopted. The alternative which he adopted was a temporary arrangement for reduction. As far as I can see he has not attempted in the negotiations to get 26 per cent. He seems to think that 5 per cent. is as much as can be obtained. Apparently he would get more if he could, but he is taking 5 per cent. because he thinks he cannot get 26 per cent. He has not told us, however, that he endeavoured to get the 26 per cent. He has not given us any evidence to show that he has not abandoned what was, and what he admits to have been, the only money-earner in reparations of any of the devices which have been put up to try to extract something from Germany. Why has he taken this course? Because he says if the German Government have to go on compensating their exporters to the extent of

  1695
  26 per cent. there will be a fresh issue of paper money and further inflation, and you will never balance the German Budget, and unless you do that you are not likely to get any reparation from Germany. That is the argument the right hon. Gentleman advances for abandoning the 26 per cent. I do not say it is a bad argument, but why does it apply to Great Britain only? Is it not true also with regard to France, Belgium and Italy? [HON. MEMBERS: "They have not got it!"] Do hon. Members realise in connection with reparations in kind, and in connection with some of the deliveries from the Ruhr, the German Government is under a responsibility to compensate its own nationals for those deliveries, and those sums which go to the German nationals are on all fours with the sums which go to the exporters of goods to this country? If it be true that Germany ought to be relieved of some of the charges, then it ought to be done pro rata, and not in one isolated case. We ought not to be the only nation called upon to make sacrifices and to give up the cash which is being paid to us on account.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was not being paid.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Member says it was not being paid. It is being received by the Treasury.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: From the British merchants.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Again, he says it is being received from the British merchants. That, I believe, is not true in respect of competitive goods—goods which we also make in this country. It may be true, and that is my argument, as to odd non-competitive goods. There are certain scientific instruments, certain books and other articles which Germany produces and which we do not produce, and the 26 per cent. might, in those cases, be added to the price, but the Board of Trade have the power to exempt those goods if it is thought desirable to do so, and could have exempted them and so freed any importer in this country from any charge upon them. In relieving the German Budget of these charges and not relieving them of charges with regard to
  1696
  reparations in kind the Chancellor is sinning against the light because he has in the Treasury the Report of a Committee of experts which was made on the 7th November, 1922, and which recommended that, in order to relieve the German Budget, not merely reparations in cash but reparations in kind should be released, and I should not make any complaint if, after careful negotiation, it was found desirable to relieve the burden on the German Budget temporarily—provided all were treated alike. What I complain of is that we should be picked out to bear the whole burden alone. Further, was it necessary to make any arrangement at all for the next two months? This arrangement only lasts until lath April, and the right hon. Gentleman says he has chosen that date because the M.I.C.U.M. arrangements come to an end on the 15th April, and the experts of the two Committees will propably have reported by then, and we may be in a conference then and we may be able to make some new deal. I think the right hon. Gentleman said he did not reduce the levy to nothing, because he wanted a weapon with which to negotiate on that occasion. He thought he would not throw it all away, so he kept the 5 per cent. to have a weapon of negotiation. Which would be the better weapon—the 26 per cent. or the 5 per cent.? There was no necessity to throw that weapon away for two months, and I think this matter has been grossly mishandled. We are throwing away a weapon which would be of real value in the negotiations yet to take place; we are making the whole sacrifice ourselves, and we are not getting, as we ought to be getting, a very substantial sum in cash on account of German reparations.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I notice the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is much more effective in Opposition when criticising others than he was when defending his own Government on the Treasury Bench. It was refreshing to hear his positive statements, his constructive suggestions and his potent criticisms, when we remember his most unsuccessful efforts—apart from his own Department—when he was on the Government side of the House. In this Debate some points have been overlooked. I would particularly direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1697
  to the fact that quantities of goods come into this country from Germany—what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) referred to as "non-competitive goods"—in quite small packages. There is a large fancy goods trade, and a trade in scientific instruments, and so forth, and these goods do not come here in bulk but in parcels. They include new inventions and devices of various kinds exploited on our market for the benefit of our merchants, and the trade, which brings cheap goods to our people, is a valuable one. I am informed that on most of these packages which come into London and other ports merchants have to pay about 10 per cent. of the value of the goods under the present arrangements, for breaking bulk, packing and unpacking, and passing through the Customs. When it is said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the collection of this duty only costs £5,000 a month, we should remember that that sum represents what it costs the Customs to collect it, but nothing has been said about the cost to the English merchant. As I say, the average cost on the smaller parcels works out to about 10 per cent. When the goods arrive in bulk, or in much larger parcels, the percentage is not so high. It is said to be extremely doubtful, in the condition of trade with Germany, whether this 5 per cent. is worth collection I do not think, from what I hear from merchants and others who are right in the middle of the trade, that the game will be worth the candle.
  Furthermore, there are the goods that come in not subject to this levy at all. Nevertheless, because other goods are in dispute, they have to be held up, and the merchants have to take their places at the end of a queue because the goods might possibly be liable to detention and fine or levy, and the whole import trade is hampered between this country and Germany. In France goods come in much more freely, and in Holland and other countries it is known that these duties do not apply, and reputable agents can always get the goods through the Customs without unnecessary delay, but because of this possible charge in this country, if the goods come from Germany there are delays, and losses, and impediments to trade. For these reasons, I am extremely sorry that my right hon.
  1698
  Friend did not, if I may say so, go the whole hog, and wash the whole duty out altogether. He says this is a bargaining point in his hands, but it is obvious that if the German Government has been able to defy us, and has thought it worth while to do so for the last five or six months, over this levy, what did it matter whether it was 5 per cent. or 26 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the value of the goods? If they could not pay, it was no use threatening them. If we have to settle these various questions of reparation, they are of such tremendous importance and are so complicated that this miserable little levy—which has brought in £18,000,000 in 2½ years, with tremendous inconvenience and hindrance to our trade—what I think I am justified in calling this wretched little levy, with miserable results, is not going to be any sort of bargaining point with Germany at all.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that another reason was that he would have had to bring in a legislative measure into this House. I rather think that the time we are spending on this discussion would have sufficed for one stage, at any rate, or possibly two stages, of that Bill, and I believe he will have to bring in legislative measures about this matter before we are through with it. This is not the last we shall hear of the matter. Hon. Members opposite have been touched on the raw by the action of the right hon. Gentleman, because one of their cherished barriers to trade has been removed. The right hon. Member for Colchester—I am sorry he has had to leave the Chamber—said, "Well, suppose there is a measure of Protection in this levy, I will shed no tears," and, of course, in saying that, he threw over my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who wrapped a white sheet about him and told us that he was not bothering about Protection at all, that all that he was pleading for was that our Treasury should not be deprived of moneys that it was not getting.
  For this reason we know that hon. Members opposite will keep this subject alive. They will not see any of the artificial barriers that have been put in the way of British trade by the two or three previous Governments removed without a good fight, and as they are apparently determined to spin out all

  1699
  discussion as long as possible, as we have seen in the last few weeks, this is not the last we shall hear of this matter. It is no use the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) shaking his head. He knows very well that his friends, at any rate, have spun out the discussions on their Supplementary Estimates in a most ridiculous way. This is not the last, then, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hear of this matter, and he might just as well have brought in a Bill—he would have had the support of my hon. Friends here below the Gangway—to repeal the whole business. The Measure was brought in by a Coalition Government, after all, and they were Protectionists, and it is only a nuisance to the merchants and traders of this country, and ought to be done away with. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the working people!"] I suppose the hon. Member on the back benches opposite, who interrupts is going to talk about the flood of German imports that will came into this country if only this levy is taken away. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are coming!"] What did the right hon. Member for Colchester say just now? I took his words down, thinking they were extremely valuable. He said that the goods sent in from Germany come in at a price just below the ruling prices here at which they can make sales, and he told us that the German Government watched to see that that was done, that there was a control, and so on. I am not misquoting the right hon. Gentleman, and when I interrupted him—for which I apologise—when I asked him about this very dumping, about which hon. Members opposite are so frightened, he said: "We will talk about that another time, but not to-day.'
  No, Sir, the dumping bogey has been laid to rest by the speech of the right hon. Member for Colchester most effectively this afternoon. Do not hold that miserable turnip, candle, broom, and sheet up again here until the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been forgotten.
  As to the exemption of certain classes of goods, his Government were always so much in favour of restoring trade, or so they said at Genoa and elsewhere, so why could not they exempt these merchants who were dealing in goods from Germany, such as dyes and chemicals? Why were
  1700
  not they exempted from this levy, when it was obvious in the last few months that they themselves were paying these sums into the British Treasury? The fact is, Mr. Entwistle, as you and I know—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am entitled to address the Chair. The fact is, Mr. Entwistle, as you and I know, that they hung on, during their term of office, to any little temporary barrier that they could be prevent the free flow of imports into this country.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. and gallant Member must not associate me with his views.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise. It was not my intention, but hon. Members opposite rather took it up, and I did not mean that at all. They have hung on very desperately to any little artificial restrictions on imports, and they know it. The hon. Member on the back benches opposite, who interrupted me just now, is more politically honest in that matter than his own Front Bench, who have thrown overboard their theories for this Parliament, but he, apparently, has not. I disagree with him totally, and my only complaint of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he has not been a little more bold, and, throwing himself on the support he would have had from below the gangway here, removed this inefficient, and harmful, and irritating restriction on honest British trade.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The late Government was always in this respect rather prone, to delay coming to decisions, and a great deal of criticism can, no doubt, be directed against them from that point of view, but there is also another extreme, and that is coming to a decision too hastily. After listening to the speeches this afternoon, I think the House is mostly in agreement that, whether it was right or wrong to reduce the reparation levy to 5 per cent., it was done in somewhat of a hurry and should have been considered before the final decision was taken. I think, further, that this House had a right to be consulted before the decision was taken. It was owing to a chance question by myself that the whole of the result of the negotiations came before the House, and had it not been for that question, we

  1701
  might still have been in the dark as to the negotiations having taken place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never made a statement to the House on the point; he merely replied in the ordinary way to a question that was put on the Paper.
  This question is much more serious in the eyes of the people of this country than the mere question of how much money is coming in, owing to the drop in the percentage, and I think a great many people will misunderstand the point of view which the Government is taking After all, whenever any question has been directed to this Government during this Session on the reparation question, we have always been told that we were to wait until the Reparation Commission had reported, and, consequently, we have never had a statement of the Government's intentions and policy in regard to reparation. One day, quite suddenly, they have negotiations with the German representatives in London, and come to the conclusion that the levy that exists should be reduced to 5 per cent., and, so far as we are able to make out to-day, they do not put up any bargaining point with the Germans whereby this country shall get any benefit from that reduction. I am sure a great number of people will take this as moaning that the view of the present Government is really rather unfavourable, to reparation coming from Germany, and, I think, whatever might be said on this subject, it must be universally held that the beat thing the Government could have done would have been to wait until the Reparation Commission had reported before coming to any decision.
  I should like to protest strongly about this Debate only taking place on the Civil Service Estimates, and not, as it should have done, on an announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this levy had been reduced. It is an entirely new policy on the part of the Government. Going back, perhaps three years, to a time when the Coalition Government was at the height of its power, we had a great fight in this House to try and get more control over finance, and I remember that hon. and right hon. Members on the Labour benches were very insistent that this House should control all the new financial departures of the Government. I think it was only due to the House that we should have had an
  1702
  opportunity of considering the matter of this reduction of the levy, and I do not think it is sufficient excuse to say that the late Government did not come to any decision. That may be their fault, but that does not excuse the present Government from coming to a too hasty decision.
  I could have understood the Government if they had come to the House and told us they had entirely done away with the reparation levy, but the thing that makes me suspicious is that they should have reduced it to 5 per cent. from 26 per cent. Is not this the real reason why they have reduced it, that if they had done away with it altogether, they would, have had to bring in a Bill to repeal the original Act which was passed? Purely to get out of that technical difficulty, which would have put them in a very difficult position, and might have meant the defeat of the present Government, they have merely reduced it to 5 per cent., which is entirely worthless either to the taxpayers of this country or the principle of the whole matter, so that they can make the present House pass a Vote of Censure on them for doing it instead of facing the House, bringing in a repeal Bill, and letting it go through its various stages.
  6.0 P.M.
  We have had many speeches as to whether Germany is or is not capable of paying, and there are so many different views on this subject that it is useless, I suppose, for anyone to point out their own view that Germany is still capable of paying some reparation, but it is obvious to me that the taxation in Germany is far less than it is here at the present time. You are merely trying to reduce the taxation in Germany, because this is a taxation on German exporters and industrialists. You are reducing taxation on the German industrialists and the German capitalists, merely to prevent the British taxpayer from getting money which is due to him in order that the taxation in this country should be lessened. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could point out that the taxation in Germany was at the same level as in this country, and that German industries were being handicapped by that taxation, then I could understand the point of view that is being put forward. But that is not the case. It is notorious that the taxation in Germany cannot be compared with the taxation is this

  1703
  country, and that German industrialists do not even attempt to pay the taxation levied in Germany at the official level. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer points out that the industrialists in Germany cannot afford to pay this levy, I would suggest that he brings some facts before the House, at any rate, to try and prove his argument. I understand, as well, that Germany intends to compensate the exporters for this 5 per cent. levy. Would it not have been possible to compensate the exporters up to the 26 per cent. level? If it be possible to compensate up to 5 per cent., why should not the German Government be made responsible up to the 26 per cent., so that this country should get a sum of money that is worth having, instead of a sum of money so small that it is really perfectly useless?
  I regard this question and this Debate as the most serious since the present Government came into power. I myself, and a great many others on this side, were always afraid that this Government might have some influence upon it which was not entirely British. I have never been one of those Members who have asked questions about the Socialist International, because I could never credit that that body would have any influence on British people forming a Government. But if the Government are going to follow this policy, it will be open to Members in this House and to people outside rather to come to the conclusion, and to take the line, that there must be some influence which can make this Government come to an agreement with German representatives in London within about two months of their coming power, reducing that levy to 5 per cent., which is not worth having. There must be some policy behind it. I thought the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an extremely poor defence for reducing the levy. I do suggest that before this is done, this House requires further arguments in its favour, and I do hope we shall have, either an understanding from the Government and a defence of the Government, that can be taken by this House, or that there will be a Division to-night, in which some of us on this side, at any rate, can vote. I hope Members below the Gangway opposite will also show their feelings in this matter, first because we do not consider the House of Commons has been treated
  1704
  with proper respect, and, secondly, because we do not consider the Government, in taking this sudden decision, will meet with a favourable reception not only in this country, but in other countries, which may entirely misunderstand the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. MOSLEY: I will not follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into his researches concerning the hidden hand which has actuated the Government in this matter. The hidden hand, in this instance, appears to have moved the Government to make a reform which insists that the German Government shall pay 5 per cent., instead of Englishmen paying 26 per cent. To that extent, therefore, the International hidden hand is coming out on the side of the British. The right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L Worthington-Evans) assailed the Chancellor of the Exchequer very fiercely because in his recent negotiations with the German Government he did not get the full 26 per cent., as the right hon. Gentleman put it. But the right hon. Gentleman did not explain how, after the three months' pause, during which they considered the matter, he and his friends were prepared to compel the German Government to pay the 26 per cent. What was to be their method for bringing pressure to bear on the German Government to meet an obligation which they had repudiated? Were they going to march into the Ruhr, that lucrative method of getting reparation payments? Were they to use the air to bomb Berlin until their obligation was honoured? What method had the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of compelling the Germans to pay the obligation which they had repudiated? The right hon. Gentleman, in launching his criticism, should, at any rate, have outlined the policy by which the Government might have achieved his objective. But even supposing methods could be found to compel the German Government to pay this 26 per cent., does the right hon. Gentleman really think it was desirable to fling into fresh chaos the whole German system of finance, just at the moment when the Expert Committee was inquiring into that system, and devising schemes for its alleviation, and for putting the whole system of reparations upon a sound and proper basis?

  1705
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he was prepared to leave the 26 per cent. in force, even if the German Government continued to repudiate the obligation which they had undertaken, and he adduced in—as I thought—the most powerful argument which he brought forward the consideration that, in fact, not the British importers, but the German exporters were paying that duty, and the right hon. Gentleman argued that in competitive goods, as he named them, the German naturally got as big a price as he could, and sold only just under the world price. That appears to me to be the most powerful argument he brought forward, but he forgets the speeches of his friends. He forgets the speeches of the late President of the Board of Trade during the passage of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. He forgets the late Member for Chippenham, Mr. George Terrell, that respected Member of this House, with his eternal presentation of the woes of the pianoforte makers, the flood of cheap German pianos in our market at about half the current world price, the great flood of goods coming into this country, and necessitating at least a levy of 33⅓ per cent.—and they would have liked far more, so as to fetch them up to world-prices. The fact was, that in those days Germany was selling much under the world price, in order to conquer prejudice against her goods, and to make her position secure in our market. The whole case of hon. Members in favour of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was based purely on the contention that Germany and other countries were sending goods into this country at far below the world prices, and so, when the duty was imposed, and was not reimbursed by their own Government, the German exporters were able to put up the price, and make the English importers pay.
  There was a point of some substance raised by my hon. Friends below the Gangway during the course of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was subjected to a running fire of interruption. They raised, as I understand it, a distinction between the present arrangement and the preceding arrangement, in that during the preceding-arrangement there were definite means specified by which the German Government could reimburse their exporters, while in the present arrangement there
  1706
  is rather an anomalous discretion relating to an indefinite reimbursement at a later date. That, I understand, was the gravamen of the charge, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) pointed out, as I understood him, that the Germans would not have any great faith in this reimbursement at a later date, and, consequently, would be inclined to treat the 5 per cent. as a protective duty, and raise their price pro tanto. That, I understand, was the argument. I imagine that the reason for the difference between the present and the preceding arrangement was that, under the preceding arrangement, the German Government was in a position to reimburse her exporters, but, at the present time, is not in a position to reimburse them. When her finances are put on a sounder basis, she will be able to honour this obligation of 5 per cent., and reimburse her exporters. But there are substantial reasons for thinking, as has been pointed out, that the 5 per cent. will not be treated as a protective duty, and that the price to that extent will not be handed on to the British consumer. But, to begin with, my right hon. Friend has read out the actual German decree inflicting substantial deterrents on any German exporter adopting that course. Difficult as it may be, although by no means impossible, to prove the presence of such a penalty as that, and the possibility of it being inflicted, should clearly be severe enough to deter any German exporter, for the sake of raising his price by 5 per cent., from adopting such a course.
  Then, again, as my right hon. Friend proved very conclusively, German prices have recently approximated to, and even surpassed, world prices, which was an altogether new situation. If that be so—and the figures in that respect seem quite conclusive—it is impossible for the German now to add this 5 per cent. to the price, and to compete successfully in our market. That marks a very different condition from that which formerly prevailed. Owing to the conditions of exchange, and continual fluctuation, German goods could be put on the markets of this country at considerably below world prices, and it also marks an additional argument against the contention brought forward by the right hon. Member for Colchester, when he said the German exporter

  1707
  can afford to pay the 26 per cent. out of his extra profits, through the condition of the exchange. Now, if it be true, as it evidently is, that German prices have approximated to world prices, then a 26 per cent. levy is an almost prohibitive duty against German goods coming into this market.
  On the broad question, although I quite agree there is a weighty argument for the removal of this duty altogether, yet I cannot help thinking there is also considerable argument for making this a temporary arrangement until the 15th April next, when the whole matter will come under review. It is, to a certain extent, a weapon in the hands of this country in the great bargaining that must take place over the whole sphere of European relations, and reparation in particular. I might also point out to the right hon. Member for Colchester, when he says the 26 per rent. levy is a greater weapon, surely 5 per cent. which the German Government is honouring is better than 26 per cent. which it has no intention of honouring, and, at any rate, this is a flexible levy. It is an amount which, I understand, can be altered from time to time, and can be restored to its former position if occasion arises. Therefore, I cannot see that my right hon. Friend in any way weakens his hands in putting the thing on a practical and proper basis. So far from doing that, I think he is considerably strengthening his position from the bargaining point of view. In view of the temporary nature of this expedient, in view of the sittings of the Expert Committee, and the likelihood of a general review of the whole situation, I must say, in the circumstances, I think that my hon. Friend has made the very best possible bargain.
  Mr. SANDEMAN: I have listened to a good deal of talk to-day, and a great deal of it appears to me to have missed the point. The point we want to get at is: what is the result going to be of taking off this 26 per cent. So far as I can see it is going to strike the working people straight away. I happen to know about one or two things pretty well, and I am going while I am here, to try to make a point of only talking about what I know. What I really do know about is,
  1708
  in the first place, something of the jute trade, and I want to give hon. Members just a little information about what the effect of this is going to be in that trade.
  In 1921 we began first of all to feel the effect of competition in the jute trade. I have got the figures here which show how this importation has gone up. In 1921 jute yarns were imported to the amount of about 19 tons; in 1922, the figure was about 255 tons, and between then and 1923 it went up to 763 tons. I refer to the jute trade in Dundee, and I should have thought that some of the Members from Dundee would have been here to talk about the subject, but they evidently have not thought it worth while. I do think it is worth while, for the present position now looks like short-time in the yarn trade, and that means a great many spinners being put off, and a great deal of unemployment in consequence. Now we come to jute cloth. That began with 6,600,000 square yards in 1921, going up to 13,000,000 in 1922, while in 1923 it was 35,000,000. What do these figures mean in our trade? They mean that one of the very biggest works in the town will have to be stopped. I do not believe that you could open these works now even if you wanted to. If we had some reduction of the amount, I think we might be able to hold the German competition, but if what suggested is taken off the jute trade you will probably find that the trade will go away, and the Germans will keep on increasing.
  My figures are different from the figures of some other hon. Members, but so far as I can see from them there is something like 25 per cent. difference between the selling price of our manufacturers and the selling price of the Germans. What is happening? This 25 per cent. in question is going into the merchant's pocket, every penny almost. I have done a great deal of selling of these goods myself, and time and again I have gone after very large orders. I have been told that I have been too late, that there was a difference of 1½d. per bag. This difference went right into the pockets of the manufacturers, and the consumer got no benefit at all. Hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side must know that perfectly well. With a great deal of money standing idle our workpeople cannot be fully employed.

  1709
  Then comes along the question of the turnover of the money. These importers are turning over their money with very few hands employed, whereas we employ people in hundreds of thousands. We are not getting the help we deserve. We are now more or less in a state of standing still. I consider that the Government by reducing this levy from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. is distinctly prejudicing our work, and certainly affecting, in our trade, 30,000 people. I cannot stand and see that going on without raising my voice against it.
  Captain BERKELEY: The hon. Member who has just sat down has made, as I understand, his maiden speech, and I should like to offer a few words of congratulation. I do not wish to detain the Committee more than a few minutes in order to put a point on which I need more light. I refer to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I do not think I misunderstood him—what he said in reply to the hon. Member who suggested that this reparation levy should be kept as a bargaining asset to persuade Germany to reduce, or possibly take away, the tariff wall which she has built up against our trade, unless I completely misunderstood, the right hon. Gentleman said that to ask Germany to reduce her tariff in our favour in return for such concession would be in effect to reduce Germany's capacity to pay. I am bound to say that it seems to me that that is an economic statement that requires a certain amount of further investigation before it can be accepted. If you produce an enlargement of trade between the two countries, why should it reduce Germany's capacity to pay? If you bring about an enlargement of trade between Great Britain and Germany you put money into the pockets of British manufacturers, and British workmen, and you put money into the pockets of the German manufacturers and the German workmen, because you are building up a state of trade between them and one of two countries in the world which at the present time may be said to be stable—this country and the United States. If you put money into the pockets of the German manufacturer you benefit the German workman. You are not taking away from the capacity of Germany to
  1710
  pay; you are increasing it. I would beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his attitude, not only from that point of view, but also from the point of view of our own unemployment problem. After all, the question of reparations, important though it is, is immeasurably less important than the relief of our own unemployment.
  The trade of this country with Germany before the War was put at a very high figure, and might very well assume the same proportion to-day if measures are taken to encourage it. Indeed, before the collapse of the mark it had taken a very large turn for the better. It is not only a question of the existence of German tariffs that retard our trade with Germany. There are also a number of prohibitions against importation which operate most detrimentally, and those also should be made a subject for bargaining, either with the specific reparation levy, or with the general question of our reparation claims. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot at this forthcoming Conference—which he tells us is to take place in two months—take the whole question of our reparation claims upon the German people and utilise them as a bargaining asset for the purpose of bringing about easier trade relations between the two countries. I am rather inclined to agree with those critics who have said that a 5 per cent. reparation levy is not a very formidable weapon to utilise for bargaining, although I fully appreciate the logic of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) when he points out that it is better to have 5 per cent. paid than 20 per cent. not paid. That is perfectly true. While the gross receipts do not total more than, as I estimate, to about £1,750,000 a year from the 5 per cent., assuming it to be paid in full, it is not really a bargaining asset of any great magnitude, but if the Government were prepared to take into account in bringing about a reduction of the tariff walls of Germany and this country, not only this specific reparation levy, but also very large claims which under the Spa Agreement we have upon the German people, as a whole, then I venture to believe that something really effective can be done towards the relief of unemployment in many industrial centres of the country.

  1711
  I can speak with personal knowledge of trading affairs in my own constituency. There, the lace trade is something about which I have had to address myself to the House more than once, though not at this Session. The lace trade is in a position of unparalleled depression. It is a trade which depends as to 75 or 80 per cent. upon exports. Prior to the War, although I believe the export of lace, as distinguished from plain nets, was less in amount, the export of plain nets was of the annual value of something like £1,000,000; yet at the present moment—though things might have altered in the last few days—there is a prohibition, not a tariff, but a prohibition, against the importation of plain nets into Germany. The plain net manufacturers of Nottingham, who, before the War used to send their net to Plauen are unable to do so, because of the prohibition. I believe I am right in saying that there is also a prohibition against any importation of lace whatever into Germany because it is regarded as a luxury. I have heard that there is some suggestion of removing that prohibition, and that it is intended to replace it by a very high scale tariff. I would impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in that trade alone there are something like 30,000 to 40,000 men unemployed. These people used to derive employment from that trade. They derive it no longer. This is only a small trade by comparison with the great trades of the country, iron, and steel, and engineering. A great measure of relief could, I believe, be obtained from the distress in Nottingham if negotiations could be opened with Germany to make possible the entry of these goods into the German Republic at this moment. I am sure that that is the case with other trades.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must restrict his criticisms to the importation of goods into this country.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was a weapon which could be used.
  Captain BERKELEY: I was rather led away by the latitude allowed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will confine myself to the terms of your ruling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  1712
  on his own showing, has a weapon which he proposes to use for bargaining purposes, and I ask him to utilise that weapon, not so much in the direction of obtaining increased reparation payments, either in cash or kind, but to use those bargaining assets in the direction of promoting a freer trading intercourse between the two countries.
  Sir F. WISE: As a back bencher perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will excuse me if I say that I cannot quite congratulate him on his defence of this Motion. If an agreement has been made such as that which has been mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it should, I think, appear in some White Paper, and we should not have to go and endeavour to get the Board of Trade Journal. I think it is an important point because we cannot always buy that journal, even, I believe, in the House of Commons Vote Office. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) when he stated that this is hardly a proper occasion to discuss reparation. Personally, I feel that while these Committees are sitting anything said here might be misinterpreted in some way or another. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) brought in this Bill it was the only way at that time, and even at the present time, of getting any reparations for Britain from Germany. I felt greatly honoured when he discussed it with me, and I gave him my opinion that the only fault I could find with regard to the 26 per cent. was a possibility of inflation or increasing inflation in Germany. I feel now that that is the main point the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to contend with, and I believe that is why it has had to be reduced from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. I do not think this point has been mentioned in the Debate.
  I do not quite agree that 5 per cent. is the right figure, and I feel confident that now Germany has gone to the rentenmark that more than 5 per cent. can be paid by that country. There is this tremendous inflation in Germany, and what has it done. It has practically wiped out all fixed charges of industries and internal debt in Germany. That is what our manufacturers have to contend with now, and that is one of the dangers of the future. The hon. Member for Thanet referred to

  1713
  taxation in Germany. What he said is quite true, as it is not so great as it is in this country, but German taxation is only in marks. We do not want marks here. My main point is that there is only one fund from which German reparations can be paid, and that is the external exports of Germany being greater than the imports into Germany. I want the Committee to realise that that is the one point to study when you are considering the capacity of Germany to pay. In Germany last year her imports were greater than her exports, but you cannot take the German figures with any real reliability, because you are unable to decide whether those figures include the Ruhr.
  The case of France has been mentioned and if anybody studies the reparation figure for the first six months of 1923 they will see that France through the Ruhr has received even less than we did on the 26 per cent. levy brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. In the first six months of 1923, France received through the Ruhr £16,000 in cash and £642,000 in kind. We have done better than that on the 26 per cent. levy. I hope other countries will follow our example and introduce Bills so that they may receive a percentage on the exports of German goods. I feel that the capacity of Germany to pay at the present time should not be criticised because I feel confident that nothing of a derogatory nature should be mentioned in case it might affect any policy now being laid down by these Committees. Again I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the position of the rentenmark which has altered the position of Germany, and although Germany may be forming another Bank and also organising another new mark at present and also remembering that the rentenmark is at a premium compared with the pound I think that more than 5 per cent. can be paid at the present time.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has, in the course of a very short speech, made a real contribution to the discussion of this problem. I think he has focussed the attention of the Committee on the real issue. I regret very much some of the speeches that show an inclination to convert this into a debate on tariffs. If this duty is protectionist, then, in my judgment, it
  1714
  fails. If it has to be paid by the importer here, and if it has the effect which a tariff necessarily must have, in our judgment then it fails from the point of view of making Germany pay reparations. It is because I think that in the vast majority of cases—there may be exceptions—Germany did really pay that I think it was a contribution towards the payment of reparations to us. If the Government had considered the cases referred to of non-competitive goods, where undoubtedly Germany probably put the duty on to the cost, and if the Government had readjusted matters in order to meet cases of that kind so that the payments would come out of German pockets, that would have been a perfectly fair thing to do.
  There is a first class issue involved here and that is whether we need to levy any contributions on Germany at all in respect of reparations. It is not a question whether you are going to levy the amount mentioned on the 21st of May. The total that comes out of this does not correspond in the least with that, but supposing reparations were confined to damages in respect to air raids, the sinking of ships, and the bombardment of houses, leaving out the more disputable part of our reparations, this amount would barely meet that claim, and if the Government are contemplating dropping this claim, I say honestly that I cannot see where they are going to get reparations out of Germany. That point was very fairly put by my hon Friend opposite. There is no method by which Germany can pay except by exports and raw material. There is a limit to what she can pay in raw material, but when you come to anything in the nature of gold payments it resolves itself into some kind of levy on exports. The alternative has been suggested very often of putting a duty upon the whole of the exports of Germany of 25 or 26 per cent. and putting it in the clearing house and distributing it amongst the Allies. That has not been imposed, but in the absence of that there is no other way in which this country can get its share of reparations. The Government would have received £9,600,000 according to their own figures.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That is on the assumption that Germany paid.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood that, amongst other things the right hon. Gentleman did not know, that was one. He stated that he was not quite sure in one of the questions he answered. I agree if there are any goods where there is any doubt as to whether the German Government is paying in respect of them, the Government are perfectly right in readjusting the imposts to meet cases of that kind. Take, for example, scientific and surgical instruments. I can understand you saying we can propose to eliminate those because we are paying, and there is no point in collecting reparations from the pockets of your own people. That is the line which I took from the start. If my hon. Friends on the Labour benches had looked at the Bill they would have seen that there is a special provision for exempting things of that kind. If they have not been exempted by the late Government then the present Government could have exempted them, and their remedy was to deal with occasions of that kind, and not give away this valuable instrument for getting reparations.
  You can get reparation out of Germany by handing over German produce for distribution amongst the Allies. You can get it in one shape or another by exports. There is no other way in which you can get any substantial contribution. That has been the contention which I have urged at many conferences, but, as my right hon. Friend will agree, we were never able to persuade our French Allies. They were under the impression that they could collect in marks and then convert them into gold—a perfectly grotesque assumption. If there were gold in Germany, then they could pay. Their gold has gone. If they had deposited securities abroad beyond what is necessary to create credits for trade, there would be a margin there; but, as everyone knows, the worse the credit of a country becomes the larger must be the deposits it makes abroad in order to enable it to trade at all. Therefore, the mere fact that they have larger deposits now than they had before the War is not necessarily a proof that they are doing it in order to defraud on reparations. It is because they cannot do business without practically doubling their deposits in other countries. There may, however, be a certain margin upon that,
  1716
  but, if there is, it is in the hands of people from whom you cannot get it.
  Therefore I have always been of opinion that there are only two ways in which you can get reparation. The first is by raw materials like coal, timber, potash, and there may be a few other commodities; the other is by some sort of impost upon the exports of Germany, because the payment is then made either in sterling or in dollars. Anything which you collect in marks is perfectly worthless. We were unable to persuade our colleagues of that, and my regret is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem quite to realise that he is parting with a very formidable weapon for negotiation in the coming months. If the attitude which he has displayed to-day towards the German Reparation (Recovery) Act represents the spirit in which the Government are going into that Conference in April, then British interests will be completely surrendered. And this is what I dislike. In every Conference we have had, we have treated the amount recovered under this Act in exactly the same way as the coal and timber given to France and Italy and Belgium. We put it in the same category, and rightly so. This was our equivalent method of raising reparations. In the Cannes Conference, when we came to consider reparations in kind, there was an attempt to limit the amount, in order to give a sort of restricted moratorium to Germany, which would have gone through but for the fall of the Briand Government. This Bill, and the sum collected under it, was put in the same category as reparations in kind.
  What has happened? Reparations in kind are still collected by France, by Belgium, by Italy, and the amount, has been refunded by the German Government. Our equivalent is practically abandoned. What I dislike is something for which this Government is not altogether responsible, but, I am sorry to say, some of my right hon. Friends on the other side. There has been rather a disposition to treat British interests as being secondary in all these negotiations. I protest strongly against that. I have never been opposed to abatements of the claims of the Allies against Germany, as part of a great general settlement. As my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the Balfour Note went very far, but the Balfour Note was the basis of negotiations.

  1717
  It was an effort to deal with the whole problem in the spirit of giving up claims. But we always said that, if claims are to be given up, the abatement must be an all-round abatement; it must not be always at the expense of Great Britain. The War cost us more than any other country as far as cash is concerned. In devastation it was not so great as the devastation of France, but indirectly it has been very great. It comes to hundreds of millions of pounds, and the devastation to our business, as everyone knows, has been greater than has been suffered by any other country. I protest against the new spirit, which seems to proceed on the assumption that England is to pay, but, when it comes to receiving, it must be some other country. It is always some other country. Britain pays America, but she is to receive nothing from France, nothing from Italy. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is nothing like cheek."] I claim civil treatment in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We are to pay. If Germany cannot pay, very well; let there be a moratorium which is an all-round one. Let us examine whether Germany is in that condition. My right hon. Friend says she is in such a condition that she cannot possibly pay. No, she cannot pay us. She is to pay France in full. Everything goes to France, everything goes to Italy, everything goes to Belgium; but, forsooth, she has not the capacity to pay Great Britain. I object. We were equal in the sacrifices we had to make, and I think it is about time that someone should stand up for the rights of Great Britain.
  Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: I certainly find myself in very much closer agreement with the speech just delivered by my right hon. Friend than with some of the speeches which have come from behind him upon this matter. Although the explanation which has been given of the arrangement into which the Government have entered—and which is, if I may say so, quite inadequately stated in the Board of Trade Memorandum and in the Treasury Minute—still leaves us in much doubt, both as to what the agreement actually means and as to what is to be the procedure to be followed, it explains enough to leave us in no doubt that it is an arrangement which is bad in principle
  1718
  and bad in detail. I do not yet understand how it is to be worked. With regard to arrears, they are to be paid in German bonds, which in some way, wholly unexplained, are to be adjusted to meet the incidence of the levy. How on earth that is going to find its way into the pocket of the English importer, much less into the pocket of the person who has bought from the English importer. I have not the least idea, and I do not believe the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has either.
  Let me take another point of detail. I have a much more serious objection to make on the ground of principle. There is a provision that in future, if a German seller takes advantage of a British buyer by adding to the price the value of the levy, he is to be subject to a penalty and to forfeit his chance of getting reimbursement from his own Government. That is very nice in theory, but how, on earth, is anyone in Germany, much less anyone in England, going to be able to say whether the price which the German exporter has asked, and which has been accepted by the English buyer, includes the 5 per cent. levy or not? Anyone who sells anything, from a mouse-trap to a mountain, knows that what will happen will be that a price will be asked, and, if the English buyer cannot buy more cheaply somewhere else, that price will be accepted; and it will be utterly impossible for anyone in this country or in Germany to say whether that price included the levy or whether it did not.
  Mr. MARLEY: It is the same with the 26 per cent.!
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Exactly, but perhaps we shall get rather more quickly to the speech which the hon. Gentleman's leader is going to make if I am allowed to develop my argument. It is exactly the same with the 26 per cent., and that is why it is so fantastic to change the 26 per cent. to 5 per cent.
  Mr. MARLEY: It is much better to get 5 per cent. than not to get 26 per cent.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman will learn in time that the process of debate is at once more courteously and more conveniently conducted if one speaker speaks at a time. It is exactly the same here, and therein lies

  1719
  the fallacy of the whole argument advanced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for a further reduction of the 5 per cent. What happens is that the German, having now found that he can get a certain price out of the English buyer and still undersell his English or his other competitor, is, in future, of course, going to get the highest price that he can possibly get the English buyer to pay. It is ridiculous to suppose that, because you take off this levy which has hitherto been made, and make a present of it to the German exporter—and that is the person to whom you are making a present of it—he is then to come to you, cap in hand, and say, "I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of Exchequer for relieving German industry of some part of that small measure of taxation which it has to bear, and, therefore, I am going most generously to give the full advantage of that by reducing the price at which I sell to the British consumer." Of course, he will do nothing of the sort. He will do what any ordinary business man would do in his position; he will get the best price he possibly can; and the net result is that you have merely relieved him of taxation without giving a farthing of benefit to the importer in this country, and still less to the consumer who buys from the importer, and to whom the goods ultimately go. The right hon. Gentleman has said that really we need not be afraid of this competition, that we must give more consideration to the German manufacturer, in effect, because German prices to-day are as high as English prices, and, therefore, we need not be afraid of the competition that we have to meet. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that, whatever may be the actual statisticians' figure of gold prices in this country and in Germany, wages to-day in Germany are far below the wages which are paid in this country? The cost of production in a country is not governed by the figure which you can get out of the "Statistician," or out of the German corresponding paper: it is governed by the expenditure which the employer has to pay out, whether for material or for wages, in order to manufacture the article he sells. I was asking a man with great German experience who has just come
  1720
  back from Germany what the wages were, and he gave me the wages as being about 50 to 60 pfennigs an hour. I suppose that is the equivalent of 6d. an hour; and the German workman works 10 hours a day as against the eight or seven hours here. Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that the incidence of cost are equal in German industry and in our industry when a British workman is getting 1s. 2d., 1s. 4d., 1s. 6d. and more an hour and the German workman is being paid 6d. an hour and working very much longer hours? Not only so, but, as hon. Members will learn as they come more in contact with the reality of it, English industry is being taxed far more heavily than German industries are being taxed. English industry, also, is subject to the sinking fund and the interest charges on the heavy loans and other capital with which it is financed, and German industry has written off a very large part of that by the depreciation of its currency and the repayment of capital charges. All these reasons should surely make the right hon. Gentleman cautious in coming to an arrangement of this kind. He said there were circumstances which made it impossible to get present payment of anything more than the 5 per cent. Incidentally he is only getting the 5 per cent. by deferred payment. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a very bad bargain. I am not saying that in a final settlement of reparations you will not have to reconsider the whole of this Act. I think you will; but do not prejudice your final settlement of reparations by a bad arrangement made for a temporary period. It is a bad arrangement. It is a far worse arrangement, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, than the French and the Italians and the Belgians have got with the German Government and with the German industrialists. A question was put to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary in the House to ascertain what were the terms of the arrangement made by the German Government with the German industrialists to recoup the latter for the deliveries in kind—and they are very considerable—which are being made to the French and the Italian and the Belgian Governments. It is a far better arrangement than any made by the right hon. Gentleman. I will read the answer given yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the

  1721
  Financial Secretary. He says the German Government undertake ultimately to reimburse the industrialists:
  "provided that such deliveries and payments are credited by the Reparation Commission to Germany on reparation account. In the meantime"—
  And this is what I would draw the attention of the Committee to—
  "the mines are authorised"—
  Those are the mines which pay the reparations in kind—
  "to set off the amounts thus due to them against Corporation Tax, Capital Tax, and Turnover Tax to the German Government."
  Why could not the right hon. Gentleman get the same arrangements for the reparation levy that the French, the Belgians and Italians and the Ruhr industrialists have been able to get? Why did not he insist on saying, "As long as that agreement stands for the delivery of reparations in kind to our Allies, we must have as good terms"; and those terms apparently are satisfactory to the German industrialists who are delivering reparation in kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would you go to Berlin?"] That is a ridiculous observation. The Italians, French and Belgians are getting those terms, and getting them quite easily. It is that kind of observation by the people who are the friends of every other country but their own, which prejudice British claims and British interests every time.
  Let me take another point. What is likely to be the effect of the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman has made on the ultimate reparations policy? He said you must make arrangements of this kind because Germany had to balance her Budget in order to pay reparations. With the premise I agree. With what he has done I totally disagree. You will never balance the German Budget, and you will never get reparations, unless German industry is forced to submit to a measure of taxation at least as high, and higher, than that which prevails in Allied countries. This is not a question of Free Trade or Protection in the least. This reparations levy in fact was a taxation upon German industry for the purpose of paying reparations. By relieving German industry of that taxation to-day, apparently merely because they said they declined to pay more than 5 per cent., you are giving the greatest encouragement to the German industrialists to
  1722
  resist that taxaion which must be put upon German industry as part of the final reparation scheme.
  You are doing something else, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is going to watch with great care. One of the things which, when I was at the Board of Trade, I was most anxious about was the industrial arrangements which were likely to be made by French and German industrialists to the serious prejudice of British industry. What is the effect of an arrangement of this kind going to be on encouraging this sort of procedure? It ought to be the right hon. Gentleman's policy to watch these arrangements and negotiations, and to insist, both with the Germans and with the French, that, if such arrangements are to be made, English industry shall stand in as a partner on equal terms.
  What is the effect of this likely to be on arrangements of that kind? You are practically saying to the German industrialists: "You say you can only pay 5 per cent. Very well. We are quite content to take 5 per cent." If they said they could only pay 1 per cent., you would be quite content to take 1 per cent. That is not the way to go and do business with Germans, who will get the best terms out of you they possibly can.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to the future, will see that arrangements of this kind are not made which may prejudice the whole industrial future of this country, not only in its own domestic trade, but in international trade relations. It is probably inevitable that with the world capacity of industrial production far in excess of what the world can absorb to-day, international arrangements must be made in industries. But if that be so, it is vital that our policy should be such as to ensure that British industries come in on our own terms. This agreement, which we even now only partially understand, is an agreement which helps no one in this country. It does not help the importer, and it certainly does not help the consumer. It does present injury to many. It makes a present of relief of taxation to the German industrialist, and prejudices our ultimate chances of reparation. On all these grounds I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division and will secure a large number of votes.
  Mr. LINFIELD: I am one of those who think that, on the whole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has acted wisely in this matter, but I do not agree with every detail. I cannot get away from the fact that, after all said and done, at the present time, instead of the Germans paying reparations, it is the British traders and taxpayers who are paying them. If a better way could be found by which it could be made possible to enforce payment by the Germans I should be perfectly satisfied, and it was on that ground that I felt rather pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not thrown away the weapon altogether, but has retained it in his hands, so that, if necessary, and if possible, at some future date he might apply a larger percentage than that which he finds it possible to obtain at the present time. When this matter was first before the House in 1921, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) informed the House that it was intended that these duties should be enforced by the whole of the Allies. He stated to the House in reply to a question by Mr. Bottomley:
  "I have been authorised by the French Government to say that their Measure will be laid before the Chamber to-day or to-morrow."
  That has never been done. The Belgians have never enforced a measure of this kind; neither have the Italians. May I make a reference to the Act itself, and say to those who are responsible for this Measure that I think it worked very satisfactorily until last year? From the spring of 1921 until last autumn the Measure worked fairly satisfactorily. There were a few absurd anomalies, and a great deal was made of those; but, so far as the collection of money was concerned, it worked in a satisfactory manner. I believe we got some seven millions of money per annum, and that is an amount of money not to be despised. There were no very serious defects except those occasioned by the Customs House difficulties—a certain amount of delay and irritation, which always happens when you impose duties of that kind. Further, there is no reason to suppose that the German exporters increased their charges in those days. At all events that is my information. It was my pleasure and duty to introduce a deputation to the
  1724
  Chancellor from a section of the London Chamber of Commerce who were so hardly hit by this Measure. At that time there was no real serious difficulty. The real trouble arose in October last. The German Government's scrip was only negotiable at a very heavy discount and, as a consequence, the German traders began to extort it from the British buyer. I am quite sure hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side, really have no desire to make the British traders' difficulties greater than they are and I ask them to put themselves in the place of the British trader. In some cases the imports ceased entirely because the price of the goods was already so high that they could not pay the increase. In other cases certain essential raw materials jumped up in price, thus hindering business. A few firms—I do not think there were many—looked round to find some circuitous way of getting the goods from other sources, and there were offers of goods even from the Irish State for which, if British traders were buying direct, they would have paid the extra 26 per cent. duty. Offers of goods were being made at a price less the 26 per cent. duty.
  There is another point of view that does not seem to have been mentioned. All said and done, when the British trader or taxpayer has paid his money we are collecting 26 per cent. from him and we are liable to pay the Allies 75 per cent. of the money. They do not seem in a hurry to recognise their liability to us. We have had no payment from France to date and yet all the money we are paying does not go into the British Exchequer in relief of the British taxpayer. Out of the money that is being collected in this way from the pockets of the British taxpayer we have a liability to pay 75 per cent. of it to our Allies. When this Measure was before the House the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) seems to have shown very considerable foresight. He said in March, 1921:
  "Unless the German Government recoups the exporter for the tax levied upon his goods, it is pretty certain that the German exporter will recoup himself by raising his prices and then, instead of it being an export duty paid by Germany, it will approximate an import duty paid by the British consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1921; col. 1107, Vol. 139.]

  1725
  This unsettled condition is very seriously affecting commerce. The traders who deal in these goods do not know what is going to happen. There is no stability. They find themselves unable to make contracts. Their travellers cannot quote forward prices. Hence on every hand there is unrest and unsettlement on the part of people who deal in these classes of goods. I know it has been said it is a very trifling matter, but there are very large firms in London who bring in German goods in fairly large quantities. You say they can get the money back if they re-export, but it often goes out in very small parcels. They get orders for different classes of goods. They have to collect them.
  Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal assent to

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1924.

  2. Diseases of Animals Act, 1924.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That Item Class II. Vote 3 (Treasury and Subordinate Departments) be reduced by £100."
  Mr. LINFIELD: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the nature of the goods that are imported. It is sometimes thought that these are entirely fancy goods. Some people think that they are all articles that could be manufactured in this country. That is not entirely so. There are such goods as chemicals, minerals and other essential materials, such as dyestuffs. The Advisory Committee on dyestuffs issue hundreds of licences every month for the importation
  1726
  of dyestuffs. The division of Luton represented by one of my hon. Friends uses a considerable number of dyestuffs in the manufacture of hats, which are sent to all parts of the world. Many of these materials that come in are the raw materials of some industry, and we can readily see the difficulties that would arise to our export trade by hindering the import of goods that are wanted for the manufacture of other articles, thereby making the goods artificially dearer. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote what was said by the late right hon. Member for the City of London, the present Lord Banbury. If any name can convince hon. Members opposite, I think the name of Lord Banbury ought to do so. In the Debate which took place when this Measure was passed, Lord Banbury expressed the opinion that the Act would send a great deal of our trade to America, and that it would have a very bad effect on the American exchange.
  The action of the Government, whatever opinions we may have as to their methods, and as to whether they have done exactly the right thing or not, shows that they have realised the impossibility of expecting British traders or British taxpayers to pay German reparation. It may be said that they ought to have brought pressure, that they ought to have put a pistol at the heads of the Germans. That is a fair argument, but I would point out that there is a Commission inquiring into the matter at the present time, and we shall have their report in due course, and if it can be proved, as has been proved, that in the meantime British taxpayers are paying the German Reparation Tax, I think there will be only one opinion, and that is that that ought to be stopped. With respect to the reduction of the levy to 5 per cent. I think the Government have done well to keep the machinery. My hon. Friends on this side are not entirely in agreement in regard to that, but I think it is a sound policy that the Government should keep the weapon in their hands until such time as the Commission has reported, and the whole question of reparations has been taken into consideration.
  May I ask hon. Members opposite whether it is reparations they are concerned about, or whether they want a Protectionist policy? Some of us feel

  1727
  that, in spite of what their leader has said, judging from many of the speeches that we have heard, they are really out for absolute Protection, although in the stress of circumstances they have been compelled to give up Protection for the time being. We want to know what it is they are out for. Perhaps I may concluded with a story. Two niggers had been fighting, and one of them was so badly battered that he was thought to be dying. He was visited by his minister, and, as he was thought to be dying, he was asked whether he forgave the man who had injured him so badly. In a very low voice he said, "If I dies I do, but if I gets better, then that darned nigger had better look out." I want to know from hon. Members opposite whether it is reparations from the Germans they want or whether it is Protection they want in this indirect way.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): Since 4 o'clock this afternoon we have had debate on this subject, and I rise now for the purpose of giving, not a full and adequate reply, but a reply, as far as I can, to some of the questions that have been put. Almost immediately, as I understand the arrangements, the House will want to pass to another subject which will be raised on this Vote on Account. I claim the indulgence of the House while I deal with what is undoubtedly an intricate and, from many points of view, highly technical subject. I want to say at once to hon. Members in all parts of the House, that there are very few of us who are experts in regard to this scheme, and very few of us who can claim to be experts in regard to the manner in which it has been applied. Therefore I hope the House will forgive me if I do not go into the intricate details. There are, however, one or two general considerations regarding this German Reparation (Recovery) Act of 1921, which we have to keep in mind. Undoubtedly, it was an effort to secure some form of reparation payment. The House will recollect that the Act provided for a maximum of 50 per cent., which was the percentage enforced for a few months in 1921. During that time a sum of about £12,000 was realised. Afterwards, the percentage was changed to 26 per cent., which continued in force
  1728
  until Germany defaulted or failed to make payments to her own subjects in the middle of November last. It is also true that the Act provides for an exception or an exclusion of certain classes of commodities by Order under the Board of Trade. That is more or less generally agreed. During the time that the Act was in operation we received a total of about £18,000,000 in reparation payments, spread over about two and a half years, but since the middle of November last we have, under the Act, received nothing at all on the 26 per cent. arrangement as from the German Government. During that time, certain sums have been paid, and it is the payment of sums of that kind by British importers which led us to do everything in our power to try to get a readjustment or a solution of this problem.
  Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Member say how much has been paid in the last three months?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have the actual figures of the amounts paid during the last three months. December, 1923, £717,000; January, 1924, £670,000; February, 1924, £512,000, obviously a diminishing sum. The state of affairs to which we succeeded was that a widespread change had taken place by reason of the failure of Germany to reimburse her own subjects. This led to deputations being received at the Treasury, and also by other Government Departments, asking for an adjustment of the kind we suggest in this proposal or, in many cases, for a repeal of the Act altogether. The repeal of the Act would involve a Parliamentary Resolution. We should require to go to both Houses of Parliament, but we could proceed by Treasury Minute if it was a mere matter of reduction. If hon. Members look at the Act of 1921 they will recognise that great difficulty emerges in the event of the German Government failing to make payment to its subjects. I remember well the controversy which took place at the time that the Act was introduced, but one thing certain is that for all practical purposes if Germany fails to make payment to her subjects under the Agreement, there does not seem to me to be any immediate and effective power which this country, in existing circumstances, could adopt. That, I think, explains a great deal of the difficulties

  1729
  which, I have no doubt, hon. Members in all parts of the House fell in connection with this subject.
  An hon. Member put a question as to the cost of collecting the sum of £150,000 per month which will now be available under the amended scheme. My right hon. Friend has indicated that, so far as he can ascertain, the cost will be about £5,000. That is administrative charges, so that the balance is the sum which we shall actually get, if that estimate is correct, by the modification of the duty from 26 to 5 per cent. I turn now to a criticism which was made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, and I am afraid that I must detain the House for a minute or two in reading two passages which bear exactly on the point which he put. He asked who was to arrange regarding the new 5 per cent. Broadly the German Government has undertaken to repay to its exporters the 5 per cent., and they also provide for penalties against exporters who endeavour to pass on the 5 per cent. to the British importer. On that point there appear to be two questions. One is the second head of the agreement itself, which we reached a day or two ago, and then there is the Clause in the decree which has been issued by the German Government providing for the repayment. These two Clauses with the permission of hon. Members I propose to read. As the House knows the second Clause of the Agreement provides:
  "In order to guarantee that no part of the sums levied under this Act at the above rate of 5 per cent. shall be charged to British importers the German Government agree to arrange for the compensation of the German exporters at a later date and to provide by decree that if in any case any part of the sums levied under the Act has been charged to the British importer the German exporter will forfeit his claim to reimbursement and will in addition be subject to a penalty."
  As to the "later date." I am afraid that that is the best which we can do in the full circumstances of the moment. After all, hon. Members will agree that it is very difficult fully and completely to enforce a proposal of this kind, especially in the conditions in Europe and in this country in which we are now living. I pass from that question of the date, because I do not know that at this stage I can offer any fuller reply. We can only hope that the German Government is going to stand to this amended
  1730
  Agreement, into which it has entered, and when we come to the question of the transfer of the burden, or any attempt in that direction, to British importers, I am afraid that we are bound to rely more or less upon the proposal, by way of penalty, which the German Government itself makes. This Decree was passed, as I have indicated, on the 3rd March, 1924. The Decree has been published by the German Government in full. In order that the House may know what the Clause provides, I will read it:
  "Anyone who includes the reparation levy either in whole or in part in the bill to the English buyer or burdens him in any way with the reparation levy loses any claim to compensation and is punishable by a fine of five times the sum passed on to the buyers if there is no heavier punishment in accordance with the ordinance of the criminal law."
  These two points taken together answer one of the questions which were put by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Member lay both these Papers? One is I know included in the "Board of Trade Journal," but it would be more convenient that it, and also the decree, should be laid as a White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted both and is bound to lay them. I believe that I am right in saying that it is not sufficient for the Government to say that they will publish it in the "Board of Trade Journal." Having quoted these documents they are bound to lay them.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I do not think that there can be any substantial difficulty on that point. We have already given a considerable amount of information. So far as I can see there is no particular objection on the part of anyone on this side of th House to lay or publish the terms of the Agreement.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want these two documents which constitute the Government case in a White Paper as it is a more convenient form for Members. There is no use in laying one Paper and referring us to the "Board of Trade Journal" for the other. I believe that I am within my rights in insisting that as the hon. Gentleman quoted from them he is bound to lay them. All I ask is that he should lay the two documents in one White Paper for easy reference.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Apart from the question of right, there is the further objection that it is very inconvenient to have to go to the "Board of Trade Journal." I think that the document should have been laid originally as a White Paper.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I think that the Committee will agree that this last point has been a little difficult. We have only just got the documents, but I see no objection, and I think that I can meet the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley also, I think, raised the question as to why Germany does not pay at once even the 5 per cent. tax. I think that on that point we are bound to look at the position in Germany at the present time, and also at the very great difficulties which she has in collecting taxes herself. It is only by a great effort that she has been able to hold her exchange reasonably steady since November last, and there is a danger of upsetting the very delicate equilibrium which exists at the present time. Though I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, I cannot believe that any tendency in that direction is going to help us in the least in this country, either when it comes to a moratorium, a reparation settlement, or anything else.
  It is our business at the present time not to take any step which is going to make conditions in Germany more difficult or more insecure, or which in any way is going to postpone the time, which we all hope to see very soon, when we shall get back to something like sound conditions in that country. That is a consideration to be borne in mind on that point. The right hon. Gentleman also asked what was the use of collecting this 5 per cent.? It will bring us in about £150,000 per month, and I think that it would be wrong or unwise for this country to give up the claim altogether. I confess that I am in some difficulty to-night in speaking on that part of the subject, especially after the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He raised the whole issue of reparation and suggested that we were giving away a very valuable part of our claim. All I can say in reply to that is that that consideration, among others, was very clearly before us when we had to make a decision at the end of about three months' controversy in this connection.
  1732
  It is practically impossible for anyone on this bench to make any reference to reparation which is not going directly or indirectly to render more difficult the task of the experts who are now in conference. I have no desire to embark on any controversy of the kind. I would only assure hon. Members that that consideration was kept in view, and that we did not consider that we were giving away any bargaining instrument when we were only modifying an arrangement which had broken down in practice, and which, hon. Members recognise, had to be modified in some form, though many of them would not go down to the level of 5 per cent. There were some other points put by hon. Members in criticism of our action. The suggestion was made that representations were put forward by German manufacturers and others which led us to this decision. I have no doubt that the German exporters are keenly interested in this Agreement, but during the five or six weeks in which we have been in office by far the greater pressure, so far as we are concerned, which has been applied has come from a large and increasing number of traders in this country.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Were there any manufacturers among these?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes there were manufacturers too, and as long as the burden fell upon certain classes of articles there was not the same urgency about the matter, but when it began to affect the supply of raw materials the situation in the country became more urgent, and strong pressure was brought to bear on the Government to repeal the levy altogether or at all events to conclude negotiations on the lines which they have now followed. The suggestion was made by an hon. Member that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no attempt to get the 26 per cent. That is altogether contrary to the fact. During the negotiations which lasted between two and three months every effort was made at first to get Germany to stand to her duty under the Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, but when it became plain there was no chance of success in that direction, and when this had resolved itself into a 26 per cent. protective tariff on certain classes of goods coming from Germany, it was plain that it was necessary to abandon the

  1733
  attempt to have the 26 per cent. maintained and to make the best bargain we could in modifying the terms. That, I suggest, is the only course open to us in the changed circumstances of the time. I do not know if there is any need for me to reply at greater length, but there is one thing I ought to say in conclusion. The step we have taken in this connection is not a step which I think will in any way weaken our hands in the general problem of reparations. That we kept carefully in view during the past five or
  six weeks. I know, as a matter of fact, that it was before our predecessors, and I think that is the best answer we can give to the suggestion made in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.
  Question put,
  "That Item Class II, Vote 3 (Treasury and Subordinate Departments), be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 240.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  [8.5 p.m.

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

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

  Perring, William George

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Philipson, Mabel

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Harland, A.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Beckett, Sir Gervase

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Berry, Sir George

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Raine, W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Blundell, F. N.

  Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

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

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hogbin, Henry Cairns

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Briscoe, Captain Richard George

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Burman, J. B.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. H. (Prtsmth, S.)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Smith-Carrington, Neville W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stanley, Lord

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lane-Fox, George R.

  Steel, Samuel Strang

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lyle, Sir Leonard

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  MacDonald, R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Deans, Richard Storry

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col, K. P.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Waddington, R.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

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

  Ednam, Viscount

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Wells, S. R.

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

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

  Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Ferguson, H.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wolmer, Viscount

  FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.

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

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

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Mr. A. M. Samuel and Mr. D. G.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Penny, Frederick George

  Somerville.

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

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

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Alstead, R.

  Attlee, Major Clement R.

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

  Ammon, Charles George

  Ayles, W. H.

  Baker, W. J.

  Hindle, F.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Barclay, R. Noton

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rea, W. Russell

  Barnes, A.

  Hobhouse, A. L.

  Richards, R.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

  Birkett, W. N.

  Hodges, Frank

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

  Black, J. W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton

  Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

  Bonwick, A.

  Hudson, J. H.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

  Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

  Bromfield, William

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sexton, James

  Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

  Jewson, Dorothea

  Sherwood, George Henry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Brunner, Sir J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Buckie, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Simon Rt. Hon Sir John

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

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

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smillie, Robert

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Church, Major A. G.

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

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Clarke, A.

  Kay, Sir R. Newbald

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kedward, R. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon Philip

  Compton, Joseph

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen E. L.

  Comyns-Carr, A. S.

  Lansbury, George

  Spence, R.

  Costello, L. W. J.

  Laverack, F. J.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Cove, W. G.

  Law, A.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Crittall, V. G.

  Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

  Stephen Campbell

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leach, W.

  Stranger, Innes Harold

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lee, F.

  Sullivan, J.

  Dickie, Captain J. P.

  Lessing, E.

  Sunlight, J.

  Dickson, T.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dodds, S. R.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Tattersall, J. L.

  Duckworth, John

  Loverseed, J. F.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon James H. (Derby)

  Dukes, C.

  Lowth, T.

  Thornton, Maxwell R.

  Duncan, C.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, E.

  Dunn, J. Freeman

  McCrae, Sir George

  Tillett Benjamin

  Dunnico, H.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Tout, W. J.

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

  Mackinder, W.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Egan, W. H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Turner Samuels M.

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

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

  Varley, Frank B.

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

  Maden, H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Foot, Isaac

  Mansel, Sir Courtenay

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Franklin, L. B.

  March, S.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

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

  Marley, James

  Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

  Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

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

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

  Gillett, George M.

  Maxton, James

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gosling, Harry

  Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

  Wedgwood, Col Rt. Hon Josiah C.

  Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

  Middleton, G.

  Weir L. M.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Millar, J. D.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Mond, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Montague, Frederick

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon J.

  Greenall, T.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

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

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morse, W. E.

  Wignall, James

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mosley, Oswald

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

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

  Moulton, Major Fletcher

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Groves, T.

  Muir, John W.

  Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

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

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Murray, Robert

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Murrell, Frank

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

  Harbison, Thomas James S.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Oliver, George Harold

  Willison, H.

  Hardie, George D.

  Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Harney, E. A.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Harris, John (Hackney, North)

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Harris, Percy A.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Woodwark, Lieut. Colonel G. G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wright, W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pilkington, R. R.

  Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. G.

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

  Rathbone, Hugh R.

  Warne.

  Hillary, A. E.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move,
  1736
  "That Item Class II, Vote 16 (Ministry of Transport), be reduced by £100."
  I wish to refer to this Estimate in relation to the administration of the

  1737
  Road Fund. A curious feature in this vote is that the current Estimates for the Ministry of Transport include no payment for the salary of the Minister. The only entry for Ministerial salaries is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I should be interested to know whether the hon. Member who is now Minister of Transport is doing his work without receiving any salary, and if that is so, whether it is going to be altered in next year's Estimates, and whether he will then receive £5,000 as the salary of the Minister of Transport, or the salary of £1,500, which is the only salary shown under the Ministerial heading in last year's Estimate. I want to draw attention to the great injustice which is felt by rural areas under the present system of administration of the Road Fund. The Road Fund became a valuable hen-roost in the year 1920.
  Up to 1919 the Road Board administered a revenue which never exceeded £1,620,000 a year, but in 1920 the new taxes on motors suddenly made this Fund a very important source of relief to local rates. The revenue rose in the first complete year, a total of £10,800,000, and in the first 11 months of the current year the yield has gone up to £14,154,000. Yet this great increase in revenue is not in any way going to the advantage of the rural authorities; the whole benefit has been transferred to the urban areas, where the unemployment question is most serious. If hon. Members look at the report of the Road Board in the first year when it became affluent, they will see that commitments on road works which had been expedited for the relief of unemployment were £4,300,000. The next year it went up to £10,000,000, and at the present time, I believe, it is well over £14,000,000. The relief to county councils was not only withheld by this new burden being thrown on the Fund, but the position of county councils has actually become very much worse. Although the growth of the Fund is an accurate reflection of the increased wear and tear on the roads of the country, practically the whole extra cost of keeping up the roads has been thrown on the county rural authorities.
  I will give the case of the county which I have the honour to represent. In 1914
  1738
  their expenditure on main roads was £40,000, which involved a rate of 10d. That continued until 1921. In 1921, owing to the demand of motorists for more costly forms of road construction, and in consequence of heavy lorry traffic, the rate was doubled and went up 10d. in one year to meet an expenditure of £112,000. For the new year the estimate of expenditure is rather lower; it is only £101,000. But because of these other burdens on the Road Fund, the rate has to go up another 10d., and the road rate in West Suffolk has been trebled since the year 1920. The present system is a grave injustice, because it gives the whole benefit to the rich areas. Take the Borough of Westminster. The last volume in the Library of London statistics—the figures are for 1922–23—shows that a penny rate in Westminster produces £33,000, and Westminster got £54,000 from the Road Fund. In West Suffolk a penny rate did not produce £33,000, but only £1,850, and this poor county, instead of getting £54,000 from the Road Fund, is getting only £25,000. In Westminster the rateable value is nearly £8,000,000. In West Suffolk it is only £400,000 odd, and West Suffolk has 354 miles of road to keep up. It is most unjust that a rural area should get only half the grant which is given to a rich urban area with 18 times the rateable value.
  Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the expenditure of these two districts?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The expenditure in Westminster was half as much again as in Suffolk, and the rateable value in Westminster is 18 times as much, and relief from the road fund twice as much. £188,000 was spent in Westminster, and in the county of West Suffolk in the same year the expenditure was £112,000. Therefore, with an expenditure about two-thirds that of Westminster's total, West Suffolk had only half the contribution from the Road Fund. There is a further grievance of the rural areas. In proportion to the use that is made of the roads a very small number of licences is taken out locally. Most people take out their licences in the towns. Yet the areas have to pay away half the licence duties

  1739
  which they receive. I appeal to the Minister of Transport to reconsider the whole basis of these grants. Could he not bring in a system to give special terms to necessitous areas? We have a precedent in the case of the assistance which is given by the Board of Education to necessitous areas, on the basis of the yield of a penny rate in proportion to the population. For road purposes I suggest that the yield of a penny rate be related to the mileage of main roads which the authority has to maintain, and that a sliding scale be adopted giving greater relief as the rate yield per mile of road is decreased.
  We have had a very serious statement regarding agriculture since the new Government took office. We have been told that the agricultural industry is being thrown back on its own resources. No direct assistance is to be given, and we are to rely on our own efforts, and to get certain small forms of relief in the way of rating reforms and so forth. Surely this is one form of helping the rates which is of very easy application, and it is a very strong claim. The Minister of Transport is entirely responsible for the allocation of the money from the Road Fund. In the first year of its operation a circular was sent out stating that the 50 per cent. on first-class roads, and 25 per cent. on second-class roads, was only tentative. It was specially emphasised that the grant during the subsequent years could be fixed only in the light of experience of expenditure, and prices, and after fuller knowledge of the probable revenue to be derived each year from motor taxation. With this growing fund he can surely afford to do more for these necessitous rural areas. I know there are many competitors for the hon. Gentleman's favours and for a share in the Road Fund, but I suggest that the strongest claim is that of the most starving dog, namely, the rural ratepayer, and I move this reduction in the Vote in order that we may have a discussion how relief may best be given.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is there any difference in the Estimate, of in the method of allocation this year as compared with last year when the Government of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in power?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, the method of allocation is exactly the same, namely, 50 per cent. for first-class roads and 25 per cent. for second-class roads, but the point is that this year there is a heavy additional mortgage on the Road Fund. For the purpose of relieving unemployment, an extra £4,000,000 has been put on to this fund as a prior charge before the relief of the local ratepayers.
  Mr. BLACK: I am pleased to have an opportunity of supporting the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. Very serious representations have been made to me by various rural authorities, pressing for some substantial grant towards the heavy expenditure which is now being forced upon them in connection with third-class roads. The burden has become almost insupportable. We must bear in mind that the class which is asked to pay for the upkeep of these roads is the class which is now suffering so much, a class which has been described during the last two weeks in this House as being barely able to pay its way. Appeals have been made on behalf of the agriculturists of the country for relief in various directions. Now, on the top of their other burdens comes this demand, which means that in some cases they are being called upon to pay a rate as high as 8s. or 9s. in the £, simply and solely for these rural district roads. It is not as though this charge were to include the whole of their rates. This rate is for the upkeep of the rural district roads only, and in various areas it runs from 6s. to 9s. in the £. I have in my hand an appeal from the Market Harborough Rural District Council. They have a large mileage of roads, and if the demands of the surveyor are carried out, the rate necessary will be 7s. in the £. Two years ago the rate for the roads in that area was 1s. 4d. in the £. If they have to provide any such sum as is represented by 7s. in the £, it will place upon them such a burden that the ultimate outcome will be the neglect of the roads. In order to do the ordinary work, the rate in this area will have to go up to 2s. 4d. in the £, and the decision of the rural council is that, unless some substantial grant can be given by the Ministry of Transport, they will do nothing more than spend the 2s. 4d. rate, which is absolutely necessary in order to

  1741
  keep the roads in any kind of condition at all, without doing any of the reconstruction work necessary to put the general roads in order.
  I suggested to the council that they should borrow the money and spread the repayment over a period of five years as the county councils do, but I was informed by the surveyor that the amount represented by the 7s. rate is not an abnormal expenditure for this year, but an amount which will be required every year. The council will be required, every year, to do as much work as it is proposed to do with the amount represented by a 7s. rate. I agree that the first-class and second-class roads are having every attention. But is it true that last year a sum of £1,250,000 or £1,500,000—I am not sure which—was specifically allocated to rural district roads, and that this year it is not proposed to allocate that sum? Is it the case that on account of the extraordinary pressure of the unemployment problem, even that small modicum previously allowed for the rural district roads is not to be forthcoming? If so, I ask that this decision should be revised and that there should be a grant enabling the rural areas to do some part of the work that is necessary if the general convenience is to be served. We have to remember that these roads are not altogether for the benefit of the particular districts which pay for them. Although they are third-class roads, a large amount of motor traffic passes over them from remote areas, and there is a legitimate reason why some relief should be granted to the rural district councils. I strongly support the demand which has been made, and I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory reply.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE BRABAZON: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, as far as I remember I do not believe that the provision for rural roads was forgotten in estimating future requirements and the allocation of the Road Fund money, but the Minister will be able to inform us definitely upon that point. I feel that attention should be drawn to the question of what would have happened had there not been a Road Fund in existence The claims every year become greater and greater, and I think the proposition put by my right hon. and gallant Friend
  1742
  who moved the reduction, is going to make the work of the Ministry exceedingly difficult, if there is not to be a fixed rule as to allocation for roads and if such grants are to be varied according to the rateable value and the rates in different districts. There are some very curious anomalies in regard to the county councils and the roads, and as to who pays for their upkeep. It is a pity that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) is not in his place, because the position in that particular county is one of the most farcical that it is possible to imagine. I am not capable of explaining it in all its intricacies and details, and I only wish the right hon. and gallant Member were himself here, because a relation of the facts would, at any rate, amuse the Committee. Although not very much differing in theory from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) I feel that someone in this House should voice the feelings of the motorist in this matter, because the motorist is bled year by year to the tune of some £14,000,000, and so far we have had no complaint from the motorists in general, even when the Government, through the Ministry of Transport, has indulged in quite big schemes of road improvement. Those big schemes have sometimes been called unemployment work, but that strictly is not true. What has happened is, I think, that the Ministry of Transport have expedited works that would have had to be done later, and have taken the unemployment position that existed in the country and used it, not only to relieve unemployment, but to expedite the work which would have had to be done later, only at greater expense.
  This is one of the few times, probably, during this Session when we are able to raise any question with regard to the Ministry of Transport. We shall probably not have this Vote among those which will come later in the Session, and, therefore, I make no excuse for touching on another matter, namely, the inequitable system whereby the poor motorist is taxed so badly. I do not ask the Minister to give us an explanation or account of what he proposes to do, because I know that that would be out of order at the present moment, and that it is wrapped up with the Budget, but

  1743
  I think one ought to draw attention to the fact that, under the present scheme, the tax is essentially inequitable, because the ordinary motorist pays on a formula which has little relation to horse-power and, what is more, no relation to what is really the fundamental thing, and that is, to the damage which the vehicle does to the road. There is, of course, the easy solution of the difficulty, as many people think, and that is a petrol tax, because under a petrol tax you are, at any rate, paying only while you are using the vehicle.
  Mr TURTON: On a point of Order. Are we in order in discussing the relative merits of a wheel tax against a petrol tax? It is important for us to know whether the advocates of petrol are to be allowed to place their views before the Committee, and whether those of us who hold to the present system of the wheel tax are to be allowed to put forward our views.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): It will not be in order to discuss the petrol tax, because that would be anticipating legislation, nor to discuss the merits of the wheel tax or the petrol tax. The discussion must be limited to the administrative questions of the Ministry of Transport.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Then I take it I was out of order in the remarks I was about to make. Anyhow, however you get your tax, it is interesting to note that, although there may be injustices, you do get to-day half your money paid by the pleasure vehicle and half by the industrial vehicle, and although the private owner may pretend that he is hardly hit over this, I think it is a fairly equitable thing that the extra tax which the private man has to pay is now going for the general benefit of the whole community. What I want to ask the Minister particularly is this: I believe the future of the Road Fund, from the point of view of the big road schemes which have been initiated for the last three years, is mortgaged for about another five years' time, and in view of the growing number of motor vehicles and the increased yield of the tax in consequence, we can say that in spite of the enormous works which are going on throughout the whole kingdom,
  1744
  at the end of five years, providing no other programme is indulged in, the Road Fund will be clear.
  I should like to know from the Minister what policy the Government are going to take in this matter of the size of the Road Fund, because I can see claims upon it from every quarter of the country, and finally we shall have the poor motorist paying for all the roads throughout the country, which he in no way deserves to have to do. After all, it is always the pride of districts to keep their own roads up, and it is inconceivable to think that because motor vehicles run all over the country to-day, they alone should have to pay for the upkeep of all the roads of England. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us an indication as to what is the limit that he requires in the future for a Road Fund to bring in, I think it would be a relief to the car owner, be he ever so small or ever so rich, to know to what limit this tax is to go. There is no doubt that industry today feels these taxes very hardly. The formula is very inequitable. Any system which makes a Rolls Royce pay £1 a week and a Ford 10s. a week must be indeed wrong. I admit that perhaps the Ford, through its design, has a protective tariff put against it by this tax. I daresay the right hon. Member, being frankly a Protectionist, will look into that matter on that basis alone, but I maintain that to ask the owner of a Ford to pay 10s. a week for the upkeep of the roads is a perfectly ludicrous proposition, both from the point of view of the damage he does and from the point of view of the value of the car he drives.
  Mr. J. DAVISON (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why they did not bring these things into existence when they were in power?
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Speaking for myself, I was only at the Ministry for three months, otherwise something might have been done.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Apparently the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), who has raised this question, looks on the Minister of Transport as a kind of fairy godmother, and, although, when his party was in power, they could not get these things done, they are expecting the new Government

  1745
  to settle them in the first few weeks I put the point that there was no material alteration in the method of allocation as compared with last year, and the answer was that we were getting about £4,000,000 and that that ought to go to a particular district in which he was interested.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: That is absolutely untrue. [An HON. MEMBER: "I only heard the right hon. Member refer to West Suffolk."] I am sure neither of the hon. Members wishes to misrepresent me. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Sullivan) asked a question whether there was any different position, as regards the rural ratepayer, to-day as compared with last year, and I answered that there was a larger mortgage on the Fund, which drained it before it could be used in relief of the rural rates. It is absurd to say that, because one gives an example which illustrates the point, one asks for the whole of this £4,000,000 to go to any one district, and I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent me.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I thank the right hon. Member for the explanation, but I think the point remains that the Minister of Transport is taking much the same line that the Minister of Transport took last year. I represent a rural area, too, and we have a grievance, and if this matter could be reconsidered in a general sense, I think he would be quite willing to go into it, to try and alter the method of making various districts pay. The hon. Member below the Gangway made a complaint about the inequality of rating, and that is one of the points I would like to discuss. One of the areas in the North Lanark Division has a total rate of 28s. 6d., mainly caused by the fact that the keeping of the unemployed has been put on to the parish rate. We have a big grievance there—a much greater grievance than that in connection with roads—but, in addition to that, we have the same complaint as to the keeping of roads. I hope, therefore, when the Minister of Transport gets time to go into this matter, he may be able to help; but I do not think it is fair to suggest that he can do it after being four or five weeks in office.
  An opinion was expressed as to motor traffic. I want to suggest that our roads never were made originally to carry the
  1746
  traffic they have to carry. One of the results of the new traffic is that we require wider roads and stronger roads. That is leading to great expense. I would like the time to come when the heavy char-a-banc, or the big machines you see going along the roads, would be required to assist in meeting the demand for roads, but, apparently, we have not reached that stage. I do not know how much sympathy exists for the Rolls-Royce. Frankly, I do not think we can have much here, because we are not troubled greatly with it. But when an hon. Member suggests that a Rolls-Royce is as easy on a road as a Ford car—
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: What I was trying to point out was the absurdity of a tax which asks a Rolls-Royce to pay £1 a week and a Ford to pay 10s. a week. If a Rolls-Royce should be asked to pay £1 a week, the tax for a Ford should be about 2s.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: We are glad to get these explanations. You can, I think, buy a Ford car for £150. [An HON. MEMBER: "£110."] Hon. Members opposite can tell me what price they pay for a Rolls-Royce. [An HON. MEMBER: "£700."] Then, I am afraid, a Rolls-Royce is not paying its proper quota; but when he suggests it is as light on the road, I think the hon. and gallant Member will scarcely admit that is a serious argument. Somehow or other, a country gets the sort of transport that suits its roads. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I was in the United States some years ago, and I wondered how they got along with the light buggies, but when I saw the country roads I knew they would get along with nothing else. I take it that the Ford has been adopted for much the same purpose. They have adopted a car that will make less marks on the road than a heavy car. I suggest to the House that it would be much better to let the Minister of Transport get in touch with all the difficulties. It is unfair to suggest that he can cure them all, and I do not think it is cricket for hon. Members who were in a Government only a few weeks ago to have so many complaints against a proposition of this kind. I think it would be much better if we had an open mind on these questions. I would like the whole thing to be considered.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: That is what we are asking for.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: If hon. Members care to ask the Government to appoint a Commission to go into this, I think they will get a big amount of support. The only thing is that they could have carried it much easier last year, and they failed to do it.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can hold out any hope, or give any pledge, that assistance will be given to the rural district councils, out of the money collected from the motor taxation. It is a very great grievance of the rural areas, owing to the very heavy increase of the heavy traffic—steam lorries, and so on—and also the consequential, and ever-increasing, cost of the upkeep of the roads. I myself have received several letters, as I represent a constituency where, I think, this is a great grievance. Only this morning I received a letter to this effect:
  "That the Minister of Transport be urged to set aside, out of the money coming to him, and pay to rural district councils, an annual sum based on a percentage of the expenditure incurred by such councils upon highways; and further, that such sum should not be less than 10 per cent. of the total expenditure so incurred."
  As this is a great grievance amongst the ratepayers in rural areas, I do ask the Minister of Transport if he cannot give us a pledge, at least to give the matter his fullest consideration.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I am very glad the right hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) has raised this question. I can assure the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Sullivan) that this issue of the rural areas will be more and more raised in this Parliament, and he should not blame a Member for voicing the needs of his own constituency. Indeed, I noticed he was curiously lacking in logic, for he very naturally dropped into talk about North Lanark, and it is natural that a Member should speak about conditions with which he, or she, is familiar. Rural England for ever seems to be in financial difficulties. It is true, not only in the matter of roads, but as regards many subjects, especially housing. The matter of the distribution of the money from the Road Fund with regard to rural England
  1748
  has rather a wider application than that, of the mere expenditure on the roads of county councils or district councils.
  The fact is that a larger grant to the rural districts is badly needed at the present time, because you have an ever-increasing unemployment in rural England. More work is sadly wanted. In connection with that may I point out that the agricultural worker who is out of work and cannot get it is not in the position of receiving insurance money. Therefore it is essential that the Minister should give attention to the villages of this country when he is thinking about the distribution of his Road Fund, not merely from the point of view of the betterment of the road, or whatever the other grounds may be, but from the point of view of relieving the serious unemployment which now exists in many of the village areas in this country. The problem of the roads in rural England is from some points of view more grave than in urban England, because in proportion of the population the distances are more enormous. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) represents one of the largest, if not the largest, county constituency in the country. Having been up in that neighbourhood I can fully realise the difficulties of the rural district councils in that county, about which she has spoken, in trying to administer the Road Fund for that extraordinary area. I welcome the attitude on the part of the Front Opposition bench, and their advocacy that more consideration than has been given should be given for the distribution of the Road Fund in the rural districts.
  Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I am glad to be allowed the opportunity of supporting the Motion for the reduction of this Vote. I am glad to be able to do so, because I feel that the Ministry of Transport has not got quite that energy and measure of efficiency that some of us would like to see. I should like to support that statement by urging that in future efforts should be made to issue the Annual Report with more expedition. Many of us are interested in this Annual Report. I understand the year closes on 31st March. The Report was not available until many months after the closing day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose fault was that?"] Again, we have a committee that has been sitting for two years

  1749
  and two months examining the question of motor taxation, which is a very important matter. We have not yet had a gleam of light, or any communication of what the views of that Committee are. I suggest that if important matters are to be relegated to Committees from time to time that these Committees ought either to report, or be disbanded, and other Committees set up in their place.
  I, therefore, feel that some little criticism can, with justice, be levelled at the Ministry of Transport in this and other directions. There is the question of road transport, which becomes more important and more urgent as time goes on. If we desire to stimulate our trade and to avoid or lessen the increasing measure of congestion which takes place in our towns we must develop our roads and the road system in this country—and do it rapidly! I would like, if I might, in all humility, to offer to the House one or two suggestions which I hope may prove of some service to the Ministry.
  9.0 P.M.
  One of the difficulties in regard to roads and road making is the question of foundation. Under present circumstances a grant of 50 per cent. can be given towards renewing, or rather remaking, the foundations of main roads. In many cases that grant is really insufficient. There are many cases in which that grant, even if given to the full 50 per cent., still leaves a terrible burden on the local authority. I suggest that steps should be taken to review the position, and see if it is not possible, reasonable, and just in approved cases that the 50 per cent. should be raised to 75 per cent. in regard to questions like the re-making of the foundations of roads. After all, it is useless to make a good road surface unless you are quite sure that the foundation has been properly constructed. There is another matter which appears to me of great moment to the ratepayer and the taxpayer alike. That is the question of prescribing building lines along our main highways. Day by day you travel through the countryside, and you see, along the highway new houses and new buildings going up close to the highway; and you are quite sure in your own mind that in a matter of a few years these roads will have to be widened: then these buildings will have to be
  1750
  swept away, and enormous sums in compensation will be taken from the taxpayers' and the ratepayers' pockets to pay that compensation. It merely requires a little vision to prescribe building lines and to insure that buildings are not erected along our main arteries of traffic or along those roads which are likely in a short space of time to be main arteries of traffic. When these buildings are put up it is quite as easy to build them to a prescribed line in the right place, as to put them as now, in what may be the wrong place, in view of the fact that the roads may afterwards have to be widened because of the needs of our increasing population.
  There is another point. Many hon. Members of this House are deeply interested in the development of small holdings. I feel that a certain definite sum should be set aside, from year to year, for constructing new roads, because there are still undeveloped country districts which it would be a great advantage to stimulate and assist in the interests of the small holdings movement. It is no use, however, establishing small holdings unless you have good highways on which the produce can be taken away. There is another point, which I much hope will not cost anything, and which I hope the Minister will give his attention to, that is the question of empowering local authorities to sweep away high hedges and plantations at cross roads, where they impede and interfere with the traffic. In my neighbourhood more than one fatal accident has occurred during the course of the last two or three years simply because of a plantation or high hedge which the owner refused to allow to be cut down. Personally, I think, that in the interests of the community an unreasonable objection of that kind should be met by the law—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That proposal requires legislation, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  Sir D. NEWTON: I apologise, but perhaps the Minister of Transport will take note of what I have said. I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to make these observations, and I, again, tender my apologies if I have transgressed the Rules of the House.
  Mr. ROYCE: I rise for a few moments to support some of the observations of

  1751
  the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) in his plea for greater assistance to the authorities in rural areas. What is said on occasions like this is not necessarily a criticism of the Ministry, but it gives the Minister an opportunity of hearing those representing rural areas, and of perhaps getting information that he would not under other circumstances obtain. Take the question of the increasing rates. It is serious so far as the rural communities are concerned, especially for the farmer, and, again, especially for the small farmer, because it is on the small man that the rates fall more heavily in proportion to his holding. Where you find a large number of small holdings in an area like that I represent there the rates require very serious consideration, for they militate, seriously against progress in the direction that I am sure the House desires.
  I do not want to introduce other subjects—I should not be allowed by the Deputy-Chairman, but there are other matters of which I can speak: one is that there is no doubt the cost of the roads is definitely increasing. It might be worth while of the Minister to suggest other means of communication. I should say that light railways might be more extensively used to relieve the traffic on the roads. What the country-people in the areas generally feel is that they have the traffic from outside sources passing along their roads, and that there should be some source—preferably a natural source—if those who contribute to the motor taxation object to the money being taken from that fund—though I have never heard any special cry from motorists, for they get fairly good roads and seem to be fairly satisfied with what they do get at the present time. If that fund is a fruitful source of income and the Minister has sums at his disposal derived from what is largely a luxury, it is only fair that such sums as can be spared should be devoted to the relief of those people who have to pay very heavily for the upkeep of the road. I desire to ask the Minister whether any provision has been made for a special grant-in-aid of unclassified roads? That subject is very near to the hearts of the rural councils, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance
  1752
  that an increased grant will be given for that purpose, it will give great satisfaction to the authorities in the areas which I represent.
  Mr. ACLAND: I desire to raise my voice in support of what has been said with regard to rural districts in general. I do not wish it to be inferred that I am arguing that an unfair share of this money should go to my constituency in particular, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can complain of what has been said in this Debate in this connection. I am sure he will be the first to say that the views which have been expressed, and the remarks which have been made are very friendly and reasonable. When you come to think of it, no one could possibly expect the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Minister, to settle difficult matters of this kind in 10 minutes, 10 days, 10 months, or even 10 years. The question of practically reforming and rebuilding our rural roads is going to be with us for a very long time, and it is going to prove very difficult for my right hon. Friend to deal with. Therefore, I hope he will not think that we are expecting too much from him, because we all fully realise the difficulties of his position.
  I would like to give an illustration of the sort of thing that is now happening rather commonly. Within a few miles of where I live, there is one road into which five other roads run, and on each of these roads there has been the ordinary increase of motor traffic, with the result that the cost of their upkeep compared with pre-War costs has increased at least five or six times what it used to be. The roads need more repairs because omnibuses now run over them. On two of those roads there has recently developed the daily running of motor omnibuses which pass through villages some eight or nine miles away from the principal town of Exeter. From Exeter to Tiverton these omnibuses make a detour through these villages, and they pass through these unclassified roads and join the main road.
  The cost of keeping those roads in repair has increased to something like 60 or 80 times more than it was before the War, and if the roads are to be kept in anything like a good condition at all, they will entail heavy expenditure, because they are practically destroyed

  1753
  every two or three months, and after a heavy fall of rain they are absolutely destroyed and the surface has to be entirely remade. The result is that nothing but rebuilding and remaking these roads with new foundations of an entirely different type will meet the case. I think the hon. Member opposite spoke very reasonably from the point of view of the motor user, and he told us that the time would come when the owners of motor traffic would have to find the whole of the cost of maintaining the roads in this country. I think that will be so if you take into consideration what is the real source of the absolute destruction of our roads every few weeks.
  All over the country people are gradually becoming motor users as they have done in the United States. Our summer holidays are changing, and people are getting more attracted by country life, and they indulge in it, as a rule, running about in motor cars, and the habit of using motor chars-a-banc is becoming more and more a national habit, not only on the main roads, but on the by-roads and the unclassified roads. The amount of destruction to these roads is almost incredible, because of the rapid development which seems to be going on in the heavier type of motor traffic. I do not want to go into the question as to whether they pay a fair share of taxation, and I only want to put before the Minister the almost helpless position of some of these road authorities, when they see, at intervals of a few weeks, their road surfaces entirely destroyed by motor traffic, and entirely new roads are afterwards required.
  Mr. EDMUND TURTON: I do not know whether the Members of this Committee are aware that there is no Minister of the Crown who possesses such autocratic powers as the Minister of Transport, because he has this very large sum of money practically at his disposal. The Road Board Act has Regulations, Orders in Council, and references at the side such as no other Bill to any extent has, and no other Measure confers upon the Minister such great powers. Instead of looking upon the Minister of Transport as an autocratic despot, I rather look upon him in the light of a benevolent fairy, and it is well known that we can attract more bees to the honey-pot with
  1754
  compliments than we can by criticisms. I wish to refer to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who apparently now is to be the spokesman of the motorist.
  I regret that under your ruling, Mr. Entwistle, we are not allowed to go into the relative merits of the petrol or the wheel tax. That subject will stand over for the Finance Bill, and then we shall have every opportunity of discussing the relative merits of those two taxes. The hon. and gallant Member apparently thinks that the motorists are subscribing to a larger degree than is fair or equitable towards the upkeep of the roads, and he asked us in a somewhat pathetic manner whether it was expected that the motorists should pay for the whole of the upkeep of our roads. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Practically they have driven us off the roads at the present time. Recently we have had heavy frosts during the night with the result that anyone who attempts to go on our main roads is bound to come to grief. I have myself been obliged to present the sorry spectacle of a master of hounds leading his horse to the meet on account of the glassy surface of the roads. I ask what ransom ought the motorist to pay to us to whom the roads belong, and who have an undoubted right to the use of those roads?
  When on a previous occasion I addressed the House on the question of roads, I was told by a right hon. Gentleman who held high office in the previous Government that he was confident that I was lineally descended from the daughters of the horse-leech. Whether that was to be taken as a compliment or not is open to question, because we, on behalf of the county councils or the local authorities, are saying, "Give, give," and it is for that purpose that we are here again this evening. I think we are in a position to make out a very fairly strong case for an increased grant towards the roads in the rural districts. An hon. Member on this side has suggested an increase for the main roads, but the question we are discussing to-night is rather the question of the district roads. It will not be disputed that those are roads which were never originally intended for carrying the

  1755
  traffic which is put upon them at the present time. It is well known that in the majority of instances they were simply field roads going from one farm to another, but to-day they have to carry all these large commercial motors. The brewers send out their beer to the public houses in motor vehicles, which return laden with barrels. Our district roads are used for traffic of that kind, and by all the other industries in the towns, which do not contribute in the way they ought.
  I do not want to say a single word against chars-a-banc. I delight to think that people are able to go out and see our beautiful country by means of the char-a-banc, but these vehicles do an enormous amount of destruction to the roads, and, although I am not asking—and it would not be in order to discuss the question—for further taxation of chars-a-banc, it is only right that, when the char-a-banc gets into these ill-constructed roads in rural areas, we should ask for an increased grant for the upkeep of those roads. The road grant is for three purposes—firstly, for making entirely new roads; secondly, for making improvements on existing roads; and thirdly, for contributing towards the cost of maintenance. We ought to press, and we intend as far as we can to press, the Minister that 50 per cent. should be given towards the upkeep, maintenance and improvement of these rural roads. I think that that is not an unfair thing to ask. I do not think I shall be going outside the limits of order when I say that at the present time the incidence of local taxation is so grossly unfair that the rural district councils are being compelled to pay for the upkeep of these roads, and they are rated in a most unbearable way. Considering the incidence of local taxation, and the heavy burden which the ratepayers at the present time have to bear for the upkeep of these roads, we have a right to come here and ask for this increased grant, and I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will at any rate give us the assurance that he will look very carefully into the suggestions we are making. There is no question, of course, of our taking a Vote on this. It is only, I take it, for the purpose of trying to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. There is no question of any complaint against him, but we do ask him to consider very carefully the claims
  1756
  of those who live in the rural areas, in view of the immense amount of traffic that comes out of the towns and passes over their roads. I feel quite confident that, when he has given the matter his consideration, he will say that the claim we put forward is fair and just and equitable.
  Mr. PALMER: I should not intervene in this Debate but for the fact that I am in doubt as to what this Vote really means. We have the assurance from several hon. Members opposite that this Amendment to reduce the Vote by £100 does not, in effect, mean any censure upon the present Government, or the proposers of the present Government, which leads me to ask, "What does it mean?" Does it mean an expression from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), on behalf of the late Government, that they have failed to do what they should have done on this question of transport? Is it a gesture suggesting their failure? Does it mean that this question of transport has only arisen suddenly since the day when the Labour Government came into power? Or is it a question which is as old as the beginning of motor transport? It must be quite plain to every hon. and right hon. Gentleman in this Chamber that this is not a new question. Those who have been responsible for government years before a Labour Government came into power must have seen this problem growing and becoming more complex. They must have seen the necessity for the reconstruction of roads, and yet nothing has been done, and now the hopes of the House appear to be centred on a Ministry which is not two months old, and which is expected to work a revolution on its first essay.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? These criticisms, which are directed nominally at the present Minister, are really directed against myself. They are directed against the administration of the Ministry of Transport, and it is only this Motion to reduce the Vote by £100 which gives us the opportunity of raising this question.
  Mr. PALMER: That is the point I am making. I was in doubt, until the hon. and gallant Gentleman reassured me, as to whether it was intended to convey to

  1757
  the Committee that the present Minister of Transport was not doing what he should do. Now we have an assurance, on the best authority, that it is the past Government that have neglected this matter, and they are moving that this new Government shall take the matter in hand. I am sure it is not necessary to labour the question. It is not very much, I venture to say, a party question. I think that everyone, from every point of view, must see the need of improvement in our roads for purposes of transport. The problem in connection with the roads in non-rural areas are just as great as in rural areas. While the roads in rural areas are sometimes inferior to the main arteries, those who live in the neighbourhood of those main arteries know the difficulties that are due to the large accentuation of heavy traffic over those roads, and it is a question of taxation.
  Every Member of this House will agree that this is a matter which touches trade and which touches our social condition. The advance of civilisation is wrapped up in the road problem to some degree, almost as much as is the housing problem, because, if people are to live in the country, they must have proper means of transport from the country to the town. If small holdings are to be developed, facilities must obtain for transportation of the produce to the market. This inequality of taxation should not fall on any one particular area. We have to see to it that it becomes a national burden rather than a local burden, because you cannot equalise these things fairly with regard to localities. I am pleased to have the assurance from that side of the House that, as far as taxation imposed on motorists is concerned, the Rolls-Royce is not paying its quota.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: May I again make myself clear. My illustration was to show that the Ford was paying a great deal too much.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This discussion about Rolls-Royce must stop. It is not in order. This refers to a proposed amendment in taxation.
  Mr. PALMER: I accept your ruling. We hold that this should be a national burden. The tendency is in the right direction when we make funds for these purposes. These funds should be, as time
  1758
  and opportunity present themselves, developed and extended so that on no one locality should fall an unfair or an unequal burden of rates for these roads—in some cases, arterial roads—which are used more by people who come from hundreds of miles away than they are by the people in the locality.
  Captain FITZROY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, when he has been a little longer in the House, will find that even in this House we do sometimes discuss questions without the party spirit behind them. We sometimes deal with questions upon their merits only, and I do not think anyone in the House wishes to make this question of the roads of the country a party one.
  Mr. PALMER: I thought I made that point.
  Captain FITZROY: The hon. Member made it at the end of his speech, but not at the beginning. Nobody in this House knows better than I do the difficulty, in a discussion of this kind, of avoiding referring to questions of policy. The border line between questions of policy and questions of administration is very narrow, and it is very difficult indeed to distinguish between the two. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) has said that this is no new question. It is not entirely a new question, but it has been one that has been gradually growing up, and has now reached a position when it is very critical and very vital that something definite should be done to deal with it, and I am sure the Minister of Transport will find that this will become a more and more important question as the years go on. One does not like, in any great movement, to dissociate entirely the urban asd the rural aspect, but in the matter of roads there is a large difference between the position of the rural community as regards the upkeep of roads, and the expenses of them, and what exists in the urban districts. What used to be the position of the roads? I will not say quite before the introduction altogether of motor cars, but before the present condition of affairs with regard to motor cars, say five or six years before the War, the country roads, with the exception of a few light motor cars, were almost entirely confined to farm carts and horse-drawn vehicles. As regards the wear and tear

  1759
  inflicted on the roads, it was totally different from what it is under present conditions.
  An entirely new condition of affairs has grown up, and, although that new condition of affairs was growing up before the War, it has become much more acute, because during the five years of war very little, indeed, was done to the roads. What we are trying to do at the present time is to make the country roads exactly the same as the urban roads. They have to carry identically the same traffic as the urban roads, which they never did before. The present system which is adopted with regard to the upkeep of these roads in devoting a certain amount of the funds which are derived from the taxation of motor-cars to the upkeep of roads, is obviously the right one. The old principle of making those who use the roads pay for the use of them must be the proper way to deal with the question.
  The question, however, which the Minister of Transport has to consider is how the funds derived from this source of taxation from motor-cars is distributed and allocated to the different authorities, and also to the different classes of roads. Until quite recently it has only been on the first and second class roads that motor 'bus traffic in the country districts has been in existence. It is only quite recently that that motor 'bus traffic has been extended to all the third class and unclassified roads. Those roads were never meant for that sort of traffic. They were never constructed to carry that weight of traffic, and the consequence is that, after a few weeks of that sort of traffic—heavy motor buses going over them regularly—they are practically destroyed and have to be re-made.
  That constitutes an entirely new condition of affairs and it is for the Minister of Transport to consider what is to be done. I do not want to go into the question of policy. I think we are right in using this Debate as an opportunity to see the way different opinions are working as regards this question so as to give the Minister warning as to what he should do when the time comes to make a decision. There are one or two things he has to decide. He has to decide how this money is to be distributed between different authorities. All different areas are not of the same rateable value and
  1760
  if you have a similar cost of upkeep of roads in pretty well all the different areas it is quite easy to see that in an area with a low rateable value it is more expensive than in an area with a high rateable value, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the allocation of these funds, to take that into consideration and to realise that in some of these country districts, which have practically to make urban roads for the traffic they have to bear, with their low rateable value the rates will really be oppressive. I only rose to make these few remarks not in any way, as the hon. Member for Greenwich seems to think, in a spirit of party opposition to the Minister of Transport, but to give him an opportunity of considering the various views of Members of Parliament representing different constituencies all over the country as to what he should do when the time comes for him to decide.
  Mr. LOVERSEED: Like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), I represent West Suffolk, and I am a member of the county council, and I should like to emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the condition of affairs in that county. In 1913 and 1914 we spent a tenpenny rate in the upkeep and maintenance of main roads. Last year the rate was 1s. 9d., and at the meeting next Monday the chairman of the roads committee and the finance committee is asking for a rate, to maintain the same roads, of 2s. 7d. in the £. We are a very poor county with a very large mileage, and a penny rate at present merely produces £1,860. The greater part of the roads are really second-class roads. It is true that we took last year, and shall take this year, from the taxation on motor-cars £45,000, which is remitted to headquarters, but we get back this year, I am told, approximately, £24,000. In an area like ours, a poor agricultural county—one of the poorest in the whole of England—this is a very serious burden upon the already overtaxed ratepayers. I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport and, in consequence of his answer, I am raising the question to see whether, in a county like ours, we could not get a very largely increased grant, in order to meet the overburdened ratepayers. The suggestion has been made by the whole

  1761
  of the rural councils in my area that the Minister should consider allowing the difference in the rate for the upkeep of roads between 1914 and the present time, because the local surveyor of one of my urban district areas says that this year the amount they will require to put their roads into anything like order is £18,000, whereas years ago the annual upkeep would be about £900. I admit that the £18,000 is to give the road a very firm foundation in order to meet the requirements of modern motor traffic. We are getting on our main and local roads through traffic, principally from London, but also some from the Midlands, that goes right through the county to the coast. A census taken by the Ministry themselves last year shows that the overwhelming bulk of the traffic that passes along our roads comes from other centres and is really through traffic. I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, not in any spirit of antagonism, that he should take into serious consideration counties and rural districts like my own, which are very heavily burdened in rates, and endeavour to give them increased grants to meet the heavy cost of repair and maintenance.
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr. Sullivan), who has retired, I suppose, to recuperate after his telling remarks. At the same time I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on his knowledge of the incidence of the motor tax. He hoped that chars-a-bane might be taxed. He seemed quite ignorant of the fact that chars-a-bane already pay taxes of anything from £70 to £80 a year, every penny of which has to be found by the people who ride in them, thus placing a tax on poor people out for an afternoon's enjoyment which might be very much better found in many other ways. I am not criticising the incidence of the tax in any way, but I consider it is levied unjustly and is levied on a wrong formula. With that idea in view I have been pressing the Minister, by means of questions, to expedite the appearance of the Report of the Committee which is sitting under one of his Departments. The Committee has been in session for something like 18 months, but he would not admit that any unnecessary delay had taken place. I am sorry to disagree with
  1762
  the right hon. Gentleman, but I think 18 months is sufficient time for any committee to produce some kind of report. While that Committee is sitting the export motor trade is being ruined by the incidence of the tax and nothing else. You may travel on the Continent for months at a time, as I have done, and you will be able to count on your fingers the number of cars of English manufacture that you see. That is entirely due to the fact that this tax has compelled manufacturers to build and design a type of engine which the foreigner will not buy, and which our colonial customers will not look at. That has thrown into the hands of our competitors the entire colonial market and a great deal of the foreign market. At the commencement of the motor industry we started well ahead of most countries. France had a small lead of us, but we were more than level with Germany, and we were streets ahead of the United States of America. To-day, for every 10 cars we make in this country, America turns out approximately a thousand. That is entirely due to the incidence of this tax, in regard to which the Departmental Committee has been sitting for 18 months, and has failed to produce anything approaching a report. I will not deal further with that matter, because the Deputy-Chairman has ruled that it might require legislation, and consequently is out of Order.
  The right hon. Member who moved the reduction had a good deal to say about the unfair distribution of the grants between the main roads and the country roads. I should like to ask him on what principle are the roads classified, what constitutes a first-class, a second-class, and a third-class road. It seems to me that the authorities arrive at their decision in a most arbitrary manner, without any real data which would justify them arriving at their conclusion. We all admit that the wear and destruction of the roads has increased one hundredfold in the last eight or 10 years, and opinions differ a great deal as to the causes of that wear and destruction. It is a very difficult question to decide what particular type of vehicle is guilty of the worst destruction. Certain roads are what one might call speed-proof. By that I mean cars or other vehicles can travel at almost any speed over these roads without inflicting a great deal of damage. Other roads

  1763
  are what one might call weight-roads, over which vehicles of any weight can travel without causing undue destruction. The weight-proof road has a good solid foundation of heavy metal, and the speed-proof road has a smooth, hard, waterproof surface. The latter type of road is proof against, and is suitable for, high-speed traffic. The road with a solid foundation, although it may be easily damaged or destroyed by high-speed traffic, will stand vehicles up to five or six tons, without being damaged to any perceptible extent.
  There is another cause of destruction on our roads. It is a most extraordinary thing that no sooner do we get a road laid down and finished than we see a gang of men, with misdirected energy, tearing up the surface which has only just been laid down. A short time ago, I saw something that interested me, although it pained me, and that was the process that was being carried out upon one of the main roads going west out of London. It was a road which had only just been entirely rebuilt—an old road which was being adapted for motor traffic, at a cost of something like £17,000 a mile. Before the whole of the road was completed, I saw a gang of men at one end of it breaking up the road and digging a trench right across the entire surface. So well was the road made—it was of the latest ferro-concrete pattern—that it took nearly ten days to cut through it, and it was only by using bolt-cutters, and all kinds of picks and crowbars, that the men succeeded in cutting through. I do not know what was their object, but I suppose it had something to do with water, gas, electric light, or somebody's drain had gone wrong. When they had finished, they relaid the surface of the road, but the continuity of the surface had been broken, and before long a distinct depression appeared where the trench had been dug, with the result that now the road is going in waves at the point where the trench had been dug. Vehicles passing over this depression set up a vibrating effect, which is causing the entire surface of the road to go into waves. By the damage that the workmen did to that road they have probably reduced the life of the road by several years.
  1764
  I want to know whether the Minister of Transport has any power to restrain the misdirected activities of these gangs of men. If he has not the power, will he apply and get legislation to enable him to deal with these cases? By this building and then breaking up of roads, we are doubling the amount of money that has to be spent on the roads, every penny of which has to come out of the pockets of the already overburdened taxpayers.
  Mr. HUGH SEELY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down in his somewhat sweeping statement as to why so few English cars are observed abroad. As far as I can see, it has nothing whatever to do with the discussion that was so aptly brought forward by the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). With the exception of two unfortunate speeches, it is generally recognised that this is a subject not of a political or party nature. It is a very important matter for representatives of rural constituencies. This question of motor transport, char-a-banc traffic, and so on, in the rural districts, and the upkeep of the roads is entirely new, and is altering every day. The question as to where the tax is to come from does not really affect us.
  There is a very large sum of money which is being given in various directions, and I understand that complete control of that money is in the hands of the Minister of Transport. In our poor rural districts we require a great deal more money spending on specific classes of roads. It is often the case that the poorest and those who need help most get it the last, and get very little of it. But this is a very important case, because it affects the whole industry of agriculture. We heard in Debate the other day about plans for agricultural co-operation. If those plans are going to be a success, this whole question of better class roads will have to be dealt with. It is a very large question. It involves the whole matter of farming co-operation and the organisation of the farming industry of this country. Hon. Members have mentioned their constituencies, and mine suffers in this way. It is a place where the constituents of a great many of other hon. Members come in the

  1765
  summer—I refer to the Broads of Norfolk. It is a district with nearly all third-class roads. Going there is not exactly like going to a seaside place, which is a definite place, but these people come to my constituency and spread themselves all over the roads, and the damage which they do is very great. I hope that this Debate will bring before the Minister how urgently we do require this help in the agricultural rural districts of this country.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) who raised this question. He and I worked together for many years, and if I had no salary that fact was not different from that we expected in connection with all my public work. I have been reminded that the position which I hold now is an autocratic one. If that be true I must be very much more careful as to what I do than if I were in a freer position. The arguments seem to me to be mainly either a Vote of Censure on the late Government or friendly advice given to me so that I may keep out of their evil ways. If that be so, and that is the way in which I like to regard it, the Committee has been very kind. Everything has been said in a friendly way, and I am sure that a Minister who has only been in office for a few weeks, and is expected to be careful, and who is an autocrat with large sums of money to be spent, should be careful of his promises to such a large multitude as is making claims to-night.
  10.0 P.M.
  I would first point out that there are very many points which have been raised which I could not have been ready to meet. I will give them very careful consideration. I will go through them all, as I shall have an opportunity of doing, and take the advice that has been given to me wherever I feel able to do so. On the main question, the giving of grants from the Road Fund for the poorer rural areas, the total allocations which have been made from the Road Fund revenue for 1923–24 and 1924–25 amount to £2,750,000 for special assistance towards the improvement of important roads in rural areas of Great Britain. In distributing these moneys consideration has been given to the
  1766
  financial resources of the local authorities concerned so that the greatest measure of assistance might be rendered where it was most needed, and the extent of the assistance has not been limited to 50 per cent. of the cost. An hon. Member suggested that a sliding scale should be adopted giving greater assistance from the Road Fund to those areas where the penny rate provides only a very small sum per mile of road kept up. It would not be possible to adopt this course without either increasing the scale of taxation or sacrificing the paramount interest of the main trunk communication.
  The Road Fund is derived from the taxation of motor vehicles, and is primarily intended for the improvement of important through communications by road. That is on highways where the through traffic is greatest as distinguished from local traffic. In deciding what assistance should be given from the moneys provided, regard must therefore be had to the importance of the roads to the community as a whole. Since the 1st April, 1921, grants have been made from the Road Fund on the following scale: 50 per cent. of the approved cost of maintenance and improvement of Class I roads and 25 per cent. of the approved cost of maintenance and improvement of Class II roads. The sums allocated for grants to Class I and II roads under this heading will amount, in the financial year 1923–24, to about £9,000,000 out of a total net income to the fund of about £13,500,000, and it should be remembered that the assistance thus rendered to the county council is reflected in the county highway rate, and so affects the minor constituent authorities in the country.
  That relief that comes to the county council after all is a relief in the rates taking the country as a whole. These grants to Class I and Class II roads represent 11½d. in the £ in the county rate, and, in addition, 1¾d. in the £ in the rural district rate, so that the total effect in the rural districts in the county is 13¼d in the £. Therefore as regards the point that has been raised about the extra cost thrown upon the rural districts for the lower grade roads, this method of dealing with the money does give the rural districts more money than otherwise they would get, and is a real relief. As

  1767
  the Committee is aware, any surplus funds available are at the present time mainly allocated to the construction of new roads, and the improvement of the important existing roads in areas suffering acutely from unemployment, but it is not possible to depart from the fundamental principle underlying the 50 per cent. and 26 per cent. grant to Class I and Class II roads, which are the main arteries of through communication by road. The only other point that was put to me was one that I cannot answer to-night. I cannot say what the resources of the Road Fund will be before we stop. The money is allocated for five years. I do not expect to be in office all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That must be left for later consideration. In other words, you must first catch your hare before you cook it.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: In view of the great increase in motor traffic, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to consider a road as a first-class road simply because it is an alternative route to another first-class road?
  Mr. GOSLING: Certainly.
  Captain Viscount CURZON: I am glad to have a chance of intervening in this Debate. I heard an hon. Member on the benches opposite say that this question was a new thing. When he has been a little longer here, he will realise that this is a hardy annual. Every year there is an organised attack by the hon. and right hon. Members who represent rural constituencies upon the motor-using and motor-owning fraternity in this country. They seem to forget that with every increase in motor taxation a very definite and direct tax is placed upon the industry, and that the industry to-day is bearing very heavy taxation. Supposing motor taxation is increased in order to provide for the demands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represent rural constituencies, it will only have the result of putting more and more men on the streets. In times like these you want to be very careful before you advocate proposals which may have that result. I have every sympathy with those hon. and right hon. Members who want relief for rural districts in respect to the use of their main roads by motor traffic, especially heavy motor traffic, but they must not put all the
  1768
  blame on motor traffic alone. Look at their own road authorities. Look at their own road surveyors. Anyone who goes far over the roads of this country will soon realise that the roads in different areas are made of very different sorts of stuff. In some districts there is very good stone, and in other districts it is very bad. It is not the fault of the districts, but it is the fact.
  Another thing the hon. Member will realise is that the methods of road surveyors differ very much. I would like to ask the Minister to bear in mind that if there is to be an increased tax on users and owners of motors, he must expect a corresponding demand on the part of those who are to pay that tax to have some say in how the money is spent. I would like to ask hon. Members who advocate increased taxation whether they are prepared to grant to the motor fraternity a say in who the road authorities are to be? Are they prepared to gant to the Minister greater power over the appointment of road surveyors? In regard to rural district roads, it is quite true that some rural district roads are suffering severely. There are some that are actually main roads and nothing else, and these roads should receive, and the motor community would wish them to receive, the special attention of the Ministry. I could give an illustration of what I mean. The rural district of Eastbourne maintains several miles of arterial main road along the South Coast of England, and that community should receive the special attention of the Minister. There are other rural roads which have been alluded to in the course of this Debate where I cannot believe that the motor traffic causes much increased wear. Last year, when I was speaking on this same topic, I fairly startled hon. Members of the House by saying that I frequently followed traction engines. [Laughter.] It is perfectly true, for this reason, that one of the things which tear up the rural district roads are traction engines. I submit to the Minister that when he is considering this problem he might consider whether he has power, or can get power, to regulate traffic of this sort. The rural community do not want this traffic driven over their roads. When traction engines, with heavy loads following, insufficiently-tyred vehicles, go along a road after a frost when there is a little

  1769
  thaw, they can do more damage in 15 or 20 minutes than could be caused by all the other traffic using the road for the remainder of the year.
  I would suggest another line of attack to the Minister, namely, that he should consider whether he cannot, out of the motor taxation, give us a certain rebate in respect to heavy commercial vehicles which are fitted with pneumatic tyres. Anyone who uses the roads much in this country will know that what does most damage to the roads are solid-tyred vehicles. If you encourage them to use pneumatic tyres you will lessen the damage to the roads. I suggest to the hon. and right hon. Members who represent rural constituencies that they might usefully pursue these two avenues of attack. If exceptional damage is caused to the roads by heavy commercial traffic, I submit that the roads should be so constructed as to be capable of bearing the weights. If the Minister, by increased grants, or by increased say in the appointment of road surveyors, can secure that, I hope he will endeavour to do so. The motor fraternity has borne and is bearing a very heavy load of taxation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward), who said that taxation is responsible for the type of engines in the cars to-day. I do hope that the Minister will do what he can to press forward this taxation inquiry. It is a perfect scandal. This inquiry has been sitting for about two years.
  From time to time inspired announcements are made in the Press that the inquiry is proceeding, I suppose to cheer up people and to let them know that those employed on the Committee have not altogether gone to sleep or abandoned their duty in despair. But it is really just about time that this Committee issued its Report. The motor fraternity and the country have waited long enough for it, and the delay is having a bad effect on industry. I hope that the Minister, as a result of this discussion, will make quite certain that we have not to wait for another interminable period, that he will adopt a policy of direct action, and see that the Committee reports forthwith.
  Sir CHARLES BARRIE: It would be a pity if this Debate closed without the
  1770
  voice of Scotland being heard. I would probably not have said anything about the matter had not the Minister reminded me that the Road Fund is mainly provided for through traffic. Those of the Sassenachs who may be present will know that every year our poor country is raided by wealthy motorists from the South, who tear up our roads, leave little of their money behind, and compel the county councils to raid the poor taxpayers to the tune of 5s., 6s., 7s. and even more in the £. I hope that these figures will be well noted by my hon. Friends from the South. It is quite a serious matter so far as the Scottish counties are concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) is particularly interested at the moment in a very important road that runs from Perth to Inverness. There the main portion of the traffic from south to north passes, and he is doing very good work now in trying to get an extra grant. I represent a county where much traffic passes from south to north. In one particular town of Banffshire, the town of Keith, through which the main traffic passes, the road used by that traffic has to be made up no fewer than two or three times a year, whereas other roads in the town last for two or three years. The result is that such roads cost far more, both to the town and the county council, than they ought to cost, and it is due to the fact that this traffic passes through, and we get nothing for it.
  The position in regard to Ross-shire, Inverness-shire, Banffshire and various northern counties is this: A larger percentage of grant ought to be given for first-class roads. Fifty per cent. is not enough. Seventy-five or 80 per cent. ought to be given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not 99 per cent."] I will take 99 per cent.; I do not object. But this is a very difficult matter for these county councils. I would like the Minister of Transport to take the question into particular consideration. The rateable value is low, the roads are difficult to maintain, they are very narrow and there are very few of them, and the traffic that passes over them is very heavy, especially the heavy motor traffic from the south and a lot of wood traffic that of late years has come there. Without a bigger grant the roads will go to ruin, and they are bad enough as it is. I confess that in

  1771
  going over southern roads I realise that there is such a big rateable value that it must be quite easy to keep them in good order without a large grant from the Minister. It is not so in the north. We have not the rateable value there, and we require a bigger grant. I think I shall have the Committee with me in asking that a larger amount be given to these counties, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his careful consideration.
  Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: I am sure the Committee have listened with great interest to the plea of Scotland for further attention with regard to this money which is said to be due to them in respect of roads, but the hon. Member who has just spoken fails to realise that, before the motor cars of which he complains arrive in Scotland, they have to pass through some of the southern counties. When the journey is finished, when these cars and their owners arrive in Scotland, they leave their money there. They deposit much cash in these Scottish constituencies, and that cash which is taken from the owners of cars cannot be spent, therefore, on those unfortunate counties of England through which they have passed in order to reach Scotland. I did not rise, however, to speak of Scotland particularly, but to support the view put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) regarding the difficulties from which we suffer in the rural districts. I was rather disappointed with the reply which the Minister of Transport gave to our claim. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the county councils were, in fact, gaining a certain advantage from the grants which are made from the Road Board, and that they were not suffering to the extent which some of us indicated. I wish to impress upon the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the grants from the Road Board, notwithstanding the £9,000,000 which is being paid at the present time, the actual highway rates in most of these counties are three times what they were at the beginning of the War.
  That being so, I think the Committee will appreciate our feeling that we are not getting much benefit from the Road Fund, and that we should get something
  1772
  more than we have been receiving up to the present. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) raised a very interesting point regarding the damage to roads If I am not going outside the limits of this discussion, I would impress or the Minister the necessity of giving consideration to the Noble Lord's point, as to the damage done to the roads by different types of vehicles and different types of wheels. The Noble Lord pointed out that the greatest damage is caused by the iron-shod or steel-shod vehicle, and that there is an enormous amount of damage done by solid rubber tyres. If I may carry his illustration a little further, the next degree of damage is that inflicted by very big pneumatic tyres; there is less damage done by smaller pneumatic tyres, and so on all down the scale. If you wish to see that the damage is paid for by the wheel which does the damage, it will be necessary to institute some form of tax on tyres, according to the damage which they do. That is the way in which to get a fairer return to the roads, and a return made according to the damage done—by taxing the tyre, according to its size and material. The Minister and the Committee must realise that conditions have changed enormously, even in the course of the last few years, and even since the classification was originally made. A question was asked as to how the classification was originally made. I believe I am right in saying that the first-class roads were originally classified as first-class, because they happened to be the old turnpikes.
  So it went on till, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) said, we got down to the ordinary country roads running from one farm to another. Conditions have changed, and year after year now we are seeing—what we like to see—more and more people coming out of the towns and living in our rural districts, with the result that in my own district, close to Darlington, we have cases of roads which till quite recently were used for nothing except carts and perhaps a very small amount of other traffic, which are now used for omnibus routes, bringing people out of Darlington to visit our country districts and to live somewhere up in the very lovely districts which lie rather beyond. What I am trying to point out is that the character of the

  1773
  traffic through these villages and over these country roads has entirely changed, and instead of having old farm carts travelling over our roads, we have now an almost interminable procession of omnibuses and motors generally travelling across these roads, and doing an amount of damage which has to be paid for entirely by the local ratepayers. This grant which is being made to help these roads ought to be reviewed, and I suggest that the Minister should go into the question of the traffic which is going over these roads and see whether, in common fairness, that grant which he is proposing to make cannot be increased.
  In conclusion, I would like to say that I sent the right hon. Gentleman some resolutions which I had received from the Croft Rural Council and the Darlington Rural Council, and he gave me a very courteous and kind reply, in which he pointed out that the sum had been allocated, but I would like to press on him that the conditions have so changed that the amount allocated must be increased, and I hope he will bear that matter in mind when he comes to revise his Estimate.
  Major G. F. DAVIES: I have not been in this House very long, but I have been here long enough to learn that when hon. Members speak of their own constituencies, they interest themselves very much, but they tend to bore everyone else. Therefore, I do not propose to follow some of my predecessors in this Debate in saying what my constituency is, and although I represent a rural constituency, I do not propose to attack motorists as such for the damage they do to the roads. My interests are principally with the claims of the secondary and third-class roads in the rural parts of the country. What I want to point out to the Committee is that, whether we speak of main arteries or first-class, second-class, or third-class roads, we are up against a fundamental difficulty, which is, in short, that we have to try to reconcile two great conflicting principles. The first is that freedom and development of transportation of any sort are a necessary forerunner to the development of civilisation. That we know from the way in which the old Romans carried on the development of their Empire. The first thing they did was to build roads, and
  1774
  the lack of roads is the main reason for the backwardness of China to-day. Another conflicting principle is this, that facilities breed traffic. Consequently, if it is necessary to develop facilities of transportation, the more you begin to develop them before the traffic is there the more you begin to develop the traffic, and that is the problem of the traffic in our large cities, and it is the same problem that confronts us in the rural districts.
  What I mean is this: We have heard this evening from certain hon. Members pleas for the opening up of new areas or the development of existing tracks for the smallholder or the farmer. The moment you begin to improve these roads in the interests of the smallholder and the farmer, you begin to attract additional traffic of some sort. The position is made I still more urgent to-day, because when it comes to a question of finding work for the unemployed, the first thing to which one naturally turns is road development, and, therefore, those in authority look to see whether they can usefully improve and develop roads. In the rural districts, we all know, a great deal of that work is being done, and, on account of the conflicting principles of which I was speaking, the ratepayers find that these improvements serve to attract traffic from all over the country. Hence comes the difficulty of the cost of upkeep, and the heavy burden on the ratepayers in the particular district. All this is tied up with the question of the chars-a-banc. There were roads which were just wide enough for traffic when there was no need to keep to the rule of the left of the road, because there was no left to keep to, and, like an eminent politician, we had to keep to the middle of the road. Once you make room for two vehicles to pass, at once you begin to attract that portion of the travelling public more particularly represented by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). Therefore, you have to face the fact that if we widen or improve these roads, we have to deal with this tremendously increased traffic.
  Reference has been made to the transportation difficulties of the United States. Particularly in the Middle West and the West, where they have great distances between any kind of spots that anyone in his senses would want to stop at, the problem of their roads is

  1775
  comparatively simple. It is one of great arterial roads, which are being constructed entirely of concrete. The consequence is that, on the principle of facilities breeding traffic, if you want to go on one of those so-called highways on a holiday, Saturday afternoon or Sunday, the pleasure of motoring is entirely nil. There is one solid stream, for miles and miles, of Fords—I believe Ford is out of order—I will say of motor-cars of various construction, which are following one another at a funereal pace, and there is no particular advantage in motoring on roads of that sort. As they do everything on a big scale on that side of the Atlantic, the alternative is no road at all, and that is the sort of road to which allusion was made by the hon. Member opposite who spoke of American buggies. We know the light car will get nearly everywhere, and get over that kind of trackless path. The point I want to bring out is, that if we are going to improve our roads at all, with the conditions we have to face to-day, with the tremendous development taking place, and the tremendous potential development in the near future, we are adding to the problem if we widen and improve the roads in the rural areas without realising that this kind of traffic is bound to come at once. Therefore, only on these general lines did I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is only one part of the problem of the ultimate agreement of these two conflicting principles of the necessity of providing transportation for the development of civilisation, and the principle of facilities breeding traffic.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I think the Road Fund ought to be used rather more carefully than it is at present. The Minister, I think, should take into consideration other areas of the county. We ought not to take the amount of traffic carried over the roads only, but the rate-able value of the areas over which the traffic goes. It has been said that the county councils can well look after themselves. I wish that were true. But that is not true; because the county boroughs have seen to it that whatever rateable value there was worth getting hold of they have got hold of it as quickly as possible. They have left the county
  1776
  councils the least valuable moorlands and so on.
  Speaking for my own county of Durham, I know that the Road Fund has been mortgaged for many years. Many social services that we should like to see helped can not be helped, and unless something is done those social services which are equally necessary with the roads for the benefit of the people of the county are going to be down and out. I would speak on education and similar services. Money that ought to have gone to these services has gone to the roads, and has been mortgaged for a long time. There is another class of road of which I would speak, and that is the road, probably a second- or third-class road, that links up two main roads. Very often the traffic of these roads is heavier than on the main roads. Yet 25 per cent. is about all that is given. These roads require attention. I would ask the Minister to endeavour to see that these roads should have something more allowed to them from the Road Fund than they have now. These roads are daily becoming of more use. Some of the most important main traffic passes down them, and it is these smaller roads by which the traffic passes from one moorland areas to another. These things require very serious attention. I hope the Minister will take what has been said into serious consideration, and give the money from the point of view, not of giving to those who have, but of giving with justice to those of whom some of us have been speaking.
  Sir GERALD HOHLER: I am not going in any way to cover ground which has been so admirably covered, and which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to give attention to; but may I say that I did not quite follow one or two of his observations. It is not clear to me what roads come under the designation of classes 1, 2 and 3. I do not know whether class 1 covers the main roads, and if that is so, exactly what is covered by the other two classes. But the real point that I wanted to raise is in regard to the new main roads and the deplorable condition of some of them, including the road from London to Rochester. It runs right through Foot's Cray right down to Swanley. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I hope I shall not break the drum of anybody's ears, but I will try to speak up a little louder.

  1777
  I think I may say almost without exception that the condition of the road is deplorable from Farningham to Wrotham and to Sevenoaks. To my knowledge people go 10 miles round on the cinders to avoid these roads, coming out at Tunbridge Wells.
  I would ask the attention of the Minister of Transport to this road, which is greatly used in summer. There is a constant stream of traffic there. I noticed not long ago in the "Times" that there was a kind of an apologia was made in regard to this road. Practically no real work is being done upon it at the present time, and I ask the attention of the Minister particularly to this matter, and I would like him to communicate with Sir Henry Maybury to see if something can be done to put that road in order. Take as an example the new Watling Street, through Dartford to Rochester. What I cannot understand about that is that so much money is being spent in excavating on a large scale the sides of the road. I would like the Minister with his advisers to consider whether or not it is a wise thing at the present time, having regard to the point which has been raised, that these roads should be constructed on such a wide scale far in excess of what is needed. Surely this work could be limited, and the money spent on smaller roads in the various counties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go into these matters and consider them very carefully.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: This Vote covers the main roads in the urban districts, and various claims have been put forward by hon. Members on behalf of their own constituencies. I think the time has come when the Ministry should consider whether it is not possible to increase the general percentage of grants for this service. The claims of even the unclassified roads should be regarded as a national service, as well as the main arterial roads, and particularly those between urban districts, which are being constructed in conjunction with the original Town Planning Department and the Ministry of Health, who are urging that large roads should be constructed, which are not needed for present purposes, but which will serve as useful outlets in years to come. It is hardly reasonable to expect these areas, which are heavily rated at the present time—their rates are 15s. or 20s. in the £—to
  1778
  go in for these considerable public improvements at a large expense to themselves; and merely to give 50 per cent. towards the cost of these main roads, which will be of no immediate benefit to the districts that are having to pay for them, is not sufficient encouragement.
  If the 50 per cent. grant was a sound plan when the Road Board was first instituted, when there was no question of unemployment, and when rates generally were at a low level, surely the time has come, in the interests of the unemployed, in the interests of the overburdened ratepayers throughout the country, to see whether it is not possible to increase the percentage grant generally, in order, not only to assist the ratepayers, but also to give employment which is so badly needed in so many districts. I hope that, as an outcome of this discussion, the Minister will see whether, in the year to come, he cannot advise his Government considerably to increase the contribution made in this way, realising that these services are mainly national services, due to the change in the method of transport, and not to leave the burden on the local ratepayer.
  Mr. SHEPPERSON: I rise to support the Amendment, but, as has been mentioned, I think, from every part of the Committee, not in any critical sense as regards the Minister of Transport. I only support the Amendment because it gives us the opportunity of asking more from him that we should have asked had it not been for this opportunity. It has occurred, probably, to everyone in this Committee that road transport generally is part of an evolutionary process, and what was good for the roads a year or two ago is not enough for them to-day. More and more motor vehicles are put upon our roads and motor transport to-day is a great rival of the railways. The railway companies have to keep up their permanent way, and I put it to the Committee that it is only equitable that the motor vehicles should keep up their permanent way, which is the roads. It has been stated here that the owners of motor vehicles do not complain of the tax that is put upon the vehicles, the reason being that they recognise that it is only equitable that they should pay something towards the upkeep of the roads which they use. Therefore, I suggest to the

  1779
  Minister of Transport that we are not asking more than is justified when we ask him if he will apply a still greater amount of the taxes paid by the motor users towards the roads for which they willingly pay those taxes.
  The roads must be kept up, and if they are not kept up by receipts out of the motor taxes, they have to be kept up by the ratepayers of the country district through which those roads go. The ratepayers of those country districts are the farmers, smallholders, and agriculturists generally, and they have to keep up the roads for the use of the motor traffic that goes into their districts—heavy commercial motor vehicles as well as private cars. This traffic goes from one large town to another, using the country roads, which have to be kept up by the farming community, and the motor traffic pays nothing towards them. I suggest that we in the rural areas are fully justified in impressing upon the Minister of Transport that he should give a more adequate relief to the upkeep of the rural roads than he has done hitherto. It is for this reason only that I am supporting this Amendment, which has given us in this Committee an opportunity, which we otherwise should not have had, of asking that concession from the Minister of Transport.
  Mr. SUNLIGHT: I merely want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a practical point. Could he see his way to allocating to main roads, as the percentage cost of reconstruction of bridges, 75 per cent. as against the 50 per cent. for general roads.
  Major WHELER: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Transport to an answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ashford Division (Major Steel) on the 28th of last month, because, if I may say so, it seems to be a little ambiguous. I should like to get the matter quite clear as regards the grants that are given from the Road Board Fund to help rural areas. The question asked of my hon. Friend was this, whether he would set aside a certain sum of money from the Road Board Fund for the roads maintained by the rural district councils. The answer was that money had been set aside to the extent of two and three quarter millions from the Road Board Fund during the years 1923–1924 and 1924–1925,
  1780
  that is the coming year, for the improvement of important roads in rural areas. There are a great many first-class roads in rural areas, but what I want to get clearly from the hon. Gentleman is whether a certain amount of his money is going to those second-class roads and district roads which may be running through rural areas. It is a very important point because we were lead to understand that last year under the late Government 1½ millions were to be given, and it was promised that not less than 1½ millions would be given this year; but if the answer of my hon. Friend is correct, in the estimates for the two years combined, only two and three-quarter millions of money is being given; in other words a quarter of a million of money is missing in the second year from the amount which the rural areas expected to be able to get.
  This is not a party question, but one which vitally affects the rural districts. The farmers find that these main roads cannot be used by their horses with anything like safety at all. Very often there are grass tracks by the side of these roads, on to which the ordinary roadman pitches dirt, or who cuts them up, which makes them impossible for horses to travel along. It would be most valuable if the Minister could give instruction that those grass tracks should be treated with the greatest care and preserved, so that horses could travel along them, and so that farmers could ride to market on them, or the huntsman could use on his way to a meet. It would all encourage horse breeding. If he did that, he would be doing something to removing a grievance which the road users have who are using these roads, and who find it so extraordinarily difficult for their horse traffic at the present time. That is only a small point but one on which I think if the right hon. Gentleman remembered it he could show a good deal of sympathy to that type of man who has a horse and wants to get a ride on the roadside and finds that a little bit of grass which is safe travelling in bad weather is cut to pieces.
  Then I want to call attention to the terrible state of these main roads as far as Kent is concerned. I believe in one of the answers he gave something was said about a temporary surface on these roads. Are we to have in each case a period during which, owing to the

  1781
  temporary surface being not ready, it is not safe for our motor vehicles to go along? It is a very serious thing, and it really points to this, that the people who are undertaking the construction of these roads do not understand road making. Take the Maidstone road. The old main road runs alongside the newly made road, and the newly made road is thrown open to the public in this terrible state, being practically unsafe, and at the same time the old road is closed. At a time when we should like to use it we find it blocked. If that is the case on many of these newly made roads it would appear that the men who are in charge of them do not really understand making roads of that kind. Then there is the question of the surface. They are being constructed at extraordinary expense and an enormous number of men are being employed.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order, No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote.
  Question put, "That Item, Class II, Vote 16 (Ministry of Transport) be reduced by £100."
  Sir G. HOHLER: On a point of Order—
  The CHAIRMAN: There can be no point of Order. It is Eleven o'Clock.
  Sir G. HOHLER: I want to raise a point of Order.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Resolution to be Reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto."—[Mr. Griffiths.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  ESTIMATES.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointetd to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates, may be effected therein."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members:
  Mr. Ackroyd, Mr. Black, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Charleton, Sir Henry Craik Captain Viscount Curzon, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Haycock, Mr. Hoffman; Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Mackinder, Sir John Marriott, Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Mond, Mr. Murray, Sir John Pennefather, Sir Philip Pilditch. Mr. Rose, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. D. G. Somerville, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Graham White, Colonel Penry Williams, Sir Fredric Wise, and Mr. Andrew Young nominated Members of the Committee."
  Ordered,
  "That Seven be the quorum of the Committee."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-committes, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four be the quorum of any of the Sub-committees."—[Mr. Griffiths.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee or by any of the Sub-committees to the House."—[Mr. Griffiths.]
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I desire to move, to leave out the word "do" and insert instead thereof the word "may." My reason for moving this Amendment is that the Committee on Estimates have a roving commission to inquire into the Estimates, and it is very desirable, if they choose, that they shall take evidence anywhere where they can get it, and I do not think it necessary to lay upon them the duty of reporting to the House all the evidence which they may take. If they choose to get information from

  1783
  people who do not wish to be quoted or wish to have the publicity of being put forward in Parliamentary Papers, I do not know why this information should be withheld from the Committee. They can make what use of it they think fit. To require that they should report it may be to limit their usefulness if the effect in that they are not to have any information in certain cases if they do not report in full to the House.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS (Treasurer of the Household): I regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw it. We have met him in an objection which he has raised for the last fortnight. He wanted members from the Public Accounts Committee, who investigate audited accounts, to be members of the Estimates Committee. That was conveyed to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has increased the number from 24 to 28 in order to meet the point put forward by the right hon. Member. Now, after we have agreed through the usual channels to meet the views of the right hon. Member, he asks the House to withhold all the information and all the knowledge that the Committee obtained. I hope that the right hon Member will not object any further. We have tried to meet him as far as we possibly can.
  Mr. JONES: It is evident from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that he has not understood the meaning of my Motion. Until I am sure that the Government are possessed of my intention I cannot withdraw.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member persist in his objection?
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I would suggest that the Government should put this down.
  Mr. JONES: I have no desire to go against the general convenience of the House. The Estimates Committee is an essential part of the financial machinery of the House. It is the case that the Government have met me on one important matter, but that was not the whole of what I think is required. I saw that the difficulties of the Estimates Committee were likely to be so great that I declined to go on it myself. It will do the Government no harm if the Committee can go ahead. If the Resolution be now passed in this form, all that will happen is that the Committee will report or will not report their proceedings as they think fit. At any time this additional Resolution can be carried. Therefore I am in the hands of the House.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE BILL).
  Read a Second time; and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN.
  FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN.
  TABLE-WATERS DUTIES.
  TABLE-WATERS DUTIES.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  LAND TAX.
  LAND TAX.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  EX-ENEMY SHIPS.
  EX-ENEMY SHIPS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  DOUBLE TAXATION.
  DOUBLE TAXATION.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT.
  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  OFFICES OF INSPECTORS OF TAXES.
  OFFICES OF INSPECTORS OF TAXES.
  WAR SERVICE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  WAR SERVICE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  WRITING ASSISTANTS AND TYPISTS.
  WRITING ASSISTANTS AND TYPISTS.
  WOMEN CLERKS (GRATUITIES).
  WOMEN CLERKS (GRATUITIES).
  PERMANENT CIVIL SERVANTS.
  PERMANENT CIVIL SERVANTS.
  WOMEN PENSION OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  WOMEN PENSION OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  OFFICIAL REPORT.
  OFFICIAL REPORT.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISCHARGES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISCHARGES).
  SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE.
  SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE.
  POOR LAW RECIPIENTS.
  POOR LAW RECIPIENTS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  HELICOPTERS.
  HELICOPTERS.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  WIRELESS OPERATORS.
  WIRELESS OPERATORS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  WELFARE REQUESTS.
  WELFARE REQUESTS.
  WARRANT SHIPWRIGHTS.
  WARRANT SHIPWRIGHTS.
  NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
  NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  OVERPAYMENTS.
  OVERPAYMENTS.
  CONVALESCENT CENTRE, BARRY.
  CONVALESCENT CENTRE, BARRY.
  DISABLED REGULAR OFFICERS.
  DISABLED REGULAR OFFICERS.
  CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION (G. J. COE)
  CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION (G. J. COE)
SCOTLAND.
  POLLING STATIONS, WESTERN ISLES.
  POLLING STATIONS, WESTERN ISLES.
  WESTERN ISLES (PEAT ROAD).
  WESTERN ISLES (PEAT ROAD).
  PETERSPORT PIER, BENBECULA (LIGHTS).
  PETERSPORT PIER, BENBECULA (LIGHTS).
  STORNOWAY (SHERIFF CLERK DEPUTE).
  STORNOWAY (SHERIFF CLERK DEPUTE).
AGRICULTURE.
  PRODUCE (DISTRIBUTION AND PRICES).
  PRODUCE (DISTRIBUTION AND PRICES).
  NAURU PHOSPHATES.
  NAURU PHOSPHATES.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  GERMAN REPARATION (POTASH).
  GERMAN REPARATION (POTASH).
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  KENYA COLONY (NATIVES).
  KENYA COLONY (NATIVES).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOAK ROOM).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOAK ROOM).
  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  WESTMINSTER HALL.
EDUCATION.
  VOLUNTARY SANATORIUM SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  VOLUNTARY SANATORIUM SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOLARS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOLARS.
  ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, NORTHAMPTON.
  ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, NORTHAMPTON.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  INDIAN ORDERS.
  INDIAN ORDERS.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  COAL PRICES, LONDON.
  COAL PRICES, LONDON.
  DYESTUFFS (IMPORTS).
  DYESTUFFS (IMPORTS).
  BARBADOS AND BAHAMAS (IMPORTED SPIRITS).
  BARBADOS AND BAHAMAS (IMPORTED SPIRITS).
  ITALIAN AND FRENCH SILK GOODS (IMPORTS).
  ITALIAN AND FRENCH SILK GOODS (IMPORTS).
  LOSS OF S.S. "EL KAHIRA" (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  LOSS OF S.S. "EL KAHIRA" (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
HOUSING.
  EVICTIONS AND DECREES OF SEQUESTRATION, GLASGOW.
  EVICTIONS AND DECREES OF SEQUESTRATION, GLASGOW.
  TWO-APARTMENT HOUSES, SCOTLAND.
  TWO-APARTMENT HOUSES, SCOTLAND.
  RURAL AREAS.
  RURAL AREAS.
  CONTRACT PRICES.
  CONTRACT PRICES.
  KINETON, WARWICKSHIRE.
  KINETON, WARWICKSHIRE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA (RENTS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA (RENTS).
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.
  LOW-RENTED HOUSES.
  LOW-RENTED HOUSES.
  FINSBURY (OVERCROWDING).
  FINSBURY (OVERCROWDING).
  HOUSES ERECTED.
  HOUSES ERECTED.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (INSURED PERSONS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (INSURED PERSONS).
  HEALTH INSURANCE CARDS.
  HEALTH INSURANCE CARDS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  JUVENILES, NOTTINGHAM.
  JUVENILES, NOTTINGHAM.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.
  ROAD GRANTS (RURAL AREAS).
  ROAD GRANTS (RURAL AREAS).
  LUNACY LAWS.
  LUNACY LAWS.
  WESTMINSTER CATHEDRAL.
  WESTMINSTER CATHEDRAL.
  GENERAL ELECTION (CANDIDATES' EXPENSES).
  GENERAL ELECTION (CANDIDATES' EXPENSES).
  CRIMINAL AND INDECENT ASSAULTS.
  CRIMINAL AND INDECENT ASSAULTS.
POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS STATIONS.
  WIRELESS STATIONS.
  SUNDAY POST.
  SUNDAY POST.
  URBAN OFFICES (ACCOMMODATION).
  URBAN OFFICES (ACCOMMODATION).
  RAILWAY COLLISION.
  RAILWAY COLLISION.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the adoption of children, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCK s CHARGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a

HACKNEY AND NEW COLLEGE BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name with regard to these Bills.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 2a,—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

CHATHAM AND DISTRICT LICHT RAILWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the remaining stages of the Diseases of Animals Bill, and for the purpose of passing the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, if received from the Commons, through all its stages. The reason for this Motion is a very simple one. A very large sum is due to farmers in respect of cattle slaughtered. The actual amount of compensation has been fixed, but cheques cannot be paid until the Diseases of Animals Bill is passed, and so I move that the Standing Order be suspended.
Moved accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to : Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, it was moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
LORD PARMOOR: I beg to move that the Bill be now read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buck-master.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 :
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
1.—(1) Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall. if the lather of the illegitimate person was or is at the date of the marriage domiciled in England or Wales render that person. if living, legitimate from the commencement of this Act, or from the date of the marriage, which last happens; and such person is in this Act referred to as a "legitimated person."
(2) This section does not enable a legitimated person to take any interest in real or personal property which he would not have taken if this section had not been passed.
(3) The Registrar-General may, on production of satisfactory evidence, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in subsection 1, after "living," to insert "of if he have a child living." The noble Lord said: The point which I wish to bring forward by this Amendment is a fairly simple one, and one to which I drew attention on the Second Reading. If there were two children whose parents have been married after the birth of those children, and one of them died before this Bill came into operation, the result would be that you would have the children of those two in an anomalous position, in that the children of the first child who lived on after the operation of this Bill would be the children of a legitimated person, while the. children of a son who happened to go to the war and be killed would not be the children of a legitimated person. It is purely a question of status, and I think the justice of the proposal will commend itself to your Lordships. I notice that there is in the Bill one anomaly which these words will, I think, remove. In Clause 4 it is provided that if an illegitimate person dies before the marriage of his parents he may be deemed to be a legitimated person within the meaning of this Act. But if he dies after the marriage of his parents, and before this Bill comes into operation, he might still be illegitimate. I think the words which I have suggested in Clause I meet that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("living") insert ("or if he have a child living").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: This Amendment deals with a very unusual set of circumstances, and I am not certain that it is necessary at all. As the Bill stands. Clause 1 provides:—
"Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall … render that person, if living, legitimate …"
and Clause 4 provides that
"In the event of an illegitimate person dying before the marriage of his parents leaving any children or more remote issue, then, whether such death occurred before the commencement of this Act or occurs thereafter, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of his parents, have been legitimated by this Act …"
his children can inherit as though they had been legitimate. It seems to me that the number of cases affected are not sufficiently important to render the Amendment necessary, and I think that its introduction might complicate the Bill, though in principle I have no objection.
LORD GORELL: If the noble and learned Lord can assure me that my point is met, I do not wish to press the Amendment, but, so far as I can gather from this complicated measure, it is not.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will it meet the noble Lord's convenience if I promise to look further into this matter between now and the Report Stage and see whether there is any substantial reason for this Amendment?
LORD GORELL: Yes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in subsection (1), after "happens," the words "provided that at the time of the birth or at some time during the period of ten calendar months immediately preceding the birth of the illegitimate person the father and mother of such person could lawfully have intermarried with one another," said: My Amendment raises the same point as that raised by a later Amendment which stands in the name of the most rev. Primate. As the most rev. Primate's Amendment is clearer than mine I do not move.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "Provided (hat in the case of any illegitimate person born after the passage of this Act such marriage shall take place not more than seven years after the birth of the illegitimate person." The noble Earl said: I had anticipated that the discussion 011 the Amendment of the noble Viscount who has just spoken would have taken place before this Amendment was reached, and I put down this Amendment on the assumption that the question of this Bill only applying to parties who were in a position to contract the marriage would hold good. I think it most important that the House should consider whether there should not be some limitation of time in the Bill in the interests of those for whom the Bill is chiefly introduced. At present it is open to any man to put off, from day to day and from year to year, the recognition of his liability to a woman by whom he has had a child and to whom he may have promised marriage. At present we are told that in a certain number of cases when a child is expected a marriage takes place. Under this Bill for the legitimation of the child there will be no such incentive to marriage.
What I desire to impose is some obligation, perhaps some assistance to the woman, so that she may obtain within some limited and reasonable period of time, that to which she has the right. If that is not done there is only too great a probability that the matter may be delayed from year to year, and the whole advantage which was intended to be conferred on the child by legitimation would surely be lost if it is delayed until the child has grown up under the stigma of illegitimacy which is only removed subsequently. Consider how it operates in questions relating to property. It is, of course, open to a man by testamentary disposition to do what he pleases, but we have to assume that which is the case—namely, that a very largo number of persons either rely on settlements which have been made, or the disposal of their property is decided by intestacy. Take the case of a man who has been married before, and who has had children. His wife die", and he forms, perhaps without the knowledge of anybody, least of all the children of his marriage, an illegitimate connection. He then waits, and under
582
the Bill is able to wait, until quite the end of his life, and then perhaps feels that ht; ought to bring his illegitimate children into line with his legitimate children, and accordingly he marries and suddenly discovers to the world and to his first family that he has another family.
I am not now discussing whether it is right or not that children who are not born in wedlock should share with those who are. That, is the assumption of the Bill. But surely, at the very least, it is incumbent on the man at the earliest; possible moment to make it clear to all, especially to those who are to be legitimated under the Bill. Under the Bill, however, the matter may be left until the end of life to be decided, perhaps, by a death bed repentance. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will see that it is really necessary that there should be some limit to the time in which those concerned should take advantage of the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Earl is right in saying that to a certain extent his Amendment is embarrassed by the fact that the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount Lord FitzAlan has not been moved, because it is true that the one has a certain bearing upon the other. But the noble Earl who moved this Amendment has, generously as I think, avoided anticipating the discussion upon the Amendment which is to be moved by the most rev. Primate and has considered this matter entirely on its own merits. Now, so regarded, I hope he will forgive me for saying that I found it very difficult to understand what the merits were. The object and purpose of this Bill is to do justice to a set of unfortunate people who, through no sin of their own, have hitherto been outside the pale of the law in regard to the transmission of real and personal property. Why in the world one of those unfortunate beings should be excluded because his parents omitted for seven years to do the thing which was right, is a matter which I find it very difficult indeed to understand.
The noble Earl said that it would be a great hardship on the legitimate children if such a marriage as this, undisclosed

583
for a long time, was suddenly sprung upon them. Be it so. But this is not. a Bill for the disclosure of marriage at all, and whether the marriage was made immediately after the Act—and seven or ten or seventeen years after might just as well be put in—so far as the concealment of the marriage was concerned, it does not matter. The noble Earl's Amendment does not help the matter in the least. For the rest, his point, as I understood it, was that his clause might stimulate people into doing the thing which was right.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Hear, hear !
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot help thinking that it is a very mild form of stimulus that such a clause as this would provide. If people have done wrong and have omitted to do the best they can to rectify it until late in life, I cannot see why they should then be deprived of the means of putting the wrong right: and that is the purpose of this Amendment. I earnestly hope that those of your Lordships who have sincerely expressed your opinion that the principle of this Bill is right will not weaken that principle by accepting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: With great respect, I really think that the noble and learned Lord has not met the force of my argument. My argument is that in a number of cases—I do not like to exaggerate, but I am told that in certain districts the cases are very many—marriage does not take place until after a child is expected, and the man wishes to make good to that child the right of legitimacy before it is too late. Now you take away the whole of that stimulus towards marriage and leave it to an indefinite period which I think may result in most unfortunate consequences and increase the number of those who suffer from the very disability which the noble and learned Lord desires to remove. I think that your Lordships will feel that the noble and learned Lord has not met that point in my argument, and that it is really incumbent upon us to fix some limit of time within which the operation of the Act shall take place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): It is no doubt true, as the
584
noble Earl has said, that it is desirable to give a stimulus to marriage in the case of parents of illegitimate children, but the stimulus given by the noble Earl's Amendment is a very feeble one. Seven years— that is a very long period and, looked at from the other side, it may be a very disastrous period. It may be impossible for the parents to marry within seven years. One of them may be already married and the marriage may not be dissolved until after the seven years have expired. It is really a chapter of accidents to which this Amendment condemns the unfortunate child, and it seems to me that, assuming the principle of the Bill is to have effect, it is in the plain interests of the child (whom one is, after all, considering in this matter) that there should not be an arbitrary limitation of the time within which the marriage must take place, but that we should leave it to the operation of the general principle of the Bill.
LORD SHANDON: The object of this Bill, as I understand it, is to do a particular thing which is regarded as being right in the interests of morality and of common fairness—namely, that if a man has had illegitimate children by a woman, it should be within the power of the two, by marrying, to give those children a status which otherwise they would not have. That is either a right proposition or a wrong proposition. It seems to me to be right. It seems to me to be so absolutely right that I have always thought that our law on the subject was extraordinary. Why, then, should it be limited, and why should seven years be fixed? I should have thought that, although not intended, the fixing of a limit of seven years would have the very contrary effect to that which I am sure the noble Earl desires. People do go on hoping and intending to repent at some time. They put it off from day to day. The seventh year comes and there is still a good deal of life left. Why should not any man or woman have the right to do what is proper even to the last moment at which they can legitimately do it? With great respect. I cannot see any real principle in the noble Earl's Amendment. If the principle of the Bill is wrong, the Bill should not be passed; but I think it is right.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I must say that I am generally in agreement with the noble Earl who moved this Amendment, but I am father hoping that he will not press this Amendment to a Division. The point which the Lora Chancellor has specially emphasised is, I think, a good one. A man may have an illegitimate child and then may marry. That marriage may last for more than seven years and may not come to an end until later in his life. When it does come to an end he may desire to right the wrong which he has done, and make this child legitimate. This Amendment would make it impossible for him to do that. I think the Amendment leaves too much to chance and I hope that the noble Earl will not press it.
LORD WRENBURY: I should like to ask the noble Earl who moved this Amendment whether he has considered this case. Let us assume that the illegitimate child is the child of a married woman and that the marriage of the husband and wife continues for more than seven years after the birth of the child. If, after ten years, the husband dies and the wife marries the father of the child, he cannot legitimate that child. I cannot see why the child in those circumstances should he excluded from the benefit of the Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (1) : "(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate-to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born." The most rev. Primate said: The subsection that I ask your Lordships to insert in the Bill is one with which your Lordships are already perfectly familiar. It was in the Bill which was before your Lordships last year. It has had a some-what vacillating and adventurous career in the House of Commons. The Bill emerged from the House of Commons with this provision forming part of it. The Bill, when it came before your Lordships last year, contained this subsection, and I desire to see the omission of it now rectified by its re-insertion. This sub-section also corresponds with what has been from the first one of the arguments
586
used in favour of this measure, that it assimilates the law of England to the law of Scotland.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have never used such an argument.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not think the noble and learned Lord has, but in the House of Commons that argument was constantly and, I think, rightly used. It carries very considerable weight with me. The law of Scotland, with the experience of centuries of its satisfactory working, has been one of the grounds which led me to vote for the Second Reading of this, measure. That has been constantly urged, and I think rightly urged, as a ground on which we can justify the passing of the measure as it came to us last year, or as it would be now if we inserted the subsection which I am venturing to ask your Lordships to restore. The experience of centuries in Scotland is not unimportant, because this subject has been again and again the subject not only of great lawsuits, but of debates in connection with the attempt made years ago to assimilate Scottish and English Marriage, Law.
I agree with this subsection not because of those technical reasons, but because it contains, in my view, a very large and important principle. It distinguishes between the principle that children who are born out of wedlock—born often by what is called pre-nuptial unchastity, which is bad enough; no one would imagine me to be belittling it —should be legitimated on the subsequent marriage of their parents, and the wrongdoing which is an act not merely of immorality, but of adultery as well. The arguments in favour of such a subsection as this are, I think, exceedingly strong. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has urged upon us, in extremely forcible and eloquent terms, both last year and this, that what we have to consider chiefly in this matter—in one of his speeches one might say that he almost said it was the only thing we had to consider, though I do not stress that for a moment—is the wrong done to an innocent child who grows up illegitimate without having had any responsibility for wrongdoing in the matter. He goes through life with the stamp or brand of illegitimacy upon him. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord in the desire in every way we pos-

587
sibly can to remove that hardship, provided we can do it with fairness and justice to the community as a whole, and to the social life in which that child is to bear a part.
With most of what Lord Buckmaster has said on previous occasions with regard to the measure, and particularly with regard to this part of it, I should entirely agree. He has dwelt, I think conclusively, upon this point, that it is really to exaggerate and overstrain language—if it were not such a serious subject you would say almost absurd—to talk as some people have done about the certainty that the passing of a Bill of this kind will encourage immorality ; that is to say, that people will deliberately commit immorality because this Bill had become the law of the land. He has pointed out conclusively, and I entirely share his opinion on the subject, that immorality for the most part does not take place on the part of people who have thought out its remoter consequences, and who think logically of what it is going to lead to, but is due to impulse, or passion, or carelessness on these matters. But that must be qualified. Your Lordships are familiar with rural areas, and know that in some parts of England and Scotland what I call pre-nuptial unchastity is not unconnected with the thought that marriage is going to follow, and that, as they are accustomed to put it, the man "will make an honest woman" of the girl who has sinned; the marriage will take place. But, speaking generally, I do not argue that it is an objection to this Bill that it will in any large sense encourage immorality. There may be cases in which immorality may result, but I do not dwell upon that. I agree, on the whole, with Lord Buckmaster.
But it is quite a different matter when you come to the wrongdoing of a married man in which case the wrongdoing is not immorality only but adultery also. The reason for the difference surely lies in this. In this case a third party comes in, the wife, who did not exist in the other case. The wife of the married man is deeply concerned in what may take place in regard to the working of this Bill, if it should become operative, and. it is because I am certain that you would introduce mischief into married homes in England to an extent that few perhaps realise until they have gone into the subject, that I want specially to urge the
588
need for this provision. There are other arguments, but I want to dwell upon this one in particular. We are speaking here not of immorality only, but of adultery, and therefore fresh considerations of a very wide sort affecting English social life as a whole are introduced.
May I interpose a word about that aspect of the matter as an apology for claiming to speak with some certainty about this subject? It has been commonly said in arguments about these matters that they are mainly to be judged of by lawyers and great Judges like the noble and learned Lord, who have been able to give attention to these matters in the Law Courts and elsewhere. I believe that the knowledge of the Judges and of the Bar in this matter is as nothing compared with the knowledge of the clergy. You deal in your Courts of law with eases which have reached the point that brings them there, where quarrel has ensued, where wrongdoing has taken a gross form, and where mischief has become so patent that the matter has got in the Court, while we are dealing every day with the same question long before that stage has been reached, and are trying to the utmost of our power to avert that stage being reached.
I speak here not from conjecture, but from positive knowledge and experience. It is not long since your Lordships passed into law the Bill (for which I voted) which places women and men in the same position as regards adultery as a ground of divorce. Since that Bill has become an Act not once or twice, but again and again, I have had an appeal made to me either by the wife herself or by the clergy to whom such women have come—"Ought I, or ought I not, to divorce my husband? I know that on a particular occasion ha has committed adultery," or "he admits having committed adultery." I use all the influence I can to prevent the woman in such a case from taking divorce proceedings, urging that divorce in' these eases is extremely undesirable, and ought to be prevented to the utmost of our power. I am speaking here not of what I think might happen. I can give your Lordships examples within the last two months of four cases of that kind which have come directly to my own knowledge either from the woman herself, or from the clergyman whom she has consulted and who was puzzled what answer to give.

589
If that is the ease in my own experience I can imagine what it must be throughout the country as a whole.
What is going to happen if you pass this Bill without the subsection which I desire to see inserted? A man and woman are married. There is no child of the marriage. The man has sinned with someone else, and there is a child, or there may be more than one child. The wife knows it. She has not taken any action up to now. She could not formerly take any action, but she can do so now. Ought she to do so? I say, certainly not—if she is prepared to go on making the home happy and to condone the wrongdoing. But what will be the amount of pressure brought to bear on a wife if you pass such a measure as this without the Amendment I am moving? Friends of the mother of the man's children, possibly the man himself, will say: "Let us have a divorce and bring about an end of this home life, and start a new home life under different conditions." What about the innocent woman who is led, wheedled, I will not say coerced, but persuaded, into taking that step? She will find herself in a most pathetic position afterwards, and through no fault whatever of her own.
The noble and learned Lord, in admirably clear and eloquent terms, painted to us the picture, of the misfortunes which follow an illegitimate child through life. There are very few people who are aware of illegitimacy on the part of a man or woman after that man or woman has grown up. The woman to whom I am referring, the wife who has been persuaded into divorcing her husband because pressure has been brought upon her to do what the recent Act enables her to do, will never stand in the same position as she did before. It will be a position of extraordinary difficulty, and in my opinion a position of extraordinary wrong. We do not want, by placing in the hands of friends the means of bringing this pressure, to make it easier for divorce proceedings to be taken. Lord Buck-master does not share the opinions that I have on many occasions expressed about the increase of divorce facilities in England. He has always put his case with perfect fairness, great clearness and effectiveness, and has influenced many of us as we have listened to him. I want to pay him my testimony of gratitude for
590
the way he has brought forward this matter again and again. Bui some of us feel that an intense harm will be done to English life if you multiply the grounds upon which divorce can be given.
Divorces are far too frequent as things are, and if we have many more the country will regret it as the years go on. I think you would have a great many more divorces if you passed the present Bill without inserting some such Amendment as I have indicated. The noble and learned Lord thinks that the people of England are, as a whole, very desirous of having an extension of the grounds for divorce. I pay all respect to his judgment, but I differ from it entirely. I do not believe it is the fact. I do not believe that the masses of the English people have any such desire. On the contrary, I do not think that popular opinion is in the least in favour of increased divorce facilities. On that ground particularly I strongly urge the insertion of the Amendment, but I do it also on the largest grounds. I do not want to bring on to the same level what are at present on two different levels—the sin of immorality, or fornication, in the case of unmarried people, and the sin or wrong of adultery on the part of married people. This would go far to break down the distinction that has been held by people in the past and I urge your Lordships therefore, to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I rise to support the Amendment of the most rev Primate and I feel that if it is not accepted the Bill, as it stands, has no chance of ever becoming an Act. No responsible Party in this House could pass such a Bill. Very cogent reasons have been put forward not only by the leaders of the Church but also by many eminent lawyers upon this matter, and it is with some diffidence, therefore, that I rise to give my opinion. One reason why I do so is that I understand that this Bill refers also to Scotland. We have an undertaking now from the noble and learned Lord in charge, of the measure that it does not.
LORD BUCKMASTER: You have also a subsection in the Bill to that effect.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Yes, and, in any case, there is no object in applying it to Scotland. But there is no section in any Act in Scotland legalising adultery. I know of no body of public opinion, either in Scotland or England, that has asked for the law on this subject to be changed and for the reasonable protection which now exists to be taken away from a married woman for the benefit of a woman who has broken up her home. Anything that tends to lower the moral standard of this country cannot be good law or of benefit to the nation. I sympathise with the efforts of the noble and learned Lord in wishing to legitimate children of parents who are in a legal position to marry but have only done so subsequently. There are, of course, cases of poverty, mistakes and weakness, which can be put right in the interests of the parents themselves and general morality by marriage, and it is only fair to the children that this should be done. We have already secured that in Scotland, and I accept the assurance that this Act will not apply to Scotland.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the noble Duke will look at the Bill and read it he will find that the last subsection is in plain language. It is that "the provisions of this Act shall extend only to England and Wales."
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am not really dealing with the question whether it is a matter for Scotland, or England and Wales, but with a question of common public morality, which is quite another thing. The matter is very different in the case of children born of parents one of whom is already married, and I know of no civilised country—perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell me of one—that has ever thought of going to the length suggested by the noble and learned Lord who has introduced this Bill. If the Bill is passed as it stands, there seems to me to be no reason at all why there should be any marriage, for it practically amounts to the introduction of free love or, as the other alternative, polygamy. We are told that free love is one of the Socialistic ideals, but I do not think that the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would tell us that this is one of his newly-
592
found ideals. I cannot imagine the Government supporting it. nor can I believe that noble Lords opposite, with their newly-found political souls, will tell us that this is one of the Socialistic nostrums which they support. If so, I hope they will get up and tell us so, and give us their reasons.
In effect, the Bill legalises all irregular connections of a married man. It is a direct invitation to crime to the husband or his paramour, and will bring misery to many wives. One of the great deterrents to an unmarried woman, one of the safeguards of her chastity in respect of connection with a married man, is surely the fact that, if she has a child, that child cannot be legitimated. We all, I think, appreciate the position of children born out of wedlock, and it is only right that we should do what we can to remove the stigma, the result of the fault of their parents. But surely it is sloppy sentimentalism run wild to break up married homes and remove the protection which a woman enjoys through matrimony in order to put in a position better than that of a wife the woman who is the cause of the whole trouble. In the case of the unmarried, I think it is right to consider the children first, or, in other words, the result of this wrong association. But surely, in a case where one of the parents is married, it is prevention that you want, and not to make it easier, or to do grave injustice and wrong to the married woman.
One could imagine the lengths to which a woman who has been frail, and who is ambitious or jealous, and a weak man who has lost his manhood might go to have their child legitimated. In her love for her child, in a desire to make herself a so-called respectable woman, she would stick at nothing short of murder, and not even at murder. A lovelorn fool or a knave of a man might do the same, or even worse, especially if he were anxious to legitimate a child, his own marriage having proved unfertile. He might so bully his wife that she would commit suicide. I am not exaggerating; these things have happened before, and with less provocation, if I may say so, than is contained in this Bill. Let me put it more strongly. A really good woman who loved her husband and found that he had a child by another woman, in order to give him the heir for which he was

593
longing and for whom she was longing, might even remove herself out of the way, from sheer love of her husband, in favour of the woman who had given her husband what she herself was unable to give him. What an unhappy ménage for that man and the other woman would be that which the noble Lord would set up !
If I may delay your Lordships for a few moments longer, I want to give you a very practical example. During the war the feelings of men towards women were very strongly and strangely moved. Many of us commanded large units of young men. They were the salt of the earth in many ways, but they were newly raised levies and had not learned the self-restraint and discipline which longer service in the Army would have taught them. Whole brigades were quartered in towns, and in many cases husbands were away at the front and the new recruits were billeted in respectable houses. The men made friends with many gills, and thousands met their future wives. We, of course, were only too glad of that, but in hundreds of cases a child was born while the man was abroad, and perhaps the father was killed. These men had been weak, but we can at least think that they meant honourably to fulfil their duty to the women who had given them their love. A Bill of this sort, for these unmarried girls and men, would at that time have been an act of common justice.
We, who were in command and responsible for these lads, were glad, so long as the whole thing was straight and above-board, to see honourable friendships between these boys and girls. We realised their temptations and we were not at all inclined to be too censorious. But what would have been said if we who were in charge had not expressed very stern official disapproval of any of our married men messing about with these girls, or breaking up the homes where they were quartered of women who were already married but whose husbands were at the front? In many cases, perhaps, the woman had no knowledge that these men were married. A Bill of this sort would have entirely neutralised our efforts, and would have left many of our men and women no better, in fact much worse, than the lower animals. I support this Amendment because I know, just as does the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill and just as do other noble Lords, if
594
there be any, who intend to support him, that this clause as it stands is wrong, and you cannot get out of it.
With regard to the whole question of legitimacy, it is right that children born out of wedlock should have the same chances as their brothers and sisters born subsequently in wedlock, so long as both the parents have been able to marry. To my mind this is more a question of property and material rights than of the morals of legitimation. It does not really matter whether a man is called legitimate or illegitimate, because, so far as I can see, the stigma will still be there if the matter is found out and is publicly known: and surely mere existence in this world will not make up to the illegitimate or legitimated child for the wrong that his parents have done him. It was the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack who, when Secretary of State for War, told us once, I think in another place, that he had earned the gratitude of all soldiers by calling the guard-room the room of detention. He said this would remove the stigma from an individual who might have been put into it. I believe—it was some time ago—that my retort, perhaps not a polite one, was that a rose would smell as sweet by any other name, and that merely altering the name would not make much difference to the individual concerned.
It may be necessary, for technical legal reasons, to alter the name, but it will not cure the cause. Rather, I think, will it increase it, and certainly, if the suggestion is carried out with regard to those who are already married, it will be a crime in my opinion to every married woman in this country. The only intelligible cases are those where a woman perhaps has deserted her husband, or is insane, or a hopeless drunkard, or something of that sort. That can surely be met, if necessary, by asking for a little longer restraint on the part of one of the parents to be, and making it easier to get a divorce in such special cases, which are more reasonable causes than many of the reasons for which divorce is now given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it the noble Duke who has just spoken will forgive me for suggesting it, I think he has put his case, in some parts at least of his speech, a little too high. He appears to have been under the appre-

595
hension, among other things, that this Bill was the outcome of the Socialistic tendencies of a Government which might extend its activities to the dissolution of the marriage tie in some way.
THE DUKE OK ATHOLL: The noble and learned Viscount could not possibly be so foolish, in my estimation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know what he thought of myself, but he suggested it of my colleagues. The short answer to that is that in rising to address your Lordships I am speaking only as an individual member of the House. The Government have taken no sides upon this point which we are discussing. They are favourable to the principle of the Bill, but they have taken no sides upon the question raised by the most rev. Primate.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Are we to understand that they disagree upon it ?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Duke will understand what I have said, and nothing more—namely, that we have taken no sides. I take one view, and my noble friend, the President of the Council, may possibly take a different view. We are discussing matters here merely individually, and I rise to address your Lordships not as a member of the Government but as a Judge of some experience of these matters, and it is to that point of view I wish to bring the discussion back. The noble Duke, and indeed the most rev. Primate, instanced the case of Scotland and the Divorce Law of Scotland as if there was something very admirable in it. There are some things in the law of Scotland which I consider simple abominations, but they have gone on unreformed because in some respects it is a very conservative country. The provision which makes the unfortunate person who has sinned forfeit all property as the result of divorce is a monstrous pro vision, as compared with the discretion given under the Divorce Laws of England to the Judge.
The law of Scotland which enables persons who have been guilty of adultery to legitimate their offspring is a provision which has a curious history. It is not a modern provision, nor is it very clear in its origin. It began under an
596
old Scottish Statute of the year 1600, which was passed at a time when there was no such thing as public opinion in Scotland, in the way we now know it. It has remained unchanged, partly, I think, because no one has ever taken up the law of divorce in Scotland systematically. It has gone on, and with that extraordinary power which Judges have in Scotland of dispensing with the operation of old Statutes, they have struck out of its effect that which is plainly there, if you look at the words of the Statute. The guilty parties are not to be able to marry again. The Scottish Judges got out of that by not naming the paramour in the decree. They have not extended that operation as they might have done to any other part of the Statute, but as to saying that the provision represents any settled opinion on the part of the people of Scotland, all I can say is that it has barely been discussed in public at all.
That brings me to the real gist of the question before your Lordships. I listened with admiration and with respect to the speech of the most rev. Primate. He spoke with strong conviction and great earnestness, and I concede at once the value of his experience. It is true that the Church sees more of these things than the lawyers do, but, on the other hand, I was profoundly impressed during his speech with this, that he was not giving much attention to what is the real point before the House. It is not a question of the guilty parties—of relaxing the law of divorce, or of doing anything for the guilty parties. It is a question of doing something for the innocent child, who has had no lot or part in the act of his parents. That is a very serious aspect of the case, which ought never to be left out of account in dealing with what we are dealing with now.
The, most rev. Primate suggested, and of course there is something in the point, that a woman might find herself much aggrieved if, being an innocent party, she thought that alongside her legitimate children there were to come in afterwards illegitimate children who had been legitimated and put upon the same footing as her legitimate children. I would, however, remind the most rev. Primate that there is a power freely exercised by the Judges of the Divorce Court, to make such disposition of property under the

597
existing contract as is required. Moreover, by the law of this country, whether proper or not, there is no provision which prevents a man from leaving his property away from his legitimate children in such shares as he likes. He can leave it away from his legitimate children and give it to his illegitimate children. In a state of freedom of that kind, I do not think there is much force in the argument against a clause of this kind forming part of the law.
But, after all, what is the main purpose of the clause and of the whole Bill? It is the child who is thought of in this Bill. He is the first consideration. The stigma of illegitimacy is a terrible stigma, and it is not one which you ought to leave standing if you can avoid it. The whole purpose of the Bill is to remove that stigma, and you remove it effectively in cases where adultery does not come in. But, so far as the child is concerned, what difference is there between the case where the parents have committed adultery and the case where they have not ? None at all. We are trying to bring about something in the interest of the child.
For my part I cannot see anything which gives any substantial encouragement to divorce in this Bill. It might have been right to take up the, line that you will have no dissolution of the marriage tie, and will do nothing for children born illegitimate in the way of legitimating them afterwards. But we have done something in the way of relaxing the, marriage tie. Only last year the most rev. Primate voted for a Bill, which became an Act, which extended the law of divorce, enabling a wife to get divorce for her husband's bare adultery. That shows that public opinion has forced a relaxation of the marriage tie. How far we should go in it, and where we should draw the line, is a question which we shall have an opportunity of discussing next week upon another Bill. But at present there is the principle. There is the fact that these children may be born with this stigma upon them and the question before your Lordships is one which has mainly to be governed in the interests of the children, and not by any imagined idea that you are giving some sanction to adultery by removing from children who are innocent a stigma which they have not brought upon themselves.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I desire at the outset to say, as my noble and learned friend opposite said, that I am speaking for myself alone. Into these matters no question of Party can possibly enter, and we must each follow the line which we think to he right. I want to make one other observation arising out of the noble and learned Viscount's speech. Of course, we desire to consider the interest of the illegitimate child, but we cannot consider that alone. It is not only a question of this particular child; we cannot put out of account the influence of what we may do upon the whole marriage law and the social conditions in this country. And if we think, as I think, that the passing of the Bill without this Amendment would have a, most serious effect upon those conditions, it is an absolute duty to support the Amendment. About the Scottish law I will only say a few words, because it is a minor point, but this Amendment does bring the Bill into closer similarity with the Scottish law. I think that is a good thing, because I believe that the Scottish exception to the law of legitimation by a, subsequent marriage arises out of, and is founded on, long experience, and I think we ought to hesitate long before we adopt this feature of the Scottish law, while leaving out the exception which Scottish experience has imposed. But I leave that point, because it is only a small point, and I want to deal with the merits of the case.
The rejection of the Amendment will remove one sanction from the law which stands in the way of matrimonial infidelity. It is all very well to say that people who misconduct themselves are led away by their feelings, and that no sanction makes any difference. With all respect to those who say that, I cannot agree. The misconduct of married people is very often a thought-out and calculated thing. Someone is deceived, someone is betrayed by that act, and I think the people do think it out, and may be influenced for the better by the consideration that, if they misconduct themselves, not only they themselves and those whom they deceive but the children who may result from the illicit union will suffer some day, too. And if, say, a married man is striving to lead astray an unmarried girl, it will be some help to him if he is able to say, as unmarried men say to-day: "Well, yield to what I desire from you, and I will sec that before long

599
we shall be married, and that the fruit of our union shall be made legitimate". The fact that he cannot do that now is some sanction, slight if you will, but still some sanction, in favour of right conduct and against misconduct. And therefore I. bog the House not, without full consideration, to make a change at this time in our law which may have such a serious effect. I am not going to deal with what the most rev. Primate dealt with, although I entirely agree with his argument that the Bill without this Amendment may encourage divorce where divorce would not otherwise take place.
But I want to put a new point, which no one has yet put. To-day, by our law, if a child is born of a woman who is a married woman, the presumption is—in some cases the irrebuttable presumption—that that child is the child of the woman's husband. You have the presumption of paternity. A child born in matrimony is presumed to be the issue of the marriage. What is going to happen if you pass this Bill without this Amendment? You will have a most undesirable difference between the man who is the husband of the child's mother, and the man who claims to be the natural father of the child, as to whose child it is. You may have that point raised after the husband's death, when he can give no evidence at all. You will in certain cases, possibly, have inquiries instituted as the result of this Bill upon matters which to-day no Court will consent to inquire into at all. A man will say: "True, that child was born while the mother was married and while she had a husband other than myself, but I can show you that that is my child." And he will claim, and he will be entitled to claim, to give evidence on that point, and so to set up an inquiry which, I think, no one of us would desire to see. You will destroy in this way a very wholesome and useful presumption, and you may bring great injury upon people in years to come.
These points are so clear when they are stated that I need not dwell upon them, but I do say to my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill that if he resists this Amendment, which I hope he will not do, he will alienate from his Bill some of the sympathy which now goes with it. People feel very strongly upon this question which we are debating, and I believe that if my noble and learned friend goes contrary to what
600
is a strong feeling of many, many thousands of people in this country, he will not advance, he will rather retard, the reform which he desires to see brought about.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire with all my strength to support the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. As the noble and learned Viscount opposite has just pointed out, this is not a matter which is affected by Party political distinctions. In answer to the noble Duke, I should like to say that he seemed to suggest that the members of the Party with which I am acting now might have wholly immoral views as to what he called free love. I beg to say that I believe that the members of that Party are as earnest in maintaining a high morality in every respect as those of any other Party or any other body of men. And for my own part, as many of your Lordships know, on every occasion I have opposed any extension of the divorce law on grounds which I have often had to state in the hearing of this House. When that question is raised I shall, unfortunately, be away in Geneva, otherwise I should have opposed that Bill as heartily as I have done on previous occasions.
I do not want to go into the questions of Scottish law and English law to which the Lord Chancellor has referred. We are dealing with something which is not law at the present time, and can only become law if the Bill were passed without the Amendment suggested by the most rev. Primate. What is the argument that is put forward again and again with constant iteration? It is the argument of the innocent child. No one questions that argument for a moment. It is no good re-stating it in various forms. It is the whole basis of this Bill, and I am certain that the most rev. Primate has as keen a sympathy for the innocent child as the noble and learned Lord who is responsible for this Bill. But in talking about the innocent child you have to consider whether there are not other interests which must be protected. I do not desire to repeat what was said by the most rev. Primate, but he contended that without this Amendment the effect of this Bill (promoted, no doubt, on behalf of the innocent child) would be to break up according to his own knowledge—and no one has greater

601
knowledge of these matters than he has—the happiness of a large number of homes which at present are carried on under ordinarily happy conditions. My experience is not that of a lawyer. My experience is that of one who has a very intimate acquaintance with these conditions in the country, and it confirms every word that the most rev. Primate said.
When we come to the point which was chiefly dealt with by the noble Viscount opposite, can there be any doubt as to what the answer should be; I am not for the moment dealing with the question that you may be substantially advancing the cause of divorce. I think that is perfectly true. Apart from that, what are the conditions which would arise inevitably if this Bill were passed without the Amendment of the most rev. Primate? You would have the wife constantly threatened with the legitimation of a child born in adultery. There cannot be any-greater injury of one woman by another than that inflicted by an adulterous woman upon the legitimate wife. I do not think that the noble Duke put his case at all too high when he said that in such conditions one would expect not only great interference with home life, but tragedy and crime. If that is so, surely we must regard the proposal of the most rev. Primate as necessary.
Then there is the constant iteration of the innocent child argument—that we are seeking to promote the cause of the innocent child. But if in a minor number of cases—at least I hope so—the effect of the Bill is to break up or tend to break up home life, under the conditions stated by the noble Duke, then I say that the argument of the most rev. Primate is unanswerable on the ground of general morality and of the desire to protect the interests of home life. After all, morality in this country depends on the maintenance of the purity of home life. There is no need to shut one's eyes to that. Whether you legitimate a child or not, the fact of his illegitimacy may be, after all, a burden which he cannot escape. Let him escape it as much as he can, and let the innocent child be protected to the maximum extent that is right.
But is there any one in this House who would say that if the legitimation of the innocent child is likely to bring about
602
these troubles, and even crimes and impurity into the homes of the country, it should be carried out? I answer that question in the negative, and I hope that your Lordships, in going to a Division, will not be carried away by looking only to the innocent child, but that you will look at the, broader moral lines which really underlie the purity, of the home life of this country, the strength of this country and the morality of this country. I hope that you will accept this Amendment and take away the inducement which, in my belief, would bring about not only un-happiness but, very often and quite possibly, crime and tragedy into the ordinary married life of this country.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The Amendment provides that "Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person' when the illegitimate person was born." That is quite intelligible. But what of the ease of a young man who marries a charming girl and in less than twelve months is afflicted with madness and is shut up for life? He lives in that condition for fifteen or twenty years, and, possibly, his wife contracts another sort of relation and has children. When the husband dies she marries the father of her children. Are not they to be legitimated? Surely they ought to be. It seems very hard if they are not.
A great deal has been said to-night about the stigma attaching to illegitimacy. I have never felt that there was any stigma on a man who was illegitimate. He is more than probably the product of real love and he may have more brains than those who are born in wedlock The noble Viscount has said that the children born in wedlock have a father whom they know. My answer to the noble Viscount is that it is a wise child that knows its own father. If your Lordships accept this Bill, I ask you to do everything you can, as the noble and learned Lord said just now, for the child. The child has done no wrong. If you do it, it is no use doing it by halves. You must do it as thoroughly as you can. Whenever there is a new sort of Bill introduced into Parliament it is regarded as revolutionary and there is always something left to be done afterwards. I hope that your Lordships' House will pass

603
this Bill and have mercy on the child. I ask you also to reject this Amendment, because—
"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven."
LORD SHANDON: I may be wrong in my construction, and if I am no one will accept correction more readily than I ; but it seems to me that not only is the Amendment right but it is right from a purely social and legal point of view. I wish to endorse and adopt everything which was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, in regard to the serious nature of the alteration which would be made in the law if this Amendment were not accepted.
With regard to the observations of the noble Duke who gave us a summary of the situation in Scotland—and I would urge, in addition, what was said by other speakers, including Lord Cave—I would ask the House very strongly to consider the plain common sense view which his observations implied. The Scottish people in these matters have applied great common sense to the affairs of life, even very frequently where our own law is defective. They have adopted what was. I believe, the Roman law and the canon law in regard to illegitimate persons, and they have deliberately adopted certain exceptions which, with others, would be embodied in the Bill if this Amendment were accepted. But as I read this measure—I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with questions of construction—it appears to me to be this: Clause 1, taking it simply, makes every child who would be illegitimate, but whose parents have married after the birth of the child, legitimate. That is plain and simple. The next thing to notice is Clause 3. Clause 3 brings in future wills, settlements and other dispositions. In certain cases illegitimate children, in addition to legitimate children, have to be taken into account—a condition of things which may very frequently arise, even in the present time, in the construction of such settlements.
Coming to the Amendment, and taking it not at all from the canonical or the modern point of view, it comes to this—and on that ground alone I should be very much against the rejection of the Amendment. Under the Amendment it
604
is proposed simply that if a couple are married, and if there are illegitimate children born during the marriage of another woman, and if there is a divorce or death of one spouse, the illegitimate children, although they have come into the world while there has been a legal marriage, shall not be in the same position as if they were the children of the marriage. It is all very well to talk about the poor unfortunate children. We all sympathise, with them, but there are other people, too, who must be considered in the matter. Surely a wife who enters into a solemn contract with her husband that he will be, faithful to her, and he is entirely unfaithful, has to be considered. With the Bill as it stands, if there were legitimate children, and if the wife died, and there were afterwards a marriage with the paramour, that would legitimate all the children. That does not seem to be quite fair to the wife of the legitimate marriage, if my construction is right.
If it be right, and applies to Clause 3, then undoubtedly the dispositions in Clause 3 would be subject to the qualification of the contract. Why should it not? If I am right in my construction, why should not the contract of the parties exclude the case of children who were born under the conditions which are contemplated by this proposed Amendment? I am quite open to correction if my view is wrong. I think it does affect Clause 3, and I think it rightly affects Clause 3, but, whether it docs or does not, it at any rate is in conformity with the experience of one country adjoining our own. For these reasons, putting it not on the ground of ecclesiastical law but on the ground of sheer common sense, I think we should accept this Amendment. It has never been suggested in Scotland that this exception ought to be got rid of. Why should we proceed to make this extraordinary departure? After all, we are supposed only to represent what the average people of the country wish to have done. Does the ordinary man or woman realise that we are not only doing a very fair and a very just and lawful thing but that we are also creating exceptions contrary to the experience of neighbouring countries?
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I desire to say only a very few words upon this matter. I hope the Amendment proposed by the most rev. Primate will be accepted. It

605
seems to me that leaving the Bill without such a provision in it would deprive the Bill of the real foundation upon which it stands. I support the Bill cordially. I think every one feels that a Bill which has the object of enabling a man, so far as possible, to set matters right by marrying a girl with whom he has had relations resulting in the birth of a child, and making that child legitimate, is one that deserves all support. That is the true foundation of this Bill. But the way it is looked at is this. It is said the parties ought to have married at first. I think, however, that, marrying after a child has been born, it is a right and reasonable thing that the wrong that has been done should be so far as possible undone, and that the child should occupy the position which it would have had if the marriage had taken place in the first instance.
The Bill, as it stands without the Amendment which the most rev. Primate has proposed, introduces this into our law, that where the child is the result of a relation between two persons who could not have married, that child is to be legitimated. Where an unmarried woman's relations with a man have resulted in the birth of a child the thing is set right, and that is exactly what everyone would desire to see dome. We should set right, so far as possible, what was wrong. But where you have a person with whom marriage was impossible, owing to the fact that she was married already, having a child by some other man, that is another matter altogether. I think it would be a very great blot on this Bill if it remained without such an Amendment as that which the most rev. Primate has proposed.
The noble and learned Viscount opposite referred rather slightingly to the question of whether it would be like the law of Scotland or not. I am certainly not in favour of introducing everything in the law of Scotland into the law of England, or of introducing everything in the law of England into the law of Scotland. Each system has its own merits, and each system has, if I may venture to say so, its own defects, but I think in a matter affecting the Marriage Laws it is a great thing, so far as possible, to have the same law south of the Tweed as north of it. I cannot but regard it as a very considerable fact in
606
favour of the most rev. Primate's proposal that it would introduce into this Hill what is the law in Scotland.
But it is impossible not to look forward with considerable apprehension to the sort of inquiries you would have if the Bill passed in its present shape. A married woman has not been faithful to her husband. In such a case this Bill involves an investigation into the life she has been leading. Her infidelity may not have been confined to one man. Then the question arises which man is the father of the child. I agree with my noble and learned friend the noble Viscount beside me [Viscount Cave], who spoke earlier in the debate, that the more we abide by the good old rule of Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant the better. If this Bill passes without the most rev. Primate's Amendment you might have a most unedifying competition for the honour of paternity. Is there going to be a process by which that may be adjudicated upon? I hope the House will not pass a measure which will give rise to discussions so piquant, and unedifying.
I feel that the absence of the Amendment would be a great blot on the Bill, and if it is to become law without the Amendment it is a question whether we should not be better without having such a Bill at all. I have supported this Bill, and I support it now, but I hope we shall not pass a measure of so illogical a character as this would be if this Amendment is not introduced. The object of the measure is to make the marriage effectual for the purpose of legitimating the offspring where the parents marry afterwards. But to make it effectual in a case where the parents could not marry because one of the parties was married is inconsistent with the whole principle of the Bill. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not be deaf to the appeal that has been made from so many quarters of the House, and will accept an Amendment which will only bring the Bill into harmony with the reasons which have led to support it many who, if such an Amendment is not included would regard it as a very unfortunate circumstance.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I certainly am not deaf to the arguments that have been urged in support of this Amendment. Indeed, they have convinced me once

607
again of the perils that await any man who attempts to legislate in your Lordships' House. I have introduced a measure which I believe, and still believe, is based upon a simple act of justice to a largo class of innocent and unoffending people, and I have been told that my measure encourages free love and polygamy, induces murder and suicide, destroys the purity of I do not know how many thousands of English homes, robs English women of their protection, will lead to an increase of crime, and will, in one short compass, really effect more devastating consequences than any measure I have ever known brought before your Lordships' House. I trust you will not expect me to examine in detail all these charges. They really all arise upon the consideration of the Amendment moved by the most rev. Primate with great consideration and courtesy to myself, an Amendment asking that from the benefits of this Bill a certain sot of people shall be shut out. They are the people who are born when one of their parents was at the time of their birth married.
In the first place no one can or will deny that the principle of the Bill is justice, and justice to the class of children who are born out of wedlock. This Amendment seeks to exclude from the benefit of that right a certain class of people who are just as innocent as those who are born when their parents were free. You will agree, if you are really and honestly satisfied and believe that the Bill is a just Bill, that the burden of showing reasons why any set of people should be shut out from the benefits of the measure is a heavy one, and requires something more than vague, inflammatory and denunciatory arguments for its support. I am glad that none of these epithets can be applied to anything that was said by the most rev. Primate. He realises what the Bill proposes to do, and he realises what he has described as the shallowness of the argument that suggests that the exclusion of this Amendment will promote immorality. He knows well that the suggestion that you can measure the passions which produce immorality by any nicely balancing of the less and the more, or any such consideration, is contrary to all human experience, and never arises in the course of practical life, except for the purpose of an argument in the case of a Bill like this.
608
The most rev. Primate abandons that, and I admire greatly his courage m doing so. Having abandoned that, what is left 2 This Bill as it stands is not going to encourage immorality. What is it going to do? This is what the most rev. Primate fears, and no doubt fears it sincerely. He fears that the effect of this Bill, in some way or another, will be to stimulate a married woman to deprive herself of the protection that marriage gives her, cast herself adrift from the marriage tie, and divorce her husband. Here I thought the most rev. Primate strayed a little into the realms of exaggeration when he said that it would, of his own knowledge, affect thousands of homes. I do not think so, and he will forgive me if I take advantage of that phrase. I do not think he meant that; nobody can say that. I would like to know what is the experience of noble Lords who have spoken and who have referred again and again to the pressure brought on a woman who knows her husband is living with a mistress and has an illegitimate family? How many such people are there? Is it the kind of thing a man confesses to his wife, that he is living with a mistress and has children by her? I have not had a wide experience—indeed it is a limited one—but personally I have never known such a case in the whole of my life. I think it may be reasonably admitted, having regard to the normal circumstances in which these offences occur, that it is not the kind of thing that is likely to happen.
What is it that is left? It is this. A man has committed adultery; his wife, by some means or another, knows it, and he friends of the man are assumed to induce the woman to divorce the man so that he may legitimate the child. That is really all that is at the back of this Amendment. Is it very likely? Is that the sort of thing that a woman is going to do—to divorce her husband, not because she wants to be quit of him (because, by hypothesis, she wants to retain him) but in order that he may give the title of legitimacy to other children, possibly in competition with her own? I should have thought that a more unsound hypothesis could never have been imagined as an hypothesis on which a great structure of argument could be built.

609
Then we come to a point which has boon repeated both by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay, and must obviously, therefore, demand attention, though I admit it has bewildered me. They say this: Assume a man and a woman married and the woman unfaithful. The woman has a child born in wedlock, due to relations with a paramour. That child is, under the present law, the legitimate child of the then existing union, and, unless bastardised, must so remain. It is now suggested that, unless this Amendment is passed, this is the terrible consequence that will follow: (1), the husband of the unfaithful woman will die; (2), her paramour will marry her; and (3), in order that he may create a totally new-legitimacy for the infant who is already legitimate by the law of this country, he will first of all proceed to bastardise him as the child of the existing marriage and will then proceed to legitimate him by marriage with the unfaithful woman. Really, when you are dealing seriously and gravely with grave and serious matters can you imagine a more fantastic hypothesis than that?
This really shows that at the back of this Amendment there is not, and there
cannot be, any solid substratum of fact upon which you can argue. There is nothing that you can do except to argue on a series of imaginations and hypotheses. If this Bill be right you must surely have some unusually strong case not merely for putting this special class of children where they were before—that is, with other illegitimate children—but for taking them out of the whole privilege and mercy of the Bill and putting them as a class by themselves, to remain illegitimate to the end of their days and incapable of inheriting property, while other illegitimate children can. Your Lordships are all familiar with the old appeal that to do a great right you should do a little wrong. I have always thought it a most unsound appeal, but this is a far graver appeal than that. This is an appeal that, in order that you may do a little, an imaginary, a conjectural, a highly hypothetical and, as I suggest to your Lordships, an improbable right, you are to do a very definite, a very real and a very measurable wrong. I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Chelmsford, V.

Kylsant, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Finlay, V.

Lamington, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V. [Teller.]

MacDonnell, L.

Devonshire, D.

Merthyr, L.

Northumberland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Meston, L.

Morris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ormonde, L. (M Ormonde.)

London, L. Bp.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough

Beauchamp, E.

Chichester, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Riddell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Eldon, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rowallan, L.

Grey, E.

Shandon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clwyd, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Lucan, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sinclair, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Darling, L.

Southwark, L.

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Morton, E.

Emmott, L.

Sumner, L.

Strange, E.(Atholl D.) [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Swansea, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Swaythling, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Wharton, L.

Cave, V.

Harris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lyell, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Olivier, L.

Do La Warr, E.

Askwith, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Kimberley, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Russell, E.

Gorell, L.

Thomson, L.

Strafford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection: "(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate an illegitimate person whose father or mother has after the birth of the illegitimate person married a third person and has had issue of that marriage before marrying the parent of the illegitimate person." The noble Earl said: In asking your Lordships to accept this Amendment I may say that I wish the noble and learned Lord who is in charge of the measure had seen his way to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, or to a Select Joint Committee, because the subject is one of great complexity, and many of your Lordships must be aware that it has not been adequately dealt with even in the long discussion to-night. I consider that the Bill, as it stands, deals a very great blow at marriage and home life. It deals that blow particularly in an age when we are told that the marriage ties are of less importance than they were before, and when the looseness of family ties is becoming the subject of universal discussion. We have also to look to the future, because it is likely that this Bill is only the beginning of further changes in our domestic life. In this Amendment I am not concerned with the case of the innocent woman who may become the victim of some man, or, indeed, with the lot of the illegitimate child. My Amendment is concerned principally with those whom we must not forget—namely, the lawful wife and the lawful children. For the moment I do not propose to deal with the hardship which may be inflicted upon the child who is born illegitimate. My Amendment, which I ask you to consider, comes into operation where a regular lawful marriage has interposed after the birth of a child or children to the mistress. In those cases I propose that if the man, after the death of his wife, marries his mistress, then this Act shall not operate to legitimate her children. A most horrible state of affairs will be brought about by this Bill if it passes into law without some such Amendment. It will render the whole domestic life of lawful children at all events one of extreme uncertainty.
My noble friend Lord Midleton, in the I speech which he delivered a short time
612
ago, pointed out very emphatically the uncertain position in which the child or children of a marriage will find themselves, with the possibility that all of a sudden, owing to the death of their mother, a new family may be imposed upon them of whose existence they had previously been quite ignorant. I am satisfied that this Bill, as it stands, does not safeguard the lawful issue of a man. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, when urging the case of these unhappy children, dealt with the wrong which the law at the present moment inflicts upon them, but if his vision is clear, and I think it is always clear, may I respectfully tell him that I think he does not quite see far enough, as to what hardships are going to be inflicted upon those who, after all, have the first claim upon the family life? I do not think that the case of a starving man watching another man eating an exceedingly good dinner, and longing to break the windows and share the dinner, is quite on all fours with my case. Civilisation has its hardships, and laws made by society for the maintenance of the social fabric must tend to hardship and inequality, but those hardships and inequalities are as nothing when compared with those which exist in uncivilised countries.
It is the law of this imperfect world that you cannot have regulations without inflicting hardship more or less upon everyone. I wish to remind noble Lords who have sympathy with the case of the bastard made legitimate by marriage with the mother, that I do not intend, whatever my opinions may be, to touch that case. My case is entirely one where a man has, so to speak, removed all probable chance of making any amends to the woman. The old canon law expressed approval of marriage legitimising issue born before marriage, but can it be said that that applied to a man who has put his whole life behind him, married, and become the father of legitimate issue? In so far as he knows, he will never have a chance of marrying the woman with whom he previously lived. His wife may outlive him, for all that he knows. Can it be said that that man ever had the slightest intention of marrying the woman with whom he had previously lived? As I have said, if this Amendment be not accepted, one of these days you will find cropping up cases of the greatest hardship, where strangers, utterly un-

613
known and entirely unexpected in the family of the wife, will be introduced not only to share the home but the estate and fortune of their father. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: This Amendment is, of course, an extension of the Amendment that has just been carried. That Amendment was supported by your Lordships' House, I understand, on the ground that the issue of an adulterous union ought not to get the benefits of this Bill. This Amendment does not deal with the issue of an adulterous union but with the normal case of illegitimacy, only the man has interposed between his relationship with the woman and ultimate marriage with her a marriage with somebody else. If you get back to the principles of the Bill, and accept, first, that the Bill is intended to benefit the illegitimate child, and secondly, that it is intended to enable the parents, so far as lies in their power, to undo a wrong, and that those two principle's are to be carried out, unless it can be shown thereby that you are doing harm to somebody else, surely there can be no reason whatever for this Amendment, in which the child is born irregularly. I do hope that your Lordships will not further restrict the operation of the Bill by accepting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I think the speech of the noble and learned Lord is illustrative of his whole attitude in regard to the Bill. Everybody is to be allowed to do anything he likes, provided only that the child does not lose a chance of being legitimated. I should have argued exactly the reverse. By this Amendment another inducement which might have been given to a man to right a wrong which he has committed, is taken away. The noble and learned Lord opens the door. I suggest, to a very considerable possibility that a man at the very moment when he certainly must consider whether or not he means to do what is legitimate and fair by those who are suffering the consequences of his action, may say: "Well, I will not altogether close the door: at some future time I may right that wrong." I confess I do not see why the noble Earl. Lord Malmesbury, includes the necessity of another child being
614
born of the intermediate marriage, and I should have left that out of the Amendment. But certainly I think it is not a restriction of the Bill, and if the noble Earl were to divide upon the Amendment I should vote with him.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am afraid the Lord Chairman did not hear voices calling "Content."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I put the Question twice, and no single voice said "Content," and no single voice challenged.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Yes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is too late now. The Question may have been challenged the first time, but I am quite certain that nobody challenged it the second time.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to add to the clause the words, "and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe." The noble and learned Lord said: This is put in at the request of officials connected with the office for the registration of births, and the whole purpose is to facilitate registration, because without such an Amendment as this it will be necessary to re-register in the place where the birth was originally registered, which might be an extreme inconvenience and hardship upon the people.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21. after ("person") insert the said words.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause. 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Intestacies.
2.—(1) A legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring after the commencement of (his Act, and before the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-five, be entitled to take any interest in chattels real and other personal property not devolving on an heir, in like manner as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) A legitimated person shall, as respects intestacies occurring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and

615
twenty-four, be entitled to take any interest in real or personal property in like manner as if he had been born legitimate, save that a, legitimated person shall not be entitled to take by descent as heir of a lunatic or defective, living and of full age at the date aforesaid.
(3) This section does not affect the descent of an estate tail or other entailed interest in real or personal property.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble and learned Lord said: On the Second Heading of this Bill I pointed out that this subsection had strayed in from the earlier Bill, and that its presence was due to the fact that the date of the commencement of the Bill, in its former shape, was January 1, 1924, and that between that date and the date when the Law of Property Act would come into operation there would be twelve months, during which time the old law of the descent of real and personal property would remain, and this subsection was intended to meet that difficulty. As this Bill now synchronises with the date of the coming into operation of the Law of Property Act, I hope that your Lordships will omit the subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 22 to 28, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTEE LORD BUCKMASTEE moved to omit all words in subsection (2) after "legitimate." The noble and learned Lord said: These words, again, as your Lordships will see, relate to descent as heir. Descent as heir vanishes at the time when this Bill comes into operation. It is a descent under the old law, and the idea was that you should not be able to deflect the inheritance of the eldest son of real estate by virtue of this Bill, if the person who was in possession, to whom he would be heir, was a person of unsound mind. But, as the real and personal property would descend equally at the time when this Bill comes into operation these words again, would be unmeaning.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("legitimate") to the end of subsection (2).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: I want to ask a question about this Amendment. I understand there is a possibility—I do not know how much possibility—that the operation
616
of the Law of Property Act may be deferred for a time. If that should happen, this matter would have to be considered, and my noble and learned friend will not object to the insertion in the Bill for postponing the operation of that Act some words which will keep this provision alive.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is a very difficult thing to pledge oneself definitely in advance, and I never like to do it because it may give rise to misunderstandings hereafter; but certainly that is my wish.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 2 :—
Right of an illegitimate child and mother of illegitimate child to succeed on intestacy of the other.
".—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, the mother of an illegitimate child dies intestate as respects all or any of her real or personal property, the illegitimate child shall be entitled to take any interest therein to which he would have been entitled if he had been born legitimate.
(2) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an illegitimate child dies intestate as respects all or any of his real or personal property, his mother shall be entitled to take any interest therein to which she would have been entitled if the child had been born legitimate and had been her only child.
(3) This section does not affect the descent of an estate tail or other entailed interest in real or personal property."
The noble and learned Lord said : As the law stands to-day an illegitimate child is not the next of kin of its mother. I must say that I think it is the most astounding illustration of the folly that the law can commit. If there is one fact that is indisputable, and if there is one relation that no law can touch or change, it is the relationship of mother and child. You cannot get away from that. Yet to-day, if a man is born illegitimate and dies possessed of property, his mother cannot take it; she cannot have any interest in it. She is a stranger under the law to this man, who has neither mother nor next of kin nor any relationship known to the law. This new clause is intended to provide a remedy for that state of things and to provide that from

617
and after the passing of the Bill the mother may be regarded as the next of kin of her illegitimate child, and that the child may be regarded as the next of kin of his mother. If you are talking of simple and natural justice, nothing can be more natural and just than that.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This clause deals with a matter which is outside the general scope of the Bill but is within its title, and it is quite legitimate, therefore, to move it. It is a clause which only does partial justice. It deals only with the case of a mother and her child ; and, of course, to cover the whole field you would have to take in other cases on the same footing. However, I raise no objection to it. I am only pointing that out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Future wills, settlements and other dispositions.
3.—(1) In this section "disposition" means a will (including a codicil) coining into operation after the commencement of this Act, and a settlement or other disposition made after such commencement.
(4) Where property real or personal or any interest therein is limited in such a way that, if this Act had not been passed, it would (subject or not to any preceding limitations or charges) have devolved (as nearly as the law permits) along with a dignity or title of honour, then nothing in this Act shall operate to "ever the property or any interest therein from such dignity, but the same shall go and devolve (without prejudice to the preceding limitations or charges aforesaid) in like manner as if this Act had not been passed. This subsection applies, whether or not there is any express reference to the dignity or title of honour and notwithstanding that in some events the property, or some interest therein may become severed therefrom.
(5) This section shall take effect subject to any contrary intention expressed in the disposition.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much about this Amendment. I move the deletion of subsection (4) partly because I am unable to understand it and partly because, so far as I am able to understand it, it seems
618
to be contrary to the whole of the rest of the Bill. It affects only those whose parents have any right to a dignity or honour. I see no reason whatever for discriminating, for example, between the illegitimate child of a knight and the illegitimate child of a baronet, and that is what this subsection seems to me to do. I am not quite clear what else it does. Under subsection (1) it is quite clear that no one can have any interest in real or personal property which he would not otherwise have had. Perhaps, if this subsection does not go against the main principle of enabling justice to be done to the child, the noble and learned Lord will further explain it to me, and then I will say what more I have to say when I come to my Amendment on Clause 6, subsection (1). In the meantime I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, to page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment. When this Bill was considered (and it was very carefully considered), the advice was taken of some of the most competent conveyancers in the country. There are complications in regard to title which would be inevitable unless provision was made such as that contained in the subsection which is moved to be left out. The Bill is limited in such a fashion as to make sure that in cases where there is a limitation of property to go along with the dignity or title of honour—and this is a very common case—that limitation is preserved and not broken into by the principle of the Bill. I do not say that there are many cases of that sort, but there are a number, and if this subsection was not put in, the complications in regard to property would be very substantial.
LORD GORELL: I am afraid that the explanation given by the. noble and learned Viscount has not enlightened me very much, though, of course, I accept his assurance that this provision is necessary.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the noble Lord will look for a moment at Clause 6 he will be enlightened. That provides that this Act shall not operate to change the course of the descent of honours and titles which would otherwise go along

619
their present determined lines. The subsection which he wishes to strike out is that which affects the descent of property which follows a title of honour. If he wanted to eliminate Clause 6 then I quite agree that subsection (4) should go as well, but while Clause 6 is in subsection (4) ought to remain.
LORD GORELL: The two are bound up together, I agree, and one has to take them both.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I hope that the House will not eliminate this subsection as there is strong objection to eliminating Clause 6.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 :
Savings.
6.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise a legitimated person or his issue to take by descent under an estate tail or other entailed interest created before the commencement of this Act.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation or construction of any will (including a codicil) coming into operation before the commencement of this Act or of any settlement or other disposition (not being a testamentary disposition) made before such commencement.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The fate of this Amendment has, to some extent, been anticipated by the intimation of the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Cave) opposite that he is going to object to the elimination of this subsection. I am sure that I cannot see any possible ground in logic or reason for making this discrimination, or why one should treat the illegitimate son of a knight differently from the illegitimate son of a baronet, or a member of your Lordships" House. It seems to me indefensible, when you have two people in the country whose property is contiguous, that the son of the knight who occupies one place should be legitimated entirely under the Rill while the son of the baronet next door is legitimated to an extent, but cannot succeed to the
620
title. There might be very great complications. A man has a son, and afterwards marries and legitimates the child. Then the father might be made either a member of your Lordships' House or a baronet. For some years that child would have been regarded as in all respects legitimate, but when the father is made a baronet or a member of your Lordships' House this discrimination at once operates, and that child is no longer legitimate for all purposes. I do not wish to say any more, but I simply cannot see any possible ground in logic or reason in support of this subsection and, therefore, I beg to move that it be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 27 to 30. leave out subsection (1),—(Lord Gorell.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: I think this subsection was the subject of debate during the passage of the Bill last year, and was accepted by this House and by the other House also.
LORD BUCKMASTER: No, not by this House.
VISCOUNT CAVE: It was not objected to in this House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT CAVE: At all events, it was accepted in the other House. I think the meaning of it is pretty plain. A dignify or title of honour is a special grant. It is limited by the grant to legal heirs of the grantee, and if you are going to bring in persons who are not legal heirs of the grantee, but who are simply brought into his family under this Statute, you will alter the course of the grant, and you will deprive someone who would otherwise be perfectly entitled to succeed to the title and to all the rights as the legal and proper person to have the title. I think this ought to remain in a Bill; there would be grave objections to removing it.
LORD OLIVIER: I think it is obvious that the remedy to which the noble Lord. Lord Gorell, should look forward is the future abolition of hereditary titles.
LORD GORELL: I think I am right in saying that the whole purpose of the Bill is to make those who would otherwise be illegitimate into legal heirs, not

621
affecting anybody at the present time but: only operating in the future. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Bill; therefore, I cannot sec the force of the objection that the noble and learned Viscount has made
LORD BUCKMASTER: So far as I am concerned, if the noble Lord can persuade your Lordships to accept the Amendment, I raise no objection. I am bound to say that I thought it would be a difficult task, but if he can succeed in it I wish him well.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I foresee that this Amendment, if accepted, would involve complications which I do not like to face. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount opposite (Viscount Cave) dignities are limited by Letters Patent, and in various manners they express a legal line of succession. To make an alteration of this kind would be the cause of great complication, and I trust your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) : Privilege Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TREATY OF PEACE (TURKEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Privilege Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

GAS REGULATION ACT. 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion approving of nine Special Orders made under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. This is a formal Motion.
Moved, That the Draft Special Orders proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the under-mentioned authorities, be approved :—

1. Accrington District Gas and Water Board.

2. Bedford Gas Light Company.

3. Brentford Gas Company.

4. Hyde Gas Company.

5. Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Nelson.

6. Tynemouth Gas Company.

7. Wolverhampton Gas Company.

8. York Town and Black water Gas Company.

9. Uxbridge, Wycombe and District Gas Company.

—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg now to propose the other Motion relating to a Special Order under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. This is slightly different from the other Orders, and has been put separately because an Amendment has to be passed which is, in fact, agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the. Eastbourne Gas Company, be approved with the following amendment:
Page 18, after section 49, insert section 49 a :
For protection of Eastbourne Corporation.
" 49 a. The provisions of section 20 (For protection of Corporation of Eastbourne) of the Act of 1909 shall extend and apply to any works of the Company in the Borough of Eastbourne executed under the powers of section 32 of this Order."—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I presume my noble friend has satisfied himself, in making the Amendment, that it is in accordance with the Act under which these Orders are made ?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords. I should be going too far if I said I had satisfied myself personally of that, but that is the instruction I have received from the responsible Department.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPERTY OF EX-ENEMY ALIENS.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether action has been or will be taken in order to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report recently issued by the Committee appointed to consider the release of the property of ex-enemy aliens in necessitous circumstances. This is a matter which has been frequently before the House, and I have no intention of dealing with it now at any length. My only object in putting the Question is to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to carry out the recommendation of Lord Blanesburgh's Committee.
This Report is one of an extremely technical and involved nature, and I found considerable difficulty in understanding it. There is, however, one thing that I grasped, and that is that the authors of this Report evidently are extremely ashamed of the action which was taken by our Government and by our Allies in connection with the private property of ex-enemy aliens. That ought not to surprise anybody when you consider that great hardships are inflicted, in most instances, upon persons who were friendly to this country. I have frequently pointed out that our action in regard to these ex-enemy aliens, so far as I know, has been harsher than that of any other Government. I have constantly urged that at all events we should treat these people with not greater harshness than has been shown by other Governments. It will be seen that Lord Blanesburgh's Committee do not recommend general release, but they do recommend, what has often been urged in this House, that every case should be treated on its merits, and they also recommend that there should be an extension of the system of releases, at all events in certain cases.
I said there was a good deal in the Report which I am unable to understand, and I would like to have an explanation
624
with regard to one portion of it. On page 9, in subsection (5) of Clause 20, there is the following:—
"Recommendations for release can only extend to property, rights and interests still unrealised, or, if realised, still unapplied and not credited through."
Does that mean that if the property of an ex-enemy alien has been confiscated he or she is to get nothing back? If that is the case, it seems to me not only extremely hard but extremely illogical, and I fail to see that there is any justice whatever in it. To emphasise what I say let me point out that, later on, the gross injustices and illogicality of these provisions of the Treaty are clearly shown. If you will look at page 13 and read Clause 27 of the Report, you will observe that the property of Turkish subjects is no longer liable.
I take it that the intention of the statesmen who framed these provisions was that the action of ex-enemy Governments was of so criminal a nature that in the interests of punitive justice private citizens should suffer themselves, and in pursuance of that principle these penalties were imposed in all the Treaties: the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of St. Germain and the Treaty of Sèvres. The Sèvres Treaty has been superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne, and under the Lausanne Treaty the Turks are no longer liable to the confiscation which has taken place in the case of other ex-enemy aliens. Does that mean that we are obliged to restore to Turkish subjects all the property we have confiscated? That is a point on which I should like some definite information. All I desire to say in conclusion is that, so far as I am able to gather, the recommendations with regard to release will be of some considerable value, but I cannot help reflecting that if these recommendations had been made a year or two earlier, it would have done no harm and would have saved a great many innocent people from severe hardships.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I at this moment beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate?
LORD NEWTON: Why ?
LORD DANESFORT: For this reason. This Report raises some exceedingly important questions, not only as to remitting

625
or exempting Germans from hardships, real or imaginary, but most serious questions as to the rights of British creditors, rights which were assured to them under the Treaty of Versailles, and which, if the recommendations of the Committee were adopted, would be most seriously prejudiced. That is a subject on which I wish to speak and get an adequate reply from my noble and learned friend opposite. I am afraid I could not promise to compress my remarks into a short time, because the questions are most serious and material, and, so far as I know, they have not yes been debated. Therefore, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate, and I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question in a fuller House.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Danesfort).
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion. Would it not suit his purpose better if I were to deal, as I propose to do, with the particular points to which he has referred ? Then if he wishes he can make some observations on them.
LORD DANESFORT: My noble and learned friend asks if he can deal with my points before I have stated them. That would be very inconvenient for him and much more inconvenient for me. It would be far better if he will allow me to state my case, and he can then answer the points I raise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as a matter of fact a Royal Commission was fixed for six o'clock. We have already kept the other House waiting a long time, and if an adjournment was made now it might be convenient.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Question has already been adjourned. This is the second occasion on which it has appeared on the Paper. In the next place, it is equally important and relevant to remember that the whole of this matter has been discussed in your Lordships' House upon three or four occasions at great length.
LORD DANESFORT: Not this Report.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes, the whole question. All that the noble Lord asks
626
in his Question is what the Government are going to do on this Report. Surely we might get an answer to that at the earliest possible moment. I also want to know what they mean to do with regard to the phrase that relates to realised property. That I think we ought to know, and I cannot see why we should not get an expression of opinion from the Government at once.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope the discussion will be allowed to proceed in its normal way. The Lord President of the Council will then be able to make such answer as he thinks fit to the points raised, and if that answer does not commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, who, of course, is a newcomer to your Lordships' House, it is perfectly easy for him on a subsequent occasion to raise the question again, with the additional advantage of knowing what the Lord President of the Council has to say. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion for adjournment in view of the evident anxiety on the part of the Government to proceed with the business now.
LORD DANESFORT: An appeal has been made to me, and as a newcomer to your Lordships' House I do not want to do anything that is not in consonance with the general desire of the House. But if in a very thin House, such as it is at present, a statement is made, it will be quite impossible for me to say what I want to say or get an answer from my noble and learned friend. Therefore if the debate is allowed to go on now, I shall not raise the points I intended to raise, but take the earliest possible opportunity of doing so. That may be the convenient course to take, but I feel bound, if the debate does go on now, to put down another Motion for a subsequent day when I can have the subject properly discussed.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it would be more convenient if the noble Lord allowed me to make an answer to Lord Newton. That would probably give him information on which he can base his inquiries on a subsequent occasion. I hope he will not press his Motion now. I can answer the Question in a comparatively short space of time, and it will be open to the noble Lord to raise the subject again.
LORD DANESFORT: I am prepared to adopt that course and will not press the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the reason why I am anxious to answer on this occasion—and it has a close connection with what I think is passing in the mind of Lord Danesfort—is that I want to show that the very matters to which Lord Newton refers are matters on which I have made myself as cognisant as I can. One of the two special points was with regard to the position of the Turks. The Sèvres Treaty, which would have made Turkish property in this country subject to confiscation or interference, was never ratified, and in its place was substituted the Treaty of Lausanne. I quite agree with my noble friend, because my views have always been expressed in the same way as his own, that the Treaty of Lausanne was based on the much fairer principle of no confiscation or interference with ex-enemy property, and that is the only reason why the Turks have escaped, although it seems somewhat curious that, when all other ex-enemy aliens have suffered, the Turks alone should be exempt.
The other question which the noble Lord put to me as regards realised property —I think that was the expression—is a matter of very great difficulty, and I will explain in a moment how it stands. There are two classes of property which were dealt with by the Commission presided over by Lord Blanesburgh— and I wish to express on behalf of the Government our great indebtedness to him and to that Commission for the intense trouble they have taken in these matters. These two classes of property appear under the heads of (1) and (2) As regards (1), a sum of about £45,000,000 is involved, and that concerns compensation for property actually taken, or debts actually dealt with. Of that sum £35,000,000 has already been paid away. As regards about £10,000,000, transactions still have to take place. It is impossible to give a very close estimate, but I have been able to consult the Public Trustee and other officials primarily engaged in this matter, and the figure may be taken as approximately right. The recommendations of Lord Blanesburgh's Commission did not touch that point at all.
628
In addition, there is a sum which may roughly be put at about £35,000,000, which is not payment for property taken but compensation for damage done in connection with property taken. That is the second head to which Lord Blanesburgh refers, and it is under this second head that he says that his recommendation may affect the amount by something like 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £. It is this, I think, that the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, had in his mind and with which he desired to deal. We must recollect that, whereas the property of British nationals in Germany was not only paid for but compensation was provided, so, as regards the German nationals in this country, they were only paid the actual figures, and no incidental compensation was allowed them at all, so that you are really compensating, out of the actual figure for property taken, for incidental damage which was not considered in assessing damage in that particular case. The result, so far as it can be ascertained at the present time, is that, accepting the recommendations of Lord Blanesburgh's Commission, as I will show in a moment that they have been accepted, it is estimated that the various classes to which the Report is confined would gain to the extent of somewhere about £4,000,000, which, of course, is a very substantial sum and they would have that gain distributed under the various classes to which Lord Blanesburgh's Commission specifically refers. That is a very important matter indeed, and I am not quite sure if the noble Lord quite appreciated it. I think it is well from his point of view that he should do so.
Then comes the question to which Lord Newton has very properly referred, that of the £4,000,000, which is only about 50 per cent. of the amount which might have been saved if the proposals of Lord Blanesburgh's Commission had come into operation at the outset. The noble Lord, with his legal knowledge, will understand my meaning very well. But there is an extended property which would have come under these provisions if it had not come within the provisions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred, on page 9, subsection (5). where it is stated that:
"Recommendations for release can only extend to property, rights and interests still unrealised, or, if realised, still un-

629
applied, and not credited through. We are advised that it would he productive of great confusion if this rule were not adopted."
I have had an opportunity of going into this matter with Lord Blanesburgh, and also with the Public Trustee, and I am bound to say that they have quite satisfied me that this view is correct. You cannot go back and reopen some of these questions without great difficulty, confusion and interference with payments already made. Certainly this is not in accordance with strict equity, because there is no reason why these people should not have had the same rights, in one sense. As a matter of fact, however, it is impossible to do otherwise, so that the results of this Report will really affect only about 50 per cent. of the property which would have been comprised within its terms if it had been presented at an earlier date.
Apart from complications, I think that is how the matter stands. I hope that Lord Newton, on the one hand, appreciates the position, and that Lord Danes-fort, on the other hand, will be able to raise the question again with the information which I have now supplied, and will see that I have at any rate taken every step I could to ascertain the real effect of these huge sums involved in putting in force the recommendations of Lord Blanesburgh's Commission. The result is, as I have stated, that, as regards what might be called the first sums, payable in respect of property taken—about £45,000,000—there will be no interference whatever. As regards what Lord Blanesburgh calls the second category which is of somewhat less importance—what we may call compensation cases—there will be a small interference with the money which might otherwise be paid to the extent of something like 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £, and that is the whole extent of any possible interference with the property and rights which the noble Lord seeks to protect—namely, the interests of British nationals in the distribution betwen the nationals of the two countries.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length, but there is one other point which I should like to mention. I have given the main facts, which I have thought more useful than going into a discussion of somewhat complicated phrases and terms. This matter, as the
630
noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has said, has been several times before this House, and on every occasion it has been recognised that it: was within the competence of the Government and the administrative office which deals with these matters under the terms of the Order to make such changes as Parliament in its discretion, or through the Departments engaged, may think to be fair and reasonable, in order to bring about a just result. In this particular ease precisely the same principle has been followed as in other cases, and if the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has the Report, he will see on page 3 what has already been done. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will refer to this.
It is stated that the Board of Trade—and they have full executive authority—
"have decided to accept the recommendations made by the Committee in its Report dated December 24, 1923, which is printed below. Applications by ex-enemy nationals for the release of their property must be received by August 1. 1924."
A little more has been done, because, in accordance with the Report, the same Commission which drew up the Report has been given what practically amounts to a judicial function to determine in any particular ease whether a claimant can bring himself within the provisions of the Report or not. You cannot deal with this matter in the aggregate; you have to deal with each individual case. It is important that matters of this kind should be widely known, and I am told that this Report has been circulated to our Consul-Generals abroad and to other agencies of that kind, in order that those ex-enemy nationals who would be entitled, if they brought their claim within a reasonable time, to the advantages which this Report confers, should have sufficient knowledge to take the necessary steps.
LORD DANESFORT: Can my noble friend tell me when the Board of Trade came to that decision to accept the recommendations contained in this Report?
LORD PARMOOR: I think I may say that it came to the decision roughly about a month ago.
LORD DANESFORT: Under the new Government?
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly; but I think there was not the remotest difference between the old Government and the new in this respect. If the old Government had remained in power they would undoubtedly have followed—in fact, they were really pledged to follow—the recommendations of the Commission, and if the noble Lord, to whom I am very much obliged for asking this Question, will look at what is called the Warrant of Appointment on the preceding page, he will see it is signed "P. Lloyd-Greame" on June 27, 1922. There had been previous references to this Commission, one in October, 1920, a second in August, 1921, and a third in June, 1922.
LORD DANESFORT: The last was August, 1923.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, August, 1923. I do not think there was any question on either occasion of not accepting the Report. No doubt it has been accepted. The policy may be challenged, of course, but no doubt it has been accepted. The Board of Trade had power to accept it. The fact that it has been accepted has been spread abroad, so that these cases of ex-enemy nationals, who are mainly British women, should have the advantages which this document intended to confer upon them. I have now, I think, answered all the questions which Lord Newton asked me. I agree with him that it is an enormous advantage in the right direction that this Report has been accepted, and, as I said before, the Government—and I believe the last Government would have said just the same—express their gratitude to Lord Blanesburgh and his Commission for the trouble they have taken. I do not propose to go any further into the matter now, because the substance of it is that as many people as possible should know that this Report has been issued. If they are entitled to take advantage of it they ought to have an opportunity of doing so, and I hope that this very substantial measure of justice will really receive the hearty acceptance of all persons who have been interested in this difficult question.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, it was only to be anticipated that the noble and learned Lord, not having heard the
632
points which I was going to raise, never answered them, and I never expected that he would. Therefore I propose to put down a fresh Motion on a date convenient to him, which will enable me to raise the points which I desired to raise on the present occasion. I do not propose, to-night, to anticipate the discussion on any of the points which I am going to raise, but let me say this: that neither of the noble Lords who have spoken seem to have the least conception of the far-reaching character of the recommendations made by this Report.
Some of them are quite reasonable, and I thoroughly approve of them, but others are most far-reaching and most unreasonable, and with regard to the action of the Board of Trade in sanctioning or accepting these proposals without getting the sanction, so far as I know, of either House, that is a question which I propose to raise upon the next occasion. If the Board of Trade have, as the noble and learned Lord says, accepted this, without any sanction whatever from the House of Commons, or this House, if they have done an act which undoubtedly will seriously prejudice the interests of British creditors, and it may very well be of British taxpayers, and have done this act by a bureaucratic, hole-and-corner, act of a Department, without any Parliamentary sanction, all I can say is that I hope that I may be allowed in this House, which after all is the custodian of liberty, to challenge that action on another occasion.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I should only like to say, as I have on more occasions than anyone had to deal with the Treaty in this particular, that we must all realise that it must have been a great satisfaction to the President of the Council to be able to make the reply which he has made. With regard to the observations of the last speaker, I think that, if he will look through the records of this House for the last three years, he will see that we have had the basis upon which this decision was made thrashed out in a most exhaustive manner, and I do not think that it has ever been denied, by whatever Government was in power—three Governments have had to deal with it—that it was perfectly within the competence of the Government, with-

633
out any question of evading the Treaty, to take action, and that it was entirely within the competence of the Department to review the action taken. We shall, however, look forward with interest to the yet further debate which is promised on this matter.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—
Consolidated Fund (No. 1).
Diseases of Animals.
[From Minutes of March 5.]

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought: from the Commons ; read 1a : to be printed: and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Muir-Mackenzie) and reported from the Committee.

WHITEHILLS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a : to be printed: and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Muir-Mackenzie), and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed : The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed : the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on February 20 last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
DOVER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OK COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill : Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.