Sitting of 19 March 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AGRICULTURE RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the preparation of agricultural statistics, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend Sections 1, 62 and 65 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and other purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be, read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

THE EMIR ABDULLAH'S EXPENSES.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact, as stated in the local Press, that in Trans-Jordania last year the Emir Abdullah's personal expenses consumed £90,000 out of a total revenue of £120,000, and, if so, whether they propose to take any action?
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Press statements to which the noble Lord refers in this Question are inaccurate. I have gone carefully into the figures. The Emir's personal expenditure was undoubtedly heavy, but it did not bear anything like the proportion to the total revenue suggested in the Question. I find that a sum of about £69,500 was paid into the Emir's Civil List from local revenues during the year, and the total
852
revenue collections for the year were in the neighbourhood of £200,000; in other words, the Emir's Civil List accounted for less than 35 per cent. of the total. It must be remembered that a proportion of the expenditure classed as personal to the Emir is devoted to what are really in the nature of public services, such as the payment of subsidies to tribesmen, and so forth. It is proposed for the future that the items charged against the general Budget of Trans-Jordania shall be differentiated. Thus the Emir's purely private expenditure will be shown separately. It is hoped to restrict the Civil List to a scale appropriate to the resources of the territory, and the High Commissioner advises the Secretary of State that there is every prospect of a reduction in expenditure in the future.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have been able to take in order to reduce the number of men and women who are at present unemployed; and whether they have formulated any proposals for the prevention of unemployment in the future. The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, in asking this Question about unemployment I need hardly say that I do not for one moment question the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government to deal with this very difficult question. Nor do I think it is fair to charge them with any slackness, seeing that they have only been in office, for two months and that that is hardly adequate time for dealing with a subject of such complexity. Nevertheless, it seems to me not unfair to ask for some information as to the line which His Majesty's Government proposes to take in finding, so far as it can be found, a remedy for this evil.
Your Lordships will agree that no rhetoric is needed to describe the gravity of the evil. My excuse for speaking about it at all is that I happen to live in a part of the country, the Midlands, where unemployment is specially acute, and I have been in close touch for many years with some of the big centres in the north. Happily, so far as acute physical distress is concerned, we may say that the worst consequences of unemployment have been averted, but it would be

853
difficult to exaggerate the misery and grinding anxiety owing to the uncertainty of employment which affects, oven now, about a million men and women, and it is obvious that continued unemployment tends to a deterioration of character which is of the most lamentable description.
There are two or three points about which I think information might fairly be sought. First, with regard to the maintenance grant. I am not one of those who think that it is fair to indulge in gibes against the men and women who receive what is called the dole. I think there can be very little doubt that if there had not been this palliative the misery in the country would have been simply beyond description. We were simply bound to adopt it. We hear a great deal about abuse of the maintenance grant and, no doubt, there are slackers, who are not by any means confined to one class of society. I am certain of this, from whatever little knowledge I have of the working classes, that in the vast majority of cases the men and women receiving that benefit would vastly prefer to have some honourable employment, and I believe that the more we can associate working people themselves in the business of the distribution of the maintenance grant the better security we shall have against, malingering. Already one great anomaly has been removed in the abolition of what is called the gap. That is a great gain, but there is still, as many of your Lordships know, a vast amount of confusion and overlapping with regard to the different authorities to which men have to apply when seeking the maintenance grant. I should like to know what steps His Majesty's Government are able to take for the co-ordination of the authorities that deal with this grant.
Now I pass to an aspect of the question which I believe is really of supreme importance. I refer to unemployment amongst boys and girls who have just left school. It has been estimated that since the war some six million young people have left our schools and that only a quarter of that number have, been absorbed in industry. That gives us a really appalling prospect. Young people, especially when they leave school at the age of fourteen—I sometimes wonder what sort of person I should have
854
been if I had left school at that age—very soon lose the knowledge that they gained and, still more, the good results of the discipline under which they have been trained. The streets are the worst possible continuation school for boys and girls. In the year 1918 many, of us were filled with great hope. Mr. Fisher's famous Act was then passed, with its provision for continuation schools, and, if only that Act could have been carried into effect, I believe that immensely good results would have been already visible. Unhappily, straitened means hampered the carrying into effect of his beneficent proposal, and the anti-waste campaign did its work.
I am sure many of your Lordships feel, with me, that parsimony in education, so far from being economy, is the most pernicious form of waste, and that the lives and characters of our young people are the most important part of the capital of our country. That Act has not yet been carried into effect. Here and there excellent efforts have been made to provide for continuation schools. I could mention one at Rugby, because I happen to know of it. What has been done there, and in a few other places, might very well have been done in a more extended way, and I want to know whether His Majesty's Government can hold out any hope of the carrying out of any of the proposals of Mr. Fisher's Act of 1918 with regard to continuation schools, or, failing that, whether something more can be done to provide training and continued education for this vast number of boys and girls who at present are out of employment. I believe that we are laying up a very fatal heritage for times to come if we do not deal with this question.
It would occupy far too much of the time of this House if I were to attempt to deal with the enormous subject of the provision of employment for those who are out of work—in other words, how our trade is to be improved—and, of course, I cannot pretend to be an expert in such matters. But the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, said some very pertinent things in his book which was published last year. He said:
"Why, with so many wants unsatisfied, are so many hands idle that could help to satisfy them and are only asking for an opportunity to do so? The existence side by side of all these unsatisfied wants and

855
all that involuntary idleness must surely be due to some grievous defect in our social organisation."
How that defect can be remedied is, of course, a notoriously difficult question.
But, to take one example, we know that an enormous number of houses are needed, and we know that there are an enormous number of men who might be employed in the building of them who are not employed. Now, we hear many things, some of which we may believe and some of which, perhaps, we should not believe. Sometimes we are told that there are rings and trusts dealing with building materials which are largely to blame for the slowness of progress in this matter. And sometimes we are told that there is selfishness on the part of some of the trade unions concerned, and that they absolutely refuse to admit any others into their industry. With regard to that, it seems to me that if only effective guarantees could be provided that the work should be continuous for at least a considerable period, those objections might be overcome. But I do not wish to deal with the matter at length—I am not competent to do so—what I do want to know is whether His Majesty's Government are prepared, if necessary, to take drastic steps to put a stop to corporate selfishness on any side and among any people who have to deal with the matter of building.
I suppose what we really want is to get to the root of the difficulty, and there opinions notoriously differ. But it seems to me that it would be worth while to have a complete and expert inquiry into the working of our industrial and financial system with a view to seeing whether these anomalies, of which Lord Milner spoke in the passage I have quoted, can be removed. And I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to promote such an inquiry.
In conclusion, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to offer a word of apology for dealing with such an intricate subject when I cannot profess to be an expert upon it. Perhaps you will allow me to mention one reason why I venture to occupy the time of the House on this question. A short time ago a conference was held of a considerable number of representatives of different Christian Churches to consider this matter, and
856
they asked me to act as Chairman. We held a meeting at which, I think, we had really influential representatives from pretty nearly all the Christian Churches, and we agreed to ask the Prime Minister to receive a deputation upon this subject. That was in November of last year. The General Election supervened. We still thought that we would proceed, and we asked the present Prime Minister to receive us. As he was unable to do so, we were very courteously received by the Lord Privy Seal who encouraged us in our conviction that the consciences of members of the Christian Churches ought to be profoundly stirred with regard to this matter, and that anything that could be done by united Christian action to stir up public opinion and promote a right way of thinking in this matter would be all to the good.
And I think it is worth noticing that our unhappy divisions in Christendom really do not affect the consideration of matters at this time because Christian people of all sorts and all Churches do act together most cordially and most effectively with regard to questions affecting social and industrial life. After all, there is a moral and a spiritual aspect to these questions and we are bound to say our say. I desire, therefore, to ask for such information as the representatives of His Majesty's Government in this House are able to give us on this immensely important question, and we most earnestly hope that their endeavours will be crowned with success, and that in the not distant future.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I am sure that we feel greatly indebted to the right rev. Prelate for having brought forward this very important and urgent question Indeed, the only regret I have is that he was much too short. He introduced the subject in a very temperate and moderate speech, and he made various suggestions for the consideration of the Government. Certainly every one who takes an interest in the present industrial position and in the unemployed must feel that this is, without question, the most important and the most urgent matter before the country. We have nearly a million and a quarter of unemployed. We have, as the right rev. Prelate said, a very large number of boys and girls who, unfortunately, so far seem to have little

857
opportunity of finding work, and, if they are not able to find work before they come to years of discretion, it is certain that, year by year, instead of improving physically, mentally, and morally, they are almost certain to go back. And a feature of the present situation which is almost equally sad is that of the male adults at present on the unemployed lists I believe that no less than a third are young men who have never yet had regular and constant employment. They have had employment from time to time, but the difficulties of getting work are so great that it has never been continuous and constant. I think the highest point of unemployment was about three years ago, when there were, roughly, two millions of unemployed on the lists. Last year the numbers were reduced by about 350,000, but there are still, as I have said, well over a million. It is clear that, even at that rate, it will take another three years before we can wipe off this number of unemployed.
There are some very disquieting features of unemployment at present. Trade itself is bad, and, in spite of our loss in men during the war, we have at the present moment something like one million more adults than we had before the war. Naturally, as the number of unemployed is reduced and places are found, it becomes increasingly difficult to find work for the residue. Another disquieting feature is this. Analysing the unemployed lists, we find that they contain a much larger proportion of those who may be called casual labourers compared with skilled labourers; in proportion, I mean, in the ordinary industries and trades, which means that a very large number of those can never really hope to obtain employment. There are also those to whom the right rev. Prelate has referred—persons who, never having had really continuous work, are weakened in their morale, and, though not exactly unemployable, will find it still more difficult to obtain work.
Another point which, of course, one must not neglect is that during the last two or three years, since trade has been bad and the number of the unemployed has become so enormous, in various ways this country has spent a great many millions in finding work for the unemployed, and a large number of the schemes are schemes which cannot be repeated.
858
The money has been spent; the scheme is completed and it becomes increasingly difficult to find schemes for those who are at present on the unemployed lists. That position has to be faced, and it is undoubtedly a very serious one. The right rev. Prelate asks the Government in his Question what they are doing in regard to unemployment, what they are intending to do and what their policy is.
So far, both in the Supplementary Estimates for this year, which, of course, are theirs and their predecessors, and in their own Estimates for 1924–25, we find that the Government, very wisely as I think, have taken over the schemes of their predecessors. They have taken over the finance of their predecessors and, indeed, in all these, matters in regard to unemployment they are really saying "ditto to Mr. Burke" and they have not themselves so far made any fresh proposals. But I would point out to His Majesty's Government, and to noble Lords, that at the present moment, taking the Estimates of this year and the Supplementary Estimates of last year, the Government so far have not provided a single additional pound for unemployment works, nor have they provided for the employment of a single person who would not have been employed and the money for which would not have been forthcoming under the action of their predecessors if they had happened to remain on the Government Bench.
The right rev. Prelate said that he was not going to gibe at the Government. No more, I hope, am I; but I would venture to remind noble Lords and the Government that, after all, the last Election was caused by unemployment. That is to say, the then Government were so much impressed with it that they felt bound to ask the opinion of the country in regard to their proposals in connection with unemployment, so that the Election was fought on the question of unemployment. There were two Parties, at all events, who made claims that they had an immediate remedy for unemployment. The Unionist Party proposed Protection. The country turned Protection down and that proposal, therefore, has disappeared, I hope for good, at all events for the time being. The other Party, the Labour Party, made two proposals. They proposed, in the first instance, the Capital Levy, under the impression that you can create trade by

859
destroying credit. But that proposal has gone the way of Protection. In the words of the Prime Minister: "They are in the same category"; that is to say, they are not only dead but, we hope, damned as well.
But, above and beyond that, the Labour Party and their leaders at the Election definitely stated that they had a positive and concrete proposal which would deal with, and get rid of, unemployment. They said that the problem could be solved by the Labour Party, and by the Labour Party alone. That was the position at the General Election, and I do not suppose any one would deny for a moment that it had a great effect, and a natural and proper effect, on the electors. I do not believe that any member of the Government would say that, had not the electors believed that the Labour Party could solve the unemployment question, as they promised, my noble friends on the Front Bench opposite would now be sitting there, and that we should still have had the opportunity of welcoming, and honestly welcoming, three noble Labour Lords to scats in this august Assembly. Had it not been for that, the position would have been entirely different.
I desire to join the right rev. Prelate in asking the Government what their policy is and what it is they really propose to do. The Minister for Labour, Mr. Shaw—a very able man—dealt with the matter at some length the other day in another place. He made a long speech, most of which was devoted to the Insurance Act, which really has nothing to do with the question of the provision for unemployment. He did not throw one single ray of light; he did not give one single grain of comfort; and he gave no indication of policy, or as to what the Government proposed to do. When my noble friend the Lord President of the Council speaks, I trust that he will be able to afford us more information than was vouchsafed in another place. When the Minister for Labour was pressed to state what his new proposals were, he said that the Government had only been in office six or seven weeks and we must wait and see.
Noble Lords will say, I think, that that will hardly do. We can scarcely believe that when those hopes of a sudden and immediate dealing with unemployment
860
were raised the leaders of the Labour Party had no proposals actually before them. I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to give us the details, or to produce a Bill at an early stage for dealing with the unemployment question. But in view of the statements made at the last Election, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask them to say what general principle and method they propose to apply to this great question, to give us the broad outlines of their proposals, and to take us into their confidence. I do not think they can plead the fact that they are in a minority and, therefore, cannot deal with the matter in the way they would like. We ask them, whether they are in a minority or not, to produce their plans, and I, at all events, would desire to give those plans the utmost possible consideration, and even to strain a good deal in matters of principle and detail in order to assist them to deal with this great problem.
I can assure my noble friend that I am making those comments, which I think are legitimate, without any feeling or spirit of hostility to the present Government. Indeed, I am one of those, and I say it quite genuinely, who welcomed the advent of a Labour Government in this country. I think it had, in itself, Very considerable advantages. I think that it strengthened our constitutional position. It gave members of the Government an opportunity of learning responsibility and experience, which is a very useful thing, and it brought them into contact with the Civil Service. My experience during a considerable number of years is that the more you are brought into contact with the British Civil Service the wiser, if not the better, man you become. That, I think, will be of advantage to the Government. But, quite apart from whether, on other grounds, it was a good thing to have a Labour Government in office, I think that we have gained this in the last few weeks—that in nearly every respect we have been definitely informed by speakers for the Government that, in regard to their policy generally, there is continuity with the policy of their predecessors.
In foreign policy, in Colonial policy, in policy relating to the Army. Navy and Air Force, apart from the somewhat difficult question of Singapore, there has been, I think, continuity of the policy of

861
their predecessors, and we had from the Prime Minister a dissertation on the Address in regard to capital and credit which was quite unexceptionable in its wording, and would have given pleasure to the strictest economist. The Under-Secretary for the Colonial Office the other day said that the credit of the country Lad gone up since the Labour Government came into office. But it was not because they came into office that the credit of the country went up. When they first came into office the credit of the country went down, and the reason the credit of the country has gone up is that the country has now ascertained that, in the main, this is a good sound constitutional Government, with Conservative tendencies. Seriously, I think that it is an advantage that we have obtained this statement of continuity of policy, because I believe that is the best contribution the present Government can make to the solution of unemployment.
The only possible way of dealing with unemployment is to increase trade and give greater opportunities for employment. The more security and confidence that the country as a whole can have in continuity of policy on the part of the present Government, the greater employment will employers be able to give to their workpeople. Perhaps my noble friend opposite will allow me to state this. I am able to speak with some freedom in regard to the action of the Government. After all, I belong to a Party which, at the last Election, publicly said that it had no royal road to the solution of unemployment. We did not profess to have a panacea, we did not put forward one; and, naturally, we suffered accordingly at the polls. It is a much more attractive proposition to hold forth a medicine as being an immediate and certain cure than to put forward a diagnosis that you must have treatment for a considerable period, and that, even then, no complete cure can be promised. Naturally, therefore, we suffered at the polls. I am sorry to say that I have no specific remedy to propose at the present moment. The right rev. Prelate put forward two or three suggestions which, I think, deserve the attention of the Government. One was in regard to young persons, another was in respect to the question of education, and a third was a suggestion, of which I think Lord Milner is really the author, as to whether
862
you could not have a Commission or Committee to co-ordinate the various authorities, and see how far they could, in different ways, assist in bringing about better results.
I am afraid that we have to depend on two things. We have to depend largely, in the first place, upon our trade, upon the recuperation of Europe, and the restoration of peace and confidence. To a certain extent I congratulate the present Government on the fact that they have dealt courageously with these matters. I am not at all sure that the mere fact of a complete change of Government may not bring about a certain difference in the attitude and atmosphere of foreign questions. I say that without any reflection upon the predecessors of the present Government. Very often one Government can build a bridge of which another Government could not consider the building. I think it is possible that there may be some ways of giving assistance, in that direction. In any case, the only method by which unemployment can really be reduced is by bringing about a better state of things, by inducing greater confidence in the trade of the country, and thereby increasing the opportunities of employment. All these matters are of the utmost importance, especially the proposals put forward about two years ago, and given shape in the Trade Facilities Act and the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act. Those proposals involved a large amount of credit, but it is money well expended, not only in industry but in inducing customers to buy from us. In regard to what is called, I think, the Oversea Settlement Act, I should like to ask the noble Lord, who has knowledge of the matter, to answer the question that I will put to him. I think £4,000,000 were voted for assisting emigration to our great Dominions, and I was sorry to see the other day that only £400,000 of that sum had, so far, been expended. That was very disappointing.
LORD PARMOOR: Will the noble Lord tell me the name of the Act?
EARL BUXTON: I think it is the Oversea Settlement Act. While £4,000,000 were voted two years ago, I think that only about a tenth of it has, so far, been spent. On the other hand, the money that is being spent by the railways on

863
electrical plant and in other ways, amounting to something like £44,000,000, advanced by the Government, must be of great assistance towards a solution of the unemployment problem. What is really the most important thing, apart from the question of trade, is industrial peace at home. I confess it is to me, and I am sure it must be to every noble Lord, somewhat of a disappointment that, in spite of the Whitley Councils and various proposals of that sort, which have come into being, we should lately have had such a very great recrudescence of labour difficulties. That is due, partly, I think, to two causes. One perhaps—though I am sure it is no reflection on them—is the advent of the Labour Government. Naturally, perhaps, that has disquieted the minds of a certain number of persons, and many of them think: "Now here is an opportunity of seeing how far we can advance our claim." I think the trouble is also due, in part, to the fact that great reductions in wages took place in most trades after the war. It was believed that those reductions would bring about a fall in the cost of living. Many of those who rejoiced in high wages previously had acquired habits and tastes which they afterwards, on the lower wages, naturally found themselves unable to satisfy, and they were disappointed to find that while wages have gone down the cost of living has been stationary or has not fallen in proportion to the fall in wages. I think that is very largely at the bottom of the present difficulties.
What is disquieting at the present time is what I may call the lightning strikes from which the country has been suffering lately. Sudden strikes have taken place without, apparently, proper negotiations, and without due warning. The public suddenly wakes up to find itself greatly injured and inconvenienced, and, apparently, without seeing any proper steps taken to overcome the difficulty. The Minister of Labour made some admirable suggestions with regard to the attitude of the Department in trade disputes He said they should leave the parties to negotiate directly, so far as possible, but when temper arose then it was a good thing for the Government to bring in their moderating influence and calm reason, and bring the two parties together under an impartial Chairman, and with as much publicity as possible. Those are admirable senti-
864
ments, and they are exactly the lines which have always dominated the action of the Board of Trade in years gone by and the Ministry of Labour for some years past. There is nothing new in them and we shall certainly support the Minister of Labour—and I am sure public opinion will support him—if, in some way or another, a Committee of Inquiry under au impartial Chairman could consider the dispute before a strike takes place. I admit the suggestion might be difficult to carry out—I am not speaking of compulsory arbitration, because neither side would agree to that—but I am sure the country would support any Government in insisting upon a Committee of Inquiry sitting before any strike actually took place.
The most rev. Prelate referred to the question of maintenance as well as to the question of work and the Insurance Acts. The Government have foreshadowed certain proposals in regard to the Insurance Acts in order to amelioriate the conditions of those who receive the benefits. I quite agree with the view that they are not doles. Those who receive these benefits bear their share of the insurance. But every one would sympathise with any proposals which made the Insurance Acts more popular in the proper sense of the term and which did not at the same time diminish the incentive to work. I hope the noble Lord, when dealing with this question of unemployment, will not depart from the contributory basis of the original Act of 1911, for which I was personally responsible. It has worked well ever since. It has produced an effective and large surplus, has enabled the scheme to be extended from two million people to twelve million, and has put the whole position on a very satisfactory basis. I ask the Government to think many times before they depart from the contributory basis. Employers, workmen and the State should all contribute. Any proposal that the whole of the cost should be placed on the State would be absolutely fatal. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make these remarks. Any suggestions coming from any quarter of the House which show a real attempt to deal with unemployment will receive not only our sympathy but our support.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to

865
address a few remarks to the House before he replies. It seems to me that the Government cannot be acquainted with the amount of support they would get everywhere in the country if they really put forward some bold policy for dealing with unemployment. The Government do not realise how strong is the feeling on this question in many parts. After all, noble Lords who address your Lordships from the Opposition side of this House dissolved Parliament on unemployment. They had a plan; but they were beaten. Noble Lords who now sit on the Government side of the House told us that they had a plan. I hope it will be forthcoming. I want to give them credit for one thing. That is, that as regards the plans which were worked out by the Coalition Government, and by the Conservative Government which followed, for dealing with unemployment, they have carried out those plans and done all they could to develop them. But I must remind them that so far, although they have been in office for some time, they have not yet produced one single thought themselves. They have not produced a plan; they have nut put before us one single proposal for dealing with unemployment. There is no evidence of any new idea. Unemployment is a very serious evil. It is a pity it should be exaggerated, and I think it was exaggerated by the right rev. Prelate who raised the question. He said that there were about 4,500,000 young people out of work.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: No; what I said was that six million children had left school since the war and that only a quarter of them had been absorbed in industry.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: If six million children have left school and only a quarter of them have been absorbed in industry. I should have thought there were four and a half millions left. I am very sorry if I misunderstood the right rev. Prelate. At any rate, the figure is a bad one. The number of unemployed is nearly a million and a quarter, and what is perhaps the saddest feature and a feature which those who advocated fighting the last war to the end are specially responsible for dealing with, is that there are a quarter of a million young men in the country to-day who left school, went straight into the Army, and have never found a job since. That
866
is the saddest feature of the case. Those of us who have had to give up work because of some illness know how hard it is to start work again after you have been idle for a considerable time. A man loses the capacity for work. I think the Government ought to produce some plan, though I admit that they have done their best to extend the plans of the preceding Government.
Let me put before them as a palliative the suggestions that were made by the Liberals at the last General Election—namely, that there should be a much bigger programme of great public works. People may argue that great public works are extravagant and wasteful, but the answer is that they are not so wasteful as the dole. If you go in for great public works, roads and bridges, you may not get full interest for your money, but it is better than allowing your people to live on the dole, doing nothing, and losing the capacity for work. That is what is going on. Apart from big public undertakings, I have also a little practical suggestion to make. I admit it is purely a palliative and nothing else. I put it before the last Government before it went out of office; I do not know whether they accepted or rejected it; but I believe they were actually considering it. I refer to shipbuilding.
The greatest of all the evils to-day is the evil in the shipbuilding towns. On the Unemployment Grants Committee we have had figures before us to show that in some of the shipbuilding towns, to-day, the percentage of unemployment is between 50 and 60 per cent. It is a terrible state of affairs. But if you could get employment going there you would support everybody else. I would suggest to the Government that they should order ships in partnership with the shipbuilders. I do not believe that is altogether against their policy. So far as I can understand the Socialist theory, it is that the Government should undertake works. They have no private yards of their own at the moment, and if they are going to build ships alone they must do so in the public dockyards, which, so far as I know, would be unsuitable for the purpose. If they were suitable, so much the better.
It has come to my notice in the way of business that when shipbuilding is very bad shipbuilders, in the course of their

867
trade, have to build ships speculatively. A man may have a shipyard, but it is not that which makes him a shipbuilder. If any noble Lord went and bought a shipyard to-morrow he would not be a shipbuilder. You need the skilled staff and the heads of departments, and every shipbuilder who has no work in his yard must, somehow, keep his head men together, or else, when times mend, he cannot be a shipbuilder at all. In bad times the shipbuilders occasionally build a ship speculatively. They take a ship, probably some ordinary kind of tramp which they consider will sell readily when times mend, put it down and go on with it slowly, building at their own expense and relying upon selling it when better times come round. If times mend they make a profit on it; if not, they may even make a loss, but at any rate they keep their men together. I put it to your Lordships, from the point of view of the country, that if that process pays the private shipbuilder it ought to pay the people of the country.
Look at it from this point of view. What do you use when you are building a ship? You use iron and steel supplied by Great Britain. You put the ironworkers and the steelworkers to work, and thus you put the collieries to work, and also the engine builders. A ship is made of British material by British labour from start to finish. I press upon the Government as a palliative that they should start shipbuilding in partnership with shipbuilders, and upon some such basis as this. I would have the Government call the shipbuilders together, or at any rate those of them whose yards are empty or nearly empty, and ask them whether they would not like to build one or more ships on the terms that when the ship is built, if it is sold at a profit—and I say this because you want to give the man an interest in selling at a profit—the builders shall have three-quarters of the profit, and if the ship is sold at a loss the Government shall bear half the loss and the builder the other half. I believe that you could build a number of ships with very little loss, and, taking the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the taxpayers, you would at any rate save the money which is now wasted in doles, and would get the shipbuilders, iron-makers, steel-
868
markers, engine builders and the collieries to work. I believe, from the point of view of the Government, that anything lost in selling a ship would be made up by avoiding the present waste on doles. That is a suggestion for a palliative, and I know it is only a palliative.
No doubt, the shipbuilders will object. They will say they have a number of ships lying by already and do not want more. A great number of these ships that are lying by ought to be scrapped, and will have to be scrapped sooner or later. The sooner they are scrapped the better. I know the shipowners will object, but, after all, the shipowners have done very well. We all know that, of all those who made a profit out of the war, the shipowners made, the most, and, whether the return of prosperity to shipowners is deferred for a few months or a few years, I venture to say that, if the shipowners do object to helping the Government to build ships, they will get very little sympathy from any class in this country.
I am talking of palliatives, but I am convinced that there is only one remedy. Nobody professes to have a remedy except noble Lords opposite, and they do not produce it, but I, for my part, am convinced that the only real remedy is the remedy of emigration. I do not believe for a moment that people can be dumped abroad as they used to be in days gone by. Emigration to-day, if it is to be successful, will have to be intelligently directed, and great sums will have to be spent upon it. How are you going to get out of this evil of unemployment without emigration? You have, to-day, a million more people in this country than you had before the war. People tell us that trade will right itself again presently, that it will be better next year, or the year after, or the year after that, and then the problem of unemployment will be settled. If you had the trade in this country that you had before the war it would not settle the evil of unemployment. To begin with, you have a greater population, and the population is increasing year by year out of proportion to the numbers that emigrate. There is another point. Since the war some 600,000 or 700,000 women have gone into industry who did not work before. Some of them may have taken work in the war when their services were needed, and some of them may have taken work because their parents were not

869
so well off as they had been. But the fact remains that you have in industry at least 600,000 or 700,000 more women than you had before the war, and even if you revived the trade which you had before the war, you would still have a great amount of unemployment, and there would be at least 600,000 or 700,000 people out of work.
If you do not emigrate, what are you going to do? As I have said, I should not be in favour of dumped emigration, but I should like to see Ministers, such as the Colonial Secretary, consulting the Colonies and asking them what they want done. In agreement with the Colonies you might build a railway, you might put up manufactories, you could put up fish-curing stations, and so on. If, by agreement with the Colonies, you could put down great works of a reproductive nature, it could be done on two bases; (1) that all material should come from Great Britain and (2) that every man employed on those works, first and last, should come from Croat Britain. If you built a railway in a Colony you would have every man on that railway, from the general manager down to the porter, corning from Great Britain. In other words, in assisting emigration, I would work by putting men down at their own trades in new lands, and I believe that is the only way to make emigration successful.
You may lose money over it. I do not think that, if it were done intelligently, you would lose very much, because it ought to be part of the plan that, if you put down great works in a Colony, those works, as and when you have a chance, should be sold, and the money transferred to other works. But if you lost money, you would at any rate be getting something for your money. Who are our best customers? Surely they are the people of our Colonies. Those are the populations which you ought to increase. Those are the populations that help your home trade. If you spend money intelligently on emigration you will get the people from this country into their own trades in other countries. You might lose money—as I have said, I do not think you would lose much—but you would end this wretched system of doles and be making an attempt to cure the great evil of unemployment, which, so far as I can see, no one has proposed any scheme for ending.
870
I would like to point out that if you could take away two or three millions of the people from this country, or reduce the population here even by a million or less, you would create a demand for employment at a good rate of wages, and you might avoid, by lessening the competition among workers, some of those evils of strikes and disagreements which at the present moment are being an absolute curse to the country.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, we have had three very interesting speeches on this difficult, problem. I am afraid I shall have to occupy your attention for some time, both because the topics to which reference has been made are numerous, and because the questions connected with them are in many instances exceedingly difficult. I agree with what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, that you must be careful, in dealing with this matter, to draw a great distinction between ordinary trade revival and ordinary trade work, and what ho called palliatives. No doubt, at the present moment, having regard to the conditions which prevail after the great war, it is essential that there should be palliatives provided, as well as to secure that every step practicable shall be taken to provide a better condition as regards trade prospects. I also agree with the noble Earl in what he said on this point. There are two matters of very great importance, one being the question of the general peace settlement in Europe—that must never be left out of account on the question of trade revival—and I believe he is right in his statement that the prospects as regards peace settlement in Europe are really better now than they have ever been since the end of the great war.
The other question to which he directed our attention was that of dealing with industrial disputes. I have no objection whatever to the statement which he has made as regards dealing with industrial disputes, but I want to say that I do claim, on behalf of the present Government, that they have dealt, and dealt effectively, with various industrial disputes, even during the short period that they have been in power—a number of difficult disputes on the railways and docks and in other directions. Where, however, I am entirely in agreement with the noble Earl is in this, that the exact

871
moment of useful intervention in these trade disputes is a matter of great difficulty. We cannot lay down any general principle. You must have regard to particular conditions in each case; and it is to the credit of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Shaw, that in this difficult topic of dealing with industrial disputes, involving labour strikes, he has, on the whole, succeeded in an admirable manner.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer specially at the outset of my remarks, because it applies to what has been said by Lord St. Davids and also by Lord Buxton. The question of emigration is a much more difficult one than either of those noble Lords seems to appreciate, and the difficulty does not arise with us. It arises in the relationship between ourselves and our Dominions, and I presume that when the noble Viscount talked about our Colonies he really meant our Dominions. It is all very well to talk about sending over to our Dominions a large number of skilled workmen and all the plant and apparatus necessary—
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I suggested that the whole thing should be in agreement with the Dominions, under schemes put forward by them.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think I misrepresent the noble Viscount. I quite agree with what he said, that if you were to get the Dominions desirous to carry out such a scheme as he suggests, and if they made such a suggestion, it should be so carried out. I do not differ from him that, at any rate as a palliative for unemployment, great advantage might thus be derived, but the difficulty is to get that agreement. That is a very different matter altogether. It is all very well to say that if this and that premise is correct great results would follow.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Has any Government ever gone to the Dominions and said it would be willing to find the money for great development schemes? I do not believe that any such proposition has ever been put to the Dominions.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to answer that. I thought the noble Viscount said that the proposition was to come from the Dominions, and that if the
872
proposition so came there ought to be no difficulty. My answer is that so far as I know, not only has no such proposition been made, but I think it extremely unlikely that it ever will be made, having regard to labour conditions in the Dominions.
I will pass on to what the noble Earl said. He asked me about the Oversea Settlement Act. I have been enabled to get a note which shows exactly how the matter stands, and indicates what are the difficulties. It is true, as he stated, that only about £400,000 has been spent. The speed at which the scheme works is limited by the capacity of the Dominions to absorb the applicants of the right type. It is necessary to ensure that those who go will go to employment. The Government are considering how it may be possible to speed up this matter. Again, it is a matter which can only be carried out successfully by agreement and co-operation between our Dominions and ourselves. Of course, we cannot dump a number of men, for whom no employment has been found, in any part of our Dominions. Everybody knows that these emigration questions are matters which must be settled and agreed.
The whole question of emigration is, however, receiving the most careful attention at the present time. The Oversea Settlement Committee, which is the authority in this matter of emigration to the Dominions, meets almost weekly. It is a strong representative Committee, and all the aspects of emigration receive from it the closest consideration. So far as the Government are concerned, conscious as they are of the great evils of unemployment, recognising that in addition to substantial trade revival there must be a period of palliatives, your Lordships may take it that if further assistance can be given towards speeding up emigration the present Government will do everything in its power.
I think that, having dealt with these two matters. I should like now to give some statistics, in order that your Lordships may appreciate exactly what the difficulty is at the present moment. It is very important that the area and extent of the difficulty should be realised. Afterwards I shall have, I am afraid at some length, to deal with the proposals which the Government have so far

873
brought forward. I think that those statistics will be sufficient to indicate how the difficulty stands. I shall give the figures for February of each year, because in that month they afford a proper basis of comparison, and it is in February of each year that, as a rule, the amount of unemployment is greatest. It is not fair to make a, comparison between June in one year and February in another, so I have taken the figures for February in 1922, 1923, and 1924. I agree with what was said either by the noble Earl or the right rev. Prelate, that what is called the peak of unemployment, when the number was 2,200,000, was at an earlier date—namely, in June or July, 1921.
In February, 1922, the number of men unemployed was 1,334,740; in 1923, 1,041,698. Your Lordships will see a diminution of practically 300,000. In February, 1924, the figures had gone down again to about a corresponding extent, because the number of men out of employment then was 829,965. This shows a constant and continuous improvement in the figures. In round figures the number of boys unemployed in February, 1922, was 61,000; in 1923, 45,000; in 1924, 35,000. The number of women unemployed in February, 1922, was 293,000; in 1923, 202,000; in 1924, 219,000—there you have an increase. The number of girls unemployed in February, 1922, was 43,000; in 1923, 38,000; in 1924, 35,000. I have given the figures separately for the purposes of analysis, but, taking the aggregate, the number in February, 1922, was 1,733,130; in 1923, 1,328,054; in 1924, 1,119,955.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Do those figures include part-time unemployment?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think so. I think it is total unemployment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Do the figures include agricultural labourers?
LORD PARMOOR: I think they include every one, but I do not think the agricultural labourer would be a large factor, in any case. However, the figures are supplied to me as representing the total. That, enables me to answer a question of the noble Earl. He raised a very important point as regards the Unemploy-
874
ment Insurance Act, 1911. He pointed out the importance of making an Insurance Act at any rate self-supporting.
EARL BUXTON: Contributory.
LORD PARMOOR: During the time when the amount of unemployment was at its height the Insurance Act became not self-supporting, and, in consequence, considerable borrowing was allowed from the Treasury; at one time I think it amounted to as much as £20,000,000. But, as unemployment has decreased, the Insurance Act has become self-supporting—because the noble Earl will understand that as unemployment diminishes the call on the Unemployment Fund becomes less—and the anticipation is that within a short time, if the conditions of unemployment continue to improve as they have improved, not only will the whole debt be paid off, but there will be a considerable sum in hand, as there was in old days under the Insurance scheme.
But I should like to add this—I cannot say more because some of these matters have to be discussed elsewhere in the first instance our proposals as regards unemployment insurance will have the most careful consideration of the Government actuary from the point of view of ensuring, as far as one can in a matter of this kind, that the scheme shall be a self-supporting one. Therefore, I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said, and the policy of the Government will be entirely in accordance with his suggestion—namely, that a scheme of this kind should be, so far as possible, on a self-supporting basis. I will give the percentages of unemployment, which also show a very considerable improvement. These figures are for the months of January: in 1922, 17 per cent.; in 1923, 12·8 per cent.; in 1924, 11·8 per cent.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Does that mean insured people?
LORD PARMOOR: It is the percentage of unemployment in the insured industries.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It would not cover the agricultural labourers then?
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble and learned Lord is right in that, though I do not think the agricultural labourers makes

875
very much difference in the total. These figures relate to the insured industries, and agricultural labour is not one of the insured industries at the present time. I want to give one or two further figures, which I think will supply an answer to one of the proposals made by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I do not wish him to think that I am criticising any palliative that he suggests. It is of importance to the Government that palliatives should be suggested in regard to this difficult question. But the amount, or the percentage, of unemployment varies enormously in different industries. At the present time there is very full employment in the coal trade. The amount of unemployment among the miners is only 2·4 per cent. In the tin-plate and steel sheet industry the amount of unemployment is only 3·6 per cent. The noble Viscount suggested—and I do not want in any way to depreciate his suggestion—a shipbuilding programme, partly private and partly governmental, and one of the reasons by which he enforced his argument was that you would give employment to miners. But, as I have said, the miners are fully employed at the present time, and, even of a scheme of this kind were put into force, one of the difficulties would be to obtain the necessary coal supplies. And it is not the fact, if I may say so with all courtesy, that the scheme would have the incidental advantage which he suggested.
In the railway carriage and waggon building trade and in the carpet industry the rate of unemployment is low, and in the building industry the figures are fairly good, while the seasonal activity is now beginning to be manifested in house painting and decorating, in which trades you have a considerable amount of unemployment during the winter months. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is quite right when he says that unemployment is worst in the shipbuilding, marine engineering, and shipping trades. The statistics for those industries are really very sad. The amount of unemployment in those three industries, at the end of January, was 34·2 per cent., 22·2 per cent., and 21·1 per cent., respectively.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What was the third group that the noble and learned Lord mentioned?
LORD PARMOOR: Shipbuilding, marine engineering and shipping. There
876
can be no doubt that any indication or suggestion from any part of the House, or from any quarter, of palliatives as regards unemployment on that scale will be most readily received by the Government; although, as I shall point out presently, the Government themselves have provided a remedy in the way of a palliative in all these cases, and although the other and bigger question, of course, is open to more difficulty. That is the question of generally reviving trade and the absorption of workmen under ordinary economic conditions. The rate of unemployment is also very high in the general engineering and ironfounding trade, where it is 18·3 per cent. In steel manufacture, it is 17·1 per cent.; in transport, 16·2 per cent.; in public works contracting, 18·9 per cent.; in the pottery trade, 14·6 per cent.; in the cotton industry, 12 per cent.; in the linen trade, 15·1 per cent.; in the lace trade, 16·5 per cent.; in the worsted industry, 9·9 per cent.; and in the tailoring, 12·4 per cent. I give those statistics in order that your Lordships may understand that this question cannot be dealt with in the aggregate, but that there have to be considered the different industries in which the lack of employment is greatest.
Before coming to the palliatives I should like to state, quite shortly, the view of the Government on the general question. On this point I think there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding. The principles which I shall endeavour to lay down in three or four sentences are really taken from what was said by the Prime Minister when he was making his original statement in the House of Commons—the first statement that he made after the formation of his Government.
EARL BUXTON: And after the Election.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly, after the Election. There can be no doubt that the Government was formed after the Election; but I understand what the noble Earl really means. He means that people are more generous in their outlook during an Election than they are when they come into power. That applies, probably, to all Parties These are the principles which the Prime Minister laid down, and I will ask the House to attend very carefully to them. After he had

877
laid them down anything like industrial panic or financial panic promptly disappeared, and I do not think there is one of these principles, which are the principles of the Government, from which your Lordships will really dissent. At all events, your Lordships will not dissent from the general principle, although you might state it in a rather different way.
The first of these principles which the Prime Minister laid down is this—I am taking practically his own words although it is not an actual quotation: Industrial capital should not be diminished in order to provide relief. In other words, in seeking to give palliative relief you must be very careful that you do not throw some one else out of employment. That is a crucial principle which has to be borne in mind in dealing with the whole of this question. Then it was stated that the Government have not, and never have had, the intention of drawing off from the normal channels of trade sums for extemporised measures which could only be palliatives. There, again, a great principle is involved. In providing money for palliatives, you must not draw money which is actually giving employment at the time under normal trade conditions. In the same way, if I may say one word again in answer to the noble Lord, I think you must not employ, or must not give inducements to, fictitious trade ventures if they are likely to be detrimental to the real normal employment in which the industry of the country is normally engaged.
This is the second statement which the Prime Minister made. He said that, while being economic and scientific in dealing with ordinary capital, we must also be economic and scientific in dealing with human rights and claims. This, of course, is where the contest, or the contrast, comes in. Economic science must be followed within certain limits and I dare say it must be followed wholly if the only idea is to make money. But if you have another conception of the moral life of the people, and if you think that the human element must receive full weight in matters of this kind, you may have a conflict between morality and economics, between Christian doctrine and economics, as I think the right rev. Prelate expressed it. In that case you must give full weight to the demands
878
of Christian morality and of human rights. It is in that connection that I again agree with the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, that you must always bear in mind that, although these palliatives are sometimes called doles (which is the worst form of palliative), yet they are matters of right. You must provide for the claimants under the conditions of industrial unemployment which happen to be in existence at the present time. You cannot leave a man to starve. You ought not to leave him merely to the protection of the Poor Law which is so distasteful, and so naturally distasteful, to the workmen of this country.
The third proposition which I am taking from the same source—and these are the principles on which the Government intend to act—is this: Therefore, any scheme dealing with unemployment should do two things. I do not think your Lordships will differ from this. You must aim at reviving trade. That is to say, you must be careful not to disturb capital already employed under industrial, economic and normal conditions. That is the first thing. The second thing is a palliative, and that is why I draw a distinction between the two. It is that, in the meantime, you must give adequate maintenance to those who are unemployed and awaiting the time for a trade revival under normal conditions. I think that I shall have the assent of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, when I emphasise that distinction in every direction. You must have the palliative, but in giving it you must not reduce employment in other directions where, under ordinary, normal, industrial conditions, it, will continue. This is the way, and the only way, in which you can harmonise, as I said, economic laws and human claims.
This is the difficulty, and I quite admit it. Everyone knows it is a difficulty. On the one hand, no one would dare to say that you can have no palliatives—no one who had any regard to human sufferings would dare to say that—and, on the other hand, I think your Lordships would agree that in providing these palliatives we should, so tar as possible and so far as human provision can do so, not interfere with normal trade conditions and normal conditions of industry. Those propositions were laid down by the Prime Minister, indicating what the policy of the Government

879
would be upon these points when he made his first address in the House of Commons.
How have those principles, so far, been applied? That is another question which I desire to answer so far as I can do so. I must, however, make one reservation. I think it would be premature for me to attempt to sketch out the whole policy of the Government in the future. It is not that they have not got a policy in their minds; it is that they have not yet put that policy into the form of a Bill. As soon as it is put into the form of a Bill it will naturally be introduced and explained in the first instance by the Labour Minister in the other House. Your Lordships will all appreciate my position when I say that it would be wrong for me to attempt to anticipate the statements of the Labour Minister in another place, and that I am not prepared to do. But what I am prepared to do is this. I am prepared to state to your Lordships, as shortly as I can, what has been done and is being done under various heads. One of these was mentioned by the right rev. Prelate under the head of what he called maintenance grant. I think what he really meant was insurance.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: Both covenanted and uncovenanted.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. Covenanted means that a man has a legal claim on the fund; uncovenanted means that he has a claim which everyone recognises but which would be difficult to put into legal form. The first Bill that we propose on this subject has already passed your Lordships' House and become law, and that is what is known as the "gap" Bill. I think everyone agreed that the three weeks' gap has operated harshly, and that it ought to be taken away. Some one on this Bench had the honour of explaining that Bill in your Lordships' House, and it passed with universal consent. The amount involved was something like three-quarters of a million pounds, though I have not the exact figure by me.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Between two and four millions.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I think it was only half a million.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to get into controversy. Whether it was one figure or the other, it was a measure that passed with universal consent; therefore, the actual figure does not matter. In addition to that, certain administrative action has been taken under the existing powers. Certain restrictions which have been applied to persons receiving uncovenanted benefit have been removed. There were, for instance, the claims of persons working short time which were formerly rejected if they were earning a sum regarded as sufficient to support them and their dependants, and there were certain classes of aliens who could not obtain uncovenanted benefit. It was almost impossible to maintain any such distinction, and no such distinction is maintained now. The present provisions—and this is the important point—secure that unemployed persons who can show that they are normally employed in an insured trade and required to contribute to the unemployment fund when they work, and further that they are genuinely seeking work, are eligible for benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think that is a right principle. They have paid for insurance, they are desirous to get work and cannot get it, and in those circumstances, by administrative act it is held that they are entitled to the benefit of the insurance fund.
VISCOUNT CAVE: They have not paid for this benefit
LORD PARMOOR: That is rather a difficult topic. I dare say the noble Viscount may be taken to be right in a certain sense, but there may be a case of this kind. Suppose a man has paid very little into the insurance fund at a time when he claims insurance benefit, but afterwards, when he gets into work again, he has for a very long time to pay his insurance contribution without getting any thing from the insurance fund? Surely m such a case a man should be entitled, under ordinary conditions, to get the benefit of the fund. It is a palliative, but under the conditions I have mentioned it is one that ought to be of universal application.
The right rev. Prelate asked me a question relating to juvenile employment. Although he very kindly intimated to me

881
the questions he was going to ask, I regret that I have not been able to get into communication with the Education Department, and, therefore, I am unable to answer the question he put to me upon that point, which comes within the scope of the Education Minister. The continuation centres will be continued until March 31, 1925, and the Government have undertaken to pay the total cost of such centres as from April 1, 1924, in lieu of 75 per cent. of the cost previously provided. Under the old provision 75 per cent. of the cost was paid from the Exchequer, and 25 per cent. from local funds. I have always been desirous of protecting local funds against undue burdens, and it appears to me to be a right course that a payment of this kind should come from the central fund and not be a burden on the local exchequers. As regards the training and employment of women there is at present a Cabinet Committee on unemployment, which it is hoped will shortly be in a position to report on unemployment among women. That is a matter to which the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, referred, particularly in the sense that an increase of employment for women might, to a certain extent, lead to greater unemployment among men. That is a question that has to be considered.
The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, referred to the Trade Facilities Acts of 1921 and 1922. Here we come, not to a palliative in the ordinary sense, but to a scheme which is intended to benefit trade generally. Its object is to bring about a revival of trade, and not merely to be a palliative while trade is bad. The Bill now before the House of Commons extends the sum for which guarantees may be given from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000, and the time up to which the Acts are to operate from November 9, 1923, to March 31, 1925. A further provision in the Bill empowers the Treasury, on certain conditions, to contribute towards the interest payable on certain loans raised in connection with public utility undertakings in the Dominions which are calculated to provide work in Great Britain. That is the extent to which we have been able to go in the direction indicated by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids.
Then there is the export credits scheme which has not been very largely used at the present time, but, if the expectations
882
of trade with Russia are realised, will probably be largely used in the future. The Government have approved the scheme and announced their agreement in principle to its extension. The President of the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is examining the regulations under which exports credits are given with a view of amending any rules which unnecessarily restrict the operation of the scheme. In order to revive trade and increase it—and again this is not a palliative—the whole basis of the export scheme is to be reconsidered in order that the facilities given under it may be obtained as conveniently and readily as possible.
My answer on the question of trade revival is the acceleration of Government work. I have figures here in detail, but I will not trouble your Lordships with them. The total amount of accelerated work will be £2,725,000, and, in addition to that figure, the Air Ministry has been authorised to accelerate the placing of orders for stores, works, etc., for which provision is made in the Air Estimates of this year. Then there is the Unemployment Grants Committee. Authority has been given to the Committee to exceed the existing limit of £20,000,000 by a further £2,000,000, making £22,000,000 in all. Approval has been given to the policy of assisting works starting in the spring and summer months, instead of confining it to schemes of the winter months as has previously been done. The Committee has been authorised to assist further schemes during 1924 and 1925 to the maximum value of £20,000,000. Local authorities have already been approached, thereby giving them the advantage of three months' additional time in which to consider any schemes which they may be able to undertake during their coming financial year, and instructions have been given to the Committee to prepare material which will enable the Government to give further consideration to schemes under which financial assistance is given to public utility undertakings. The Committee has also been authorised to assist schemes on the basis of sixty per cent. of the wages cost during the financial year 1924–1925 to the extent of £250,000, a further amount being accordingly provided for in the Committee's Estimates for the forthcoming financial year.

883
May I also refer to another matter—I am afraid I am trespassing on your Lordships' time, but I am obliged to make a statement of this kind as complete as I can—and that is the work proposed to be undertaken through the Ministry of Transport. The noble Lord referred to work which has been undertaken by railway companies, and as regards the London scheme a sum of as much as £12,000,000 is, I think, involved. There are also proposals by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the Forestry Commission.
It, may be said, and said quite accurately in one sense, that in these matters we are following, in the sense of continuity, proposals that have been made. The word "continuity" has rather a double meaning. Sometimes it is used in praise, and sometimes in criticism. But I want to use it in reference to the way in which the present Government are seeking to avail themselves of these powers and make them really effective to revive trade on the one hand and provide suitable palliatives on the other. I am not here to say that this great question of unemployment can be solved satisfactorily and wholly by any means whatever, but it can be reduced, and enormously reduced, below its present limits, with all its tragic troubles and miseries in many of the homes of this country. That is the object of the present Government. They desire to revive trade. They desire to get rid of industrial disputes. They desire to secure peace and settlement so that Europe once again may be one great industrial unit. But, recognising that this cannot be done in a day, recognising that there are still a million of unemployed, they do say that, side by side with the schemes for trade revival, there must be palliatives as a right to the people in want, and they hope that the scheme I have indicated to your Lordships will deal satisfactorily, so far as you can deal satisfactorily, with this great evil.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words upon the statement which has just been made. My colleagues and I will be believed when I say that there is no subject which gave us more anxiety, more continuous anxiety, than that to which the Question of the right rev.
884
Prelate refers. We had before us week after week, and month after month, statements of the number of unemployed in the different industries, and, speaking for myself, the figure, which varied from a million upwards, sometimes rising, sometimes falling, was something like a nightmare to me. There was nothing which I and my colleagues more urgently desired than that as the result of what we could do, or by the operation of natural forces, that figure should be substantially reduced. I am glad to think that of all the figures given by the noble and learned Lord the lowest was that which related to the exact period when we went out of office, whether by our means or not I do not pretend to say, but it is the fact that during the last two years the tendency has been downward and that in February, 1924, the lowest figure was reached. That being so, I need hardly say that we looked forward with great hope and great curiosity to the proposals which the present Government would make.
We were told, and the country was told, during the late Election, that the true specific for unemployment was to be found not in the proposals which we thought it right to submit to the country, but in some other proposals which were in the minds of the leaders of the Labour Party, and I certainly, and what I say applies to all my colleagues, looked forward with the greatest interest to the period when we should have from the Government a statement, not of principles but of concrete proposals. I have listened to my noble friend opposite, and I have heard from him a statement of what the Government are doing under the headings of trade facilities, export credits, Ministry of Transport schemes, unemployment grants and—he did not mention this but he would, no doubt, add—oversea settlement.
LORD PARMOOR: I did mention it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My noble friend says he did mention it, and I am very glad of it. I do not in the least desire to make it the subject of taunt or of reproach that His Majesty's Government are pursuing those schemes. I am extremely glad. The more they follow them up, and extend them, the greater will be the sympathy they will have from us. Con-

885
tinuity, if applied to our policy by the present Government, is a very good thing, and the move continuous it is the better I like it. But, I want to point out that these are the old schemes. We called them palliatives, because we looked forward, rightly or wrongly, to something bigger. But these were the proposals which we made, which we put into Statute form and to which we were in the process of giving effect. All that the new Government have done is to continue them, and, in a few cases, as my noble friend said, to extend credits by a couple of millions, or whatever the sum may be.
But in all that my noble friend has said there has not been a single new proposal which he has to bring before the country. "We have had from him a statement of principles, very abstract, very academic and very excellent. He repeated in this House the general statements which were made by the Prime Minister in another place. They seemed to me, so far as I have followed them, to be perfectly good, but not to be in any sense new. He said that their first principle was not to diminish industrial capital in order to provide relief—an admirable sentiment, but one which expressly embodies the principle which we have pressed upon the two Houses. I am sure there is nothing new in that. The same applies, I think, to all that he said under this head. These principles were stated, and they may be—I believe they are—quite right, but there did not come from him, there has not come in either House from any member of the Government, a single proposal which was new for the purpose of promoting trade or employment in this country.
The only new things which my noble friend mentioned—and he was entitled to mention them—were proposals made, not for increasing employment, not for diminishing the terrible difficulty of unemployment, but for relieving the unemployed while they continued out of work. It remains for me to say a very few words under that head. Two subjects were mentioned. One was the juvenile unemployment centres. As has been said, the previous scheme provided for local centres, managed by local managers, with a, contribution from the State of 70 per cent. of the cost. I gather from the noble Lord, the President of the Council,
886
that the Government are proposing to pay now, not, 70 per cent., but 100 per cent. of the cost. I should like to know in whom the management will be vested. Is it proposed that, while the whole cost is borne by central funds, the management shall lie entirely in the hands of local bodies? After some experience of local government, I know no scheme more extravagant than that. If you set up a local body to spend money in their locality and tell them that the whole cost will be borne, not by them, but by the State, there is nothing which prevents them from spending, there are many things which induce them to spend, as much as they possibly can.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Viscount will recollect that the total amount is limited.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am glad it, is, but I am sure that it will be reached under this scheme, and I should not wonder if a proposal came before us for extending the maximum. I only say that word of caution upon that point. The other question was that of uncovenanted benefit. We all know what uncovenanted benefit is. A man contributes to the unemployment insurance fund and his contributions entitle him, under the actuarial calculation upon which the fund rests, to unemployment benefit if he falls out of employment during a specified time. When he gets more than that he is getting something for which he has not paid, and in recent days the system of paying that something more, that uncovenanted benefit, as it is called, has grown up and has been continued. Having at one time had the duty of looking into the whole system of unemployment benefit, I say frankly that I think the system is justified. I do not think you can have relief to unemployed persons limited to the precise amount to which they are entitled under the covenant, the terms of their insurance, and I think to some extent, in the bad times which began about the year 1920, you were bound to go beyond the covenant and to give them something more
But while admitting that, I think that the process required, and still requires, to be carefully watched. When you begin to turn uncovenanted benefit into full maintenance to everybody who is unemployed you are coming upon somewhat dangerous ground. It is true, of course,

887
that the medium, the machinery, through which this benefit is paid, is the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the fund which is set up under the National Insurance Acts and is contributed to partly by the employed, partly by the employer and partly by the State. At one time, I think in the year 1920, that fund was in credit to the amount of something like £20,000,000—I believe £22,000,000 was the exact sum. With bad times, and with the extension of un-covenanted benefit, that surplus melted away, and the fund had to borrow from the Treasury. At one time the amount due was very large, but it diminished, and when I last saw the figures—I think they applied to the end of last year—the debt was something like £13,500,000. I do not know what it is now. It may be a little less.
LORD PARMOOR: I believe it is about £11,000,000.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am glad to hear that it is a little less, but I am leading up to the point that the proposals made and, I suppose, carried out by the Government, the proposals to which the noble Lord refers, may seriously endanger that position. That which I understand they are going to do is that, whereas until now the grant of uncovenanted benefit was limited to cases where it was really required, whereas there was some discrimination in the grant and it was not given merely because a man applied for it, that discrimination is, to some extent, to be done away with. For instance, where a man was partly employed and still received enough to keep him, he did not necessarily get this uncovenanted benefit, and, when the unemployed person had members of his household living with him and having among them sufficient employment to keep the family, some discrimination was exercised. All that, I gather, is now to be swept away. All these persons are to get full benefit like other people. There is to be no discrimination, and the cost of that, I think, is put at something which might run up to £4,000,000 a year.
If that is so, you will reverse the process of improvement which has gone on with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Instead of getting out of debt that fund will, as time goes on, get more and more into debt. That process
888
really ought to be watched, and I will tell the House why I say that. The contributions to the fund have time after time been raised, until they have reached a point, to-day, which is really the breaking point. You cannot increase the contributions of the employed and the employer to the fund beyond the present limit, without running the risk of imposing a burden upon trade and industry which they cannot bear; and I believe that everybody who knows something about the matter, including the experts who advise the noble Lord at the Ministry of Health, will tell him that it is impossible to increase the contributions beyond the present level.
If that is so, the fund ought not to be allowed to get more and more into debt. We ought to aim at making the fund pay its way. I do not begrudge the State contribution, but I do hope that every Government will insist that the fund shall pay its way, and that no commitments shall be undertaken which will increase the liabilities of the fund beyond what they ought to be, because on that I believe depends the future of industrial insurance. Most of us look forward to an extension of the principle of insurance which commenced with the National Insurance Act, but unless you are going to make the thing solvent, and adhere to the terms upon which the fund reposes, you will find that the whole system will break down, and you will not be able to extend it. I have no more to say, except that I am very glad to have heard the statement of my noble and learned friend. I shall be surprised, but very much gratified, if either he or anybody else is able to make some proposals which go beyond, and are an improvement upon, those which the late Government carried out.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, with reference to what has lately fallen from the noble and learned Viscount, I should like to assure him that we are acutely sensitive of the necessity of proving that our proposals will not in any way render the fund insolvent. We are also acutely sensitive of the consideration that the contributions from the employers and the employed cannot be further augmented. Those considerations will be fully borne in mind by the Government in any proposals which they may lay before Parlia-

889
ment. I do not wish to delay your Lordships on what may be regarded, perhaps, rather as debating and recriminatory points, but I rather wish to take up the gentle satire which the noble and learned Viscount passed upon us, as having produced no new proposals after having, as he alleged, announced to the world, during the Election, that we had the real remedy for unemployment.
Generally speaking, I wish to say that, so far as regards the Labour Party's pronouncements during the Election, the real divergence from the proposals of the late Government was this: They said: "We do not believe unemployment can be remedied by palliatives of temporary work or a protective policy." Most emphatically, from the Prime Minister downwards, the Labour Party continually laid stress upon the fact that their real programme for the relief of unemployment was the establishment of peace in Europe and the world, and that that was the line upon which they were going to concentrate their whole energy when in office. That is the line upon which they act in concentrating upon the abandonment of the increase of armaments at Singapore. Their primary policy is to endeavour to take up with more enthusiasm and inspiration than previous Governments have done, believing more in that inspiration, the policy of pacification and a more substantial basis for human relations in this world. I assert that they laid more emphasis upon that than upon anything else.
Then with regard to another debating point, I have been for forty years connected with a movement which really arose out of unemployment in the years 1883–84. At that time we had to fight the Liberals, and, though I will admit in a less degree, the Conservatives, with regard to the only possible means of meeting unemployment—namely, that the State should interfere more and more in industry and schemes of employment. Our views have been continually opposed by the Liberals, but to a certain extent we have educated them, so that they have put into their programme a good many of the things to which, years ago, their leaders were opposed. I will say this of the Conservative Party, that they were less unwilling to admit any idea of State organisation of productive industry, because I was associated in
890
1884, in North Paddington, with a scheme of relief which was very energetically taken up by the late Lord Randolph Churchill, who flouted the idea that these matters should be left to free competition, in the course of which prosperity would be re-established. I give the Conservative Party credit for having been less recalcitrant and obdurate than the Liberal Party.
But, with regard to the present schemes, which they say we took up from them—transport schemes and so on—I beg them to remember that in the year 1914, or 1915, there was great expectations of unemployment in this country—perfectly unfounded expectation, because we know that exactly the reverse occurred. At that time there was set on foot a large subscription railed the Prince of Wales's Fund, which was to deal with this unemployment and the relief of distress, and a Committee was set up to consider how the question of impending unemployment should be dealt with. I was a member of that Committee. There came before that Committee Mr. Sydney Webb, and other representatives of the Labour Party, and they said: "We entreat you to take this matter up, and be prepared with a programme for dealing with unemployment. We say the State should have always in reserve schemes prepared For dealing with unemployment—schemes of land reclamation, drainage and transport." That was urged by the Labour Party. Those preparations were neglected by the Coalition Government, and when unemployment came upon us it was only under great pressure that local authorities were got to take up palliative schemes which the Labour Party had been urging for years. The matter of these schemes has been adopted from the programme of the Labour Party, and they are not matters which they are now endeavouring to take up from their predecessors.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, will not be surprised if his extraordinary and unusually provocative speech induces me to make some reply. I do not deny the educative influence of the Labour Party. It has had a considerable influence upon the Liberals. Is not the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack an example of the educative influence of the

891
Labour Party on the Liberals? And has not their influence been equally effective upon the ranks of noble Lords who sit on the front Opposition Bench? Two of the noble Lord's chief colleagues, the Lord President of the Council and the First Lord of the Admiralty, have equally been educated by the Labour Party as recruits from the ranks of the noble Lords who sit on the Opposition Benches. But whilst the noble Lord plumes himself on the influence he has had in educating other people, he forgets, sometimes at any rate, what has been done by the Liberal Party. It was the Liberal Party which passed the first Unemployment Insurance Act, and, naturally enough, having regard to the general tone of the noble Lord's speech, he omitted to make any reference to that Act.
I listened with very deep disappointment to the speech which we heard from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council. I subscribe to the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount who spoke from the front Opposition Bench that not one new proposal have we had from His Majesty's Government on this occasion. And we are entitled to be disappointed in view of the high hopes which the Labour Party raised in the country and the way in which they spoke of the problem of unemployment. The Prime Miniser himself said that Labour had a programme and a power which no other Party possessed. I have a, very keen recollection of having made, on more than one Liberal platform during the last General Election, special reference to the hopes which we in the Liberal Party entertained of being able to do something to restore trade if once the foreign policy of this country led to a considerable measure of pacification in Europe. Members of the Liberal Party continued to emphasise that. It was the chief remedy which we proposed, but we were not like the noble Lord and his friends opposite, who said they had a programme which no other Party possessed. We did not put before the country high hopes which we should not be able to carry out when we came into office. We said that there was no royal road to the getting rid of unemployment, and we certainly did not boast that we had a programme and a power which no other Party possessed.
892
Let us inquire what that programme is. The right rev. Prelate has asked questions. He wanted to know what steps were being taken by the Government. We have had no inkling of any sort of the programme which is being undertaken by the Government to provide work for the unemployed. It is perfectly true that they have adumbrated, and, I think, introduced into another place, proposals by which there will be a certain amount added to what I think is wrongly called the dole. And I have a distinct recollection of members of the Labour Party saying—and I agreed with them—that what the unemployed wanted was not money, but work. His Majesty's Government have, so far, done something to assist those who are unemployed in the way of maintenance, but in regard to work, in spite of their professions, they have not produced a single measure which has given real employment.
One thing, indeed, I may mention which has prevented the situation getting worse. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies boasted the other day of the fact that the credit of the country had undergone no diminution when the Labour Government took office. He plumed himself on the fact that the credit of the country stood as high now as it did then. I agree that it does. But if it stands high, one of the chief reasons is that the Labour Party has dropped the Capital Levy—that very measure which I understood the noble Lord himself was going to undertake to persuade your Lordships to agree to in this House. If the credit of the country has remained high it is largely because the Labour Party have jettisoned two of the main items in their programme, the Capital Levy and the nationalisation of the means of production.
I should like to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he would be good enough to reconsider a proposal which was before the last Government but one, but was not approved of by them, by which, instead of continuing in its fulness the system of maintenance, they should enter into some arrangement with the municipalities or the big county councils with a view to handing over to them the money which would otherwise be spent upon maintenance, in order that the municipalities might spend it upon

893
works of public importance. It might be possible in connection with that to say that a certain rate should be raised locally—that might or might not be necessary. But I should be glad if I could think that the noble and learned Lord would once more reconsider that question in view of any increase of unemployment during the next winter. I believe that local administration of funds of that kind, especially if they were controlled by the levy of a local rate, might have a very valuable effect in relieving unemployment. One knows the obvious difficulties. Of course, if a very attractive scheme is carried out in one neighbourhood it brings a number of unemployed to that district and accentuates the difficulties there. Still, I cannot help thinking that a reconsideration of that general proposition might effect something.
I wish also to draw attention to some remarkable figures with regard to housing. We have all, I am sure, been struck by the curious anomaly that, whilst there is an immense need of houses on the one hand, there are, on the other hand, a vast number of unemployed in this country. It would seem rather obvious that the two things should be brought together. I will quote some figures which, while they do not entirely explain the difficulty, show the difficulty there is in the matter. In 1901 there were 111,000 bricklayers in this country; to-day there are only 53,000. In 1901 there were 27,000 plasterers, and to-day there are only 13,000—less than half. In 1901 there were 8,400 slaters, and to-day there are only 2,880. Those figures seem to me very remarkable. I think the Lord President of the Council should bring them to the notice of his colleagues, and see whether, by some method, it would not be possible to increase the number of people employed in the building trade, which might go far to give other people work in the erection of houses which are so much needed. Beyond that I would not venture to detain your Lordships, except to express once again my deep regret that, in spite of the promises held out to us by the Government during the last General Election, they have not been able to produce any effective scheme for your Lordships' consideration to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I should not have
894
intervened in this debate had there not arisen just at its termination a certain tendency to acrimony which was absent in its earlier course. I think that was unfortunate, for I will say for myself that I do not think that any Party in the State is in a position to criticise any other. The problem of unemployment is a problem which never is, or can be, completely solved. If it were taken in hand systematically as it should be, I think we should all have to face the paradox that in a time when the nation is in financial straits, and when unemployment is rife, we are called upon to spend rather lavishly on public buildings and public-works, and things which are regarded as extravagances at ordinary periods and at times when the nation is prosperous, instead of saving up and paying off debts in order to face the future.
Hitherto, that policy has not been systematically pursued nor has the principle been effectively recognised. Whether it will be in the future remains to be seen. But at least this is true—that when the problem comes upon you without any long preparation extending, perhaps, over a succession of Parliaments, you find yourselves face to face with emergency considerations which can never be satisfactorily dealt with. The reproach has been levelled at the Government that they have not done more than they have done, and that there have only been a series of abstract propositions put forward by my noble and learned friend, the Lord President of the Council, whose speech certainly was most temperate in tone and not calculated to give offence to any section in your Lordships' House.
There is one comment that I should like to make on that. The Government has been in office for seven weeks. Never in the course of my own political life have I seen such energy put into work as has been put during the last seven weeks into the work of formulating the Government plans and elaborating their details. But that, again, is only as regards the future. As I say, the Government has only been in office seven weeks, "and what do you expect? The appearance of the results is the part that will astonish you and will be more than you altogether like. But, at any rate, it is not in quantity that the proposals are likely to fail nor in the energy put into making them efficient. That is my very strong impression, and I am waiting for

895
the time when the fruit begins to appear, and I do not think we shall wait very long.
That only illustrates how impossible it is to criticise what a Government is doing when it is undertaking things at the outset of its career, and when work must be done as a preliminary to performance. Your Lordships may say: "It is performance that we have been talking about to-night." But that period has not come and we must wait until it does come before we can criticise. I regret that it is not possible to add anything further at this early period. I am quite in sympathy with those who say: "We did our best and we produced a good deal." As my noble and learned friend, Lord Cave, pointed out, unemployment, after all, is very substantially less than it was when these things were first taken in hand. The tendency of the time appears to be to continue the improvement in trade. But we shall see what happens, and we shall see how, by emergency measures, we are able to get these things done. For the rest, I think we ought not to import into the discussion of this great subject any words which might appear to lay blame upon each other's Parties over matters which inevitably lead to difficulty and disappointment. We expect difficulties and disappointments from every Government, whatever its principles may be.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I do not think that any of your Lordships desires to prolong this very full discussion, but before it closes I should like to press upon the attention of the Lord President of the Council and the members of the Government one matter to which I understand the Bishop of Lichfield referred at some length and with much clearness, although, unfortunately, I was unable to be present when he spoke. I waited to hear whether the Lord President had much to say about it, but what he said was, I think, disappointing. The matter on which I wish to say a single word is one which brooks no kind of delay. I want to press upon the Government with all the strength I can command, though possibly it is only emphasising what has been said already by the Bishop of Lichfield, the imperative necessity of developing and carrying out
896
definite plans throughout the country for dealing with what might be called, roughly, the juvenile unemployed.
That is a very serious aspect of the matter. It is bad enough to have, as we have in the part of the world in which I work, particularly in the great steel and iron trade region of Yorkshire, and in such places as Sheffield, an immense mass of young men who were in the war and have practically never known what it is to do a day's work since the war ended. These young men have been receiving the benefit of the dole. I do not believe there is very much evidence that what is most unfairly and untruly called the dole—maintenance under the insurance Act—has so far created very much disorganisation or moral deterioration among the older workmen, especially the skilled workmen up and down the country. On the contrary, I should like to say that one of the very noblest episodes in the history of the workers of this country has been the way in which there ha" been manifested everywhere among the older and more skilled men great impatience with the whole system of maintenance without work and constant readiness at every opportunity to find work. I am satisfied, from reports which have been made all through the north of England, that among the older and more skilled men there has been, in spite of great temptation, hardly any serious moral deterioration. There has been loss of capacity, both physical and mental, for work, but not, I think, moral deterioration. It is otherwise with these young men who came out of the war and have had no chance of steady employment since.
That is a very serious problem, but it is nothing to the problem presented by the numbers of young people who left school when the war was drawing to a close, or after the first two years of the boom in trade which followed the war, and have never known what employment is. Yesterday I read reports from the chief constable of Middlesbrough in which he points out that there are not tens but masses of boys who literally ever since they left school, four or five years ago, have never known what it is to work at all. Their whole life has been spent in the streets. They are losing not only the desire but the capacity for work every day, and yet these are the workmen upon whom we must depend when the time

897
comes for any kind of revival of trade. It is imperative that this vast mass of potential industrial power shall not be allowed to waste in the streets its capacities for the good of the trade of the country.
It is not an easy thing to know what is to be done. It is easy enough to say: "Let there be centres of juvenile instruction for boys between fourteen and sixteen." I have no doubt from the speech of the noble and learned Lord that he is in communication with the Education Department as to what is to be done. But it is a very difficult thing on the spur of the moment to find the kind of teachers who can attract and keep in order a host of boys who have been enjoying all the glorious irregularities of the streets. To construct a syllabus and find the teachers to make profitable use of this industrial element which is wasting at present is a task that will require a great deal of thought. I beg the noble Lord to take from this debate, if he will allow me to say so, a very urgent representation that no time shall be lost in dealing with this most difficult part of the problem, because it, affects the ultimate strength of the country.

PROPERTY OF EX-ENEMY ALIENS.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to call attention to 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, and to move to resolve, That before carrying out, or further carrying out, these recommendations His Majesty's Government will take steps to submit that Report for the sanction of Parliament.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ought perhaps to apologise to your Lordships for reverting to this subject at so early a date after it was last discussed in this House on March 6. My excuse must be the very serious importance of this question to British creditors. If the recommendations of this Committee are carried out in full it will mean a loss to British creditors of £4,000,000, and a diminution in the dividends that they will receive of from 2s. to 2s. 6d. in the £. Let us remember that some of these creditors are very poor people who can ill afford to lose this amount off their claims. There is, so far as I know, no
898
fund whatever available for making good the loss of £4,000,000 which the release of this property will involve. While, doubtless, we should be careful not to inflict undue hardship upon German subjects, we should, I think, be at least as careful—possibly more so—to avoid inflicting undeserved hardships upon our own countrymen. I shall confine my remarks, and will compress them as much as I can, to the case of German property, and will not go into the question of ex-enemy countries generally.
Let me first of all dispose of a not unimportant aspect, of the question. It has been asserted in some quarters that to appropriate Germany property in order to pay British creditors is in the nature of a confiscation of private property. I shall show your Lordships in a very few words that that is an entire misapprehension. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, in his moments of greater freedom, did not fall into this heresy.
LORD PARMOOR: I did.
LORD DANESFORT: We have the accused confessing his sins. I hope now that he is in a position of greater responsibility he will renounce that heresy, and admit at any rate that he was wrong. Perhaps I may be permitted in a few words to convince him that he is wrong. What are the real facts? On the conclusion of peace there was a very largo sum in the hands of the German Government, which represented property of British subjects in Germany that had been impounded by the Germans. There were also very large amounts of money due by Germans in Germany to British subjects. On the other hand, there was a considerable sum—I do not know the precise figure—in this country representing German property which had been impounded here, and there were also considerable debts due from British subjects to German creditors. What the Treaty of Versailles did, in Articles 296 and 297, was this. It said, in effect: "We will not transmit British money from Germany to this country to pay British creditors, nor will we transmit Gorman money from this country to pay German creditors." What it did was this. It set up a sort of clearing house, and the effect was that German money in this country was made available for

899
the payment of British creditors, and British money in Germany was made available for the payment of German creditors. A system of mutual credits and debits was set up, and that was a clear and reasonable arrangement, according with ordinary commercial practice when debtors in one country owe money to creditors in another country.
The next step was this. In order to carry out the arrangements contained in the Treaty of Versailles Orders in Council were issued in this country, the effect of which was to charge the property of Germans in this country with the payment of claims made by British creditors in this country, and also compensating British subjects fox the property which had been impounded in Germany. But there was a most important provision of the Treaty in Article 297. The effect of that was that Germany undertook to compensate its own nationals in respect of any property of theirs which was impounded in this country. The arrangement contained in the Treaty, as I have sought to describe it, was absolutely fair and reasonable. If I wanted additional proof of this I could not do better than refer your Lordships to the statement of a high authority on this subject, the former Lord Justice Younger, now Lord Blanesburgh. In a Report which he made on May 5, 1922, you will find his words as follow:
"This principle is not really open to serious criticism even at the hands of a purist in international morality."
He was referring to the principle in the Treaty which I have indicated. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, having heard that expression of opinion, will abandon his former heresy. If other proof were required, I should find it in the distinguished person of Mr. Justice Romer, who had a case before him which involved consideration of Austrian property that had been dealt with in precisely the same way under the Austrian Treaty that Germany property has been dealt with under the Treaty of Versailles. Mr. Justice Romer examined the whole working out of this system most carefully, and said that no confiscation of Austrian property was intended or effected.
I pass from that preliminary to a very important consideration. I have shown, I hope, that the original arrangement was just, and I now ask your Lordships to
900
follow what happened upon that Treaty. It was felt that it was a hardship in certain cases to adhere to the literal terms of the Treaty and the Orders in Council, and that it would be proper, in cases of hardship, to release German property from the charge provided for in the Treaty. Let me give one illustration. Take the case of a woman who was a German only by virtue of having married a German. She is a poor woman living in this country, and is technically of German nationality. She might really have all her sympathies and interests in this country, and have had sons who fought on our side in the war. I think the charge would be a hardship in a case like that. Consequently the Board of Trade set up a Committee, of which the Chairman was the then Lord Justice. Younger. Power was given to the Committee, in proper cases, to release German property from this charge.
It is to be noted that the power of release given to that Committee originally was of a very limited character. It was limited by the express instructions of the Board of Trade; and those instructions were carried out quite properly by the Younger Committee, and are being carried out now. But the point I wish to urge at the moment is this. The amount of the German property that was released under those instructions of the Board of Trade was exceedingly small. I have the figures here. It was about £372,000 out of a total Gorman property of over £100,000,000, so that the proportion released was exceedingly small. Last year representations were made from various sources that the existing powers of release possessed by the Younger Committee were too small, and that there were other eases in which they ought to release property, but in which they had no power to do so. Accordingly, in August last year, the Board of Trade asked the Younger Committee to advise the Government in these terms—
"What extension, if any, of the power to release ex-enemy property can be made in cases of special merit and with due regard to the claims thereon of British subjects."
Your Lordships will notice the words
"cases of special merit and with due regard to the claims thereon of British subjects."
And it must be remembered that to whatever extent you release this property from German claims to that extent,

901
pound for pound, you diminish the rights of British creditors. If you release Gorman property of £4,000,000 you destroy the rights of British creditors to the extent of £4,000,000. Some of these British creditors were very poor men. May I call your attention to the case of British seamen who were in German ports on July 31, 1914? Although war had not been declared these men were most wrongfully and improperly interned by the German Government. They were deprived of their means of livelihood and they suffered great losses. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles these sailors are, entitled to compensation, and they are entitled to compensation out, of this very fund which is now being released. Most unfortunately, the fund available for the payment of British creditors is already deficient by millions of pounds and there are British creditors who have received no more than 7s. 6d. in the £ of their claims.
What happened in answer to this request of the Board of Trade? The Younger Committee brought out a Report in December last. Within a week, or at least within ten days, of the present Government coming into office they adopted every syllable of that Report without alteration. It is a very elaborate Report and requires great consideration, and I cannot believe—perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will tell me—that before this Report was adopted en bloc, by the Government they had time to consider all the recommendations in it and all the results which those recommendations involve. I wish to say at once that some of their recommendations are reasonable, but some of them are quite unreasonable. The general effect is that if the Report is carried out to the full, to the maxima of the releases recommended, it will cost British creditors £4,000,000. In other words, it will release eleven times as much German property as has been released in all the period up to the present.
What is the excuse given by the Committee for releasing this German property? They say that the Treaty of Versailles and the Orders in Council were originally quite reasonable, but that, owing to the default of the German Government in carrying out the obligations of the Treaty and compensating their nationals, it is unreasonable to keep
902
this German property for the payment of British creditors. If you want an answer to that argument I know of no place where it can be found more effectively than in the Third Annual Report of the Controller of the Clearing House an official who knows everything of what has happened. He deals with this point and says, in effect, that the reason, and the only reason, why Germans are suffering any hardships at all is that the German Government have wilfully and unjustifiably broken the conditions of the Treaty. By the Treaty of Versailles the German Government ought to have collected debts due from their own nationals in Germany to British creditors. They would then have had a fund available for compensating their own nationals for property which was seized in this country.
What did Germany do? They broke the Treaty. In some cases they did not attempt to collect the debts due from German creditors, and in many cases they did what appears to me a far more dishonest thing: they allowed their German creditors to pay debts due in sterling to British creditors in depreciated marks. The Controller of the Clearing House gives an instance in which a German debtor got £50,000 in British money to enable him to build a factory. That German debtor ought to have paid that £50,000 in sterling, but the German Government allowed him to repay his debt in depreciated marks; and the whole of them were worth about a halfpenny. In other words, he got rid of a debt of £50,000 by paying one half-penny, and to complete the extraordinary character of this transaction the German debtor was allowed to retain the factory which he had built with £50,000 of British money and keep it as his own. I think I have said enough to show that if there are hardships, and no doubt there are, it is due entirely to the wilful and unjustifiable action of the German Government. I wish that those who have sympathy, and there are many, with Germans who are suffering hardship would make a protest and appeal to the German Government to keep the provisions of the Treaty and thereby get rid of the hardships to their own nationals.
I am not going into the details of this Report. If your Lordships will allow me, I will call attention very shortly to one or two of what I conceive to be the more

903
unreasonable provisions of the Report. I have already said that some of its provisions are quite reasonable. If your Lordships will look at the cover of the Report you will find that this is the Report of the Committee appointed "to advise upon applications for the release of property of ex-enemy aliens in necessitous circumstances." But when I turn to the inside of the Report, I find, on page 9, that, although the. Committee recommend eleven different kinds of release, there are only two out of those eleven cases in which they say that necessitous circumstances are even to be taken into account at all. In other words, in nine out of eleven recommendations you are not to consider whether the man to be relieved is wealthy or poor. That appears to me to require some explanation, and perhaps my noble friend who is going to answer will explain why it is thought necessary to release the property of wealthy Germans to the detriment of poor British creditors.
May I give your Lordships one illustration of the recommendations which do not appear to me to be reasonable? Your Lordships will find it on page 10 of the Report, in paragraph 21. The Committee recommend, "in the case of British subjects who have become German nationals by marriage "—these of course are women—"but are not permanently resident in this country," a power of release of £5,000 of their capital and a power of release of the whole of their income. Just see how that would work out. A British woman marries a German living in Germany. By German law, as well as by English law, she becomes a German. She may never have come back to England, she may be entirely German in sympathy and interests, her sons and her husband may have been conscripted and may have fought against us in the war, and her husband may be a man of great riches, for you are not to consider necessitous circumstances at all. And yet you are to give her that £5,000 of capital and to release the whole of her income, to the prejudice of British creditors, who may be very poor. How is that to be justified? I think His Majesty's Government ought, at any rate, to have given some consideration to that recommendation before they adopted the whole thing en bloc. I shall be told that the Committee would not grant the release in a case like that. It
904
may be so, but if so, why do they ask for power to release in a case like that? I do not think it ought to be permitted.
There are other recommendations of the Report which appear to me to be just as wrong and just as unjustifiable, but I do not think I should be justified at this hour in troubling your Lordships with them. The only other point to which I wish to refer is with regard to the terms of the Motion which, having regard to the character of this Report, I desire to move, and the reason why I urge that, before carrying out these recommendations, His Majesty's Government should take steps to submit the Report for the sanction of Parliament. I venture to think that so great an inroad upon the Treaty rights of British creditors ought not to be made without some sanction of Parliament in some way obtained. Technically, no doubt, under the Order in Council which imposed the charge, the Board of Trade have the power to grant the releases, and it may be right that, where the amounts of the releases, as in a number of cases, were very small, the Department should not have thought it necessary to come to Parliament. But when you are going to have a wholesale release of this sort, a release of £4,000,000 of money, with effects which I have described, I do urge that this is a case in which the Department should not act upon its own authority. There are many eases where a Department has technically a right to do something where great issues are involved, but where Departments act wisely in getting the sanction of Parliament. To do otherwise would appear to me to be an abuse of bureaucratic power and contrary to our institutions.
If you were going to impose a tax of £4,000,000, which had to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, you would, of course, both by law and by custom, have to get the sanction of Parliament. In the present case you are going to take £4,000,000 out of the pockets, not of the whole of the taxpayers of this country, but of a section of the taxpayers, and I say that in a case like that it is only reasonable that you should bring the matter before Parliament. If Parliament agrees, well and good. Parliament may think that in such a case as this it may be well to provide from some other source a fund to make good the £4,000,000

905
which are taken from British creditors. On the other hand, if Parliament thinks that in certain cases these recommendations are beyond what is right, beyond what is reasonable, beyond what is just to the British creditor, I venture to think that Parliament ought to be consulted in order that it may express its views upon a subject so deeply affecting a large section of our population.
Move to resolve, That before carrying out, or further carrying 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, His Majesty's Government will take steps to submit that Report for the sanction of Parliament.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has been under a misapprehension on one or two points, and probably he is not cognisant of the many times this matter has been discussed in your Lordships' House. Let me begin with the form in which he put his Resolution upon the Paper. It is to the effect that the matter which is dealt with in the Report of Lord Blanesburgh's Committee should be submitted to the sanction of Parliament. I do not know if the noble Lord is aware of the powers under which the Board of Trade acts in this case, and has acted twice already, in 1921 and 1922, without any question. I should like to read the words, because it is all-important that, in a matter of this kind, the power which has been given to the Board of Trade should be really understood. I do not think the noble Lord has quite given weight to the provision.
I dare say he knows that in 1919 these matters were reserved in the ordinary case for the Crown to deal with, which, of course, meant the Government for the time being. This arrangement was right as regards Treaty terms and under the Order which was made in connection with the Treaty Act, but it was slightly altered later, and the provision at present in force—I dare say the noble Lord is familiar with it—is this:—
"Provided that any particular property rights or interests so charged—"
906
that is, the interests to which the noble Lord is referring—
"may at any time be released by the custodian, acting under the general direction of the Board of Trade, from the charge so created."
That is the specific power given by Parliament to the Board of Trade.
I will deal presently with the figures, because I think the noble Lord was inaccurate concerning them. I admit it is very difficult to get thorn accurately. What is his suggestion? Whereas a matter of Treaty right between the nationals of two countries has been specifically referred to the Board of Trade for direction and application, he seeks to alter this by substituting Parliament. It is a Treaty right between the nationals of two countries that these matters should be settled by the Board of Trade. That Treaty right has been twice exercised, because the appointment of Lord Justice Younger's Committee was made as long ago as 1920, and it has been practically in session ever since. Twice the powers given to it have been slightly altered and increased, and this is the third time in which a further recommendation was made by Lord Justice Younger's Committee, not on instructions from the present Government but on instructions from the late Government.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for one moment. There is nothing whatever in the Treaty as to the Board of Trade, or as to the release of enemy property at all.
LORD PARMOOR: The words are in the Order in Council made under the Treaty. The Treaty itself could not be operated without the Statute. It is because these powers were in the Treaty, dealing with property which otherwise could not have been dealt with, that the Treaty Act had to be passed When the Treaty Act was passed it was passed so that Orders in Council might be made, and those Orders, when made, dealing with this property, had the same force as an Act of Parliament. No one has questioned that. That has been twice done. Lord Justice Younger's Committee has been in operation throughout the whole time. If that is so, I would suggest to the noble Lord that to transfer to Parliament the powers which have been reserved by the Treaty Act, and the

907
Orders made under it, to the special jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, would be nothing more or less than a breach of faith. It is a thing which has never been suggested in any of the numerous discussions which we have had in this House. Of course, the two matters are entirely different. I am sure that if the noble Lord would bring his jurist's mind to bear he would see at once that his proposal is impossible, so long as you bear in mind what the terms of the Treaty really are.
Now let me deal with the other point. I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension as regards figures. I am not now going into the question whether, not as a matter of international law but as a matter of municipal law, this was an unfortunate measure. I have expressed my opinion and I am not in the least likely to alter it. Let us take things as they stand. As the noble Lord knows, there are two headings—namely "Debts" and "Property, rights and interests." I think the Articles are 296 and 297. So far as debts are concerned it is a question between private individuals. At the present moment the amount of debts which have been paid to English claimants is £44,170,000. The outstanding amount is £l2,675,000. There is £18,500,000 cash in hand besides other assets and probabilities, and, as pointed out by Lord Justice Younger, now Lord Blanesburgh, who went into all these things in detail, there is no question whatever, under the head of debts, of any English claimant being deprived of a single farthing.
Now let us come to what were called proceeds of liquidation. £19,000,000 has already been paid, but the outstanding amount is £4,500,000, and there are certain claims for what is called compensation. It will be within the knowledge of many members of this House that claims for compensation, when you get, to close quarters, are generally very much scaled down. You are not dealing with an actual property or with an actual debt, but you are dealing with suggested damages, and what Lord Blanesburgh said is that the maximum possible to which compensation claims might be affected would be from 2s. to 2d. 6d. in the £ At the same time he indicates that in his view they are extremely unlikely to be affected at all. To begin with there is the strong fact
908
that these claims cannot be made for a very long time, and 50 per cent. of them cannot be brought forward at all. It is conceivably possible, if the whole of these compensation claims, without any deduction, have to be met, and every other possible supposition is made, compensation claims might suffer to the extent I have mentioned, but, as Lord Blanesburgh says, be considers that a negligible factor. He considers it a matter hardly worth consideration, whereas on the other hand his Committee have come to the conclusion that claims ought to be met, and should be met, under the heads referred to them.
These claims are contained under the heads submitted to him by Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, for His Majesty's late Government. They are with respect to claimants who are of British birth or origin; claimants resident in Great Britain before the war and permitted at its close either to remain or to return there; claimants who, although ex-enemy nationals, are also British subjects; and claimants to funds of British origin or which represent earnings or savings from earnings made in this country, who, though not themselves of British origin, can reasonably be considered, owing to exceptional circumstances, to be entitled to special consideration. In each case a discretion is left with the tribunal, and if the tribunal thinks that in any particular case that discretion ought not to be exercised it will not exercise it.
There is one other matter. When this matter was referred to this tribunal with its special expert knowledge, it was told that there had been added to its terms of reference the following reference:
"To advise, with due regard to the claims thereon of British subjects under the Treaty of Peace."
Therefore, the very matter of which the noble Lord complains was one of the things specially referred to the Committee and which the Committee had in mind when they made their recommendations. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I have said. I do not think the matter could possibly be determined in the way which he proposes in his Resolution, and I do not think the Board of Trade could have taken any other action than that of adopting the recommendations which Lord Blanesburgh and his Committee made after very careful consideration.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand the answer given by the noble and learned Lord. I understood him first to say that the power exercised to the Board of Trade is given by the Treaty—
LORD PARMOOR: By an Order made under the Treaty Act, which was to be equivalent to a Statute.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:—and that, that being so, it was not open to Parliament to criticise the action of the Board of Trade because they had already got that power. That is a new doctrine to me—that Parliament may not criticise an administrative act because the Department in question has got power to do that which it has done. If that is to be a new doctrine. I really do not quite see what is the use of either House of Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: I say that it is a Treaty right, which is a different thing altogether.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If it is in accordance with the Treaty that is a different thing, but I understand my noble friend behind me (Lord Danesfort) to say it is not in accordance with the Treaty, and I understood the noble and learned Lord himself to say that it was not in the Treaty, or not in accordance with the Treaty, but that it arose under an Order in Council, which has nothing whatever to do with the Treaty. In these circumstanees I can only repeat that it seems to me that the chief function of Parliament, which I always though was to criticise the Government in its administration of the affairs of the country, might be done away with if we are to say that, because a Department has the power to do certain things, nothing is to be said about it. Then, am I right in believing that the noble Lord said it was impossible for any British creditor to he deprived of his right? Because, if that is so, if every British creditor is going to be paid, then I do not quite see—
LORD DANESFORT: Oh, no.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: There, again, there seems to be some difference of opinion between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord
910
opposite. Then the noble and learned Lord said that he did not think that more than 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £ was likely to be paid.
LORD PARMOOR: Likely not, to be paid. That is to say, that the creditor would not be likely to suffer to the extent of more than 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £. I do not know that he would suffer at all, but that is the maximum possible.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If he would not suffer I do not see what is the use of talking about 2s. in the £. He either would suffer or he would not. If he did suffer, if it was only 2s. 6d. in the £ I must say that I agree with my noble friend, and I really do not see why we should deprive an English creditor of any sum whatever in order to give it to Germans, who, in my opinion, do not deserve any consideration at all.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I do not quite understand the object of the noble Lords, one of when has moved and the other supported this Resolution. Both noble Lords have, I think, come to your Lordships' House this year, and no reference has been made hitherto to the very numerous debates which have already taken place upon this subject. In fact, when I had the honour to speak on behalf of the Coalition Government in answer to a very similar proposition, I was pressed from all sides of the House to give a greater degree of consideration to the extraordinarily hard cases which were quoted in support. And it was not then sufficiently proved how hard the cases were, but the Coalition Government was so much pressed, and so many cases were proved against it, that it yielded in some degree, and the same thing happened last year with the Conservative Government. Now we have a very lengthy statement made rehearsing the whole of that past history as if all your Lordships were in ignorance of it, and no reference was made to the vote which your Lordships' House carried, against the wishes of the then Government, that large further releases should be made. I think if this Resolution is to be pressed to a Division, at any rate it should be within the recollection of your Lordships that you have already decided this principle, and decided it contrary to the spirit of this Resolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is only on a technical point that I wish to say a word. The terms of the Treaty I have distinctly within my recollection. Then there came a Statute for giving effect to the Treaty, and an Order in Council was made under the Statute. Under that Order in Council the Board of Trade were furnished with powers to deal with this matter in the way they have done—that is to say, by delegating it to a Committee, which was the Younger Committee. That was done by the late Government, and it has been entirely concurred in by the present Government. It is not a matter about which, so far as I can see, there is any legal question. It was an administrative act done within his statutory powers by the President of the Board of Trade under the late Administration, and followed up by the President of the Board of Trade under the present Administration.
Whatever you may say about the exercise of discretion on the part of the Minister, this is a matter about which there can be no question as to legality. They are all in the same position as regards this, and, speaking for myself, I am not prepared to censure any President of the Board of Trade for the action he has taken in putting his legal powers into force. I entirely agree with what was done by the President of the Board of Trade under the late, Government, who appointed the Younger Committee, and I am entirely in favour of the present President of the Board of Trade pursuing the same beneficent course. But, as to the legality, I can see nothing in the point. If it is desired to raise the question of the exercise of the discretion, it should be by a direct criticism of the action of the President of the Board of Trade in exercising the powers which Parliament conferred upon him.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am not qualified to enter into the legal aspect of the case, and I have no doubt that the exact state of the law has been correctly described by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I regard the matter rather from the point of view of policy and expediency. I think there has been some misunderstanding on both aspects of the case. Nor is that surprising when we observe the somewhat difficult and technical character of the whole matter
912
that we are discussing. As I understand, the object of my noble friend behind ma (Lord Danesfort)—and I think he was entirely justified in raising the matter—was to place before the House his views upon certain aspects of the Report, certain recommendations made in the Report, and the action that has been, or is likely to be, taken upon them In that I think he was entirely justified, and in some respects I think he will have obtained a certain amount of satisfaction, as I did, from the reply of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council.
I think my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) was not quite justified in saying that the reply giver by Lord Parmoor constituted any refusal on the part of the Government to admit the fullest right of criticism on this side of the House or in any part of the House—criticism either of the Report of the Committee or of the administrative action to be taken by the Government upon it. And, indeed, we have had the amplest and fullest measure of criticism from my noble friends to-night. The only question which concerns me, whether they be or be not satisfied with the discussion that has taken place, is whether it is desirable that your Lordships should pass the Motion with which the Notice given by Lord Danesfort concludes. I am disposed to think that it would be, on the whole, unwise to do so for two reasons. In the first place, the proposal is, in my view, a very novel one. I am not certain that either House of Parliament is in the habit of requiring His Majesty's Government to submit a Report for sanction to Parliament before it acts upon it. Reports are constantly submitted for the discussion of Parliament, but to say that Parliament by a formal vote must sanction the Report of the Committee before any action is taken upon it seems to me to go a good deal outside the functions which Governments ordinarily pursue.
The other point which I would submit to my noble friend is this. It is not a very wise thing for either House of Parliament to pass a Motion which it cannot carry into effect. If we were to carry the Motion of my noble friend the House of Commons would also have to be considered, and until the House of Commons passed a similar Motion the action of the Government would not be

913
suspended in the matter. Should not we place ourselves in really a ridiculous position if we passed a Motion here which the House of Commons then proceeded to ignore, with the only result that we should proclaim our impotence to the world? I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be satisfied with the explanation that has been given, and will not think it necessary to proceed to a Division on the Motion he has made.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, in view of what has been said by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CENTENARY OF BYRON'S DEATH.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty s Government whether they will consider the propriety of sending an official representative of this country to the forthcoming celebrations at Athens and Missolonghi of the centenary of Byron's death. The Government and your Lordships will sympathise, I am sure, with my purpose in bringing this matter to the notice of the House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I can give an answer which I hope will be satisfactory to the noble Lord. His Majesty's Government intend to profit by the fact that certain of His Majesty's ships are to be in Greek waters in the month of April. They will be present in the Gulf of Patras on April 19 in order to participate, by the firing of a salute and in such other ways as may appear desirable, in the celebration to be held at Missolonghi on that date. An invitation from the Greek Government to send out an official Mission has likewise been accepted, and steps are accordingly being taken to arrange for the despatch of a suitable delegation to represent His Majesty's Government at the centenary celebrations. Those are the celebrations in connection with the centenary of the death of Lord Byron.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT 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 Lamington.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, on this Motion I would like to remind your Lordships that, for reasons which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is not in the least responsible, the discussion on the Second Reading was rather truncated. The most rev. Primate himself only addressed your Lordships, I think, for about a minute and a half. There is a certain amount to be said to-night and there are considerable Amendments on the Paper, many of them involving a good deal of detail, which requires discussion. I do not think the Bill could be disposed of in much under an hour. In those circumstanees, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I hope I am entitled to say a word on this matter. I thought the fact that the noble Earl and myself had agreed—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind the noble Lord that the Motion has been disposed of?

CLAIMS OF IRISH LOYALISTS.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To call attention to the words used in this House on the 5th day of March last by the Lord Muskerry in connection with the conduct of an Assistant Under-Secretary for Ireland.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I apologise for detaining your Lordships at this hour, but I am obliged to do so because I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, finds it impossible to be here to-morrow and I shall be away next week. I will be as brief as I can in saying what I have to say on this matter. The importance of this question is its relation to an ex-civil servant. I know your Lordships are always anxious that the fair fame of our great Civil Service shall not be questioned unless it be justly.
On March 5 the following words were used by the noble Lord. Lord Muskerry, in this House—
"But Mr. Lloyd George intervened. He selected a, certain person in the service of

915
the Excise Department. I believe that person was acting as a detective. His duty was to assume certain disguises and to trap those who were engaged in evading the Excise Laws. This person was sent over to Ireland as an Assistant Under-Secretary. Mr. Lloyd George also sent over four other officials, but I am dealing especially with this Assistant Under-Secretary. On his arrival at the castle he took advantage of his official position to attend meetings held by heads of Departments to consider the best means of putting down these outrages and of restoring law and order. Having obtained full information, he at once proceeded to convey that information to the leaders of the Sinn Fein organisation"—
may I request the special attention of your Lordships to the following words?—
"with the result that these plans devised by His Majesty's officers came to naught and in many cases His Majesty's officers and men lost their lives. The result of this treachery at headquarters was to paralyse the efforts of His Majesty's officials, and crime and outrage were rampant throughout the country immediately afterwards."
If those words are true I think your Lordships will agree with me that the individual to whom they refer ought to be taken out and shot, because they really amount not only to a charge of treason but also to a charge of being an accessory to murder.
It, is not denied that the Assistant Under-Secretary referred to is Sir Alfred Cope. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading a letter which Sir Alfred Cope wrote on the following morning to the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, but he wrote to the noble Lord challenging him to repeat those words outside the House where action could be taken in regard to them, and he informed me that he had so written. I did nothing for a few days. Then I communicated with Sir Alfred Cope and asked him whether he had had any reply. He told me that he had not. I then communicated with the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, and told him that I should have to place a Notice on the Paper with reference to the matter.
We are all aware that the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, has suffered grievous wrongs from outrages committed on his property in Ireland—wrongs which. I regret to say, have been suffered by many other persons and families in that country. Had his action been confined simply to attacking the policy of the Government of the day, no one, of course, could object at all and he would have been quite within
916
his rights. But to make against an expermanent official of our great Civil Service the charges he has made against him in this House under privilege, and without producing a single particle of evidence, is, I venture to urge before your Lordships, conduct quite unworthy of a member of your Lordships' House.
Sir Alfred Cope's career began, I believe, in the secretariat of the Customs and Excise Department of the Inland Revenue. During the war he was appointed Second Secretary in the Ministry of Pensions. I believe he distinguished himself particularly in that Department by showing great organising ability. When, in the year 1920, His Majesty's Government felt it right to strengthen the Government in Ireland, they decided to send over some extra officials and to lend them to the Irish Government. Sir John Anderson, now permanent head of the Homo Office, and Mr. Cope, as he then was, were lent to the Government of Ireland with a view to helping that Government in its work. Sir John Anderson became Joint Under-Secretary and Mr. Cope became Assistant Under-Secretary.
I ought to explain why it is that I, who have been for such a very short time a member of your Lordships' House, have taken it upon myself to bring this case before your Lordships. I did it because I really did not believe there was anybody who had, from one point of view, higher qualifications for it, and I do not suppose that any single noble Lord in this House has had to work so closely with Sir Alfred Cope or is so intimately acquainted with him as I am. On the other hand, I regret deeply that there was nobody better qualified, and more accustomed to speak in your Lordships' House than myself, to take up this case. I accepted the appointment of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in the early part of 1921, and when I arrived in Ireland I found Mr. Cope, as he then was, holding three offices—namely. Assistant Under-Secretary, Deputy Keeper of the Privy Seal, and Clerk to the Privy Council. In the last-mentioned capacity he administered to me the oath on my arrival.
I wish to state emphatically that I have the highest opinion of Sir Alfred Cope. I consider him to be a man of great capacity, perfect integrity, and great courage. He did a great amount of work

917
on behalf of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It was through him that an obsolete weapon was done away with—a most important thing considering what was going on in Ireland at that time—and that magnificent corps was armed with an up-to-date weapon. He showed great zeal and energy in improving the transport; doing it in such a way that I believe many lives were saved in consequence. He altered the seating arrangements in the trolleys in which the men had to travel. He was most energetic and most helpful in these things, and he ran the greatest personal risks. I am absolutely certain that at least on two occasions he was attacked with intent to murder him. Luckily he escaped. On three or four other occasions he was under fire. Whether the attack was meant to be made personally on him on those occasions I do not know, but he was under fire. I can assure your Lordships that I had very great anxiety indeed for him. When it was my duty to see him, as it was almost daily, I had great anxiety, for I knew that when I had sent for him he ran great risks. It is no secret that he was liaison officer on behalf of the Government with the Sinn Fein people. It was no mystery that he was employed in that way with a view to bringing about the meetings and negotiations which ultimately followed with the Government of the day.
In addition to what I have said myself regarding Sir Alfred Cope, I should like to read an extract from a letter that I have received from Sir Nevil Macready who, as your Lordships will remember, was at that time Commander-in-Chief in Ireland. I read this letter because, in the first place, Sir Nevil Macready, who is now abroad, directly he read in the papers of the attack that had been made on Sir Alfred Cope, spontaneously and on his own initiative, wrote to Sir Alfred Cope a letter condoling with him on the outrage that had been committed upon him. As soon as he read that I was going to take up the case in your Lordships' House, Sir Nevil Macready wrote me a letter, one paragraph of which I ask leave to read to your Lordships. It is this:
"During the time I was in Ireland I heard much abuse of Cope, because he entered whole-heartedly into the policy of self-government for Ireland, but never did I hear the breath of suspicion of disloyalty. Had such been suspected it would certainly
918
have come to my ears. Lord Muskerry saw me on two occasions. If he know anything of what he now asserts he surely ought, in the interests of the country, to have told me. I was thoroughly disgusted to see that he took advantage of his position to make such an accusation instead of milking it at one of the many loyalist meetings, where it could have been dealt with."
In conclusion, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, to get up in his place in this House and substantiate the charges he made against this ex-civil servant, or, if he does not wish, perhaps for good reasons, to produce any evidence in this House at the present time, then I ask him to repeat outside what he said in this House, and let the law take its course and justice be done.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I must first say that I have no personal knowledge of Sir Alfred Cope. To my knowledge, I have never seen him in my life. The statement I made on the 5th inst. to which the noble Viscount has referred, was made in all honesty. I had the news from friends whom I know, and who were in a position to speak, and it is their statement I made. I cannot give their names—the noble Viscount can very well imagine why—but I am convinced that they were honest in their statement. Since that debate I have received a number of letters from officers and ex-officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were in Dublin at the time, and they make the same statement. These letters contain their names and addresses, but they are marked private and confidential, and I cannot make use of them. But I have had others which go in great minuliœ into matters. I suggest, that if the Government were asked, they would appoint a Committee with power to investigate what took place, and take evidence as to what happened between the end of the year 1919 and the end of 1921 when the Treaty was signed. Sir Alfred Cope can appear before that Committee, and, if he can clear himself, then I shall be the first to apologise. But, as I say, I cannot give the evidence. If I were to give names of people it would be as much as their lives were worth. I was under the impression that an Assistant Under-Secretary would be under the Under-Secretary of State, and would not belong to the Department of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Under-Secretary, as a Cabinet Minister, would be responsible for the action of His Majesty's

919
Government in Ireland. I had no idea the noble Viscount had anything to do with it.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: I take full responsibility for every action that Sir Alfred Cone took during the time that I was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.
LORD MUSKERRY: I was asked to give the statement, and I am certainly not going to repeat it outside.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think what has passed calls for some expression from a Minister representing the Government. It is our business to protect the Civil Service. The noble Viscount has done well to call attention to what has passed. He has challenged the noble Lord either to repeat outside what he has said, or to give proof of what he stated. And what is his reply? The noble Lord says he will not give the names of his witnesses; he knows nothing of Sir Alfred Cope personally, and that upon hearsay, for it is nothing more than hearsay, he has made these statements. That is a perfectly unjustifiable proceeding. The noble Lord had no right to traduce and take away the character of an ex-public servant, as Sir Alfred Cope is, unless he was prepared to justify to the full what he said. A court of law is the proper place where such an issue should be tried. It is not a case for any Committee, nor will the Government appoint a Committee. They leave it to the Law Courts; and they do this in addition
I have made it my business to inquire about Sir Alfred Cope. I can add my support to the high testimony that the noble Viscount has given not only as to his character but as to what he did in Ireland; and I have made inquiries from other sources. His action in the course of the negotiations for the Treaty were taken with the full knowledge and on the request of his immediate superiors, the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Under-Secretary. He carried out very delicate negotiations. He got into comparatively friendly relations with those with whom he was negotiating, and he was able to bring about that condition of things which eventuated in the Treaty. That was a great public service, and it is a public service which deserves to be recognised alongside those other public services of which the noble Viscount has
920
spoken. But Sir Alfred Cope was not the only person whom the noble Lord mentioned in his speech. He spoke of another very distinguished and eminent man—Mr. Lionel Curtis—and he made the reproach against him that he was connected with a Socialist Paper the name of which was the Round Table. That seems to me to rather aggravate what the noble Lord said about Sir Alfred Cope. The Government are thoroughly satisfied that no case has been shown to make Sir Alfred Cope deserving of the reproach, and I join with the noble Viscount in deprecating the course which has been taken to-day and which is thoroughly unsatisfactory from the point of view of justice.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, it will probably be expected that I should say a few words on this question. It is one of much greater gravity than the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, has realised, and I hold that the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent, was not only justified in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention but that he has performed a public service in so doing. I know-nothing whatever about the services which Sir Alfred Cope achieved in Ireland, but I remember his being sent there by the Prime Minister of the Government of which I was a member to conduct certain negotiations. I am aware that in the course of doing so he incurred great suspicion and in some quarters great hostility. To what extent there was any justification for those beliefs I have no knowledge at, all. But what I have to consider, at any rate what I do consider, is the manner in which we discharge our obligation as members of the House of Lords and the manner in which we use, or, as it seems to me in this case abuse, the privilege which we enjoy.
What is privilege? Privilege is the right, as I understand, to say in this House things which, because they are said under the privilege of this House, are not actionable and are free from the consequences that might ensue, and probably would ensue, if they were said outside. But that privilege, which has been given in the course of centuries to both Houses of Parliament, is given to members of this House as a means of protection to themselves, not as a means of aggression upon others. It certainly was not intended

921
that anybody should take advantage of the privilege of Parliament in order to make an attack with impunity upon the rights of others. Look at the manner in which we protect ourselves. If any noble Lord in this House gets up and utters matter that reflects injuriously upon the character of any other noble Lord he is at once challenged. If he persisted in the matter without cause or justification, the House would take very serious notice of it. Are we to extend to our own members the privilege of immunity in that respect which we deny to those outside who are incapable of defending themselves?
One further point. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises the particular form of privilege which he is claiming to enjoy. If the noble Lord, after making that speech the other evening, which I heard and which in my judgment—and I have read the language again—justifies the description which is given to it by the noble Viscount, if after making that speech, he had taken steps to issue it himself in the form of a leaflet or otherwise he would at once have come under the operation of the law; that is to say, an action for libel might have been brought against him and the case tested in the Courts. But simply because speeches which are delivered in your Lordships' House are published by the Government and at the expense of the State, the noble Lord escapes any such risk. He makes his statement here but it is not confined to the walls of this House. It is broadcast to the papers next day. Sir Alfred Cope and his friends are aware that these dreadful charges have been made against him, but because the publication takes place in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT and under the orders of Parliament therefore he cannot proceed to defend his own character.
When the case was brought before your Lordships by the noble Viscount I awaited with the greatest anxiety the defence and answer of the noble Lord. I own I was greatly disappointed. All he could de was to say that he made these statements himself believing in their bona fides; and that he received them from persons whoso honesty he did not question. That is not enough for making statements in your Lordships' House. It is not enough to be convinced of the honesty of those who inform you. You have to be convinced of the veracity of
922
the statements you make, and it is no defence to say that you have had more letters from persons whose names cannot be given repeating the charges, and that, therefore, you are not called upon to withdraw them. And, having failed to withdraw them, having failed to take the line of action which surely is incumbent upon any member of your Lordships' House in these circumstances, you are actually to ask the Government to appoint a Committee, to hold a sort of rambling inquiry into the events of the past few years, in the course of which Sir Alfred Cope is to have an opportunity of defending his character against the aspersions which the noble Lord has cast upon it.
I think your Lordships are not only entitled, but are bound in the defence of your own honour, to look seriously on a case of this sort. I will ask my noble friend behind me, who still has the opportunity, to take advantage of that opportunity of withdrawing in your Lordships' House the statement which he made ten days or a fortnight ago, if he is not willing, as apparently he is not willing, to substantiate it by repeating the statement outside. I would ask him—and I make the request with great seriousness and gravity, because he must be aware of the general sentiment with which his action has been regarded by the House, as has been shown by your Lordships this evening—to take this opportunity, now and here, of withdrawing statements of this sort which he is not in a position to substantiate. If my noble friend is not disposed to take that course, I can only say that I should like, when these proceedings are over, to consult with the leaders of the Government as to any action in the future which, in self-protection, this House will, in my opinion, in all probability be bound to take.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, after what the noble Marquess has said I certainly bog to withdraw the statements made on March 5. I think I might say, in justice to m,\ self, that I was told that evidence would be given.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, before the debate closes may I say one word upon a point which has not been touched upon, but upon which I feel so deeply that this must be, my excuse for troubling your Lordships for a very few

923
moments? I am sure we shall all welcome the action just taken by the noble Lord in response to the Leader of the Opposition, but I am rather concerned with a more general aspect of the matter. I have regretted this debate extremely. There are members of your Lordships' House to-day who have been longer in the House than I have, but I have been here for twenty-three years, and I remember very few cases where an attack has been made upon a civil servant.
It is the tradition of your Lordships that we do not attack civil servants; we attack their chiefs. Even in this case I should have no hesitation in saying to my noble friend that, when Sir Alfred Cope was in Dublin, we had ample opportunity of attacking his chief, and we did so, though perhaps not so often as we might have done. I hope it will not be forgotten, when we reflect on this debate in the future, that it is not our rule,
924
whatever the provocation, to attack civil servants for anything that they do, however strongly we feel about it. It is our tradition to attack their chiefs, and I hope that this tradition will not be in any way weakened by the proceedings this afternoon and the other day.

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL. [H.L.]
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords. I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lords following he proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely:—

E Haddington;

E. Liverpool;

V. Falmouth;

L. Oxenfoord (E. Stair.);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS (ABAN- DONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Wednesday next.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday, March 27.
MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.