Sitting of 15 May 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Hastings Corporation Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Blackpool (South Shore), Helensburgh, Montrose, Penarth, and Whitehaven," presented by Mr. GOSLING; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
Copy ordered, of
"Treasury Minute, dated the 6th day of May, 1924, on the subject of commuting the pension of three hundred and sixty pounds per annum, being the remaining portion of
1520
the pension originally granted to the first Duke of Schomberg, now payable to Major W. S. Gosling from the Consolidated Fund under the Acts 1 Geo. I., c. 78, and 19 and 20 Vic, c. 59."—[Mr. William Graham.]

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

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to state the result of his conferences with those concerned as to the best means Parliament can adopt for securing to all men who served in the Great War, and who are now suffering disability, such pensions and allowances as will enable them to maintain themselves and their dependants without being forced to accept the status of paupers by being obliged to apply to the guardians for relief?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Frederick Roberts): The compensation due to ex-service men in respect of disability sustained in consequence of their war service cannot be equitably granted on considerations other than the degree of disablement resulting from their war service, but it is my firm intention that justice shall be secured in all cases to the fullest extent of my powers. Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend, with regard to the latter part of his question, that all boards of guardians have, within the last few months, been advised by Circular of their duty to refer to the Ministry any case in which an applicant for poor relief claims to have a disability for which compensation has not been awarded.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that boards of guardians have referred thousands of cases to his Department, and they have been turned down owing to the final Appeal Tribunal?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that a number of cases have been referred, but whether the exact quotation given by my

    1521
    hon. Friend is right I cannot say. If he will bring cases to my notice, they shall be looked into.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the numberless cases that I have referred to him of men who ate suffering from disability, and claiming to be treated under the provisions of a Bill similar to that which he introduced last year—"fit for service, fit for pension"?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am endeavouring to meet the requirements of all the cases which my hon. Friend brings to my notice.
    Mr. LANSBURY: But they are all being turned down.

    GYMNASIUM, BULINGA STREET CLINIC.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to close the gymnasium at the Bulinga Street Neurological Clinic; if so, what steps will be taken to provide facilities for remedial exercises; whether he is aware that administrative officers, medical men, have been appointed to exercise control at this clinic, though they have no neurological experience; and whether, in view of the difficulty in dealing with cases of war neuroses, he will arrange that all medical officers in this clinic shall be men who are experts in the treatment of neurological diseases?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention of closing the gymnasium at the Bulinga Street Clinic. On the contrary, it is proposed to make increased use of it. The control of the neurological section of the clinic has been, is, and will continue to be undertaken by an experienced neurologist. As regards the last part of the question, none but neurological specialists are, or will be, employed in the special treatment of war neuroses.

    NEURASTHENIA (TREATMENT).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that instructions were issued that no treatment was to be given to men suffering from neurasthenia if their assessment was 20 per cent. or less; whether, in all cases of men suffering from war neuroses, the
    1522
    pensioner was given the benefit of the doubt; whether, in the interests of economy, any definite action has been taken to reduce the length and expense of treatment in neurasthenic cases; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions that in all cases sympathetic consideration shall be given to men suffering from war neuroses, and that treatment shall be provided where the man is likely to benefit from the same?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No instructions of the nature suggested have been issued regarding the treatment of neurasthenia. If my hon. Friend has in mind the instructions regarding the treatment of aggravated disabilities of less than 20 per cent. which were issued in August of last year, I would remind him that, as already stated, these instructions have since been modified in such a manner as to admit to treatment any case of this kind in which it is justified. Men suffering from neurasthenia due to service, whatever their assessment may be, continue to receive the appropriate treatment which in the judgment of my medical advisers the circumstances of the case require. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to have an opportunity of looking into it.

    GRANTHAM HOSPITAL.
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to extend the present Ministry of Pensions hospital at Grantham into a hospital for neurasthenics?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Patients suffering from neurasthenia have for some time past been admitted to this hospital for treatment. It is proposed, when accommodation is no longer required there for medical and surgical cases, to use the institution solely for neurological cases.

    TRAINING AND TREATMENT (LATE APPLICATIONS).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is his intention to provide training and treatment for those ex-soldiers who applied too late to be brought within the last scheme, or who are now in need of such training and treatment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This matter has already been under consideration, and I hope shortly to be in a position to make an announcement.

    FINAL AWARDS.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of men called up at the outbreak of war, and who, having completed four years' continuous war service, were granted pensions on leaving the Army, especially men who were passed A 1 on mobilisation and left the Army B 3, and who have had their pensions upheld by three successive medical boards, he will grant these men life pensions, it being quite clear that in the case of men passed A 1 on mobilisation and B 3 on discharge the causes of their disabilities are entirely due to war service; and whether, in the case of men who have successfully appealed against a final allowance, he will empower the appeals tribunal board to assess the damages immediately instead of putting the men forward for a further medical board, seeing that the policy suggested would save the country annually a very large sum of money in administrative expenses?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The case of every officer or man who has been on the pension list for four years or more has to be considered for a final award under the provisions of Section 4 of the War Pensions Act, 1921. Wherever the case is found to be suitable for a final award, such an award is made. I am glad to say that in about 250,000 cases final awards of life pension have already been granted. With regard to the last part of the question, I may point out that wherever the Appeal Tribunal are able to assess compensation finally they do so, and their finding is acted upon by my Department. It is only in cases where they are uncertain as to the prognosis of the case that they set aside the award made by the Ministry. The suggestion made by the hon. Member would not be practicable without legislation, and would very frequently not be in accordance with the best interests of the man concerned.
    Mr. HANNON (on behalf of Captain BOWYER)asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now had an opportunity of thoroughly considering the question of final awards made in respect of the less seriously disabled
    1524
    men; whether he has road the pamphlet published by the British Legion in this connection in January this year; and what steps he proposes to take to give the disabled men concerned a fair opportunity of receiving pension should their disability reassert itself in the future?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the answers which I gave on the same subject to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) on the 8th and again on the 12th instant. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member copies of both answers.

    CLAIMS (SEVEN-YEAR LIMIT).
    Mr. HANNON (on behalf of Captain BOWYER)asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hardship caused to disabled men by Section 5 of the War Pensions Act, 1921, whereby no disabled man is entitled to receive a pension unless a claim is submitted within seven years from the discharge; and does he propose to take steps to remove this hardship?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The effect of the Section referred to, which, however, cannot operate to any material extent until 1926, will be carefully considered.
    Mr. HANNON (on behalf of Captain BOWYER)asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hardship caused to certain widows and dependants by the wording of Article 17 b of the Royal Warrant of January, 1924, inasmuch as widows of men who died more than seven years from their first removal from duty and who were not actually receiving a pension at the time of their death are ineligible for pension; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this injustice?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The liability of the State for compensation in respect of death was defined after prolonged consideration in the Royal Warrant to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and the concession then made in respect of widows has now been extended at my instance to dependent parents. Until further experience has been gained of the working of the existing provisions,

    1525
    I am not prepared to agree that the further modification suggested by the question is desirable.

    SPECIAL GRANTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has been reached with regard to the former powers of the Special Grants Committee to make grants to widows of ex-service men suffering from serious and prolonged illness.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the Government are prepared to authorise the making of grants by the Special Grants Committee to widows and children in cases of hardship due to serious and prolonged illness, under suitable conditions, the details of which will be settled in conjunction with the Treasury.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for his satisfactory answer, may I also ask, up to what limit this grant is made?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot state a definite or specific limit pending consideration.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Will it apply to the provision of education?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir; only to the sickness grant.

  HOUSING.

    EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give the total figures as to orders for possession of, and ejectment from, houses since 1st August, 1923, as far as they concern the Summary Jurisdiction Courts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The figures given to me by police authorities for ejectment proceedings in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Wales during the period
    1526
    from August, 1923, to March, 1924, both months inclusive, are as follow:

    Applications for Orders of Ejectment

    14,796

    Orders made

    9,846

    Orders executed

    2,685

    Mr. LUMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the orders executed were in respect of houses of which the Government is the landlord?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot give the information to the hon. Member, but if he will put down a question I will get it for him.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Do these figures refer only to England and Wales?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is so.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to proceed to evict Mr. Arthur Oakey, an ex-soldier with 10 children, from 15, C Block, Artillery Place, Woolwich?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Stephen Walsh): Mr. Oakey was discharged on 7th January last, and has, therefore, been in irregular occupation of a quarter in barracks for more than four months. The quarter is urgently required for a serving soldier who is entitled to it, and, deeply as I regret the necessity for requiring Mr. Oakey to vacate the quarter, I have no right to allow him to remain there to the exclusion of its proper occupant. I would add that Mr. Oakey has had, in all, six months' notice, and that two written warnings have been given to him, on 8th November and 7th January last, respectively.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking, before he evicts this soldier, who has served his country for 21 years and has a family of 10, that he will find alternative accommodation for him?
    Mr. WALSH: I do not know that the number of the family is very material. As a matter of fact, the State Department has a definite obligation for the housing of married soldiers and their families. The obligation to house the soldiers is just as great to-day as it ever has been, and my hon. Friend knows the great deficiency of married men's quarters. Men who are upon the married strength have a right to that accommo-

    1527
    dation, and it must be found for them. I have an obligation to find the accommodation when it exists.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing that the man has 10 children, is not this a time for the Government to show a little of that broader humanity of which they talk so much?
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to give notice that, at the earliest opportunity, I shall raise this matter again.

    URBAN CENTRES (BUILDING OPERATIONS).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health if he can state those urban centres of over 50,000 population which are at the present time building houses up to their maximum available capacity in respect of labour and materials?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Outside the London district there are 83 urban authorities whose population exceeds 50,000 and practically all of them have had schemes approved under the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, the total number of houses authorised being 45,325. In none of the districts is there any appreciable unemployment in the essential skilled trades required for house building.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give me a more definite answer. I asked specifically how many towns cannot proceed with building owing to the shortage of labour?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Pardon me. That does not seem to be the question. The question was what are those urban centres which are at present building houses up to their maximum available capacity in respect of labour and materials. My answer is that, as regards labour, practically all of them. The question of material does not arise, because you cannot test that figure, but there is the fact that the available labour is fully employed.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: They are building up to the present maximum of the labour supply, and they could not increase the output of houses in these centres owing to the want of men.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Are there some of the 83 authorities which have not yet submitted any schemes?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that there are probably one or two. Practically all of them have submitted schemes.

    SHERBORNE (BRICKYARDS).
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the housing scheme in Sherborne has been held up through scarcity of bricks; that there are a number of derelict brickyards in the vicinity that could conveniently be opened for the purpose of supplying the bricks required in the neighbourhood; and what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of bricks at reasonable prices?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention had not previously been drawn to the facts stated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the supply of bricks at a reasonable cost is one of the matters which are under consideration by the Government in connection with their general housing proposals.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Is it the intention of the Government to develop brickyards?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Give them time.
    Mr. W. GREENWOOD: In view of the seriousness of this matter, will the Minister recommend to the President of the Board of Trade that the derelict brickyards, as well as the derelict shipyards, should be granted facilities under the Trade Facilities Act?
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Is the Minister aware that the London County Council did for some time manufacture bricks at Norbury, and very successfully, and that some of the houses built of those bricks were the cheapest ever erected?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  BOY SCALERS, MERSEYSIDE.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the injurious working conditions of boy-sealers at the Merseyside docks; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to remedy this evil?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir, and I am proposing to deal with the matter in the forthcoming Factory Bill.

  SWEEPSTAKE, OTLEY.
  Mr. FOOTasked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations from a number of residents at Otley protesting against the organisation of a large public sweepstake at Otley Conservative Club and asking for his intervention; whether he has formed any opinion as to the promotion of this widely advertised sweepstake inviting subscriptions from the general public; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The question of taking proceedings in respect of this sweepstake is now under consideration.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Have the test cases which, I think, were to come before the High Court about this time, with regard to other similar lotteries, been tried yet?
  Mr. HENDERSON: No. I think there were three test cases in all. In two of them I think they have admitted their guilt and arranged to pay the penalties, and in the third I think an application is being made to be considered now in the same direction.
  Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that last year proceedings were taken too late, having regard to the distribution of the money, and will he hasten the decision of the Home Office in this respect?
  Mr. HENDERSON: It is possible, in cases of this description, to proceed too late, but it is also possible to proceed too early. If you are going to have the law properly applied, you must have the in formation upon which to act.
  Mr. LUMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman definitely decided whether this particular sweepstake is illegal or not?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that that will have to be settled somewhere else.

  PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS.
  Major KINDERSLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions to ensure that Press photographers are excluded when the police have control of premises for the purpose of investigating alleged crimes?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I fear I have no authority to give such directions.
  Major KINDERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain such authority by legislation?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I think it would be very unwise for me to make a definite promise in that respect, at present at any rate, until I get further information.
  Mr. HOPE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman power where either the Criminal Investigation Department or the Metropolitan Police are in charge?
  Mr. HENDERSON: No; my information is that we have not the power.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that there is no redress against the large crowds and the disgraceful scenes that have occurred recently? Can nothing be done at all in the matter?
  Major KINDERSLEY: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no Department which has any control?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I think the question raised in this question is that of Press photographers, and I have already intimated that we have no power.
  Major KINDERSLEY: My question was as to whether, where the police have control, the right hon. Gentleman will issue instructions that Press photographers shall be excluded? This raises the question of the police.
  Mr. HENDERSON: My information is that I have no power to issue the very instructions that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting.
  Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman exercise his influence with the Leader of the House to give facilities for the Bill introduced yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley)?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I will consider that question.
  Mr. HOPE: In the case of the county police, have not the chief constables power?
  Mr. HENDERSON: My information is that we have not the power.

  GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Geological Museum is overcrowded; and whether he has considered the advisability of moving the collection to South Kensington, where other national scientific collections are housed, and selling the valuable site in Piccadilly?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The questions involved in the development of the museums at South Kensington were all necessarily postponed during the War. Steps are now being taken to put the existing Geological Museum into constructional and decorative repair, but the Beard of Education and the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research intend in due course to reconsider the Bell Committee's Report which proposed to house the Geological Museum on a site contiguous to the collections of the Natural History and Science Museums.

  EDUCATION.

    SITES AND BUILDINGS.
    Mr. CLAYTONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the withdrawal by the Board of Education Circular 1,190, issued on the 11th January, 1921, by the Circular 1,328 (3rd April, 1924), the general effect of which was to postpone expenditure on the development of educational facilities and the provision of sites and buildings, and to the statement of the Board of Education as conveyed to local education authorities throughout the country by Circular 1,328, that the Board of Education are prepared to revert to their old practice of considering on their merits all proposals in respects of elementary, technical, and nursery schools, the Board of Education are prepared to support their revival policy by amending their Grant Regulations, No. 1 (1924–25), Education Act, 1921, so as to provide for placing expenditure on sites and buildings upon the same footing as expenditure on special services, i.e., one-half instead of one-fifth as at present?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If occasion arises for a revision of the established system of grants, this suggestion, which has from time to time been made to the Board, will no doubt receive consideration. But I cannot commit myself to deal with it separately, or in advance of the Report of Lord Meston's Committee, which has not yet been received.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any representations as to the proportion of the cost of secondary schools which falls upon local rates; and whether he will make any statement as to the present Exchequer grants?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not received any such representations. The Exchequer grants payable in aid of secondary schools are set out in the Board's Regulations for secondary schools and in the regulations for the payment of grants for higher education, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member. I may also refer him to the explanatory notes upon the Board's estimates contained on pages 27 to 30 of the Estimates for Civil Services for the year ending 31st March, 1925.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not have been better to keep on the Entertainments Duty and have some more secondary schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: That does not arise.
    Mr. BROWNalso asked the President of the Board of Education (1) the total cost per pupil in the secondary schools of the Administrative County of Warwick in the years 1910–11, 1917–18, and 1922–23, respectively, and the amount of the Board of Education's grants per pupil in the same periods;
    (2) the total contributions of the Board of Education towards secondary schools in the Administrative County of Warwick in the years 1910–11, 1917–18 and 1922–23, respectively; and the total cost of this service in this area in the same periods?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: With the hon. Member's permission, as the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    1533

    Financial Year.

    No. of Schools.

    Total number of Pupils.

    Total expenditure on School maintenance.

    Board's Grant.

    Cost per pupil.

    Grant per pupil.

    L.E.A.

    Non-L.E.A.

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (5)

    (6)

    (7)

    (8)

    £

    £

    £

    s.

    £

    s.

    1910–11

    …

    1

    13

    2,000

    31,735

    8,012

    15

    17

    4

    0

    1917–18

    …

    2

    11

    2,195

    43,493

    12 118

    19

    16

    5

    10

    1922–23

    …

    5

    9

    3,445

    106,253

    37,570

    30

    17

    10

    18

    NOTE 1.—In 1910–11 and 1917–18 the Board's grants were based upon the number of pupils. In 1922–23, in addition to grants based upon the number of pupils in schools not provided by the Authority, a percentage grant was also paid based on the Authority's expenditure on Higher Education, of which expenditure on Secondary Education formed a part. In addition to the Board's grants in each of the years the Authority received under the Residue Giant money amounting to roughly £7,000 to be used for purposes of Higher Education generally, but I have no figures to show how much of this was allocated for purposes of Secondary Education.

    2. The Board's grants for 1922–23 (so far as the expenditure grant to the Authority is concerned) can only be stated as an estimate of the portion of the total grant for Higher Education, which is referable to Secondary Education.

    3. In order to make the figures for the three years given in Column 5 comparable, rent, loan charges, capital expenditure and cost of administration have been omitted. For the same reason no allowance has been made for these items of the Authority's expenditure in estimating the amount of grant for 1922–23 entered in Column 6. If, however, allowance is made for these items, the figures for 1922–23 in Columns 5, 6, 7 and 8 would be approximately:—

    £

    £

    Column 5

    …

    …

    114,000

    Column 7

    …

    …

    …

    33

    Column 6

    …

    …

    41,500

    Column 8

    …

    …

    …

    12

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have applied for powers to raise the school-leaving age in their areas to 15, and if representations have been received from any education authorities to the effect that, while wishing to raise the school-leaving age to 15, they are unable to do so unless this age is fixed for the whole country?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board have at different times since October, 1919, received proposals from 15 local education authorities for the approval of bye-laws raising the school-leaving age to 15. They have also received a resolution from one authority to the effect that the raising of the age should be of general application throughout the country, and suggesting legislation for that purpose.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is not now the time for the Labour Government to put into practice what they always preached and raise the school age to 15 owing to the unemployment throughout the country?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I should be very glad to assist any local authorities who wish to raise the school age.
    Viscountess ASTOR: That was part of your official programme, to raise the school age.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I have no doubt when we have time we shall do so.

  RUSSIA.

    ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement on the progress of the negotiations with the Soviet delegation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the supplementary questions asked by the hon. Members for Kingston-upon-Thames and Grantham on the 13th of May, and to the replies given by the Prime Minister yesterday.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman expect that the Prime Minister, before we rise for the Whitsuntide Recess, will be able to give us any idea what progress is being made?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I will ask my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the length of time the negotiations are likely to take?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The negotiations naturally cover a very large field, and it would be unreasonable to expect an announcement just yet.
    Mr. TURNER: Is it possible to stop the sabotage that is taking place against the Russian envoys?
    Mr. BECKER: Has the hon. Gentleman received any apology from the Russian Government for the attacks they have made?

    PAPER MONEY (REDEMPTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Soviet Government have repudiated all paper money issued by them in 1923, and that a proportion of this currency is held by British subjects; and will steps be taken to protect their interests and to ensure payment of such notes?
    Mr. PONSONBY: It is understood that the Soviet Government is carrying through a series of financial reforms, which include the redemption of the previous issues of Soviet paper money in rouble denominations at a rate to be fixed by decree. In reply to the latter part of the question, His Majesty's Government, while naturally taking all steps to protect British interests, have no power to ensure that Soviet currency any more than any other foreign currency is redeemed at its face value.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that previous reforms of a similar character have resulted in utter disaster?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: Is this one of the questions which have been discussed at the present Conference?
    Mr. PONSONBY: No.

  MOTORISTS (FENNY STRATFORD ROAD).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent summonses of motorists on the Fenny Stratford Road for exceeding the five-mile limit; whether
  1536
  he is aware that the notice respecting the speed limit is placed between houses and a telegraph pole and is under regulation size and is so painted that a motorist is quite unable to distinguish it when coming along this part of the road; and whether he will give instructions that, should it be necessary to enforce the five-mile regulation in this instance, a clearer notice should be placed on the road?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. I am making inquiries into the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  STREET BETTING.
  Mr. LAVERACKasked the Home Secretary whether he has noted in the Report of the Select Committee on Betting that police officers are not mentally equipped to deal with the street bookmakers; whether he has taken any steps to remedy this; whether he is aware that much activity has recently been shown by the police of the Somers Town Sub-division of the Y Division, Metropolitan Police; and will he say how many arrests have been made in connection with street betting by the Somers Town and Kentish Town Sub-divisions of the Y Division, respectively, during the three months ended 30th April last?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir; but I do not think that the difficulty of dealing effectively with street bookmakers can be pub down to any lack of mental equipment on the part of the police. The total number of arrests for street betting during the three months ending the 30th April, 1924, was, in the Somers Town Sub-division, 10, and in the Kentish Town Sub-division, 13. There has been no unusual activity on the part of the police, but the number of persons engaged in street betting is increasing and arrests are likely to increase proportionately.
  Mr. HAYES: Is not any difficulty that is experienced in administering the betting laws not actually due to anomalies established by the law itself, and is it not important that we should have a revision of the law, so that the public and the police should know where they stand?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, I am inclined to agree with that opinion, but it depends upon what direction you want the revision to take.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC, CARLISLE (STATE CONTROL).
  Colonel PERKINSasked the Home Secretary whether the Carlisle Labour party is represented upon the local Advisory Committee of the State Management Districts Scheme, and, if so, the number of representatives; and whether other political patties are represented upon that Committee and the number of representatives from each party, and who are the present members of that Committee, and the political party, public body, specific organisation, or particular interest of which each member of the Advisory Committee is the representative?
  Mr. HENDERSON: As the answer is necessarily long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The Carlisle Local Advisory Committee, of which the constitution has not changed since the administration of the Carlisle undertaking was transferred to the Secretary of State by the Licensing Act, 1921, is composed as follows:
  The Earl of Lonsdale (President), the Mayor of Carlisle (Major H. W. Sewell) ex-officio, Sir Frederick Chance, Mr. Waters Butler, Sir William Towle, Sir Robert Allison, Mrs. Sewell, and the following members nominated by the public bodies specified, viz.: The Chairman, Mr. G. A. Rimington (Cumberland Licensing Committee); Major Salkeld (Cumberland Standing Joint Committee); Mr. R. Dalton and Mr. J. R. Potts (Carlisle City Council); Miss Creighton; Mr. J. P. Buck; Mr. W. P. Gibbings and Mr. George White (Carlisle Licensing Committee); Mr. Bertram Carr (Carlisle Watch Committee); Mrs. Fyfe and Mr. T. Winder (Carlisle Trades Council and Labour Party, formerly known as the Carlisle Trades and Labour Council); Mr. T. Hardy (Maryport Urban District Council); Mr. T. Carey (Maryport Licensing Justices); and Mr. W. Parkin-Moore (Wigton Licensing Justices) with Mr. H. S. Cartmell, Honorary Secretary.

  LONDON TRAFFIC (PROCESSIONS).
  Mr. LUMLEYasked the Home Secretary why it is necessary to hold up traffic in Trafalgar Square and the vicinity for 35 minutes before a procession passes; and whether he will take steps to introduce a better system of communication to report the progress of a procession, so as to avoid such a long delay for large numbers of people and for large fleets of vehicles?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I find on inquiry that the traffic was held up on Tuesday last for an unnecessarily long time owing to a misunderstanding. I have no reason to think that such a mistake is likely to recur.

  ALIENS.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of his intention of taking steps to speed up the naturalisation of aliens desiring to settle in this country and having regard to the present serious unemployment, he will consider as to appointing a Departmental Committee, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, to inquire and report on the effect on labour conditions here of removing or further weakening restrictions on alien immigration?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The aliens whose applications for naturalisation I am anxious to deal with as expeditiously as possible have all been settled here for long periods; and no question as to restrictions on alien immigration arises in connection therewith.
  Sir F. HALL: Is it the intention of the Government to make it easier for these aliens to take up their abode here?
  Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that all papers now relating to the naturalisation of aliens apply to aliens who came into the country before the War?
  Mr. HENDERSON: My hon. Friend must be aware that aliens cannot be admitted to-day unless on the conditions I stated in answer to a question two days ago, and one of these is that if they are coming for employment they must have the certificate of the Minister of Labour.
  Sir F. HALL: Are any efforts to be put forth to make it easier for these aliens to be naturalised?

  WORKSHOP AND FACTORY INSPECTION.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary how many workshops and factories have not been visited by His Majesty's factory inspectors for more than a year, and how many for more than two years?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The figures for 1923 were, in the case of factories, 24,065 and 1,776; in the case of workshops, 59,948 and 35,280.

  PRISON OFFICER'S DISMISSAL, WINCHESTER.
  Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the wording of the charge against Prison Officer Henry Fardon, Winchester Prison, who was subsequently dismissed?
  Mr. HENDERSON: In the course of an inquiry held by a prison inspector into occurrences at Winchester Prison, information came to light pointing to trafficking by Fardon, and he was formally reported for trafficking with a prisoner between 1st January and 17th September, 1923. He denied the charge, and it was, in fact, not proved; but familiarity with a prisoner, contrary to the rules, was clearly established, and it was decided that he must be dismissed.
  Mr. HAYES: Was Pardon actually tried on the charge on which he was dismissed, and was any of the evidence on which he was discharged evidence taken from a neurasthenic criminal, and therefore unreliable in so far as the officer's conduct was concerned?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of these supplementary questions, because this case occurred last year under another Government.

  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
  Mr. ROBERT MORRISONasked the Prime Minister when the Pre-War Pensions Bill will be introduced?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the statement on Business which it is proposed to make after Questions.

  MINERALS (PUBLIC OWNERSHIP)
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the public ownership of minerals?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will await the statement of the Government's policy which will be made in the course of the Debate to-morrow.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, before he makes a statement, that the party on this side have declared themselves in favour of such public ownership?

  AIRCRAFT (SPEED).
  Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been drawn to the great speeds of which foreign aeroplanes are capable; of we have any aeroplanes which are capable of speeds exceeding 160 miles per hour; if so, how many different types; and what is the total number of aeroplanes in commission which can fly at these speeds?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): My attention has been drawn to a statement in the Press to the effect referred to, but it would not be in the public interest to make an official pronouncement in regard to its accuracy, nor to give the information requested.
  Mr. BECKER: Does that mean that we have no aeroplanes that can fly at these speeds?
  Mr. LEACH: Nothing of the sort.
  Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether we have aeroplanes capable of flights at the speed attained by aeroplanes belonging to other nations?
  Mr. LEACH: I am not prepared to answer that question, but the hon. Member ought not to disturb himself about it.
  Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Member recognise that the reason why we are disturbed on this side of the House is because we know the feelings of the hon. I Member in regard to the matter?

  FINANCE BILL.

    MCKENNA IMPORT DUTIES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what trades are directly and indirectly affected by the withdrawal of the McKenna Duties?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. Various industries and branches of industries are concerned directly or indirectly in the manufacture of the articles on which the duties are levied, but their interest in the duties is, in many cases, only slight, and consequently it is not practicable to draw up a list of the kind the hon. Member has in mind which would serve any very useful purpose.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. GREENEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider granting to widowed mothers who have to employ managers for their businesses relief from Income Tax similar to that accorded to widowed fathers who have to employ housekeepers?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The Income Tax allowance in respect of a housekeeper can be claimed by the widow equally with the widower. The salary of a business manager whether employed by a man or a woman is a working expense in arriving at the profits of a business for Income Tax purposes. I can see no logical ground for the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can see his way to exempt from Income Tax those who have suffered from damage by enemy action in respect to any sums paid out of the ex gratia grant for revenue loss as distinct from capital loss, seeing that only a small percentage of the assessed total of the claims can be paid, as the sum allocated for relief is insufficient to meet the losses?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not aware of the cases to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will let me have the necessary particulars I will gladly have the matter investigated and will communicate to him the result.

  CANADIAN CATTLE IMPORTATION (ROYAL COMMISSION EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. ROBERT MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the expenditure incurred by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, in connection with the Royal Commission on the Importation of Store Cattle, which in 1921 inquired into the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle, and at which inquiry the said Department was represented by counsel instructed by the Chief Crown Solicitor for Ireland.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: As the hon. Member is aware, the administration and records of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland have been transferred to the Irish Free State. So far as the records of my Department show, however, the special expenditure incurred on this account amounted to £1,823 3s. 10d.

  COAL ROYALTIES, YORKSHIRE.
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of owners of coal royalties in the county of York; the number receiving £3,000, and over per year, and the number receiving below £3,000, before deduction of Income Tax; and the total amount paid to such owners during the years 1922–23 and 1923–24?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am sorry that I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend the information asked for to-day. Perhaps he will put down his question again in a week's time, when I hope to be in a position to give him a reply.

  BRITISH EMPIRE SUGAR MACHINERY ASSOCIATION.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the British Empire Sugar Machinery Association deny that manufacturers on the Clyde are with one or two exceptions doing a normal trade; that the association, which comprises in its membership all the important firms engaged in this industry, have ascertained that no inquiries in regard to conditions in the industry have been made on behalf of any Government Department; whether he will state, in these circumstances, on what

  1543
  grounds his previous reply was based; and whether he will institute further inquiries with a view to eliciting the exact conditions prevailing in this industry?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): In reply to the first three parts of the question, the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on the 26th February was based on the result of specific inquiries made at his request by the Ministry of Labour. As regards the last part of the question, I received on Tuesday last a deputation of workers from the Clyde who laid before me very fully their views as to the conditions prevailing in the industry referred to.
  Mr. HANNON: In making inquiries of this sort, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Labour to refer to the association immediately concerned, which will give him a great deal of reliable information?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I can assure my hon. Friend that very full inquiry has been made. Strictly speaking, this is an issue for the standardisation of Preference, and it is only narrowly an industrial question in this country.

  SPINNING INDUSTRY (LOANS).
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that for many years the bulk of the spinning section of the Lancashire cotton trade has been financed by means of unsecured loans repayable at short notice, and that the continued depression in the cotton trade has caused a large amount of loan money to be withdrawn? is he aware that spinning companies are now experiencing serious difficulty in meeting the demands for repayment of loans, and that operatives may be thrown out of employment by the compulsory closing of mills unless steps are taken to give confidence to loan holders; and will he consult with those bankers who have knowledge of the difficulties and with the Master Spinners' Federation and the trades unions sections affected, with a view to prevent further hardships in the cotton trade?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the facts stated
  1544
  in the first part of the question, but as regards the second part, I understand that, speaking generally, there has recently been an improvement in the position of those sections of the spinning industry which have been affected by the depression, and that the outlook is more encouraging. The position is being closely watched, but, as at present advised, I do not think that the step proposed would be likely to serve any useful purpose.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (AERIAL TRANSPORT).
  Mr. HAYCOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, with a view to encouraging aerial transport as well as providing additional convenience to Members of this House, he will grant facilities to enable Members to take advantage of aerial services, providing Members pay the difference between the present allowance and the cost of aerial fares?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The number of Members who are so fortunate as to have the option of visiting their constituencies by air instead of by rail is at present so small that it is not worth while, pending further developments, to make special arrangements on this point.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: Will the Government consider running an aerial omnibus to take certain Members to their constituencies?
  Mr. BECKER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether an ordinary omnibus would suffice?

  GOVERNMENT SURPLUS WAR STORES (DISPOSAL).
  Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the firm of E. J. Smith and Company are to receive compensation on the sale of brass to the British Metal Corporation which they themselves had contracted to take over at about £40 per ton more than the price paid by that corporation, but broke their contract and defaulted?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply given to him to a similar question on the 29th April last.

  1545
  I would remind him this matter was fully gone into by the Public Accounts Committee of this House last year, and after consideration I see no grounds for reopening it.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Is the hon. Member aware that in the inquiry to which he has referred, the accuser in the case was not called before the Court, and that only one side, and that the interested side, was heard? How could that be called a court of inquiry?
  Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend has asked a great many questions on this matter. My predecessors in office have made very full inquiry and I have inquired personally. The matter has been considered at length by the Public Accounts Committee, and I am afraid I cannot go beyond that.
  Sir J. REMNANT: They have never heard the other side. Is the hon. Member aware of the conditions which were imposed for the purpose of having the last inquiry into these matters, namely, that they should be considered private and confidential and that no information in reference to them should be given to the public? I think it is a scandal.
  Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Member aware of the very bad impression which these transactions have made throughout the whole of the non-ferrous metal industry in this country?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The difficulty is that there is bound to be difference of opinion among contractors and others regarding these arrangements. I have always asked for any specific charge. If that can be made, it will be investigated.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Does the hon. Member consider that the payment of over £90,000 in commission on work which was not carried out by this firm of Smith amp; Co., is a proper and fair arrangement as regards the taxpayers of this country?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I can only repeat that the matter was considered by the Committee. If my hon. Friend will give me any additional information, it will be looked into. I can assure him that we have tried to meet every point he has put.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Will the hon. Member personally look into it if I give him me information?
  Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: Is there any reason why relevant facts should not be submitted to the public?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot think of any reason, but it all turns on what was done by the Public Accounts Committee. If hon. Members refer to that Report, they will see at once that a very full inquiry was made at great length.
  Sir J. REMNANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what financial guarantees were received by the Disposal Board from Messrs. Aldridge and Hughes for the purchase of Andruicq and three other depots in France for £1,050,000; were such guarantees enforced; if not, whether he approves of the re-sale of these depots to one of these defaulting contractors with a loss of £928,000, and will he appoint an independent Committee to inquire into this and other contracts made by the Disposal Board?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The general position in regard to this contract was set out in the reply given to the hon. Baronet by the right hon. Member for Twickenham on the 19th June last and in my reply of the 29th April last. This is one of a number of contracts which were readjusted by the Disposal Board with the approval of the Advisory Committee appointed by the Treasury. These contracts were dealt with in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the account for the financial year 1921–22, and came before the Public Accounts Committee of this House last year. In the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary—nor, indeed, is it possible within the limits of a question and answer—to discuss the details of a contract made in 1920, and in respect of which a revised agreement was entered into in 1922 and is still in operation The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair to the British taxpayer to put defaulting contractors into a better position after they have defaulted than they were in before?
  Mr. GRAHAM: There is no desire to put the taxpayers in a bad position, but these matters were in the hands of the Disposal Board, which, after all, would do their best and, I am satisfied, did their best in the interests of the country in a very difficult position.

  WAR BONUS.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a test action known as the United Post Office Workers v. Rex is now pending in the High Court; whether this action relates to arrears of war bonus for all categories of ex-service single men and Royal Engineers (special section) who enlisted after 7th September, 1915; and whether, in view of the nature of this case and the interest it has for so many ex-service men, he can state when a decision is likely to be given?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Postmaster-General when he expects the cases of the men in the special sections will be decided finally?
  Mr. F. HALL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Postmaster-General to Question 73 and to answer at the same time the similar question asked by the right hon. Member for the Colchester Division of Essex. My right hon. Friend is aware that a number of Petitions of Right are about to be lodged; that the preliminary arrangements have been made through the solicitors acting for the staff; and that the Petitions have been designed with a view to ascertaining the position of certain civil servants who claim that they are entitled to War bonus in addition to the civil pay granted to them during their War service. The date upon which a final decision will be obtained depends on factors over which my right hon. Friend has no control, and a reliable forecast of the date cannot be given. I can only say that the Court will be asked to expedite the hearing as much as possible.
  Mr. RHYS: Is it not possible that Question 79 does not refer specifically to the cases referred to by hon. Friend, and might it not be in reference to the grievances of the manipulative grades of Post
  1548
  Office workers, many of whom have passed examinations and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly expect anybody else to say what was in the mind of the Member who put down Question 79.
  Mr. HANNAN: Is it not a fact that the Union of Post Office Workers is one of the specially-favoured trade unions of this country?
  Mr. HALL: No.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information regarding the reported discovery of the bacillus of foot-and-mouth disease announced by Professor Paul Frosch?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): A communication was made recently by Professor Frosch to a scientific society in Berlin, but the professor did not fully disclose his method of procedure, and it is therefore impossible for others to confirm his experiments. It is understood, however, that full details will not be long delayed.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Mr. PATTINSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the land purchased for allotments in 1921 was paid for out of loans raised at 6¼ per cent. interest and repayable in 50 years; that, in consequence of these terms of borrowing, the allotments cannot be let at a lower rent than about £6 per acre; and that, owing to these rentals, allotments cannot be made to pay, and there is a risk that these allotments will become a heavy charge upon the parishes in which they are situated; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to have the rate of interest reduced?
    Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed by the Treasury that it is impossible to reduce the rate of interest on loans made by the Public Works Loan Board. The rate charged depends on the rate at which the money can be raised. Any reduction would involve loss

    1549
    to the Local Loans Fund, which has to pay interest to holders of Local Loans Stock raised at the then market rates. The rate of interest on money borrowed for the purchase of land for allotments at the present time is 4¾ per cent., and the maximum period of repayment is now 80 years. The rent per acre must obviously depend not only on the rate of interest but also on the purchase price of the land. A rent of £6 per acre such as is mentioned by the hon. Member would represent a purchase price of about £80 per acre, and for land of this value a rent of 9½d. per pole for allotments would not be considered an excessive rent in an urban district, although it is no doubt higher than the usual charge in a rural district.
    Mr. PATTINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these allotments have been given up on account of the high rates changed, and does he consider that such rates of interest charged over 50 years are likely to encourage small holdings?
    Mr. BUXTON: This has occurred in some cases, but the Act of 1922 laid down that the rent must cover the expenses, with certain important exceptions.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that working class money only gets 2¾ per cent. on deposit in the Post Office or other trustee savings banks and why cannot this money be offered for purposes of this kind at that low rate of interest?
    Mr. BUXTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Treasury.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can these rents be taken as an example of the rents payable when the land of England is nationalised?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question is rather hypothetical.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not this go to prove that the only remedy is the nationalisation of the land?

    STREET ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
    Mr. P. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether he has received from the King Edward's Hospital Fund for London the Report of its special committee, of which Sir William Collins was chairman, on street accidents in London and the mode of dealing with them; and
    1550
    what action, if any, he proposes to take arising out of the Report and its recommendations?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has received this Report, and is considering what action he can most usefully take on it.

  TRANSPORT.

    GREAT NORTH ROAD.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the dangerous condition of a new road surface on the Great North Road between Wansford and Eaton Socon when wet; whether he is aware that many accidents have occurred owing to the slippery nature of the surface; and whether, in conjunction with the local authorities, something can be done to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. GOSLING: A few complaints have been brought to my notice regarding the slippery condition of part of this road under certain weather conditions. Surfacing materials of similar character are, however, widely used with very slight inconvenience to traffic. I fear that occasional slipperiness is part of the price, that must be paid for the smooth surface which modern transport demands. I may add that expenditure incurred by highway authorities in sanding or gritting, when necessary, Class I or Class II roads, ranks for grant from the Road Fund.
    Mr. MACKINDER: What is the speed limit on that road?
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the dangerous condition of the road not dependent largely on the speed at which vehicles are driven over it?
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has become necessary for the local authorities to put up notices specially warning the drivers of lorries as to the very dangerous condition of the road under certain conditions, and can he not give special attention to the question why the road surface is so bad?
    Mr. GOSLING: I was not aware of the facts stated, but I take note of them.
    Sir V. WARRENDER: How many omnibuses are running on this road?

    LONDON BRIDGES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the closing of Waterloo Bridge and of the proposal to allocate funds from the Road Board to the approaches of a bridge to be constructed at St. Paul's, he will take steps to see that no grant is made until an opportunity has been afforded to Parliament to discuss the question; and whether, in view of the condition of Waterloo Bridge and the increased strain thrown on other bridges, he can arrange for a committee to inquire into the whole question of the present condition of the bridges over the Thames and the proposals to construct new bridges and improve existing bridges?
    Mr. GOSLING: Opportunities exist for a discussion of the subject in the House if so desired. In reply to the second part of the question, I would suggest that the matter is one that could appropriately be considered by the London Traffic Advisory Committee which it is proposed to set up under the Bill now before the House. I also understand that the London County Council have under consideration a proposal for inviting the City Corporation to assist in the setting up of a joint Commission to inquire into the whole question of London bridges.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no expenditure of public funds towards St. Paul's Bridge or any other bridge, until the Advisory Committee which is to be appointed under the London Traffic Bill has had an opportunity of considering the whole question?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: How long will it be before Waterloo Bridge is reopened?
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of people are of opinion that it is unnecessary to construct the suggested St. Paul's Bridge, and will he undertake, as requested, to see that no expenditure occurs until the matter has been discussed in this House?
    Mr. BECKER: Is it possible to throw Westminster Bridge open to pedestrians?
    Mr. GOSLING: I understand that passengers are still using Westminster Bridge.
    Mr. BECKER: I meant Waterloo Bridge.
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not in a position to give the assurance asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). The hon. and gallant Member knows how to raise the question in the House.
    Sir F. HALL: Why will the hon. Gentleman not give an undertaking that the matter shall be discussed before there is any expenditure? What is the reason for not giving an opportunity for general discussion?
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give an assurance that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question before any public money is spent?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I will consider the matter.

  MILITARY FUNERALS.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a gun-carriage is no longer available for Army funerals, but that a wagon has been in many cases substituted for it; and if he will revert to the older practice?
  Mr. WALSH: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, no change of practice has taken place. Gun-carriages are not in all cases available, but the rule laid down in paragraph 934 of the King's Regulations as regards the military funerals of officers and soldiers is that gun-carriages will be supplied when available at the station, and in addition a certain number of gun-carriages are in the possession of each command for stations where no Royal Artillery is quartered. Whether these carriages can be sent for a military funeral depends upon the distance involved and the circumstances of the death.
  Sir B. FALLE: I understand that when there happens to be a gun-carriage available the use of wagons is wrong?
  Mr. WALSH: It all depends upon the circumstances. It may very well be that the circumstances are such that a gun-carriage would not be the proper appliance. Gun-carriages are supplied

  1553
  under circumstances which are definitely laid down in the King's Regulations, and no change has been made in them.

  IRAQ TREATY.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the constituent assembly at Bagdad with the ratification or otherwise of the proposed Treaty between His Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): Article 18 of the Treaty provides for its ratification by the High Contracting Parties after acceptance by the Iraq Constituent Assembly. The Treaty and connected documents are now under the consideration of the Assembly. I can make no further statement at present.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked what progress had been made. Has any progress been made?
  Mr. THOMAS: It is undesirable to say anything at this stage, except that the matter is still being considered.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HOSPITAL SHIP "MAINE" (MESS TRAPS).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the practice in the case of hospital ships to leave the provision of mess traps to the ship's owner, or whether provision is made directly by the Admiralty; and whether he will consider if improvement can be effected in the type of mess traps supplied and in the quality and quantity of food provided both for the naval personnel and for the sick?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The mess traps supplied to the hospital ship "Maine" are provided by the Admiralty, and are of the ordinary service pattern. The question of whether any improvements are necessary, both as regards the mess traps and dietary, will be considered.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: What is a "mess trap"?

    MESSING ALLOWANCE.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
    1554
    whether, in view of the fact that the messing allowance of ninepence a day paid to men of the Royal Navy does not vary in home and foreign stations, he will consider the possibility of introducing a scale of messing allowances which shall, particularly in Eastern stations, bear some relation to the cost of living for Europeans or more?
    Mr. AMMON: The question is under consideration.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of men invalided during the last 12 months from His Majesty's Navy through tuberculosis; how many of these were considered attributable to service; and how the decision as to whether tuberculosis is attributable to or aggravated by service is arrived at?
    Mr. AMMON: The number of men invalided during the year 1923 for tuberculosis was 143. The number of attributable cases was three, apart from cases (if any) claimed to be due to War service. The latter would be dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions. The following method of arriving at a decision as to attributability to or aggravation by service is adopted when considering cases arising during the post-War period:
    Pulmonary Tuberculosis.
    Attributability is only given in such cases arising—

    (1) By direct contact with another case, such as might occur in a sink berth rating from nursing, or from sleeping adjacent to a case.

    (2) From extraordinary exposure, or exertion on duty, such as war.

    Aggravation is given—

    (1) Where the medical history of the case has shown a definite tendency to lung disease and a sufficient continuity of such disease.

    (2) Where there is a record of service in small craft, where the ventilation and cubic space are limited.

    (3) Where the disease arises under climatic conditions which amount to more than the ordinary exposure incidental to naval service.

    As regards other cases of tuberculosis, such as those arising in joints and localised organs, attributability or aggravation is only given in cases where there

    1555
    is definite evidence of injury to the part sustained on duty and where it is considered that the injury has caused a lighting up of the disease.
    Viscount CURZON: Has a larger number of such cases been apparent in light cruisers of the "D" class?
    Mr. AMMON: I am unable to answer that question without notice.

  SUNDAY SALES, CONFECTIONERY (CONVICTIONS).
  Mr. BECKERasked the Home Secretary how many convictions were recorded during the last annual period against persons for the sale of confectionery on Sundays; and under what Act these charges are made out?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I regret that the information asked for cannot be supplied. The statistics available do not show the number of prosecutions or convictions either under the Sunday Observance Acts or under the Shops Acts in respect of any particular class of trade.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what is the business for next week?
Mr. CLYNES: On Monday we propose to take the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) (Payments)—Money Resolution in Committee of the Whole House; Pensions Increase—Money Resolution in Committee of the Whole House and, if time permit, the Administration of Justice Bill (Lords), Second Reading.
Tuesday: Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, Second Reading, and, if time permit, the Friendly Societies Bill (Lords), Committee.
Wednesday: Auxiliary Air Force and Air Force Reserve Bill (Lords), Second Reading; War Charges (Validity) (No. 2) Bill, Committee.
Thursday: Supply; Vote for Ministry of Labour.
Sir K. WOOD: May we know when the Housing Bill is to be introduced?
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the Pensions Resolution the one on which the pre-War Pension Bill will be founded?
Mr. CLYNES: Yes.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: When is the Supplementary Estimate for the Government's Airship Policy to be taken; and would it not, be a good thing to have the general Debate on this subject on the same day as it is being debated in another place?
Sir F. HALL: For the convenience of the House and of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood)?
Mr. CLYNES: I cannot, at the moment, give the information as to the Supplementary Estimate, but I will endeavour to do so as speedily as possible. We are hopeful of finding a place in Parliamentary time for the introduction of the Housing Bill before the House rises for Whitsuntide.
Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken?
Mr. CLYNES: Off hand, I can only say within about a fortnight's time.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there to be a statement on housing policy by the Minister of Health and, if so, when will it be made?
Mr. CLYNES: An opportunity will not arise prior to the Bill being introduced, unless the Ministry of Health Vote be arranged for before that date.

BILLS REPORTED.
Brighton Corporation Water Bill,
Manchester Ship Canal Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (No. 2) BILL,
"to extend the period of control of rents," presented by Mr. ERNEST BROWN; supported by Sir Robert Kay, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Foot, Mr. Ernest Simon, Mr. Loverseed, Mr. Graham White, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Hindle, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Frederick Gould; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

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

    HOME OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £206,072, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of a System of Probation."—[NOTE: £200,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: It is rather difficult to open a debate on the subject of the Home Office when the Report has not been published. This Vote opens up a very wide field of discussion, and the question of the Factory Acts, on which I wish to address the Committee, is of such a far-reaching and very technical nature that it is difficult to do it justice. One feels, however, that the subject is so pressing that it must be considered, and that no opportunity should be lost of bringing it before the House of Commons. At present the position is that it is over 20 years since the last consolidated Factory and Workshops Act was passed in this country. By it, women and girls of over the age of 14 were allowed to work 60 hours a week without its being counted as overtime, but overtime might be worked under certain conditions. No Regulations were made in regard to lighting, in regard to underground workrooms, or, except in a few cases, with regard to mess or cloak rooms. Good firms; we know, have not waited for legislation to be passed to bring these things about, but the law is not the compelling influence that has done it; it has been their own philanthropy and their own idea that to provide these good conditions for their workers always makes
    1584
    for the betterment of industry. At the present time the inspectors are numerically very inadequate. The custom and practice and the characteristic of English people has always been to try to secure fair play, but with regard to this question I think we have rather been content with what is perhaps pleasing to the eye and looks rather well, with regard to hours of employment. The eye perhaps does not see all that is wrong at the core, and it is to expose this core that I want to speak a little this afternoon.
    Although we are, generally speaking, in favour of an eight hours' day, or a 48 hours' week, that is not legal in our country, but it is, as I have said before, the custom and practice of our country, and many people, I think, would be astonished at the laxity and the wideness of our factory laws and hours. They leave the slave-driver free to exact work for much more than 48 hours a week. We have led the world to see the human and the commercial wisdom of reasonable working hours, but we have not yet ratified the Washington Eight Hours' Convention. I want to pay a tribute to the inspectors who already work under the Factory Acts. The present standard of industrial life is due, partly, to the wisdom of employers, partly to the awakening consciousness of the workers themselves, partly to the love of fair play, which goes to influence public opinion, and very much to the zeal and efficiency of the Factory Department, which has laboured under conditions which have not allowed them to make even one visit to every factory and workshop each year.
    The last Factory Report that was issued, in 1922, shows that before the War we had 222 factory inspectors. A re-organisation scheme was suggested, and intended, which would increase the numbers to 237, but when the economy stunt came along the numbers were reduced to 205, and that at present is the total number of factory inspectors we have working in Great Britain. Great Britain now has 283,542 factories, and with 205 inspectors to supervise them, it means that each inspector has to have charge of 1,383 factories. The result is obvious. Many of them are not visited. It is quite impossible, with that large number of factories and with so few inspectors, that proper supervision and visitation can be made, and since the War, as I have tried to show, the num-

    1585
    bers of inspectors have decreased and the work has considerably increased. A new code of Regulations in any trade means an enormous amount of extra work, and very often it takes 12 months to get this work into proper going order and requires a great deal of detailed attention from our inspectors. The Police (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, and welfare orders mean extra supervision. Every new development in a trade adds to the burden of inspection. For example, the present demand for electric accumulators for wireless sets needs much more detailed and scientific understanding on the part of the inspectors themselves, and that means a great additional burden on the inspectorate.
    Our present position is that we try to persuade ourselves that we have our high standards, but, indeed, we have very rusty legislation, and we want better inspection on the part of the inspectors to try to reconcile these opposites and to make things fit between our would-be high standards and our rusty legislation. It is high time that these things were understood and genuinely tackled. There is too much talk about our debt to the industrial workers, particularly the women and children and young people, and there is too little action taken to discharge that debt. Factories are considered to be the aristocracy of labour, but outside the factories there are many other things, such as offices and shops, for which we want better conditions and a regulation of the hours on the lines of the Washington Convention. Above all, we want the enforcement of the Regulations made for workers in factories. We want an assured guarantee from the Government that we shall have an increased and fully trained staff of inspectors for this purpose.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am very glad the hon. Lady the Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) has raised this very important question of factories. She gave us some remarkable figures as to the numbers of factories and of inspectors and the number of factories that each inspector has to look after. I quite agree that the time has arrived when the Home Secretary will have to make up his mind whether a considerable increase will not be necessary, for, after all, nobody suggests that the present factory inspectors do not work very hard and do
    1586
    not do their duty, but it is certainly beyond the power of any inspector to look after more than a certain number of factories, and I think this question will become even more acute, because, as the hon. Lady knows, the Shipbuilding Committee on Accidents is now sitting, and probably in the future there will be a good many more Regulations for the safety of the workers, and necessarily the work of these inspectors will increase. In the same way, there will shortly be another Bill before the House, the White Lead Bill, and probably very stringent Regulations will have to be adopted, so that again the work of the inspectorate will very largely increase. As we are on the subject of factories, may I say that I am very delighted that the Government intend very shortly to bring in an amending Bill so far as the factory law is concerned, and I should like to say that my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary took a great interest in this question when he was at the Home Office, and himself had a Bill in preparation. It was also, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) reminds me, put into the King's Speech.
    4.0 P.M.
    In view of the fact that the Home Secretary is very shortly going to bring in a Bill, may I mention one or two points which I hope he will bear in mind? The Factory Acts at the present time are in a hopeless state of confusion. I suppose there are certain officials who understand them, but I am quite sure that there is nobody outside the particular Department that has to deal with them who really understands them as a whole. A great many provisions in regard to working hours are obsolete, and it is absolutely essential that we should have a consolidating Bill and an amending Bill as well. At the present time, you have three big headings. You have factories, you have workshops, and you have another category—docks, wharfs, quays and warehouses; and they are all treated differently. Under the heading of "Factories," you have three or four sub-headings—textile factories, non-textile factories, tenement factories and domestic factories—and they are all treated in a different way. The non-textile factories are themselves divided again under three sub-headings: factories where mechanical power is used, factories where mechanical power is either

    1587
    used or not used, and a third category which completely overlaps many of the others where manufacturing processes take place and where mechanical power is used. As a matter of fact, before coming down to the House to-day, I was looking at an enormous volume of no less than 600 pages, showing how all these headings overlap one another, and how many existing Regulations and provisions are completely obsolete.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Was that an official publication?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think it was an official book. I think it was written by a private gentleman, whose name I cannot, remember, but it is in its 12th edition.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to know the book.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will let my right hon. Friend know. I hope that one of the things which the Home Secretary will do will be to abolish all these obsolete distinctions between the various kinds of factories. It is absolutely impossible in a Act of Parliament to provide for every contingency, for every defect, and for every danger that may occur in a factory. There must be a great many cases which are never covered by any particular provision in the Factory Acts, and which cannot be covered. That being so, I feel very strongly that the inspectorate, if they find any defect or danger not covered by any particular provision of the Factory Acts, ought to have power to get that defect remedied and put right. If the right hon. Gentleman were able to do that, it would at once enable him to deal with such matters as the carrying of heavy weights by women and children and many other dangers which are not at present dealt with under the law.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will do what he can to extend what are called the welfare provisions which are now in force in some of our industries. I refer to such matters—I think the hon. Member who opened this Debate will agree with me—as washing accommodation, the provision of drinking water, the provision of first-aid and ambulances, the provision of facilities for sitting down during long hours of work, and accommodation for
    1588
    keeping clothes and drying clothes. I hope that we shall see in the Bill to be brought in by the right hon. Gentleman some provision to deal with those matters. I happened to be chairman of the Silicosis Committee, and over and over again complaints were placed before us of an enormous quantity of dust flying about those works. Of course, that only dealt with silica dust, but we have had evidence over and over again at the Home Office from workers showing the deleterious character of dust which affects the workers' health. At the present time, under the Acts, the Inspector has to prove that the dust is dangerous to the workers, and is actually doing harm. Naturally, it is often very difficult to prove that actual harm has been done to the worker, but, as a matter of fact, everybody will agree that it does not matter what kind of dust it is, if you have to work in a dusty atmosphere, it must be bad for one's health. Therefore, I do hope that in the Bill which is going to be brought in something will be done to prevent as far as possible the accumulation of dust in the atmosphere which must be inhaled by the workers concerned.
    May I make one last point. I hope that the factory provisions will be extended to the building trade. It seems to me a most extraordinary anomaly that up to the present the building trade has been completely immune, unless mechanical power is used, from any kind of factory supervision. After all, it is a very dangerous trade. There are a great many regulations affecting shipbuilding, but there are practically no regulations affecting the building trade, where people very often have to work at far greater heights than they do in building ships. Therefore, I do hope that in the Bill that is going to be presented the Home Secretary will do something to include the building trade under our factory law. The conditions of industry have so changed during the last few years, especially since the War, that it seems to me absolutely essential to have a consolidation and an amending Bill, and I hope that this new Measure when it is brought in will really start a new and better era in our factory legislation. I believe that all parties will co-operate with the Home Secretary in doing what they can, quite irrespective of party or on what side of the House they sit, to make the Bill a really efficient

    1589
    instrument for raising the standard of health and the standard of safety among our workers.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I should just like to back up what the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) and the last speaker have said. The answer given to-day to the question put by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) showed that there are 59,000 factories and 39,000 workshops which have not been visited in two years. If hon. Members realised what this meant in human lives and welfare they would receive quite a shock. Ever since I have been in the House of Commons, I have always pressed against reductions in the factory inspectorate which was one of the evils of the anti-waste campaign. It was the party opposite, under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who cut down the factory inspectorate. It was madness, and time has shown us how foolish and futile it was. The Home Secretary, last February, received a deputation, headed by the Bishop of Winchester, asking him to look into certain questions. The last speaker has dealt with nearly all of them, but there are two or three others which I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The annual report of the Chief Inspector for 1922 says that
    "The reports from the inspectors show that without resorting to legislation the hours of work have been generally reduced to a total varying from 44–48 hours per week, and that overtime is rare, and a five-day week and a one-break day are common."
    These hours are so general that one forgets that there are many girls who do not come under them at all. We get complaints from these girls who are not in any organised trades of working 12 hours a day. The Trade Boards have fixed the hours from 44 to 48; yet there are a lot of women and girls, who do not come under the Trade Boards, working these outrageous hours which would not be tolerated for a moment if we had a proper number of inspectors going round. This Committee asks about lighting, which makes such a difference to the worker. That, again, cannot be put right without a proper number of inspectors. They also ask a question about temperature. I know that a right temperature for one person is a wrong
    1590
    temperature for another, but a cold stuffy workshop gives a wrong temperature always, and there are hundreds of workshops that are cold and stuffy. Then they talk about shops making no provision where workers can take their meals, and we hope that that matter will be dealt with. There is also the question of washing accommodation and the provision of cloakrooms.
    It is difficult to go over all these questions, but I do implore the Home Secretary to realise that now is the moment. He has the whole House with him. Many Members are looking in some things for this millennium which has been promised. There are certain things which the Home Secretary can do, and there are other things which he realises, and which we all realise, he can never do. We want him to do the things that he can do. He can make the factories better places, particularly for women, and I hope very much that it will be done. It is bad business in every way to let women and practically children, as well as men, work under conditions under which they do work. There is one more thing. I should like him to see if he can do anything about the Holloway Discharged Prisoners' Association.
    The CHAIRMAN: Prisons come under Class 3, Vote 8.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I have awful luck. Every time I get up to speak about something I am told that it comes under another Vote. Just as my eloquence gets started, I am told to sit down. I do beg the Home Secretary to take advantage of this warm feeling throughout the country which will not last to get things done. He has a wonderful chance which no other Government has ever had or probably ever will have, so I do ask him to take the chance while he can.
    Mr. TINKER: There are one or two points to which I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary with reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act. One is in reference to a Memorandum dealing with insurance companies. I understand that an agreement has been arrived at for 1925–26–27 that the amount of compensation, or the amount paid out of the premiums, shall be equal to 60 per cent. and later on 62 per cent. I do not think that is fair. I think the amount paid out should be higher. When I quote the figures showing the amount which has

    1591
    been paid out, the right hon. Gentleman will realise the profit which is being made by these companies. In 1922, £6,690,627 was paid in premiums, and £2,974,602 was paid out by way of compensation, including legal and medical expenses—that is to say, only 44·46 per cent. was allocated to the payment of compensation. In 1921 the amount paid out in this way only amounted to 36 per cent. I claim that that amount of money, given to the insurance companies, is not right to the people who had to pay the premiums. After all, the premiums come out of the working classes. If we have to pay all the costs of management out of this money it is going to be bad for us. I would ask the Home Office, if they can, to make arrangements so that a higher percentage may be given to the people who receive compensation, and that there should not so much go by way of profit.
    There is another point with which I want to deal and that relates to the certifying surgeons. The Home Office have a right to appoint these people. I find that the certifying surgeons who deal with industrial diseases are chosen many times from those who hold a position under the employers. It is hardly fair to our people when they come before these certifying surgeons to notice that the particular man is the same doctor who is acting for the employer. We claim in that case that we cannot get justice. We ask that the appointment should be made so that there may be as much independence as possible from the employers. Then there is the matter of the fees paid. Every man that goes before a certifying surgeon has to pay 5s. for the certifying surgeon's note. We ask that when the paper is given in favour of the workman the employer ought to meet that charge. It is not fair that the workmen should have to pay every time, because, in case of nystagmus and other industrial diseases, a man goes, say, to the certifying surgeon and pays the fee, and a little later the employer sends the man down again, and again he has to pay the fee. The Home Office have the power in this matter to say, as I have suggested, that when the paper is in favour of the workman the employer ought to pay the fee in every case.
    The appointment of medical referees is another question we ask the Home Office
    1592
    to deal with. I have an instance where a medical referee died, and three months elapsed before another was appointed. During the whole of that time we had a number of cases which got no attention at all. The medical referee can only give his paper at the time of the examination, and it is not fair that our men should have to wait three or four months before an appointment is made. I appeal to the Home Secretary, for it lies within his power to deal with the vacancies immediately they arise, and appoint these people, when a vacancy arises, so that delays may be as little as possible.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I desire, first of all, to register my respectful protest at not having the opportunity to study the factory inspector's report before this Vote is taken. I do not think the Home Secretary is entirely to blame in this matter, but I do hope that the Whips of all parties will note this protest, for it is impossible for us to discuss this Vote properly till we have had the privilege of reading the report of the factory inspector. Might I also protest at the manner in which the Vote has been put down—in separate Votes — Factory Administration and Prison Administration. Hence, those who take an interest in factory inspection, and in the administration of Home Office affairs, are cut off from expressing their opinions. I do think that some concession might be made to common sense in this matter so that. Members who desire to do so shall be able to speak on both subjects.
    I am afraid I must make a similar speech to that which I made last year when in common with hon. Members opposite on the Labour benches, I protested against the scandalous inadequacy of factory inspection. I said it was a penny wise and pound foolish policy, and it was one of the fruitful causes of accidents, ill-health and disease. I protest even more vehemently to-day because, if in relation to the Conservative party there is sympathy lacking and lack of appreciation of the danger which our workers have to undergo because of an inadequate staff of inspectors, I consider the Labour Government even more guilty. More is expected of them. Owing to the foolish and shortsighted policy of the Geddes proposals—against which I have protested on many occa-

    1593
    sions—the factory inspector's staff has been cut down from 237 to 235. The Government have ample time to look round and revise the figures. I think it is quite deplorable that this matter has not yet been settled. I asked a question to-day as to how many factories and workshops had been unvisited for one year, and how many for two years. If I caught correctly the figures given to me in reply, no less a number than 29,000 factories have not been visited for two years and 38,000 workshops. That is a position that reduces the system of factory inspection to an absolute farce. I am convinced—because I keep a careful record of all accidents that happen—that a large proportion of the accidents that are not due to mere carelessness are due to the fact that factory inspectors are not numerous enough to see that the factory Regulations are strictly kept. I do not want in the least to undervalue the "Safety First" movement, but it cannot go far to safeguard the workers against wilful or negligent evasion of factory legislation.
    The "Safety First" movement undoubtedly does good in arousing the workers to a sense of the dangerous conditions under which they work, but I do submit that it can do little to dimish these accidents. The only way you can do that is by wise, restricted legislation, enforced by an adequate staff If an inadequate staff reduces inspection to a farce, it is even a greater farce in regard to our dangerous trades. The regulations say that the dangerous trade shall be inspected by factory inspectors once every three months. How can that be done under the present proposals of the Home Office? The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) says that the work of the factory inspectors not only grows in volume, but in scientific application. To make regulations, and then not to give the Home Office an adequate staff to see that those regulations are put into force, is a great mistake.
    The great popularity of broadcasting has led to a great increase in the manufacture of electrical accumulators. That is a very dangerous trade. They emit strong fumes, and the worker is obliged to bend down over these fumes, and the consequence is that the existence of lead poisoning in the manufacture of electrical accumulators has greatly and
    1594
    alarmingly increased during the past few years. That surely calls for adequate inspection. Again, there is another dangerous trade lately come into vogue. I refer to the process of breaking-up ships. A process has now been adopted in the breaking up of ships by the use of oxy-acetylene apparatus. A great heat is applied to the plates, and this causes very strong fumes to the detriment of the workers. There has been a great increase, particularly in the dockyards which are concerned with the breaking-up of old battleships, of trouble from this cause. It is not my desire to make a party score against the present Government, or against the Home Secretary. These are matters affecting the welfare of the workers of this country which, by common consent, each party are concerned about. But I do wish that somehow or other we might get a little more sympathy for the large number of workers whose lives are in peril. We ought to have at least 250 factory inspectors. I do not say the staff should be increased to that number at once. You want to do it gradually, but what I do ask is that the duty of increasing the staff should be taken in hand at once, so that men and women could be trained. Then, when they were required to commence work, they would be ready to do so.
    There are one or two questions that I should like to put before I sit down. What is the Home Office doing to prevent the spread of the disease of anthrax? Ought it not to be included in the Schedule? I think it would be well if other Schedules were included, and the work at Liverpool extended. Then there is the question of the lighting of factories. There have been three Departmental Reports on this question, and yet nothing has been done. If I read aright last years' Report of the Factory Inspectors, inadequate lighting of workshops is a fruitful cause of accidents. Might I ask the Home Secretary if he intends to do anything to carry out the recommendations that have been made on this subject. I should like to say a word or two about the disastrous explosion which occurred at Slades Green, whereby 13 girls were done to death. I should like the Government to grant a further inquiry, and one more stringent, into the cause of that accident and to report as to why the Regulations were neglected.

    1595
    I am profoundly disquieted by the Report that has been presented. I should like to know why this most dangerous work was given to this firm. If dangerous work has to be done it ought to be done by experienced firms. This firm of Messrs. Gilbert and Company did not exist before this work was given to them, and they and their staff have had very little experience. What is more, the ordinary standard Regulations of the Home Office, apparently by the consent of the Disposal Board, were neglected. They were exempted from them.
    According to the Report, when at the close of the War the question of dealing with the vast stores of munitions accumulated throughout the United Kingdom had to be dealt with, the chief of the Explosives Department had to issue licences under the Explosives Acts, and owing to the enormous quantities involved it was clear that, although arrangements might be made for carrying out the destruction of these explosives, it could not be done without violating the Regulations, and according to the Report it was quite impossible for the administration to preserve the normal practice with regard to discipline being maintained. Because the Government had enormous stores to dispose of, I protest against the proper Regulations being abrogated. The first thing the Disposal Board did was to violate the Regulations.
    The Explosives Act laid it down that when this most dangerous work is done it has to be done with no more than two people in one shed, and yet we find that 20 of these unfortunate girls were crowded into one shed, and when the explosion occurred 13 of those girls were asphyxiated and burned to death. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he attended the dinner held by the staff of the Disposal Board, congratulated them, and he said it was a triumphant exhibition of the success of a Socialistic experiment. I do not know what Socialism is or what it is not, but I do not think the State should make a profit at the expense of the lives of the workers. This work was—
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow any attack on the Disposal Board under this Vote.
    Sir GERALD HOHLER: The Home Office act under certain regulations, and apparently they have given a licence to the Disposal Board to dispense with those regulations. Surely it is in order to point out on this Vote that that is wrong?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot find anything in Class II dealing with the Disposal Board. There seems to be an impression that on the general question we can discuss anything connected with the Minister's administration, but that is not so.
    Sir G. HOHLER: This is an illustration of some firm to whom the Disposal Board sold certain ammunition in whose factory these regulations were either not enforced or at any rate they were relaxed, and surely a question of that kind is in Order under this Vote. If not, under which Vote can this question be discussed?
    The CHAIRMAN: We can discuss the regulations, but we cannot have an attack upon the Disposal Board. I understood the Noble Lord was making an attack upon the Disposal Board.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understood you, Mr. Chairman, to say that on the Home Office Vote it would not be competent to range over the whole administration of the Home Office. But surely this Vote includes the salary of the Minister, and it has been the practice for all time, when his salary is under discussion, that it is in Order to discuss everything he administers. It is an entirely new departure to say when the Minister's salary is down on the Vote the whole of the work over which he presides cannot be discussed.
    The CHAIRMAN: Under Class III, Votes 7, 8 and 9, we deal with the police, prisons and reformatories, and it does not seem right that we should have a discussion on these Votes or the salary of the Minister and then discuss them over again on those Votes. We have down here Votes of a specific nature, and I am confining the discussion to those Votes.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That rather modifies your ruling. Just now you said that it was not competent to range over the whole field of the activities of the Home Office on this Vote, but now you are only limiting us not to range on the

    1597
    three Votes that come on subsequently. I understand that we are not to talk about reformatories, prisons or police, but that we can discuss any other subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: Any other subject for which there is no Vote down in the Estimates.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do not wish to pursue this subject any further. I know the Home Secretary is sympathetic on these matters and will do all he can to improve them.
    Mr. ACKROYD: Shall I be in order. Mr. Chairman, if I refer to the question of probation officers?
    The CHAIRMAN: I take it that Subject comes under Item H.
    Viscountess ASTOR: That was the subject I wished to speak upon.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady was distinctly referring to prisons, and I drew her attention to the fact that it came under another Vote and she immediately sat down.
    Viscountess ASTOR: That was my indirect way of getting to the probation officers.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not aware of the indirect ways of the Noble Lady.
    Mr. ACKROYD: In rising for the first time to address the Committee I am sure I shall have the indulgence of hon. Members. I want to refer to the question of the probation officers with regard to juvenile delinquency, and may I pay a tribute to the great change in the spirit which is now to be seen in the attitude of the Home Office officials with respect to this great question. Public interest in this subject is now being stimulated by the sympathetic attitude of State officials, and on behalf of a very large number of voluntary workers I desire to pay a tribute to the assistance and encouragement which is being given to those of us engaged in this particular kind of work. The working of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, so far as it has been tried, has been an unqualified success. The Act is becoming much more largely used, and where it has been put into force it has produced the most beneficial results. Unfortunately, many magistrates still fail to take advantage of
    1598
    the powers given to them, and there are many Courts throughout the length and breadth of the land which have no probation officers. The House of Lords has recently passed a Bill which makes it compulsory for every petty sessional division, either separately or jointly with the neighbouring petty sessional court, to employ such an officer, and I am informed that the Treasury has provided a sum of £20,000 to meet the cost of these officials. The pay of these people to-day is very small, and because of this I sometimes fear that the right sort of person is not being attracted to this particular kind of work. I sincerely hope that when this Bill comes from the other House every facility will be given by the present Government for its full consideration, and I hope it will be passed. In the meanwhile the Home Office can do a very great deal by urging magistrates to make better use of voluntary workers who would be willing to act as probation officers. Throughout the country there are many men and women of leisure who would be willing to act as voluntary probation officers. Such work would not involve more than a weekly visit to the home of the offender, and possibly an occasional visit or invitation to the boys and girls to spend an evening with the visitors in their own homes.
    Those of us engaged in this work among the children are convinced that what most of those children need is just a little human sympathy and friendship at the right time, and we find everywhere that it is the personal touch which in the end works most effectively. Release on probation has generally been the salvation of the boy and the girl, and every opportunity should be taken by magistrates of their powers of remanding young offenders, and giving them another chance before sending them to prison. When a young person is sent to gaol for the first time it frequently happens that he finds his way back again very quickly, and becomes before long a hardened criminal. I submit that there is to-day an urgent need for reform in our penal system, and I hope the Home Secretary during his period of office will deal with the question of long sentences which are sometimes passed upon youthful offenders, and press upon our Judges the desirability of making use of lenient sentences and the reformative alternatives now sanctioned by Parliament.

    1599
    As a result of the growing co-operation between voluntary workers and the State there has been during recent years a gradual diminution of juvenile delinquency, and I think that it is very gratifying to everybody concerned to know that not only are prisons for men and women being closed down, but there is a decrease in industrial schools and reformatories for young people. Many agencies have contributed to this reduction, but one of the most beneficial in recent years has been the establishment of Children's Courts. I think this opinion will be confirmed by many magistrates who sit in this House. I feel, however, that full use is not being made of the provisions of the Section of the Children Act, 1908, which specially deals with this matter, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could not urge upon the country, by special circular, or in some other way, the importance of adopting all the provisions of that Act. Parliamentary sanction has already been given for the holding of juvenile Courts in separate buildings or rooms away from the ordinary Police Court, and in a few towns that is now being done. The benefit of the Children's Court is greatly minimised when held in the ordinary Police Court. It is always difficult to divest such a Court of features which are equally undesirable either for the sight or the mind of the child. It frequently happens, even in some of our large towns, that magistrates choose that which is most readily at hand, and they content themselves with sitting in the ordinary Court, at the beginning or the end of the day's business, as a juvenile Court, whereas, with very little trouble, another building or another room could be used for the purpose. I submit that the Home Office might again express its wish that all children's cases should be heard with as few persons present as possible, and that these should include such persons as are likely to understand the child, and to know something of his character and education.
    There is one other matter to which I wish to allude before I sit down. I should like to ask the Home Secretary if he could take action to give discretion to a magistrate to urge upon the representatives of the Press not to publish the names or addresses of children who are brought up
    1600
    in the Court. Social workers throughout the country are now agreed that boys frequently lose their situations because their names have appeared in local newspapers for some trivial offence. I am aware that the Children Act provides that representatives of the Press should not be excluded from the Court, but I believe that some time ago the Institute of Journalists themselves passed a resolution to the effect that, in the interest of public morality and the training of future citizens, all newspapers should be urged to withhold the names of juvenile offenders tried or convicted in Children's Courts. The Home Secretary probably is aware that throughout the country workers amongst poor children believe the time has now come when the services of a medical practitioner should be available at these Courts for the purpose of examining and reporting on all cases submitted to him. In some cases of juvenile delinquency the nature of the charge and the offender undoubtedly points to the fact that he is suffering from some physical or mental defect, and the opinion of a doctor in such cases would greatly assist the magistrate in deciding how to deal with the child. Therefore I close by asking whether the Home Secretary will give to this Committee a promise that this matter, along with the others to which I have briefly referred, shall receive sympathetic and full consideration.
    Mr. GEORGE SPENCER: I want to intervene only for a very short time upon one or two specific points. These points I raised the last time, and I was promised that consideration would be given to them, and I believe would have been given to them had my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend opposite remained in office. I asked last year that attention should be given to the question of a medical referee for industrial diseases in the county of Nottingham. At the present time a man connected with a colliery who contracts the disease known as miners' nystagmus has to go as far as Sheffield and pay his own expenses, in some cases on purpose to have the medical referee decide his case. We are asking that Nottinghamshire shall be provided with a medical referee for this particular purpose, so that men shall not have to be sent into another county at considerable expense, and, in some instances, considerable inconvenience.

    1601
    There is another question I raised with regard to the extension, or rather the change of nomenclature of industrial diseases. My hon. Friend opposite, who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, promised that, so far as the question of miners' nystagmus was concerned, he was going to invite representatives of the miners and of the employers to discuss the whole question, in view of the reports being published by representatives of the Research Council. Up to now, so far as I am aware, little or nothing has been done. At least, nothing has been done to change the nomenclature of the Schedule, and the time has come when the Home Secretary should give his very serious consideration to the necessity of bringing the nomenclature somewhat in line with the needs of the case as we find it to-day. I know that admits of two different points of view. There is certainly the owners' point of view, and there is also the workmen's point of view. I do not think a very great deal would have been heard about this, but for the fact that there has been a very great change with regard to the attitude of the medical profession to this disease of miners' nystagmus. I think I am not putting it too high, or too strong, when I say that their attitude has changed very considerably, and adversely to the miners themselves. The whole medical attitude towards the miner suffering from miners' nystagmus is that the sooner he gets back to work the better. I do not complain of that. So far as that expression of opinion goes, I concur, but the difficulty arises that you have, first, a specialist doctor employed by colliery companies pronouncing that this or that man is fit to do some kind of light work on the surface, and the man admits to the specialist that he is willing, able and prepared to do some kind of light work on the surface. But no sooner does he make that admission than the compensation is reviewed from 35s. a week down to £1, and the colliery company turn round, in many cases, and say to him, "We cannot find you any work." The result is that instead of getting some compensation and some form of light work provided by the company, the man is more or less turned on the streets with a large percentage of his compensation taken off. This arouses just indignation on the part of the workmen with regard
    1602
    to the treatment which colliery companies, in many cases, are meting out.
    What we are asking for is that the nomenclature should be changed. I had the pleasure and honour in this House of moving an Amendment to the last Workmen's Compensation Bill, and I suggested that the word "Sequelæ" should be added to the Schedule, because very often, when nystagmus has passed away, the man's eyes are in such a state, owing to his working in the pit, that it is impossible for him to go back again to work in the pit for a considerable time. But there is the utmost difference of opinion among doctors themselves as to what nystagmus actually is. Here are two Reports, both written by specialist members of the Nystagmus Committee. Dr. Llewelyn actually states that there may be no oscillation of the eyeballs, as that may have passed away, and yet the man may be actually in the worst possible stage of the disease. On the other hand, Dr. Pooley says that if there is no oscillation of the eyeballs, there is no nystagmus at all. So you get this position, that two eminent specialists upon that Committee are diametrically opposed to each other with regard to their description of what the disease is. Therefore, I say it is time that the Home Secretary turned his attention to this question, and, as far as it is possible, he should change the nomenclature, so that the just rights of the workman should be protected. We do not want in these cases compensation. What we require is the safeguard that the colliery company shall find a man simple work on the surface, or shall be under an obligation to pay the compensation. But it is the work we want rather than the compensation. In this connection, I should like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a part of this Report, because I am thoroughly convinced that if the Home Secretary introduced legislation to give effect to this particular Report, and the recommendations of the Committee—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): We are now in Supply, and it would not be in Order to discuss any prospective legislation. We can deal only with administration in Supply.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. SPENCER: I agree; that is what I am trying to do. The question with which I am dealing is the Schedule, and

    1603
    I am only using an illustration to prove that there are two ways to deal with it. One is that the Home Secretary shall give effect to one of the recommendations of this Committee, and see that legislation is brought forward to make it compulsory upon the colliery owner to provide the standard of illumination which is laid down in this Report. The actual cause of nystagmus is limited illumination—the half candle power in the lamp with which the man has to work. This Report recommends that if a lamp of 2½ candle power is provided for the miner, then nystagmus, as we know it to-day, will rapidly disappear. If they speak with any knowledge and any authority with regard to this disease, which is laying up 3,000 men every year, some of them for very long periods—in one case 15 years, and in others 10 years, six years, five years, three years, and so on—if it be true that a lamp can be provided of such a standard of illumination as will put an end to this disease, I say it is the Home Secretary's duty to see that legislation is brought in which will make it compulsory upon the colliery companies to provide such a lamp. I believe that at least 50 per cent. of the owners would be willing and glad to put it in to-morrow, but the other 50 per cent. would not. While it is made voluntary, those lamps will not be put in, but as soon as ever the Home Secretary says it shall be compulsory within a certain time the lamps will be put in, and we shall hear less about miner's nystagmus than we do at the present time.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Before I deal with anything in this Vote, I should like to ask the Home Secretary or the Deputy-Leader of the House, who, I see, is here now, whether I am right in understanding that the. Vote for the salary of the Home Secretary will be held over for a future date, because, as has been mentioned by several members of the Committee this afternoon, the Factory Inspector's Report is not yet in our hands. I am not blaming the Home Office for that, because I do not think it has ever been produced so early in the year as this, and I know how very hard worked the inspectors of the Home Office are. I am not finding fault at all with the fact that the Report has not been produced before, but I am anxious to
    1604
    point out that it is desirable that we should be able to have another discussion on the Home Office Vote when the Factory Inspector's Report has been produced. Therefore, I hope I am right in thinking that the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary will be held over, to enable us to raise whatever points we may want to raise on it at some later time.
    There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the Home Secretary. I did put, some weeks ago, a question as to the exact position of a Committee which was set up to inquire into the Restoration of Order in Ireland Acts—as to whether they ought to be totally repealed, or ought to be partially repealed, or whether any other legislation was necessary. That Committee consisted of Sir George. Talbot, Lord Chelmsford, and Mr. Runciman, and the answer I got to my question a few weeks ago was that the Report was very nearly ready, but that the Committee had not sat for some time, I think owing to the illness of the Chairman and owing to Lord Chelmsford being engaged in another direction. I should very much like to know, if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us, whether that Committee has reported, and also whether its Report will be available to the House. With regard to factories, I think it would be difficult, without trespassing on the rules of order, to say very much, because of the Bill which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to bring in; but I should like to say that I hope very much that he will bring in that Bill at an early date. As I understand, it is founded upon a Bill which was drafted at the Home Office last year, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) promised in the King's Speech that he would introduce if he remained in office. I understand that the Bill is that Bill, with certain additions, and, no doubt, improvements, made by the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with his very able and efficient staff. Apart, however, from the question of the Bill itself, I do hope that, as there has been a considerable surplus available this year, some money will be obtained from the Treasury for increasing the number of inspectors, which certainly, but for want of money, ought to have been done before. I think that that is a most important point, partly to relieve them from the risk of

    1605
    being overworked, and still more in order to cover the ground, which cannot properly be covered by the number that we have now. It is also very important, I think, to bring the Regulations up to date, in view of the many different processes and the different kinds of machinery and work, in order to meet the variations which have taken place in the different factories and workshops since the Regulations were last drawn up.
    There is another question on which I think the House would like to be quite assured, and that is the question of the administration of the Aliens Order. From the answers that have been given in the House we have gathered that the practice adopted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office, and by the predecessor of the Minister of Labour, has been closely followed. That was that no alien should be permitted to land in this country without a permit from the Minister of Labour if he was going to undertake permanent work in this country for which any British man or woman was available. I think that that principle is a very sound one, and I should like to be assured that it is being carried out. We were told that there were certain exceptional cases which were being dealt with somewhat differently—at least, that was the impression that I got from an answer which I think the Under-Secretary gave. Of course, there is unquestionably a great number of hard cases in connection with aliens—cases of women here with German husbands abroad, and so on. I quite admit that they are hard cases, but, at the same time, I do not think that they ought to be allowed to come here until the conditions of employment in this country are very different and very much better than they are now, because they create cases quite as hard, if not harder, among our own people. Much as any humane person would like to assist some of these hard cases, I should like to be assured that they are not being allowed here at the risk of putting some of our workers out of work and bringing their wives and families into a state of destitution.
    The hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Ackroyd) referred, and I agree very much with what he said, to the question of probation. I think that everyone in this House owes a very great debt of gratitude to the work, whether voluntary or other-
    1606
    wise, that has been done by a very devoted body of people in carrying out the duties of probation officers. I do not think many people realise how much good they have done. There is one thing, about which, during my time at the Home Office, I did feel quite convinced, and that was the value of extending the practice of sentencing people to probation. I do not know that we have sufficient data on which to state exactly how much good has been done, how many cases of relapse there have been, and so on, but I am certain that we know this much, at any rate, that it has done in most places a great deal of good, and its extension ought to have the effect of relieving our prisons from cases which ought not to go there, and saving in one direction any additional expense that we might incur in another. Just before the present Government came in, I was able, by consulting the Treasury, to get the Treasury to undertake the payment of a considerable sum—I forget exactly what it was, but I think about £20,000—towards extending the work of these probation officers. I have very little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry on that proposal, and, perhaps, with the Treasury so full, he may even be able to add to it. I think that nearly everyone in this Committee will agree with him if he can do anything, either by spending more money or by encouraging magistrates to make, more use of this probation work. I do not know if it is a good thing to be always telling magistrates what their duty is. I used often to be asked why I did not circularise the magistrates about this, that and the other. I do not think that that is the way to do it, but I think there are ways of bringing the matter to their attention, because many of them are very keen about it, and the great thing, I think, is to give those who are keen an opportunity of saying what they have to say about it, and showing other people what a lot of good it does. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentle man will do all he can to encourage the extension of probation work. There is only one other question that I want to ask him. A question was asked to-day by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) about lotteries. Everyone knows that the present state of affairs in regard to lotteries is chaotic.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: So is gambling.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It seems to me to be more difficult in these matters than in almost anything else to understand what is legal and what is not. My own view, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman shares it, is that it is very hard on those who have to administer the law as it is now, that it should be so difficult to understand, and there have been test cases in order to try and clear up these questions. Perhaps I might be allowed to give the Committee two or three points with regard to these lotteries. In the first place, there has always been some doubt as to whether a lottery got up by a club and strictly confined to its own members—say the Reform Club, or the National Liberal Club, or the Carlton Club—
    Mr. LANSBURY: Or the Athenæum.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:—is legal. I used to think that, so long as such a lottery was confined to the members of the club, and tickets were not sold or given to people outside the club, it was a harmless proceeding, but that does not seem to be really quite clear. We had cases last year, and the case to which the hon. Member for Bodmin referred to-day seemed to be a case of a lottery got up by a club, but not confined to the members of the club.
    Mr. FOOT: The Otley Club Lottery is a public appeal for subscriptions made to all parts of the country, running into some hundreds of thousands of pounds.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think most of us used to think that that was illegal, although, if the thing were strictly confined to the club, it was all right. I believe there is some doubt as to the law about that. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that a lottery strictly confined to a club and its members is a very harmless affair, but if it is—
    Mr. SPENCER: What is the difference in principle?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: —if it is made a public affair and thrown open to everyone, whether members of the club or not, I think it leads to very great abuse. Then there is the question of charitable lotteries. There, again, many very deserving charities have suffered because some perfectly harmless lottery which has
    1608
    been got up for their benefit has been declared to be illegal. It seems to me that where a lottery or raffle is got up by a charity, and where it is quite clear that the whole, or practically the whole, of the proceeds of what is put in goes to the charity, it should be made perfectly clear that that is a fair and lawful enterprise.
    Mr. SPENCER: Notwithstanding that it is broadcast?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should have thought it was possible to say, if the lottery is audited, and if you show the number of tickets taken, and that the whole proceeds, after the prizes are given, go to the charitable institution on behalf of which they were asked for, that that should be allowed. Then there is the question of those lotteries—I do not know what is the proper name for them—in which you have to guess something in a newspaper. I believe it is held that, so long as the slightest effort of brain is required—if, for instance, you are able to say that two and two make four, and not five, that shows that you have exercised your brain—the lottery may be a legal one. These guessing competitions, as I hear an hon. Member call them, seem to me to be comparatively harmless, but all of them, I think, need regulating, and we want to know exactly where we are, and what is legal and what is not legal. The really pernicious kind of lottery is the one which is got up, very often, in the name of charity, somewhat on these lines. Someone says, "I am going to give, out of the proceeds of this lottery, £10,000 to such-and-such a charity," and then proceeds to collect all over the world for this desirable charity. No one knows how many entries he gets. He very likely gets £100,000, and then he goes off with £90,000 himself, and says he has done a great and good work by giving £10,000 to a certain institution.
    That is a kind of lottery which is certainly illegal, and which the Home Office are always trying to fight against for all they are worth. I do not know whether their powers are sufficient now, but I hope that, if they are not, the right hon. Gentleman will take counsel with his very able, energetic and efficient officers in the Home Office, and either set up a Committee to go into this question, or take some other means

    1609
    which seem to him to be better for making the law quite clear on this subject, and avoiding all the bother that is caused by the present chaos. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give me some answer on these points, and also if he will confirm what I said at the beginning, that the Vote for his own salary will be held over in order to give us opportunities for discussing the Factory Inspector's Report.
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I rise for the purpose of saying a very few words on the subject of the inspection of industry under the administration of the Home Office, but, before doing so, I should like to refer to two points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. In the first place, with regard to the administration of the Aliens Act, I think it comes within the experience of all of us that there are at the present time, and have been for some time past, a number of very hard cases indeed, with which I hope the Home Secretary, hi spite of anything that may be said, will deal in the same sympathetic manner in which, so far as my limited experience goes, he has begun to deal with them. Secondly, with regard to the question of lotteries. I do hope that the Home Secretary will not be induced to do anything which would open wider the door with regard to the legalisation or permission of lotteries in this country. I quite agree that it is very difficult at the present time to define a lottery, but some of us know that it is equally if not more difficult to define a charity, and still more difficult to make sure that a lottery which purports to be carried on on behalf of a charity is carried on in a bona-fide manner and for the benefit of the charity. Although I quite agree that the law is at present chaotic, I hope that, if there is to be any alteration, either in the law or in the administration with regard to the holding of lotteries, it will be rather in the direction of strengthening the present control than of weakening it.
    With regard to inspection, I should not have risen to add my voice to the number of others which have been raised as to the inadequacy of the present staff of the Home Office for the purpose of carrying out a complete inspection of factories and workshops, if I were not prepared with a definite suggestion as to the manner in which I think improvement could be
    1610
    effected. Most people have a very obvious suggestion to offer on the subject, which costs more money, namely, that the Home Office should increase its staff of factory inspectors and assistants. The suggestion I have to offer has the merit if, as I firmly believe, it could be put into effect, of combining increased efficiency with a substantial measure of economy. We have at present 205 inspectors of factories and workshops at a cost, as I gather from the Estimates, of £137,800 in salaries and allowances, and of £17,000 in travelling expenses, and taking the number of factories and workshops at present registered, they amount to some 1,383 to be inspected by each of these 205 inspectors, and I think everyone is agreed that that is practically an impossible task.
    What I want to draw attention to is the enormous amount of overlapping which is taking place with regard to the inspection of industry. Leaving out of account the fact that many local authorities for several purposes are obliged to employ inspectors to inspect factories, workshops and shops, there is the fact that no fewer than 815 persons, according to figures which have been supplied to me in answer to various questions I have put, are employed by various Government Departments, not all inspecting the whole of the same people but all of them engaged in inspecting factories and workshops of one sort or another, and many of them entirely covering the same ground over and over again. Those 815 persons are employed at a cost of £400,000 a year in salaries and allowances, and no less than £65,000 a year in travelling expenses. It is no doubt quite true that it is necessary for a certain number of factory inspectors, in the higher ranks at all events, to have a very considerable degree of technical knowledge of particular trades and industries, but there are two kinds of knowledge which go to the making of a good inspector, just as there are two kinds of knowledge that go to the making of a good teacher. He may have a very slight technical knowledge of the particular subject which he has to teach, in the case of a teacher, or of the particular subject with regard to which he has to inspect, in the case of an inspector, and he may have very little knowledge at all of how to inspect, or possibly whom he has to inspect, just as the teacher may

    1611
    have very little knowledge of how to teach or of the people whom he is teaching and the best method of approaching their minds. I am pleading to-day for the co-ordination of our present system of inspection, which would necessarily involve, I suppose, its being concentrated in the hands of one Department, and I suggest the Home Office as the most suitable Department for the purpose.
    I think if the whole even of the present inspection staff were taken, the staff which is employed on the duty of the inspection of industry in various Departments, and were put under the control of the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office, and if their duties were mapped out on a more sensible and comprehensive plan than we have at present, he could devise a system of inspection on lines somewhat like these. He could have smaller districts, with one inspector or more attached to each, who would get to know the characteristics of the various firms he had to inspect. He would get to know those who are honestly endeavouring to carry out the law in so far as they can understand it. He would get to know those who are not only honestly endeavouring to carry it out, but do understand it, and he would also get to know those who are engaged, as some firms unfortunately are, in an attempt to deceive every one of the inspectors who come round to visit them. In my experience I have come across some most astonishing cases of firms who have dressed up their factories for the express purpose of deceiving inspectors from various Government Departments. [Interruption.] They do not come to me except in those cases where the inspector is not deceived, but the fact that occasionally the inspector is not deceived I think indicates that in all probability there must be other cases where the deception is more successful. I only use this observation as illustrating my point that if an inspector had a smaller district he would be able to become acquainted with the characteristics of the firms, and would know those who require special attention and those who are determined to evade the carrying out of the law if they can possibly do so, and in my opinion it would be much more important that the inspector should have that knowledge and should have that smaller district to cover, so that
    1612
    he would know it and would cover it thoroughly, than that he should be specially qualified in all the technical knowledge which may be required for various special purposes. Then, if the organisation I have in mind were carried into effect you would have very small districts staffed by men who would be specialists in inspection, not specialists in any one subject, but with a general knowledge of particular subjects, grouped into larger districts to which you would have attached specialists in all the various subjects of inspection which were required in the district, and you would have no difficulty in securing that if a local inspector who was not a specialist came up against any point which was too difficult for him for want of technical knowledge, he could immediately report it to the district headquarters, and secure the attendance of one of the specialists dealing with the particular subject who would be able to carry the matter out, and in that way I am convinced if you were to amalgamate the various inspection staffs which the Government Departments have at present—I will not trouble the House with the details although I have them here—you would secure an infinitely more efficient service than you now have, and at the same time you would save a very large part of that £65,000 which now goes every year in travelling expenses, as well as avoiding the necessity, which will otherwise be forced upon you before very long, of increasing the staff at a large increase of salary.
    As far as I know there is only one thing that really stands in the way of the attainment of this object, that is departmental jealousy. The proposal I am making has been carried a very small step in this sense, that there has been an amalgamation of the inspectorates on unemployment and health insurance. But to my mind it should be carried infinitely further. If the inspection staffs were amalgamated and organised on the lines I have been indicating, under the control of one Department—and I am suggesting that the Department responsible for factories and workshops should be the one which should have the control, but it is not for me, of course, to settle the point of departmental jealousy with regard to that; I should be content provided the co-ordination is effected under whatever Department it is effected. I

    1613
    am sure you will not, without an intolerable addition to the taxpayers' burdens, which I am sure would not commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer after what he stated in his Budget speech on the subject of the economies which he is scarcing for, secure a really efficient method of inspection as long as you keep the inspectors in a series of watertight compartments, none of them knowing whether an inspector from some other Department is going to wait on some firm on the same day or whether it may be months before anyone will be able to call on that firm at all, and none of them, as I know perfectly well from frequent experience to be the case, even exchanging information which they acquire in the course of inspecting for one Department, not passing on that information to any other Department—you will never secure, as long as this system continues, without an intolerable increase in financial burdens, that improvement in the inspection of factories and workshops which is so essential if the laws which we have are really effectively to be carried out.
    I therefore hope that the Department concerned, at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman, will investigate thoroughly this proposal that I am making and will not be too prone to accept suggestions which may be made by one Department or another of difficulties which may possibly be put forward in the highly laudable desire of retaining for themselves control of their own particular staff, but will press this matter forward in order that we may have a substantial saving both in travelling expenses and certainly no increase in the numbers required for the duties, and at the same time may accompany that with what I am sure could be attained, a very considerable increase in the thoroughness and efficiency of the inspection.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Perhaps at the outset I ought to reply to the invitation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) as to the procedure to be followed with regard to the Vote I shall quite readily acquiesce in the suggestion that this particular Vote should be withdrawn to permit of the opportunity at a later stage, should it be desired by either section of the Opposition, to
    1614
    resume the Debate upon it, especially having regard to the fact that the Annual Report of the factory department is not ready. I know the importance which all sections of the House attach to having the information contained in that Report at their disposal before finally leaving this Vote. Perhaps I ought to say, though I think it has been already recognised, that the blame does not attach to the Department that this Vote has come on so much earlier this year than in previous years. The arrangement as to which Vote is to be taken on a particular Thursday is made through the usual channels as we say, and our friends below the Gangway selected this particular Vote to-day and we acquiesced in it being brought forward. [Interruption.] If my memory serves me, I think it was not hon. Members below the Gangway, it was the party that now forms the Government that asked for a day last year, though at a later stage. I think the Vote came on somewhere in July.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Before the factory inspector's Report was issued.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Factory Inspector's Report has been issued, generally, about June or July—very seldom before July—and I should like to hasten the publication if I could, but we have to have regard to the information which has to be obtained. It has to be properly tabulated, and then there is the question of getting it printed, and we are not so overstaffed in the Home Department that we can set aside someone to deal with the Report immediately the year ends for which it is to be published. We are faced with these difficulties, but I will do my best to hasten its publication.
    The hon. Member who has just sat down delivered a very interesting speech on what I regard as one of the most important parts of the work of the Home Department—that is the work of the Inspectorate. I am very far from satisfied with the present position. Unfortunately, this part of our work came under the Geddes Axe, and we are below the number of the staff that we ought to have to carry on even what we might call the normal work. I have given a good deal of thought to it, but immediately I went to the Department, as we have been reminded more than once, I found the draft of a Bill, which was referred to in

    1615
    the King's Speech, for a consolidating and amending Factory Bill. I have given a good deal of time to the consideration of all the questions contained in that Bill. I have had deputations and conferences. I have spent a certain amount of time going into the very important questions affecting the life of the worker in some of the textile factories in the Lancashire area. There are others that I should like to visit before the Bill goes through the Committee stage. When I considered the dimensions of the questions that the Bill was attempting to deal with—and it covers all the questions which the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) raised—questions such as welfare, lighting, sanitation, and other questions which I myself have felt compelled to include within the scope of the Bill since I have had the matter under consideration—I could not think of bringing in this comprehensive Bill dealing with factory questions and ignore the question of factory inspection, and however anxious I am—and I am anxious—to make up the lost ground as the result of the economy proposals contained in the Geddes Report—I think it would be a mistake to deal with this question piecemeal. I have come to the conclusion that it will be very much more satisfactory to let the House know the provisions of the Bill on Second Beading and then, if we can get it through Committee within a reasonable time, as I am encouraged to believe we shall from the speeches I have listened to to-day—in fact this debate has been full of encouragement, opening, as it did, with very striking speeches from the two hon. Ladies, the Members for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) and for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), and followed by other speakers in different parts of the Committee, all pleading first of all for improved factory inspection, and asking for the introduction of this new Factory Bill—I am encouraged to believe that there is going to be a non-party attitude towards the Bill and, if it is maintained, I believe we shall make a substantial beginning towards a new standard of factory life, and if we can do that it was my intention to set up, as soon as I saw the time had arrived when it could get the new proposals of the Bill for its guidance, a Committee dealing with the whole question of factory inspection.
    1616
    I think the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Comyns-Carr) touched upon a point which is very well worth careful investigation, and I should be quite prepared to appoint a representative Committee, in order that I might have the very best and most up-to-date views presented to me before I went to the Treasury, as it would be necessary for me to do, and to ask for a substantial sum, because I believe there will not only be the lost ground, as the result of the Geddes Report, to be made up, but it must be obvious to hon. Members, in view of what I have said about the comprehensive nature of the proposed Bill, that the question of factory inspection will have to be placed on a much broader and much more comprehensive basis. So I hope hon. Members will be encouraged to believe that no time will be lost in dealing, first of all, with the Bill, and then with the question of factory inspection. Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Leigh, relating to workmen's compensation and the duties of certifying surgeons. With regard to the latter question, I prefer to say nothing to-day, but to deal with it, as I shall be compelled to do, on the Second Reading of the Factory Bill. As soon as I took up my position, I appointed a Committee to go into the question of the duties of certifying surgeons. I have just received the Report of that Committee within the last few days, and we are endeavouring to focus the recommendations of the Committee into one or two Clauses in the Factory Bill. I shall, however, make a more comprehensive statement on that question on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    With reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh arose out of the agreement that was reached some time ago with the assurance companies. The negotiations took place before I went to the Department, but I understand that the subject was gone into very fully, and careful consideration was given to it before that agreement was reached. I am afraid, so soon after the Amendment of the workmen's compensation law, which only passed through the House last December, and the recent date of the agreement in question, I cannot hold out much hope that anything can be done it an early date on that subject.

    1617
    I was also asked a question by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) regarding anthrax. On that subject, I am being pressed on two sides. Some employers have approached the Department asking us to reduce the standard on which we have been working, and I have been pressed on the other side to do more. I am very happy to say that the decision of the Department to maintain the station that exists at Liverpool has given a great deal of satisfaction, at any rate amongst the operatives in connection with some sections of the textile industry. I am not prepared to say whether we can go any further than we have gone at the moment, but I may say that the matter is receiving our very careful consideration, and that we are most anxious to do everything we possibly can to protect the health of the workers in this regard, as we are in every industry for which the Department is responsible. The Noble Lord then dealt with a subject on which he feels very deeply, namely, the Slades Green explosion. He expressed his dissatisfaction, first of all, with the fact that this particular firm got this piece of work to do from the Disposal Board. I have endeavoured to point out, in answer to questions, that the giving of this work by the Disposal Board was not the work of the Home Office. We have no responsibility for it whatsoever, and if the Noble Lord has a complaint to make against any Department it is against the Treasury. The Disposal Board was under the Treasury.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Was there not the exemption of this work from the ordinary Regulations of the Home Office?
    Mr. HENDERSON: If the Home Office did it, at any rate I did not.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I did not say you did.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Disposal Board, as the Noble Lord is aware, has been in existence a long time.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Worse luck!
    Mr. HENDERSON: I thought that in answer to a question I had given the Noble Lord satisfaction. I did my best to give him satisfaction by saying that we would see that this work was carried out
    1618
    in future under the Explosives Act. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.
    Sir G. HOHLER: Did the Home Office relax or withdraw the Regulations in regard to the care taken in dealing with these explosives?
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is a mistaken idea that the Home Office did anything of the kind. I understand that this work was carried out under similar conditions and under exactly the same Regulations as work had been carried out at other places, but not under the Explosives Act. I only found that out after the explosion had taken place. It was not my doing, but I at once intimated that, in my judgment, this work, if it is to be done at all—I am not quite sure that a strong case can be made out for its being done—it must in future be done, as far as I am concerned, under the Explosives Act. That has been the position of the Home Office during the months that I have been there.
    We had a maiden speech from the hon. Member for the Moss-side division of Manchester (Mr. Ackroyd), on which I should like to compliment him. He raised what I should say are questions which come in the human category. In the early part of his speech he paid a well deserved tribute of praise to the work done by the probation officers. The work of the probation officers and the work of the volunteer visitors to our prisons has commended itself to me in no unmistakable way. I cannot now go into the question of prisons. The Under-Secretary or myself will have to do that on another Vote. I may, however, be permitted to say that we have started the visitation of prisons. We have only been able to visit two up to now, and we want to do a good many more, and to examine thoroughly into probation work and other questions ancillary thereto, which can be described as coming within the human category. I should like at some future date to make a very full statement in the House with regard to this work. A good many people fail to realise the tremendous improvement that has already taken effect.
    It is my desire that probation work should be encouraged in every way. The policy I have tried to follow, which I believe was the policy of my predecessor, is to do as much educative and reforma-

    1619
    tory work as we can crowd in, with the space that we have at our disposal. We are determined to give every encouragement to the voluntary work which is being so ably carried on by the most self-sacrificing visitors, both men and women, in addition to the work of the probation officers, who are exerting themselves in every possible way. I will take into consideration the question of issuing another Circular. We cannot always deal with magistrates from the Home Office, or else they would soon tell us that they have some idea of the business they have to discharge. I will also take into consideration the suggestion that we might bring our influence to bear to prevent the publication of names of juvenile offenders. That, again, comes in the human category, and anything we can do in that respect we will gladly undertake.
    The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer) raised two questions—nystagmus and medical referees. In connection with nystagmus, I have been giving a good deal of time to the question. It is a very difficult question. My right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary will agree with me that it is one of the most difficult questions with which we have to deal I have recently received two deputations upon it, one from the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, and the other from the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. I received from these deputations information on one aspect or another of this particular industrial disease. The Committee will recognise that the question has received a considerable amount of attention. One of the difficulties is that the Research Committee associated with the Ministry of Mines cannot get concrete evidence upon which to work. They have been asking for months past for recent cases, but they have not been able to secure those cases. They nave promised me that they will have the most searching investigation made if the cases are submitted. The Mines Department are very much interested in this question, and their officials and some of my own officials have been going into the matter, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that anything that can be done will be done further to elucidate the position that this disease occupies in law and practice.
    1620
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry put one or two questions with which I should like to deal. I think I have already answered two of my right hon. Friend's points. With regard to the Talbot Committee, the position is not very much different from what it was when we answered his question two weeks ago. One member of the Committee has been ill for some time. The Report, however, is nearly ready, and information that has reached me since I heard that the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise the question is that the Report will be ready at an early date. I do not suggest that that will be either next week or the following week. I am given to understand that it will be five or six weeks hence.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will it be published?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I will look into that. As far as I know, it will be published, but I have to be careful in giving answers on some of these ticklish questions about the publication of reports. The next important question was the administration of the Aliens Order. I have answered a good many questions on this subject during the Inst three or four months. My right hon. Friend said that he thought, generally speaking, I was acting on the old lines. I think some questions have shown that I have been, perhaps to some limited extent, departing from the old lines. Let me put it to the Committee in this way. These Orders were to some extent, at any rate, the outcome of the conditions into which we were put in August, 1914. During the period of the War very stringent regulations were applied. I hope that we are going to get away from those stringent conditions. I do not think that any section of the House wants rigidly to adhere to them. But we have always to keep in mind that, so far as the admission of aliens is concerned during this period of unemployment, not even a Labour Home Secretary can be too anxious to admit aliens into this country if they are going to compete directly for positions that ought to be open to the million workers belonging to our own country who are unemployed.
    It is well known with regard to this aspect of the case that the Ministry of

    1621
    Labour must in all cases give a permit. If it is not a question of employment, if aliens are to be admitted, another condition, as my right hon. Friend knows, is that they must be able to give proof that they are in a position to be free from becoming a public charge. I have had some very touching cases brought before me, cases of children whose only relatives are in this country. In one ease the father fell in the War in one of the allied armies; the mother, I think, was a born Briton—she is dead. If the only relatives are in a position to maintain these children, have the children to be excluded? I must say that I am not prepared to give any more definite commitment for the administration of the alien law than that which I have endeavoured to put into practice during the three or four months I have occupied my present position.
    The right hon. Gentleman's last question was in respect of lotteries. I think that he had some experience of the matter during his period as Secretary of State. I think that he found that the case about which I was questioned to-day was one of the test cases. At any rate, there was a case which came up last year, and I think the Crown lost in the Courts. What I have done is to try to obtain all the information before coming to a final decision as to what course shall be adopted. That information we are endeavouring to obtain, but, in reference to the question whether I was not prepared to do something so to clarify or codify the law to simplify the position, as it is so difficult to understand, let me say that it must depend very largely on the direction you want to go, in what direction the Committee or the House itself desire to go. I would prefer not to deal with this subject at all unless I was convinced that I was not dealing with a piece of class legislation, and that I was not striking at the masses and was leaving another class of the community free to indulge in another form of gambling, and that I was going to allow them to go scot free. Therefore, if any Member of the Committee presses me to go into the matter, I should like to have some guidance as to the direction in which hon. Members think we ought to go, and as to whether, if we went in that particular direction, we should be likely to secure the support of the House in dealing with what, in my opinion, is a very serious evil.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman should set up a Committee which would collect the various opinions of all sections of the House as to whether they consider that legislation could be carried and put into force. If the right hon. Gentleman got the opinion of hon. Members merely on the Floor of this House, he would get so many different opinions that he could not decide.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I was not asking that we should have the collective opinion of this House. I was rather suggesting that before dealing with this matter we should consider the direction in which we wish to travel. I have not overlooked the suggestion of a Committee, but the terms of reference would have to be such as would give the Committee power not merely to inquire into the complex nature of the law, but also to consider whether they were going to confine their attention to the law as applied to lotteries, whether they were to raise funds for charity or for other institutions or, as I am afraid has happened in some cases in the past, were to be used for the benefit of the promoters. I will take into consideration the suggestion of my right hon. Friend with regard to a Committee. But I do think that this is a very big question, and the law—this is the line upon which I stand—as it exists to-day, and as it has been interpreted by my legal advisers is going to be administered, as far as I am concerned, as resolutely as I can.
    There was another question which I expected was about to be raised. It was mentioned in a question that was put to-day. That is the presence of Press photographers at the exhumation of bodies. We have no power as far as I know to prevent this. The only law that could be put into operation is the law of trespass, and I should require a great deal more information than we possess at present in reference to this question, which has only recently arisen, so far as I am aware, before I can commit myself to any definite line of policy about the presence of Press photographers, who are everywhere in these days. Having briefly covered most of the points that have been raised I think that we might now act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and get rid of this Vote—
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: On a point of Order. There are a couple of questions which I would like to have answered. I will not take long.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to finish my statement. That is not a point of Order. There are some very important questions which have to be dealt with, and all I am trying to do to-day is to divide the time in the best way. I do not wish to be charged with endeavouring to avoid discussion, but I was responding to the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own Leader to get rid of this Vote, to withdraw it or leave it open to come up on a future occasion if it is desired, and then get on to the next point.
    Mr. SEXTON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do wish to impede him in any way. All my political life I have been "agin" the Government of some kind or another, and now I suddenly find myself in a position in which I have to be a follower. There is one point which I wish to bring before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, which I am sure has escaped him. Since 1897 half a million of men in the sheds, docks and quays had no protection under the Factory Law. They were legislative Ishmaels. What they want the right hon. Gentleman to consider to-day in reference to their case is the question of the examination qualifications of the inspectors, so that practical men may be appointed. A practical man with a knowledge of ships and docks has no chance of being appointed a factory inspector. A man who knows applied mechanics and chemistry is all right. Applied mechanics may be of use in connection with the docks, but what necessity is there for a man to pass in chemistry in order that he may inspect the ships and the docks? What is wanted are practical men who have gone through the whole gamut and would know more about the work than the most eminent theory. As I have said before, a practical man dealing with dock regulations requires to be a combination of the intelligence of a Home Secretary and the agility of a ring-tailed monkey before he can determine what is required. I do not often agree with my right hon. Friend opposite politically, but I do want to give the devil his due—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am speaking in a Pickwickian sense.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Is it in order to allude to another hon. Member as the devil?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the word was used only in a metaphorical sense.
    Mr. SEXTON: In the discussions on the Dock Regulations the right hon. Gentleman gave us all the assistance possible, and my gratitude is due to him for his very generous assistance, and I would appeal to his successor to give effect to my suggestion when he comes to consider this question.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: The point on which I wish to question the right hon. Gentleman is this: Some weeks ago a question was raised as to whether in future, trials of persons charged with blackmail should not be held in camera. It is deserving of attention. This social offence is distressingly on the increase, and, unless definite steps are taken to curb it, it will continue to increase. The blackmailer is one of the worst pests of modern society, and we must do something to stop him. There is one course which would stop him and stop him quickly, and that is to provide that trials be held in camera. It is the publicity that prevents a victim very often from going to the police and stating his case. When the question was raised in the House, I was told that the Home Office did not consider it practicable to have the proceedings heard in camera. I have many friends in the legal profession—solicitors, barristers, King's Counsel, and others—and they are unanimous in saying that, in their opinion, the remedy that I have suggested is the right remedy for dealing with these social pests. It is not necessary to take up time by describing the sorts of cases that arise. They must be well known to the Home Secretary.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order. The subject to which he refers can be raised on Vote 1, Class 3, but not on this Vote.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Then I will say no more now. I hope that what I have said will enable the Home Secretary to reply in due course. The other point I wished to raise relates to questionnaires at general elections. I remember the case of the Prime Minister, which was

    1625
    mentioned a few weeks ago. I believe that matter is out of order, however, so I cannot ask a question about it, but if in the course of any subsequent remarks the Home Secretary can say something on it, the House will be grateful to him.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Sir G. HOHLER: I have risen half a dozen times to address the Committee. The Home Secretary must have seen that several Members wished to address the House when he rose to reply. Though I have not been in the House every minute of the time, yet I do not think that any speeches have been made on the subject to which I wish to refer. That subject is the publication of photographs in the newspapers. I, therefore, wish that the Debate should proceed in order that we may discuss this very important question of the activities of the Press in regard to cases where people are merely arrested.
    Mr. FOOT: Before the Vote be withdrawn, I wish to make a further reference to a subject which has been already mentioned.
    Sir G. HOHLER: I wish to address the Committee on the point which I have mentioned, if I am in order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member knows that I was about to put the Question, "That the Motion, by leave, be withdrawn." If he does not consent, he is entitled to make his speech. I am in the hands of the Committee as to whether the Motion be withdrawn.
    Mr. HAYES: On a point of Order. Does this question of Press photographs not refer to police action, and should it not come up on the next Vote?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not yet gathered what is the point of the hon. and learned Member, but when I have heard it I will give a ruling on it.
    Sir G. HOHLER: I wish to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary the activities of the Press in publishing photographs of witnesses in cases that may or may not come before the Courts. I desire to ask whether such publication
    1626
    is not prejudicial to the administration of justice, and whether complaints have been made either by the police or the Public Prosecutor about it? A case to which I wish particularly to refer is one of those sensational cases, now under inquiry, where a photograph of the most important witness was taken at the office of the Public Prosecutor not long since.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is not in order, I think, on this Vote. He will be in order on the next Vote, or, if the matter is under the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it comes under Vote 1, which is not on the Order Paper today.
    Sir G. HOHLER: On that point, I submit that this is the only Vote on which I can raise the matter. It does not come under the Director of Public Prosecutions at all, for it is not in his Department. My question arises on the salary of the Home Secretary. I wish to ask whether he is satisfied that the administration of justice is not impeded by the activities of the photographers, more particularly by the taking of photographs of witnesses before a case even comes before the Court?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Home Secretary should introduce new legislation? If so, that is out of order. I do not know at what my hon. and learned Friend is aiming.
    Sir G. HOHLER: I have a complete answer to that question. I think the Home Secretary has certain powers, and I want to know whether he considers them sufficient. I propose to deal quite shortly with a very dangerous practice which is growing up. Does the Home Secretary consider that his powers to make application for committal for contempt of court are adequate, or does he think that further powers should be obtained so as to ensure the impartial administration of justice? I will give one illustration, the cocaine case. There is a case which is coming before a court of inquiry. It is a case of a very sensational nature, and one in which it is most important that the witnesses should have security and safety. It is exceedingly undesirable that photographers should besiege the offices of the Public Prosecutor as they did—so I am informed in the Press—to get a photo-

    1627
    graph and publish a photograph of a lady who is one of the most important witnesses in that case. I am informed that the Public Prosecutor, or the police, had to clear these gentlemen out of Richmond Gardens in order that the witness might attend and leave without being photographed. This practice is very largely on the increase. There is another case which I saw in the pictorial Press the other day. You cannot help seeing these things. My recollection is that a prisoner—I have forgotten who he was—had to be shrouded by a cloak from the photographers as he passed from a taxicab to the Court. It is very undesirable and prejudicial, because at the moment that they are photographed most of the people are not convicted, and, indeed, have not been tried.
    Nor does it end there. There is another unfortunate class of case, like that at Eastbourne. We do not know whether the man in this case is guilty or not, for he is not even committed for trial. For the purpose of the inquiry it was desirable to ascertain who were the three women who, it was alleged, had been seen with the man. I saw in some evening paper a photograph of one of these ladies. What more offensive or wrong could be done? How exceedingly prejudicial to the trial! If these things are to happen is it likely that witnesses will come forward to give evidence? I ask the Home Secretary whether he has had complaints from the police or from individuals, and, it may be, from the Public Prosecutor, in regard to these photographers, who will not leave people alone but pursue them to photograph them for gain on behalf of a newspaper. I think that the Public Prosecutor has power, in a proper case, to apply for committal for contempt of court, but I am not satisfied that that is an adequate remedy; I do not think it is, or that it is very desirable to exercise it. I hesitate in the absence of a Law Officer to express any opinion about the case of the opening of graves. Has the Home Secretary had complaints in this matter, and, if so, has he considered them? Since I was called to the Bar this practice is wholly new. No policeman, for instance, can go to Hastings or elsewhere in search of witnesses, but we have a photograph in the Press This is
    1628
    all very prejudicial to the administration of justice. If the Home Secretary should not speak again to-day, I hope that he will consider the point I have raised.
    Mr. FOOT: I wish to make further reference to a subject that was raised in the first instance by the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman), and dealt with in a word or two by the Home Secretary. I gathered from the answer given to me earlier in the day, and from the cheers in the House, that we are very divided in our views as to what the law is in relation to sweepstakes and lotteries. Whatever may be our differences, I think it is time that the law was made clear. Whether we think that sweepstakes should be made legal or that something should be done to make them more difficult, the law as it stands is being brought into contempt. An uncertain law is far worse than a bad law. The law in relation to lotteries and sweepstakes is a law which depends for its interpretation simply upon an artificial frontier. It is put into operation in one county where penalties are imposed, and a different course is taken just over the border in another county. When I raised the point in reference to the Otley Conservative Club it was not merely because it was a Conservative club. It might have been any club, but I was influenced by the fact that in the North of England in particular Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs have been prosecuted for sweepstakes and have been punished, and one is entitled to ask why punishment should be inflicted in one part of the country and not in another. Here we find this thing being done on a very much more extensive scale and no proceedings are being taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says he has the matter under consideration and he referred to the fact that last year there was a prosecution. That prosecution failed upon a technicality. In the appeal which is at present being made to the public, it is advertised that the sum subscribed last year from all parts of the country and indeed all parts of the world was about £80,000 and that this sum will be exceeded this year owing to the many applications that are being made for participation.
    I look upon that, announcement as an impudent defiance of the law. It should be said in fairness to the Conservative clubs that a direction was given from

    1629
    the headquarters of the Conservative clubs, urging that this course should not be adopted, and the President of the Otley Conservative Club, out of loyalty to his headquarters, resigned his position rather than be a party to a policy which was out of accord with that decided upon by his organisation. In spite of that fact, and in spite of the protests of their own brethren, in spite of the protests of a large and representative committee representing all political parties and all churches, and all shades of thought in Otley, the club is proceeding with this scheme, tempting people in all parts of the country to subscribe to a sweepstake. I ask that further consideration should be given to the suggestion of an inquiry by a Select Committee. I think there is all the stronger reason for it because last year the Committee set up to deal with the proposed betting tax, asked that they might be allowed to extend their inquiries to sweepstakes and lotteries, and it was suggested at the time that this subject could be better dealt with by another inquiry later on. The law as it stands is chaotic, and one hundred years ago there was the strongest possible condemnation by a Parliamentary Committee of lotteries as being injurious to every class of society. I suppose there can be no difference of opinion on the fact that this is a widespread evil, and having regard to that fact, and the association of sweepstakes and lotteries with the extending evil of gambling, I think a Select Committee should be set up. It will not commit the Government to any definite policy, but will enable an exhaustive inquiry to be held into the matter to ascertain the extent of the evil. That is the preliminary to any reform. It would be impossible for the Government to introduce a Bill unless a preliminary inquiry had been made by a Committee representing every section of thought in the House. In that way a real advance may be brought about, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this appeal which I think is made from all parts of the House.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Before the Vote is withdrawn I should like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to another class who have for a long time claimed the protection of the Home Office but have hitherto not received that protection to which they consider themselves
    1630
    entitled. In the first place may I say I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) as to the urgent need of giving witnesses at trials, especially at those sensational trials which are now made so much of in the Press, adequate protection from the photographer who panders to the vulgar curiosity of an irresponsible public. I wish to refer however to the class of small business people and to the failure of the Home Office to protect them against street traders who place barrows immediately opposite business premises and take from the owners of those premises the trade to which they are legitimately entitled. I understand there are something like 50,000 street traders in the Metropolis. None of these men pay cither rates, taxes or rent.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member can satisfy me to the contrary, I think he is out of order in that the point he is raising must come under the Police Vote, which is the next Vote on the Order Paper. Unless he can show me that the Home Secretary has direct powers in this respect, apart from acting through the police, I think he is out of order.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I understand the Home Secretary has powers to make orders preventing street traders from placing barrows immediately in front of business premises so as to interfere with the trader in those premises carrying on his legitimate business.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must know that the Home Secretary has not power to do anything he likes. He must act under Statute. The hon. Member must show that the Home Secretary has a statutory power. If he seeks to propose new legislation then he is out of order.
    Sir W. DAVISON: It is a matter of common knowledge, though I cannot recall the actual Section from memory, that the police have power to licence. ["HON. MEMBERS: "The police!"] Well, the Home Secretary through the police.
    Sir G. HOHLER: Surely my hon. Friend is in order, for this reason, that we are discussing the salary of the Home Secretary, and on that there is the widest possible scope for discussion of all matters

    1631
    which the Home Secretary has to administer, whether through the police or otherwise.
    Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

(1) Trade Facilities Act, 1924.

(2) Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Act, 1924.

(3) Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Act, 1924.

(4) Queen's Ferry Bridge Act, 1924.

SUPPLY.
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]
Question again proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £206,072, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State, for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of a System of Probation."
Sir W. DAVISON: When the even tenor of our proceedings was momentarily interrupted by the advent of Black Rod, I was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, as to the failure of the Home Secretary to give adequate protection to small shopkeepers against having their business interfered with by street traders, and you were calling him to order on the ground that that did not properly come on the Vote for the salary of the Home Secretary. I submit, with all respect, that as we are discussing the salary of the Home
1632
Secretary we are entitled to draw attention to his failure to give adequate protection to a particular class of His Majesty's subjects.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My ruling on that is this, that we cannot discuss, on the salary of the Home Secretary, anything which comes within some other specific Vote. The next Vote deals with the police, and it seems to me that the point raised by the hon. Member comes under that Vote.
Sir HERBERT NIELD: I wish to hark back to the subject of sweepstakes in clubs, and I think I am entitled to make a few observations, because, as chairman of the great organisation which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) described as the headquarters of the Association of Conservative Clubs, I have taken steps to put my foot firmly down against an extended system of appealing to members who are not members of the precise club which is concerned. I object very strongly to the using of the affiliated movement for the purpose of increasing technically the membership of a club, and I am glad to find my hon. Friend realises that, and recognises that headquarters have done their best, at any rate, to put an end to a practice which I do not think can be justified for a moment.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I think in this matter there is a variation of policy on the part of the authorities in different areas, but I would like to point out an anomaly which is still more marked. In a given area exception is not taken by the police authorities unless someone takes specific exception to a particular undertaking. If a scheme is launched by a given body or organisation, and if complaints are made, they will take action, whereas, with more influential bodies in operation, where no such complaint is made, the thing goes through as if it were all in order. That is something that ought to be dealt with, but when we come to the larger aspect of the question of sweepstakes, then we come on to a plane that will open up, or ought to open up, all the wide range of gambling which certainly goes on, even to the depths of the Stock Exchange—not simply the working man with his sweepstake, or something of that nature, but the whole gamut of the gambling business which is patronised by the very highest authorities in this

1633
country. I therefore feel that we have to deal with this thing squarely, and if we are going to deal with these national evils, we ought not always to talk as though it were only the wicked working man who was concerned.
Mr. BLACK: I wish to make a suggestion with respect to factory inspection from a particular standpoint, namely, with regard to the incidence of tuberculosis, which I feel to be a very serious matter, and one which should demand the attention of the Department. In the particular trade with which I was connected for over 30 years, there was a predisposition to tuberculosis among the employés, and I understand that in several other trades the same state of affairs prevails. There seems to be a very unequal distribution of the incidence of tuberculosis. In the boot and shoe industry, with which I was associated, there is a very large proportion of the number of those who die, dying from this disease. Last year, nearly 24 per cent. of the deaths amongst the operatives in the boot trade were from this disease, and I think the Under-Secretary for the Home Department will agree that that is a very large proportion, and one which demands serious consideration. I want to ask whether it would be possible, on the part of the Department, to set apart several inspectors, medical men, specially in regard to these trades which show a large incidence of tuberculosis. I believe the money would be well spent, and that if you could send round to the factories, which in these particular trades are largely found in certain settled districts, medical men, who would invite the operatives to submit themselves periodically to inspection with regard to this disease, it would be the means of stopping a large amount of the disease in its incipient stages.
Those of us who have had connection with this fell disease and have had to deal with administration in connection with it, know that if attacked in its incipient stages it is very curable, and the results are very satisfactory. I should like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that, if he could stop this extraordinary amount of disease in these special trades, he would be saving the community very large charges which afterwards come upon the community with respect to the care of the families of these men who die. I do not
1634
know how it is that in the particular trade I have mentioned there is this large predisposition to tuberculosis, unless it be on account of the large amount of dust and waste in the cutting up of the leather in this industry. I believe the same thing applies in regard to saw mills and other trades where the atmosphere is vitiated by dust pr anything of that kind. Therefore, I suggest to the Department that they should consider the advisability of having a few men like this periodically to visit these factories, say, half-yearly, without putting any compulsion on the men to be examined. I believe it might be found that they would be willing to submit themselves to the test, in their own interests, because we know how easy it is for a man with tuberculosis to go on for months, and sometimes for years, before waking up to the fact that he has tuberculosis, and that it is then too late for anything to be done for him. I think this is a suggestion which might be taken into consideration. I have had conversations with the medical officer of health in the county of Leicester with regard to the matter—I am chairman of the health committee—and we both consider that this may be the means in our county of Leicester, where there are so many boot factories, and where the incidence of this disease is so bad, of helping to stem the disease.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. WIGNALL: I would like to say a word or two in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black), who has just sat down. I quite agree that inspection is necessary, but I do not like the idea of this special inspection of the workmen. I say that we should make the inspection of the causes of the disease, rather than of the men, because there must be a cause. Either the ventilation is bad or the conditions of the workshops are bad, and if you remove the cause the effect will quickly disappear. I know perfectly well by experience the difficulties, and the objections, and the serious consequences of periodical inspections of individual men. I know that when the doctors come round and examine for a particular disease a man puts himself to no end of trouble to persuade everyone that there is nothing at all the matter with him. He will even lose time to avoid the doctor's inspection, and frequently, when a doctor reports

1635
that a man shows symptoms, he will keep out of the way. So I think there is a great danger of that. I believe in the inspections, but the inspection should be to get at the cause of the evil. Some of the wretched factories that exist, and the scandalous conditions, are a disgrace to civilisation, and so we want to get rid of the evil.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS III.

  POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,065,336, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention and a Grant in Aid of the Police Federation."—[NOTE: £3,050,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. HAYES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I desire to refer the Committee to a matter on which I plead guilty to having detained it last year for a considerable length of time, though I would like to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I have no intention of inflicting myself upon the Committee for that length of time on this occasion. The matter to which I desire to refer is the question of reinstatement of police and prison strikers. Recently in the Press there have been references to the policy of the Government in this connection, and a question was put to the Home Secretary last Monday as to whether it was the policy of the Government to reinstate the police and prison strikers in the Services. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, and am glad to hear he will be here in a few moments. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was in the negative, though he was making some inquiry into certain points, apart, however, from the question of reinstatement. Previous Governments have considered this question, and I admit that their decisions have been consistent. They
  1636
  have consistently declined to reinstate the men, although in the main they have put a different reason before us from the reason which I understand is likely to come from the Home Secretary. One has to remember that the general point put against reinstatement was that it would be subversive of the discipline of the Service. I appreciate the anxiety of Governments to maintain the good order and discipline of its police force. I re cognise the absolute necessity for the maintenance of such good order and discipline, and I think those who knew me when I was in the Service know that I was quite a strict disciplinarian.
  At the same time, if you desire, men to have discipline of mind, you must have conditions in which those disciplined minds may operate. If the conditions in which they have to do their duties, do not make for that stability of a disciplined mind then the resultant actions of a mind which has been disturbed by those conditions of employment must not altogether be placed upon the individual police officers who may commit, as one may regard it, an act of indiscipline. There is a dual responsibility which must be shared by others. I do hope we shall have the presence of the Home Secretary very shortly, because I want to take up one or two points that have arisen in discussing this matter elsewhere.
  There is the general question to be considered by the Government as to whether the men had violated the agreement in the initial stage of the settlement of the 1918 dispute. The late Home Secretary made a point last year that the men had had ample opportunity and warning and had violated an agreement and that the fact that they had broken their oaths did not entitle them to the confidence of the authorities. That is a point of view, that has always been put up by the Home Office; but the present Home Secretary, in examining this question whether there was an agreement or not, ought, I think, to have full regard to the obligations of those who were a party to that agreement. You cannot have an agreement and maintain it if one signatory to that agreement does not comply with his portion of the contract. I am prepared to stand by an examination of all the points of that position.
  Arising out of the 1918 dispute, an agreement was entered into between the

  1637
  Government at that time and the representatives of the policemen involved in the dispute. On the one hand the agreement was to the effect that the policemen of the country might join their own organisation and trade union, provided that organisation did not attempt to interfere with the discipline of the service. On the other hand, there was an agreement which contained a constitution, and the agreement was that during the War it would be inadvisable to give full recognition to the organisation of the policemen in question, but in order that there should be immediate arrangements made to cope with grievances and to give a measure of representation to policemen in the service, it was agreed that there should be set up a number of police committees and that the representatives of the men should constitute those committees or boards. In the constitution laid down, copies of which are in the archives of the Home Office, it was clearly defined that the Commissioner of Police, on application from the executive committee of the board, should receive a deputation and listen to any grievances.
  Now it happened that the Commissioner at that time was one who, from perhaps the military point of view, might have been a very excellent officer. I am referring to General Sir Nevil Macready, who was transferred from the War Office after the 1918 stike to take charge of the Metropolitan Police at New Scotland Yard, and, in his own words to me, he was there to tighten up the discipline of the Force and to bring it at least up to the standard of the Guards' Regiment. Sir Nevil Macready was quite frank about it—I wish others had been equally as frank at the time—and when a certain Resolution appeared before the Commissioner he could not agree at all with its contents, and he gave some decisions—or expressed himself on a certain matter—to which the men's representatives also could not agree. They passed a Resolution indicating that they emphatically—I think "emphatically" was the actual word upon which the whole of this distressful business positively hangs at this moment—could not agree. In the Resolution passed by the men's representatives—passed not as subordinate officers to the Commissioner, but purely as representatives—they expressed themselves like this: "We emphatically decline to agree
  1638
  with the interpretation of a certain Order that has been issued."
  The Commissioner of Police, probably having in mind his military training, when he saw this Resolution, became incensed that a disciplined body should have submitted such a Resolution, and he sent for the deputation and told them that they had committed an act of indiscipline and that he should decline to receive them on any further occasion. When we asked for a deputation to go to the Commissioner and the Home Secretary—at that time, Mr. Edward Shortt—we were refused, although the application was made under the constitution of the Board and agreed to as part of the 1918 settlement. When we pressed for this deputation to be received we were told by the Commissioner that he certainly would not receive that deputation, but that he would be prepared to receive some other deputation, if the men would elect some representatives other than those they had already elected. That was equivalent, of course, to saying to the members of the Police Force, "You can have your elected representatives only so long as those representatives fall into line with my ideas as to who they should be and how they should act." The Police Force throughout London resolutely refused to elect a further set of representatives, as they felt at that time, in 1919, that they had the utmost confidence in those men.
  I happened to be at that time one of the 32 representatives of the Metropolitan Police, and we eventually did get to the Home Office, and, when we arrived there, the Home Secretary said he was only prepared to discuss some matters upon which we did not ask to be received. He was not prepared to discuss a breach of the Constitution, which, as it was a question of discipline, he himself was not prepared to interfere with. That may be quite all right from a theoretical point of view, but one has to remember that the men in the Service had in front of them the whole time the question as to how they were to get over the difficulty of a breach of the Constitution that had been arrived at and agreed to in 1918. Subsequently, the Home Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, Sir Nevil Macready, introduced a new Constitution entirely, and a Constitution that split up the method of representation into a totally different manner from

  1639
  that agreed upon in 1918. That was referred to the existing representatives to consider. We, in our turn, referred it to the men for them to consider, and, practically unanimously, the men, particularly the constables and the sergeants of the police, turned down the proposed scheme in its entirety as bad in principle and contrary to the agreement arrived at in 1918. One would have thought that at least we should have been entitled to proceed on lines of discussion in an amicable manner between the Home Secretary and the representatives. We discovered that it was not a question altogether of keeping to the agreement, but rather one in which the Commissioner was carrying out that particular job which he was sent to New Scotland Yard to do—to break down the spirit—shall I say in a way put very often by our opponents—the spirit of rebellion—which seemed to have grown up in the War years and in the hearts even of the Police Service. One could see the hopelessness of endeavouring to get his martial mind to understand that a civil police force can only depend for its success upon the individual initiative and freedom of the members of the Police Service, and that it could never be governed as he imagined. Therefore, when we found that we had to leave this scheme, whether we liked it or not, there came along a very interesting phase.
  Before you can have representation even under any scheme representatives have to be elected. Here was a police force of 20,000 men in London who had imposed upon them this new scheme introduced by the Home Secretary through the Commissioner, yet the men in the Service had refused to operate it. Hon. Members perhaps remember the moment when the scheme was first put into operation. Nominations were asked for and nominations were not forthcoming When there were no nominations forthcoming one might have thought the scheme would fall to the ground. Instead of that, and in view of no nominations being forthcoming, the Commissioner instructed his subordinate chiefs to secure the names of one or two men at each station who would allow their names to go forward for nomination without actually being nominated for office. The names were
  1640
  actually brought forward by the authorities and placed before the men for election. The number of votes cast on behalf of the official candidates were infinitesimal compared with the number of men in the service, and if this number of votes could be resuscitated by the Home Secretary here and now I think it would be agreed that the number of votes recorded for these official candidates were so small that there could be no question about the unpopularity of the new proposal brought before the men.
  We discovered that when the men did not vote that the Commissioner became again very incensed at the response made to the new proposals. In looking round for those who might have been responsible for this refusal to honour the order of the All-Highest there was not any man picked upon from one of the stations in the centre of London, where the men collect together in large numbers, and where there is always a feeling of security when you have your friends around; no, he went out to a little isolated station of Middlesex, Hare-field, where there is about a handful of men who have to patrol their rural beats and hardly see their comrades once in eight hours. There was a representative there who wisely, or otherwise, was asked by the men what action they were to take in connection with the new scheme. Being one of their representatives, acting in that capacity, and having been in the discussion, he found out the decision arrived at from representatives and felt it to be his duty to inform his comrades. The Metropolitan police district has an area of nearly 700 square miles, and he got the information somewhere in it! In regard to advising the men, he did it in a way that—anyhow, I am confident I should not have been caught in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, the way in which he did it, to my mind, was so obviously simple and sincere that there could have been no question about the desire of this man to do no act of indiscipline. If it was desired to act in that matter in an undisciplinary way it would have been done by some of us in a far different way from that in which he did it, because what he did was done—if I may say so—in a very clumsy way for one who might desire to avoid the consequences of his action. If he had so desired he certainly would not have

  1641
  laid himself open to what followed. On the station notice board instructions to the police were posted up from time to time on behalf of the superior officers, and the Commissioner gave permission to representatives to put up the notices to the men on the official notice board. This particular constable, whose name was Spackman, when he saw on the notice board the Commissioner's instructions for these nominations to take place, and having been asked, and not having time to run around, thought it his duty to the men to add to the notice on the notice board, as the men's representative, that no action should be taken. To my mind, that was quite a constitutional thing for the man to do. He was merely carrying out his duty as the elected representative of the men, and was in no way disloyal either to his superior officers or to the Commissioner, or to the Home Secretary.
  What happened? In a day or two, because the ballot has been so unsuccessful, someone had to pay the penalty. Spackman, from Harefield, was hailed before his superior officer, and asked why he had put that order upon the notice paper. He explained. Eventually, however, it appeared that he had committed a very serious offence, and he was ordered to appear before the Commissioner. He was charged in terms that amounted to this: that he had been guilty of gross insubordination by inciting the men to disobey the lawful orders of the Secretary of State. I can assure the Committee that was the last thing that this particular constable, whom I know very well, would have thought of doing. He is about the last person in the world who would ever have associated himself, even in a distant capacity, with the Secretary of State. There was not the slightest idea that what he was doing was in any shape or form treading on the corns of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. I know the man. I know generally his outlook, and if he thought that he had injured in the slightest degree the dignity of one of the highest officials in the State he would have trembled so much that he would never have been able to hold the pencil to write on the notice board. It was decided that he should be dismissed. Subsequently, owing to the uproar created by this dismissal, regarded, as I think, by people
  1642
  who examined the question apart from just the military point of view, as a far too severe punishment in any case for any offence which might have been committed—even assuming that such offence had been committed—action was taken. Evidently Sir Nevil Macready thought it rather too severe a punishment because, afterwards, he had a meeting with the police in the Queen's Hall, and he had what he called a "heart-to-heart" talk. At the time of that "heart-to-heart" talk something was said in regard to the dismissal of Spackman. Sir Nevil Macready said that he was prepared to making a sporting offer to Spackman. The sporting offer that he made was this, that if Spackman would take his union card, tear it up into shreds, and place the bits upon the table in his office, he would reinstate the man in the service.
  That time, I want the Committee to understand, was at a moment just immediately after the War, when the police force, for the first time, had been given the right to belong to their organisation. The men felt, no doubt, sincerely proud that they for the first time had gained the right to have their views represented through their fellow men. I should like members of the Committee to understand the state of mind the police were in subsequent to these things, which were not of their own seeking. Eventually, without any further consultation with the police, we were informed that a Bill was being introduced into the House of Commons and that Bill completely destroyed, by its terms, the agreement entered into in 1918. Now I want to say this: So far as preceding Governments are concerned I do not complain that they were true to their political faith. They have never made any secret that they are opposed to that method of organisation, and, at any rate, whatever their opposition may have been, at least, they were generally consistent in their point of view. But so also are those on our side. We were equally independent in our point of view. These men had the right to belong to their own independent organisation. The Police Bill came before the House of Commons. About that time the annual conference of the National Labour party, prior to the police strike of 1919, unanimously passed a resolution declaring its belief in

  1643
  the right of every policeman and prison officer to belong to his own independent organisation. It was decided to resist any attempt to take from them that which had been secured by action in 1918.
  When the Bill came before the House hon. Members know that a strike took place. It may have been a minority strike. It was in fact a minority strike. But I am sure the House will not argue this from the minority point of view, and say that had it been a majority strike the men would have been reinstated, and that simply because it was a minority strike it alters the case. That would be a poor kind of morality and a certainly poor kind of justice. Although the minority may have done something the majority did not do, one has to remember the majority had expressed itself in the ballot which had taken place. The result of that ballot had made itself felt upon the minority, and the vast bulk of that minority were men who had recently returned from either service with His Majesty's Forces in the Army or in the Navy. You can imagine in 1919, with that spirit of a new found freedom which many of them felt they had got for the first time—though it was only a shadow after all—there was the feeling that inspired them to serve their own organisation.
  I want to approach the question of reinstatement. The Home Secretary, no doubt, has given the matter full consideration. I suggest that the policy of the reinstatement of these men can be carried out by an act of administration. It can be carried out without jeopardising the welfare of the public, nor in any way becoming subversive to the discipline of the service. It will be welcomed by the service. It would be welcomed by the public. I feel confident also it would be welcomed as a very glad ending to, perhaps, a sad chapter in our police history. It would be welcomed generally by the Members of this House. It may be that there might be a few political objections to it, but I do not think we shall approach it from that point of view. The men in the Service would welcome it, and so would the public, and I am positive every Member on these benches, including the Home Secretary, would welcome it. When placing this matter before the Home Secretary, I was not able to discover just what were the
  1644
  real grounds upon which refusal was given in the House last Monday, but I believe that refusal was given more on the ground that there would be a legal difficulty in effecting this reinstatement, than anything else.
  For my part I am quite sure there is no legal difficulty in bringing about reinstatement if there is the will to do it, and I think we are entitled to ask the Government to reinstate these men on grounds of justice and clemency. If they have to have any punishment they have endured a good deal more than was ever intended. The sentence of non-reinstatement is equivalent to a sentence of transportation for life because the best part of their life has been given in following a calling which unfits them for following any other trade which they might have been accustomed to, and their present condition is proof positive of what this sentence means to them apart from loss of pension rights.
  In asking the Government to reconsider this question, not only on those grounds but upon others which I am going to place before the Committee, I hope I shall have the forbearance of hon. Members. I said the Labour movement was right behind these men in their claim, and I believe that the Members on these benches and below the Gangway, and also many hon. Members opposite, would welcome a gesture from the Home Secretary that he was prepared to carry out the pledges which the Government, through its Members, had given in the name of the movement. I want to go back to the annual conference of the National Labour Party in 1920, and I do not think at that conference there can have been any question at all in the minds of that party, and it is well to remember that the Home Secretary himself was at that time the secretary of the National Labour Party, and I think he will remember this resolution:
  "The conference hereby pledges the Labour movement to take all possible steps to assist the men in the dispute financially and otherwise, and it shall be an instruction to the Executive Committee of the Labour party, and the Parliamentary Labour party, that, with an increased representation in the House of Commons, every effort shall be made to reinstate the men dismissed, and legislation introduced for the repeal of the Police Act, 1919; and that in the event of a Labour Government coming into power one of its first acts shall be to give effect to this resolution, this to be entered or the national programme of the Labour party."
  That resolution was carried without a single dissentient voice, and it was sent

  1645
  to the party leaders. The party had as its secretary the Home Secretary of to-day. That resolution has been repeated at annual conferences of the trade unions and the political labour movement, but in addition to that, one has to remember that we have personal pledges from our Ministers, and it is a very difficult position for me to be in to have to bring these personal pledges to the Floor of the House of Commons, because I had hoped, and I hope still, that in any case the Labour party will be the one political party which will not endeavour to strew too many broken pledges over the Floor of the House of Commons, and if there is anything which I can do to assist the Labour party to meet that desired state, I hope it will be taken into consideration in what I am going to say.
  It cannot be argued by the Home Secretary, or even the Prime Minister, or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is on the Front Bench, that they were not cognisant of all the circumstances. It cannot be said that they had been misled, or were not acquainted with all the details of the case, inasmuch as there have been extensive reports submitted through our party and through our movement. At the General Election in 1922 the Prime Minister was asked whether, if elected, he would support a policy of reinstatement of the police and prison officers who took part in the strike of 1919. An, explanatory note followed to stimulate the memory of those who received the questionnaire, so that the facts should again be brought to light. The reply from the Prime Minister was in his own handwriting, and it was:
  "Yes, with all my heart."
  I am sure the House will appreciate that I am not in any way desirous of bringing any personal note into our discussion, but I am endeavouring in this Debate to bring before the Government some of the reasons why they are entitled to regard this question of reinstatement in a totally different light to that in which it was regarded by their predecessors, and I believe I am right in saying that even their predecessors would welcome from the Government the happy fulfilment of the pledges which they have given.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Does that apply to the prison officials as well as to the police constables?
  Mr. HAYES: I am referring to the police constables, although the case of the prison officers is identical, but I do not want to refer to that because it will come up under the next Vote. The Secretary of State for the Home Department himself received a similar questionnaire to that sent to the Prime Minister, and he not only sent a reply in the affirmative, but he sent a communication on quite a different notepaper to that on which the questionnaire was sent, and his letter read:
  "My reply to the question submitted to me therein is in the affirmative.
  Believe me,
  Yours faithfully,
  ARTHUR HENDERSON."
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department sent his answer to the questionnaire in the affirmative, and had he sent it in the negative it is possible he would not have been here. In that respect we all congratulate him upon having given a decision which has resulted in such a happy position. I hope after the Debate we shall be able to help the Government over the difficulty, and get rid of this very unpleasant subject There are other hon. Members of the Government who are committed on this question, but I content myself with saying that in bringing this matter before the House I think hon. Members will agree that I have not shirked in any way the fire of criticism which may be reasonably expected from some of our old opponents on this question.
  The House listened very carefully and kindly to me last year, and I do believe that as time has gone on—time is a wonderful healer of wounds—I believe the House has come to regard this question not quite so much in the light that there were Communistic influences behind the dispute, but more in the light that these men had been unjustly treated, and that whatever action they took was taken purely on a question of principle. After all, we want men of principle, even in the Service, and we want them to appreciate the fact that their word is their bond. I believe that the Government, in reviewing the whole of this matter, will meet with the warm approval not only of Labour Members of this House, but of the rank and file of the electorate in the country that has made it possible for us to sit on the Government Benches.

  1647
  I hope the Government will reconsider the whole question and see whether this reinstatement policy cannot be introduced. The time for any kind of political humbug in the sense that once one has given a pledge on a particular matter of this kind those to whom the pledge has been given are entitled to know in no half-hearted way the reason why the pledge cannot be given effect to. There has been no good reason up to the moment submitted to me, or to the Members of the party or our movement as a whole, and I think if the Home Secretary will undertake to face this matter in a more broad and generous manner he will receive the approval not only of the men serving, but of the electorate itself, which, remember in Liverpool, returned me on two occasions, and that is a place where there was a good deal of damage done arising out of the strike itself.
  Sir J. REMNANT: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has an intimate knowledge of the details of this unfortunate strike, and the reasons which led up to it. He has put his case before the House in a very moderate and in a very able way. There is only one indication given by the Committee or by part of the Committee during that speech which disturbed me a little and that was where a particular section indicated dissent. My view has always been, and I believe it is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this question, or any question affecting the police forces of this country, should be kept entirely apart from politics, and anybody who attempts to introduce politics into this question is doing the force a great disservice. I think the hon. Member opposite will agree with me that politics should be left out of it, and that this question should be approached purely on the grounds of justice and fair play to a great body of men.
  I should like to appeal to the Home Secretary and ask him whether this is not a very favourable opportunity when the three parties in this House are, I will not say, equally divided, but divided from each other by very little, that he should take this opportunity of dealing with this question on absolutely non-
  1648
  party grounds, and try to settle it once for all. The hon. Gentleman opposite went into many intimate details of the whole subject. I am not going to touch on those intimate details, but I have many substantial facts which lead me to believe that it is not all, as it appears, a militant strike. There are many points in connection with it which, I think, if the right hon. Gentleman gave us an independent Committee to deal with it, would put a very different light on the whole subject. One point of which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman is not aware is that to-day some of the chief agitators in the strike, men who recommended their comrades to come out, are to-day shining lights in the police force. Many of these men who could be spared went to the Front, and did good service, and I say, without fear of contradiction, any man who went overseas, and knows what took place there, knows perfectly well that a man had only got to call for a pal and he went to help him, and the same spirit is rampant in these men. Surely worse crimes than this strike have been committed in other parts of the United Kingdom, and if they could urge that they were done on political grounds they were forgiven.
  These men have suffered five or six years of dire distress, and, not only they, but their women-folk and their children. If we cannot now put our heads together and cure this festering sore, and attempt to meet these men in some way or other, we must indeed be in a sorry plight. I do not say put them all back, but I would have a discretion left to the authorities to put back those men who can present good and reasonable excuses for the action they took. The previous year there was a strike, and who was to blame for that strike? Why, the Home Office itself, and, although perhaps it is out of order for me to refer to the widows of the pre-1918 pensioners, the strikers and their widows were put on far better terms than the widows of the men who had never struck in their lives, because they happened to have retired just a minute before the 1st September, 1918. I am not in favour of strikes. They are a ghastly disaster, and they should never take place if they can be properly avoided. It is not a militant force. While one would be sorry to say anything that would appear to destroy in the

  1649
  smallest degree discipline in this force, still, when the Chief Commissioner is put there for one particular purpose, to screw them up to the highest pitch of discipline of the finest regiment of our Army, I say that man does not appreciate his position.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot exercise the same pluck that he showed in dealing with ex-Inspector Syme. He, at all events, did his best to take the special opportunity of the day, to try to get that unfortunate occurrence out of the way, and I hope and believe he will show the same pluck to-day in dealing with this question. There were only 2,600 men who struck, and, I believe, 1,000 were in London, where the force is very much undermanned to-day; there are over 1,000 vacancies. I do not say reinstate them all, but, at all events, stop these men from suffering further privations, with the very severe penalties of punishment they have already had.
  There are two other points to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay special attention, and to see that they are carried out. I refer, in the first place, to the subject of appeal tribunals. I cannot help thinking that if the Government of the day had carried out more the recommendations of the Desborough Committee, this grievance would be a thing of the past. It is only right that these men should have the right of appeal in case of dismissal. We found their case on the strong recommendation of the chief constables themselves, that this reform would be conducive to the contentment of the force. I have here in my hand a strong case where a man was dismissed the service. I raised the question in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman who sits in front of me had to admit that it deserved for more consideration. That man is still out in the cold. After repeated requests for an inquiry, he is still without it, and I say a case like that, and many similar cases, if dealt with, would give contentment and satisfaction to all members of the police force. The same with regard to a medical appeal tribunal. I think these two reforms might easily be carried out by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will end by assuring him that, so far as I am concerned, I will support him in his endeavours to settle once and for all the several questions which have been brought, and will be brought, to his
  1650
  notice, and so conduce to the efficiency of the force.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: I am sure the Home Secretary will have been moved, as the Committee was, by the extraordinary eloquence and pathetic appeal made on behalf of these police strikers by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I am sorry to have to dissociate myself from him in one small particular, in which he said that only those should be reinstated who could put forward adequate excuses for their conduct. I ask the Committee to realise that if the police force is to-day a model which all foreign countries seek to copy, and if its conditions of pay, pension and service are such as other services seek to acquire, it is because of the sacrifice made by these strikers in 1919. They have made the police force what it is to-day. They have achieved for it the high reputation and the splendid conditions which prevail in the force. The Home Secretary is fortunate in having this opportunity to right a very grave and a very serious wrong. He, probably, has personally come into contact with the families of some of these strikers. It is the wives and children of these men who should commend themselves to him with particular force. They are living in the most desperate circumstances in many cases, simply because their husbands were the heroes who achieved for the police force conditions of which the police force is extremely proud to-day.
  The hon. Baronet referred to the courage of the Home Secretary in reopening the case of ex-Inspector Syme. A case such as that would never have occurred, nor would a strike such as that about which we have been speaking this afternoon, if there had been a proper and an adequate method whereby the members of the police force could lay their grievances before his Department. I want to add my voice to that of the hon. Baronet in his appeal for these tribunals, before which any policeman should have the right to go before he could be dismissed the service. I believe that no Post Office servant can be dismissed from the Post Office without the written signature of the Postmaster-General, and I would like to see a similar system prevailing in the police force. It is eminently desirable, that before a man should have his career broken, he should have the right to

  1651
  be represented by proper legal aid in the presentation of his case. The duties which he is called upon to perform in his daily life are so arduous, and his responsibilities are so great, that, in common fairness, the right should not be denied to him of being able to present his case before dismissal to an adequate appeal tribunal.
  I would like also to join with the hon. Baronet in the request which he made for medical appeals. These are days in which members of the various Services, such as the Army, Navy and Air Force, as well as the police, are being turned out upon medical grounds. The medical board is used as a kind of excuse to turn men out of the service, and in the police force a man has no appeal to an independent medical referee; at least, he has an appeal, but, in some cases, he is not acquainted with his rights, and, if he does appear before the medical referee, the medical referee is not instructed to take into account the declension in the man's health which must have occurred through his service. The man is expected to remain A1 throughout his service. This medical question is seriously affecting those policemen who served in the War, and have been very considerably weakened as a result of their services, and cannot be expected to remain A1 all their lives, especially in view of the very arduous duties they have, to perform. They develop varicose veins, and so forth, in the natural course of their duties. The declension in health to which they are subject should be taken into account before they are turned out of the service on medical grounds, and if they are approaching the time of their qualification for a pension, which, I believe, is 10 years, and they have done eight or nine years' service, they should be given some employment, in the force of a less arduous character, so as to allow them to complete their time for pension.
  8.0 P.M.
  I do not want to weary the Home Secretary with the various demands which he knows the police are putting forward. There are more convenient methods of approaching him upon the subjects, but I do want to refer to one or two, and particularly to the 2½ per cent. economy cuts which it has been decided to continue in operation, and to rent allowances.
  1652
  When these 2½ per cent. economy cuts were instituted, they were represented to be of a temporary nature, and, like the McKenna Duties, they have been continued from year to year. If the Home Secretary has supported the repeal of the McKenna Duties because they were of a temporary nature, he must also be pledged to the repeal of these cuts. I hope, also, he will redress the grievance as regards the rent allowances, which are quite inadequate and not at all in consonance with the scale which the Desborough Committee laid down. I hope, also, he will look into other grievances, of which he must be well aware, such as the refreshment allowance and the question of hospital treatment. It is part of a policeman's contract that he should have free medical treatment. Having mentioned these details, let me make one plea to the Home Secretary in regard to the duties on which the police are employed. I beg him to consider very carefully the kind of tasks to which the police are sometimes put. I am referring at the moment to that series of calamities known as the Hyde Park arrests.
  I submit that the function of a police force in this country is to arrest criminals when a breach of the peace has been committed, or is threatened. The function of the police force is not that of moral vigilance, and it is most distasteful to the force as a whole that they should be compelled to go spying about in Hyde Park, and bring in a bag of poor, elderly clergymen who have been inoffensively walking through the park. The whole thing is reprehensible and foreign to the ideas of British justice, and it is most distasteful—and this is the essential point—to the police who are given these duties to perform. At one period it became almost impossible to walk through Hyde Park except under an escort of police. The instructions which these men are given on behalf of various moral agencies, to look for moral offences, are, in my opinion, totally at variance with the object for which the police force was founded. The Home Secretary has under his administration a fine and great force. I notice he gave it a testimonial after his recent election at Birmingham. He is now in a position to receive a testimonial from the police force, and I submit that his best way of earning that, is to grant the claim which has been so eloquently made by the

  1653
  hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes). He represents in his personality all the virtues of the police force, all their moderation and their efficiency, and the police are indeed in a happy position in having him as their representative. If the Home Secretary will be guided by the case put forward on behalf of the police force by the hon. Member for Edge Hill, he will never make a mistake in regard to that force as long as he holds his office. I hope he will grant reinstatement to the strikers.
  Mr. J. P. GARDNER: I wish to plead with the Home Secretary to reconsider the whole position in regard to the reinstatement of the police. I happen to represent a constituency in which a large number of these men are resident. I know them personally; I know some of their family, and I am acquainted with the terrible trouble they have gone through. I recognise quite fully that the greatest crime they committed was being unfortunate in not getting the great majority of their comrades to come out with them. It has always been the case throughout history, that men who are in a minority and do not choose just the light moment to act, suffer for the gains which inevitably follow for the great majority. Whether it be in the political field, in the international field, or in the national field, such as in the case of my own country, Ireland, one finds the same thing. Those who, either by force or eloquence, achieve success are forgiven all the crimes they may have committed, and are taken to the bosom of the people and recognised as heroes.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman justify this police strike when there is always an appeal to this House?
  Mr. GARDNER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well that there was never any danger during the police strike to the proceedings of this House.
  Sir H. CROFT: What I asked was; do the hon. Member and his colleagues justify the police strike when an appeal could have been made to this House?
  Mr. GARDNER: There was no possibility of an appeal to this House. If there had been proper machinery in existence, such as there is, to a limited extent, in other bodies, this strike would
  1654
  never have taken place. I am one of those people who believe that the servants of the public ought to have the utmost consideration in having their grievances inquired into, and they should never be driven to resort to striking. I am satisfied, from personal conversations with the men just before the dispute took place, that the police were anxious to back up their comrades, but the great fear of the consequences which would be brought about by loss of superannuation to their families caused a great many of them to hesitate. The very fact, however, that the Home Office, immediately after these men went on strike, took steps to increase the police pay, affords the best justification for their action. This is far beyond a mere political question. There have been borough councils in the Metropolis—I was a member of one in which the overwhelming majority were politically opposed to me—which have almost unanimously agreed to request the former Home Secretary to reinstate the police. I hope the Home Secretary will hold out greater hope to-night than has ever been held out by any of his predecessors.
  One of the things that impressed me most in regard to this dispute was the anger and bitterness in the heart of the wives of these men, particularly at the failure of the people who were returned to this House to redeem their pledges. I believe that the electors have a perfect right to ask pledges from Members who are returned to Parliament. I do not pay any attention to the statements that have been made in this House regarding the foolishness of making pledges. After all, when a man stands for Parliament, a very great trust is reposed in him, and the electors have a perfect right to something in the nature of a personal guarantee that the things they believe in shall be carried out in this Assembly. I hope fresh cause for bitterness will not be given, and that the persons who have given a pledge will see it is redeemed by the Home Secretary. There is no good ground for refusing reconsideration of the matter. The men have had their lesson, if that is the idea in the minds of some people who oppose them. The punishment they have gone through is more than many eminent men have had to suffer for crimes far greater than these men committed. I am satisfied that, even if the strike had been successful and

  1655
  there had been any outbreak of lawlessness in the land, the police would have rallied to protect the public. I appeal to the Home Secretary to make a change in the public life of this country by proving that a new atmosphere has come into politics, that people who make pledges will redeem them, so that the public will be able to have more trust in the people they return to Parliament.
  Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry to find myself in direct variance with all previous speakers; but since I have listened to one Member after another speaking in the same sense, I feel it necessary to say a very few words in the other direction. Before I do that, I should like to deal with what was said by the hon. Member who has just sat down, regarding election pledges. I am not going to make party capital to-night out of the pledges that Ministers and hon. Members have given in the stress and turmoil of an election, and the way in which they have dealt with those problems when in office. As a matter of fact, it is far more courageous of public men, when new facts are brought to their notice, to take a line different from any statement they may have made at election time, than slavishly to follow what they said in an unguarded moment. I entirely dissent from what the hon. Member has said in applauding the practice of election pledges. I never give an election pledge myself, and the House of Commons would be far wiser never to do so either. Hon. Members cannot fulfil their duties, and Ministers cannot fulfil their duties, unless they are free to take what course they believe to be right in the light of information that may come to them in the course of study, or in the light of arguments that may be adduced across the Floor of this House. If electors have not got sufficient confidence in a candidate to trust him to act honourably and intelligently, then they have no right to vote for him at all. I have always said that perfectly frankly to my constituents, and they have been good enough to respond by electing me. I think if hon. Members opposite would do the same, they would not lose many votes. That is by the way. I am sure the Home Secretary will not think that because 10, 20 or even more Members of Parliament rise in their places to-night to make an appeal, which everybody would like to make, on
  1656
  behalf of men and women in distress, that in any way represents the view of the nation on this question. Of course, in regard to these individual men, nobody can fail to be exceedingly sorry for them; but we have got to consider what would be the result of allowing them to come back into the Service. I understand that these men had the clearest possible intimation that if they remained at their posts their grievances would be inquired into, but that if they went on strike they could never expect to get back into the Service.
  Mr. HAYES: May I correct the Noble Lord? It is not true to say that the men could have been heard on the issues involved in that dispute. We persistently asked that the dispute regarding the question of representation arising out of the agreement made in 1918 should be examined by the Home Secretary, and we also appealed to the Prime Minister to receive us on the matter. We were not so received, and never have been up to this moment.
  Viscount WOLMER: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his interruption. Of course, I accept his statement, but I notice that he does not contradict my information that the men had the clearest possible intimation that they could expect no readmittance into the service. I do not think that much is gained by saying that the police force is a civil force or a military force, or attaching to it some label of that sort, but I do say that it is intolerable for the public that the police should be given the right to strike. There is a limitation to the right to strike. A man who engages in an ordinary profession for his own benefit has, of course, the right to withhold his labour, but when he joins and engages in certain public services he does forfeit, and he ought to forfeit, the right to strike. That is made up to him in the case of the police force. There is no unemployment which he need fear; no trade depression will affect him; he is given very good conditions, and he is given a pension. He has many privileges of that sort, and in return for those privileges he must give up certain things, one of which is the right to strike.
  Mr. HAYES: The Noble Lord will, perhaps, remember that he did not get any of the privileges he has got until he did strike.
  Viscount WOLMER: That statement may be exaggerated, but there is a large measure of truth in it, and I am the first to deplore it. I cannot in too strong terms condemn the action of the authorities which allowed grievances to get to a point when there was a strike, and then remedied those grievances when there had been a strike. That, in my view, cannot be defended on any grounds whatsoever. But the fact that that mistake has been made in the past is no reason why we should make it again in the future, and I venture to suggest that the only way to treat a force like the police force, or the Post Office officials or other public servants, is to provide that there shall be a fair and just method of examining into grievances, but to lay it down as a fundamental condition that in no circumstances whatsoever can the right to strike be admitted, because it is intolerable and impossible for the public that they should at a given moment be deprived of police protection in a City like London.
  Mr. POTTS: What about discharge?
  The CHAIRMAN: Order!
  Viscount WOLMER: I did not hear what the hon. Member said, but no doubt he will speak on the subject later on. I say, that if the Home Secretary reinstates these unfortunate men who were persuaded by agitators or eloquent leaders into taking this very rash and foolish action, he will be doing two things; In the first place, he will be acting very unfairly to the men who remained loyal to the Service under conditions of extreme difficulty to themselves; and, secondly, he will be removing from the public the greatest guarantee that they now have against a repetition of the disaster of a police strike. If policemen, or other public servants, such as those I have mentioned, ever think that they can strike and get back into the Service, the public has no guarantee that, when a moment of acute friction may arise in the future, there will not be a repetition of the strike, leaving them absolutely defenceless, as they were in 1918, and nearly were in 1919, against all the forces of robbery, anarchy and the like. I believe that if the Home Secretary gave way to the hon. Members who have spoken, there would be the greatest public disquietude
  1658
  and alarm. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It would be thought, and I believe rightly thought, that we had not passed the age in which such strikes were possible, and we should be once more put back into the situation of 1918, from which we have been delivered by the firmness of recent Home Secretaries. Sorry as we may be for the individual men, I say that a great principle is at stake, and if the Home Secretary cannot maintain it, he will show that he is unworthy of the very difficult but very responsible position in which he is placed.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the views of the Noble Lord who has just spoken, and to express my complete agreement with the previous speakers. The Noble Lord was very interesting on the subject of election pledges. I rather gathered the impression, listening to what was said down in Hampshire, that, if the Noble Lord and his friends had been returned at the last Election, certain farmers in the district were to receive £1 an acre and agricultural labourers were to receive a wage of 30s. a week. I do not know whether the Noble Lord had anything to do with creating that impression in the county, and I shall be interested in making inquiries when I go down there. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that the statements that a Member of Parliament can never be elected to the House of Commons without giving some pledges is utterly ridiculous.
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not know if the hon. Member is charging me with using words which are not true?
  Mr. BROWN: Nothing of the kind. I am simply pointing out that what the Noble Lord stated is inaccurate and ridiculous. That is not to say that it is untrue. I say that no candidate ever stands for Parliament without being asked, not only to answer questionnaires, but asked personal questions by individual electors who are entitled to know his views; and I know enough about the mentality of Hampshire to know that, although, perhaps, they may be rather slower than in some parts of the country, they are very pertinacious in getting to understand what their members think. I am, however, content to leave that point to the sense of the Committee. I desire to associate myself with the

  1659
  eloquent appeals to the Home Secretary from all quarters of the Committee to consider that the War mind is finished with in this country. I consider the state of these men to be due to War mentality. There were exaggerated hopes and exaggerated fears in those days, but I hope those days have gone, and that
  "The even flow of truths, that soften hatred, temper strife"
  will now guide our deliberations, and that these men will receive justice at the hands of the House of Commons. I appeal to the Home Secretary to consider the question of general appeals, and I want to add one other point. Some Members will know that I have, by questions to the Home Secretary in the House, raised the subject, not merely of general appeals for police constables serving, but the particular, although rather smaller, point of probationary police officers. I did this, not because of any general knowledge of the police force, but because of the case of the son of a constituent of mine which was brought to my notice. I brought it to the notice of the Under-Secretary, and received from him very courteous attention. Perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I repeat my questions which were very brief. I asked the Home Secretary,
  "whether the police Regulations provide for any appeal against adverse reports on probationers, or if probationers, refused full admission to the constabulary, have any opportunity of being heard before adverse reports are ratified."
  I received the following answer:
  "Under the police Regulations the services of a constable may be dispensed with at any time while he is on probation if the Chief Officer of Police considers that he is not fitted for the duties of his office or is not likely to become an efficient and well-conducted constable. This course may be taken independently of any specific offence against discipline, and the procedure laid down with regard to disciplinary cases will not apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1924; col. 1966, Vol. 169.]
  In answer to supplementary questions by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) and myself, the Under-Secretary asked for notice, and in answer to that request, I put down the following question for 28th February:
  "To ask whether, if prima facie evidence of injustice to a police probationer be produced, there is any Court to which he may appeal, or if there is any intention to set up such a Court."
  1660
  I received the following answer:
  "No, Sir. Probation implies that the services of the probationer may be dispensed with if he is not considered likely to make a good constable. This is a question which must rest on the judgment of his superior officer, and there can be no question of an appeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1924; col. 662, Vol. 170.]
  I wish to renew my appeal to the Home Secretary to consider this question of the tribunal. This is not as large a question as the general question of appeal, but it is a fairly large question. If I may direct attention to the Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, paragraph 7 contains the following figures:
  "In the year 1923, 1,486 recruits were appointed, and 128 left for one reason or another before the probationary period of one year was completed."
  In 1921 the figures were 3,785 and 378, so roughly 10 per cent. of the young men who came up for probation for the constabulary are rejected for one reason or another. The answer to my second question leaves out one implication. It is true the implication of probation is that services may be dispensed with, but there is another implication, that in dispensing with the services of a young probationer some regard ought to be had to his future. I have in mind the case of a young man, the son of a respectable constituent of mine, and I am quite sure on prima facie evidence grave injustice has been done to him. The Home Secretary under the present regulations has no power to inquire into the case or to take action, because his superior officer is the final court of appeal. There is an old saying that common reports are most uncommon liars. This is also true of superior reports, which may be very superior liars. I wish to ask the Home Secretary if he will look further into the matter and see if he cannot give young men who are turned down for one reason or another—the judgments of superior officers are very variable in different parts of the country—some court of appeal in which at least their case can be heard before their future is broken. If a young man comes up for a probationary period and he is turned down, his future is very insecure in any walk of life. I back up my questions by making this appeal, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it into consideration.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not intervene in this Debate as one who is pledged on this question of the reinstatement of the police strikers, because my position in Liverpool made it impossible for me to take such a part. I have never made any disguise of the views I hold, and I honestly believe that if the Home Secretary can see his way, if not to do justice to those men, at least to show mercy to them. There are many towns in this country which will be only too glad to follow the load he gives them. An hon. Member said a few moments ago that, so far from there being danger if the police strike, he was quite sure that some of these men would have actually helped if there had been danger. I actually had that experience in Liverpool. I had the experience of men who had gone out on strike, but when they found people breaking into shops the sense of duty came so strongly upon them that they joined in as volunteers. Those men are still out of the force both in London and in Liverpool. I believe Liverpool suffered more than any other town, except London, in this matter, and they did suffer. I have known this force for the 15 years I have been Recorder of Liverpool rather intimately, and one has not only a feeling of great respect and regard for them, but considerable affection as well. In every walk of life one realises what a splendid body of men they are, and when I hear the Noble Lord, differing not so very much from us in many ways, coming to the unamiable conclusion that he did, I wonder whether his distinguished grandfather, the great lawyer, would have come to the same conclusion. We have marched a long way during these last few years and sometimes, when one has the record of prisoners before one, one is absolutely shocked at the sentences they got some 20 or 25 years ago. And so it is with a case like this. The spirit of the War brings men back to some extent in a reasonable spirit of revolt. We are told, even by the Noble Lord, that they had great grievances which ought to have made the country ashamed. They had grievances of which we were all ashamed. When, bursting out in a misguided spirit following a great adventure, they go and do foolish things, is it not enough that they have suffered for four or five years? That is really what we have to consider. It is not justice I ask for. It is just mercy to a splendid body of men,
  1662
  and we have surely learned enough in our administration of justice during these last few years to realise that it is not only a duty, but a privilege to be able to show mercy, not only to the broken in this world, but to those who are so occasionally misguided as to exceed their duty. I do not think on these benches anyone really differs from the point of view which has been put forward that the police must not strike. I do not expect we shall ever be faced with a police strike again.
  Viscount WOLMER: You will if you do this.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not think so. I have been told, when I have refused to send people to prison, that we shall be faced with all sorts of trouble, but we wore not, and a little courage and a little sympathy occasionally helps a great deal more to put down turbulent spirits, and I had much rather have men and women who sometimes think so strongly that they act wrongly than people who hardly think at all, and for that reason I beg the Home Secretary, in this matter, not to be led aside by officials. No one knows better than he or the Prime Minister when they gave their pledges, the real underlying things that mattered in this. Do not let them be led away now by officials. After all pledges are made to be kept and I can say, as one who has had something to do with these men during the last 15 years, that this is one of those pledges that it is a real privilege to keep if you can bring back into this force, which is the envy of Europe and the world, some of its brightest spirits, who have already suffered too long for the work they did, perhaps in misguided zeal, but in all honesty, to break down actrocious conditions of which the country ought to have been ashamed.
  Mr. WILBERFORCE ALLEN: I wish to associate myself with the sentiments to which we have listened and, in common with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Brown) I dissociate myself from the sentiments we have heard from the benches opposite. The only comment that seems necessary with regard to the Noble Lord's speech is that there might be something to be said from his point of view if we asked that these men should be reinstated immediately after they had struck. Whether that would be right or

  1663
  wrong is immaterial, having regard to the length of time which has elapsed. But the best that can be said for the arguments with which he has favoured us is, that they might have been applicable if this appeal had been made five years ago, but they are certainly wholly inapplicable having regard to the very considerable length of time which has elapsed since the strike took place. I should like to draw attention to the question of women police. I cannot help feeling that, in the present Government, and especially in the present Home Secretary, we are appealing to those who will be fully sympathetic. I believe I am right in saying, although I was not present during the Debates that the subject has been under discussion at least twice during the past two years. I have noticed that the late Home Secretary gave it pretty clearly to be understood that he was in fullest sympathy with the claim that was then made for a very considerable increase in the number of women police, and that the only argument that really weighed with him was the question of expense. That being the position taken up by the late Home Secretary, I feel that in appealing to the present holder of the office we are, to a very great extent, hammering at a more or less open door.
  It will be within the knowledge of almost every Member of the Committee that the appeal which was made a year or two ago against a reduction in the number of women police was supported unanimously by every religious and social organisation which was entitled to speak or entitled to have an opinion upon this topic. In the year 1920, a Departmental Committee, which inquired into the whole circumstances, also reported unanimously in favour of a considerable number of women police. In common with a good many other activities, the activities of the women police came under the strokes of the Geddes axe. We were told at the time that there was very little justification for the retention of these women. I think the language used was that their powers were very limited. At this time of day, the only comment that need be made upon that provision is that it was to some extent true then, because the women had not the power that was absolutely essential, namely, the power of arrest. Lacking that very essential
  1664
  authority on the part of any one who is a member of a police force, their power was limited; but that defect has been remedied, because the power of arrest has been conferred on them to a great extent. The criticism which was levelled by those who examined the position at the time of the Geddes Report has been removed, if only on that account alone.
  The main objection is on the ground of expense. After looking into the question, I find that the total amount which a really useful women's police force in London would cost, is £18,000. Having regard to the very considerable sums with which we are dealing on this occasion, and the money which we do not hesitate to spend in one direction and another, it does seem to me that that amount is so trifling that it is hardly believable that a Labour Government will object to a substantial increase of the women police force on that ground. We have had an illustration in regard to education of the damage done by, and the decision of the Government to reverse, the parsimonious policy which the late Administration pursued. I think it is the belief of hon. Members above the Gangway that in the matter of education the economy stunt, if I may so term it, has been carried to excess.
  The suggestion I would like to make to the Home Secretary and the Government is that in regard to the question of women police we have rather over-done the economy cry, and that we can pay too big a price for certain economies. The reduction of the women police force in the last few years is an illustration that too great a price can be paid for economy. In the main, the objection which one finds raised against women police springs, as so many objections of a similar character spring, from an antiquated conception of the functions of criminal administration in this age. I can quite understand that going back, say, for 50 years, it was regarded in the main as the function of the policeman to arrest-the criminal and to see that he was suit ably punished for his offences, whether major or minor. In those days there was substantial support for the idea that there was no place in our criminal administration for women police. I suggest to the Committee that having regard to the more enlightened ideas which we now entertain, and recognising, as we do,

  1665
  that the function of our criminal administration is not merely to arrest the criminal but to do all in our power to ensure that he shall never need to be arrested and that he shall never give cause for offence, we must realise that there is a very important field and function which the women police can occupy.
  I would suggest to those hon. Members who still have doubt as to the need for these women, and the function which it is in their power to fulfil, that they should study the Reports which are to hand of the activities of these women at the time when they constituted a substantial section of the police force in London. I find that in 1921, before the force had been substantially reduced, no fewer than 49,813 cases were assisted as a result of the activities of the women police, while 70,140 people were cautioned by these women police in respect of contemplated offences. If hon. Members will go to the trouble to study these figures, they will find that the experience which some of us had will be their experience, namely, that any objection they once had to these women being employed is more a question of prejudice than anything else, and that when the subject is examined in a dispassionate, unprejudiced frame of mind, it is obvious that the women police have a really substantial and important function to fulfil.
  It may be said that a great deal which policewomen do would be done by volunteers, but obviously volunteers would not have that authority which can only be vested in and exercised by persons who are duly authorised to act as policemen or policewomen. I would remind the Committee again that Sir Neville Macready had such a high opinion of these women policemen that he gave it as his opinion that the whole question of dealing with prostitution might safely be handed over to them. Obviously that is a sphere of activity which, from the standpoint of the women police, offers innumerable occasions on which, to say the least of it, it is undesirable that many of the young policemen who are in our force should have to deal with women who, from time to time, are necessarily taken into custody for offences in respect of those laws which are involved in this matter.
  Then these women police have, an enormously useful function to fulfil in the
  1666
  patrolling of our parks and open spaces. It would be the unanimous conviction of every Member of this Committee that unless we can efficiently patrol our parks and open spaces it would be far better not to have them at all. But no one suggests that we should dispense with them, and the obvious corollary is that they should be patrolled efficiently by those who are best qualified to give advice to the great many who are liable from time to time to commit offences. There is another question on which we do not care to dwell in any detail, but which is very important. That is the taking from young children of the statements which are necessary from time to time. We have it on the evidence of those who are competent to speak on this matter, that cases of incest, for example, are very frequent in certain quarters of London, and I presume also in others of our great cities, and the task of interrogating young children as to the circumstances in which they have been assaulted obviously calls not only for great care and skill, but for that delicacy and sensitiveness which women only can exercise.
  The whole question can best be summed up in one sentence. I believe that it is one of the innocent delusions with which women deceive themselves unconsciously that they do understand men. Whether that be true or not I am perhaps hardly qualified to say. I have met men who seemed to be under the delusion that they understand themselves. I think that that is quite possible, though I also think that the greatest riddle to the average man is the riddle of himself. But I have not yet met any man who claims to understand women. I have not yet reached that stage myself, though I may do so when I enter the holy state of matrimony, but I do suggest to the Committee that, having regard to this invincible ignorance which characterises the male section of the race with regard to women, there is an obvious and overwhelming reason why they should constitute an essential part of our police force, in order that they may deal with those subjects and incidents which occur from time to time, and with which even those men who have the highest conceit of themselves could never deal in a manner completely satisfactory.
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I wish to say a few words in support of the remarks which have just been made on

  1667
  the subject of the women police. It is one of my fondest hopes that we may in time see these women police increased very much in numerical strength. A great deal of the agitation against the women police was due to the fact that at the inception of the force it was not used in the proper way. It was never used in the way in which it would have been of most advantage to the community at large. Then there was a certain amount of prejudice against the force at the start, which may have affected the direction in which its activities were exercised, and that, coupled with the desire and the necessity for economy which arose in the administration of this country two or three years ago, lent a great deal of colour to the agitation which arose for the abolition of the force.
  At the same time no one can deny the vast possibilities of useful service which lie within this force. Of recent years a sudden and insidious traffic in dangerous drugs has arisen in this country, and in my opinion the women police are in many ways extraordinarily well qualified to combat this evil traffic. I am sorry to say that a great many of the habitual users of these drugs are women. I do not say by any means that they are the majority, but a certain number of them are women, and it is very difficult for male police to trace the trafficers in and purchasers of these drugs. Valuable services have been rendered by women constables in tracking down the traders in; cocaine and other dangerous drugs. They have succeeded in causing the arrest of a great many of the principal criminals, and for that reason, if for no other, I do hope that we may see the women police force increased in numbers in the coming years. Then from the point of view of the prevention of crime and prostitution they are invaluable. I hope that the Home Secretary may see his way to deal generously with this question, so that we may have a steady increase in the number of the force.
  I desire to support the attitude taken up by the two preceding Governments with regard to the question of the police strikers. The hon. Member for the Edge Hill Division of Liverpool (Mr. Hayes), both on this occasion and on a similar occasion a year ago, put the case for the strikers with a great deal of skill, ability
  1668
  and power. At the same time I cannot help thinking that in the minds of the average citizens of this country there is a difference between a police force and a trade union. I do not mean to say that the discipline and the conditions of service in the police force should approximate to those of an army on active service Neither should it approximate to the conditions of an industrial trade union. The position of the police force is about midway between the two. Though I would be the very last person to deny the right of any trade union to strike for better conditions, yet I would strongly deprecate—if that be a strong enough word to use—an attempt being made by any portion of an army on active service to strike. What would be the opinion of the country, or of the rest of the Army, of a battalion which went on strike the day before going into action? What would be the opinion of the rest of the Army of a battery which went on strike and refused to give support to an infantry battalion that was going over the top? I do not say that the discipline which would be meted out to these should correspond to the discipline of the police force, but I do say that the police force is a body whose discipline we have always admired, whose discipline we rely upon for the maintenance of law and order. I do not know what attitude the Home Secretary is taking up in the matter, but if he takes up the attitude that was adopted by his two predecessors I am quite prepared to support him.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I rise now, not because I have any wish to curtail the discussion, but because I have to keep in mind that to-day, according to the arrangements made through the Whips, belongs to hon. Members below the Gangway. The subject which we are now discussing was not introduced by them, and they have intimated that they are exceedingly anxious, before the Debate closes, to raise some questions in connection with prisons. I have nothing to complain of as to the manner in which this very important subject has been introduced. The hon. Member for Edge Hill gave us a very comprehensive survey of the conditions and circumstances in which what is termed the police strike of 1919 took place. I can say, in reply to several of the speakers that followed the hon. Member, only that if sympathy

  1669
  could have settled this question, I believe there is sufficient sympathy all over the House to have brought about a very speedy settlement. I could not fail to listen with interest to one part of the speech of the hon. Member who opened the discussion, namely, his quotations from the promises and speeches of members of the Government. It is always an interesting experience. During the 21 years that I have been in this House I have spent not a little time in having recourse to the same method of treating my opponents. That being so, I feel that I cannot in the slightest degree complain that the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) brought before the Committee the promises that the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary and myself have made on this question. I only put this construction upon those promises—that they, at any rate, demonstrated that we at that time had very deep sympathy with the man, and I say that without in any way admitting that we had sympathy with the actual strike out of which their trouble has come.
  I have been a trade unionist for 41 years, but, like the last speaker, I draw a very wide distinction between an ordinary industrial dispute and a strike in what is a disciplinary service, like the police force. Those of us who are prepared to try to bring about changes, either political or industrial, on constitutional lines, cannot make too clear the difference between the position of the military, the position of the police force, or the position, shall I say, of the fire brigade, so far as taking up a "down tool" policy is concerned. I do not propose to go into the whole history of the circumstances and conditions that obtained when this unfortunate stoppage took place. The House is aware that some 2,300 men left duty on this particular occasion. Some speakers have tried to show that it was the result of bad conditions. If that statement had been made with regard to the strike of the previous year, 1918, I would readily have admitted it, but no one can become acquainted with all the details, as I have had to make myself acquainted with them during the past two or three months, without realising that a very important change had been made between the close of the 1918 strike and the opening of the strike
  1670
  in July, 1919. I do not think that I would be going too far if I said that no small step in advance had been taken in the interest of the officers. Therefore, I am not prepared to admit that the 1919 stoppage was in consequence of bad conditions. After all, we must remember the work that was done by a very important Committee, known as the Desborough Committee, to which the House was very much indebted.
  Mr. SEXTON: The Report of the Desborough Committee was not published until after the strike.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Hon. Members have stated their case, and I have listened to them. I did not say when the Desborough Committee Report was published, but I do say that the Desborough Committee brought in an Interim Report that resulted in an improvement of the scale of pay before the strike actually took place. That, I think, is to be said to the credit of the Desborough Committee and also to the credit of the then Government, and showed that, at any rate, they were anxious to try to improve a position which I think they would be compelled to admit showed very great room for improvement at that time. That is all I propose to say about the history of this position. To use a phrase which we often use, we have inherited this position. We tried to show our sympathy by saying that we were in favour of the men being reinstated, and the Committee has been very fully reminded of the fact by the hon. Member for Edge Hill. When I say that, I have also to point out that it was one thing to be in favour, as I was in favour, and it was another thing to be able to give effect. [Interruption.] Surely hon. Members will allow me to state the case. I am quite prepared to be pilloried or impeached or anything you jolly well please, but I am here to state the position and that I propose to do. I say we were in favour of reinstatement, and when I took office I hope hon. Members will accept it from me that I approached the subject with every desire possible to give effect to the position I occupied in two or three General Elections. After all, it has been pointed out by more than one speaker that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been consistent—that is, they have been consistent in their opposition. Surely hon. Gentle-

  1671
  men behind me, who are keenly interested in this question, must recognise that it would be a very much more satisfactory position for me to occupy to-night if I could say: "I decide, with the consent of the Cabinet, to reinstate every one of these 2,300 odd men who struck in 1919." That would have been a much easier task for me than the task with which I am confronted.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has it been to the Cabinet?
  Mr. HENDERSON: An answer to a question, two days ago, said what was the Government decision. It is not a Departmental decision, it is a Government decision. As I say, it would have been very much easier for me to have taken up a position entirely different. When I say that, I want to make it clear, as I tried to do a few moments ago, that I have no sympathy with the idea that the police can be placed in exactly the same position as an ordinary industrial organisation. During the few months I have been at the Home Office I have had many appeals on this subject. I have had appeals for complete reinstatement. Others have not gone quite so far, and have appealed to me, as they say, "To remove the bar to re-employment." I have also had appeals on the question of pension. It was very properly pointed out to me that some of the men had served right into the "teens" of years, and had so much to go towards pension; that in some cases only by a few weeks or months had they failed to qualify, and that everything they had contributed was lost. In other cases, where the pensions position was not quite so fully established, it has been put to me that the men have been sufficiently punished during the last five or six years, and that sympathy and compassion demanded that the question of what are called rateable deductions from their pay might be taken into serious consideration with a view to making them some return.
  I have considered all these questions. I know it is very difficult to convince some of my hon. Friends that there are what I will call insurmountable difficulties in the way of reinstatement. As I understand reinstatement, it means putting the man back into the position which he occupied at the time he left duty; it means that with regard to pay,
  1672
  pension and position, he is to be no worse off than he would have been had he never left duty. That is how I understand complete reinstatement. We feel it would be impossible to do that without legislation. Reinstatement, as I have just put it, would involve a money payment of some £2,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. Friends say "No," but I am not stating their position. I am stating the position as I find it after the closest investigation that I could make since I went to the Department. If they will draw a distinction between complete reinstatement and eligibility for re-employment, they will probably get a better grasp of the difficulties with which we are confronted. So far as complete reinstatement in the sense I have indicated is concerned, I am convinced, and my legal advisers are convinced, that it could not be done except by legislation and by the Government making itself responsible for the sum I have named. As regards the question of eligibility for re-employment, I admit frankly the position is not quite so difficult, though it presents very great difficulties. For instance, if we were going to proceed in the House in that direction, we would require to have the dismissal notices withdrawn, and the withdrawal of the dismissal notices would have to be put into operation for over 1,000 of the men by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and for the remaining 1,300 it would have to be put into operation by the watch committees through the chief constables in some six or seven municipalities in the country such as Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle, Wallasey, Birmingham—
  Mr. EGAN: There was only one in Wallasey.
  Mr. HENDERSON: We are as much concerned with the one as with the other. I cannot omit Wallasey, though there was only one man involved. I want the Committee to realise that, even if we desired the withdrawal of this order for dismissal, we have no power to compel any watch committee to give effect, to that position. I want that to be clearly understood. Of course, I have to keep in mind that the watch committees are responsible for the discipline of their forces—in London, the Commissioner of Police, not the Home Secretary, is held chargeable for maintaining the discipline of the forces in the Metropolitan area—and, therefore, the

  1673
  Committee, I am sure, must see that these points present very substantial difficulties in the way, first, of reinstatement and, secondly, of eligibility for re-employment.
  Now there is the question of the grant of pensions. Under Section 2 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the grant of pensions is absolutely limited to men who have retired on completion of 25 years' service or who have retired on medical certificates. May I say that at the time of the strike, or, at any rate, soon after the settlement, this question of pensions was gone into by a previous Home Secretary, and 21 pensions were granted to men who left duty, because they had served the complete 25 years which the law demanded to entitle them to pensions. There were seven in the Metropolitan area, two at Birkenhead, nine at Liverpool, and three (one sergeant and two police constables) at Bootle, making a total of 21, who had their pensions granted them, in spite of the fact that they left their duty the same as the remainder of the 2,300, because they had earned it by the lapse of the 25 years.
  Mr. HAYES: After we had been to law.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I was not aware of the fact that there had been any action at law.
  Sir G. HOHLER: Might I ask whether the cases came before the Court, and were decided there, or whether they were settled outside the Court?
  Mr. HAYES: The pensions in two particular cases taken as a test were refused; we took the case to the London Quarter Sessions, the appeal was allowed, and the pensions were subsequently paid by the Home Office.
  Mr. HENDERSON: All I wanted to show was that these men—the 21 whom I have mentioned—did obtain their pensions. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were legally entitled to them!"] There is no question about that, and I do not, therefore, know the meaning of that interruption. I was trying to show that men who did leave their duty got the pension. Now, with regard to the grant of rateable deductions, these are controlled under Section 31 of the Police Act, 1890, under which Act rateable deductions were
  1674
  limited to men who had not been dismissed, but under Section 20 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, which relates to the return of rateable deductions, and which only took effect from the 28th August, 1921, rateable deductions may be applied by the police authority for the benefit of the dependants of men who have been dismissed. The money is not returned to the men, but can be applied for the benefit of dependants of men who have been dismissed. To give effect retrospectively to this provision would, in my opinion, require fresh legislation.
  I have tried to deal as fairly and squarely as I possibly could with these four points. I have listened to the Debate, and I was particularly impressed by the appeal that was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), although I noticed that he was not quite prepared to comply with the full demand. He had reservations as to the reinstatement of some of these strikers, but I was very much impressed with his appeal. That appeal was supported by two or three Members below the Gangway and above the Gangway, that is, for a fresh reconsideration of this question. As I have already said, this feeling seems to be represented amongst all sections of the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Perhaps not by all the Members, but speeches have been made from all quarters of the Committee to that effect. It is very difficult, being in this position, to refuse to respond. If there be any desire that the question should be further reconsidered—I have pointed out the difficulties, and I have answered a question on the Floor of the House, or had it answered, dealing with this question of reinstatement—if there be a general desire on the part of the Committee that the matter should be further inquired into—but it can only be done if there be a general desire on the part of the Committee—then I am prepared to ask the Prime Minister if a Committee of Inquiry, such as the hon. Member for Holborn suggested, can be set up.
  I am also prepared to suggest, in view of the fact that the position may be left in this unfinished way, that, just as we left over the Vote for my salary, if there be a desire that this matter should be left for the Committee to have a further opportunity for discussion, I am quite prepared to do with this Vote as I did with the last

  1675
  Vote, and leave it open. I want to be perfectly fair, and I have nothing more to say than that if there be a desire that I should move that this Vote be withdrawn in order that it may be discussed at a future occasion, I shall be quite prepared to move it, and I hope that the Committee will take it from me that it would have been very much more satisfactory could I have taken up an entirely different attitude from that which I have been compelled to take up, but the facts that I have placed before the Committee were too strong for me. If an independent Committee, a representative Committee, can find a way through the difficulties, then, so far as I am concerned, I will welcome it with satisfaction.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would very willingly have remained a silent witness of the difference of opinion which exists among hon. Members opposite. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, there is no difference of opinion! Then why was this subject raised? But I do not think it would be right if I did not say a word or two, in view of the fact that I occupied the position of Home Secretary a year ago, when this question was raised in the House. I do not suppose there is anybody here who is not sorry for the police strikers, who have been thrown out of work, and whose families have been subjected, in many cases, to considerable distress in consequence, and especially for those who were misled into taking part in that strike by imperfect knowledge of the opportunities there were for getting their grievances redressed in a proper and constitutional manner. I am quite sure everybody is sorry for them. We have got to remember, however, that most of them did this with their eyes open. They thought they were going to win this strike. They knew perfectly well that their action at that time was regarded as an unforgivable sin in a disciplined force like a police force, and they took the consequences. Therefore, we must realise that their offence was a very serious offence against discipline, and it is made all the worse by the fact that their case, as the right hon. Gentleman has already said, would have been heard, and what they wanted would probably have been given if they had followed the proper constitutional course. I have not changed my opinion since last
  1676
  year, when I said I could not reinstate them. It is not a question with us of punishment of these people. It is a question of precedent—whether it is right to set a precedent that people may contravene the very strict orders of a disciplined force and then not suffer the full consequences of their action.
  Mr. MACLEAN: We indemnified you for your error.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The House, of course, can take any line and any action it likes on this matter, in the same way that it did on that.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Do not be so judicial.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: He that is without-sin shall cast the first stone.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote said he was not arguing this on the case of discipline. He said that last year the House had decided the other way on the ground of discipline, and that he had no fault to find with that.
  Mr. HAYES: I had not any fault to find with the House regarding the matter in the light of the question of discipline—not so much accepting the decision on the question of discipline. I have no objection to the matter being argued on the point of discipline.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I accept his interpretation of what he said, but his line tonight was that he could quite understand people objecting to their reinstatement on the ground of discipline, but that he was trying to impress upon the Committee that the members of the present Government—many of them—had given pledges which appeared to him to necessitate their acting in a different manner. The moral of that is that it is very undesirable for any politician or body of politicians to pass resolutions on subjects on which they are imperfectly informed, when they are in a position of irresponsibility, and when they may ere long be in a position where they will have the facts before them and be responsible for their actions. That is the moral of the lecture of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes). We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has said he thought there ought to be a law by which all the previous speeches of

  1677
  Ministers who had recently acceded to office should be burned. Therefore, the main argument of the hon. Gentleman was that pledges that had been given without complete knowledge of the facts ought to be sustained, even when knowledge of the facts is obtained, and that knowledge throws a very different light on the position. The Home Secretary has very frankly and fairly stated that when he took up the office he now holds he went there fully desirous of re-instating these men on the knowledge that he had before he went there. But he found the difficulties in the way were very much greater than he had anticipated. When I went to the Home Office I went with a perfectly open mind, also as to re-instating these men. I had not passed any resolutions with no knowledge of the facts; that is the only difference between me and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I had not given any pledges or passed any resolutions, but I went there, as he did, or as any other fair-minded man would go there, anxious to see whether any injustice was being done and, if it was, whether it could be redressed. I feel with him that the position of anyone holding his important office is a very difficult one in this case. He has pointed out that complete reinstatement is practically impossible. He has referred to the possibility of allowing the men to rejoin the force. I do not know whether any of them would accept that or whether they would want to rejoin. He has pointed out there are great difficulties in the way of giving them pensions, or partial pensions, while they still remain out of the force, in recognition of the years of service they had before they made this mistake, and what he has said has shown that the difficulties in the way are very great. To my mind the question of discipline is a very, very serious question in a force of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that a strike in an industrial dispute is a totally different thing from a strike in an organised force which has to preserve public order in the interests of the safety of the public in town and country. We cannot lightly disregard this question of discipline or the effect of this relaxation of it, however much any of us, in the interests of humanity, would like to do it. We cannot ignore that. At the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman suggested some kind of inquiry—
  Mr. HENDERSON: The suggestion came from your side.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know who suggested it, but the right hon. Gentleman at some part of his speech seemed to me to suggest an inquiry into the cases of some of the offenders, and not into that of the others. It was not very clear to me what was the inquiry he wanted, or whether in his own mind it was even possible. I rather doubt it. But the right hon. Gentleman certainly led the House to understand that if the opinion of this Committee, or of the House—which he was going to take in some other way—was that the matter required further inquiry, and that hon. Members would be more satisfied if there was further inquiry held into this matter, that he would be favourable to that inquiry being held. I think that represents what he said. I should not like to say offhand that I would be opposed to any such inquiry. It is rather difficult to express an opinion on it without knowing the terms of reference to the committee, or its composition. I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly to-night. I think very likely he would not wish to tell us what sort of committee he had in mind. I do not think those who agree with me on this side would like to commit themselves unreservedly to an inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—unless they knew exactly what kind of a tribunal it was going to be.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Composed of Labour Members!
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A higher tribunal composed of Labour Members has already gone into the matter—we have just been told that—and that they have decided against reinstatement.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure of that?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A higher tribunal. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the higher tribunal?"] I do not quite catch the point of that. However, for myself, and for some of the hon. Members here, I can say that before we disagree with the idea of an inquiry we should like to know what the tribunal is likely to be, and we are perfectly prepared to consider the matter with an open mind. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not ask us to agree forthwith with an inquiry as a

  1679
  satisfactory way of dealing with this until we understand a little better the kind of inquiry suggested.
  Mr. HENDERSON: May I just say that it was a suggestion that came from the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a very fair suggestion that he and his friends are to have time to consider the matter. I would be quite prepared to confer with himself, to get the Prime Minister to confer with the leaders of both sections of the Opposition as to the form the inquiry should take. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I gathered the right hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of his colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"] I thought there was a disposition on the part of all sections of the Committee to have the matter further explored.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary conveys rather a wrong impression to the Committee if he imagines that the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) was speaking on behalf of those on this side.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I said I understood you to be speaking for your colleagues.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether I am speaking for my colleagues or not! I am only expressing the views of a person who unfortunately occupied the same position as the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Holborn certainly had no authority to speak for those with whom I am here and to make the suggestion. Therefore we think the-Government should tell us quite frankly later what the proposal is and leave us to consider whether we agree with it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Home Secretary not only gets himself into a muddle when in office, but he gets my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary into a muddle when he is in Opposition. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he was going to consult the Prime Minister. I quite realise his difficulty, both on the main question, and the question of setting up a Committee if it is the wish of the House to inquire into this admittedly complicated and difficult question. Then we have the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry (Mr.
  1680
  Bridgeman). I thought that his whole heart was with these unfortunate men. I do not think he made anything in the nature of an attack upon the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Edgehill Division (Mr. Hayes). At the end he asked a number of questions about this inquiry. Then the Home Secretary did not talk about consulting the Prime Minister. Oh, no! He was going to consult with the Leaders of the Opposition, and with the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the party here.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I said I would confer with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That was supplementary to what I had said. I was not withdrawing my offer. Then I said I would ask the Prime Minister to confer with the leaders of the two other sections.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Doubtless it will be arranged through the usual channels, but I must say I did expect more from my right hon. Friend. In this inquiry which is to be set up the Government is in a quandary if they do not walk carefully. If no inquiry takes place, what then? The right hon. Gentleman says: "Yes, but there will be further opportunity on the Vote for my salary to go into this matter." But I would remind him that the question of what is going to be put down depends not on his party or the Government; it is a matter for one of the sections of the Opposition, and it is just possible, therefore, that this Vote will never come on again but will be guillotined in the ordinary course of events at the end of the allotted days. Therefore the whole question will be shelved if opposition is shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith).
  The right hon. Gentleman must really give us a little more than that. We really present the Home Secretary and the Deputy Leader of the House, and surely we can be promised an inquiry into this very difficult and pathetic case. The great majority of my hon. Friends seem to be in favour of some form of reinstatement. I quite see the difficulty of complete reinstatement, and back pay, and all that sort of thing, but I do not really think that all that is desired by any section of the House. A distinction has been drawn between complete reinstatement

  1681
  and eligibility for re-employment. I know the Home Secretary's difficulties both from the Trade Union Congress point of view, and the annual meetings of the Labour party, because they have declared for reinstatement.
  I know the serious obstacles that exist, but nevertheless I feel that something should be done for these men. They were in many ways the very flower of the force. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, that is so. They were men of long service who simply answered an appeal made to them by their comrades. They were told that the other men were out on strike and they must come out as well. Those who came out are really men of character, however misled they may have been, and they are the sort of men you want in a civilian police force, and, thank God, it is a civilian and not a military force.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) speaks with more authority on all police matters than the late Home Secretary, and I think in what he said he spoke for those who heard his speech. That is our case, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to give us something more definite. I do not think that I have made a hostile attack on the Home Secretary, but I am thinking of the sufferings of these men over all these years. Surely they have been punished enough, and there must be some way out of the difficulty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us something more satisfactory than he has yet stated about this inquiry, otherwise I shall be obliged to support a reduction of this Vote.
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The Committee usually finds no difficulty in understanding the motives of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, but I think he will admit that he has presented a difficulty to us in the speech he has just delivered. I will just go over the three points which he has raised. The little that my right hon. Friend has offered would probably go too far for the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman). In that respect my right hon. Friend has offered too much. In the second place, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) agrees that complete reinstatement is impossible, at least I understand that to be his view.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said it was very difficult.
  Mr. CLYNES: The third point is that my right hon. Friend must offer something more than he has done. A speech containing three such points of contradiction, is not, in my opinion, going to help towards the solution of the problem, and I rose merely to draw the attention of the Committee to the very definite assurance of the need for inquiry through a proper and acceptable tribunal, and the difficulty of the problem which has been presented. We accept the view off-hand that the Committee cannot expect us to indicate now the particular nature and character of the inquiry, because that is a matter for negotiation, but out of the statement which has been made by the Home Secretary, surely ways and means can be found for doing a very large measure of justice to these men who have a great grievance. I hope the Debate will not be prolonged, and that the course suggested by the Home Secretary will be accepted by the Committee.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but after the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) I feel I must say a word or two. The hon. and gallant Member has made a speech which has been admirably summed up by the Deputy-Leader of the House. The hon. and gallant Member's speech began with some offensive remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman), and that did not surprise anyone on this side of the Committee. He then went on with the most illogical propositions that have ever fallen even from the hon. and gallant Member. Then we come to the Deputy-Leader of the House, who states that he thinks the Home Secretary has made a very ample proposal to the Committee covering all possible eventualities, and such a proposal as the Committee will, of course, be prepared to accept subject to further conference.
  I do not want to say anything about that except that the proposal of the Home Secretary contained everything except his statement that the Government were prepared to take the responsibility. The Home Secretary, as the responsible Cabinet Minister, and the responsible adviser of the Crown, comes

  1683
  to the Committee and says: "Well, of course, I find this is a much more difficult question to decide than I did when I made my election pledges, but as I have found it a difficult question, I do not want to pretend to the House that I have made up my mind, or pretend that I am competent to make up my mind about it, and therefore I am going to ask the other two parties in the House kindly to help me out of my difficulty." That is the proposition with which he has confronted my right hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, who says that he does not want to say anything now which would incommode the Home Secretary in his very difficult and pathetic position, and then apparently hon. Members opposite, and especially the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, not being able to distinguish ordinary fair-minded action in debate in this House from his own normal party attitude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Does the Noble Lord understand anything about fair-mindedness? You are not in Committee now, you know.
  Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member for one of the Clyde Divisions is an artist in offensive and meaningless interruptions. They are the only contributions which he makes to our debates.
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a general reference—an offensive reference—which will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT—against a considerable number of Members? He has referred to "one of the Members from the Clyde district," or words to that effect. That has no geographical significance and certainly no Parliamentary significance. I wish to ask if it is in order for such an expression to be used?
  Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order for an hon. Member to address his remarks to individuals, and not to the Chair?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: With regard to the latter point, all Members ought to address the Chair, as is well known. With regard to the use of the word "offensive," I think in these days we are not, perhaps, quite so strict with regard to terms as in the past. I believe if one delves into the records, he will
  1684
  find that the word "offensive" has been deemed to be unparliamentary, but I think in latter days it has not had that significance.
  Mr. MAXTON: I think you failed to catch my point of Order. The point of Order I raised was as to the description of one Member by a general expression, instead of referring to him in the recognised way in this House.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is net Parliamentary to refer to a Member by his own name, but he can refer to him by the name of his constituency. I do not think there is anything calling for withdrawal.
  10.0 P.M.
  Lord E. PERCY: May I point out, if any hon. Members opposite think I have exceeded, in the last minute or two, the limit of what they think to be a fair rejoinder, it was in reply to a question whether I understood anything about fair-mindedness. I leave every fair-minded Member of this Committee to judge which was the more offensive expression. I want to say one word in conclusion. We are in this position, that the Government come to us and say: "We want you to take the responsibility. We want you to help us out of this hole." The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shakes his head, but that is deliberately what he has done, and I think we have had during the last few weeks enough of this continual attitude of the Government—"We will not take any responsibility. We will not stand up to our own followers when they become troublesome. We will try and get help from the other party." The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that he can rely on the support of this side of the House in doing his duty if he takes a strong line. But if he utterly refuses to take a strong line, and asks us to help him to get out of a hole, and help him make up his mind for him—[Interruption.]
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the last speech—and I hope I say this without offence—I am more than glad there is no touch of a lord about me. What is the position we are in now? I think from the tone of the Home Secretary—and I regret it—he came down here deliberately to refuse to do anything at all, but the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), with a great amount

  1685
  of courage, and with credit to himself, made a speech to which every Member here listened, and I am sorry so very few Members were present on the other side. He made an appeal which no Member, either on the Government or any other bench, could fail to resist. In view of that, I think the Home Secretary, who had made up his mind to do nothing at all, yielded, not to the persuasion of any Member on this side, but in view of a first-class and honourable appeal made to him by an hon. Member opposite. He has made an offer of a Committee of Inquiry. I regret it. I think he ought to have come here, and done what the right hon. Gentleman opposite did when he was in a worse mess. Last year he was guilty of a most abominable offence. In my constituency a man, who had been working with the railway company for over 20 years, was taken from his wife and six children at 2 o'clock in the morning, and deported to another country.
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the subject under discussion?
  The CHAIRMAN: I was just resuming my place in the Chair, and confess I did not hear what the hon. Member was saying.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That man was taken from his family. He was not a man eligible for Cabinet rank, but was a poor workman.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Sob stuff!
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have not a monopoly of sob stuff; it usually comes from rich men on that side. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House, and admitted that he was wrong. Members opposite represent the privileged class; we represent the working class. [Interruption.] In my opinion, at any rate, we represent the working people. The Home Secretary to-night could have done exactly what was done for the opposite class last year, that is to say, deal with the police strikers as the Conservative Government dealt with the Home Secretary. These men should be treated with the consideration which other people who made mistakes at that time received. They were men who had just returned from serving in the Army. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon
  1686
  Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who made at that time some of the most stupid political utterances that were ever made, was largely excused because of the period. Even Labour leaders were excused. The only persons who are not to be excused are the police strikers. I myself was guilty in this House of a greater crime than these men committed, and this House to its credit frankly forgave me. I say to the Home Secretary that I am not satisfied with this suggestion of an inquiry. The Committee is not satisfied with it. I recognise the position the Government occupy, but I would much rather he had come down here boldly and courageously to say that he would do the right thing, and return these men to their situations. Failing such a promise, if there is a Division on this question I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Government. [Interruption.]
  Mr. WESTWOOD: You shut up, Kingsley Wood!
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Anybody who knows the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, is not surprised at his attitude, particularly at 10 past 10 at night.
  Viscountess ASTOR: It is not like yours at 10.30.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That cannot be said of hon. Members from the Clyde. That is one thing the hon. Member would delight to say, if she dared say it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That serves you right.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It is all very well for hon. Members to excuse themselves from their pledges, but the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister ought to have known that the Labour party would not remain a propaganda party, but would one day come into office and into power. They should, therefore, have made their pledges sincerely intending to carry them out. My chief objection to their not carrying out their pledge is, that it was given to a body of very poor men. If they were well-fed men, well-clothed and comfortably housed, it would not matter so much, because men in that position can fight their own battles; but to treat with contempt a pledge made to poor people is not worthy of a decent Government, and I hope that the people who do not carry this pledge out will go down with

  1687
  contempt in the political history of this country.
  Mr. HAYES: I am frankly disappointed that the Home Secretary should have offered us this Committee instead of full reinstatement. On the other hand, I am sure the men will be very grateful for the very splendid support that has come from more than one quarter of the Committee. While I appreciate the goodwill and the identity of feeling of many of my hon. Friends who go even to the point, as one hon. Member has expressed it, of going into the Lobby against the Government, I feel that the men have such a just case, otherwise they would not have stuck to their fight for so long, that I have no hesitation in welcoming the proposed Committee, if it is to be of an impartial character and will review the whole question of reinstatement or reemployment of the men. Provided we get this Committee, and know the terms of reference within a very reasonable time, in order to be in a position to discuss the matter when the Vote comes back to the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote.
  Sir G. HOHLER: I wholly object to the proposal that this Amendment should be withdrawn. I was greatly disappointed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but I recognise that he had to deal with irresponsible utterances which he had made when in opposition, and that he spoke to-night as a responsible Member of the Government. I am sure he himself fully recognised the difference in the two positions. I am more than disappointed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary. We had no lead from him at all, except to surrender the position which he and previous Home Secretaries have affirmed. I cannot understand how he has been led to propose or suggest a Committee. So far as I am concerned, and I only speak for myself, if you want to do this thing, you do it on your own responsibility. I have had this case put to me in my own constituency in two elections, and I have answered it publicly and said: "No; you were the force of law and order, and cannot ask my help." I will stand by that here and there. Our party, or at
  1688
  least I thought so, was a party of law and order. Let us see what happened. Memories fail. Do we remember what happened in 1919, at the period of the strike? Do we remember what was the position at that time, when we were demobilising our great Army in France and elsewhere, when we were having to find them re-employment and reinstatement in their industries, and when we were threatened with the transport strike, and had to call up again men who were reservists, in case of need? I thought it was a recognised rule, in this country, at any rate, that our Police Force was not allowed to have a union. Could you admit of a union in the Army, or in the Navy? Can the Army or the Navy say, "Down tools"? If they do it is mutiny. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is not, in my judgment, a force for law and order. If I hear his interruptions I will answer them. I do not consider that he is a force for law and order. He has defied the law, has defied the Courts, and has done every thing of that kind. Does he remember that he once went to the Prime Minister or the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and shook his first in his face? I like the hon. Member very well, despite his politics, but I want to remind him of his misdoings. Perhaps he will not interrupt me any more.[Interruption.] I hear an interruption from an hon. Member from some Scottish place in an unintelligible lingo—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The language that I speak has been challenged by the Englishman over there. He has called my language a "lingo," and he says it is unintelligible. My point of Order is that the language I speak is the language of the men that saved you from the Germans.
  Sir G. HOHLER: With all apologies to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I accept your apology.
  Sir G. HOHLER: The hon. Member has not heard the whole of it. I would answer him if I understood what he said, but I do not, and so I cannot. Let us go on. I was reminding the Committee that in the Army or in the Navy this would be

  1689
  mutiny, and I say it is very little short of it in our civil police. Who are they? I was surprised when I heard the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Hemmerde), who, I think, is the Recorder of Liverpool, support these men.
  Mr. HAYES: Shocking!
  Sir G. HOHLER: I am not sure that the hon. Member who interrupted me was not a striker too.
  Mr. HAYES: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is not sure of it, allow me to make him acquainted with the actual fact. I am not a striker, but I should have been honoured to be one had it been possible.
  Sir G. HOHLER: I offer the hon. Member the apology his qualified answer deserves. [Interruption.] If you do not understand the qualification let me tell you the hon. Member did not say merely that he was not a striker, but that he would have been proud to be one, or words to that effect. I call that a qualification, and, therefore, I make the apology that the answer, coupled with the qualification, deserved. I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Crewe (Mr. Hemmerde) is the Recorder of Liverpool. I do not believe there is a member of the Judicial Bench, be he Recorder or otherwise, who would have spoken in regard to this matter in the way he did.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: But he is a Socialist.
  Sir G. HOHLER: It may be. That is part of your Socialist doctrine. I have always thought it. No law and disorder. I hope you, Sir, at any rate, appreciate how these interruptions are helping me. It is showing what they really are. No law and disorder. That is what they want. In those days you had Communists among your party. [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I want to appeal, not only to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but to hon. Members who are interrupting to allow the discussion to proceed.
  Sir G. HOHLER: I thank you very much, Sir. I do not believe there is a Judge in the land who would have used the language that the Recorder of Liverpool did. I want to know what the strike involved. These men broke their contracts as clearly as could be.
  Mr. HAYES: So did the Government.
  Sir G. HOHLER: You say so. Then their remedy was clear and simple—a Petition of Right. They could have gone to the Law Courts, and there was no difficulty at all. They had no rights; no one has any rights except the rights the law gives him. They had their contracts, and they had their rights, confirmed by Statute, and one of the things they could not do without suffering dismissal was to break their contract. They thought they would strike and intimidate us, but we were not the Labour party, and we therefore could stand to our rights and could say to them, "We will have none of this." It is what the Home Secretary is really saying to-night. He says, in substance, "I am no longer irresponsible. I am a responsible officer of His Majesty's Government," and I respect him for it. I respect him when he said, "It is no good quoting my speeches against me." It is an old game. These men had their rights under their contracts, and under Statute, and they had the right if their contracts were broken to petition the Crown, and no Home Secretary ever broke that contract or would have dared to do so. They had the right after all, in a case where their pay was too small, to appeal to the Crown through the Government and the House of Commons. Have we ever been found ungenerous in dealing with the police? [Interruption.] So you say, but noise does not convince me and never has. [An HON. MEMBER: "You expect it to convince us."] How comes it, if we have been ungenerous and unjust to the police, that we have the pick of the nation in the police force? We had them then, and we have them now. How is it that admirable character, fine physique, unimpaired constitution and everything that is good in mankind, can be found in the police force if we have been so unjust?
  Mr. MILLS: For how long were they kept on low pay?
  Sir G. HOHLER: I know that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) is of opinion that I ought not to be a Member of the House of Commons. If so, let him go into my constituency and publish my speech. Although I do not like the hon. Member's politics, I like him very well. What did the police strike involve? These men struck, regardless of the difficulties

  1691
  under which the nation was labouring. Had the strike been successful, it would have involved this—that every policeman in London and the provinces would be entitled to put down his truncheon and say, "I am off duty." The whole of the civil organisation of this country would be gone. It did not stop there. This involves not merely the police but the warders. You cannot consider the one without the other. You cannot consider the police of the Metropolis without the police of the country, or the river police or the fire brigade. I wonder what would have happened to the learned Recorder of Liverpool if while he had been holding his Quarter Sessions the warders had disappeared because the police had struck. All the gaols would have been empty. [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh, but what would hon. Members opposite have said in those circumstances?
  We ought co stand to what we have done. The Home Secretary proved his case conclusively. He referred to the sections of the Act of Parliament and showed that without legislation we can do nothing. I know that the hon. Member for Edgehill states that the two Courts of quarter sessions decided in favour of the men, but you can take a case in the quarter sessions on appeal and no such case has ever been taken. It was not taken because they were anxious to settle, so far as they could, and let some of the men of long service easily out, but there was no right to these pensions. If a man puts down his truncheon and refuses duty he has broken his contract. You cannot reinstate these men who are over age. Now after an interval of five years when a Socialist Government are in power they dare do nothing as a Government, but they invite some of us to assent to a suggestion because the hon. Member for Holborn spoke in favour of it. I enter my protest against it.
  If we are going to reinstate these men, how many thousands of men must there have been dismissed the force for some trivial offence who are much more worthy of reinstatement than these men who deliberately struck in the belief that they could deprive us of the protection to which we were entitled, and that they could demand what they liked? It was blackmail. There is no comparison with the case of trade unions. We are dealing
  1692
  with a disciplined force engaged for a term of years and entitled to a pension at the end of it. If we assent to this, we shall do injustice to the men who stood loyally by us, who knew that it was wrong to strike, who trusted the British people to do justice through the House of Commons, and to whom justice was done. I have risen because I was deeply disappointed with the speech of the late Home Secretary. I had hoped for something definite and clear from him, and therefore I enter my protest against that which is proposed.
  Mr. THURTLE: I rise to get some information. I understand that we have been offered a Committee, but that that offer was contingent on certain things; it was contingent upon its being in accordance with the general wishes of the House. I understand that Liberal Members of the House wish to have this Committee and that Members of the Labour party want to have the Committee, but there seems to be great doubt as to whether hon. Members opposite wish to have it. I ask the Home Secretary to tell us what the position is to be in the event of inquiries being made through the usual channels and the discovery being made that, while two sections of the House are in favour of the Committee, the third section is not The conditions of general agreement will not then be fulfilled, and, presumably, there is a danger that we will not have the Committee of Inquiry. If I understand the position of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) it is this: That if we let this Vote go to-night there is no guarantee that on some later occasion we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter again. Therefore, before we dispose of this Vote, those of us who feel keenly on the matter—I do, for one—ought to have it definitely stated that we are to have a Committee of Inquiry, whatever hon. Members opposite may say about it.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands or misinterprets what I said. The question whether there will be a Committee of Inquiry or not rests with the Government. What I stated was that I was not prepared to say, before we knew what the inquiry or the tribunal or the terms of reference were to be,

  1693
  whether it was wise or foolish to have the inquiry. It is the responsibility of the Government. If they want to have a Committee of Inquiry they can set it up, and nothing that we can do can prevent their setting it up. If the Cabinet have come to a decision and want an inquiry it is for them to take the responsibility of setting up the Committee.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: The Committee is witnessing the interesting spectacle of the Home Secretary allying himself with entirely new associates. Finding that the whole of his so-called supporters are deserting him, he is falling on his knees and praying for Conservative support to save him from disaster. There is no question whatever about it. Is this pledge which the Home Secretary has given to be flung upon the scrap heap to follow the pledge given to the ranker officers? The whole question is a moral question. The Home Secretary and his associates were returned to this House after having given a definite pledge. They were supposed to have considered and to have examined the arguments upon either side. They had five years to do it. It was their bounden duty, before they solicited and obtained the votes which they did obtain, to examine this question, and it is not right or fair to come to this House now and to shelve off everybody to whom they have pledged themselves upon a Committee.
  I want to know what this Committee can examine? Is it to inquire into the morals of striking? Is it to decide whether a man has a right to strike or not? That is a question of policy which the Government alone can decide. Is it to examine how these people can be recompensed for the wrong which has been done to them—acting upon the hypothesis that a wrong has been done to them? The Government are confronted with this dilemma—either they direct the committee to examine into the whole question of strikes and as to whether strikes are permissible or not or else they are compelled to assume that a wrong has been done to those men and direct the committee to vindicate the men and put it right. The Home Secretary promised to give a committee, contingent upon two circumstances, the first of which was that he would consult the Prime Minister. Suppose the Prime Minister refuses his
  1694
  assent, what will be the position of those Members of the House who have allowed the Home Secretary to ride off in this manner. Secondly, he is to consult the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman refuses to have anything to do with this proposed committee or to get the Home Secretary out of the mess in which he finds himself as a result of his desertion by his own party? Suppose that the Home Secretary consults the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) who also refuses?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: On a point of Order. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not intentionally misrepresent me, but he is not stating my position. I said I would consult the Prime Minister and suggest to the Prime Minister that, if necessary, he might consult the leaders of the two sections of the Opposition with regard to the form of the Committee, and on two occasions I accepted responsibility for complying with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), and said I would give a committee.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: I accept with gratitude the correction of the right hon. Gentleman whom I have no desire to misrepresent. I am glad we have now elicited the exact position. The right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley are to be consulted as to the precise form of the Committee. They may co-operate or they may not, but, after all, the question is: What is the Committee to discuss? That is what we have a right to know, and it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to tell us whether the committee is to discuss the whole morality of strikes or merely look into hard cases? We have no indication whatever as to the scope of the inquiry or as to whether it is to be assumed that a wrong has been done to these men.
  Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member who is getting in for the second time in the same Debate to repeat the same speech?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman repeat the same speech. He is referring to a proposed inquiry and asking questions on a

  1695
  point which had not arisen when he spoke last.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not the case that in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's present speech he has already repeated himself three times?
  Major HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Members above the Gangway seem to be repeating themselves one after the other. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) made a very fluent speech in which he stated that the strikers had committed blackmail and the point to be considered in that regard is this: that everything for which these strikers fought was granted. Had it not been granted, I admit the strikers would have no case whatever. Seeing that the Home Secretary of that day admitted the justice of their claims, when they struck, by conceding them, and by giving the benefit of their action to those who had not struck at all, the question of blackmail can hardly arise, as they have evidently been made the martyrs, as the result of striking, to benefit those who remained on duty. I therefore submit that they are in an entirely different category from the ordinary class of strikers. The kind of speech made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) was one to be thoroughly deprecated. It was one in which he endeavoured to enter into a competition of offensiveness with the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler). I hope the Home Secretary will define the terms of reference of this Committee, and say whether or not it is to inquire into the morality of striking as a whole, or to act on the assumption that a wrong has been done to the strikers.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: The Committee is in this extraordinary position. We had the party supporting the Government pledged up to the hilt on this subject, at all their party conferences; we had election pledges given by the whole of that party; we had two most emphatic documents that we heard read in the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) earlier in the debate, where the Prime Minister not only said "Yes," but that he would support this decision with all his heart, and where the Home Secretary also gave an equally specific
  1696
  pledge; we had the Chancellor of the Exchequer only two nights ago talking about honouring an election pledge; and here you have the Government party absolutely pledged, and the Home Secretary has completely thrown them over and promised them some form of Committee. I venture to think that when the electors of the country realise the methods of the Government they will think twice before returning them to office. We have had it day after day. The party were pledged to remove the whole of the Entertainments Duty, and then they come down here and make excuses, and on this question the Home Secretary appeals to the two Opposition parties for help in the formation of the Committee. It is most unfortunate that there is not a single Leader of the Liberal party here on this important occasion who is able to assist the Committee on this vital subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) referred to the fact that the right hon Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was going to be consulted, and Members all looked towards the Front Bench opposite, but the right hon. Member for Paisley, as usual, is not there to lead his party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not here either. There is not a single responsible leader of the Liberal party on those benches opposite, and it is impossible to know what the Liberal party's views are on this point. It is perfectly clear that the Home Secretary, in making this proposal, is trying to get himself out of a difficulty in which he and the Prime Minister have placed the whole of their party. The Committee will probably come to nothing, but at least it will prove how the party opposite, who in a spirit of irresponsibility, which caused them to give pledges on every single subject, have come back to this House making deals with the party below the Gangway—[Interruption]—and when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary turns to his supporters here, or should I call them his lackeys—
  Mr. BLACK: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member—[Interruption.]
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish the working classes could see us to-night.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has risen to a point of Order. I must hear what he has got to say.
  Mr. BLACK: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Baronet to speak of hon. Gentleman on this side, he being a Member of the Gentlemanly party, as lackeys?
  The CHAIRMAN: The word used in relation to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway may not be flattering, but I do not think that it is exactly out of order.
  Sir H. CROFT: You have ruled in that way, Mr. Chairman, apparently with the unanimous support of the Committee. In order to show my hon. Friend that I wish to be in no way discourteous I will withdraw the word "lackeys" and I will say "patient oxen." What the Committee wants to know is what are the Government's real intentions on the subject. Do they stand by their pledges or do they repudiate their pledges? When the salary of the right hon. Gentleman comes up for voting on, I only hope that those who feel that pledge-breakers ought to be punished will see to it that a Vote is taken on the question and that the right hon. Gentleman will suffer some reduction in his remuneration.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: Some of the speeches which have been made have been truly extraordinary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] There have been two speeches made within the last half hour that deserve comment. One was by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) and the other was made by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). There is just this observation I should like to make on the former speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman set out to postulate instead of proving that the men for whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) is an advocate to-night broke their contract. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not know the facts of the case, or he would have known what the Recorder of Liverpool did, he merely demonstrated what is the usual office of a functionary of the Law, namely, that he was on the side of justice. The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham has proved, unfortunately, that sometimes the law is
  1698
  on the side of oppression. The position in respect to the contract is this. It appears to be entirely misunderstood. In 1918 the police were given the right to have a union and also to have a Board to represent them. That was a definite agreement. Instead of that being carried out, the Commissioner comes along and says: "No, you cannot have this one Board which is to represent the whole of the police and which is be recruited from the whole police without any regard to rank. What you can have is three boards representing the inspectors, the superintendents, and the ordinary constables." The men said: "We will not have that, that is not our agreement, that is not our contract." What did the Commissioner do? Hon. Gentlemen opposite are going for the men for striking. You say that the men did something against discipline? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] What did the Commissioner do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Instead of acting like a man, and carrying out the agreement with the men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—he came to the House of Commons, and tried to get powers to enforce his will on the men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  Sir H. CROFT: Look at the clock. You are breaking your pledge again.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about "deals below the Gangway." Well, we would rather have deals below the Gangway than deals below stairs such as the hon. Baronet is trying to justify. Also the hon. Baronet, in his best vituperative flight, called the Liberals lackeys and beasts of burden—"patient oxen" he said. Well, the Liberals could have rejoined on him (the hon. Baronet) that it was better to be beasts of burden than beasts of prey. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The Commissioner comes to this House of Commons, to this solemn and sacred custodian of—[HON MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Well, it has not been very solemn to-night, but that is entirely due to the Opposition. It is the bulwark of the freedom of the people of this nation, and he tries to exploit it in order to oppress a class of men—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee reported Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (19th May).

COUNTY COURTS [SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of all salaries, allowances, and other sums which, under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to officers of County Courts in England and of district registries of the High Court in England, and to make further provision with respect to such County Courts and proceedings therein, and for purposes connected therewith, are payable to registrars, high bailiffs, assistant registrars, clerks, bailiffs, ushers, or messengers or County Courts, to the registrars and clerks of district registries of the High Court, and to certain officers in the Department of the Lord Chancellor."
Resolution agreed to.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION [GUARANTEE].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to increase from one hundred thousand pounds to six hundred thousand pounds the amount up to which guarantees may be given under the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920, as amended by the British Empire Exhibition (Amendment) Act, 1922."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Webb, Mr. Lunn and Mr. William Graham.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE) BILL,
"to increase the amount of the guarantees which may be given by the Board of Trade under the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [Lords].
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the House adjourns, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if the Government will give us some time to discuss the Vote we were to have discussed to-night, namely, that for Prisons on which, as he knows, there is a great deal of strong feeling?
Mr. A. HENDERSON: That question does not rest with me. It must be arranged through the usual channels.
Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope my right hon. Friend will support me in the matter.

WRECKS, SCAPA FLOW.
Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The matter I desire to bring before the House to-night I make no apology for bringing forward again, as there is underlying it a very serious issue. It is not merely a local matter, but it is a matter in which the whole country should really take an interest. At the time of the War, ships were sunk in the channels leading into Scapa Flow by the Admiralty, in order to secure the safety of our Fleet. All those ships are there to-day as wrecks, with the exception of one, which has been moved. The result of these wrecks remaining there is to make certain channels unnavigable, and to make it impossible for the islanders of a certain island to carry on the industry of fishing. In the island of Burray, before the War, 30 boats were engaged in fishing, and now only seven are engaged, and they have to carry their fish elsewhere. The pier is going out of use. The people are suffering from want of employment, and many of them have emigrated. Not only that, but life has been lost by boats running on these wrecks. No compensation has been offered in any way for the damage and loss that people there have suffered.
The matter has been brought to the attention of the Admiralty over and over again. The reasons that have been given to me, as I believe they were given to my predecessor in the representation of the county, were, first, that it would cost money; secondly, that the ships could not be removed; and, thirdly, if they could be removed, matters would be worse than they are now. I hoped when the present Government came into office, we should see them get away from that official attitude. I wanted the Government to say:

1701
"We direct that the Admiralty shall remove a sufficiency of the wrecks to make these channels navigable." I have no doubt whatever it can be done. I have done my best to obtain an independent opinion, and I have urged the Admiralty to obtain an independent opinion. I have had considerable correspondence with the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whom I have to thank for the attention he has given to the matter. But it is not official attention alone that is needed. We want the spirit to direct that these ships shall be moved. I am not asking for all these ships to be moved. In fact it comes down to two ships, one on the north and the other on the south side of the island. Is the Admiralty to be allowed to make wrecks and then to leave them, unlighted and unbuoyed, to rot to pieces without making any effort to clear them away? If those wrecks had been in some more populous place than where they are, they would have been moved long ago.
In Scapa Flow the ex-German fleet was scuttled, but recently the Admiralty has filtered into a contract with a firm for raising those ships, whereby the Admiralty will receive a considerable sum of money. Why should not some of this money be spent in moving these two ships of which I speak? If the Admiralty can enter into a contract to remove a ship like the "Hindenburg," why should not an attempt be made to raise these other ships and thus open up these channels? I know I shall be told that one channel is open. I can only say that I have had charts sent me by master mariners who used to navigate this channel, which show that the wreck of the "Thames" is lying right in the middle of the channel. I cannot understand how the Admiralty can say that channel is navigable. The ship on the south side of the island is interfering with the fishing industry. The Admiralty has said that its removal would offer no great difficulty. In spite of everything I and the local people have been able to do, we are met with a blank refusal from the Admiralty to consider the matter any further. Not only do the people there suffer very greatly from the existence of these wrecks, but the honour of the country is at stake.
We always understood it was the duty of our Navy to clear the seas, not to block them. Here they have blocked the
1702
seas to our own people. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the matter cannot be considered from a fresh angle. Will he not get an independent authority to examine these ships, and advise the Admiralty if they can be moved or not? I know the Admiralty is inclined to rely on its own technical advisers, but outside advisers have told me that it is not impossible to put matters right in the channel. It would not cost much money to get an outside opinion.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I want at once to assure the hon. Member and the House that it is no question of unwillingness, nor any desire to economise, that has caused the Admiralty to take up the position that they have in regard to this matter. As the hon. Member has said, I have had a lengthy correspondence with him on the subject, and have gone into the matter personally. I have had the charts before me, and the whole position has been explained and examined by experts, with the intention and desire to accede to the hon. Member's request; and were it possible to do what he requests, I assure him that no consideration of expense would stand in the way. The position with which we are faced is that up to the present moment we have spent nearly £30,000 in clearing these channels, and have removed, as the hon. Member has already said, a good deal of material. It is at present piled up at the side of the channel, and as soon as is practicable steps will be taken to clear it away completely. As to the remainder, we are advised by our own experts and by salvage experts that we should make matters very much worse. These ships were sunk, as the hon. Member has said, during the War, for the purpose of blocking certain channels, and, as everyone knows, in the early stages of the War things were done with less care, and, shall I say, less scientific accuracy than was the case later. I confess that, so far as the "Thames" was concerned, that was a case in point, and it is absolutely impossible to move the "Thames" for the simple reason that the bottom was blown out.
Sir R. HAMILTON: My information is that the manager of the East Coast Salvage Company, who moved the "Numidian," has said that the "Thames" would be an easier job.
Mr. AMMON: If the gentleman to whom the hon. Member refers is willing; to stand by that, we shall be quite willing to consider any proposals that may be made on that score, but we are informed by the experts that the only means of dispersing that vessel is by blowing it up. If we do that, we run a much greater risk as to where the fragments will go, and that will cause a much greater danger to shipping. Those are the alternatives with which we are faced. There is an effective open channel, owing to the removal of the "Numidian," through these waterways, for the fisher-folk to carry on their work and for the passage of ships. It is true that to a certain extent some vessels now have to take a longer course in bad weather, owing to the blockage by the "Thames" in this particular channel, but I want to assure the hon. Member and the House, as I have assured him in writing, that there is no question of expense or economy, nor any lack of desire to help these fisher-folk or the other people who are concerned. Everything that can be done to open up an effective waterway has been done, but if we proceed in the only way possible the effect would be to spread the damage and trouble, and probably close what waterways are now open.
The only thing we can do is to leave the vessels for the process of dissolution in the ordinary way. They will then break up in very much different order. As the hon. Member knows, if we resort to blowing them up, we shall have large fragments in the waterways here and there. It is not the same as where the German fleet was sunk. The problem is entirely different in these narrow waterways. That is the whole case that the Admiralty put forward. We have spent £30,000 on this work, and would willingly spend another £30,000 if we could secure the result for which the hon. Member asks; but we are assured that, if we were to spend more money, it would not only not secure that result, but would make matters very much worse. We have given very special attention to the "Lorne," in view of the representations which have been made by the hon. Member and his predecessor, and if anything can be done to remove or disperse the ship it will be done. The Admiralty are not noted for
1704
a desire to save money in any respect, and we would go to the Treasury willingly and ask for this money, if we were sure we could get a return for it. But we must trust the experts, and we are pretty certain that if we did attempt to disperse or in any way remove it, we should only make matters very much worse and block up the waterway. It is a simple case. There is no malevolent intention in the mind of the Admiralty. There is no intention to save money at the expense of these hard-working fishermen. If anyone can suggest any way whereby we can do it, I am sure he will find that the Admiralty will welcome it with open arms and do what they can.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: There is one suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made which, I think, may perhaps help my hon. Friend. It appears to be a question between experts—whether the work can or cannot be done. My hon. Friend interjected that an expert connected with a salvage company had expressed the opinion that this work could be done, and the hon. Gentleman said he would be glad to consult with that expert. I understand, therefore, that he is willing to take expert opinion outside his own Department. If he does that, it might be possible to find some way to help these fishermen.
Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been assured that it is impossible to clear this waterway any more effectively than has already been done, and that to attempt to remove the ships which are blocking it might lead to a further and more extensive blocking of the waterway than that which exists. Since the blocking of these waterways was considered necessary in the interests of national safety, and since he has not denied the statement of my hon. Friend and the statements made in the Press in Scotland as to the loss these fishermen are suffering, from the impossibility of carrying out their work, in the same manner and with the same effect as they could do in pie-War years, is the Government, continuing, as it is, the policy of previous Governments in this matter, prepared to indemnify the fisher people for the losses they are bound to be suffering due to the carelessness which, he has himself admitted, led to the blocking of the channel? That is a point that must be considered by the

1705
Admiralty. It is not sufficient to say that in the early days of the War the men who were sent by the Admiralty to sink the vessels and block up the channels, so that the German ships would be unable to use them, were inexpert or were not doing the work with the science that came to them in the War. It is sufficient to know that many worthy people are being prevented from earning their livelihood in the manner in which they earned it previously, through these vessels being sunk. If the Admiralty are not concerned with the amount of money that can be or may be spent in easing or clearing this waterway, are they not morally bound, and therefore will they not, owing to the morality of the case, press the Government to consider the question of in some degree indemnifying or making good to these fisher people the loss which they are suffering through the waterways being blocked.
Dr. CHAPPLE: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has received any specific offer from any salvage expert to do the work of clearing this channel, and if so, whether it would be possible to encourage or to accept such an offer and to stipulate the conditions under which the removal may take place. Would it be possible, for instance, to specify in the conditions that the rest of the channel must not be blocked by the operations to be carried out.
Mr. AMMON: We shall be very willing to accept any suggestion or any proposal from salvage companies.
Dr. CHAPPLE: Has any specific offer been made?
Mr. AMMON: No. No salvage company will do it.
Sir R. HAMILTON: Would the Admiralty be prepared to instruct an independent expert to examine and advise as to the possibility of the ship being raised?
Dr. CHAPPLE: Or call for tenders to do it?
Mr. AMMON: I will consider that.
Mr. T. JOHNSTON: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the fault lay with the Admiralty originally in the way the tender was sunk, and if it is the fact that fishermen have lost their boats and their gear and their lives as a result of the fault of the Admiralty, will he tell us why the Admiralty refuse compensation to the men for the loss of their boats and gear, and to the relatives of the men who lost their lives? Will he consider the matter with a view of doing justice to these people?
Mr. MAXTON: I would press the hon. Gentleman to give us a definite promise that he will appoint an independent investigator to go up there. This matter has been causing comment among seafaring people and other people in Scotland, and the general opinion of the average man, apart from the Admiralty experts, is that this is not a difficult salvage job. I press the hon. Gentleman to promise definitely that he will send up some independent person who has experience of the work to give a Report so that we can all be satisfied. Either the Admiralty is right or it is wrong in the matter. On the Clyde we have a huge body of men who would be delighted to have the opportunity of a few days', a few weeks', or a few months' work of this kind. Many of them are well qualified to do it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at the matter from the point of view that we have urged.
Mr. AMMON: All I can say is that I will convey the full sense of this discussion to my Noble Friend, and if anything can be done further than has been done to meat the very reasonable plea put forward, I promise that nothing will be left undone.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS.
  LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL (CANING).
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL (CANING).
  CLOTHING, SOAP, AND TOBACCO (SALKS).
  CLOTHING, SOAP, AND TOBACCO (SALKS).
  SEAMEN AND STOKERS (PROMOTION AND PAY).
  SEAMEN AND STOKERS (PROMOTION AND PAY).
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (PENSIONS).
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (PENSIONS).
  OFFICERS' PAY.
  OFFICERS' PAY.
  ACTIVE LIST (LIEUTENANTS).
  ACTIVE LIST (LIEUTENANTS).
  AIR FORCE STATIONS, PORTSMOUTH.
  AIR FORCE STATIONS, PORTSMOUTH.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (CADETSHIPS).
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (CADETSHIPS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MRS. KNIGHTON, NOTTINGHAM.
  MRS. KNIGHTON, NOTTINGHAM.
  CLAIMANTS (ASSISTANCE).
  CLAIMANTS (ASSISTANCE).
  TUBEECULOSIS (MUNITION WORKER).
  TUBEECULOSIS (MUNITION WORKER).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (G. H. BRADFORD).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (G. H. BRADFORD).
EDUCATION.
  WALTHAMSTOW EDUCATION COMMITTEE (APPOINTMENT).
  WALTHAMSTOW EDUCATION COMMITTEE (APPOINTMENT).
  SPECIAL GRANT.
  SPECIAL GRANT.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, DARTFOBD AND DISTRICT.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, DARTFOBD AND DISTRICT.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES).
  WALES (PROVISION OF FOOTGEAR).
  WALES (PROVISION OF FOOTGEAR).
  TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS (APPOINTMENTS).
  TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS (APPOINTMENTS).
HOUSING.
  RENTS RESTRICTION BILL.
  RENTS RESTRICTION BILL.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS AND CHILDREN.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS AND CHILDREN.
  FOOD PEICES.
  FOOD PEICES.
  FUEL RESEARCH STATION, GREENWICH (WAGES).
  FUEL RESEARCH STATION, GREENWICH (WAGES).
FINANCE BILL.
  INDIAN AND CEYLON TEA COMPANIES (DIVIDENDS).
  INDIAN AND CEYLON TEA COMPANIES (DIVIDENDS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  LAND VALUATION OFFICE.
  LAND VALUATION OFFICE.
  TAXES ON CAPITAL.
  TAXES ON CAPITAL.
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
AGRICULTURE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SOUTH HINKSEY.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SOUTH HINKSEY.
  SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SHOW (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
  SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SHOW (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
POST OFFICE.
  COMMERCIAL RADIO INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE.
  COMMERCIAL RADIO INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, EAST SHEEN.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES, EAST SHEEN.
  MARCONI COMPANY.
  MARCONI COMPANY.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS (RECOGNITION).
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS (RECOGNITION).
  DUDLEY POSTAL STAFF (PROMOTION).
  DUDLEY POSTAL STAFF (PROMOTION).
  THEATRES (ICE CREAM SALES).
  THEATRES (ICE CREAM SALES).
  STRANGEWAYS PRISON, MANCHESTER (MEAT CONTRACT).
  STRANGEWAYS PRISON, MANCHESTER (MEAT CONTRACT).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (CODEINE).
  DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (CODEINE).
  BRITISH FASCISTI SOCIETY.
  BRITISH FASCISTI SOCIETY.
  LAPWING'S EGGS.
  LAPWING'S EGGS.
  BRIXTON PRISON (IRISH PRISONERS).
  BRIXTON PRISON (IRISH PRISONERS).
  SHOPS ACTS (TOBACCO SALES).
  SHOPS ACTS (TOBACCO SALES).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (REPORT).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (REPORT).
  CEYLON.
  CEYLON.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD SCHEME (LONDON TO KENTISH COAST).
  ROAD SCHEME (LONDON TO KENTISH COAST).
  POST OFFICE CABLES, CANTERBURY.
  POST OFFICE CABLES, CANTERBURY.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, LONDON AND WOOLWICH.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, LONDON AND WOOLWICH.
  COMMISSION OF FINE ART.
  COMMISSION OF FINE ART.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a.
LANCASHIRE ASYLUMS BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the Lord President of the Council. The Motion has to do with a Bill which your Lordships had before you last night, and I think it was agreed that as the Bill must be passed the remaining stages should be taken now. I therefore beg to move the Resolution which stands on the Paper for the suspension of the two Standing Orders which will enable me to move that the Bill be passed through its remaining stages this afternoon.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI. and XXXIX. be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting for the purpose of giving precedence over other Orders of the Day to the Committee Stage of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill and in order to take the Bill through its remaining stages.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Order, of the House, of yesterday committing the Bill to a Committee of the

443
Whole House discharged: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (TRIALS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which would alter the law in one important respect regarding trials where the insanity of the person accused is alleged. I should not have ventured to bring a matter of this importance before the Legislature but that owing to the appointment of a Committee by the late Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Birkenhead, the matter has become one which can hardly be left in the position in which it at present stands. The Committee which was appointed to inquire into this question made a Report some months ago, and I had thought that action would have been taken by some one far more capable and better entitled to address your Lordships than I can pretend to be. But nothing has been done. I feel certain that the public expects that the matter should at all events be discussed, and therefore I brought in this Bill and now move its Second Reading. I am perfectly well aware that there will be considerable opposition, and what is about to begin may develop into a pitched battle. But it has often happened that some poor franc-tireur has begun what has in the end become a most important victory. And I am aware that the heavy artillery is in position and will be brought to bear upon this Bill before much time has elapsed.
I may be excused for reminding your Lordships of what has long been the position of persons accused, let us say, of murder, because that is the simplest case and because this excuse is very seldom alleged except in cases of murder. I will therefore deal with this as though it were a case in which the person is accused of murder. The law has long been that insanity, as recognised by the law of England, entitles the accused person to escape capital punishment. The law long
444
was—in fact, until 1883—that in such a case, if the jury came to the conclusion that the accused was insane, the verdict was "Not guilty," because the accused was insane at the time of committing the act which otherwise would have been a crime; and therefore the accused was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure; that is, he was sent to a lunatic asylum. By a phrase that law was altered, and one of the improvements which I desire to make (and I think no one will contest this) involves the repealing of the Statute passed in 1883. There is no need to go into why it was passed. There were no good reasons for passing it at all and no reasons were ever alleged when it went through, either by your Lordships' House or the House of Commons. The law was altered in this respect: that if a person was proved to be insane the verdict was to be "Guilty of doing the act charged but insane at the time." I think your Lordships will agree that that is perfectly illogical and indefensible. To be guilty involves crime; to commit a crime involves the having of what the law calls mens rea, but a person who is insane has no knowledge of right and wrong, and it is absurd to say "Guilty of an act": one might as well say "Guilty of playing cricket or football," or doing many other things which involve no crime, although they are highly inconvenient very often. But this Act was passed and one of my proposals—an innocent proposal, and one that I hope may induce your Lordships to read this Bill a second time if the rest has to be thrown over, for that can be done in Committee—is to bring back the law to what it was before this absurd Statute was passed.
I will say no more about that, but come to the more contentious part of the Bill. With regard to that, the law of England recognises that, a person should be declared "Not guilty" upon indictment if insane in the sense of the law of England. My reason for bringing in this Bill is that there has long been a contest between the medical specialists and the law. These medical specialists have contended, and still contend, that directly they say that a person is insane in their sense he shall be absolutely unpunishable, no matter what crime he may have committed. Some of them call themselves determinists; some of them contend that we are merely automatic creatures, who

445
act with no control whatever over our motives or our actions. The law of Eng land has never recognised that, and I hope never will. But, it has recognised that a person may be insane in a legal sense, and so entitled to a verdict of" Not guilty "where the act ho has done, if clone by a sane person, would involve a verdict of "Guilty" and a following punishment. It is so long since the law stood in this position that no doubt there must be some modification owing to modern research and recent knowledge.
Lord Hale wrote his "Pleas of the Crown" in the seventeenth century. It is a book reverenced by those who have regard and affection, which I and most lawyers process, for the Common Law of England. The Statute Law—those may praise it who admire it Lord Hale wrote this:
"In process of time the Common Law received a greater perfection, not by change of the Common Law, as some have thought, for that could not be but by Act of Parliament; but men grew to greater learning, judgment and experience, and rectified the mistakes of former ages and judgments."
Lord Hale's book which was written so long ago as that was so esteemed then that the House of Commons, in 1680, ordered it to be printed for the benefit of those who bad studied the Common Law and it has been a text book ever since. But notice what he says. He recognises that that has been done which is what I would ask should be further extended; he recognises that as men grew to greater learning, judgment and experience (most flattering to ourselves) they rectified the mistakes of former ages and judgments.
When he wrote that, what was the condition of medical knowledge? Very different from what it is to-day. I suppose nothing has advanced more than medical learning since the time of Lord Hale down to our own days. It has advanced by leaps and bounds within the last ten or twenty years. At that time, in 1680, Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood was very recent. Seven years before that date Molière had just produced "Le Médecin Malgré Lui."At that time the bourgeois who was told by le médecin malgré lui that the lungs were on the left side of the body and the heart on the right, was perfectly satisfied when the doctor said to him that it was so formerly, but "nous avons changé tout cela. "The doctors then knew practically nothing, if
446
I may say so, and le médecin malgré lui knew about as much as the most learned of them. But since that time knowledge has so advanced that things can hardly be left where they are at present.
We administer the law as it was laid down in 184.3. In that year, if your Lordships will pardon me for reminding you of it, Mr. Drummond, who was Secretary to Sir Robert Peel, was murdered by a man named McNaghten, in Whitehall. McNaghten mistook Mr. Drummond for Sir Robert Peel. McNaghten was a man who suffered from delusions. He suffered from some wrongs, as he supposed, and his delusion was that all these wrongs were caused, as he said, by the Tories. I hear some of your Lordship, saying that he was not alone in that delusion. He was not: but the melancholy part of it is that in some important families of this country that particular delusion became hereditary. So McNaghten, thinking that he had a grievance against the Tories, made up his mind to sacrifice Sir Robert Peel, of whose politics at that time I have not enquired. It may be that he was already merely a Peelite. At all events McNaghten made up his mind to destroy him but, by mistake, be killed Mr. Drummond, his secretary.
When McNaghten was tried he was defended by Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., afterwards Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and, as your Lordships may suppose, he was defended in a speech of marvellous brilliance. He was acquitted on the ground of insanity, but I imagine that there was great public dissatisfaction with the result. He was found to be not guilty because insane, and yet he had killed a perfectly harmless man who had given him no provocation whatever. Thereupon an unusual thing was done. The Judges were summoned to this House. The Judges attend to consult and advise whenever the House desires their assistance. They come here by a Writ which they receive at the beginning of every Parliament. The Judges were asked then to come here and to give their opinions not upon a purely hypothetical case, though I believe they might be asked to do that, but upon this case of McNaghten. They gave their opinions, which have been embodied in the Common Law of England ever since.
One may say, of course, that they merely expressed what was the Common Law,

447
for the Judges had no legislative authority whatever, and have not now. They expressed their opinion in certain statements which are now known as the Rules in McNaghten's Case. Whenever a Judge sums up in a case of murder, he lays down the law in the terms of the advice then given to your Lordships' House by the Judges who were summoned; I think that thirteen of them attended. The two Rules which matter are these. The jury are told to inquire whether, when he did the act which resulted in the death of the man, the defendant knew the nature and quality of the act that he was doing; and to answer this further question: Did he know that the doing of the act was wrong? If so, he is guilty. If he did not know this, then he is not guilty on the ground that be Was insane.
Now, doctors of all descriptions have quarrelled with this and have said that it takes no notice of a further possibility—that it simply deals with the intellectual qualities of a man and these are not exhaustive in the case of insanity. It is desired to add to the Rules in McNaghten's case another Rule which I venture to propose in this Bill. I had better, perhaps, read the very words. It is proposed to recognise the McNaghten Rules—they are printed in the Bill—and to add this to them, that the accused is entitled to a verdict of not guilty on the ground that he was insane
if, at the time the act was done or omission made which caused the death, he was suffering from such a state of mental disease as therefrom to he wholly incapable of resisting the impulse to do the act or to make the omission.
That introduces what is known as the doctrine of irresistible impulse. I recognise, of course, that this is a most controversial matter.
I would point out that when McNaghten was on his trial before three Judges—Sir Nicholas Tyndal, Baron Alderson and another—Mr. Cockburn made a remark in the course of his address to the jury which I desire to read to your Lordships to show that this is no new idea, that it is not heard of in the Courts or in Parliament for the first time. This is what Mr. Cockburn said:—
"Modern science has incontrovertibly established that any one of these intellectual and moral functions of the mind may be subject to separate disease and thereby the man may be rendered the slave of uncontrollable impulses impelling or rather compelling
448
him to the commission of acts such as that which has given rise to the case now under your consideration."
And he quoted from a book which I believe is of great authority: the Lord Chancellor, I have no doubt, is acquainted with it though I have very small knowledge of it myself. It is the work of David Hume who was a philosopher, though not, perhaps, the greatest of that name. He was David Hume who afterwards became Baron Hume, a Scottish Judge. Mr. Cockburn cited Hume's "Commentaries on the Law of Scotland," and read a good deal from the work.
I will read to your Lordships one passage only, which I take from Mr. Cock-burn's speech. Baron Hume said that—
"Such a disease as deprives the patient of the knowledge of the true aspect and position of things about him … and gives him up to the impulse of his own distempered fancy "—
excused him, in the eyes of the law, as being an insane man. Mr. Justice Stephen, not as a Judge but in his treatise on the laws of England, laid it down that, in addition to the McNaghten Rules, this Rule, which I would ask your Lordships to authorise, was already part of the law of England. That has been disputed, but he was a man of very great learning, well remembered by all who still study the law, and he laid it down as being his opinion that it was already part of the law of England.
I would venture to read, in order to show your Lordships that this view has occurred to Judges long before this Report was produced, a few more words. In Oxford's case—that was the case of a man who shot at Queen Victoria in 1840, and who was tried before Lord Denman, Chief Justice—Lord Denman said:—
"A person may commit a criminal act and not be responsible. If some controlling disease was, in truth, the acting power within him which he could not resist, then he will not be responsible."
Those words used long ago are very strong. "If some controlling disease was, in truth, the acting power within him which he could not resist "—almost the very words which we desire to make the law by Statute to-day. There is complete justification, I submit, for the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen—Sir Tames Stephen as he then was—when he wrote those words that the Rule was "already part of the law of England."

449
Now I come to much more recent times, and to rear the end of what I have to say to your Lordships. I desire to read what Judges have quite, lately said upon this matter. This has not been recognised yet by the Court of Criminal Appeal as the law of England and therefore there is a necessity for a Statute. In the course of the case of Victor Jones which came before the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1910, Lord Alverstone, then Lord Chief Justice, said—
"There is no need here to enter upon a disquisition as to the terms in which the question ought to be left where a person is prevented by defective mental power or mental disease from knowing the nature of his acts or controlling his conduct. It is not made out in the case that appellant was not in a condition to be aware of the nature of his act or that he was prevented from exercising self-control."
Your Lordships see that the evidence there proved that that was not his condition, but the Lord Chief Justice went on to say—
"A grave responsibility will lie upon this Court whenever it shall become necessary to decide those large and important questions which have been raised in the argument."
Later, in 1915, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Justice Bray made a pronouncement upon this subject. Mr. Justice Bray was well known to us all in the King's Dench, of which I was proud for many years to be a Judge, as a man who had devoted himself absolutely to his profession. He was a very learned lawyer, and his opinion was accepted by those with whom he sat, or who heard it delivered, as being an opinion of very great authority. I will read to your Lordships his words in the case of the King v. Fryer in 1915. He stated the McNaghten Rules as I have read them, and then went on to say—
"That is the recognised law on the subject, but I am bound to say it does not seem to me to completely state the law as it now is, and for the purposes of to-day I am going to direct you in the way indicated by a very learned Judge (Mr. Justice Stephen) and follow his direction that if it is shown that the prisoner is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of the capacity to control iris actions, I think you ought to find him what the law calls him—insane—because it seems to me that if there is such a disease of the mind not caused by any accident but an actual disease of the mind such as to deprive him of the capacity of controlling his actions, in my opinion a jury should find him insane if that is 6hown to have existed at the time of doing the act."
450
It is plain from that that Mr. Justice Bray recognised that such was the law of England, and he laid it down, in summing up to a jury, that the very thing which I ask your Lordships to declare to be the law of England by this Bill was recognised as the law of England.
Another case which I should like to read to your Lordships—and it is the last one—is the case which caused very great excitement a few years ago. It is the case, of Ronald True, who was found "Guilty," after being defended on the ground that he was insane, and sentenced to death. Then there came an inquiry by the Home Secretary such as must take place—I will tell your Lordships presently a little more about that—by reason of the existence of Statutes, and, he was found by medical experts to be insane. Though he had been condemned to death, the Home Secretary—Mr. Shortt, I think, was Home Secretary, and his action was very much misunderstood and unjustly criticised and condemned by people who knew nothing about the matter—had no option but to excuse this man from being sent to the gallows, and order him to be sent to a lunatic asylum, not because the verdict of the jury was wrong, but because afterwards, when he was examined, he was found to be insane.
True was tried by Mr. Justice McCardie. Mr. Justice McCardie, happily, is still a Judge of the King's Bench Division, and, as everybody recognises, a Judge of very great learning indeed. Mr. Justice McCardie, in the trial at the Old Bailey, summing up, said this:
" Now I shall leave to you, gentlemen, a further point. I must say the case has given me much anxiety because of the conflict of opinion which has existed in the past and exists at the present time as to the law, and I shall put this point to you: that even if the prisoner knew the physical nature of the act, and that it was morally wrong and punishable by law "—
your Lordships note that that specifies the two McNaghten Rules—
"yet was he through mental disease deprived of the power of controlling his actions at the time; if "yes," then, in my view of the law, the verdict should be ' guilty but insane.'"
Mr. Justice McCardie laid it down that the law already is just what I am asking your Lordships to assist in declaring to be the law by giving a Second Reading

451
to this Bill. The case did not arise in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The jury found True to be guilty, and he was sentenced to death. It is difficult to get these cases before the Court of Criminal Appeal because where a jury say "Not guilty" there is no appeal. The Crown cannot appeal, and it is therefore difficult to get a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on these points. But in what I have read you have the dicta upon this point of Lord Denman, Lord Alverstone, Mr. Justice Bray and Mr. Justice McCardie, adopting in so many words the opinion of Sir James Stephen that this is already the law of England.
The Bill seeks to provide that if it is proved that a man, through a disease of the mind—and that is postulated—cannot control the act which he does, and which otherwise would be criminal, then the verdict is to be "Not guilty because insane," and the asylum follows. I would ask my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner, who I understand is to move the rejection of this Bill, to state categorically whether he, and those who think with him, recognise that there is actually such a thing as uncontrolled impulse due to
disease of the mind? If they say "No," then they are in direct conflict with practically all the medical opinions of the day. If they say "Yes," then I ask these further questions: If you recognise it, why have the man condemned? Why, if he is suffering from disease of the mind which renders him incapable of controlling his action, condemn him? Why not find that he is not guilty because he cannot control himself, and send him to the proper place, the lunatic asylum? I respectfully ask my noble and learned friend to answer these questions.
I have already said that this matter was submitted to a Committee by my noble and learned friend the Earl of Birkenhead. Who were they? A Committee of greater authority upon such a matter could hardly have been found. They were not psychologists or medicopsychologists. They were all practising lawyers with a good deal of experience in such matters. I will read their names. The Chairman was Lord Justice Atkin, and I need say nothing as to his competency to investigate such a matter as this, or matters far more difficult Then there was Sir Ernest Pollock, who was Attorney-General and is now Master of
452
the Rolls, a man of large experience of the criminal court. The next was Sir Thomas Inskip, who became Solicitor-General. The next was Sir E. Marshall Hall, who has enormous experience chiefly in defending persons, often with great success. The next was Sir Herbert Stephen, a son of the great Judge, whose name I have already mentioned, and who is well-known as a man of great legal learning and very far from being a sentimentalist. In fact, I think that Mr. McNaghten would have shot him at sight as being a Tory of the most extreme description. The next was Sir Richard Muir, who was for years leading counsel for the Crown appointed by the Public Prosecutor to prosecute at the Old Bailey and all over the country. The next was Sir Archibald Bodkin, the present Director of Criminal Prosecutions. The next was Sir Edward Troup, well known as the adviser for many years of the Home Secretary. Then there was Sir Ernley Blackwell, who succeeded Sir Edward Troup, and is a man of the greatest influence and experience in these matters.
What did they recommend? They made their Report—Sir Herbert Stephen differed on one point, but as that point is not involved in this Bill I will not refer to it further—and they said—it is on page 8:
"It was established to our satisfaction that there are cases of mental disorder where the impulse to do a criminal act recurs with increasing force until it is, in fact, uncontrollable. … We appreciate the difficulty of distinguishing some of such cases from cases where there is no mental disease, such as criminal acts of violence or sexual offences where the impulse at the time is actually not merely uncontrolled, but uncontrollable. The suggested Rule "—
That is, the Rule I have put in this Bill—
"however, postulates mental disease; and we think that it should be made clear that the law docs recognise irresponsibility on the ground of insanity where the act was committed under an impulse which the prisoner was, by mental disease, in substance deprived of any power to resist."
That is the recommendation of this Committee.
Why was it appointed? Why were these men, specially competent to give an opinion, asked to investigate and give their opinion if no notice was to be taken of it? I simply ask your Lordships to declare to be the law that which they recommended should be made the law and

453
which Judges have already declared to be the law. The Rule as I would have it—I do not want to be too long as I have spoken long enough already—is already the law in Germany, Italy, South Africa and Queensland. Therefore, in two important Dominions it is recognised as being the law and it is also recognised in two European countries as well.
There is one other matter which is mentioned in the Report, and to which I would draw attention. One of your Lordships who is sitting near to me has been Home Secretary, and must have had experience as to what happens according to Statute. As I have stated, if, after conviction, the Home Secretary has reason to believe from information brought to his notice that the prisoner is even then insane, he is bound to appoint medical experts to examine the prisoner; and if they report that, he is then insane, the man must, without any further trial, be sent to a lunatic asylum. He cannot be hanged. The Committee have dealt with this matter. They say that it is absolutely necessary, and so it is. I do not desire to interfere with it in any way. But what does it involve? The jury have heard all the inquiry, they have had the summing up according to the law and they have found the man to be guilty, and yet there must be an inquiry afterwards at the instance of the Home Secretary, in very many cases—in every case which excites much public attention and the trial then, as to whether he is insane or not, takes place in camera before two or three medical experts. If they say the man is insane, he cannot be hanged.
This Report recognises that they go into the whole trial, that they consider, not only the questions which they put to the man and his answers, but also that which happened at the trial, and they come to an opinion which obliges the Home Secretary to say that the man must not pay the ordinary penalty of his crime. Why do they do it? They do it because they are allowed to introduce into their inquiry that which I desire to have introduced at the trial. They do it because they extend their inquiry beyond the Rules in the McNaghten case. I would ask: What is the position? How is that logical or possible to defend? Suppose the question were: "Is the man an educated man?" That has to be tried
454
and tested, and you empanel a jury in a court of law and ask them if the man is educated. That is the question as to which the jury has to say "Yes" or "No." The Judge would say: "You will consider whether he can read, and you will consider whether he can write."That is like the two Rules in the McNaghten case. The Judge will go on to say: "If he can write, and if he can read, you will say that he is an educated man; if he can neither read nor write you will say that he is not an educated man." Supposing the jury say: "He can read and he can write, and we find him to be an educated man," what happens next? There comes a further tribunal who, in a room alone, consider the further question whether he can do sums, whether he understands arithmetic or, it may be, algebra, and if he does not they reverse the finding of the jury and say that he is not an educated man. "He can read and he can write, "they say," the jury in their darkness find that he is an educated man; but we know better. He cannot do sums, and therefore he is not an educated man." Is not the case a precisely parallel one? What can one say of such logic as that?
I have only a word or two more to add. I am at the disadvantage of everyone who opens a case, because I do not know what the objections will be, but I have a notion that many people object for some such reason as this. They say: "If you pass a Rule like this, it will enable practically everybody to escape; juries will take advantage of this Rule to say that the man is insane." I am bound to say that this supposition does not appeal to me. For fifty years I have been in the practice of the law, and for twenty-six years I was a Judge of the King's Bench. I have therefore seen many juries and had to do with many trials, and it may surprise some people to know that I believe in trial by Judge and jury. A member of your Lordships' House took as his motto (and the family bear it still) the words, "Trial by jury." It is not trial by jury exactly, it is trial by Judge and jury. I would not trust juries to decide this or any other important question unless they received proper and adequate direction upon points of law, but where they receive proper and adequate direction upon points of law, such as they are sure to get, then I believe that juries are—I will

455
not say certain, but as sure as we can make sure of things in ordinary human affairs, to come to a right verdict, to a verdict which satisfies the public conscience.
Law is not an exact science—it is not like chemistry—but if it satisfies the conscience of the public, then I think the law does its duty, and I do not believe that juries are not to be trusted in this matter when they are trusted in so many other matters. People say that they will act according to their temperament. It was written by Mr. Wordsworth, who had studied the matter from Westminster Bridge, that the river which washes the walls of this House "glideth at his own sweet will," and many people seem to think that juries have the freedom of the Thames in flood. But they have not. The stream of English justice has long been canalised and directed and controlled, and while it is so directed and controlled I believe that this power may as safely be entrusted to the juries of England as the power which they now have. I thank your Lordships for listening to a too long speech, but it is an important question, and I trust that your Lordships may at all events allow this Bill to be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, I hope that neither my noble and learned friend nor your Lordships will suppose that I have any desire to treat in too summary a manner the Bill which he has introduced, or to behave as if the impression which has been justly produced by the extremely effective address to which we have listened were one that nevertheless might be swept aside as of no importance. The truth is that this is a single-clause Bill, or even a single-subsection Bill; it is a Bill which proposes to alter the law relating to the responsibility for crime committed by persons suffering from mental disease in a wholly novel and radical way. If your Lordships were to give the Bill a Second Reading you would give to this principle an approval which would be of the
456
greatest gravity, and would make the Committee stage a wholly minor matter.
This principle can be discussed, in so far as it can be discussed at all, here and now on the Second Reading as well as, and, I believe, much better than, on the Committee stage, and there is nothing in this Bill—although my noble and learned friend has referred to one very minor clause—that would, in my humble opinion, justify us in carrying the matter beyond this stage, unless it is intended not merely to discuss but to pass the Bill. If it was ever intended that this Bill should become a part of the law I must say that for my part I should have thought that it was a charge which should have been made solely at the instance of the Government, and on the responsibility of Ministers. There is one minor clause to which I might allude, perhaps, because I think it is not without some bearing upon the necessity which has been urged for this legislation. It is as follows—"This Act shall not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland." This is a Bill to remove from criminal responsibility those who commit a crime under an irresistible impulse. Why should it be confined in that way? Is it that in those countries not even madmen act upon irresistible impulse, or any impulse at all, or is it because if applied to Scotland or the North of Ireland the people who come from those parts of the country would refuse to have anything to do with the Bill?
I was asked a question by my noble and learned friend. He prefaced it by describing me as heavy artillery, which was rather depressing, but he asked me a question which is perfectly fair, and which I will endeavour to answer to the best of my ability. He asked: Do you recognise that there is such a thing as uncontrollable impulse due to disease of the mind? That, of course, must be understood to mean disease or uncontrollable impulse as distinguished from the other two branches of his clause; that is to say, cases where the criminal at the time of the act knows, understands and appreciates the physical nature and quality of the act done, and knows, understands and appreciates that the act done was wrong. Now, speaking for myself, I do not understand what is the supposed frame of mind, arising from disease, in

457
which a person does know the physical nature and quality of his act, and does know that the act done is wrong, and, notwithstanding, is suffering from such a state of mental disease that he is wholly incapable of resisting the impulse.
The only relevance of my confessing my inability to understand this intricate piece of psychology is to allow me to say one word in aid of juries. Juries must approach a question like this pretty much as I should. I think that juries, if asked that question, would feel themselves dismayed at having to answer it, and I do not think it is right to add to the puzzles which twelve men and women in the jury box have now to solve, by needlessly complicating the questions put before them in that sort of way. But since the Committee presided over by Lord Justice Atkin, adopting the view of a number of medical men who came before them, have said that it was established to their satisfaction that there are such cases, I am prepared to accept their better opinion and agree that such cases there are.
Then says my noble and learned friend: Well then! why should such a person be condemned? As to that there are two or three answers. For eighty years such a person has been condemned, if such a person has ever been brought before the Courts, and if the jury has been of opinion, under the direction of the Judge, that he was not insane; and I do not notice that in the Report of the Committee, or in the speech which we have just heard, there has been any serious attempt made to show that actual injustice has ever occurred—that there has ever been a case, that could be quoted, of plain injustice under the existing law. The question I should have liked to ask my noble and learned friend would have been this. His experience in these matters is immensely greater than mine. It is, I suppose, in length and richness not exceeded by that of any living Judge. Does he think that such cases as these are frequent? The Committee does not say so. All the Committee does say is that cases of mothers seized with an impulse to cut the throats, or otherwise dispose of their offspring, to whom they are normally devoted, are not uncommon.
They are not uncommon. That is undoubtedly so, but I never knew that
458
there was any difficulty arising with regard to those eases, because Judge and jury all do their best, and I think rightly do their best, to put such acts in what I conceive to be their proper light, and the verdict, I am sure with the full approval of the Judge, is that the act was done in a state of temporary insanity. There is no need in such a case as that to go beyond the limits of McNaghten's case as we know it. I remember one case in my own experience, in which nobody had any intention of allowing a verdict of "Wilful murder" to be found, nor was it. There are cases in which, for one reason or another, that coarse is not taken. The wretched person, no doubt, is sentenced to death, but the Judge takes as much care as he can that she shall not know what he is saying, and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is as certain as that the sun will rise next day. Unless we believe that this class of case is common, and cannot be dealt with under existing law, what reason is there for altering the law? We ought not to legislate for exceptional cases.
My noble and learned friend pointed out how these cases can be dealt with, and as I conceive, most properly dealt with. There is an obligatory inquiry in some cases, and, of course, in all cases when the Home Secretary thinks it right for it to be held, and upon the results of the inquiry it is for him to advise the Crown, in his discretion, upon the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; and if there are cases in which some such frame of mind can be discovered, and validly established, as would make it wrong that the person should expiate his crime upon the scaffold, the ordinary course is taken and his sentence is commuted. Except in capital cases the remedy takes another form which is equally effective. In capital cases only one sentence, that of death, can be passed. This Bill does not propose to alter that; but in all other cases, where the trial Judge has a discretion over the sentence, as a matter of course he takes into account, when he passes sentence, any evidence which he may have before him showing that there were exceptional circumstances not amounting to a defence of insanity, such as evil communications, a tainted inheritance, and so forth, which might justly lead him to mitigate the sentence.
Can it be that we want more than that for the purpose of dealing with cases, which are not very numerous and in which we should not succeed in satisfying the medical profession? Those of your Lordships who will read this very interesting Report of the Committee will find that there were two schools represented before it. One was that of an institution bearing the somewhat appalling title of the Criminal Responsibility Committee appointed by the Medico Psychological Association of Great Britain, and they stood up for what I understand to be the view of alienists of the extreme school, the view that the law cannot define insanity, that Judges cannot direct juries as to what is insanity, and that the only way in which these cases should be tried is to let the medical expert tell the jury what he thinks about it, and then let the jury say for itself, out of its own head, whether a man is to be convicted or acquitted. There are even persons who go further than that, and say the inquiry ought not to take place in the presence of a jury, or by a jury, but in camera, by medical men specially qualified to pronounce whether minds are diseased or not.
My noble and learned friend said at the conclusion of his speech that he apprehended that your Lordships would be told that very grave results would follow if this Bill were passed, because juries could not be trusted. I do urge upon your Lordships that if this Bill were passed very grave results would follow, because you must remember that this defence is applicable, not merely in capital cases only, but in cases from the gravest down to the smallest offence, and it can be no more right to punish a person who is legally incapable of being responsible, whether he has stolen sixpence or whether he has assassinated his enemy. What would be the result, if this defence were to be made legally open to any ingenious person who thinks that he is able to raise it? I must say I think the result would be somewhat formidable.
This Report contains a table of figures analysing, over twenty-two years, the percentages of those who have been sent for trial and have then been found guilty but insane, or have been found insane before trial on arraignment, and it is divided according as the crime was murder, attempts and threats to murder,
460
manslaughter, wounding and attempted suicide, or other offences. The figures are well worth a little examination. I read what the report says on the subject on page 19:—
"It will be seen that the percentage of insane …"
this is, of course, insane on the existing, well settled law, not the insane plus my noble and learned friend's addition—
"to the total charged in murder charges is over 33 per cent.…"
that is,33 per cent. over the whole twenty-two years—
"while in charges of attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding and attempted suicide, the percentage falls to 2 per cent., and in other crimes to less than 2 per cent."
What is the conclusion to be drawn from that?
Is it that insane persons are immensely more prone to murder than to any other offence? Is that what accounts for 33 per cent. of insane persons in murder charges, and 2 per cent., say, in stealing and such like charges? Is it that when a man is really mad his attempts to murder are so constantly successful that there are only 2 per cent. of them in charges of attempted murder as against 33 per cent. of actual, successful murder? Or is it that it is only in cases where the gallows loom before the criminal that juries can bring themselves to pay very much attention to the defence as it is commonly raised? Is it that, in cases where there is no question at all of a death sentence, those who advise the prisoner and the prisoner himself—who, whether or not he knows right from wrong, does know the gallows from a term of imprisonment—consider that it is not worth while raising a defence like that; because, of course if the defence is successful his doom is the criminal lunatic asylum?
I do not mean to say that the defence of insanity is not constantly raised and supported by persons who perfectly believe in the validity of the defence. But what I do say is that it is a speculative defence, that it is constantly raised on the chance that you may get round the jury with it somehow, and I think these figures conclusively show that neither the prisoner nor his advocates think it is a defence that is worth putting up, if there is any chance of getting off with a comparatively moderate sentence, on some other grounds That, at any

461
rate, is my conclusion from those figures, and I should certainly like to know what other conclusion it is reasonable to suppose one could draw in those circumstances.
Another thing that I should like to point out is this, that the defence of insanity in a large number of cases is not merely a speculative defence, it is a rich man's defence. I never heard myself of the defence of insanity being set up, apart from cases of a horrible character—except kleptomania, when people go and steal stockings and ribbons at the sales. Then you hear a good deal about it. But in no other class of cases that I remember is it thought to be worth while to say that you did not know the nature and quality of the offence. Of course, if you put it in a more attractive form, and say "I felt an irresistible impulse; there was some attractive object, and I said to myself ' No I must not,' but I felt the, devil tempting me, and went and took it"—if you made that a defence, no doubt we should hear more of it. And how anybody is to tell, except from an examination of the circumstances of the crime itself, what was the state of the criminal's mind I cannot tell. There are people who say: "Oh he was mad, because his crime was so horrible; sec how he cut his victim's throat—he must be mad." There are other people who say: "I do not know anything about him, but since he was in prison or was convicted I have conversed with him, I have put questions to him, and I have come to the conclusion that he has an abnormal mind, and that he suffered from an irresistible impulse." That is the kind of argument that would be put before juries, and juries are to be placed in the painful position of having to say whether they think it is absurd or not.
Knowing as must be the case, so little about the mental state of a person who has stolen or murdered, or whatever it is, how can one say that insanity is not sufficiently protected, as it has been for eighty years, namely, that if a person does not know at the time the physical nature of what he is doing, or does not know that it is wrong, owing to mental disease directly leading to that result, then he is not to suffer the penalty of his crime. I greatly dread, not so much that there will be an increase in the number of murders, but that there will
462
be a considerable increase in the number of crimes of violence on women and children if a defence like this should be legal, and should once have a success. The passion under which such crimes are committed can be easily represented as bearing such a guise of irresistible impulse that it would need but a small addition of circumstances of atrocity or taint in the family to give a criminal no small chance with a jury which was not prepared to harden its heart.
There is a point upon which I should desire to dwell but that I see that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice of England is present. The Committee had before it doctors and doctors only. The Committee was admirably qualified to know what the view of the profession is and what the experience of Judges is. Therefore I say nothing whatever against the Committee for not taking any evidence from that side with which they were perfectly familiar. But I think that before we pay very much attention to the medical side of this question we ought to weigh against it the opinion and the experience of the Judges of England, and as to that I trust that your Lordships will receive some most useful assistance if my noble and learned friend thinks fit to address your Lordships. One thing, however, is clear—that with the exception of the opinions of Sir James FitzJames Stephen in his book on Evidence and the one isolated direction given by Mr. Justice McCardie in the case of Ronald True, which was not, I think, a case of irresistible impulse but of a man who was out of his mind—
LORD DARLING: There were Victor Jones and Ronald True.
LORD SUMNER: My noble and learned friend is right; but with the exception of those and two or three more—mere grains of sand in the great current of legal decision for nearly three generations—I do not think there has been any serious dispute or criticism from the Judges and very, very little from the legal profession of the adequacy and substantial justice of the Rules in McNaghten's case. Of those Rules I would say that they do not pretend to define what insanity is. Who can do that? But they do say that in certain circumstances even a madman may be

463
responsible for his crimes. Does anybody seriously say that a madman should never be responsible for his crimes? And when you come to the point at which there is sufficient moral capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and a crime is committed, why should not the criminal be punished for an offence which he must ex hypothesi have known was wrong and which he committed for some motive, corrupt or obscure, of his own.
There remains this point. I suppose that those who advocate this change are animated, or believe themselves to be animated, by a feeling of mercy and tenderness for the criminal. We are not now discussing the suitability of capital punishment. I do not think that a motion to abolish it would have had very much chance before persons so experienced as your Lordships. But there are persons so constituted that when it is proposed that a criminal should expiate his crime on the scaffold their feelings of compassion overpower their judgment and their reason and, owing to an obscure process which I confess I do not fully understand, they say at once that it is so dreadful that a person should be hanged. Of course it is a dreadful thing; but let us look at the other side of it.
Is it so merciful to spare a murderer and to send him for life to a criminal lunatic asylum? You consign him to a living tomb. Is it so merciful that such a person should remain there for the rest of his days herded with other criminals whose minds are diseased? Is it merciful to the public and to other possible victims that you should say: "His impulses are being kept under control and he seems to have recovered; let us set him at liberty." Supposing that those very impulses, if it was a genuine, case of irresistible impulse, are only kept under control because he is confined in a criminal lunatic asylum and is watched, and the man is haunted by the knowledge that these impulses are still strong within him and he knows not when, round the corner or behind a closed door, they may come upon him of a sudden and he may repeat his crime. On the other hand, supposing it has been a speculative defence, that the jury is persuaded to let him off, that he is not mad at all and never was, is it merciful to him that he should spend his days associating with people who are not
464
of his kind except that they have committed crimes which may be excusable while he has committed a crime which is not excusable?
The more one endeavours to adjust in one's own mind the problems connected with moral responsibility as enforced by the law the more difficult they become. My own experience of trying prisoners was not a long one, but it made no little impression upon me. I am satisfied for my own part that severity in punishment often serves the best public uses. I am satisfied for my own part that criminals are deterred both by the certainty of punishment and the fact that it is speedy, and I think that it would be a mistake to remove from these irresponsible beings that outside pressure which is exerted at present by the knowledge that if they fail to control what they ought to control they may find themselves punished by the law. That outside pressure constitutes a valuable additional protection to a weak and imbecile mind. Above all, we ought to consider not so much the fortunes or the interests of a particular criminal as the cause of the public at large. Persons who wander through life liable from mental disease to the commission, sometimes cunningly, sometimes in hot blood, of crimes which they know to be crimes and which they find themselves powerless to resist, are persons against whom the public interest rises up so powerfully that I think it must overshadow every other consideration, and I appeal to your Lordships to say upon this occasion that no case has been made out for an endeavour to change the law which, though imperfect as all human laws are, has, so far as I know, done little or no injustice in the last eighty years.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Sumner.)
LORD HEWART: My Lords, if I intervene for a moment in this debate I do so with great reluctance, partly because silence is always to be preferred to speech and partly because I would far rather support than oppose any proposal which comes from my noble and learned friend the author of this Bill. But I am told that it may be right for me to state what is the opinion of His Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench Division, who are also the Judges of the Court of

465
Criminal Appeal, upon this matter. I have not had an opportunity of consulting directly all my colleagues, who are now fifteen in number; but I have consulted twelve of them. Of those twelve, ten are, like myself, emphatically opposed to this measure, one is emphatically in favour of it, and one is doubtful. We hoped that the risk of any such measure as this had gone by. The Report to which reference has been made was published some five or six months ago, and shortly after that publication, if I remember rightly, a Question was asked in another place about the intention of His Majesty's Government and the reply—again, if my recollection serves me—was that in view of the weight of opinion against the proposal of the Report His Majesty's Government did not at present propose to legislate.
It is in that state of affairs that this Bill for some reason or other, is brought forward. I join, if I may say so, in urging on every ground that this House should not commit itself to the principle which is embodied in this Bill. My noble and learned friend who moved the Second Beading of the Bill, referring to the Rules, as they are called, in McNaghten's case—the Rules derived from the answers which the Judges gave to the questions in that case—spoke of something which he described as the two Rules which really mattered. I cannot help thinking that that phrase goes some way to explain the injustice, if I may use the expression without offence, which my noble and learned friend seemed to do to the law which he is proposing to change.
What was it that was laid down in those opinions, and has been followed for the past eighty years, not merely in this country but also in Scotland? The fundamental proposition of the whole matter is that every person in this country is presumed to be sane and to be responsible in law for his actions. The second proposition is that if a defence of insanity is set up it must be proved—not tentatively suggested, not vaguely indicated, as so often happens, but it must be clearly proved. What is it that has to be clearly proved? The answers to these questions show that three things at least must be clearly proved if that defence is to succeed. First of all, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the accused person was suffering from disease of the mind.
466
Secondly, it has to be proved that by reason of that disease of the mind, and not for any other reason, the accused at that crucial time was labouring under a defect of reason. Thirdly, it has to be proved—and here come in two alternatives—that in consequence of those two matters the accused at that moment was disabled in one or other of two respects, cither that he did not know the nature and quality of his act—that is to say, he did not know what he was doing; he thought he was peeling an apple when in fact he was cutting a throat—or, if he did know what he was doing, that at any rate he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Now it is proposed to add to these alternatives at that third stage in the proof a fresh choice to the accused, and that choice is, if I may be pardoned for reading it again, to show that "at the time the act was done or omission made he"—that is, the accused person—"was suffering from such a state of mental disease as therefrom to be wholly incapable of resisting an impulse to do the act or make the omission." I do not dwell upon the phrase an "irresistible impulse" to make an omission. No doubt it indicates something which may happen. But that proposal, as my noble and learned friend truly said, is by no means novel. One finds it in all the places that have been mentioned. One finds it in a foot-note to Sir James FitzJames Stephen's "History of Criminal Law," and there have been from time to time summings up in capital cases where a Judge has, I will not say adopted, but coquetted with that proposal.
When the noble and learned Lord says that therefore it may be the case that that doctrine is even now a part of the Common Law of England I am bound to make one observation. Under the law, as it now stands, it is only an unsuccessful defendant who can carry his cause to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The prosecution can never come to the Court of Criminal Appeal and say: "Here is a summing up which was far too favourable to the accused, which completely misstated the law in his favour." Once a jury have acquitted, no matter upon what summing up, the Court of Criminal Appeal has nothing to say to the matter. And, therefore, with great respect, I submit that it is nothing to the point to say that you can pick out, in eighty years of

467
reported cases, an occasional passage here and there in which a learned Judge has used language which seems to adopt or to favour some such proposal as this. But my noble and learned friend could, if he had been so minded, have quoted case after case from the reports of the Criminal Appeal Court in which this doctrine is expressly repudiated, and in which the law is stated to be now as it was laid down in McNaghten's case
Upon what grounds, and for what purpose, is it contended that this fundamental and far-reaching change should be made? My noble friend says it is upon the ground of this Report, and he quoted a part of the paragraph in which the palmary examples relied upon by the Committee are mentioned. The Committee say:
"It was established to our satisfaction that there are cases of mental disorder where the impulse to do a criminal act recurs with increasing force until it is, in fact, uncontrollable."
Then follows the passage about mothers and children. Yes, but is it not right to read the next sentence in this Report? The Report goes on to say in the very next sentence—
"In practice, in such cases the accused is found to be guilty but insane."
In other words, in practice, in the examples relied upon, and the only examples relied upon, for this recommendation and for this Bill, no unjust result follows, but precisely that result follows which this Bill would make formally correct. That is really the proposal of the Committee:
"We think that it would be right that such cases should be brought expressly within the law by decision or Statute."
In other words it is desired to give a formal correctness to a kind of decision which in a proper case is found possible, and is made now.
What would the effect be if you are to adopt this large and comprehensive formula for the purpose of dealing with that limited class of case already dealt with quite fairly under the law as it now stands? What a door is being opened! I am not in the least comparing my experience with that of the noble and learned Lord—not in the least—though in the course of the past twenty years I have had some experience in prosecuting people for murder, and in defending them
468
for murder, and in trying them for murder. But I respectfully suggest that in practice if this new limb were to be added to the alternatives in the Rules in McNaghten's case it would be impossible to distinguish between the impulse of the person said to be suffering from mental disease, and the impulse of the ordinary offender who is moved to commit a crime by the desire for gain or revenge.
What is the criticism which for three quarters of a century has been made upon this kind of proposal? It is this. Under the law as it now stands it is possible to apply a criterion to that which is alleged as the sign, the manifestation, of the prisoner's insanity. Did he know what he was doing? The evidence may help the jury from the surrounding circumstances to say whether he did or did not. Did he know that what he was doing was wrong? Again the evidence may help the jury from the surrounding circumstances to answer the question. I remember the case of a poor woman I defended many years ago who had killed another woman by strangulation. And when she had done it she called in the neighbours to see what she had done, and she said: "It was my duty to do it; I have performed my duty, and I am free." But what is the external criterion to be applied under this new doctrine? Will it not be said that the mere act itself shows that the man was uncontrolled I And because the impulse was not controlled the jury will be invited, with much eloquence and some evidence, to say that it was uncontrollable.
In cases where there is evidence of real marital disease antecedent to the commission of the alleged crime, and there is no evidence of a motive which might influence a sane person, juries have no difficulty in finding either that the accused did not appreciate the nature of his act or that he did not know it was wrong. But in cases where there is no such evidence of mental disease antecedent to the alleged crime mental experts may be found to say that the alleged crime itself affords evidence that it was committed under an irresistible impulse and that it may on that ground be inferred that there is mental disease. If that is so, the result may be to transfer to the medical profession the responsibility to the law of a great number of ordinary criminals.

469
Reference has been made to the kind of inquiry which in some cases is conducted after verdict under the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, upon the order of the Home Secretary. It is said that it is illogical that when the inquiry is ordered the area of investigation is wider than that covered by the Rules in the McNaghten case. Yes; but the result of the inquiry is not to reverse the finding of the jury. Not in the least; the finding of the jury stands. But take the illustration which has already been referred to, the notorious case of True. What happened there was that it was sought to show at the trial that at the time of the committing of the act the prisoner was insane. The attempt failed, and the prisoner was found "Guilty." There was an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that Court, having considered the only question in issue, whether there was evidence upon which the jury could properly find their verdict, dismissed the appeal. Then something arose subsequently. While that condemned person was in prison the prison doctors came to the conclusion that, whatever might have been his condition at, the time of the committing of the act, now at any rate he was in some sense insane. There followed, as there was bound to follow because the Statute is imperative, an inquiry into the question whether he was insane. He was found to be insane, and because in some sense he was insane he was not hanged. There followed, if I remember rightly, a letter from that condemned person to a friend saying in effect, "You see I am not going to be hanged. I knew I was not going to be hanged, and I was right."
If question there is to be about the inquiry ordered in such cases by the Home Secretary I would venture to suggest to my noble and learned friend a different kind of problem. How comes it that when the question for the Judge and jury is whether this accused person was insane in the precise and limited sense which the Rules in the McNaghten case formulate, it is right afterwards to put to the medical board on inquiry into the then existing condition of the condemned person the question at large as to whether there is some sense in which he is insane? Would it not be more in accordance with reason and justice, I do not mean merely justice to the man but justice to the community and to the public, that upon the second occasion also the inquiry should be of a
470
limited character—some such inquiry as this: If this condemned person is now-hanged, is there any reason to suppose from the state of his mind that he will not understand why he is being hanged? However that may be, I suggest that it is quite improper to draw from the comprehensiveness of the inquiry which at that stage is permitted to medical experts any unfavourable criticism of the limited inquiry which the criminal law permits to the jury with reference to the prisoner's state at the time of the committing of the act.
My noble and learned friend said that as medical science grows, as knowledge increases, it is right that the criminal law should keep pace with it. What does that mean? Does it really mean that from time to time, as medical theory expands, the Rules of the criminal law are from time to time to be modified? Is it not far safer to say: Let medical science clothe with new meaning, with a changed meaning, and with ever-increasing meaning the term insanity. Yet the law will still ask: Is this person to be excused because he did not know what, he was doing, or, if he did, because he did not know that he was doing wrong?
I refrain from entering further into this discussion, and I will add only one-word. My noble and learned friend quoted from Sir Matthew Hale. May I quote one other sentence from him which is not without relevancy to this inquiry. That great Judge and great man said in a famous case—
"When I am invited to pity the criminal I reflect also that there is a pity due to my country."
I yield to no one, not even to my noble and learned friend with his great experience, in my respect for juries. But is this fair to juries? Is it right that a prisoner who puts forward this excuse, and is able by expensive evidence to back it, should be permitted to propound to the jury the sort of puzzle which this new doctrine would involve? I say nothing of the difficulty in summing up which it would cause, but it is quite obvious that the task of a Judge in capital cases would be immensely increased if the law were to be changed in this way, not because injustice is being done, but in order to provide a more exact formula to justify a few verdicts

471
which are already being returned. I support the Amendment that this Bill should not be read a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, at the commencement of this discussion the question was put by my noble and learned friend Lord Darling why, having regard to the importance of this subject, it should have been left to a private member of your Lordships' House to deal with it, instead of its being dealt with by the Government. It is indeed an important matter, and I feel that I ought, if only in a few-sentences, to tell your Lordships why the Government have not sought to deal with this matter. The question is defined in my noble and learned friend's Bill. Two propositions are there recognised: (1) that when a man does not know what he is doing, or does not know the moral quality of his act, then be is not to be held responsible; and (2), that when he acts under an uncontrollable impulse, due to mental disease, that is sufficient ground for absolving him from the consequences of his act. We have listened to a discussion of great importance, because we have not only had the advantage of the great experience—as Lord Sumner said, the almost unrivalled experience—of my noble friend Lord Darling, but we have bad a most important speech from Lord Sumner himself, who is also a Judge of great experience, and we have had the further advantage of listening to the Lord Chief Justice of England, the head of the Common Law, who has given us the reasons why he is unable to support this Bill.
It has been truly said in the course of the debate that this is a one-clause Bill. Section 2 is useful and unobjectionable, but it does not matter. It deals with a smaller point. That which really does matter is the proposal to introduce into the law the proposition that, if a person suffers from mental disease which gives rise to an uncontrollable impulse, under which impulse he acts, then, notwithstanding that he knows what he is doing and notwithstanding that he knows the moral quality of his act, he is to be absolved. That is a proposition which, taken in the abstract, has a great deal to be said for it. Abstractly it is right, but the objection to it has been pointed out in the course of the debate. It is that it gives rise to a question which is incapable of solution
472
except in the actual individual case. It is not a fair question to put before a jury.
Take a very simple illustration of a minor kind. There is the offence of kleptomania, which is very common. A large number of people, chiefly women, are brought before the magistrates every week who are clearly subject to kleptomania. They act, no doubt, under an irresistible impulse, but they act knowing the difference between right and wrong and knowing what they are doing. I have talked to magistrates on the subject, and I find that they exercise great tact and manage to deal with such cases so that the severe penalty is confined to very bad cases. Suppose the principle of paragraph (c) of Clause I of this Bill were accepted in such cases as this. You would at once meet with the defence of uncontrollable impulse, which would be set up with great force in many of these cases. In this small matter it seems to me that it would be very dangerous to act upon the principle which is now proposed, and which it is desired to extend to major offences.
Let your Lordships dismiss from your minds the fear that anybody who has acted under an uncontrollable impulse, which he cannot resist when he commits the crime, is likely to be hanged. In the Home Office every case is considered, the report of the Judge after conviction has taken place in a case of this kind is studied, and in such a case the extreme penalty would never be inflicted. There are provisions of the law by which the Home Secretary is not only entitled but in some cases bound to call in expert opinion as to the prisoner's state of mind. Suppose we accepted this alternative as an alternative which the law recognises as a ground for the absolution of the offence in every case, and which is so presented to the jury, there would arise the kind of defence which my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner calls a speculative defence, which would almost invariably be put forward whenever the case to be defended was weak on every other ground. In such a case the most likely way would be to bring up the proposition that the act was committed under an uncontrollable impulse. It is a very difficult thing, in the first place, to define the word "uncontrollable," as is shown by the experience of magistrates who have had to deal with cases of

473
kleptomania, and I would like your Lord-ships to ask yourselves what would be the position of the jury when such a proposition was brought before them as that the prisoner was through mental disease incapable of resisting the impulse to commit the crime. Almost invariably somebody would be found to come forward and give expert evidence that a state of mental disease existed.
I do not speak as an authority on these matters, but I have given some attention to the subject of psychology. Any more vague science at the present time, any science in which vague terms can so readily be made to do duty for clear conceptions. I do not know. It is a most dangerous science to apply to practical affairs. I read recently a book in which it was suggested that education ought to be reduced to mathematical and psychological principles, but nobody knows what other science would be brought in to assist the criminal if once you allowed the psychologists to have their unguided way. I am not saying a word against the advance of medical science, which has been 90 notable during the last few years, or against the advantages of bringing psychology to bear where it can be useful. These scientists are excellent servants, but they are not always reliable masters, and I have no doubt in my own mind that in a very large number of cases there would always be found people who would come forward and say that mental disease was present, rendering the act uncontrollable. What is the unfortunate jury to do? A tender-hearted jury is apt to be merciful, and a jury of that kind would be likely to say that they were not in a position to contradict the evidence of these eminent scientific gentlemen, and would therefore accept it. I only put that as an illustration of the danger of regulating the administration of the law by propositions of that kind.
The Lord Chief Justice has told us that the Common Law is a law which adapts itself to circumstances. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Rules which absolve a person who does not know what he is doing, and does not know the distinction between right and wrong, are hard and fast Rules which cannot in any way be extended in their application. I think this Bill might create a misunderstanding on that point. They merely
474
consist of the advice given to this House by very distinguished Judges that such was the state of the law as they understood it. No doubt the proposition was laid down on great authority, but I have never heard of these Rules embarrassing any Judge who really had a case before him in which justice required an acquittal, or preventing him from giving such direction to a jury as would enable them to apply these Rules in cases where they ought to be applied, in cases, for instance, where the impulse was so dominant as to deprive a person of freedom or of any realisation of what he was doing.
We have not recognised in this country the passion crime, which is recognised on the Continent—the crime for which the defence is put forward that it was inspired by passion. We have not recognised that, and I hope we shall not do so. I much prefer to leave it to the general discretion which a jury, under the direction of a Judge, exercises. It is quite true there may be, as was pointed out by Lord Darling, theoretically a case coming within the abstract terms of the third alternative in Clause 1 of the Bill For such a case, as I have already said, an ample safeguard is provided by the powers of the Home Secretary, and I think it is equally safeguarded by the discretion which His Majesty's Judges exercise, and the good sense of juries.
I have only risen to say what is in my mind about this matter because what is in my mind is the reason why we did not introduce legislation such as my noble and learned friend proposes in this Bill. For my part, having given all the thought I can to it, and read the admirable Report of the Committee through and through, I cannot bring myself to see that it would be a good addition to the law to introduce this new proposition. Holding that view I am unable to support the Bill, and I am equally unable to devise words which should remove from the third paragraph of Clause 1 of the Bill the difficulties which have been pointed out in the course of the debate.
LORD DUNEDIN: My Lords, it is not proposed to apply this Bill to Scotland. Lord Darling quoted some words, but I do not think directly attributed them to Baron Hume. Baron Hume wrote two ponderous volumes on the criminal law

475
in Scotland, but the noble and learned Lord will search them in vain for anything which in the slightest degree gives countenance to paragraph (c) of Clause 1 of this Bill, which is really the Bill itself. I do not intend really to intervene in this debate. What I should have felt impelled to say has been so much better said by Lord Sumner and the Lord Chief Justice that it would be quite futile for me to add anything. At the same time I do not think I should be justified in giving a silent vote, and for this reason, that for thirteen years, as Advocate Depute, Solicitor-General and Lord Advocate, I was cognisant of every criminal process in Scotland which came before the High Court, and I conducted many of them, and for eight years, as Lord Justice General, I was head of the Criminal Court and tried more than one case in which the defence of insanity was raised. Now there are certain convictions which, although capable of being supported by argument, are really borne in upon one, not as the result of argument, but as the fruit of experience, and it is because upon such a subject I feel such conviction from experience that I think that if this Bill were passed it would open the door to subterfuge and impede the proper carrying out of the criminal law.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I will not detain you more than a very few minutes, but having very recently held high legal office in this House I do not want the debate to conclude without giving, quite shortly, my opinion. I put out of account the suggestion that the provisions of paragraph (c) of Clause 1 of this Bill are already the law. If that be so we really do not need the Bill, but in fact the Committee do not so report. My noble and learned friend realises that they said quite clearly that the proposals which they made would alter the law as it stands to-day.
I will only give two reasons why, in my view, this would be a very dangerous change to make. In the first place I feel sum that if you allow this new plea of irresistible impulse caused by mental disease, you will find it set up in very many cases of serious crime, and it will be the duty of the Judge to charge the jury in the terms of that paragraph in this Bill. I am seriously afraid that the last result may be that in many cases crimes caused either by sexual passion or
476
by anger and vengeance, which to-day meet with just punishment, may escape punishment altogether. Where there is a compelling impulse of that kind it is always taken into account either by the Judge at the trial or, in the event of conviction, by the Secretary of State when he comes to consider the sentence: but if this Bill passes that man will be entitled not only to mercy but to be found not guilty of the crime with which he is charged, and I think in that way great injustice to the community will be caused, and crimes which to-day meet with punishment will escape unpunished.
I have only one further point to make, and it is this. The proposal is that the man who commits a crime under an irresistible impulse caused by mental disease shall escape. Now one of the objects of the criminal law is the prevention of crime, and with that view to provide some motive force which will assist a man in resisting the impulse to crime. If you pass this clause you remove that protection against crime, that assistance which I firmly believe has turned the scale in many cases and enabled a man to resist the impulse to crime, and you will make irresistible an impulse which now is resistible and resisted because of the penal law. And the result will be that some crime which we escape to-day will then be committed. I feel very strongly that it is in the public interest that this Bill should not pass.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, as this proposal of mine has not been supported in debate, and having regard to what the Lord Chancellor said as to the possibility of this question being really authorita tively considered by the Judges, in the same way as a similar matter was considered in the McNaghten case, I do not think that I should serve any useful purpose, nor indeed be respectful to your Lordships, in asking that you should read this Bill a second time. I do not quite know what the process should be—whether the Second Reading should be negatived, or whether I should withdraw my Motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the right way would be formally to pass Lord Sumner's Amendment.
On Question, Motion negatived and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Power to require returns.
1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, in any year by notice served on the occupier of any agricultural Land in England or Wales or the person having the management of any such land, require him to make within such time, not being less than twenty-eight days, as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as the Minister may prescribe by regulations made under this Act, a return in writing for that year with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or live stock thereon, and, if the occupier is also the owner of the land, that fact shall be stated in the return.
(2) No individual return or part of a return made under this Act shall be used, published or disclosed, except for the purposes of the preparation and publication by the Minister of agricultural statistics or of a prosecution under this Act.
(3) (a) Any person who refuses, or without lawful excuse, neglects to make a return required under this Act to be made by him shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pow.ds.
(b) If a return made under this Act is untrue in any material particular, the person by whom the return was made shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, if it is proved that he knowingly made such untrue return.
(4) Any person who uses, publishes, or discloses contrary to the provisions of this Act any individual return or part of a return shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(5) Any notice under this Act may be served on the person to whom it is addressed either personally or by post, and, in the case of a notice to an occupier, may be addressed to "the occupier" without naming him.
(6) The expression "agricultural land" includes land used as grazing, meadow, OR pasture land, or orchard, or for a market garden or nursery ground.
(7) Before any regulation is made under this Act, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or," and to insert "of the acreage of land in cultivation, specifying the acreage of the several crops thereon, and of the acreage of land in fallow or used
478
for grazing and of the."The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships may recollect that when this Bill was being considered in Committee a question arose whether the term "cultivation" might not imply a power of interference with the methods of cultivation. I stated at the time that that was not intended. I have endeavoured to find words which would make it quite clear. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, who raised the point, has written to me to regret that he cannot be here this afternoon, because he has to be in Scotland, but he says he is satisfied with the terms proposed. The other noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, I think is also satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or") and insert the said words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the Duke of Buccleuch has asked me to express to the noble and learned Lord his grateful thanks for the way in which he has met him in this Amendment, with which he is entirely satisfied, and to apologise to the noble Lord and to the House because the important business to which reference has been made has detained him from his duties here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:—"(5) This section does not apply in any case where the total acreage of the agricultural land occupied by a person does not exceed one acre." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the subsection is intended to exclude very small tenants and to relieve the tenants or owners of them from making these Returns. I do not think there is any objection to that.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I rather hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press this Amendment. As I understand, the object is to obtain something like a census of production in this country. As times goes on there is not only more intensive cultivation of reasonably good land, but there are necessarily more and more of these small holdings,

479
and, so far as I know, every Party in the State is doing its best to encourage these smaller, intensively-cultivated holdings. And, if I may say so, the absurdity of this new provision is demonstrated when you bear in mind that an acre of land, let us say in the Vale of Evesham, or in parts of Bedfordshire, will, in fact, produce more food or other agricultural produce than from 50 to 100 acres of land, say, on the Cotswold Hills, or the Wiltshire Downs. And when one comes to see further that the noble and learned Lord has, in subsection (6), a provision which specifically includes market gardens and nursery grounds, this particular Amendment is rendered all the more unnecessary, and, in fact, misleading if the noble and learned Lord seeks to obtain a reliable census of production.
Take the potato crop alone. It was frequently commented on during and immediately after the war that, although there was admittedly an enormous increase in the production of potatoes in this country, the actual Returns of the Ministry of Agriculture gave us little or no evidence of that augmentation of this most important of all vegetable crops, because the bulk of them are grown on holdings considerably smaller than one acre. If you were to omit Lincolnshire and Cheshire and the Lothians of Scotland I do not know that I should be in error if I suggested that nearly half the total potato crop in this country would be found to be grown on holdings of smaller acreage than one acre. I do not want to embarrass the noble and learned Lord on the eve of his getting his Bill, but I do humbly and respectfully suggest to this House that if you desire to get an accurate ascertainment of the crop production of this country you will make a mistake if you exclude areas of less than one acre, and at the same time include market gardens and nursery grounds.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says as regards some possible irregularity in the Returns owing to this provision, but the provision was proposed in favour of the smallholder, and it was pointed out in the debate on the Committee stage that it might be hard on him to have to make these Returns. This is intended to be a concession to the smallholder, and the Ministry of Agriculture think it can be made without any
480
detriment to the general character of the statistics. It is proposed in order to meet objections that were made, and I hope your Lordships will assent to it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. This Amendment was very strongly pressed upon the Government when your Lordships were in Committee upon the Bill. I always look upon my noble friend as a great and almost overwhelming authority on agricultural matters, but I do not think he was present at that discussion, and that, of course, accounts for his intervention to-day—he is not aware of what was urged on the Government at the time. It would, of course, have saved a little time had the noble Lord been present, though, of course, I know he has many obligations which detain him. In the circumstances I do not think we can complain that the noble and learned Lord President has fulfilled the wishes which were pressed upon him by several noble Lords by proposing this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted. If any considerable debate was likely to be raised it would be rather awkward, in certain exigencies of which my noble friend is aware to proceed with it, but I think on the whole he would be wise to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "or for a market garden or nursery ground "and insert" and any land used wholly or mainly for the purpose of the trade or business of a market-gardener or nursery-man." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, is designed to meet the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, called attention—the necessity of showing that there was no suggestion that a market-garden might include an ordinary garden. The matter was fully discussed in Committee and I am glad that the noble Lord is prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("or for a market garden or nursery ground") and insert ("and any land used wholly or mainly for the purpose of the trade or business of a market-gardener or nursery-man").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: The remaining Amendments on the Paper, to subsection (7), are merely matters of drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 23, after ("thereon") insert ("but")
Page 16, line 24, after ("draft") insert ("regulation").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION..
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:
Trade Facilities.
Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland).
Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway.
Queen's Ferry Bridge.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (COST OF MEDICAL BENEFIT) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion, made by Earl De La Warr on Tuesday last, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH FAMILIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the case of children of British parents born in foreign countries during the period of the war, 1914–18, and to ask whether facilities can be given
482
for the acquisition by such children of British nationality; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a subject which may not excite general interest but it closely affects an important section of His Majesty's subjects who consider that they are labouring under a grievance, and if I can convince your Lordships that the grievance exists I feel confident that I shall have the unanimous support of this House in removing it if it is possible. In addition to this, as it is purely a non-Party and non-political matter I am not without hope that I shall secure not only the sympathy but also the assistance of His Majesty's Government in attempting to remove it.
In the course of your travels abroad many of your Lordships, I am sure, have found in various towns in foreign countries, but more particularly in seaport towns, communities of British merchants who have lived there for several generations. They are on excellent terms with their neighbours but they cling strongly to their British nationality and rather keep themselves to themselves. They either inter-marry or marry wives from England, and in due time their children are sent home to be educated. When they are grown up some of them enter the professions and trades in this country, while others return to the country where their parents are settled. In time they succeed to their fathers' businesses, marry English wives and in due course their children are sent to this country to be educated. And so the round goes on. In each generation the ties with the Mother-Country are renewed and strengthened.
It is not necessary for me to quote all the towns where such communities exist, but I may mention as examples Bordeaux, Oporto, Lisbon, Marsala, Smyrna, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. In all these towns these communities of merchants exist, who carry on the best traditions of British commerce and do their best to further British trade in those parts of the world. They act as agents of Lloyds, represent shipping firms, and are well known as being willing to afford any assistance they can to any Englishman who happens to be there. They certainly carry out very thoroughly the Apostolic injunction to the Episcopal Bench as to hospitality. It is quite evident that no

483
community of this kind can continue from generation to generation as British subjects without taking some little trouble, and therefore it was the habit, when the second or third generation was reached, for any lady who was expecting an addition to the family to return to England in order that the child should be born within the King's allegiance. The same thing is carried out by Americans who go to the United States in order that their children shall be born American citizens.
This was the state of affairs up to the outbreak of the great war. Since then three Acts of Parliament have been passed which have altered the position of children born abroad. The first Act was passed in the year 1914, and I think it bears some evidence of the state of nervousness which naturally existed at that time. It was sought to limit as much as possible the right to be a British subject, because it was rightly supposed that if it were made too easy many people who were undesirable would take the opportunity of becoming so in order to act as spies and get information for our enemies. Therefore, by that Act tin-right to British citizenship was limited to the first generation of children born abroad of British parents. In 1918 this was improved as far as they are concerned, because there is a special clause in that Act which also admits as British subjects the children beyond the first generation born abroad of British subjects who were serving the Crown.
That was an improvement, but in 1922, after the war was over, another Act was passed which altogether altered the particular clause which has reference to this matter. The clause in the Act of 1914 was done away with and another substituted. It is a very complicated clause and I have had great difficulty in understanding it. But the special paragraph which refers to the subject I am now trying to bring before your Lordships is paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 1,and it has been interpreted by the Home Office as giving British nationality in certain cases to children of the third generation of British subjects born abroad. It is to a certain extent retrospective in its action. As I have said I have found great difficulty in understanding the exact meaning of this paragraph, but I have a letter here on the subject referring to a communication
484
from the Home Office to the Secretary of the British Chamber of Commerce in Lisbon, and with the permission of the House I will read it.
It is as follows:—
"Since I last wrote to you I have received through the local British Chamber of Commerce a copy of a letter addressed to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce by the Home Office, and signed by John Pedder. In its communication the Home Office state that children of the third generation (a) if born before August 4, 1922, can only benefit by the new Act provided they are not already too old for their birth to be registered within one year, or (b) in special circumstances two years after birth. For example, the birth of a child born October 1, 1921, must be registered before October 1, 1922, or, in special circumstances, with the consent of the Secretary of State, October 1, 1923."
By that letter your Lordships will see that the Act is retrospective, and although it was passed in August, 1922, in certain circumstances a child born in 1921 might have the advantage of it. I am anxious to urge that the Act should be made still more retrospective, owing to the peculiar and in some way unique conditions caused by the war, and that children born between August, 1914, and the date of the passing of the Act should be eligible to become natural-born British subjects.
I should like to give the House a concrete case of hardship. It is only one out of a great many, but an ounce of fact, where a wrong has to be remedied, is worth a ton of theoretical pleading. May I add ex uno disce omnes? I am allowed to give the full names and particulars of the people concerned in this case. Mr. Herbert Rawes is a member of a British firm which has been established in Portugal for three generations. His firm carry on business as shipping agents, they are agents of Lloyds and representatives of the Royal Mail Steamship Company, and are also an information bureau for bankers. Both Mr. and Mrs. Rawes are British subjects, as were their parents and grandparents. In fact, there is not one single drop of Portuguese blood in their veins. Mrs. Rawes has two children, born before the war, and in both cases the birth took place in England, as the parents were anxious that the children should be born within the King's allegiance.
When the war broke out, Mr. Rawes wished to join the Array, though he was

485
beyond military ago, but his offer was refused, and he was told that he would be doing far better work by remaining where he was. His office was taken over as our Intelligence Department by the British Government, and remained so during the whole of the war. Let me point out that if his offer had been accepted, under the Act of 1918 any child of his born during the war would have been a British subject, and this would have been the case if, instead of being a natural-born Englishman himself, he had been a naturalised Englishman. It is a curious paradox that if a German who had become a naturalised Englishman had a child born at any time, that child would be a British subject, although the child of this natural-born Englishman was not. I may mention that three of Mr. Rawes's brothers 6erved in the war and one of them was killed.
Mr. Rawes continued in his office, and at the end of 1916 Mrs. Rawes applied to be allowed to return to England by steamer for the birth of a child which was shortly expected. The Consul refused to visé her passport on the ground that women were not allowed to travel to England by sea, on account of the danger from submarines. I am not complaining that the Government took that course. It was a natural thing to do, but I wish to point out that it was not the fault of Mr. Rawes that he was not in the service of the Crown, nor was it the fault of Mrs. Rawes that her child was not born in England. It is true that she might have attempted to travel to England by land, but a journey under war conditions across Portugal, Spain and France in winter was not desirable for a lady in a delicate state of health. Curiously enough, in another case which occurred at Lisbon about the same time, a lady who had applied to a member of His Majesty's Government whom she knew personally was recommended by him under the circumstances to go to Gibraltar. She did go to Gibraltar. She motored there, but as the result of the state of the Portuguese and Spanish roads it was a narrow escape that the child was not born a subject of His Most Catholic Majesty the King of Spain, instead of being a subject of our Gracious Sovereign.
As the result of Mrs. Rawes not being able to go to England, a boy was born at Lisbon on January 27, 1917. As the
486
British Consul refused to register him as a British subject, he has had to be registered as a Portuguese citizen, and as such he will be liable to conscription when he grows up. With the greatest regard for our oldest Ally, I do not think that there is any Englishman who would not rather continue an Englishman than be a Portuguese. It may be said that this difficulty can be surmounted by naturalisation, but I do not think that this is at all the same thing. I know that the Secretary of State has special powers, under subsection (2) of Section (5) of the principal Act, I think, to dispense with the elaborate conditions which in ordinary cases govern the grant of a certificate of naturalisation, and Clause 3 states that a naturalised subject shall have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject. But is this the case?
I hope the noble Earl who replies will be able to answer these questions. In the first place, is it a fact that in the case of a naturalised British subject, if a passport is granted to him, there is a rubber stamp on that passport stating that he is not a natural-born British subject but a naturalised subject? The second question that I should like to ask is one about which there seems to be some difference of opinion. I have had counsel's opinion upon the subject in one way, and I have heard unofficially that the Government has information of an opposite nature. If the child to whom I have referred were to grow up, and were to be a director or a partner in a company formed since the Companies Act was passed, providing that the names of the directors are to appear on every sheet of paper belonging to that company, I am informed—I do not know if my information is correct—that in the case of this naturalised child it would have to be stated that he was originally of Portuguese nationality. If such is the case—and I believe I am rightly informed when I say that it is—can anyone argue that a naturalised person is in the same position as a natural-born subject, and that any Englishman would be satisfied with that position for his child if he could obtain that of a natural-born subject.
All this might be avoided if the Act of 1922 were made a little more retrospective than it actually is. I know that there is always an objection to retrospective legislation, but this Act, as I

487
have already pointed out, is already retrospective so far as two years are concerned. Although it was passed in 1922, it applies to children born as aliens in 1920, and allows them to become natural-born British subjects. I think I have shown that a real grievance exists, and the fact, which I think I have made clear, that naturalisation, even if granted under subsection (2) of Clause 4 (which does away with the necessity of five years residence, and the other particulars which are required in ordinary cases), would not remedy the position, leads me to appeal to His Majesty's Government to say whether they cannot introduce an amending Act to remedy this difficulty and to make the Act retrospective up to the date of the commencement of the war; or, if they cannot do that, whether they would give facilities for a Bill of that nature to be passed if it were unopposed.
I believe that it is impossible for Mr. Rawes to adopt the alternative of having a Private Bill passed. I am told that a Private Bill dealing with a matter of blood can be initiated only after the consent of the Sovereign has been signified, and, unless the present Home Secretary is of a different opinion from that which was held by the Home Secretary in the late Government, it is more than likely that such permission would not be granted. In these circumstances I really think that I have made out a case of very grievous hardship, and I am not without hopes that I may receive a favourable reply as to the action which will be taken or supported by His Majesty's Government. I beg to ask the Question and to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion made by my noble friend. He has already, I think, covered the ground, and therefore I will say what I wish to say in the fewest possible words, but warmly do I desire to support the Motion, because I happen to know how very strongly this disability is felt in many countries all over the world, by British residents affected by it. My noble friend referred to the particular instance of the Rawes family in Lisbon. There are many other cases of the same character, but this is a typical case of a family which for generations has traded abroad and maintained at the highest point the integrity of England in that foreign
488
country—a family respected by the people among which it has lived, and preserving a passionate devotion for the old country, and during the war, like many other families, suffering casualties and losses.
There are many families like them and I know from personal experience of many cases in South America, from whence I have had formal representations made to me on the subject. There are many families affected by this disability, and I believe that from time to time their petitions on the subject have been before the British Government. I know that at any rate the British Chambers of Commerce in all parts of South America have from time to time petitioned the Foreign Office "That the children of a British father and of a mother of British nationality prior to marriage, wherever born, shall not be excluded from British nationality under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914." I do not wish to weary your Lordships, for the case has already been so amply covered, but I should like to say that I do believe that the disability which these people feel, and feel very keenly, is worthy of the attention of Parliament. They are not in a position, like people here, to make their voices heard in another place by getting Questions asked, or by heckling candidates for Parliament. Therefore I think they are all the more deserving of consideration, as fellow-countrymen who are upholding the honour of the country, and who desire to maintain their connection with this country in the fullest possible way, and which they believe they are not able to do. In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will be able to deal with the matter by legislation, if legislation is required.
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, there is a saying that hard cases make bad law, but I think all of you here this evening will be agreed that the case cited is indeed a very hard case. Before touching upon the points particularly mentioned in the Question, I should like, if your Lordships will permit me, to go very briefly over the history of our naturalisation laws. From 1792 to 1914 the law remained unchanged. Under it the right of British nationality was given to the grandchildren, i.e. the second generation, of parents living abroad, the children having been horn abroad. At the beginning

489
of the war, as the noble Lord has already said, in 1914, a change was made. This change was not made without consideration. It followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1869, and the Departmental Committee of 1901. It did away with the rights which were allowed to the second generation, and this on two main grounds.
The first ground was that as generation after generation lived out of the country gradually the emotional bond which bound them to the Mother-Country was weakened. The second reason was that the second generation brought in a question of dual nationality—a question which frequently caused very great trouble. However, there was very much greater opposition to this Act than was anticipated, and in 1922, as the noble Lord has already said, the right of the grandchildren of British parents to British nationality was restored, and, further, they were given a retrospective right of registering their children that had been born between the passing of the Act of 1914 and the Act of 1922. It went further, as the noble Lord has already said, and gave an entirely new right—a right to the third generation of children to be registered as British subjects. But let me point out that this was an entirely new right, and that it is completely contrary to the traditions of British law to make these new rights retrospective.
The noble Lord referred to a letter of Sir John Pedder which he says makes out that this clause was already retrospective, but that is not so. Under this clause parents were given a year in which to register their children, and in some oases two years, and, of course, if a child had been born nine months before the passing of the Act, then the parent had three months in which to register, and that was under the Act and under no retrospective power at all. Thus it is that a person born before 1922 cannot avail himself of the Act passed in 1922. He can, as the noble Lord said, come to England to be educated, and is not debarred by any of the normal restrictions in obtaining a naturalisation certificate.
Now I come to the two questions put to me by the noble Lord. First with regard to passports. A naturalised British subject will always have to have that fact noted on his passport. But I think the second point is probably the more important, and that is with regard to his
490
position under the Companies Act. I am asked whether it is necessary, if he becomes a director of a company, that the fact of his not being British-born is always to be put against him. That is not so. If he is a director of a company, according to the information at my disposal, under the Companies Act his name is put down as a director of the company and no condition has to be made. It is possible that the company itself may have some regulation, but under the Companies Act that is perfectly clear.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: There is only one other point, and I do not know whether the noble Earl can answer it. It is whether he thinks it is possible that under the altered conditions—and he himself acknowledges there are cases of great hardship—it would be likely that permission would be given for a Private Bill to be passed. The consent of the Sovereign is necessary for that. Of course, the noble Earl cannot say that positively.
EARL DE LA WARR: I omitted a point, and I can answer that definitely. His Majesty's Government can hold out no hope that facilities will be given for the passage of such a Bill, as this form of naturalisation has long fallen into disuse.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the real sting is to have it stamped on the passport that a person is not of British nationality. The children born abroad of British parents seem to have a taint put upon them which they must feel as they grow up. I do not suppose they would feel it if they were of the age of the noble Earl, but as they grow up and wish to take part in business and travel about, it is a disagreeable thing which they have to face all their lives. Surely that might be altered. Is there any object in subjecting those who are really British subjects to this stigma, and is there no means possible by which the Government can meet this objection? These people are loyal, they support the Empire in far distant lands, and they are proud to be British subjects, and therefore I think the Government might consider it, and try to get over the difficulties as they have done in many cases lately.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Earl no doubt knows that this question of nationality is both a technical and a difficult one. It is founded partly on what is called jus soli and partly on jus sanguinis, in the one case nationality being dependent on the place where a person is born and in the other the principle being introduced of nationality through the father and mother. So far as the Act of 1922 is concerned I think the only people who could possibly suffer are a small number of the third generation. No doubt there are a certain number who might suffer under the particular conditions of the Act of 1922. I agree that under the Act of 1914, instead of nationals, they become naturalised, and there are certain difficulties attached to that position, but I think the cases involved must be very few indeed. I do not think it will be expected that there will be any special legislation, and, as the noble Earl has said, special naturalisation Acts have really gone out of operation altogether.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the reply he has given, and I am very glad that he agrees with me that the case I have brought forward is an extremely hard one. He pointed out that the Act of 1922 was passed because there was such strong-opposition to the Act of 1014 that it was found necessary to amend it in the
492
interests of the very people for whom I speak. Therefore, I am not without hope that further agitation on the subject may secure even greater benefits to those people who have not lessened their national ties as the years go on, but, on the contrary, have been most anxious to do their best to retain them by sending their children home to be educated, with the feelings and perhaps even the prejudices of which we, as islanders, are rather proud. The Lord President of the Council did not say very much on the subject suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Mayo—namely the possibility of omitting the stamp from the passports. If it is a question of its being necessary by law that the stamp should be put on the passport, I understand his difficulty, but if it is merely a matter arranged by the Foreign Office for their own convenience, I think the matter should he reconsidered. Perhaps I might have an assurance from the Government that the matter will be looked into.
LORD PARMOOR: I can certainly give an assurance that the matter will be looked into, having regard to what the noble Lord has said; but, as to the effect of that looking into. I am afraid I can give no assurance.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER. PETITION FOR BILL.
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL. [H.L.]
Referred to the Examiners.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
To be road 2a on Tuesday, May 27.—(Earl Be La Warr.)

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(Viscount Chelmsford.)
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, May 19.]
Petition of Sir Edward Hamilton Seymour, K.B.E., C.B., O.M.G., claiming to be Duke of Somerset and Baron Seymour in the Peerage of England, praying His Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct a writ to be issued to summon the Petitioner to Parliament by the name and style of Duke of Somerset, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney-General thereon thereunto, annexed: Presented (by command); read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.