Sitting of 1 April 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA IN BRITISH EMPIRE.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has recently had any occasion to make representations to the Soviet Government with regard to specific instances of unfriendly Communist propaganda in the British Empire?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich on 30th March.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that first portion of the question of the hon. Member for Dulwich was not actually replied to? To the second portion actually a specific denial was given?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Had any complaints been made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I replied the other day that I could make no fresh representations to the Soviet Government.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that what he said was that he did not intend taking any action? To the first part of the question of the hon. Member for Dulwich that was the reply. To the supplementary which I asked, does he not remember he said they had no complaint? That was specially with regard to the members of the trade delegation.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt whatever that what I said was correct. I do not appreciate the purpose of the present question. Perhaps if the hon. Member would put it down I should understand it better.

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any recent report has been received from the Charge d'Affaires in Russia on the demand in that country for agricultural machinery?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No recent report has been received on the subject of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the English newspapers last week, an order valued at 2,000,000 dollars was placed for agricultural machinery in the United States?

    BRITISH CONSULAR OFFICERS.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to re-appoint a Consul at Batoum, Consul-Generals at Moscow and Odessa, and Vice-Consuls at Novorossisk, Poti, Moscow, Omsk, Odessa, Kertch, Kherson, Kieff, Mariupol, Nicolaieff, Archangel, Cronstadt, Ekaterinburg, ands Narva?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is not possible in present circumstances to say when appointments will be made in those areas.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the names of the persons who are at the head of the present Government of Russia?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The supreme executive organ of the Soviet Union is the Central Committee, of which there are four presidents, namely:
    M. Kalinin, President of the Central Executive Committee of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic.
    G Petrovski, President of the Central Executive Committee of the Ukraine Socialist Soviet Republic.

    1277
    A. Chervyakov, President of the Central Executive Committee of the White Russian Socialist Soviet Republic.
    The fourth President, who is also President of the Central Executive Committee of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, has yet to be elected to fill the vacancy caused by the recent death of M. Narimanov

    TRADE RELATIONS.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state what is the attitude of the Government to the Soviet Government; and, in paricular, what plans, if any, the Government have for promoting increased trade with Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have nothing to add to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the course of the Debate on the Address on 15th December last. Any trade that is possible under existing conditions can be done under the Trade Agreement.

  PIRACY IN CHINESE WATERS.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British traders in Hong Kong have made many complaints recently of the prevalence of piracy in Hong Kong waters; that they have asked for the provision of an adequate fleet of patrol craft, and for an increased police supervision both ashore and in the harbour; and whether the Government have been able to accede to these requests?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am aware that complaints have been made of the prevalence of piracy in waters adjacent to Hong Kong. Steps have been taken to increase the number of patrol craft and the efficiency of the armed guards carried in ships, and in certain narrow waters a system of escort by gunboats and armed launches has been instituted. The subject has been under consideration by a local committee and by an inter-Departmental Committee at
  1278
  home, and the Secretary of State is in communication with the Governor to see whether the measures already adopted can be improved upon. The present state of affairs is, of course, due to the civil war in the Kwangtung Province, which has completely disrupted the policing by the Chinese authorities of the Canton delta and neighbouring waters, and until order has been restored in that area it is hardly to be hoped that further attempts at piracy will not take place. Punitive operations against the pirates have been carried out on several occasions with good results.
  Mr. LOOKER: Is it not a fact that the Government of Hong Kong recommended additional patrols being employed?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, that is so; and, as I said in my answer, steps have now been taken to increase the number of patrols.

  EGYPT.

    ELECTORAL LAW.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is within the powers or sphere of duty of the British High Commissioner in Egypt to give or tender advice to the Egyptian Government relating to matters of electoral reform in Egypt?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Egyptian Government have not sought Lord Allenby's advice on this subject. Had they done so, there is nothing in his instructions to prevent him from complying with such a request if he himself thought it desirable to do so.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Egyptian Government are altering the electoral law before the election takes place caused by the recent dissolution; and whether the British Commissioner has any instructions to express any views on the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: From such information as I possess it would appear that the intention of the Egyptian Government is as stated in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

    OTTOMAN LOANS (PAYMENT OF INTEREST).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the dependence of the service of certain British loans upon Egyptian revenues, he can say if the voting of supplies by the Egyptian Parliament is an essential preliminary to the payment of interest on these loans?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the right hon. and gallant Member refers to the Ottoman loans secured upon the Egyptian Tribute. I regret that I am unable to reply upon a point of Egyptian constitutional procedure which is exclusively within the competence of the Egyptian Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not advisable from the point of view of this country that we should know whether we can get interest paid on that loan as it used to be paid, and is it not the duty of the Government to find out whether that money can be voted without the Egyptian Parliament being called together to vote it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That seems to me a very argumentative question. Perhaps it had better be reserved to the Debate.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is that amount deposited with the National Bank of Egypt?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On that subject I answered a question yesterday or a couple of days ago.
    Sir F. WISE: But the amount?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the amount.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I put my question in a less controversial way. Do the Government intend to make inquiries from the Egyptian Government as to whether that money can be paid without the Egyptian Parliament being called together?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no present intention of making any such inquiry.

  BULGARIA (ARMED FORCES).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  1280
  whether, when consenting to the increase in the Bulgarian armed forces, His Majesty's Government made any representation as to the use of these forces in the suppression of the Agrarians and Communists in Bulgaria?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is asked under a misapprehension. His Majesty's Government has not consented to any increase in the Bulgarian armed forces beyond the limits laid down in the Treaty.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answering a question last week he told me they had authorised an increase of 10,000 in the armed force of Bulgaria?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At any rate, my answer is correct to-day.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we understand that the policy of the late Government in refusing to authorise any increase has been carried out by the present Government also?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The present Government have not authorised any increase. What exactly the policy of the late Government was I do not know. I would rather answer in respect of our own policy than by reference to theirs.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    NORTHERN SYRIA (FRONTIER).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of the execution of the clause of the Franco-Turkish Treaty providing for the rectification of the frontier of Northern Syria came before the Council of the League of Nations at its recent sitting; and, if so, what attitude was adopted on behalf of His Majesty's Government with regard to it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

    SAAR COMMISSION.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any understanding was reached at Geneva that the appointment of M. Rault as president of the Saar Commission should terminate at the end of this year of office?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The appointment was for a year only. It will be for the Council, which meets in March, 1926, to decide what is then to be done.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the very strong feeling that has been aroused by this appointment, if there is any condition laid down in connection with it could not that be stated to the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not accept the hon. Member's premise. This appointment is in the terms of the Treaty to be made for one year, and a new appointment is to be made a year hence by the Council of that day. Because I happened to be a member of the last Council I am not entitled to say what the next Council will do.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that only five weeks ago he took the opposite attitude and gave an opinion as to what should be done on this matter without consulting the Council?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I then said what my attitude would be at the Council meeting which I was going to attend, which is quite a different thing.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the British Government's share of the International Labour Organisation at Geneva is this year assessed at £30,000; what are the arrangements under which this country is called upon for this amount; and, in view of the small benefits accrued to this country by this expenditure, will he take steps to have it reduced in future years?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £30,000 is a very considerable increase on previous years; and will he make every effort to stop this amount increasing and to limit the expenditure in future?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I may say that we are taking all the natural steps to achieve economy in these circumstances as in others. My only reason for circulat
    1282
    ing the answer is that it extends to four pages of manuscript, which I think the House would not wish me to read.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Does the Minister agree that "small benefits have accrued to this country" in this respect? Is it not of enormous advantage to a country like ours that other countries should make arrangements with us to raise the social standing of the people?
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the United States in this organisation?
    Following is the answer to the Question an the Paper:
    1. The international Labour Organisation was established by Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, which provided that the permanent organisation should consist of:—

    (a) A General Conference of representatives of the members and

    (b) An International Labour Office controlled by the Governing Body.

    2. In pursuance of Article 392 of the Treaty, the International Labour Office is established at Geneva, the seat of the League of Nations, as part of the organisation of the League.
    The object of the organisation is set out in the preamble to Part XIII of the Treaty, namely:—
    "Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
    And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organisation of vocational and technical education and other measures;
    Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries."
    3. The principal functions of the International Labour Office are the collection and distribution of information of international interest on the conditions of industrial life and labour; the examination of industrial subjects, with a view to the conclusion of international conventions for the improvement of the conditions of labour; and the publication in French and English of a periodical paper dealing with the problems of industry and employment of international interest.
    4. The Treaty provides that the General Conference of representatives of members hall be held from time to time as occasion may require and at least once in every year. There has been one Conference each year since 1919.
    5. The Conference is composed of four representatives of each of the States which are members. Two of these representatives are Government delegates and the other two represent, respectively, the employers and the workpeople of the country, chosen in agreement with the principal industrial organisations where such exist. The Treaty further provides that each delegate, may be accompanied by advisers, who shall not exceed two in number, for each item on the agenda of the meeting.
    6. The Governing Body consists of 24 persons, 12 representing the Governments, six elected by the delegates to the Conference representing employers, and six elected by the delegates to the Conference representing workers. One of the Government members on the Governing Body must always be a representative of Great Britain, and at the present time a representative of British employers and a representative of British workers also sit on the Governing Body, having been elected by the employers' and workers' delegates respectively, at the 1922 Conference.
    7. A draft of the Budget of the International Labour Organisation is first prepared by the Director of the Office and is then examined by the Finance Committee of the Governing Body, who submit it to the Governing Body for approval. The next stage is an examination by the Financial Supervisory Commission of the League of Nations, which body as well as the Assembly of the League may amend it. When finally approved, it is included by the Annual Assembly of the League
    1284
    (together with the Budgets of the Secretariat and the Permanent Court of International Justice) in a single precept which is levied upon each of the States which are members of the League in proportion to their liability to contribute. The sums specified in the precept are due and payable by the respective States as an obligation under the Treaty of Versailles.
    8. Under Article 6 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the expenses of the League (including the I.L.O.) are to be borne by the States which are members in the proportions decided by the Assembly. In 1925 the proportion to be borne by Great Britain is 9·41 per cent.
    9. The British Government representative on the Governing Body of the Inter national Labour Office has, under successive Governments, steadily pressed for economies in the expenditure of the International Labour Office. It is undoubted that this pressure has been effective in restricting expenditure without detriment to the proper discharge of the functions of the Office under the Peace Treaty.
    10. It is intended that close observation shall be kept on the activities of the International Labour Organisation and that every opportunity should be taken to secure economies. In this connection it has to be remembered that the British Government have only one vote out of 24 on the Governing Body and cannot, therefore, compel reductions contrary to the views of the majority.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour when and under what conditions the sum of £4,000 was promised as a British gift to take the form of embellishment, or furnishing of a prominent part of the building of the new International Labour Office at Geneva; and whether the Government intend to ratify this promise?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the 14th sitting of the International Labour Conference (on the 1st July, 1924) the hon. Member for West Houghton, British Government Delegate, formally announced that the Government intended to recommend to Parliament the approval of the expenditure of a sum not exceeding £4,000 as a gift to the new building for the International Labour Office. The precise form which the gift should take has not been definitely determined, but it is proposed that it shall be utilised for

    1285
    the decoration and furnishing of the room in which the governing body of the International Labour Office will hold its meetings. The answer to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the policy of his predecessor in making a gift of £4,000 for a building in a foreign country when the money could be used more profitably for the unemployed of this country?

  ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).
  Mr. STAMFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government has invited His Majesty's Government to state its views regarding the desirability of calling a new conference for the limitation of armaments; and if he can make any statement of the views of the Government on the matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East on 4th March, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull Central on 18th and 23rd February.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any truth in the statement that France has signified her disinclination to enter into any conference?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

  MEXICO.
  Mr. SANDEMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is ware that the Mexican Government has failed to carry out the arrangements entered into with the Committee of International Bankers in 1921 in regard to the repayment of the Government debt; and if any representations have been made to the Mexican Government to obtain the payments which were agreed upon?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the assumption that the hon. Member is referring to the Agreement of June, 1922, with the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.

  NORTH AMERICAN STATES (DEBT DEFAULT).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, in North America, have defaulted in the payment of their State debts; and if any representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States at Washington with a view to obtaining repayment of these State debts, which were contracted for industrial purposes and a large part of which was lent by British citizens?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the second part is in the negative.
  Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand that the Government do not see their way to do anything to recover these debts?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Now that the States have gone for Prohibition is it not very likely they will have more money to pay their debts with?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my Noble Friend will apply her persuasive arguments to the Legislatures and Governments of these States. It is a fact, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, that I see no prospect of making representations with any chance of success. The Government of the United States have no control over these States. United States citizens are as much interested as our own, and if they fail to secure redress I am afraid no representations would be of avail.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these debts were incurred in an effort to make war upon the United States?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is not wholly correct.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Are the Government considering the withdrawal of the British Ambassador from a country which has defaulted?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have yet to learn that the United States have defaulted.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Are these places not in the United States?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give a little study to the constitution of the United States.

  SEA WARFARE (ROOT RESOLUTIONS).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the last occasion on which representations were made to the French Government in regard to the failure up to now to ratify the Root resolutions against inhuman methods of warfare at sea?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is for the Power which convened the Washington Conference and not for His Majesty's Government to make such representations, and I have no knowledge whether any have been made. In reply, however, to an inquiry addressed to the French Government by His Majesty's Ambasador at Paris last year, we were informed that a law providing for ratification had been before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber for some time.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for the adjournment of the House at Easter.

  PROPOSED FIVE-POWER PACT.
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to hold a round-table conference in which Germany would be invited to discuss the particular, of the proposed five-Power pact?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Discussions on this subject are still in their early stages, and I cannot forecast the course which they may take.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the acknowledged success of this round-table method at the London Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman at an early stage consider whether it can be substituted for these questionnaires to the German Government?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman really is not facilitating a happy issue out of our present discussion
  1288
  by the tone of the question which he puts. His Majesty's Government are most anxious and most desirous that the discussions which have been opened should produce a real amelioration of the European situation, and will do whatever in them lies to secure such result; but I beg the House will not ask me to commit myself to particular methods of procedure at this early stage. Unless I have certain discretion, I am bound to fail.

  BESSARABIA.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the Treaty with regard to Bessarabia concluded in 1920 between Rumania and the four Allied Powers; and by which of the Powers that treaty has been ratified?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Article 9 of the Treaty of 1920 provides that it shall not come into force until after the deposit of ratifications by the signatory Powers. The only Powers that have ratified so far are Great Britain, France and Rumania.

  SUDAN AND ABYSSINIA.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the joint conference recently arranged by the British Consul at Maji, a Sudan Government post, between the Sudanese local official, the British Consul from Maji, and an accredited official mission of Abyssinians, whether the Abyssinian mission was accompanied by an armed force; what was the object of this conference; what were the results obtained; and whether there were any subsequent incidents involving the welfare of British subjects and British-protected subjects, respectively?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I know nothing of any such conference at Maji.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if I give him the information?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman shows me reason for an inquiry, I will make one; but I know nothing.

  BRITISH AND FRENCH SUBMARINES.
  Colonel DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of submarines, of each class, in the British Navy and the number in course of construction or approved; and whether he can furnish similar figures in respect of the submarines in the French Navy?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Command Paper 2349, whore full information in regard to all British and French submarines built, building, or approved, will be found.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that new French proposals for building coast-defence submarines increase the number from three a year and 36 in all to four a year and 48 in all, he can state if these submarines are entirely additional to the 59 building and projected, which are mentioned in the table of the White Paper on the Return of Fleets; and whether he can state the tonnage of these coast-defence submarines?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Included in the 59 submarines building and projected are nine submarines, laid down under the coast defence submarine programme (1922–1925). In addition to this number, it is proposed to lay down at least three coast-defence submarines each year, in order to bring the total number of coast defence submarines up to 48. The Bills authorising these increases have not yet received Parliamentary sanction. Of the nine submarines already referred to, three are of 1,129 tons surface displacement and six are of 590 tons surface displacement. I have no information concerning the tonnage of the projected coast-defence submarines.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FLEET EXERCISES (MEDITERRANEAN).
    Mr. DUNNICOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether naval exercises have taken place recently in the waters commanding the route between Marseilles and Toulon, on the one hand, and the French Colonies of Northern Africa, on the other; and, if so, will he inform the House the purpose of such exercises;
    1290
    (2) whether man œuvres, or naval exercises, have recently taken place or are contemplated off Majorca; and, if so, has use been, or will be, made of Spanish ports and harbours?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Combined exercises, forming part of the normal Fleet training and exercises of the Atlantic and Mediterranean Fleets, were carried out between Gibraltar and Malta on the 11th to 14th March, and in the vicinity of Majorca on the 17th and 18th March. Use was made of the harbours of Pollenza and Palma, in Majorca, with the sanction of the Spanish Government. These exercises are similar to those which have been carried out from time to time for the past 20 years, and are necessary to maintain the efficiency of the Fleet.

    OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed that the projected marriage allowance to officers in the Royal Navy shall be retrospective?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): regret I am not yet in a position to mane any statement.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that they shall be retrospective from the date on which they were included in the Navy Estimates?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: That, I understand, will be the case.

    SHIPWRIGHTS (PROMOTION).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the stagnation in promotion in the shipwright branch of the Loyal Navy and that there are men in this branch who have passed for the rating of chief shipwright for a period of from nine to 10 years, and who have 18 years' service as shipwrights; and whether he would be prepared to consider a scheme whereby shipwrights who have passed for chief shipwrights for a period of six years or over, and who are well advanced on the road to pension, shall be made chief shipwrights?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I have no reason to think that the facts stated in the first part of the question are otherwise than correct, but the hon. Member will appre

    1291
    ciate that the Regulations provide for the advancement of shipwrights to the fourth, third, second and first classes, and that many of the most promising of the shipwrights are advanced direct to warrant and commissioned rank without becoming chief shipwright at all. I regret that the proposal contained in the last part of the question would not be practicable.

    ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (GRANTS).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the. Admiralty whether he is aware that, under the war-time separation rules which were operative until the end of September, 1920, an allowance was payable in respect of a woman's illegitimate child provided that a seaman who married her was prepared to maintain the child as a member of his household, whereas the Regulations have now been amended and grants for illegitimate children have been discontinued, except in those cases where the seaman subsequently marries the mother of his own child; and whether, seeing that many mothers of illegitimate children have married seamen under the old Regulations, and on the understanding that their children would be maintained by virtue of these Regulations, he can see his way to fulfil the terms of the contract which they understood themselves to be entering into in those cases where the marriage took place before the said Regulations were amended?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I am aware of the Regulations referred to in the first part of the question. Navy separation allowance, however, was definitely stated to be purely a War measure and, consequently, no vested rights exist to the continuance of allowances then paid for illegitimate children. The permanent marriage allowance—which replaced the separation allowance in October, 1920, covers payment for those illegitimate children only whose parents subsequently marry each other, and I regret that I am unable to recommend any extension of this Regulation on the plea of a contract which did not exist.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many women got married under the belief that this was a contract and that their children would be maintained: and they are now destitute?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: That may be so, but it was not a contract.

    GERMAN WARSHIPS, SCAPA FLOW (SALVAGE).
    Sir F. WISEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the German warships have been raised at Scapa Flow; and if they are broken up in British yards?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Eleven destroyers already raised are being, or will be, broken up in British yards.

    INVALIDED RATINGS (INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is proposed to set up an independent tribunal to whom naval invalided ratings may appeal against the decisions of naval surgeons as to non-attributability or degree of disablement?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of the 15th December last.
    Sir B. FALLE: Has there been no change since then? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding the courtesy of the Admiralty and the professional knowledge of the naval surgeons, there is still a very strong desire for such a tribunal?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The feeling may no doubt exist; but on grounds of economy I do not think the setting up of an expensive tribunal would be justified in view of the small number of cases involved.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will amend the scales of disability pensions in attributable cases, shown in reply to General Request No. 15 of the 1919 Welfare Requests, to pension earned to date for all naval ratings with over 15 years service on being invalided, observing that the pension for service is much less in the case of a rating whose disability is attributable to service than the pension for service of a rating whose invaliding disability is not attributable to service?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The present scales of disability pensions in attributable cases

    1293
    were determined after very careful consideration, and I regret that I am unable to recommend any modification of them. As regards the latter part of the question, the pension for service in the case of a rating whose disability is attributable is less than that of a rating with the same period of service where disability is not attributable only in cases where the disablement element of the pension is greater than that of the service element.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what proportion of the national expenditure the British and Japanese naval expenditure amounts; and to what extent the Japanese naval expenditure is met by loan?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: On the basis of the figures for 1924–25 British naval expenditure represents about 7 per cent. of the national expenditure. The present Japanese naval expenditure is approximately 15 per cent. of the national expenditure. As regards the second part of the question, as far as is known, no Japanese naval expenditure is met by loans with the exception of the "Extraordinary War Expenditure Fund," which is not included in the above percentage, and gratuities granted to officers and men discharged consequent on reductions due to the Washington Treaty.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: Is not the percentage basis rather misleading in view of the heavy interest this country has to pay on its National Debt?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am only asked what is the percentage.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ROTA COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will send to members of rota committees all information such as is given to officials of Employment Exchanges?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Memoranda, are issued to rota committees and to other committees on all matters which come before them. Instructions have also
    1294
    naturally to be issued to officers of the Department on matters which never come before committees. To issue such instructions to rota committees would not assist them in their work and would add materially to the cost of administration.
    Mr. HARDIE: In certain cases which come before the committee they have not got all the Circulars which are sent to the officials of the Exchanges, and they have not got the complete evidence on which to come to a just decision.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In matters which affect the work of the committee the rule is that they get all these Circulars, but a large number of them deal with staff matters and purely technical questions and questions which have to be dealt with from a purely technical point of view. These are the cases to which I refer, in which it would not be worth while to send the Circulars to the committee.
    Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the committee are not dealing with technical matters They are asked by the Ministry of Labour to deal technically with these cases. Why should they be denied this evidence?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. All those Circulars which could in any way affect the work of the committee are sent. I think that I could satisfy the hon. Gentleman if he would let me know the eases which he has in mind. The Circulars which are not sent are those which would not be of any assistance in carrying out the work.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed have been refused unemployed benefit at the Walworth Road Employment Exchange during January and February, 1925, owing to the fact that they have failed to qualify for such benefit owing to the new Regulations increasing the number of stamps required; and how many have been disallowed benefit since the new Regulations were introduced?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The condition referred to by the hon. and gallant Member did not take effect until 19th February, 1925. Between that date and 16th March the number of applicants

    1295
    refused benefit at the Borough Exchange on account of the new condition was 18.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received from the Nottingham Board of Guardians a copy of a resolution passed by them on 24th March, asking him to suspend the recent Memorandum which deprived a large number of people of unemployment benefit and caused an increase in the number of applicants for Poor Law relief; and is he now prepared to favourably consider withdrawing the Circular or Memorandum complained of?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received the resolution referred to. This matter was fully discussed in the Debate on 9th March, and for reasons which I then gave, I am afraid I cannot relax the requirement referred to.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, in view of the general feeling throughout the country, especially as expressed by boards of guardians, this is a new circumstance that might lead him to reconsider the Circular?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Minister of Labour what has been the incidence of his recent regulation regarding the number of contributions which a claimant for unemployment benefit must have to his credit in London and the surrounding districts?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number disqualified in Greater London up to 23rd March was 632.
    Mr. CLARRY: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), on repeated occasions in this House, has stated that at least 1,000 people have been thrown on the board of guardians in the West Ham area owing to this regulation, and can he explain the discrepancy in the figures?
    HON. MEMBERS: The West Ham union.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not now arise.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not customary before an hon. Member makes an attack on another
    1296
    hon. Member that he should give notice to that other hon. Member?
    Mr. CLARRY: There is no attack.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That is the rule about us. Of course, they are gentlemen.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is one of the reasons why I interfered with the Supplementary Question.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Major EDMONDSONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that men in receipt of unemployment benefit become ineligible for such benefit after working as casual agricultural labourers; and will he, in view of the hardship that this causes to those men who are anxious to find work of any kind and of the serious shortage of casual labour which this causes in many agricultural areas, consider an amendment of the existing Regulations?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth on 4th March, of which I am sending him a copy. I should perhaps add that this matter is governed by Statute, and not by Departmental Regulations.

    REMOVAL FROM REGISTER.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many persons were removed from the unemployment registers through death in the years ending December, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively;
    (2) how many persons were temporarily taken off the unemployment registers through sickness in the years ending December, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: No statistics are available showing the number of persons removed from the registers of Employment Exchanges through death or sickness.
    Mr. HAYDAY: May I point out that one of my questions deals with removals through death, and the other with temporary removals in consequence of sickness. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to convey to the House that no statistics are kept at the Exchanges showing the reasons for removal from the registers of unemployment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. All I mean is that the information is tabulated in different ways, and so far as I know there would have to be a tabulation going through all the different records. There are not at present tables with regard to such a case as the temporary removal for sickness.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing in his answer the two questions. The first asks the number removed through death. There can be only one way of registering that removal. The second question is as to the number of temporary removals through sickness. Surely there are some means of measuring this.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better repeat the question in another form.

    INDEX NUMBERS of Fluctuations of Employment in Manufacturing
    Industries in the United States of America—1919–1924.

    (Monthly Average for 1923–100.)

    Month.

    1919.

    1920.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    January

    …

    …

    …

    110˙1

    116˙1

    76˙8

    87˙0

    98˙0

    95˙4

    February

    …

    …

    …

    103˙2

    115˙6

    82˙3

    87˙7

    99˙6

    96˙6

    March

    …

    …

    …

    140˙0

    116˙9

    83˙9

    83˙2

    101˙8

    96˙4

    April

    …

    …

    …

    103˙6

    117˙1

    84˙0

    82˙4

    101˙8

    94˙5

    May

    …

    …

    …

    106˙3

    117˙4

    84˙5

    84˙3

    101˙8

    90˙8

    June

    …

    …

    …

    108˙7

    117˙9

    84˙9

    87˙1

    101˙9

    87˙9

    July

    …

    …

    …

    110˙7

    110˙0

    84˙5

    86˙8

    100˙4

    84˙8

    August

    …

    …

    …

    109˙9

    109˙7

    85˙6

    88˙0

    99˙7

    85˙0

    September

    …

    …

    …

    112˙1

    107˙0

    87˙0

    90˙6

    99˙8

    86˙7

    October

    …

    …

    …

    106˙8

    102˙5

    88˙1

    92˙6

    99˙3

    87˙9

    November

    …

    …

    …

    110˙0

    97˙3

    89˙4

    94˙5

    98˙7

    87˙8

    December

    …

    …

    …

    113˙2

    91˙1

    89˙9

    96˙6

    96˙9

    89˙4

    EMPLOYERS (FALSE DECLARATIONS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour what action, if any, he will take against any firm of employers that makes a false declaration regarding the conduct or reason for dismissal of any person from employment and thus deprive him of or delay payment of benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I presume the hon. Member refers to the procedure for ascertaining the reasons why a claimant's last employment was terminated. Under this procedure the claimant is given an opportunity of furnishing his is taken into account in arriving at a observations on the statement by his last employer, and any explanation he offers

    UNITED STATES (STATISTICS).
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether he can supply the figures for unemployment in America during the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are no official statistics of unemployment for the United States. The United States Federal Bureau of Labour Statistics have, however, recently published a table of index numbers showing the fluctuations in the volume of employment in the manufacturing industries of the United States in each of the years to which the hon. Member refers. I am circulating this table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The table is as follows:
    decision. If benefit is disallowed the claimant may appeal to a court of referees, who inquire fully into each case brought before them. I am satisfied that this procedure adequately safeguards the interests of the claimant.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for a reply to my question? Is he prepared to take any action against an employer who makes a false statement? If such a false statement is made to the Ministry of Labour, a man's benefit is stopped or delayed until inquiry has been made. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is he prepared to take action against such employers in a similar way as he takes action against a workman for a false statement?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that it is in my power to take action on a false statement of that kind. I will consider the matter further and speak to the hon. Gentleman about it if he wishes. On the other hand, if a person makes a false statement in obtaining benefit he is obtaining money under false pretences. That is a different thing.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the claimant for benefit takes money from the State, an employer by making a false statement takes money from working people, and is it a greater crime to rob the State than to rob working people?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the majority of these false statements made by employers are in favour of the man who is going to draw his insurance benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not concerned with that. It is always open to the man himself in that case to take action as far as I know.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I pursue this matter? Information of a false statement is very seldom shown to the man under the employer's signature, and, therefore, until he has received that he can take no further action.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to me cases I will gladly consider them or discuss them with him. I can assure him that all I want is to see that fair treatment is meted out to all.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice, that at the first opportunity I intend to raise this question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of this question. [Interruption.] This is an important statement, and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has been given that there will be an opportunity to raise the matter.

    GLASGOW (PATTERN MAKERS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a firm in Glasgow recently dismissed a number of pattern makers from their employment; that insurance benefit was refused to the men owing to the firm informing local exchange officials that the
    1300
    dismissal was due to the action of the pattern makers' association in placing a ban on overtime; that the secretary of the Employers' Federation, of which the firm is a member, informed the said association that the reason for dismissal was clue to the work being completed in the usual way, and the firm has since amended the original notice and certain men have received benefit, but two have not yet been paid; and what action is proposed to be taken to secure payment and also compensate the men for the delay in being paid?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Doubt arose as to the eligibility of these pattern makers for benefit, owing to the wording of the statement made by the employers as to the reason for discharge. Benefit was not allowed, but the cases were referred to the chief insurance officer, who, on the full information before him, allowed the claims. The men's association, through which they had claimed were informed of the allowance and benefit should by now, have been paid by the association.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this firm made a statement which was wrong about the men and that the men have been denied payment of benefit, for five weeks in one case, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he will take any steps to see that the men are compensated for that terrible delay of five weeks?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will look into the matter.

    MINERS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour what is the amount of unemployment benefit to which a married man with two children would be entitled in a week in which he only did three days' work, and what benefit he would receive if he did four days' work; and whether the present scale of benefits is such as to make it to the advantage of, for instance, a miner to do only three days' work a week?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Before this question is answered I would draw attention to the last line which states that the present scale of benefits is such as to make it to the advantage of a miner to do only three days' work a week instead of four days' work. The miners have no

    1301
    control whatever over the time they work, and this part of the question is a direct insult to the miners of the country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that what the hon. Member has said is enough to show that they have no control.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: No control whatever.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Assuming that a waiting period of three days had been served within the preceding six week, a married man with two children would be entitled to 13s. 6d, benefit in a week in which he did only three days' work; if he worked four days he would not be entitled to any benefit unless he was unemployed on subsequent days so as to have three days of unemployment within six consecutive working days. This is one of the marginal cases which inevitably arise as a consequence of a waiting period and a continuity rule. It has not so far been found possible to devise any means of avoiding the anomaly indicated without creating as great or greater anomalies in its place. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that a miner would disqualify himself for benefit by refusing to work on any day, on which the pit was open to him.
    Mr. MAXTON: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (to Sir F Hall): Apologise for this insult.
    Sir F. HALL: You do not like it.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is a base lie; yes, a black lie. Apologise and play the game! The miner does not deserve this.
    Mr. HARDIE (to Sir F. Hall): Go into the mine yourself. Go down a pit yourself.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will hon. Members please allow me? The two hon. Members by the Gangway (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan and Sir F. Hall) must not address one another in that way. I saw what was going on.
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Is one hon. Member entitled to call another hon. Member a liar in this House, and, if so is not the other
    1302
    Member entitled to justify his position? I always shall; I do not allow anyone to call me a liar.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly what I was reproving. Hon. Members must not address one another across the Gangway in that way. I do not attribute particular blame to the one or to the other.
    Sir F. HALL: I will not allow anyone to call me a liar.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I did not call the hon. Member a liar. I asked him to apologise, and said that the last part of his question was a lie.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That shows the wisdom of the ancient rule that everything should be addressed to me.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, STAFFORD.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Employment Exchange building at Stafford has been condemned; and whether, seeing that suitable premises have been offered by the local co-operative society and that these premises afford sufficient accommodation for the waiting men who at present have to line up outside in all kinds of weather, he will say why the offer of these premises has been refused?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The need for providing better accommodation in this case has been recognised for some time. The premises offered by the local co-operative society, known as the Old Bakery, were unfortunately not in a suitable position. Proposals are now under consideration for acquiring a site and erecting a building designed specially for the Employment Exchange service. In the meantime, it is hoped that the arrangements made whereby applicants are asked to attend at scheduled times will make it unnecessary for them to congregate outside the building.

    ST. MARTIN'S JAM FACTORY, SLOUGH (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on 11th February last about 50 women and girls were offered work at the St. Martin's Jam Factory, on the Slough trading estate, at a wage of 6¾d. per hour for a 47-hour week, with bonus of 9d. to Is. per day on output; that on presenting themselves at the factory they discovered

    1303
    that no bonus was payable, and that the maximum weekly wage was about 20s. on account of travelling expenses by rail from Reading, and other deductions; that acceptance of those conditions involved the women and girls in having to leave Reading station at 7.15 a.m., returning at 8.50 p.m.; that the refusal of the workers concerned to accept such conditions has resulted in their being refused unemployment benefit; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am making inquiries regarding the cases referred to, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    BENEFIT CLAIM, BEADING.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the court of referees recently disqualified a young woman at Reading for the receipt of unemployment benefit on account of her inability to accept the offer of work in a canteen at Aldershot; if he is aware that the woman in question stated as her reason for desiring employment in the Beading district that she was the guardian of her aged mother and an invalid sister; if he is aware that, while she was neither pressed to accept work at Aldershot nor refused to do so, her representations were regarded as reasons for disqualifying her for a period of six weeks; and if the case can be reconsidered and benefit allowed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me full particulars regarding the case referred to, I will make inquiries and will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

    ALIEN MUSICIANS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the present restrictions upon the entry of aliens have been imposed on account of prevailing unemployment, he will state the grounds upon which permits are being issued for the entry of alien bands and musicians at a, time when many British musicians are out of employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Permits for alien musicians are only issued after careful consideration and are given for limited periods, generally for eight
    1304
    weeks in the first instance. It is normally made, a condition in the case of alien bands that the employer shall increase the number of British musicians employed by him, e.g., by engaging a British band of equal size. Permits for individual musicians are, in general, issued only for specialists and artistes of international reputation. Most of the permits are for London, where, according to my information, unemployment among musicians of this type is in no way serious.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 5th March an arrangement was come to by the Ministry of Labour giving permission to two bands to enter for the purpose of playing at a club and at a West End cinema respectively on the express condition that British musicians there engaged should not be reduced in number or have their wages reduced, and that a band of 30 British musicians was reduced to 18 as soon an the permit had been granted?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the musicians in this country have a trade union which keeps women musicians out of the orchestras?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), I think the stipulation I made was a perfectly right and proper one, and if he has any reason to believe that it has not been observed I hope he will communicate the facts to me.
    Colonel DAY: As the last three Governments always communicated with the Musicians' Union before permits were granted, will the right hon. Gentleman do the same, the Musicians' Union being the only body which can see that these arrangements are carried out?
    Sir J. NALL: Has the attention of the Minister of Labour been called to the proposed visit, of a party of discordant vocalists from Moscow?

    PARTIALLY INCAPACITATED MEN (BENEFIT).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many partially incapacitated men are receiving unemployment pay who should be dealt with by employers under Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; and whether any of these cases have been inquired into, and, if so, with what result?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not the figures asked for, and I am afraid that it would be impracticable to obtain them. Every applicant for benefit has to prove that he is capable of and available for work, and if he fails to satisfy this condition, benefit is not allowed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not aware that under Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, when an individual who is partially incapacitated fails to obtain work, compensation money should be paid, but these men are receiving out-of-work pay instead of compensation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can assure the hon. Member that I have studied very carefully the Section of the Act in question. I think what the hon. Member has in mind is that the Unemployment Fund may be carrying a certain number of men who should be employed by the employers. Provided the men are capable of working and fulfil the other conditions for benefit, I cannot prevent them from getting benefit. The initiative under Section 16 of the Act, to which the hon. Member refers, really lies with the workers and not with me.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not aware that if these men are entitled to unemployment pay, they were previously entitled to compensation, and that employers are taking undue advantage of the Unemployment Fund to get away from their responsibilities, and will he undertake to examine some of the cases?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure that we can necessarily draw that conclusion. If the hon. Member wishes to discuss the matter with me afterwards, I shall be very glad to do so.

    DEPENDANTS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with claims for dependants' benefit in respect of a widowed mother, he is aware that in cases where there is another son in employment, and partly responsible for her maintenance, the claim is not allowed; and whether such claims are disallowed on the ground that a claim can only be made if the widowed mother is maintained wholly or mainly by the claimant?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, expressly provides that dependants' benefit in respect of a widowed mother is only payable if she is living with the claimant and is wholly or mainly maintained by him. Accordingly the claimant must show among other things that whilst in employment he is reponsible for more than half the cost of the mother's maintenance.

    BRICKLAYERS AND PLASTERERS.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Health how many registered bricklayers and plasterers are on the unemployed register at present?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. At 23rd February the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,016 bricklayers and 379 plasterers registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.

    HOURS OF LABOUR.
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the Minister of Labour how many workers are employed in the various industries where the normal working week is 48 hours or less; and how many workers normally work more than 48 hours per week?
    Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSONasked the Minister of Labour the industries other than domestic service in which the hours of labour are more than 48 per week, and the number of men, women, and children employed in these industries?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is necessarily a long one, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Members, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Are these who are employed over 48 hours mainly women and young persons?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no figures which would enable me to say at the present moment. We are making inquiries, and I hope that before long we shall be able to have information of the kind which is not available now.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the inquiries which the right hon. Gentleman is making, and which I glad he is making, shall we have the information before the

    1307
    discussion of the Bill dealing with this subject?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is impossible. A large number of forms have been sent out, something over 300,000. It is something in the nature of a census, and I am afraid that it will take some time.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance of the figures, in connection with the Bill does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable to try to get some supplementary report on the figures?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad to give to the House all the information which I have, but it will be impossible, in a case like this, to get even approximately information on which we could rely. Otherwise I would be very glad to do what is asked.
    Following is the statement promised
    I am not in possession of complete information as to normal working hours. In general, however, in industries and services governed by collective agreements between organisations of employers and employed, or by Orders made under the Trade Boards Acts, the normal working week is one of 48 hours or less, save in the case of workpeople in certain industries organised on the shift system who may periodically work more than six shifts a week, such as:—

    Pig iron manufacture: process workers.

    Steel smelting: gas producermen and certain other classes who are required to work at week ends.

    Heavy chemical manufacture: shift workers.

    Lead smelting: process workers.

    Spelter manufacture: process workers.

    Electricity supply: shift workers in certain districts.

    Ironstone mining: surface workers in Cleveland.

    Gas manufacture: shift workers in certain districts.

    Other cases in which the normal weekly hours exceed 48 are those of:

    Lace manufacture: twist hands, levers section in Derby and Nottingham.

    Lace embroidery workers: Nottingham.

    Tugboatmen: River Tees.

    Donkeymen at docks: Mersey and Southampton.

    1308

    Agriculture: ordinary labourers in some districts work over 48 in summer; others work over 48 all the year. Men in charge of animals frequently (and perhaps mainly) work over 48 hours.

    Distributive trades: many shop assistants work more than 48 hours.

    I have not sufficient information to enable me to give figures as to the number of workers working 48 hours or less or more than 48 hours, but, as a result of an inquiry which is now being made, it is hoped to obtain further information on this subject.

  LABOUR GAZETTE.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the great importance of adequate up-to-date statistical information being available on all subjects appertaining to the employment of labour, he will consider restoring the Labour Gazette to the size and form it possessed before it was cut down as a result of the Geddes Report?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Before the War the Gazette was normally restricted to a maximum of 40 pages monthly. After an increase in the years 1918 to 1921, resulting from the special conditions then obtaining, it was decided in 1922 to revert to this maximum with the object of reducing expenditure. In view of the continued need for economy, I think it is advisable that this maximum should still be observed, subject to relaxation in any particular month in which, owing to special circumstances, some slight expansion may be necessary.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one-third of the number of copies that are printed are unsold, and that already there is a very considerable annual loss upon this Labour Gazette?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the information contained in this Gazette could be issued through the ordinary Press channels, and so avoid the expense of this publication?
  Mr. HAYDAY: Is it not the fact that to restrict the expense of this publication

  1309
  would mean a more costly policy owing to the withholding of valuable information?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have considered all these points, and, on the whole, the present policy is the one which we think best.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.
  Mr. GIBBINSasked the Minister of Labour what countries have not yet ratified the various International Labour Conventions?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on the 24th February, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon. I am sending him a copy of this statement. The only alteration since notified is that Belgium has ratified the three draft Conventions concerning the minimum age for admission of children to employment at sea, provision of unemployment indemnity in case of loss or foundering of the ship and establishment of facilities for finding employment for seamen.

  KING'S ROLL (TRADE UNIONS).
  Sir J. NALLasked the Minister of Labour how many trade unions have qualified for the King's Roll by undertaking to employ the prescribed percentage of disabled men on their clerical staffs; and can he publish the names of the unions so qualified?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The following six trade unions have enrolled:

  National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants (London).

  Printing Trade Alliance (London).

  Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants (London).

  The Methil Coal Trimmers' Committee (Methil).

  National Society of Brass and Metal Mechanics (Birmingham).

  The Boilermakers' and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society (Newcastle-on-Tyne).

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Are there only six trade unions out of the whole of them?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Those who have enrolled. I cannot say, as in the case of private firms, how many are qualified.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Does the definition "trade union" include employers' organisations?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I think not, subject to correction, for the purposes of the answer. If the hon. Member wishes for any information on this point, perhaps he will put down a question.

  PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION (NATIONALISATION).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Prime Minister whether he will allocate a day to enable the House to debate the question of the nationalisation of all the means of production and distribution, in order to determine whether this economic principle would be in the best interests of the nation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government cannot give time for these academic discussions. Private Members have, however, ample opportunities for bringing these Motions before the House.
  Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the helpful influence of this party and the lack of factious opposition by the Liberal party, the Government are some weeks ahead with their work, and may I therefore suggest that he would still find time for this very important subject?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    COLONIAL OFFICE.
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the congestion at the Colonial Office, and the additional work thrown on that Department in connection with Ireland and mandated territories, he will consider the advisability of having all matters connected with mandated territories dealt with by the Foreign Office, more particularly in view of the fact that these are more in the nature of Protectorates than Colonies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the disadvantages of the transfer proposed would altogether outweigh any possible advantages. The Colonial Office has dealt with Protectorates for many years past.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (ISSUE OFFICE, ACTON).
    Mr. CLUSEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the rateable value of the premises at Acton which are mainly used by the Ministry of Pensions as an issue office, and the estimated rental of these premises if let for commercial purposes?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The rateable value agreed between the Treasury and the local rating authority is £8,250. It is not practicable to say what rent might be obtained for the premises if let for commercial purposes.

  MAT-MAKING (BLIND PERSONS).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour if he can state the approximate number of those engaged in the mat-making industry to-day compared with the number employed in 1914; and what proportion of the number now employed are blind persons?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. According to the Population Census of 1911, there were 3,078 mat-makers in England and Wales in that year, 186 of whom were blind. There are no statistics of the total number of mat-makers for any later date, but the number of blind mat-makers in England and Wales on the 30th April, 1923, was 487.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: If any assistance is to be given to any trade, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that if these poor people are thrown out of work it is almost impossible for them to obtain work in any other direction?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes. I daresay my hon. Friend knows that provision is already made through the State and local authorities.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

    GYMNASIUM AND SHOWER BATHS.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will consider, in the interests of the health and physical fitness of Members, the desirability of installing in the precincts of the House a gymnasium and shower baths for the use of Members
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I am not aware of any general desire on the part of Members for a gymnasium and shower baths but, on the grounds both of expense and of insufficiency of accommodation, I fear that the proposal of the hon. Member would not be practicable.
    Mr. CLARRY: What extent and form of representation would induce the First Commissioner to move in this matter?
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of putting a diving board on the Terrace?

    REPAIRS (TRADE UNION CONDITIONS).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether trade union conditions are being observed in connection with the repairs to the Houses of Parliament which are now being carried out and whether stone-carving work is in all cases being done by stone-carvers?
    Mr. LOCKER- LAMPSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    PICTURE, "EXECUTION OF MONTROSE."
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he has examined the documents, letters, and books which have been sent him containing information and evidence as to the place of execution of the Marquess of Montrose in 1650; and, since the evidence has proved there is an error in stating that the execution took place in the Grass-market, Edinburgh, will he correct the mistake?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After an examination of all the evidence which has

    1313
    been placed before him, the First Commissioner is satisfied that the execution took place in the High Street, and he has given instructions for the inscription to be altered accordingly.
    Sir S. CHAPMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of presenting the discarded inscription to the Royal High School of Edinburgh as a tribute to the keen observation of one of the boys, who first discovered the mistake after 30 years?

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Mr. SPENCERasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924; and what was the amount of compensation paid each year?
  Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Mr. EDWARD WOOD): I have been asked to reply. As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

  —

  No. of outbreaks.

  Stock on premises (including births).

  Number affected.

  Number which died.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  Pigs.

  Goats.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  Pigs.

  Goats.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  Pigs.

  Goats.

  1921

  Nil.

  1922

  67

  3,492

  8,191

  1,504

  4

  2,638

  3,861

  710

  1

  84

  847

  48

  —

  1923

  26

  1,938

  1,432

  1,007

  1

  1,662

  —

  262

  —

  71

  —

  16

  —

  1924

  11

  1,091

  22

  655

  1

  977

  8

  328

  —

  24

  —

  16

  —

  Compensation in outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is only payable in respect of animals slaughtered by the Ministry. No compensation was therefore paid in the above cases.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Health what steps, if any, are being taken to clear slum areas; and how many schemes have been started for this purpose since 1st November, 1924?
    Sir K. WOOD: Since the 1st January, 1919, 69 slum schemes in various parts of the country have been confirmed, and further schemes are under consideration
    Following is the reply:
    The following statement shows the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease confirmed by the Ministry, and the amount of compensation paid in respect of animals slaughtered during each of the years 1921–24:

    Compensation.

    Year.

    Outbreaks.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1921

    …

    44

    48,745

    5

    6

    1922

    …

    1,140

    803,529

    11

    7

    1923

    …

    1,929

    2,209,812

    0

    11

    1924

    …

    1,440

    1,389,696

    11

    7

    Mr. SPENCERasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease where isolation was adopted in 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924; what was the number of cattle, sheep, pigs and goats on the premises; how many were affected; how many died; and what compensation was paid, if any?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    or in course of preparation. The number confirmed since 1st November last is 11. Up to the end of January last part or the whole of the areas had been acquired in the case of 27 schemes, and clearance was in progress or had been completed in the case of 16 schemes. The only other information that is available is that 2,145 dwellings for rehousing persons displaced from slum areas had been definitely arranged for at the end of January.

    HOUSES COMPLETED.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Minister of Health how many houses have actually been completed under the Chamberlain and Wheatley Acts, respectively; how far this number is supplying the normal increase of the population; and how far it is overtaking the existing shortage of houses?
    Sir K. WOOD: Up to the 1st of March last the number of houses completed in England and Wales under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 was:

    Act of 1923

    …

    …

    …

    64,249

    Act of 1924

    …

    …

    …

    1,285

    …

    …

    …

    65,534

    Considerable numbers of additional houses are being erected without State subsidy. During the 12 months ending on the 30th of September last, the total number of houses completed with and without subsidy was approximately 110,000, and my right hon. Friend would expect this number to be exceeded during the current 12 months if present conditions continue. In answer to the second and third questions, I can only say that on the present rate of construction house-building is, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, providing far the normal increase of population and also making progress in overtaking arrears.

  TRADE DISPUTE, SHEPHETH.
  Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of men employed by the East Anglian Cement Company, Limited, at Shepreth, Cambridgeshire, are on strike, that the company has refused to enter the National Joint Industrial Council of the cement industry; that the rate of wages offered by the company is only 9½d. an hour, as against a rate of 11¾d. an hour agreed on by the council; that the men have offered to submit their case to arbitration; that this offer has been refused by the company: and whether he has already taken, or proposes to take, any action in the matter?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the dispute to which the hon. Member refers. My Department has been in touch with the parties but it has not yet
  1316
  been possible to reach a settlement. The services of the Department are still available if the parties desire to utilise them for the purpose of reaching an amicable settlement.

  MOSUL BOUNDARY.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies a question, of which I have sent him private notice—whether any proposal in connection with the settlement of the Mosul boundary question has been made by the Turkish Government, and, if so, will he give the House full particulars of the proposal?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not received any notice of this question.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  SOCIETY SCANDALS AND POVERTY.
  Mr. STEVENS: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to recent society scandals and the poverty of the people, and move a Resolution.
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. COOPER RAWSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, if the opportunity arises, I will call attention to statements appearing in certain sections of the Press to-day, reflecting the assumed satisfaction of the Liberal party at the ironical Motion put down by the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Grace) yesterday, and move a Resolution.
  BRITISH SHIPBUILDING.
  Mr. MAXTON: I beg to give notice that on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the present position of British shipbuilding, and move a Resolution.

OPEN SPACES.
Sir HENRY COWAN: I beg to move:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of local authorities with regard to the acquisition and use of land for recreation purpose"
This Bill is of an entirely non-controversial character, and is one which I am confident will commend itself to all

1317
sections of the House, for, when it was introduced in its present form last Session, by leave of the House, it received a Second Reading within four days of its introduction, and its failure to make further progress was entirely due to the congested state of public business, but I submit that the favourable reception that the Bill had on that occasion is evidence that it provides for a real need. The Bill is sponsored not only by the societies which interest themselves in the protection and preservation of open spaces—the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, and the London Playing Fields Society—but it is supported—and this is very important—by all the national athletic associations which control field sports and pastimes, including the Marylebone Cricket Club, the Rugby Football Union, the Hockey Association—[An HON.MEMBER: "Speak up!"]—It is very difficult to speak up when everybody else is speaking up at the same time. I was saying that the Bill is supported by the Marylebone Cricket Club, the Rugby Football Union, the Hockey Association, the Lawn Tennis Association, the All-England Women's Hockey Association, the Ladies' Lacrosse Association, the London Football Association, and the London and Southern Counties Club Cricket Conference.
In view of the fact that this is a Bill to enable the local authorities to make proper provision for playing grounds and for places of recreation in the open air for the people, I think that it has had a wonderful body of support from these organisations, the names of which I have just read out. I think it is conclusive evidence that the Bill, though not a great Measure, is something which is needed to supply an urgent public need. There is in the neighbourhood of the ordinary great industrial centres of our country, and not least of all in and about London, a dearth of land available for playing grounds and public recreation grounds. As one instance, I think I might mention that the London County Council has been able to respond favourably to and to satisfy only one-third of the applications received from accredited cricket clubs for cricket pitches; while out of 975 applications the county councils received for football grounds, it is only able to satisfy 205.
1318
This dearth of land available for the purposes of public recreation and for the playing of games is mainly due to the movement of the population outwards from the congested industrial centres. The builder—and I make no complaint of him, for I am not criticising the builder—has taken possession of the land which until recently was used for recreative purposes. Under the Open Spaces Act, 1906, local authorities are enabled to acquire land for these purposes, but the definition Clause of that Act defeats the object of this provision, for it limits the land which the local authorities have a right to acquire to three categories: First, the land already laid out as gardens; secondly, land actually used for the purposes of recreation; thirdly, waste or unoccupied land. Meadows, which form the ideal playing grounds for the people, which are the most suitable places for public recreation and, above all, for the playing of games, are absolutely ruled out by the definition. It is a significant thing that in every Parliamentary Session some individual corporation, or public, body, comes to this House of Commons and asks for the very powers which this Bill proposes to give to the country as a whole.
The Bill is permissive. It gives no compulsory powers. It will enable local authorities to acquire land either by agreement or gift, or to take on lease any land suitable for the playing of games, and to recoup themselves, in part at least, by letting it out to approved athletic clubs. They will raise the money necessary by loan, and they will charge a rent for the use of the land by the cricket and football clubs that will enable them to repay, by means of a sinking fund, the actual purchase money and the interest. There are throughout the country a very considerable number of clubs, cricket clubs in particular, who are both able and willing to pay a rent, to buy all the equipment and defray the charges in connection with the game, and a cricket pitch, provided they can rent one. But these clubs, although they can pay what I have suggested, reasonable charges for the use of the ground, are not in a position to raise the capital necessary to purchase the land. It is very desirable that they should be enabled to acquire the use of land from a public authority in return for a reasonable rent, because by so doing you lessen the com-

1319
petition which these comparatively prosperous clubs make with the clubs of another sort, equally reputable and equally deserving, but which are not able to pay any rent.
This Bill will secure large areas for public recreation, and will secure them, it is hoped, before they are snapped up by the builder; before they are acquired and conditions become prohibitive. It is provided in the Bill that the land so acquired must be retained free of buildings, that is of all buildings which are not necessary for the purpose of the game. Therefore, there will be no temptation for a local authority, having acquired land, to use it for speculative purposes or to endeavour to make money out of it. The health and contentment of the people are valuable national assets, and nothing, it seems to me, can be more praiseworthy than the reasonable encouragement of outdoor sport and games. I therefore ask the House to give me leave to introduce this Bill to-day as a useful contribution to that object.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Cowan, Sir John Marriott, Sir Rowland Blades, Major Birchall, Mr. Briant, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Pethick Lawrence, Dr. Salter, and Mr. Campbell.

OPEN SPACES.
  OPEN SPACES BILL,
  "to extend the powers of local authorities with regard to the acquisition and use of land for recreation purposes," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
Mr. SCURR: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the constitution of the Port of London Authority."
This Bill when introduced last year met with a favourable reception, and I hope that there will be a similar result on the present occasion. The Port of London Authority at the present time is constituted by a certain representation of Government Departments of trading interests, and of the London County Council, the latter having four members,
1320
one of whom has, by a convention, to be a representative of Labour. There is also one representative of the Ministry of Transport, who also, by a convention, represents Labour. But there is no direct representation of Labour on this authority. It will thus be seen that Labour has to come in in a very roundabout way, whilst, on the other hand, it is perfectly open to any of these authorities to throw the convention aside and so allow its Labour representation to lapse.
It is very important that on a body of this kind, charged as it is practically with the conduct of the whole of the trade of the Port of London, that all interests should be fairly represented. At the present time the only interest which is really represented, and is overwhelmingly represented, is the interest of the wharfingers and the traders. First of all, there are the London authorities, the City Corporation and the London County Council. But the authorities which are particularly concerned with the administration of the docks are the county boroughs of West Ham and East Ham and the Metropolitan boroughs of Bermondsey, Stepney and Poplar. These have no representation, although their rateable value is very largely affected by the presence of the docks. Many of the problems which arise in regard to the administration of the Poor Law arise by virtue of the presence of these docks, and the existence of the casual labour. Although there is a responsibility thrown by the original Bill of 1908 upon the Port of London Authority to deal with the question of the decasualisation of labour, nothing of a serious character has yet been done. During the existence of this Authority, over 15 years, there has arisen from time to time many very serious labour disputes. When these disputes are on, they particularly affect the trade of the Port of London.
Many of us contend, and I think we are in every sense of the word right, that if the great working-class interests—
4.0 P.M.
the transport workers, the stevedores, the lightermen, and the others engaged in the work of the Port of London Authority—had representation equal to that of the employers of labour, it would be in every way better for the trade of the port. The unfortunate labour disputes which have arisen in the past would not be likely to arise in the future, because the

1321
workers would be directly interested and able to have their say in the management of the undertaking. It is not a question of private enterprise; it is a question of the conduct of a public utility concern, which has already been established as a public service, and is no longer dependent upon private profits for securing its revenue. Therefore, it ought to be conducted in the public interest and not in the interest simply of those who are concerned in the Port of London merely for the purpose of making profit for their own trade and not for the benefit of the whole of the people of London.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Scurr, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Mr. Short, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Wignall, Mr. March, and Mr. Palin.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL,
  "to alter the constitution of the Port of London Authority," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

ANNUAL HOLIDAY.
Mr. RILEY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for au annual holiday for employed persons; and for purposes connected therewith."
The object of this Bill is to entitle persons engaged in the same employment for 12 months to an annual holiday of not less than six consecutive days, not counting Sunday, without lose; of pay. The Regulations would also provide for a proportion of that holiday without loss of pay for those who have not been in the same employment for 12 months. I should like to express the hope that this Bill will have as favourable a reception as the two Bills which have preceded it. I can say with perfect truth that this is not a frivolous Bill, but is designed to meet a very pressing need The pressing need for this Bill is that, as things are now, we have tens of thousands of very deserving and very hard-working people—indeed, I might say many hundreds of thousands, including agricultural labourers—whose wages are such and whose family needs are such that it is
1322
not possible for them once a year to get away from their work and go to the seaside or to some other place for recuperation and enjoyment. I know it may be said that for many years it has been the custom in most of the towns, and particularly in the industrial towns of the North, for the working people to demand that factories and industries shall be closed down for at least one week so that at least a large number of the workers from the factories and other industries can get away to the seaside and other places with their families. It may also be said that that annual holiday, which takes place so characteristically in Lancashire and Yorkshire towns every year, is quite easily provided for by payments week by week by the workers into clubs for the express purpose.
This practice, which gives both workers and employers the chance of leaving the smoke and grime of the towns for the seaside and the country, has been welcomed in the industrial districts of the North and has met with general acceptance, and there is no difficulty in carrying it out. But I want to submit that the growth of this practice has aggravated the condition of tens of thousands of men whose wages are low. As a matter of fact, a man working as a labourer in a factory for a low wage cannot afford to lose a week's wages in order to go away with his family to the seaside. Therefore, when the yearly holiday comes round there are tens of thousands of deserving and hardworking people who witness those better placed than themselves going away for a week, whereas they have to stay at home, being unable to do so. This Bill is designed to meet those cases. While, on the one hand, there are a million people who cannot afford the expense of going away, there are in the public Departments of State and in the municipalities something like 3,000,000 people who enjoy more than a week's holiday without loss of wages. There are the older Civil Service, the municipalities, the Post Office, the railways, the tramways, the schools elementary, secondary and public, the banks, public institutions, commercial staffs, ministers of religion, Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers, Generals in the Army, soldiers, sailors, bishops, and so on. They number over 3,000,000, and they enjoy, not one week,

1323
but many weeks' holiday without loss of pay.
I am pleading therefore that what is done by the State and by public enterprise for these fortunate persons shall be done for more deserving people who cannot afford to pay for holidays themselves. May I also point out that the proposal is not an impracticable one from an ordinary private traders' point of view. I am a member of the printing trade, and since 1918 the printing trade in this country, by agreement between the Employers' Association and the Workmen's Unions, has enjoyed 14 days holiday with pay for every person employed in the industry concerned with the Employers' Association and the Trade Unions. Every man, woman and girl has 14 days' holiday per annum with full pay. What the printers enjoy, I want this House to concede to less favoured people, such as agricultural labourers, miners, engineers, and textile workers, so that for a week they may leave the grime and smoke of the towns and come back to their work renewed with more vigour and better equipped to carry on their work.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Riley, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Snell, Mr. Wallhead, Mr. Stamford, Mr. William Hirst, and Mr. Mackinder.

ANNUAL HOLIDAY.
  ANNUAL HOLIDAY BILL,
  "to make provision for an annual holiday for employed persons; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second upon Tuesday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, not amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

BILLS REPORTED.
Oakengates Urban District Council Bill,—reported, with Amendments, from the
1324
Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Burgess Hill Water Bill,
Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Oxford Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords]—reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords]—reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill—reported [Preamble riot proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Rill 147.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation to construct a diversion of the Dutch River at Goole; to increase the rates, tolls, and charges leviable by the undertakers; and to confer other powers on the undertakers in relation to their undertaking." [Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Great Western Railway Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Great Western Railway Bill [Lords.]
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],
Great Western Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL,
"to make further and better provision for the adoption of children by suitable persons," presented by Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN; supported by Mr. Gerald Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Harney, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and Sir Henry Slesser; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. As you, Sir, will see, there are on the Order Paper no fewer than eight Amendments dealing with the same subject, namely, the application of the death penalty to military offences. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if you would say whether we could have a discussion upon one of the Amendments, and, if need be, vote upon the others, without discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be very desirable that a discussion on so important a matter as the death penalty should not be limited by its being considered in connection with any particular circumstances, and therefore, on the first of the Amendments touching this matter, I should be prepared to allow a general discussion on the question of the application of the death penalty. Of course, the same discussion could not be renewed on subsequent Amendments. On subsequent Amendments, it would be necessary to show some distinction between the particular case and those that had been already decided in the Debate. I should, however, be prepared to allow the widest discussion on the first of the Amendments in question.
  Clauses 1 (Short title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times), and 3 (Prices in respect of billeting) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Abolition of death penalty in certain cases.)
    Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to add the words
    "(1) In Section four, paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) shall be omitted."
    I am glad that you, Sir, have decided that the discussion may range over the whole question of the application of the death penalty to military offences, because I think it would be to the convenience of the House that we should con-
    1350
    sider this question as a whole. The object which I and those who are associated with me have in bringing forward these Amendments is to so amend our existing military law as to bring it into line with the ordinary conceptions of human justice. We think that, at the present time, it departs very seriously from those conceptions, and that the time has now arrived when it ought to be brought into line with them. This matter has been the subject of agitation on the part of the Labour party for several years. In the year before last, in Committee, no fewer than 106 votes were obtained in favour of the abolition of the death penalty and last year we obtained 136 votes. This year, I am happy to say, we have the full support of the whole of the Labour party—the Labour party officially is behind these Amendments—and we hope to get an even greater number of votes than last year. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking whoever may be responsible on the Government side for permitting this discussion to take place at this convenient hour of the day. It is a subject of sufficient importance to warrant the fullest attention of the House at the most favourable hour of the day. When the right hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury said last year that we were moving these Amendments, which he regarded as almost subversive of all military discipline, at a time when they could not be fully reported in the Press, and the country could not be informed of our action, he was, quite unwittingly perhaps, doing an injustice to those who are behind these Amendments. We desire nothing better than that the country should have the full facts in regard to this death penalty, and the way in which it operates, and we welcome the opportunity of discussing the matter so early in the afternoon.
    Since the discussion last year, a Departmental Committee has considered this question and made a report. At the time when the Committee was appointed I, and many of my friends, expressed the view that it could serve no useful purpose. I am quite prepared to admit that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) had that Committee appointed in perfect good faith, thinking it might help us to come to a

    1351
    satisfactory decision on this matter, but it was a Departmental Committee made up of generals, admirals and an air-marshal, and I think it is quite evident that professional men of that character, who have grown up with the professional conception of discipline—a narrow conception, if I may say so—could not possibly bring to the consideration of this matter the normal view of the citizen, and that is the point of view from which this question ought to be considered. Now that we have the report of that Committee we find it is a very colourless one, making only very minor suggestions for remedying the evils which we are fighting. We are not at all surprised; we did not expect anything more from this particular Committee. In saying that I am not impugning the humanitarianism of the generals, the admirals and the air-marshal. Probably they are just as human as I and my friends are, but the fact of the matter is that the whole of their training and experience prohibits them from taking an impartial and a rational view of the question.
    Before I deal with the main issue, I want to refer to two minor points in that Report. The Report says there may have been miscarriages of justice owing to harsh or unfair conduct of trials. I want to explain that we do not attach any importance whatever to the machinery of military law; it is the law itself with which we are primarily concerned. Courts-martial may be held under very difficult and trying circumstances, and I am quite prepared to say that, in view of those difficulties, the machinery of military law probably operates as well as it could reasonably be expected to do. Therefore, it is no part of our case that the machinery of military law does not operate fairly. The other minor point is the question of the differentiation between the treatment of officers and other ranks. On that point the Report says the law is, in fact, equal as between the officers and the other ranks. I am prepared to admit that to all intents and purposes that is true; but where we join issue is in regard to whether the application of the law is equal as between officers and men, and we contend that the records and the experience show that while the law may be equal between these two classes of
    1352
    soldiers it is applied in a much more harsh and ruthless fashion to the other ranks than it is to the officers.
    I think I can best establish that point by citing one given case. Section 6 of the Army Act provides that if a soldier sleeps on his post, or is drunk, he is liable, on conviction, to suffer death. I have been at pains to go through the general routine orders in connection with the various campaigns during the late War, and I will give the Committee the case of an officer charged with an offence of this kind. A temporary captain who was serving in the Salonika campaign was tried for drunkenness when in command of a post in the front line. He was an educated man, or he would not have been a temporary captain, and he was in a position of great responsibility, because he was in charge of this post in the front line. He was charged with the offence of drunkenness, which is not an offence which could arise from any weakness of his, but is something which would be contributed to wilfully and deliberately. He was found guilty and he was sentenced. The penalty for a private soldier drunk on his post—not being in charge of the post, but being drunk on his post—is death. The sentence on this officer was that he should be dismissed from His Majesty's Service. There was a certain amount of ignominy attached to it, I admit, but he was sent home safely out of the danger zone for having committed this very serious offence of being drunk in charge of a post in the front line. I merely relate this in order to illustrate the fact, very well known in the Army, that the law was applied with much greater severity against the other ranks than it was against the officer.
    Having dealt with those two minor points, and, after all, they are minor points, I want to come to the real heart of the question; that is, the question raised in the report as to whether there have been miscarriages of justice owing to the failure to distinguish between real cowardice and physical breakdown. I am going to say that no valid distinction can be made between what the Army calls cowardice and what medical officers would call nervous breakdown. This report speaks of real cowardice, as though there is some distinction between real cowardice and some other kind of cowardice. I venture to say, psychologically, no distinc-

    1353
    tion whatever can be made between cowardice as understood in the Army and what is known as nerve failure, and it is on that basis I propose to argue this case.
    First of all, I am going to take cases of what are called cowardice. It is not necessary for me to tell the Committee that when troops are going into action on the battlefield they are subjected to a tremendous nervous strain. If they are in dug-outs before an attack, and are subjected to modern intensive bombardment, that in itself is a dreadful strain. If they are actually engaged in an attack they have to go over the parapet in the teeth of a bombardment and a hail of machine-gun fire, and, it may be, clouds of poison gas. That also is an intense and a tremendous nervous strain. These men are only human after all, and some of them, in the face of this strain, collapse. I want to give the Committee one or two instances of the kind of thing I am referring to.
    Case No. 1 is that of a private soldier and the charge against him, was that the accused, when proceeding with a party for work in the trenches, ran away owing to the bursting of a shell and did not afterwards rejoin his party. He was executed. Another private soldier, after going over the parapet with his company in an attack, absented himself while the attack was in progress, and remained absent until the following day. In a third case the accused, from motives of cowardice, left the trenches during a gas attack. The fourth case is that of a lad of 18½ years of age, who ran away from a trench which had been subjected to bombardment for six days. The battalion holding the trench had suffered heavy casualties. This boy, I am informed by one of his comrades, was known to the whole company as a bundle of nerves. He was executed. He enlisted in August, 1914, when he was only 17 years of age. I want to say, in fairness to the War Office, that they probably did not know his exact age. The lad, in his enthusiasm and his desire to serve his country, had deliberately over-stated his age, so probably they were not aware that he was only 17 when he enlisted.
    These cases, and they are merely typical of many others, are, I submit, clear cases of nerve failure. After all, these boys or lads are only as nature made them. You cannot call them
    1354
    vicious, you cannot call them criminal. The worst that can be said of them is that, subjected to a very dreadful ordeal, an ordeal which can only be understood and appreciated by those who have undergone it, they failed and have had to pay this dreadful penalty. I submit that is not in accordance with our ordinary conception of human justice. I want to add that out of the total number of executions during the War, more than 30 of them were executions of lads under 21 years of age, too young to be regarded as citizens of this country, but young enough to be shot in cold blood because their nerves failed them. I want to deal with the other class of case which is probably the most numerous of all, and that is the case of desertion prior to going into action. I think the House, if it is really going to consider this question fairly, ought to try to realise what is in the minds of those people who desert before going into action. One can imagine that before they desert there is a tremendous turmoil going on in their minds. There are wide differences as between individuals of temperament, sensibility and imagination, and the more sensitive a man is the more imaginative he is, and inevitably the greater is the strain of war upon him. You can imagine an imaginative and sensitive man, even before he gets near the front line, undergoing agonies of apprehension. Some of those men under this strain are unable to bear it and they collapse. There is a well-known Shakespearian quotation which pours scorn upon cowards—
    "Cowards die many times before their deaths;
    The valiant never taste of death but once."
    I submit that in accordance with the enlightened modern understanding of psychology, the only real difference between the valiant man and the coward is a difference of temperament, and you ought not to punish the coward because of something over which he has no real control. You have these men sensitive, imaginative and thoughtful, you have them worried about home ties, you have them with the urge to hang on to life, and I think that feeling was stronger over in France than upon any other battlefield. They see themselves being driven forward to the shambles, and they are like hunted animals. Their will

    1355
    falters and gives way, and they run away and hide. Here is a purely human problem. No State has a right to say to men of that sort, "Because your temperament has got the better of you and you fail in this great crisis, we are going to shoot you in cold blood."
    There is only one tribunal at all which is fit to judge men of that sort, and that is not your present court-martial. The only tribunal which has any clear title to judge of a failure of that sort would be a jury composed of the man's own comrades. I say deliberately that if you try those cases of failure by a jury of the man's own comrades, never once would you find the man condemned to death. I do not know whether any hon. Members who are in favour of the retention of the death penalty dissent from that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I wonder whether the Treasury Bench dissents from it, because if there is any dispute in regard to that fact I submit, after all, that a jury trial of that sort is the fairest you can have. If the Government intend to retain this death penalty, I suggest to the Government and to hon. Members opposite that they should urge the War Office to institute, instead of courts-martial, trials by jury in this fashion, because I am perfectly certain that the interests of the men concerned would be safe under such a system as that.
    I want to make one other point. In connection with any kind of justice one essential is that it should be uniform and not of a variable quantity. It should not be one thing in one Court and another thing in another Court. I submit that military justice, so far as the death penalty is concerned, is a variable quantity, because it depends, to some extent, upon the nature of the general officer commanding. Here again I want to give an illustration. I have been through the general routine orders in connect ion with the campaign in France and in connection with other campaigns. I went through them in connection with Gallipoli under General Sir Ian Hamilton. I do not know this General. I have never met him, but I do know that in reading through those general orders issued by General Hamilton I was struck by the difference there was between the spirit of those
    1356
    orders and the spirit of other orders which I have read. I noticed there was a constant attempt to appeal to the moral of the troops, to encourage them, to hold up praiseworthy actions as models to be followed, and you did not get in those orders as in other orders an attempt to inspire the troops by the discipline of fear.
    I think I can best illustrate the spirit I found animating those orders by telling the Committee this fact. There were five men belonging to a regiment of the Worcesters lying under sentence of death in Gallipoli, and the sentence had been confirmed by General Hamilton himself. The General went up the next morning to watch an action in Gallipoli, and he was so impressed by the gallantry of the troops in that action that he immediately sent down a message saying that those death sentences were not to be carried out, and he had them commuted to penal servitude. He published the whole thing in the orders and endeavoured by means of that act to encourage the rest of the troops to act in accordance with the traditions which had been followed in that particular attack that morning. I submit you have there an illustration of the difference there is in the way this military justice is carried out. I do not wish to make any invidious distinctions or cast any reflection upon any particular Commander-in-Chief, but I am bound to say, in reading through the routine orders in connection with the campaign in France and Flanders, that I never detected anything like the same humanitarian spirit which I found in the orders issued under General Ian Hamilton.
    I wish to make my position quite clear. I say the more this law is examined by any impartial body of men or women the more it is clear that it is doing a great injustice to innocent men. It is punishing them for faults beyond their control. We hear a good deal about our being the guardians of the rights of the citizens of this country, but I do not believe in a system which divorces the soldiers from the rest of our citizens. There has been far too much of that in the past. The soldier is only a citizen in uniform. You have in the present state of your military law this position; a soldier may be very honest and very industrious and he may be a good husband and a kind father; he may have every quality that

    1357
    a good citizen ought to have and yet, if he gets on the battlefield and fails in the supreme test of nerve power, as the law stands you are prepared to shoot him in cold blood like a dog. I say that the State has absolutely no right to do that kind of thing. The War Office, as a matter of fact, is conscious of the fact that it has no case in abstract justice for continuing this death penalty for this offence, and what does it do? It falls back on the plea of military necessity. You find it in this Report, which says:
    "It is absolutely essential for military purpose that the death penalty should be maintained."
    I invite this Committee to consider what that means. It means that it is not possible to get British troops to fight, and fight effectively, unless you have hanging over their heads the menace of the death penalty. If it does not mean that, then it has no meaning at all, and this is really the kernel of this plea of military necessity, that in order to get your Army to fight effectively you have to hold over its head the threat of the death penalty. What becomes of all the talk about patriotism and devotion to duty, and a desire to defend our country, and all those kind of sentiments which were so often on the lips of politicians and of generals during the War? What becomes of all those sentiments if we have to fall back upon this plea of military necessity?
    After all, that is an ignominiously low estimate of the motives which govern the soldiers in the field. It is not my estimate at all, but the estimate of military commanders themselves. I think it is an insult to the whole of the British Army. Even if it were true that the Army could only be kept fighting by means of this death penalty, I would still claim that you have no right to insist upon the death penalty, and I will tell the Committee why I take up that position. I hold that there can be no really just war unless it is one waged between men who freely engage in that war because they believe in the justice of the cause for which they are fighting.
    If you have got to keep the men fighting by saying to them, "If you do not fight we will shoot you in cold blood," then I say you have no right to keep them fighting at all. What is happening, in effect, is that the non-fighting people, the civilians, the people in the Government,
    1358
    or the people in the high ranks of the Army, are compelling soldiers to fight in a cause in which they are not prepared to fight, under the threat of being executed. I say there is no justification whatever for compelling our fellow-citizens to do that.
    I want to push this point a little further. Even on the question of military necessity, the War Office is not on sound ground. I refuse to believe that this sanction of the death penalty is so absolutely indispensable as the War Office tries to make out. There is a wonderful proof to the contrary in the experience of the last War. We had engaged, in the last War, two Australian Army Corps. These Australian troops fought, but not a single Australian soldier was executed. We executed Canadians, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen, New Zealanders—we executed men of all these nations, but we did not execute one single Australian soldier. The reason for that was that the Australian Government said that their soldiers must not be executed. Is it suggested that, because the death penalty was not operating against the Australian soldiers, they fought with less determination, with less courage, than the other troops? If that be not suggested, and I. think it is not, is the Minister going to rise in his place to-day and say that the Australian troops may be trusted to fight with courage and determination without this dread death penalty hanging over their heads, but that British troops are not to be so trusted? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to get up in his place to-day and say that?
    I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman one specific question. I do not care how much of the rest of my argument he ignores, but I am going to put this one straight question to him: If the Australian Government was not prepared to put upon its own troops the painful necessity of shooting some of their comrades in cold blood, is he not prepared to see that the same condition is applied to our British troops? That is a plain specific question, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman, whatever else he ignores, to give a plain, unequivocal answer to that question. I have already spoken longer than I intended, but I want to say this in conclusion. I am very glad to think that the whole of the Labour party is behind this attempt to

    1359
    abolish the death penalty. I am not standing here moving this Amendment in any humble suppliant fashion. I am not asking this Committee to agree to the abolition of the death penalty as a concession. I am standing here, in the name of the Labour party, demanding the abolition of the death penalty as a simple act of justice. I demand it because I claim that I know the feeling of the private soldiers in the British Army, as I know the feeling of the ex-service men in this country. I demand it on behalf of the fighting men themselves. I demand it on behalf of the parents of those fighting men, and I demand it on behalf of the great mass of the people of this country, who want to see human justice take precedence over so-called military necessity. I beg to move.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I venture to intervene in this discussion for a few moments. Before I deal with the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), may I say, as he has said, that the party for which I speak this afternoon is grateful to the Government for giving us the opportunity, for the first time in many years, of discussing such a very important question as this during the earlier portion of our sitting? In the old days it was always discussed in the earlier hours of the morning, and we always thought it was rather a shameful proceeding to discuss a question of this magnitude during those hours. May I also say that, in common, I am sure, with the rest of the Committee, we are indebted to the hon. Member for Shoreditch for his very clear, lucid, and able statement of his point of view? I may say straight away that I do not take that line, nor does the party for which I am speaking this afternoon. It was my lot for many years, during the War, to defend the action of the Government on more than one occasion when the War was in progress in its various theatres.
    Mr. J. JONES: In Ireland, particularly.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes. The conclusion to which I came then, after very careful consideration of all the facts, was that, the moment a nation entered into the dread arbitrement of war, human civilising conditions were at an end, and
    1360
    a new condition of things had, unfortunately, arisen. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that the Army as a whole was against capital punishment. I think that what the Army as a whole is always, and has been always, anxious to maintain, is discipline. You will find men who have been through campaign after campaign, who will tell you that the first essential for an army is discipline; and, unfortunately, it has been the experience of all great armies and of all great commanders that some such speedy deterrent as this, exemplary in its character, is a dire necessity. It is a great misfortune that that should be so.
    The hon. Member, towards the end of the speech, made a point of the Australian attitude to capital punishment. It is very difficult to discuss a question of that kind on the Floor of the House of Commons, because we are all grateful for the magnificent assistance which that great Dominion gave to us in the greatest crisis of our history. Towards the end of the War, two Australasian corps were engaged. They were as magnificent a body of men as any that were in the field, but I think I can say this without hurting anybody's feeling, that there was tremendous difficulty with regard to discipline among the Australian troops when they first came over. This is not the moment, nor am I the man, to discuss the gradual evolution of things, but I think the hon. Member who preceded me would agree, if he had the opportunity of considering the record of the Australian Army Corps, that they had their difficulties, and their commanders had their difficulties, just as much as, if not more than, in certain circumstances, the commanders of the other armies.
    The Labour party as a whole may be inclined to take the view that capital punishment should be abolished in the Army, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. I believe that most of them take the view that it should be abolished in civil life, and they are perfectly entitled to take that view also. They are also determined, if they can, to abolish war, and they are entitled to take that view, too; and, indeed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are not you?"] Certainly. Indeed, that is the thing that we all desire. But we have to face grave and serious facts, and serious conditions in the world. It was all very well for the hon. Member for

    1361
    Shoreditch to say that we have no concern at all with the machinery of the administration of the criminal law in the Army; but, if the criminal law is to exist, as it does exist, and must, unfortunately, exist for some time to come, the administration of that law is a matter of very great concern to the House of Commons, and I am convinced that the hon. Member, in his research into the records and the routine orders, must have come to the conclusion—as, indeed, he admitted—that during the War the criminal code of the Army was administered fairly and humanely.
    I defy the hon. Gentleman to say that there was any differentiation—indeed, there is no differentiation—in the code as it stands, between the officer and the private soldier. The hon. Member referred to the case of an officer. I could not quite gather the evidence, because I cannot think of an officer being drunk on outpost duty, but he referred to some such evidence of that kind, and he said that the punishment which was allotted in that case, for what in other circumstances is regarded as a case for the death penalty, was simply dismissal from the Service. The Committee must remember that there is always an alternative, in every given case, to the death penalty. The court-martial can always give a less penalty; and it is also to be remembered that, if a less penalty is given by the court-martial, no higher authority can alter that penalty by increasing it. I think that during the War I had occasion to examine as many reports of courts-martial as any layman in the country, and I was convinced that everything that could fairly be put forward in the interests of the man tried was put forward. It is a mistake to suppose that the court-martial officer is a prosecuting counsel. He is nothing of the kind. I am speaking now about that part of the question which we have to face in any case, whether the Labour party think so or not, namely, the humane administration of the code as it exists. We have to face that, because the code is going to continue to exist, and it is our duty to see, if that is the case, that it is humanely administered. I put forward the proposition now that it is to the great credit of the British Army as a whole that that code was humanely administered, without any differentiation between officer and man, during the whole course of the campaign.
    1362
    5.0 P.M.
    I read that admirable Report which has been placed in our hands to-day. It is a very significant fact, which I knew as a fact myself before, that in 89 or 90 per cent. of the cases which were tried by courts-martial and where the punishment might have been and actually was the death sentence, the sentences were reduced. There is no such record in any civil Court in the country. It was very wisely pointed out by Lord Darling's Committee that, if these cases had come to the Court of Criminal Appeal, hardly any of them could have been considered, because the Court of Criminal Appeal can only consider questions of law. But before the actual execution takes place, every single court-martial case is carefully gone through by the best legal brains in the Army to see that there is no legal flaw. If there be a legal flaw, the whole procedure is invalid and the man gets the benefit of the doubt and the sentence is quashed. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch suggests that the proper way to try a man in such an unhappy poition would be by a trial before his own peers, by trial of soldiers. I do not know what the experience of many Members of this House was, but I made it my duty to find out the exact circumstances of trial by court-martial and the death sentence, and the Committee will be surprised to realise that very often the man's own comrades are as bitter against him as anybody else. When he fails at a pivotal point by—call it what you like, by cowardice or any other action, to support his pals and his chums—he may be a pivot man—all their lives are in his hands for the moment, and when the real crisis comes they find that he has failed them. I do not think that my friend would find that the private soldier in the same regiment who was thus jeopardised would be as lenient as he supposes. The facts, so far as I can gather them, are quite the reverse.
    I am anxious that improvement should be made in the machinery of the administration of the code. The hon. Member for Shoreditch referred to the orders of Sir Ian Hamilton. I think they were very admirable orders, but they were in no way better than the routine orders in the other commands. The man who is tried by court-martial is, first of

    1363
    all, tried by field general court-martial. That is reviewed by the Corps, by the Army commander, by the Judge Advocate-General, by the Commander-in Chief and the permanent authorities and by the Adjutant-General, all at headquarters, and all that is humanly possible to avoid a mistake is done. As I said, in 89 or 90 per cent. of the cases the confirming authority, the Field-Marshal commanding-in-chief, actually reduced the sentence. If you are going to have an army at all, you must have exemplary discipline. My hon. Friend suggests, and that must be the view of his party, that it you are going to have an army at all, and if you are going to have discipline—because without discipline you cannot have an efficient army—you might have, instead of the death penalty, penal servitude. I was largely instrumental, along with, I think, General Childs, who was then at the War Office, in introducing an Act which was called the Suspension of Sentences Act. We are told very often, those of us who take this view, that the real way to make a soldier good and efficient is to apply moral suasion. That is the very foundation of this Act. When a man's sentence was promulgated and he was enduring this penal servitude or imprisonment, as the case may be, he was carefully watched, and after four, and sometimes nine, months, if it was thought that he was likely to be an efficient soldier and be influenced by the moral suasion of his comrades, he was allowed out and allowed to go back and join his own unit, or somebody else's. That did a great deal of good.
    But take the case of the alternative to the death penalty, what deterrent is it when the men are in the front line? The chances are—indeed it is certain—that a man who is going to let his comrades down at that moment will know that the death penalty is abolished and that very likely he may be sent to penal servitude and that he is certain to remain away behind, and that the moment the war is over he is certain he will get an amnesty. I am convinced that the view which has been taken by all the distinguished officers and by many civilians in connection with this matter, the view that was taken by the Darling Committee and by the Committee that has recently reported is the right one. We all regret the necessity, the
    1364
    military necessity, of enforcing discipline, but if it is to be enforced, there is no other way at present known in which it may be so effectively enforced. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army in the Field, the Army Commander, none of these men, who are just as humane as anybody in this House, like to carry out that sentence, but only do it when they feel it is in the interests of victory, or of the nation as a whole, or the battalion, or of the corps I was very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman said of the humanity which generally prevails on an occasion of that kind.
    I do not think I can usefully add anything more except this, that we realise the military necessity for a code as it is, but while we realise the dire necessity of having such a code we regard it as our duty to see that there is no vindictiveness in the administration of the code, that that code is to be used sparingly, as a last resort, and that the offence for which capital punishment can and may be granted must be a clearly defined offence. If we are assured of that, we accept the necessity of having a code. I should like my right hon. Friend in the course of his reply to say whether it would not be possible to get one or two more offences placed in what are called the secondary lists. I am glad they have abolished to all intents and purposes capital punishment for offences at home, and I think the House is glad. It is a step, the Labour party will agree, in the right direction, because capital punishment can only be justified in the stress and strain of war, and when war does take place I would beg my right hon. Friend to see, and I am sure the Adjutant-General will gladly assist him, that the offence for which that punishment may be given is a clearly defined one. I know we introduced several improvements during the last years of the War in the actual trial of the man who is about to be condemned for an offence of this kind. There may still be much room for improvement in that direction, and I would ask him to consider whether some such improvement could not yet be made. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman who preceded me covered so much of the ground and that we are likely to have a Debate which will be of very great consequence to the future of the Army. I need hardly say that anything that can be done from these

    1365
    benches where I now stand for improvement in this direction will be gladly done.
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: The point which has been brought before the Committee is one which is a most grateful subject to be able to raise and most ungrateful to oppose, and therefore if is with difficulty and with a great sense of responsibility that one rises to oppose the Amendment. I think the Committee listened with great interest, not only to the speech of the hon. Member, who moved it very well, fairly and very carefully, but also listened, I am sure, equally gladly to the very courageous speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for two points raised in the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). He alluded to the difference between the punishment awarded to an officer and to a private soldier or other rank guilty of the same crime. I may say that ever since I was a student at Sandhurst and studied the Army it always did seem to me that there was on the surface great discrepancy in punishments. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty quite rightly pointed out that, in addition to such lesser punishment as the Act may mention, there is always discretion in regard to a private soldier. But I do say that where it is a case of an officer imperilling the lives of men in the field, either through cowardice or any other cause, I myself would be quite willing, if the hon. Member is willing to level up instead of level down, to join him in that. I think there is no doubt that the penalty of cashiering, perhaps, does not for every-one carry quite the same amount of terrible disgrace and stigma as it did many years ago when the penalties were first imposed. Many years ago officers came chiefly from what you may call the rank of the county families, and if any officer was cashiered it was equivalent to a death sentence. He could hardly live in the county at all and it was a most terrible stain. Nowadays I have heard of one or two cases where officers were cashiered in the late War and those who met them afterwards could only say that they did not seem to show much signs of having undergone a stigma. Therefore,
    1366
    if the hon. Member will ask me to level up instead of level down I will do that with him.
    The other matter he alluded to was the case of the Australian forces not having the death penalty. The right hon. Gentleman alluded also to it. The hon. Member when he spoke appealed to the Secretary of State for War to say something on that subject. He knows that it is a very ungrateful task to deal with that matter at all, because we owe a most enormous debt of gratitude to the Australians for the magnificent way they came to our help in the War. We know how all through the War they performed almost incredible acts of gallantry, especially in Gallipoli, and it seems a most ungrateful task to say "you are drawing invidious comparisons between the Australian forces and the others." I think it my duty to say, as the hon. Member has raised that point, what my small experience was. Owing to being over 50 years of age when I went to France, I was for a considerable time unfortunately compelled to be at a certain large base called Etaples. There one had not only English troops but Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. I repeat, so that there shall be no distortion of my remarks in the Press or anywhere else, that 999 out of every 1,000 Australians were the most magnificent men, but they had a residue—not the trembling, shrinking nervous lads the hon. Member has referred to—who were constant deserters, and constantly appearing as deserters after hiding in the woods. They were big burly fellows, very fond of gambling at Crown and Anchor. They were armed with revolvers. In two cases at least we had Australians who were murdered by these very desperadoes. They used openly to boast that gambling and making money was a better game than being killed in the line. They were very stout men, and they were always breaking away from their escorts on the way to Rouen Prison, and in more than one case they managed to break out of Rouen Prison. It is not always the poor man who is suffering from overstrung nerves who deserts from the line, but very often men deliberately doing it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the interests of the other men themselves you have to protect the troops in the field. This subject has been discussed many times, but owing to it being discussed in

    1367
    the early hours of the morning, it has not received the same chance of full consideration that I hope it will get to-day. We have this advantage now, that we have the most exhaustive Report of this Committee, which has gone into the whole thing, not with any wish merely to carry on a tradition—because it is a tradition—and has made certain recommendations. I think the Committee may safely go upon the recommendations of the Committee.
    Mr. SNELL: The whole Committee should be grateful for the spirit and restraint with which this very difficult but important question is being debated. It is not a matter on which anyone would wish to make loose charges or to level accusations against people who differ from the point of view one takes, but it occurs to me that it is an entirely good thing that once each year when this Bill comes before us the House should review its opinion upon this important matter which affects the lives of soldiers in the Army and elsewhere. My hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment said he spoke for the Labour party, and I assume the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) equally spoke for the Liberal party. In that case the Labour party appears to stand alone for the moment in asking that the Committee should agree to abolish what many of us feel is the wrong conclusion that it has come to in the past. I am quite aware of all the arguments which can be used on the other side by hon. Members who have a far greater knowledge of the Army than I have, or can ever have. They suggest "we would do this thing if we could but we dare not do it. It is so important to have this supreme discipline in the Army that we are bound to hold this terrible punishment in our hands. "That is a very weighty argument to use, and I should be very much affected by it did I not remember that the same arguments were used about the retention of field punishment No. 1, which, after years of agitation and appeal, we finally got abolished. I should feel greatly inclined to agree did I not remember that the same arguments were used year after year by specialists in Army administration in favour of the retention of flogging in the Army. This House, year after year, had to deal with the question until
    1368
    finally it, and not the Army Council, abolished it, and I have yet to learn that the discipline of the Army has been affected adversely by that attempt to humanise the administration of our national services.
    I want to deal with this question of the alleged necessity for retaining capital punishment in the Army. My hon. Friend has illustrated the case of the Australian army, and it is valuable just as showing that on the whole a modern nation, knowing its own sons as well as we know ours, did think sufficiently well of them to trust them with its honour to hold its name in good repute without holding over them this dreadful penalty of capital punishment. It may be true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Southport (Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White) said, that here and there there was a black sheep among the Australian soldiers, but when all is said and done they wrote a page at Gallipoli which will last throughout all time and we can afford to think of the larger and better motive of the Army than to sort out one or two who failed in their duty. I want to ask the Committee whether we can really trust ourselves to the judgment of the officers who have the terrible responsibility of administering this sentence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty pointed out that the sentence is revised by one officer going to another of a higher grade, until finally it goes to the Commander-in-Chief and then to the Advocate-General. I do not know about Army administration in that close sense but I should be very much surprised to learn that with all the multifarious duties the higher command has upon its shoulders, especially the Commander-in-Chief, these matters of an individual man can receive that detailed attention which this House I think would like that they should. The Advocate-General in any case is unable to enter into the psychology of the particular man concerned.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The Judge Advocate-General is not allowed to enter into the psychology of the matter. His duty is confined to seeing whether the whole of the proceedings of the Court which condemned the man are in accordance with the law. He is not allowed to take any extraneous matter into consideration.
    Mr. SNELL: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his unasked help in dealing with the matter. It is precisely because he does not deal with the psychology of the matter that his judgment is to be distrusted.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I supplement what the hon. Member has said? The Judge Advocate-General reads and re-reads the case and sees that it is valid in law. He is at General Headquarters with the Adjutant-General and the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief takes into account all the psychology of the matter.
    Mr. SNELL: I was proceeding to deal with that point when I was interrupted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty said these matters were carefuly gone through to discover a legal flaw. I am certain in the matter of the legal flaw we can trust ourselves absolutely in the hands of the officers concerned, but is any effort made to discover the human flaw, the flaw in the psychology of the man who is to suffer the death penalty? That is really the criticism I want to level against that. My feeling about the officers in this matter is that the whole business must be hateful to them. It must throw upon them so dreadful a responsibility that they would almost do anything rather than face it. All that we admit. But they review the matter and they have this obsession that it must be done. It is the tradition of the Army. They are in the grip of a machine, and they are not always able to bring to bear upon it that human factor which is so essential in these matters.
    Another point I desire to urge is the character of the young men concerned. During the late War officers and others in the Army deliberately encouraged or connived with young persons to lie about their age, and many boys went into the Army at 16. I knew one myself who went into the Army at 16. Others were drawn from the slums of the great cities, and they gave the best they had. They went out to the service of their country with as pure an intention as any man who served, from wherever he might come. But what were they? Very frequently men of poor blood, men of poor vitality, men without any mental discipline, not always able to stand up to the trials and difficulties of modern life. They
    1370
    were not properly instructed. This country had grudged every penny that has been spent upon their education, and has left them undeveloped in that way. Then when this supreme trial comes upon them here and there a man fails to stand against it. This is a matter of the human equation in the end. Who knows what any of us could stand in these matters? When we understand somewhat the processes of the human mind, we know how easy it is for a very brave man to succumb at some moment of temptation. That is what we desire to remember in this connection. All men have not equal powers of resistance. It may be, in the matter of human philosophy, that the man who tries and fails has made a better fight of it than the man who has won through, and is the braver man of the two. Consider the position. A boy drawn from home is put into this position of supreme difficulty. Suffering all the agonies of weariness and hunger, he has a sudden collapse of morale. As a rule, the collapse is temporary. If the thing passed over, he might be as brave as the best, but some sudden brain-storm comes upon him, and makes him unable to stand up against it.
    May I illustrate to the Committee my point by mentioning, what I have mentioned before in this House, the case of an army other than our own. In the Civil War in America, Grant was always apt to sentence a man to death for some fault of military discipline, and Lincoln used language to Grant about it which I would not dare to use in this House. He asked, "What good would it do to shoot him? What good would it do to anybody for the man to be shot?" Lincoln never signed those orders for sentence of death, with the result that he got an Army that believed in him; an Army that was full of faith in the father of the country. There is not a man in this House who will say that the Army of America suffered because of the great humanity of Lincoln, and the great trust that Lincoln put in it. I can illustrate the point by the case of William Scott, who was found sleeping at his post. He had been on tramp for long hours and human nature could stand out no more. He was tried and sentenced, but Lincoln pardoned him, whereupon the boy asked to be sent back to his regiment to fight. He was sent

    1371
    back, and in the very front of the battle he was killed. He proved as brave as any man in the American Army.
    We feel that this House will do the right thing if, while it stands for the concessions that the Committee are recommending, it will each year try to go a bit better, until the time may come when we can take this dreadful penalty out of our administration of the Army.
    Captain GEE: So far, this Committee has looked upon this matter with the seriousness that it is entitled to do. It is a very good augury that, at last, we are discussing this serious question from 4 o'clock in the afternoon, instead of after 11 o'clock at night. I was very much struck by what was said by the hon. Member who opened the Debate, when he used the expression "conception of human justice." I would like to ask the Committee, which body of men is more likely to have a higher and nobler conception of human justice—a body of men sitting in one of our criminal courts, where a man is being tried for his life, or a body of men sitting in a criminal court on the battlefield, or close by the battlefield, such court being composed—I say this with all respect to the legal profession—of cold, hard-headed, legal men? I wonder whether hon. Members will agree with what the hon. Member said when he implied that such a court had no conception of the matter at issue. The members of such a court are living with, and may be dying with, the man they are trying. It is a mistake to think that courts-martial have no conception of humanity. No court of justice in the land is carried out with greater feelings of humanity than courts-martial are carried out in the British Army.
    I am surprised when we are told from the opposite side that this Report is a very admirable one. With their ardour for getting rid of capital punishment, why did not they do it last year, when they had an opportunity?
    Mr. LANSBURY: We tried.
    Captain GEE: Instead of my hon. Friends forcing the matter to a Division—
    Mr. LANSBURY: We did
    Captain GEE: They were quite content—
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to misrepresent us. We did force the issue to a Division against our own Government last year.
    Captain GEE: Then this Report, an official document, is wrong, because it distinctly states that the Amendments moved in Debate on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, 1924, were postponed, on the understanding that they would be referred to this Committee.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We cannot help what is in the Report. I am speaking within the memory of hon. Members who were present last year—and the OFFICIAL REPORT will confirm me—that we carried our opposition into the Lobby.
    Captain GEE: That does not alter the point I am making, that we are told now by the Mover of the Amendment that the whole of the hon. Members on the benches above the Gangway are solid on this matter. In that case, the party opposite have been converted since last year's debate. I shall have a little more respect for the hon. Member's statement when I hear some Member on the Front Bench opposite say that they are going to give it the backing of the party. We have been told that military law operates unfairly. The hon. Member spoke of the difference of treatment of a private soldier found sleeping on his post, who could have been sentenced to death. The hon. Member was very careful in pointing out that the penalty might have been death, but he refrained from saying that the death penalty was inflicted. There is a great deal of difference. On the other hand, he deliberately made a statement that an officer who was found drunk at his post was only cashiered. That sentence was carried out.
    I hardly think my hon. Friend has read the Report very carefully, otherwise he would not have raised this point. He could not have raised a weaker argument than to say that the law works unfairly between officers and men. During the whole of the War, among the 7,000,000 of men, there were only two cases where men were executed for sleeping at their post.
    Mr. THURTLE: The case I mentioned was not a case of sleeping on the post,

    1373
    but of drunkenness on the post. A private soldier never has an opportunity of becoming drunk at his post.
    Captain GEE: I do not think the hon. Member really grasps what I said. I referred to a private soldier who was found sleeping at his post. That is what the hon. Member mentioned. The soldier could have been sentenced to death, but he was not. On the other hand, an officer who was found drunk on an outpost, was tried and cashiered. My contention is that the hon. Member could scarcely have selected a worse case to prove his argument, because of the seven millions of men on active service during the War there were only two cases where men were sentenced to death for sleeping at their posts, and the sentence was carried out. With regard to the next point, I may say in passing that I have received a most callous document from the War Office: After a service of 35 years, one receives a cold, typewritten slip stating
    "Having reached the age of discharge, your name will appear in the Gazette."
    Therefore, I am no longer subject to military law, and I can talk. What really happens on active service is that, instead of framing a crime in order to get men tried for offences where they can be sentenced to death, there is scarcely an officer belonging to any party in this House who has not himself, or, if he has not done it himself, he knows of many cases where it has been done, namely, where the crime has been deliberately altered from desertion to absence so that the man could not be sentenced to death. That is done, and everybody knows it.
    I was very interested in what the hon. Member said about Gallipoli and General Sir Ian Hamilton. I had the great honour of serving in that campaign and under that distinguished General. I very much regret that in a Debate of this description any individual general should be named, because it is rather invidious. The extraordinary thing is that the hon. Member said that these things are not published in General Orders. It was done in every regiment, in every corps, and in every division right throughout Gallipoli and France. I am speaking with knowledge. The very case that the hon. Member referred to took place in my own division. We had two cases in a particular regiment, just
    1374
    before the Battle of Arras. Both these cases were awaiting trial for a crime for which they could have been sentenced to death. The men volunteered to go out and retrieve their characters. They did so. Not once, but over and over again cases of that sort took place, and in every case not only was it referred to in Army Orders in praise of the men but it had to be mentioned there in order that the man's record of crime could be expunged.
    Something has been said about the threat of execution. I regret very much that that statement was made. I am speaking as, perhaps, the only man in this House who has ever had the great distinction of being elected to this House after serving 22 years in the ranks, from a private upwards. Therefore, I know something about this matter. I have served 35 years in the Army, and I am told by the hon. Member that men cannot be got to fight without the treat of execution and the threat of death. I would refer the hon. Member to what the men in the ranks think of this sort of thing. I will tell him exactly what the men in the ranks really do think. It is a quotation from a statement made in this House:
    "An officer who had risen from the ranks visited, some time ago, 27 units, 27 serjeants' messes, 27 corporals' rooms, and 27 canteens. In each one he put the question, 'Would you prefer to be tried by the men who are living with you, the men you fight with, and perhaps the men you die with, or by others?' In every case he received the unqualified answer that they preferred to be tried and dealt with by their own officers."
    I want, if I may, to allude to what I think the most important point. It war mentioned by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell). That is the human factor. I say frankly that if the human factor were not attended to, to a very large degree, I should be with the Mover and supporters of this Motion. During the whole War we had only 287 cases of officers and men who were executed in the British Army, and under 350 all told, including natives. Never has there been a war in the history of war in which there were fewer executions in proportion to the number of combatants engaged. Let us see exactly what happened. Again I am speaking with a certain amount of authority, not from the legal point of view, because that is not my subject. I

    1375
    had many court-martial officers to advise me, including one or two hon. Members of this House, and when I was stuck over a legal question I never worried my head about it. I simply got on the telephone and they came to see me and put the thing right. They were responsible for the legal aspect of the matter. I am going to deal now only with the human factor, which I agree with the hon. Member for East Woolwich in saying is the most important.
    I was sorry that the Secretary of State for War, in his wisdom, did not see fit to hand round this little green book which was issued to such people as myself to guide all those who were concerned in looking after the human factor in all courts-martial. This is my own court-martial book. I used it during the War. It distinctly states that it must be quite understood that absence is not sufficient to prove desertion, and therefore at the very start you have the human factor, because it gave inexperienced officers—and there were many gallant men who were inexperienced—the loophole to alter desertion into absence. That was the reason why we had so very few crimes of desertion in the Army. This is too serious a thing to be hurried over lightly. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I go step by step. First of all, this tells us that the death sentence must not be carried out without the sanction of the commander-in-chief, and it must be forwarded to him through the usual channels. What are they? I feel certain that some hon. Members are not aware of these usual channels.
    It starts off by saying that in these cases of the recommendation of the death sentence the recommendation of the reviewing officers must—it is not a case of may—be given as to whether the sentence should be carried out or commuted, and the reasons for the recommendation must be given. Here is the routine. A man of my own brigade has been tried by a field general court-martial for desertion or any offence you like of which the extreme penalty can be death. The first thing that happens is that when the proceedings have finished the decision was handed to me as Staff Captain of Brigade. When I received it it then went on to the first reviewing officer, the Brigadier-General. The Brigadier-General in nearly every
    1376
    case made careful inquiry into that man's character, his temperament, his physical health and everything about him, as to which he consulted with his battalion commander and in many cases with the man's own company commander. Then, having had the opportunity of finding out about this man and according to this cold-blooded legal book—we have it all set down there—that must be done. This is the proper point to consider from the soldier's point of view. This is the human point of view. The words of the book are
    "Character from a fighting point of view of the soldier concerned, his previous conduct and the period of his service with the Expeditionary Force."
    That is the first thing that the brigadier-general had to inquire into. Then came the state of discipline of the battalion or unit in the Service, and next the opinion of the commanding officer, not that of the brigadier-general, but that of the man's battalion commander, the man who lived with him, who knows exactly the conditions which prevail and knows the existence through which the man has been going. The commanding officer's opinion is based on his own personal knowledge, or that of his officers, of the soldier's character, as to whether the crime was deliberately committed or not. Then come the reasons why the various reviewing authorities recommend that the extreme penalty should be inflicted. Then there is this extraordinary statement which shows the human factor:
    "By these reports the Commander-in-Chief hopes to insure that a good fighting man is not shot for absence arising from, for example, oversight or a drunken spree."
    If that is not the human factor I should like to know what it is. But it does not stop there. The brigadier-general then goes on to the divisional commander. A special motor cycle order is taken on to the divisional headquarters, and it is a case of Heaven help the staff captain if there is much delay, because that man who is awaiting the promulgation of sentence is going through a mental hell as to whether he is going to be shot or not. It goes to the divisional commander and then to the corps commander. All those reviewing authorities must put in writing whether the sentence should be commuted or executed.
    Finally, it gets up to the Army Headquarters, and then it is not hurriedly done. There is always a delay of two or

    1377
    three, or sometimes more, days, and on more than one occasion I myself have received, not through the ordinary channels, but direct from headquarters, a memorandum referring to some particular case and asking for some more information about the man, and it is 21 headquarters, after the Advocate-General has gone into the legal side and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and the Adjutant have gone care fully through all these human documents, sent in by the Company Commander and the Battalion Commander and the various reviewing authorities, that the decision is arrived at as to whether the extreme penalty should be carried out or not. To realise the spirit in which this is all done we need only remember that of the thousands of cases in which death sentences were promulgated in only 11 per cent. of them were the sentences carried out. Therefore I feel after this plain, unvarnished statement of the facts that I cannot do anything else but oppose this Amendment.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: I have listened to the very interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee). As far as I have been able to follow him, what he had to say resolved itself into this: first, that every possible precaution is taken to see that no mistake can be made, and, in the second place, that only in a very few cases is the extreme penalty carried out. So far as I and, I think, the hon. Members who are associated with me, are concerned, we have never suggested any carelessness in carrying out these decisions. That is not our case. The numbers quoted by the hon. and gallant Member seem to us to be only another reason why this penalty should be taken away altogether. What we object to is the psychology of the whole thing. The psychology seems to be wrong. Hon. Members may probably go wick in their memory to the days when we landed at Calais, or one of the other landing ports, and on the following morning, before going up the line, the trops were paraded, and then on every occasion certainly when I was present, the very first thing about which we were told was the number of soldiers who had been- tried by court-martial for various offences under this Army Act, and the officer always finished up solemnly, "He
    1378
    was sentenced to death and the sentence was duly carried out."
    6.0 P.M.
    That is an aspect of the psychology of this matter which we on this side are endeavouring to bring before the Committee. We think it altogether wrong. We think that that was a wrong spirit to put into men in the Army at the outset of their career. Reference has been made in this Debate to the difficulty of distinguishing between real cowardice and a physical breakdown. I may put the question whether there is such a thing as real cowardice. Because a man after some intensive training cannot manage to get up enough ferocity to stick a bayonet into, another man's stomach are you going to stamp him as a coward? A man may be a coward in the morning and a hero at night. [HON. MEMBERS: "The rum ration!"] Certainly the rum ration had a considerable effect. I have known men, estimable, good, peaceful citizens when they joined the Army, who before the issue of the rum ration could not say "boo" to a goose, but who a few minutes afterwards were prepared to kill the Kaiser and all his hosts. There is very great difficulty in arriving at a definition of what cowardice is. If I were asked to give a definition of cowardice, with which, I think, most hon. Members would agree, I should define a coward as one who is afraid of danger. If that is a correct definition, then the biggest coward whom I ever met was an officer who had won the Victoria Cross for gallantry. It was common knowledge that that young officer afterwards—he had been sent home to Blighty, as we called it, and had come back—-as a result of his terrifying experiences, for which he was rightly rewarded, if he heard a shell drop half a mile away was all of a tremble. No one would suggest that that man was a coward. It was really a case of an alteration in the man's physique caused by his experiences. How many men were there—men who did not, perhaps, distinguish themselves, or whose acts were not brought to the notice of the authorities—who had had similar terrifying experiences which had shaken their nerves? There were, I think, many very gallant men whose acts of bravery were not noted. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, and to other ex-service Members of the

    1379
    House, that, generally speaking—this was my experience—it was the latest arrival who had the most courage.
    I had the privilege of taking part in the Debate on this Bill in the last Parliament, or the one before, and I then said something which caused many hon. Members to laugh, though it was not a laughing matter at all. I said that the first time I saw a shell burst I was not frightened at all, that I felt curious and wanted to see all about it. That was the attitude of the soldier who had just arrived. He was brave to the point of foolhardiness. If statistics were available, I think it would be found that an enormous number of casualties were sustained in every engagement among officers and men newly drafted out, whose first engagements it was, because they were so anxious to prove to everyone that there was no fear about them. They were brave to the point of foolhardiness. This Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on page 4 puts the point that soldiers find the conditions of modern war almost beyond endurance. If that was so in the last War, surely, with all the improvements, or to use a more appropriate word, with all the inventions introduced since that war, the next war will be an even greater trial of human endurance. That being so, I want to postulate this to the House: that there is no such thing as real cowardice unconnected with physical or mental breakdown.
    What I have been most interested in, in this Report, is that the Committee stresses the evidence of Service witnesses. Indeed, one or two hon. Members who have opposed these Amendments to-day have also tried to bring in the point that men now in the Service would be opposed to this Amendment. What are the facts? At the end of the Report we find that at the seventh meeting of the Committee those who gave evidence were three soldiers of the Regular Army, and at the eighth meeting evidence was given by three soldiers of the Regular Army. I ask onyone who, like the last speaker and myself, has been one of the rank and file—the hon. Member got a little further than that and I did not—to picture the psychological effect upon the average "Tommy" of being ushered into the presence of an Air Vice-Marshal, an Admiral, a Vice-Admiral, a Lieutenant-
    1380
    General, and a Paymaster-Rear-Admiral and two Baronets. I do not know what were the functions on this Committee of a Paymaster-Rear-Admiral. The members of the Committee, besides having these wonderful titles and a string of letters after their name, I have no doubt, had more medals than they have ever seen battles. The six "Tommies" are duly ushered into the presence of these august gentlemen, and they are coolly asked whether they have any fault to find with the Army Act. They are then asked whether they do not think it would be a good idea in time of war to shoot a few of their own side occasionally in order to buck up the others. What did the Service men, these six soldiers, say? Unfortunately, we have not a verbatim report of the Committee's proceedings, but I strongly suspect that those six men said what all wise soldiers would have said in similar circumstances, and that is what their superiors expected them to say. May I quote from page 5 of the Report, which is a summary of the evidence:
    "Both these officers and all other ranks regarded the purpose of the penalty not as vindictive, but simply as deterrent."
    The "other ranks" agreed that the purpose of the penalty was not vindictive but simply as deterrent. In other words, the "Tommies'' said, "If we are to be shot we are satisfied that though it is not exactly for our own good it is for the good of others." The old doctrine is, "I must punish you in order to teach you a lesson." The Army doctrine is, "I must shoot you in order to teach your comrades a lesson." The report also states that the effect of the penalty on the troops, "including the firing parties, was good." Parliamentary language will not enable me to express what I think of that sentence. It refers to the effect on the firing party who had to fire at one of their own comrades, shooting him in cold blood. That sentence makes me wish that for a moment or two I could be back in the ranks, so that I could express what I feel about it in military language. In Parliamentary language I can only say, "Tell that to the marines." One might as well argue that it is good for the moral character of the hangman that he should hang people. I think it would have been far more interesting if some of the Secret

    1381
    Service people had followed those six "Tommies,' after they had left the wonderful presence of these admirals and other people, back to the barracks and had listened while they talked the matter over with their comrades in the canteen. Their comments on the opinions which they had expressed before the Committee would have been very interesting, and possibly their language would have been a little more picturesque, but at any rate it would have been more truthful. I cannot understand why it is that this Committee, in its exhaustive deliberations, did not bring forward as witnesses not only those six soldiers of the Regular Army, but Service men who are no longer in the Army. The last speaker prefaced something that he said with a note of relief that he was no longer under the thumb of the War Office and was therefore able to speak.
    Captain GEE: I said that only because the document I was quoting is one which is given to an officer while he is serving, and he has to give his word of honour that he will not make it public.
    Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. and gallant Member had some hesitation about that, what is the position of the average "Tommy" who is hailed before this Committee and asked what is his opinion of the Army Act? Why did not the Committee ask ex-service men's organisations to put up half-a-dozen witnesses? They would have put forward witnesses who would have said exactly what they thought about this matter. We are asked to believe that fear instils courage. It is an extraordinary doctrine, which we challenge. Let me refer briefly to the Debate of last night, when we were discussing the question of accidents in mines. There were many differences of opinion expressed, but there was one thing upon which Members of all parties were agreed, and that was that whenever an explosion takes place in a coal mine and there is danger down below, there has never been such a thing known as a miner holding back or hesitating for one instant in risking his own life in the work of rescue. If a miner will take his life in his own hands and plunge almost to certain death when so engaged, why should it be necessary to threaten him with the pain of being shot in cold blood if he does not do it? The miner of to-day was the "Tommy" of yesterday; the worker of
    1382
    to-day was the soldier of yesterday. In our industrial life to-day, with calamities and disasters taking place, when the workman is asked to take his life in his hands he is always ready to do it without the fear of death being put on him if he does not do so.
    We challenge the whole psychology of this proposal. Not a single, argument has been or will be put forward against the abolition of capital punishment- that was not put forward against the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1. Has it affected the discipline of the Army to abolish crucifixion? No hon. Member is prepared to get up and to say, "Let us go back to Field Punishment No. 1." For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will take his courage in both hands. The only people opposed to this change are possibly some of the old retired admirals or generals at the head of the Army, who have threatened to resign if we abolish capital punishment on the ground that the Army cannot be carried on without it. I do not think that they will resign. The bark of most of them is worse than their bite. To speak in this Debate and to say these things is a joy to which I have looked forward for a long time. I thank the House for having given me a patient hearing, and I hope hon. Members will pardon the strength of my language on this occasion. This is the only poor opportunity I have of "getting my own back."
    Mr. HOPKINSON: My excuse for intervening in the Debate is, in the first instance, that I was a member of the Darling Committee which dealt with the whole court-martial system of the Army, and incidentally had to discuss a great deal of evidence concerned with the infliction of the death penalty. My other reason for rising is that I have had the honour of serving in the Army. The hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) had a very honourable and prolonged career in the ranks and eventually became a commissioned officer, and continued that career successfully to the end. In the second instance we have had a speech from an hon. Member who was for a period in the ranks. My own position is probably unique, inasmuch as I started my career in a campaign of twenty-six years ago as a full lieutenant, and by easy stages descended through the various campaigns

    1383
    until I finished with the rank of full private. Therefore, if this Debate is to become a psychological Debate, I think that I am in a unique psychological position. The hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth told us of the procedure under the Army Act and said that it resulted in a very small percentage of sentences being carried out. There is another psychological point which the hon. and gallant Member neglected to mention. He did not remind the House of the feelings, not only in the mind of the Commander-in-Chief, who is the ultimate authority in the matter of the death sentence, but in the minds of all the officers through whose hands the report dealing with the matter has to pass. Take the case of the regimental or divisional officers. Of course, their first object, if they possibly can, is to save their own corps or regiment from the disgrace of having a death sentence. Therefore, as I know from my long and varied experience, every sort of quibble that can possibly be used is brought forward in favour of the man concerned, and, unless it is too obviously a quibble, it is accepted by the court in order to get the man off.
    There is another point which, as I observed during my career in the ranks, applies to all cases of courts-martial. The British soldier, being well brought up—as we all are in these days of elementary education—knows that one must not hear false witness against one's neighbour, but he does not see any reason why he should not bear false witness in favour of his neighbour, and I am sorry to say he very often does so. Therefore, the trial of a man by court-martial, under military law, is not merely a fair trial; it goes very much beyond fairness. It is almost impossible, as far as my experience goes, for any real good soldier to be condemned by a court-martial, however guilty he may be. I remember a case which occurred late in my military career, when I was in a reserve regiment at home. There was a very clear case of a grave offence against discipline on the part of a non-commissioned officer. It so happened that I was only attached to that regiment, and as they had been extremely kind to me I felt that the duty of getting this non-commissioned officer off before the court-martial
    1384
    devolved upon me more than upon any other person. By a process in which, I am afraid, the law was severely injured, we got the non-commissioned officer off. This was a case where the offence was open and blatant and where 32 separate witnesses had seen it, and every one of these informed me on the night before the court-martial that they were prepared to swear, not only that the offence was not committed, but that the non-commissioned officer was not there and that the officer against whom the offence was committed was not there either.
    I should like to return to the serious side of the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also neglected to tell us that the number of cases of cowardice which get to the point of a court-martial is a very minute proportion of the whole. I happen to know of certain cases in my military career, and as I have been attached to so many different regiments, no one can possibly find out to which regiment I am referring. I know of case after case in which after orders had been received to go up to the front-line trenches, there were discussions—in the mess in the case of the officers, and in the ranks in the case of the men—as to some of our comrades whom we knew, or suspected, to be unfit to take part in a fight of any kind. The ingenuity which was used in any decent regular regiment to prevent either men or officers whose nerve was likely to give way from being subjected to the trial of trench work in modern warfare, was very great indeed. Even when we were actually in the trenches I have known cases of this kind. When I was serving as an officer in the trenches in front of Ypres I had my attention called by a man in the ranks to other men whose nerves were giving way, with the request that I should try, if I possibly could, to get them out of the trenches, on some excuse or other, before a really grave scandal to the regiment materialised. I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I think everyone who has been a member of the Services knows that such things are going on the whole time under active service conditions. One is always doing one's level best to prevent any disgrace resting upon the regiment, and, certainly, to prevent supreme disgrace falling upon one's very dear comrades

    1385
    whether in the ranks or among the commissioned officers. Therefore, I hope that those Members of the House who have had military experience on active service will remember that those cases where death sentences have been carried out, are cases which have been winnowed again and again, through the legal winnow and the psychological winnow and through the winnow of personal affection between comrade and comrade, before they get to the point where the sentence is carried out.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am one of those people who have had no experience in the Army, Navy or Air Force, and I rise only to say that those of us who, in the past, have moved for the complete abolition of the death penalty—would have done so to-night had it not been for the fact that our friends sitting here have agreed to stand by the Amendments now on the Paper—when we come, as we shall come one of these days into power. I think that fact should be put on record, because last year we were severely criticised on the ground that when in office we were not doing that which we advocated when in opposition. As I understand it, our party is now pledged that when it becomes a Government again it will have this penalty abolished, and that this step will be taken by whoever is then at the War Office. On the general question of the death penalty, I would point out that only the other day the Secretary of State for War gave the case of two men—who belonged, I think, to the South Lancashire Regiment—who had never been in France, but who had absented themselves from the train at Waterloo, and were afterwards taken prisoners, brought over to France and executed there. I do not knew how anyone can defend the execution of those men in the light of the speeches we have heard to-night, but the right hon. Gentleman admitted only a week or ten days ago that such a case had occurred. In my view, capital punishment only deters the person who is killed; it has never proved a deterrent to others. The murders and crimes for which people are executed are not stopped by capital punishment, and every service man who has spoken in this Debate has logically proved that the death penalty is unnecessary.
    We all know what excellent men and fine soldiers the Australians were and how the death penalty was not necessary for
    1386
    99 per cent. of them. Hon. and gallant Members have proved that to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the House. They have also proved that out of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 engaged in the last War, about 200 were executed for crimes set out in the Army Act. I think that is evidence to show that the Army, whatever else it may require to maintain discipline, does not require the death penalty. The arguments put up to-day have been put up in the past against all reforms of Army administration. We have been told that the Army would go to pieces if this thing were abolished, and that there would be no more discipline if the other thing were abolished; yet there is not a single service man, whatever his rank, who will stand up in this House and advocate restoring the old punishments.
    I think hon. Members make a great mistake in seeking to maintain the contradictory propositions, first, that the death penalty need only be used very rarely and, second, that without it the Army would go to pieces. There are many things to which men must submit if they join the Army. Those who use force must expect to have force used against them. That is a perfectly logical position. If I tried to raise an army to fight for something I should expect an army to be used against me, but those of us who think that armies are unnecessary and that killing does not settle any question, feel that if you take any one of with whose principles and ideas you thoroughly disagree, and stand that person in the middle of that Floor and kill him, you will not prove his principles to be wrong; you will only prove that you are physically stronger than the person you kill, Therefore, I have no confidence in killing where human beings are concerned. I am sorry my hon. Friends sitting here have not gone the whole hog, but as they have gone a little way in our direction I do not propose to make any further speeches on the Amendments, and those who believe in the total abolition of the death penalty do not intend to move the Amendment to-night.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I think the Committee is possibly ready to come to a decision on the first of these Amendments, and I do not propose to make any

    1387
    long speech, especially as this question has been discussed on many previous occasions, but I feel it is necessary to announce the decision of the Government in the matter. We have had an extremely interesting Debate, in which this question has been threshed out from all points of view and in which we have had firsthand evidence from hon. and gallant Members who have been through every phase of life in the trenches, who have been present at courts-martial, and who have had personal experience of everything that goes on before a final decision is taken in these cases. No one listening to the Debate could fail to be struck with the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) and the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who brought first-hand knowledge to bear upon the subject. In two successive years we have had two Debates upon this subject, and two Committees have considered whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. The first Committee was the Darling Committee, which took a great deal of evidence, which went into the matter carefully and which gave, I think, a unanimous Report against abolition. Then there was the Committee set up by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) presided over that Committee during the time when the evidence was being taken, but he went out of office, I think before the Report was made.
    Mr. LAWSON: I went out of office when the Government left office, although it is quite true I was nominally Chairman of the Committee until 21st January, but that was only because there had not been a meeting up to that time to appoint a new Chairman.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was trying to make it quite clear that I did not want to fix upon him any responsibility for the Report, because he was not in office at the time of the Report. His place as Chairman was taken by my hon. and gallant. Friend (Captain D. King), his successor in office, who, of course, and not the hon. Gentleman opposite, is responsible for the Report. The point I was making was that he was in the Chair when the evidence was taken, and so the picture that was presented by the hon. Member for North Tottenham
    1388
    (Mr. R. Morrison), of the three soldiers coming in, three at a time, overawed with the brass hats, prevented from giving evidence which they would like to have given, giving something quite different from what they wanted to give, because they were browbeaten and afraid to tell their superior officers what they really thought, was somewhat fanciful. The hon. Gentleman sitting in front of him (Mr. Lawson) was the Chairman of that Committee. The hon. Gentleman had these three soldiers, one at a time, in front of him, and I am quite certain, from what I know of him, that he would not be browbeaten by any gentleman with a brass hat.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: I never referred in my speech to anybody being browbeaten. I said it was not entirely wrong to expect that these private soldiers, ushered into the presence of admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals, and then asked what was their opinion of the Army Act, would give only one answer, in 999 out of 1,000 cases, and that answer would be the answer that the people present expected them to give.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That Committee was really a very impartial Committee, and a very experienced Committee. I am perfectly certain that the Chairman of that Committee would have helped any witness who was in front of him, so as to be quite sure that he was getting the real views of that witness, and I am certain that he was not likely to allow witness after witness to come in and tell a parrot's tale. This Report is based upon that evidence and is unanimously in favour of the maintenance of the death penalty in serious cases. It is advised that there shall be some alterations, and those alterations have been accepted by the Government and are incorporated in the Bill which is now before the Committee. Those alterations call for important Amendments to the Army Ant, and I hope hon. Members presently will accept those alterations, which are in accordance with the Report of that Committee.
    The case which, I think, has most impressed the Committee is the very serious and difficult question: Is there ever, or is there likely to be, a miscarriage of justice? Is it probable that a man will be punished, not for cowardice, but because his nerves have been broken? That was

    1389
    the case that the hon. Member (Mr. Thurtle) who moved the Amendment made, and he went on to say that you ought not to punish for cowardice at all. He said that cowardice was a state of mind, and that you ought not, therefore, to punish for it at all. I do not think, having regard to the evidence we have heard in this Committee to-day, there can be any doubt that every conceivable precaution is taken against a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mossley told us how difficult it was to get a conviction at all in such a case as this by court-martial. Everybody conspires to find a reason why a conviction should not be made, and when a conviction has been made and sentence of death promulgated, or, rather, before it is promulgated, every conceivable step is taken to check the decision, to see whether it is completely in accordance with the legal requirements, and then to consider it on its merits, whether, after all, it is a sentence that ought or ought not to be carried out. The result, as hon. Members know, is that only 11 per cent. of the death sentences during the: War were in fact allowed to stand; 89 per cent. were altered by the Commander-in-Chief himself, not over here, but by the confirming authority there. He exercised his power of mercy, and he quashed 89 per cent. of the sentences of death. I think there cannot be any doubt that every precaution is taken against any miscarriage of justice in the course of these proceedings. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment gave various individual cases, which he quoted. Those cases, I suppose, came before this Committee, because the hon. Gentleman himself gave evidence before it.
    Mr. THURTLE: Only some of them.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member had the opportunity of put ting them all before the Committee.
    Mr. THURTLE: I had not got them all at the time.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At any rate, the hon. Member put some of them before the Committee, and the Committee reported that the alleged failures of justice were cases which were often inaccurately and incompletely stated, and they found that no case was proved before them of any actual miscarriage of justice. I think this Committee is bound to accept that finding.
    1390
    It is not possible, in a Committee of this sort, to come to a final judgment about cases mentioned by an hon. Member here, however honest that hon. Member is, however much he wants to give the full case to us. It is impossible for Members of this Committee to come to a real, sane judgment upon a case that is necessarily sketchily put before it by an hon. Member. The Committee which reported could come to that judgment. They sat day after day for 10 or a dozen sittings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Far more than that!"] They sat at any rate for 10 or a dozen times with witnesses before them, and they considered the evidence, and could come to a judicial decision, and did come to a decision, namely, that there was not a single case proved before them of a miscarriage of justice, and that the allegations were frequently inaccurate and incomplete. I ask this Committee to adopt the Report, as we have adopted it, and to approve the judgment which they have given.
    The hon. Member not only said that no one ought to be punished for cowardice, but he said: "Just think of the case of young men under 21, shot because their nerves failed," and he added: "That is not in accordance with our conception of justice." Of course, it is not, if we were dealing with normal times, peace times, anti normal conditions, but the hon. Member has to realise that the times when action of this sort has to be taken are not normal times; people are not even normal you have to deal with conditions which arise in the battle area, and you have to consider, not the man only, but his comrades. It is not so much a punishment as a deterrent that is aimed at. Take the case that the hon. Member himself mentioned, of a sentry sleeping at his post, and consider what that may mean. It may mean the lives of tens, even hundreds, of his comrades. It may mean the difference between the success or failure of a large operation, which may react upon thousands of lives.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the case of the drunken officer at his post in the front line?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will do that in a moment, if the hon. Member will Allow me to finish this particular case, because, after all, it is a

    1391
    test. I do not want to see that sentry shot, any more than the hon. Member does, but he offers me no alternative. Something has to be done to protect the other men, that sentry's comrades, and something has to be done not to endanger the whole operation. What is his alternative? There is no alternative. It is no use saying that that man shall have penal servitude, that he shall be sent to the rear and put in prison. That is a very safe place, and there is no doubt that that would not be, in those conditions, the same deterrent as the retention of the death penalty. You have, as I say, to consider not merely the individual, but the lives of his comrades and the success of the operations. The hon. Member said: "What about the officer who was drunk in a forward post?" and he compared that with a soldier. I have made inquiries since he spoke, and there was not, I am told, a single soldier shot during the War for drunkenness.
    As for the suggestion that officers and men are differently treated under the Army Act, there has been a differentiation in the past in some respects, especially under Section 18 of the Army Act, dealing with malingering, and I have an Amendment included in this Bill which turns the word "soldier" in that. Section into the words "a person subject to military law," which does include the officer. I am putting the officer and the man on precisely the same footing, and in nearly all—I think, in all—the important Sections now, the officer and the man will he on the same footing. Not that cashiering was not a very severe punishment, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southport (Lieut. - Colonel Dalrymple White) pointed out. At the time it was first in operation, practically all the officers came from, as he described it, the county family class, and cashiering an officer was to drum him out of society, and to prevent him living in the county, or practically to prevent him from continuing to associate with those with whom he formerly associated.
    I wish it were possible to get rid of war. If we could get rid of war and all its inconveniences and hardships, we could get rid of the death penalty, undoubtedly, but so long as we have to have an army,
    1392
    and a disciplined army, it is to the interests of the army that the death penalty shall be retained, in order, not that it shall be exercised—I hope it will be seldom exercised, as indeed it was seldom exercised during the War, when one realises that under 300 death sentences were carried out in all that large army—but for the purpose of acting as a deterrent and for the protection of soldiers and their comrades. I can only say that all the proceedings in a court-martial are carried out with the greatest care and impartiality. There is no callousness. There is a great humanity right through, from the start to the very finish, and whoever deals with any stage in the proceedings is influenced by a feeling of immense responsibility. I feel perfectly certain that, so far as justice can ever be guaranteed, it is guaranteed by the system in force in courts-martial.
    Mr. THURTLE: I would like to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the very definite and specific question which I put to him at the end of my remarks, when I asked him whether, in view of the fact that the Australian Government refused to put upon its troops the painful duty of executing some of their own comrades, he did not think, with that example before him, lie might accord the same treatment to soldiers of the British Army. Will he be good enough to answer that specific question?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in relation to the conditions under which the Australians serve. The death penalty was not entirely abrogated in that case. There was a death penalty for mutiny, treachery, and desertion to the enemy. I do not, however, propose to accept the invitation to answer the question. I have not the slightest desire to make any comparison whatever between the Australians and ourselves. I cannot help thinking—of course, I am not suggesting it is intentional—that this question has a mischievous aspect, and an answer to it would not help the Committee, but would merely make mischief.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 320.

    Division No. 68.]

    AYES.

    [6.48 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

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

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barnes, A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Snell, Harry

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lansbury, George

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John James

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Maxton, James

    Warne, G. H.

    Duncan, C.

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Dunnico, H.

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

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Murnin, H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Paling, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wignall, James

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor, Walter

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

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

    Wright, W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Hayes.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Albery, Irving James

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Cope, Major William

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

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Astor, Viscountess

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Crook, C. W.

    Atkinson, C.

    Burman, J. B.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Baidwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Balniel, Lord

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Berry, Sir George

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Bethell, A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Drewe, C.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Christie, J. A.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Elveden, Viscount

    1394

    1395

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Jacob, A. E.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Evans, Captain A (Cardiff, South)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Falls, Sir Charles F.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Finburgh, S.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Salmon, Major I.

    Fleming, D. P.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Ford, P. J.

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Forrest, W.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Sandon, Lord

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lougher, L.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Gates, Percy

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macintyre, Ian

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Gee, Captain R

    McLean, Major A.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Skelton, A. N.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Grace, John

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colon I W. H.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.)

    Meller, R. J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Hanbury, C.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Templeton, W. P.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Murchison, C. K.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Neville, R. J.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Waddington, R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Oakley, T.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Henniker-Hoghan, Vice-Adm. Sir A

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hilton, Cecil

    Owen, Major G.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wells, S. R.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Penny, Frederick George

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Perring, William George

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pilcher, G.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Preston, William

    Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R. Ripon)

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Raine, W.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Ramsden, E.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Barnston,

    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. THURTLE: In page 3, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
    "In Section five the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (6):—
    (7) Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard, or uses any means to compel or induce any governor, commanding officer, or other person shamefully to abandon or deliver up any garrison, place,

    1397
    post, or guard which it was the duty of such governor, officer, or person to defend;
    (8) Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy;
    (9) Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's forces or any part thereof;
    (10) Misbehaves or induces others to misbehave before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice."
    7.0. P.M.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for
    Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) is consequential on the last Amendment, and is out of order.
    Mr. STEPHEN: There are several other Amendments, but we do not propose to move any more of the Amendments dealing with the death penalty, so that there will be more time left. We believe that the discussion already has covered our point.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 5 (Amendment of Section 18 of Army Act), 6 (Amendments of Section 46 of Army Act), 7 (Amendment of Section 47 of Army Act), 8 (Amendment of Section 57 of Army Act), 9 (Amendment of Section 71 of Army Act), 10 (Amendment of provisions as to impressment of carriages), 11 (Amendment of Section 137 of Army Act), 12 (Amendment of Section 138 of Army Act), 13 (Amendment of Section 163 of Army Act), 14 (Printing. of Army Act), 15 (Application to Air Force), 16 (Amendment of Sections 183 and 190 of Army Act), 17 (Definition of "Corps"), 18 (Amendment of Sections 44, 46 and 138 of Air Force Act), 19 (Amendment of Section 87 of Air Force Act), 20 (Amendment of provisions as to billeting), and 21 (Amendment of Section 175 of Air Force Act), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The following proposed new Clause stood o71, the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MACKINDER:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Use of military in connection with trade disputes.)
    Notwithstanding anything in the Army Act or in any other enactment relating to the use of His Majesty's forces, no person subject to military law shall be liable, nor
    1398
    shall it be lawful to call upon any such person, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this Section shall not apply so long as such state of emergency continues.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of order, but I understand that the hon. Member intends to move it in another form.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 80 of Army Act.)
    At the end of Sub-section one, Section eighty, of the Army Act the following Sub-section shall be added. "The general conditions of the contract to be catered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply so long as such state of emergency exists."—[Mr. Mackinder.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Perhaps the Committee will know that this is very different to any proposal that has hitherto been brought before the Committee by Members of this Parliament. We believe that the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, was passed in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether or not troops shall be used in trade disputes. I will read one part of the Act, which in Section 1 states:
    "Where a proclamation of emergency has been made the occasion thereof shall be forthwith communicated to Parliament."
    Perhaps I had better read part of the Act which provides for the Proclamation being issued. It reads:
    "If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken, or is immediately threatened, by any person or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated by

    1399
    interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light … His Majesty may by proclamation declare that a state of emergency exists."
    The same Act states specifically that troops shall not be used to perform acts ordinarily performed by civilians; that is to say, troops shall not be used to do work on which civilians who are on strike are engaged. I believe that it is in the best interests of industry and in the best interests of Parliament—I speak as an old trade union official of many years—that before troops are used in trade disputes the question as to whether they should or should not be used should be brought before the House of Commons. I have been reading very interestedly the White Paper issued by the Inter-Departmental Committee. The Report says, on page 9, paragraph 30, that
    "Soldiers in their capacity as citizens, like all other citizens, are liable under the common law to be called upon by the civil power."
    Troops may be citizens, but I have yet to find out, with the exception of having a vote in Parliamentary Elections, exactly what kind of citizens soldiers are. It may be that they are citizens for the purposes of this Act, but I really cannot understand how by any stretch of the imagination soldiers can be called citizens within the strict meaning of citizenship. They are entitled to vote if they are in the country, and a voting paper is sent to them when they are out of the country; but, with that exception, I fail to see where they come in as citizens. The White Paper goes on to say that they
    "do not see how any Government could so far divest itself of the legal powers which it now possesses for carrying out that duty."
    We agree with that entirely. We believe that no Government should divest itself of any authority which it holds, and it is for these reasons that we propose that the Emergency Powers Act, which is an Act on the Statute Book, shall be put into operation before any of those troops are used.
    I do not want to traverse the ground which has been covered in many Debates as to whether or not officers are entitled to do differently from civilians. For the purposes of stating my case, it is necessary to refer to the famous incident of the Curragh Camp in 1914. Members on that side of the House have stated very
    1400
    definitely that an officer can refuse to perform a certain duty which it has been instructed he should perform if it be against his conscience. That may be true or untrue, but there certainly is a difference of opinion upon which neither this White Paper nor the Committee which issued it has definitely satisfied us. They state that one alleged incident is frequently quoted, viz., the so-called Curragh Camp incident of March, 1914, and that Chapter 3, paragraph 12, of the edition of 1914 lays it down specifically that officers shall carry out any orders issued to them I have been curious enough to go through the Manual of Military Law, and that manual lays it down that religious scruples, however bona fide they may be, afford no justification for neglect or refusal to obey orders. An officer cannot, for example, plead conscientious scruples as justifying a refusal to go into the trenches on a Sunday, or to pay marks of respect enjoined by a superior authority to religions different from his own. I fail to se how the White Paper could compare the two instances. On the Curragh incident of 1914 it is undoubtedly a fact, as laid down in the White Paper, that certain officers of the Regular Army, supposed to be under discipline and supposed to be under all the pains and penalties which discipline enjoins upon them, did consult as to what they would do should a certain set of circumstances arise. Those certain set of circumstances we all know, and it is undoubtedly a fact that they had made up their mind to revolt if Parliament adopted a certain course.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Not to revolt, but to resign.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Oh no, we were very interested in the speeches which were made at the time. It is undoubtedly a fact—hon. Members may camouflage it as much as they like—that these officers had decided not to perform any duty allocated to them. The mere fact of the soldier refusing is, in effect, in times of difficulty, revolt against the instructions of his superior officer. I cannot see how the two cases are analogous. The White Paper tells us that according to the Army Manual they cannot refuse with regard to religious scruples. The late Lord Roberts laid it down that if an officer had certain scruples he could refuse to do these things, and we say, if officers are allowed

    1401
    to have scruples as to what they shall or shall not do where these things affect their opinions, that a private soldier at least should have it laid down by law that he shall not be called upon to shoot his industrial friend, his brother, his relation, unless at all events permission has been got from Parliament and given by Parliament that soldiers shall be used in these trade disputes. Again, it is interesting to read the Army Manual, which says that a superior officer has a right at any time to give a command for the purpose of the maintenance of good order or the suppression of disturbance. That is in the Manual issued by the War Office in 1914. What I am anxious to know is where was that permission given to the Army officer. What Act is it in? If it be necessary to put into operation an Act of Parliament to give an Army officer certain rights to instruct his troops what to do, why was it necessary to pass an Emergency Powers Act which give those rights to His Majesty and to Parliament?
    I believe that the times of 1914 and the times of 1925 are as different as they possibly could be. I have been in the Trade Union movement for nearer 30 years than 20, and I have been through a fair proportion of disputes. I want to say, very sincerely, that an authority who brings troops into a trade dispute without very careful consideration is running such a great risk of a big conflagration in this country that he ought to think twice before he does so. I have had my share of disputes, and I have always found that the police of the country are fairly level-headed and, as a general rule, are prepared to carry out the law to protect life and property. I have had the pleasure of being escorted round when meeting a number of workers. We have had policemen at the front of us clearing away the traffic, so that we should have a complete and full procession and that our plans should not be interfered with when we came to an important juncture. I want to say that my experience of Trade Union disputes has led me to this opinion, that, provided we carry on our dispute in a perfectly legal way, there is no necessity whatever for any show of force. If a specially armed force is shown, there is very naturally the incitement to revolt which springs up inside all of us when things of that sort are going along.
    I remember in the 1901 coal lock-out I was doing my work as a trade union
    1402
    official in South Yorkshire. I was passing through Cudworth one day and saw troops being discharged on Cudworth Station, waiting to go into Cudworth, I would not say to intimidate the colliers on lock-out, but the net effect was to leave an ugly feeling in the minds of colliers who were locked out. Hon. Members may think of the necessity of having troops on the spot in case a conflagration breaks out. I am trying to look at the effect on a citizen who is peaceful. When these young men, some of them merely boys of 18, were unloaded on the platform at Cudworth Station, with their rifles and bayonets and plenty of rounds of ammunition, I thought well, I would not like to see one of those young soldiers say a wrong word to one of the colliers or vice versa, because a conflagration could break out from either side, with a careless or ill-chosen word. I saw something worse in the streets of Barnsley. I saw armoured cars parading up and down the main streets of Barnsley for no object whatever but for terrifying the miners, who were quiet enough. It is no use disguising the fact that it was an attempt to terrify them. If they were not there to terrify them, why were not those armoured cars kept in a place where the colliers could not see them, kept there to be used if the authorities thought they ought to be used? There is no doubt about it., these parades of force take place with the deliberate intention of letting the strikers and disputants know what will happen if they attempt to interfere with private property. I am told by the hon. Member for Rhondda Valley that after the dispute of 1921 he put a question to the Secretary of State for War asking the cost of the dispute in Wales alone to the military authorities. He was told that the cost of the use of troops and two squadrons of aeroplanes—do not forget the aeroplanes, I do not know how they could use aeroplanes in a miners' dispute—in Wales alone imposed a charge of £800,000 on the British nation. I put it to hon. Members that that is a serious matter from the financial point of view alone. If one could get the figures of the cost of the use of troops and aeroplanes in that dispute for the whole of Great Britain, the Committee would be considerably startled by the magnitude of the sum.
    There is another serious objection to the use of troops in trade disputes. It is a

    1403
    fact, which no one will deny, that the private soldiers are the relations, the kith and kin, of the people whom it is proposed to use them against. May I say with all the sincerity I possess, that when the British Government, or any other Government, use troops in trade disputes they are running the biggest risk they possibly can of the revolution so many people are afraid of? It needs a very few men to refuse to obey an order to fire on men alongside whom they work when they are in industrial employment, and a fire may be lighted which some of us would be sorry for. I hope the Government will consider very seriously the psychological effect of asking a soldier to shoot men whom he may have worked with at one time, and the possible conflagration that may ensue. I hope the Secretary of State for War will consider very carefully our proposal before he decides to turn it down. I want to assure him and the Government that Members on this side desire to refrain from doing anything which may cause too much trouble to the Government in times of dispute. I think these parades of troops in affected areas do not act as a deterrent to insubordination and violence, rather, human nature being what it is, the parade of force is inclined to create anger in the minds of the people. It only needs a stone to be thrown or a jeering word from either a striker or a soldier, and awful consequences may ensue. It is for this reason that I move this Clause, and I hope the Secretary of State for War will accept it, and I hope confidently that it will be carried.
    Mr. BROMLEY: I have no intention of delaying the Committee, but I want to add a word, almost of appeal, in the hope that the Committee will pass the Clause. I would ask hon. Members opposite to note the wording of the Clause, and would ask them, if they can, to try to visualise what a serious thing blacklegging is in the minds of the organised workers of this country. In all walks of life people who, rightly or wrongly, but believing they are justified, are taking a stand against what they believe to be an injustice, regard with a feeling of revulsion any of their class who would sell them, as it were, to the enemy by hampering their effort for what they believe to be justice. That is the
    1404
    sentiment of the trade unionist who is fighting for what he believes to be his rights when someone steps in to do his work, either willingly as a civilian, or, possibly, unwillingly as a soldier, by this means giving weight to the side of the employer in the dispute. The new Clause is aimed at preventing that stigma from applying to the soldier by his being compelled to act as a blackleg against the men of his own class who are struggling for what they believe to be right.
    My hon. Friend who moved the new Clause has drawn attention to things which have happened as the result of soldiers being brought into industrial disputes. Serious things have happened, and so long as this takes place serious things will happen. I heard murmurs of dissent from hon. Members opposite when my hon. Friend said this display of force was for the purpose of terrorising the strikers, but we all know that it is true. As a trade union servant I have taken part in some industrial disputes, and unless we get some measure of justice hope to do so again, and I have also seen many disputes in other trades. To go back as far as 1897, when there was a mining dispute in the Aberdare Valley of South Wales, where all was perfectly peaceful, I have seen troops of cavalry, lancers amongst them, gallop as hard as it was possible through the narrow streets of a little mining town of Glamorganshire, called Aberdare. Women and children scattered like sheep in front of a motor car, and I know of at least one fatal accident to a child scurrying out of the way. I say, without the slightest hesitation, with my personal knowledge of the peace in that little town, that those troops could only have been galloped through the streets for the purpose of terrorising the miners who were fighting for a living wage and humane conditions of service.
    I remember in our own railway strike of 1919, when there was little feeling amongst the men, how, against the wish of the Lord Mayor of Manchester, troops were sent to Manchester by a right hon. Gentleman who sits on the-Front Bench in the present Government. I was at that time an organiser for my union in the Manchester area, and I know that it at once caused a feeling of resentment that

    1405
    had not been prevalent before. Then there was a dispute in South Wales in which troops were brought in at Llanelly, and their interference with otherwise peaceful strikers resulted, all in a few minutes, in people being shot who had nothing whatever to do with the dispute, who had merely come out of their houses and clambered on to their garden walls to see what was going on. That occurred because the troops had endeavoured to force the strikers to do something which was against their code of honour.
    Strikes in this country, however regrettable they have been, and may be in future, have been singularly free from sabotage on the part; of the workers. I could, if I were unwise enough, explain to the Committee some of the things which might be done by wild men during a railway strike. I could explain how serious damage could be done in a few moments in a very quiet and unobstrusive manner. Never has such a thing happened, but if the employing classes, assisted by the Government of the day, bring in troops either to terrorise strikers or for the purpose of blacklegging them, I ask the Committee to realise the danger there is of retaliation of the part of men who have merely entered into a trial of strength on the industrial field. We know how prevalent sabotage is in many disputes on the Continent, and that it has not crept into trade disputes in this country speaks exceedingly well for the organised trade unions of this country. There is a feeling of resentment against any such interference in a struggle for the merest measure of comfort in life. If the working people asked for what they were entitled to, they would ask for a good deal more than they do, and I have often marvelled at the moderation of the demands for reasonable wages that have caused disputes. When such a moderate demand brings about a dispute, the working people feel that it is not a fair fight if the military authorities are brought in on the side of the employers to terrorise the trade unionists on strike or to take their places. It engenders a feeling of resentment that, to say the least of it, has a great measure of danger in it.
    Again I would refer to the wording of our Clause. It asks, first of all, that as far as it is humanly possible there should be a fair field and no favour in the
    1406
    strike. I know that hon. Members opposite object to the strike weapon. So do we. It is sometimes suggested that we trade union servants can only get our living by agitating for trouble. As one who has been a trade union official for many years, I would much prefer to be able to go to my office and work peacefully in my office with my staff, and quit when they quit, than be up 24 hours a day engaged in a struggle. Like most people, I would rather get my wages easily than be hard worked, but there are times when it is necessary for the workers to take a reasonable stand, and what is the feeling that must be created when, instead of having a fair field and no favour, men under military discipline are brought in to do their work? I have seen quite peaceful strikes with good feeling. That may sound strange, but I have known strikes where there was good feeling, and representatives of the men could meet representatives of the masters and talk quite courteously across the table, almost with friendship, in a desire to get the dispute ended. Immediately the men feel that some other super authority is trying to get blacklegs from organised military forces, you have a new feeling engendered. May I give one other reason. Some time ago we had an important statement from the Prime Minister with regard to peace. I know there are suggestions in regard to Motions in this House to bring about a kind of sitting down together and talking matters over rather than fighting them out. Most of us are willing to do that if the employers will only lay all their cards on the table.
    I have never seen that done, but I am something of an optimist and I think it might possibly happen some day. Until that time comes, I think the best way to engender in the minds of trade unionists a feeling that they will get a square deal is to remove the idea of being blacklegged by organised forces. If the men we try to lead, either by our bad leadership or through their heat, break out and use force, we are not asking to be left alone. When you come to try that, we are quite prepared to take our medicine. I recognise that hon. Members opposite would be quite willing to hang myself and other trade union leaders under such circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

    1407
    We are not asking for freedom to use force and cause disorder. If hon. Members opposite will believe me I assert that British trade unionist leaders are not very likely to cause a revolution. We are the most mild men imaginable, but even trade unionists of this country are still touched with the bull-dog breed; they are still British, and do not like to sit down under unkind and unfair treatment. I wish to state that while I serve organised trade unionists they never shall, while I can fight against it, sit down under such treatment without a protest. We are not asking for freedom to fight with unfair methods. As long as the system of the capitalist lasts, where there is an unholy struggle and an inhuman state of civilisation, while that lasts and whilst there is a struggle between the employer or the shareholders of a company and the workmen employed, you are bound to have trade disputes. What we are asking is that while it is a fair fight you should not attempt to arouse bad blood and the danger of sabotage and cause the feelings of the men to run high by threatening them with organised military forces to blackleg.
    We do not like blacklegging or the taking the food out of the mouths of our fellow-workers any more than any hon. Member of this House or any other class of society. There are stronger trade unions than those to which the workers belong amongst the professional classes. I do not need to remind hon. Members of the organisations of the doctors and the lawyers. We form our own organisations, and we are not asking for protection if we take any undue measures. We are not asking for licence or freedom to do anything but fair fighting, but what our Amendment asks for, and what I feel sure that if hon. Members follow their own natural humane instinct they will give us, is the removal of this threat which is held over the heads of trade unionists of bringing in blacklegs in the guise of organised military forces.
    The Army does not like to be used in this way, and it is very obnoxious to them. It breeds bad blood and tends to continue the fight. If the House will pass this Amendment, and let it be known to the organised workers that the Government is prepared to give an earnest of their intention to bring forward something to carry out their suggestion about sitting
    1408
    down and talking things over, and undertake not to introduce organised military forces, you will be much nearer to that round-table conference, at which we can talk things over calmly and coolly, than you are when the spirit remains deep in the hearts of trade unionists that they are not only fighting the employers, but that there is always the danger of the British Government coming down upon the side of the employer.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken puts his claim very low indeed when he says he is only asking for freedom to fight fairly. If that was what the new Clause really meant there would be no need to discuss it. The new Clause, however, is something quite different. It is one intended to prohibit the soldier being used in aid of the civil power. May I point out that it is the common duty of every one of us to come to the aid of the civil power if it needs assistance on any occasion.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the amended Clause we are now discussing.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, I think I am. I think the Clause which has been moved does what I have suggested, because it speaks of "the general conditions of the contract to be entered into" by the soldier.
    The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause we are now discussing is the amended form of the Clause on the Paper.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May we have the new Clause read out to the Committee?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is quite a long Clause, and I will read the first part of it. It says:
    "The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful, to call upon such recruit to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment."
    Of course that is not the full Clause. There is no provision in it relating to the Emergency Act, which is not necessary for the purpose of my argument. If this were inserted there would be a condition under which the soldier would not be called upon to take duty in aid of

    1409
    the civil power. That is the intention of the new Clause. The whole speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was directed to the iniquity of ever calling upon a soldier to act in aid of the civil power because he might be called a blackleg. No Government could exempt the disciplined soldier from a liability which under the common law applies to every civilian.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Surely we are mixing the two things up. We are all liable to be called upon to support a policeman if he is being attacked, but we are not called upon under the civil law to go and do work on the railways when there is a strike, and that is what my hon. Friend was alluding to.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think I have misunderstood the intention of tins Amendment. One object of the Amendment is that you should not use a soldier to do a civilian's work, and that is the particular object of the Clause. Another object is that you shall not ask him to act in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In connection with blacklegging.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not understand this proposal in that way. The Committee has not had the opportunity of reading the Amendment, and we are being asked to accept something which we do not quite understand. But even if the hon. Member is right, I must refuse to accept this proposal. I understand the hon. Member argues that troops should not be used in aid of the civil power, and I cannot agree with that as a fundamental proposition. Supposing the civil power has to be supported, any Government, whether it is a Labour Government or a Liberal Government, if ever there is one again, or a Conservative Government, would be bound to reserve the right to use the troops as a last emergency in aid of the civil power, and it is better that they should so use them in such cases than use an undisciplined mob. It is much better for the people of the country, because then the right people are protected, and more than necessary damage is not done, in connection with a trade dispute. I do not believe it will be possible to draw a
    1410
    line between aiding the civil power in some cases where there are other reasons outside a strike. You can imagine the police being overwhelmed, and they ought to be aided, and a case where there is a riot and a strike going on in the neighbourhood.
    Why does a riot arise? It might arise out of a trade dispute or something else, and are you going to say that if the civil power calls for assistance you are not going to give it because it is in connection with a trade dispute? As far as the troops are concerned there is no duty they dislike so much as having anything whatever to do, even with supporting the civil power in connection with a trade dispute. I am quite sure of this, that whoever is at the War Office they will hesitate long before consenting to put troops in the sort of conflict which the hon. Gentleman has depicted just now. That is the last thing they would be willing to do. While I say that, I cannot accept this proposed new Clause. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to proceed with the other new Clauses on the Paper, but, if so, perhaps they would come to a Division, if they decide to divide on this one now.
    Mr. JAMES BROWN: Will not the right hon. Gentleman read the proviso?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want not to read the proviso. It is as follows:
    "Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation"—
    that is to say, the previous stipulation, which I have already read—
    "shall not apply so long as such state of emergency exists."
    That means that, after an emergency, the troops could be used notwithstanding the first part of the Clause; but that is not really of any great value to the hon. Members themselves, because Parliament is not going to be shut up. Supposing that troops were used, supposing that the hon. Member's fears were realised, and that the troops were used in the way he was depicting; Parliament is sitting, the attention of Parliament can be called to it, and, unless Parliament gave its support, the troops, of course, would have to be withdrawn at once.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 281.

    Division No. 69.]

    AYES.

    [7.48 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lansbury, George

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Connolly, M.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Varley, Frank B.

    Cove, W. G.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maxton, James

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Warne, G. H.

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    Murnin, H.

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Fenby, T. D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Palin, John Henry

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Paling, W.

    Westwood, J,

    Gosling, Harry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wignall, James

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Wright, W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cope, Major William

    Albery, Irving James

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Crook, C. W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

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

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Atkinson, C.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Burman, J. B.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Drewe, C.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Berry, Sir George

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Bethell, A.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Christle, J. A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Blundell, F. N.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Finburgh, S.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Fleming, D. P.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Forrest, W.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lougher, L.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lumley, L. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sandon, Lord

    Gates, Percy

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macintyre, Ian

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Gee, Captain R.

    McLean, Major A.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Grace, John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Harland, A.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Herbert, s. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Neville, R. J.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Waddington, R.

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

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Oakley, T.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Wells, S. R.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. B., Richm'd)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Perring, William George

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Philipson, Mabel

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Wise, sir Fredric

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Pilcher, G.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

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

    Preston, William

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raine, W.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Ramsden, E.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Barnston,

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 7 of Army Act.)
    In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment), after the word "person," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "of not less than eighteen years of age," and for the proviso in that Section there shall be substituted the words, "It shall be the duty of commanding officers to return to their homes all young persons discovered to have enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen years."—[Mr. W. M. Watson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In moving this Clause, I hope I shall meet with more success than has attended the other Amendments that have come from this part of the Committee. The Clause is one which ought to appeal to all parts of the Committee. We find in many cases that irresponsible lads, merely because of some little trivial diffi

    1415
    culty, run off and enlist in the Army before they have attained the age of 18, and I think the House of Commons would do well if it laid down a rule that, no lad can be kept in the Army, unless by his own wish and the wish of his parents, until he has reached the age of 18. We deny ordinary manhood rights to men until they have reached the age of 21, and we are merely asking in this proposed new Clause that it should be possible for young lads who have enlisted before they were 18 to be released from the Army.
    I have had to take up one or two cases in which lads have enlisted before reaching the age of 18, and I should not have complained so much if the right hon. Gentleman had not laid it down that, unless in a case where there are extreme compassionate grounds, there is no possibility of getting a lad, even under 18 years of age, released from the Army. I think it should be possible for the Army authorities to get all the men that they require for the Army over the age of 18. The House of Commons has a right to take into consideration little trivial things that occur in the life of a young lad, such as differences of opinion between himself and his parents. We know how lads are built, and what ideas they have between the time when they begin to work, say at 14 years of age, and the age of 17 or 18. They consider that they are men; they believe that they are men they act as if they were men; and, consequently, they exercise the right of enlisting in the Army. I think that the Secretary of State for War would do well if he accepted this Clause, and made it a. rule that, in future, lads under 18 years of age will not be kept in the Army, but will be sent home to their parents, if they are discovered to have enlisted before attaining the age of 18.
    8.0 P.M.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I think the Mover rather misunderstands
    the effect of the Clause he has put down. In the first place, he says that boys under 18 should be returned home, unless their parents and they themselves wished them to remain. That is not permitted under the Clause which he has just moved. There it is to be the duty of the commanding officer, whether the boy wishes to remain and whether the parents wish
    1416
    him to stay there, to turn him out. With regard to the point of boys joining before they are 18 under misstatement of age, I think the hon. Mover does not realise that if a boy is actually under 17 years of age he is given his free discharge on request, and when he is between 17 and 18 he can get a free discharge if he proves real necessitous home circumstances. These are the two cases at the present time where they can be released if they have mis-stated their age before they are 18. Another effect of this Clause, which I think the hon. Mover and his supporters have quite overlooked, is the fact that the Army takes a very considerable number of boys to train as musicians and mechanics. He rules those out of existence altogether by moving this Clause. The War Office have found it necessary, because of the difficulty of getting skilled tradesmen in the Army, to set up technical classes for training boys to become skilled mechanics. I cannot imagine any of the hon. Members can object to such a system of training. It is on the same lines as the apprentieship system in the outside trades, and I know many Members on the benches opposite are very interested indeed in this scheme of training for boys. I think they must have overlooked the effect that they had ruled these out of existence altogether. Seeing it is a misunderstanding I will say no more, but will ask the Committee to oppose this Clause.
    Mr. J. BROWN: We do not suppose anybody desires boys to get into the Army at an early age, but whit we want is that any boy who joins under the age of 18 will be returned, and it will be the duty of the Commanding Officer to return him, if he has been enlisted under military service. That is the point we wish to put. I think it could be quite easily overcome if the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who has spoken are willing to assist us in this matter. We think a boy under 18 is far too young to undertake military service. Remember this, that in these days boys are very much younger at 18 than they were some time ago. The school age has been extended and boys are younger at that age than they were. I do not think this Committee is asking very much if it asks that the lads will be returned by the Commanding Officer if they enlisted under military age.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 276.

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES.

    [8.8 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Harney, E. A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barnes, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Mackinder, W.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Warne, G. H.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Maxton, James

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

    Duncan, C.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Murnin, H.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gillett, George M

    Oliver, George Harold

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Owen, Major G.

    Wignall, James

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth,. Pontypoel)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

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

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. H., Normanton)

    Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Allen

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Parkinson.

    Hardie, George D.

    Sexton, James

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Brass, Captain W.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Albery, Irving James

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cope, Major William

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Crook, C. W.

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

    Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Atkinson, C.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Balniel, Lord

    Burman, J. B.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Barclay-Harvey C. M.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Drewe, C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Berry, Sir George

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Bethell, A.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Christie, J. A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Fairfax, Captain J G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stratford)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Finburgh, S.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Fleming, D. P.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Ford, P. J.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Forrest, W.

    Lougher, L.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sandon, Lord

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McLean, Major A.

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Gates, Percy

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Gee, Captain R.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Bt. Hon. Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Skelton, A. N.

    Grace, John

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Meller, R. J.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Merriman, F. B.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Harland, A.

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

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Murchison, C. K.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C, M.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Neville, R. J.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

    Oakley, T.

    Waddington, R.

    Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

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

    Hilton, Cecil

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wells, S. R.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Perring, William George

    White Lieut.-Colonel G. Calrymple

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Philipson, Mabel

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Pilcher, G.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Raine, W.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Ramsden, E.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W.R., Ripon)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Jacob, A. E.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 138 of Army Act.)
    In Section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to penal stoppages from the ordinary pay of soldiers), at the end of the proviso, there shall be a dded—
    (d) where a soldier has made an allotment from his ordinary pay for the support of any dependant penal deductions from his ordinary pay shall be made only from the portion of his ordinary pay not so allotted."—[Mr. Attlee.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot accept this Amendment. I am in sympathy with the intention underlying it, and I will consider it between now and next year.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    The following New Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain WEDGWOOD BENN:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Attendance at church parade.)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any general, or garrison, or other order, including regulations and orders for the Army, or any similar order in the nature of a regulation published for the general information and guidance of the Army, no officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or soldier shall be compelled to attend any church parade or religious service."
    The CHAIRMAN: The New Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith has caused me considerable trouble. I am aware that it has once been moved, but after searching for precedents on the matter and considering it in the light of what can be done in Committee of Supply, I have come to the conclusion that it must be brought forward there and not on this occasion.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, to leave out the word "tenpence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling and fourpence."
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. KELLY: I beg to move,
  "That, in view of the urgent necessity that, wholly apart from the Poor Law, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be provided by the State for all widows with children or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, this House calls for the introduction this Session of the required legislation."
  I find that if each of the parties in this House is not wholly pledged to pensions for mothers, at least most of them have given promises at various times that they would bring into the system of the country pensions for widowed mothers and for those whose husbands are incapacitated. The difference between us probably is that on this side of the House we are convinced that this method of pensions must be brought into operation without the demand from the individual of a direct contribution. On that there can be no question, and I hope to show some of the difficulties that even the
  1422
  Government would have in carrying what it has suggested in various speeches and manifestoes. One thing is very clear, that the necessity for these pensions has come home to everyone in the community. When you think of the widow struggling at this time against the cruelty of this period and endeavouring to bring up her fatherless children, it is a position that not only demands from every one of us the best feelings of the heart, but it even appeals to our reason that the country which neglects its families, and particularly those where the breadwinner has been taken away, is not doing its duty to its people. We see that those of you who have looked to the Poor Law to help in this difficult time with these families have done something that you would not care to carry into effect if understanding had come your way with regard to the position, One sees the position under the Poor Law and how badly these families are treated, the inadequate amounts that are given them, and the conditions which are attached to the payment of this out-relief. Even in this House when I hear hon. Members speaking of relief, even they give a taint to it when they refer to something that has happened in Poplar or West Ham, or some other borough where they have realised something of the position that ought to operate in the case of these fatherless families.
  These people who resort to the Poor Law find themselves being paid sums which are not a credit to those districts. On looking into it I find that in some districts families are expected to exist upon a grant of 1s.8d. to 4s. per head. They cannot maintain the family on such a figure. Even the best of them, leaving out Poplar and West Ham, only grant between 4s. and 9s. per week. When one compares that with what you pay for institutional treatment it seems to come badly from those people who on platforms talked of Mothers' Pensions and then suggested that there should be a direct contribution demanded from the parents. In some institutions we find that it costs something like 26s. a week to maintain the children. Give the mother 26s. per week and she will not only maintain her child, but, with that affection which can only come when the children and the mother are living in the home, she will bring them up in a way which will be a credit to the country. We have tried to per

  1423
  suade the country to come away from that system of Poor Law Relief in the case of the fatherless children. Now we have the suggestion made that some contribution should be asked for. I have wondered how that contribution is going to be paid. Is it to be demanded from those who are already covered by the National Insurance Acts? If so, that is going to leave out of account a great many thousands of people. It is going to leave out of account a good many of those who have written to me within the last two days, and who refer to themselves as the minor professional classes. I cannot quite tell you what they mean by that term, but they are not covered by the Insurance Acts, and it means that you are going to leave those people out of account.
  Again I would ask how many of those people who feel themselves secure to-day, even with the settlements that they have arranged for their families, can feel quite secure that when their time comes to pass from this world they can leave their families in such a position that they will not have need to resort to the assistance of the State or to private charity. I cannot see any contributory system which is going to help you out of this difficulty, and what is more, in setting up what is suggested in the Amendment, is it your intention that we must wait until there is an accumulation of funds which will enable benefit, or a pension, to be paid? Does it mean that this suffering that we know exists, this semi-starvation, this struggle of the widow and the children, is to go on for some time longer whilst you make up your mind'? The evil is here. The evil is bearing very heavily upon the country at the present time, and we ask in this Resolution that the House should not wait for some future period in the lifetime of this Parliament, but should deal with this problem at once, so that pensions of an adequate amount may be paid in the immediate future.
  As to the number of people covered by this proposal, we estimate that somewhere about 170,000 widows, with 250,000 children, are affected. Assuming that to be a correct estimate, the figure of about £20,000,000 that has been put forward in discussions on this matter at various times, would cover the cost of the pro posed pensions to the widows and
  1424
  children for whom we are speaking. That is not, in its entirety, a totally new charge upon the country. We are paying somewhere about £3,500,000 already in the form of relief, and in a way that is not giving the results that we ought to expect and that we ought to have in the maintenance of this portion of the population. The charge that we ask Parliament to impose can be justly asked for, because of the urgent necessity of the pension problem so far as widows and children are concerned.
  The Resolution also refers to homes where the husband is incapacitated. It those homes we find something that is tragic. We find the man struggling hard to recover from an illness, and finding himself unable to maintain his wife and family and struggling, as I could tell in many cases if time permitted, in the hope that he can return to the condition when he first set up the home in which he takes so great a pride. In that case, we estimate that, basing the calculation on the National Health Insurance Act and the number of those who have had lengthy periods of sickness, there would be some where about 70,000 of these people, and at the very worst it would cost another £5,000,000. We shall be told that in these days that is a large sum of money to ask It may be a large sum of money, but we realise the purpose for which it is needed. It is needed in order that these families may grow up in health and not grow up to be a charge upon the State in later life. It is a sum that would be well spent and would be a real economy in the fullest sense.
  It may be argued in this discussion, as it has been argued in previous discussions, that we are making an appeal to the heart. I am doing no such thing. I am appealing to the reason. I am appealing to the reason of this House, and asking hon. Members whether they consider it is wise on the part of Parliament to allow the deterioration that has set in to continue, owing to the struggle which is undergone by these widows in endeavouring to maintain their families. Not only in the towns, but in the country districts we often find these people depending upon charity and looking to out-relief occasionally, and being badly treated under it, and one sees an unmistakable look on their faces in the midst of that struggle that is bringing bitterness into

  1425
  their homes and into the minds of their children. These children are denied the opportunities that should be given to children in regard to education, certainly in regard to food, and they are also denied the surroundings that ought to be given to every child in the community.
  Parliament should not allow that state of things to continue. You may talk of the Far East, you may talk about your great engines of war, you may talk about those great engineering feats with which some of us are concerned, but if you neglect as you are neglecting these children, where the breadwinner has gone, it counts very little whether you build up a great Singapore base, or whether you have an armed force as strong as some hon. Members desire. You are continuing a system which is a peril to the country. We ask the House to agree that this is an urgent problem: a problem that is not new, but which has been brought before the House time after time. Women have urged it on the House since 1908. It has been debated in this House since 1919. You have done nothing at all to bring about the accomplishment of a pension system that will enable these women to carry on, and to bring up their families.
  It is not as though they could have prevented the position in which they find themselves. It is not as though they were responsible for the condition in which they find themselves and their families. These women have struggled, with their husbands by their side, in the hope that they might see their children growing up and taking a better place in society than their parents have had, and then the widow finds herself with the breadwinner gone and she has not a chance of maintaining the children. The children ought not to be left in that condition. It is the duty of the State to come to their assistance, and. I ask the House to agree to that proposition. Never mind what have been the faults of other Governments. I hope we shall not be reminded to-night by hon. Members opposite that we were in office last year. It is only shirking the problem to say that other Governments have had the chance and have failed to do anything. The present Government has a great majority; it has the power, and it should and must raise the funds in order that the child life of this country may have a chance, and that the widows
  1426
  of this country shall not be left struggling and striving, as they have to do to-day, to bring up their sons and daughters. We look to these children for the carrying on of this country in years to come. I ask the House to reject the Amendment and to carry the Resolution, so that these women and their children will have some chance in the life of the country.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Motion.
  Having been fortunate in the ballot on the same day as my hon. Friend, I have pleasure in seconding the Motion, which is identical in terms with the one appearing in my name on the Order Paper. The House will agree that my hon. Friend has presented the case very ably and in temperate language, and that he has produced convincing reasons, supported by a good number of figures, why the House should adopt the Resolution. As already indicated, we have been talking in this country since 1905, I believe, about the necessity of providing for widowed mothers and dependent children. We have been lagging far behind other countries in this respect. Those of us who have been advocating this measure of reform are aware that in the United States of America they have had this system since 1911, and nearly all the States that go to make up that great union provide legally and systematically, though it may be not very generously in some cases, for the mothers and the children who are bereft of their breadwinners by those chances in life which carry away men either by accident or disease.
  I do not propose to give any figures, but, as it has been said on many occasions that we have no knowledge or information to guide us on the right path, I may point out that that argument does not hold good any longer. To-day we have a very large number of examples of places where this policy has been carried out. Even though we may solve the problem, with regard to mothers' pensions, and may achieve a high standard of public health as the result of the work done by the best brains in the best House of Commons, we cannot stamp out largely at present the diseases which are ravaging the land, such as tuberculosis and cancer, and which take such a very heavy toll of life among the breadwinners of this country. When everything that is possible is done there

  1427
  will still be fatherless children to care for and foster, and it is essential that the State should provide a buttress against the harm that is caused in this way.
  Two main objections have been raised in the past. The first is that the State should not interfere with the home life, and the second is the cost of any scheme of mothers' pensions, which, of course, would have to be on a non-contributory basis. I do not think that any Government can shelter behind the first reason any longer in this country. No longer tan the excuse hold good that the domestic life of the children is too sacred for the State to interfere in it. We interfere in many ways every day. We insist that the child shall attend school and be educated. If contagious disease breaks out we remove people from their homes, and put them in isolation hospitals. I could go on quoting many enactments, under which we have decided that for the benefit of the community these things must be done. The State have already realised in various directions that it is to their benefit to protect their members and to secure for them the highest possible minimum of comfortable conditions which will promote their health, and increase the usefulness of their lives as citizens of this country. Already we have provided partial pensions to keep the widow and the fatherless children. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) have been very full. We advocate a more constructive policy with regard to this matter than to force the widows and children to get relief under the Poor Law of the country.
  On looking over the speeches of Members on all sides of this House during the last Election, I am very glad to note that there is almost a common line of unanimity prevailing among leaders of every party in this House—I see that there are some of our friends of the Liberal party present—and also among the rank and file, and the only difference, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, which exists among them is as to whether the new scheme shall be a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. If we are going to ask these people, who have waited so long already and struggled so bravely against adversity, to wait any longer we are going to crush their hopes
  1428
  entirely, and I would join my hon. Friend in asking the House not to entertain that idea, because it means waiting a very long time. On the question of cost I think that it is generally agreed that, if the scheme which has been spoken about in this House were to be brought forward now and embodied in a Bill, it would cost somewhat., in round figures, the amount which the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated—£20,000,600. If that be so, then that is only the same amount of money as that which we spent on the Foreign and Colonial Services during the year 1922–23, one-third of the amount which we spent last year upon the Navy, one-third of the amount which we are spending upon the Army, and one-fourth of the amount which we spent last year upon pensions.
  In quoting the figures I want to point out that we have a system of partial pensions in operation at the present time. I hope that no one will charge me with want of sympathy with the ex-service men's widows and children. In this House and elsewhere I have always done my best to fight for the ex-service man's widow, because I know what such women have gone through. God knows, we pay them none too much now. But let me ask hon. Members to visualise the situation. The ex-service man's widow gets £1 6s. 8d. a week. For the first child she gets 10s., so that a widow with one child would receive £1 16s. 8d. If there is a second child she receives 7s. 6d. in addition. If there is a third child the amount is reduced to 6s. for that child, and so on for each succeeding child. A widow with four children—there are thousands of such cases in the country—has a pension for herself, and for her children until they reach the age of 16 years, of £2 16s. 2d. a week. These figures are none too generous in face of the sacrifice that has been made. Take the case of the officers. The officer's widow receives a minimum of £100 for herself, and £24 a year for each child, and from the age of nine to 16 years the expenses of education up to £50 a year may be granted by a special Grants Committee. Therefore we have a complete mothers' pensions system in operation at the present time. Our only quarrel is that it is a partial system, and does not operate universally.
  The industrial mother who loses her husband through natural causes or because of some disease has to depend upon Poor

  1429
  Law relief. I say emphatically that in this age that is a disgrace to Great Britain. To my mind nothing could be more noble or more magnificent than to abolish the stigma of pauperism in the case of widowed mothers and their children. We want to make the widowed mother feel that in bringing up vigorous, self-reliant children she is rendering a service to the State. She ought to be put on the county roll to be paid, so that her self-respect and pride shall not be crushed, and so that she can maintain herself and her children in moderate comfort without Poor Law relief. The examples of the application of mothers' pensions in other countries demonstrate that such pensions are quite within the realm of practical politics. The difficulties are by no means insurmountable. Some of the countries that have adopted mothers' pensions are by no means the richest or the most able to produce revenue. On the contrary, some of them are very poor countries. In the past this country has not required the stimulus of foreign nations as an example in doing righteous, noble and great things. It is true that Britain has a very heavy burden of debt to carry, but she has also a great moral obligation to these women and children. Many of these obligations we have met in the past. Here is an urgently needed reform, and if we are to pay £20,000,000 we can face the cash payments. In doing so, we shall be relieving these mothers and children and making, them better citizens, and also we shall be making our Britain a country fit for British mothers to live in.
  Sir HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House, while approving the principle of a scheme of State-aided pensions for widowed mothers, is of opinion that this should form part of a general extension of the insurance system upon a contributory basis and that legislation for this purpose should be introduced during the present Parliament."
  May I say, first of all, that this is the first occasion upon which I have ventured to intervene in a Debate in this House, and, that being so, I know that I need not crave from this House that indulgence which is always so kindly meted out to novices? I desire at the earliest possible moment to make it clear, in case anybody
  1430
  should be under a misapprehension, that this Amendment is not one which I am moving in any antagonistic spirit at all. I agree with most of what has been said by the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution; I agree with the pathetic instances which they have given or widowed mothers who have to leave home daily to earn their livelihood. The sole reason why I am responsible for this Amendment is that I desire, if possible, to put before the House not merely an attractive and seductive solution of this problem, but to put forward what I believe to be the only practical remedy for the difficulty. May I assure hon. Members opposite that there are upon this side of the House hon. Members who are just as sympathetic towards this great question as those who sit on the other side. In my view it is essential to be able to find, and, as has been said, to find quickly, a solution of this problem, which has not only troubled those of us who have come recently to this House, but has troubled previous Governments and previous Oppositions. It is necessary to find some practical solution. There is nothing more pathetic in this world, I suppose, than the widowed mother who has to go out and leave her children behind in order that she can carry on some sort of work, work with which very often she is not acquainted, and work to which she would not have gone unless necessity had driven her.
  She does that for the purpose of avoiding the cold charity of the Poor Law. Now it is that charity of the Poor Law which we want to avoid. We want, if possible, to make the pension of the widowed mother a pension to which she is absolutely entitled; a pension which is, in no sense of the word, a charity; a pension to which she is entitled without all that inquiry which is so detrimental to pensions paid only after inquiry and with inquiry. The pension should be paid as a right without inquisitorial inquiry being made not only day by day but month by month and even year by year You can only make such a pension payable as of right, if it is a contributory pension paid as the result of a contributory scheme. In spite of what the Mover and Seconder have said—and of course I accept at once from them what is their personal view upon this matter—it would be interesting to hear what is

  1431
  the official view of the Labour party as to whether this should be a contributory scheme or not. I say that because hon. Members on the other side of the House know just as well as we do that this very important matter has been before the House on several previous occasions. It came before this House in February of last year when the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that, sympathetic as he was and as we all are, it was necessary to pay regard to the financial position and, having to pay regard to the financial position, what do we find?
  I am not doing what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) suggested I might do, namely, seeking to hide behind some excuse when I am saying this. I am merely reminding the House that although this matter was discussed in detail, discussed in full, discussed practically and sympathetically in February last, after the statement to which I refer was made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Labour Government were in power—[HON. MEMBERS: "In office!"]—in office, with most sympathetic supporters in many ways upon this side of the House in regard to this question, and, although they were, I repeat, in power, for some months after February of last year nothing practical was, in fact, done upon this question. Why was nothing practical done upon this question? Was it found impossible to put forward a scheme by itself for the payment of widows' pensions on a non-contributory basis because of the heavy burden which it would impose on the taxpayers of this country. Was that the reason? If that was not the reason why nothing more tangible or practical was done from February until September of last year, then what was that reason?
  9.0 P.M.
  I should like to see the payment of widows' pensions made part of an enlargement of the insurance scheme in
  this country. It is impossible to deal with one particular in insurance. It is essential to deal with widows' pensions as part of a scheme, and, speaking for myself and I hope for many hon. Members on this side, I say that scheme should be one by which in a single weekly contribution collected upon one card a man could insure not only against old age—I sup
  1432
  pose if we do not hope for it, old age is at any rate something we are led to expect—but against other eventualities. The pension payable at a certain age, and I am not going to enter into controversial questions as to what that age should 'be, should be paid as of right and should not be subject to inquiry as to the thrift of the man concerned. I should like to see that one weekly contribution collected upon one card also include insurance against unemployment. I suppose I can speak for those on this side of the House—and I think hon. Members opposite will agree—in saying that to all of us, at some time during our lives, unemployment has been something which we have dreaded, and to the British working man and woman it is something which is a continual dread. I should like to see the one contribution provide an insurance which would cover unemployment as well as old age. Even people who assist in the administration of criminal justice in this country sometimes fear unemployment. Sickness is another terrible scourge which everybody in this country is brought up from their earliest years to fear, and sickness should be covered by that one contribution weekly collected upon the one card.
  Then we are left with the death of the breadwinner—death, the summons for which comes quite unannounced, the summons against which, when it comes, there is no appeal. It is only right, in my view, that that weekly contribution should cover, for the man who is paying it, the pension of the mother of his children. That is the scheme which I, at any rate, should like to see come into existence, because the scheme, however high sounding it may be, however attractive it may be, of paying these pensions to widowed mothers without contribution is a scheme which, in my view, cannot be practical politics, otherwise the party opposite would have brought it into existence last year.
  The scheme being such a one as I have ventured to suggest, I also urge upon this House that at this time—indeed, at any time—it is improper to weaken those elements of self-respect, self-confidence, and thrift which have been for many generations traits in the character of the British working man. I believe that the British working man prefers—I do not say he can always do it—to have some

  1433
  thing to which he has a right, something for which he has paid and which has, therefore, a value to him, and I do ask that the Government should, at the earliest possible moment, put forward some scheme which will have reference to the thrift which has been shown by the British working man and British working woman, the thrift, indeed, which was referred to by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in February of last year, when he drew attention to the splendid efforts made by the working classes through fraternal organisation and by thrift to provide against the calamities of life. I ask that the Government should see that the times when, owing to illness, unemployment or other causes, those contributions, although they have been contributions dictated by the thrift of the contributors, cease, should be covered by some scheme which can be put forward.
  I am very grateful to the House for listening to what I have ventured, in my novice effort, to urge upon it in relation to this very important matter. The Prime Minister dealt with this matter in his election manifesto, and he dealt with it not only practically but, I think hon. Members opposite will agree, sympathetically, and, speaking for myself, and I doubt not for other hon. Members on this side of the House, we are, ILA was said by the hon. Member for Rochdale, pledged to see that at an early moment, and during the lifetime of the present Government, legislation is brought in to deal with this very important question upon the lines which I have ventured, shortly, I hope, to expound to this House. Having put those views before the House, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I wish to associate myself very cordially with the spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Curtis-Bennett) exposed his views to the House, and my first task is a very simple and easy one, which is to congratulate the hon. and learned Member, and I think the House, on the excellent and the cogent speech which he has made, an augury of many contributions of great value to our Debates in the future. Also, while in the congratulatory mood, I am not sure that I should not spare a little pittance of congratulation to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who
  1434
  moved this Resolution, on having rather less leisure for the process of reflecting on my hon. and learned Friend's dexterity than most of those who run counter to his forensic eloquence. What is it that we are dealing with to-night? If it puzzled the acumen of a distinguished member of the major professional classes, can the House wonder that to a very humble member of the minor professional classes like myself it is a little puzzling? Have we to do with a lonely but inspired prophet, or is this another case in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as, I think, in the cases of Singapore and of the Protocol, is brutally using his overwhelming minority to force upon the attention of the House a question on which, should a brighter sun shine and the position of parties be reversed, he might find himself forced to adopt a slightly different attitude?
  I am very loath to provoke controversy, and I wish to try to put it in such a way as may command the cordial consent of the House, but can anyone deny that this is one of those questions in the handling of which there is, shall we say, a brisker technique displayed in Opposition than upon the Government side? I remember in a former Debate the right hon. Gentleman the former Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed a spotless character for the Labour party in connection with this question. He said: "I think that the charge that we are men who have deserted the widowed mothers will never be included amongst the broken pledges of the Labour party." The right hon. Gentleman had a perfect right to maintain that attitude. I do not say for a minute that that was not so; but, alas! "It is not in parties to command success." If I may be permitted to guess for a few moments what is passing in the minds of the responsible leaders of the party opposite, I think I might, without impertinence, suggest that it is possible that they are in a dilemma, and that they have to choose between two alternatives—between maintaining the spotless character of their party's record, or, on the other hand, indulging only in very cautious utterances, so that if on a future occasion, having been returned to power, their utterances, if "Hansardised," will not be found among the more wild utterances of those who or this and other occasions have spoken from those benches. The equilibrium of choice is

  1435
  one which, no doubt, is nicely balanced, and it would be an impertinence for me to try to disturb it; but if I might quote the dictum of a very great philosopher, one who had had some experience of the subject which we are now discussing, I mean Mr. Weller, senior, I might say, "Never mind the character, Samivel, stick to the alleybi," and" my opinion is, Samivel that if yer guv'nor don't prove a alleybi he'll be what the Italians call reg'lar flummoxed."
  There has been, however, one pleasant feature of the Debate to-night—of course, with the exception of myself—and that is that the spirit of party has been kept out. I think that Members of the House who read the reports of other Debates, or were present at those Debates, will feel that it is a very great problem, and one discovers the further one goes into the investigation of this question how persistently progressive, I would almost say organic, has been the growth of our law of State relief and pensions. To this law, of course, all parties, and something more than all parties, have contributed. That is important, I venture to press upon the House. If we consider what man or what party first spoke of pensions for mothers as a matter of responsible consideration, I speak in the presence of people much more qualified to give an opinion than myself, my feeling is, after some former study of the subject, that from what I remember, it would be very difficult to resist the impression that the first person to speak about this as a practical matter of legislation was Prince Bismark. This was in the discussion on State insurance which preceded and accompanied the formation of Modern Germany. If we look to our own country, we should find that the matter received prominence in a famous Memorandum of Lord Goschen, in stating the exception to a rule, an important exception, of which neither he nor his advisers at the time apparently foresaw the vital character. If I am right in that contention, it seems to me that the corollary at the back is that it is not by what they have done that any parties in the State can be judged, because—to be quite frank about it—it is precious little. I suggest that
  1436
  the test is the measure in which, within the necessary and healthful limits of party conflict, all parties can co-operate with and smooth the way for the efforts of that vast body of expert opinion whose aid in the way of technical knowledge, financial and administrative experience, is in, the end the determining factor in putting on the Statute Book any really workable or comprehensive scheme of insurance, pensions—call it what you will! That that expert opinion is in favour of the principles contained in the Motion of my hon. Friend opposite, there was not the slightest shadow of proof. I do not think in justice it could be attempted to assert that it was. That is my first count against the Mover of the Resolution.
  My second charge is this. I do not think it is false to say that the time is now ripe for a cry to the whole nation to gather up its forces, to collect all its powers, for an unparalleled effort in insurance legislation. Great legislative measures of this kind, after all, accompany great movements in national life. The days of the French Revolution and the days of the founding of the German Empire saw gigantic national movements in an effort for the construction of codes of law. Those movements had heroes of their own. Men patiently inquired, men worked with their brains, and that is, after all, the hardest work of all. They sacrificed themselves for those great movements. Their labours were not in vain. They inspired their land and they educated their countrymen. They touched the soul and added to the tradition of the nation. I venture to suggest that progressive steps in social legislation during the last 50 years, whatever be the party from which they emanated, have indicated without shadow of doubt that we are on the verge of demanding from our nation just such a test of its intellectual and moral fibre. Yet the hon. Gentleman, without any hint of the larger possibility, has asked us to concentrate on immediate action in a very small corner of the field. Of course it is an important corner, and of course there is not a Member in this House who does not sympathise with women who are subjected to what was finely termed in the last Debate
  "the removal of the economic foundation of the family."

  1437
  The hon. Gentleman must not think me unreasonable if I say he has asked us to concentrate our attention on one group only in the vista of poverty and suffering. I believe that his ultimate end is the same as ours, and I think if he wishes to attain that end he is making a psychological mistake in attempting the piecemeal action which he seeks. As one progresses little by little down that horrid corridor, the spirit of even the most optimistic is likely to droop, and the sinews even of the tireless relax. It is not thus that we can obtain statutory form for what might be a new dispensation in our country's history. It is not to job out a task of piece-work that the nation can rally to its assistance artificers responsive to its every purpose rising to a great civic crisis. The problem is a gigantic problem which first, last and all the time must be actuarial. I think the inspiration must be apocalyptic.
  The Amendment has been amply explained by the last speaker. First of all, it suggests that any Measure must be part of a well-considered scheme. Secondly, that in that well-considered scheme the mechanism must be contributory and, lastly, there must be the maximum of expedition in its introduction. Legislation which would not be part of a well-considered scheme would be regarded as an example of capricious finance, irresponsible finance and finance divorced from policy. It would make us mocked by those countries of the world who watch us, and in the end not alleviate the situation. I said secondly that the scheme should include a contributory feature of some sort in its mechanism for reasons that my hon. and learned Friend expressed, and which I need not repeat, but finally I plead with Members of the Government for real expedition. An American critic of our institutions wrote just before the War that he foresaw the breakdown of our Constitution in the divorce which must exist between the Labour Government when it came into power and what he termed the sun-baked Toryism of our experts and permanent officials. It is probably easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a foreigner to understand our institutions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that I have been a fairly constant attender of the House, and I have endeavoured to understand their
  1438
  point of view. I have never interrupted, and if I cannot appeal to them in a friendly fashion not to render more difficult a task that would try anyone, I can at least point out that if they now restrain their dissent, it may possibly condense into eloquence and even argument at a later stage. This constant breaking out into a cold sweat of interjection is robbing the House of the pleasure which they might enjoy later.
  I say that this foreigner misunderstood, as is so easy, the remarkable loyalty of the silent service to the powers that be. There was a deeper thing than that, and I think it is cognate to this ease. There is, of course, no danger of political partiality in this service from that great tradition. The Civil Service is a compound of many elements, but one might find that the political element if ultimately analysed in the original civil servant would be never Tory, but Whig, I believe indubitably Whig, and whatever else the party on this side of the House is it is not Whig. I believe there is as great a gulf dividing a Conservative Prime Minister from his experts and nonpolitical officials as divides them from a Labour or Socialist Prime Minister. I know there is something paradoxical about that, but I believe it to be so, and I believe it is a profoundly good thing for our constitution that it is so. In no sense of the word do I constitute myself a representative of any section of the Conservative party. That would be too ludicrous, but I have kept my eyes open, and I venture to say, not to the Prime Minister, who wants no information about his own party from me, but to the House, that all the more living elements in this party, those most in touch with the people who sent them here, those most grateful to those people for the confidence and support they have given, line and score and underline and underscore again and again the urgency of this Measure. There, perhaps, we can leave it, except for the Division Lobby, and I ask that the vote in the Division Lobby should bear me out. We know we can entrust our leader to interpret to his experts, to his permanent officials, what is a very real driving force in this party, and the force that gives this party life, and in that confidence and in that belief, and in a certain sense joining hands with the hon. Member who moved this Motion, I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. G. THORNE: It is a very pleasant practice of this House for all sections of it always to recognise and appreciate a maiden speech, but I feel that it would be something in the nature of an impertinence for me to offer congratulations on a maiden speech to a Gentleman who occupies the position of the Mover of the Amendment. His position in the country is such that we all knew that the success of his speech was a foregone conclusion, consequently, we all rejoice in the fact that he is now a Member of this House, and so capable of taking part in its deliberations. The Seconder of the Amendment, in the course of his speech, asked what I could not help realising was a very pertinent question. His question was, "What are we dealing with to-night?" I am bound to say I had some difficulty in realising what it was during the course of his speech. As I understand it, it is a very sincere and earnest attempt, following previous attempts, to deal with what is regarded throughout the whole House as a very anxious and important matter. It is an attempt to deal with it by way of Resolution, and not by way of Bill, and I for one will consider the Bill when we see it.
  I think it is far wiser to-night to adopt the course which was adopted last year than the one now urged upon us by those who have moved the Amendment. Last year the same Motion as is now before the House was received very sympathetically by the then Government, and they and the whole House acquiesced in the passing of it. In view of the indications of sympathy which have been expressed by the Mover of the Amendment, I sincerely trust that Members will realise to-night that we can best further matters by following the course adopted last year and agreeing unanimously to a Motion in favour of so great a reform. I appreciate very deeply indeed the sympathy which, I know, was genuinely expressed by the Mover of the Resolution, and I am satisfied that it is shared very largely by hon. Members opposite. But I rather think the party with which they are associated are more sympathetic than those who have moved this Amendment. I have before me a report of what took place at the National Unionist Conference at Plymouth at the end of 1923, and the effort there was very much
  1440
  stronger than the effort which is indicated in the Amendment before the Rouse to-night. There it was moved that
  "as soon as the financial position of the country permits it is desirable to grant pensions to widows left with young children."
  An Amendment was moved to delete the proviso
  "as soon as the financial condition of the country permits,"
  and this was carried by a large majority, and the amended resolution was then agreed to. I wish the resolution so adopted by that great conference had been the Amendment moved to-night rather than the present Amendment.
  I am heartily in accord with the Motion before the House. It is not the first time I have spoken for it. I have been associated with this reform during the whole time it has been before this House. I was first brought into connection with it in an interview with His Honour Judge Neil, who had the great satisfaction of introducing it to America and helping to bring it to this country. He so convinced me of the reasonableness and wisdom of the policy that I have been a strong advocate of it ever since, and until I am absolutely satisfied that a contributory scheme is feasible and practicable, and will be better than the scheme now proposed, I stand by the Resolution. I support it broadly on three grounds. I support it from the standpoint of the child. The welfare of the child ought to be the supreme consideration of the State. A child left under the conditions referred to in the Resolution is one of the most pathetic objects a man can see, and I cannot conceive that any man will fail to realise the need of doing everything possible to give that child its chance. Consequently I would urge upon this House to concentrate its thoughts in order that something may be done and done quickly. What I am troubled about in regard to this Amendment is, that it looks like a shelving Amendment, intended to get rid of the Resolution, and it asks us to wait for something to happen in the future. I want the House to do what it has done before on this question, that is to pass a strong Resolution in favour of these pensions, and so help to create public opinion in the country.

  1441
  What is suggested in this Motion is in the interests of the State itself. An old question arises from the past, "Is it well with the child?" I ask myself, "Is it well with the State?" My answer is, that it will never be well with the State until the State has made it well with the child. The child is the greatest asset of the nation, and it is absolutely vital that we should watch the children's interests, and in what way can we do it better than by providing pensions for widows. A widow may be left with a number of children. Some live and prosper and some are cut off by disease, and very often little children are left to the mercy of a not very tender world. I think that is the time for the State to come in and provide something in the direction of equality of opportunity.
  I hope the appeal, which has been made to the Government to-night, will be complied with, and that some practical proposals will be put forward. It seems to me that this is not a matter for delay but one in which the whole House should urge upon the Government the vital necessity of facing this question at once. It has been urged that this method of acting, both in regard to old age pensions as well as widowed mothers, saps the moral fibre of our people. If it did, I would not support it, because that moral fibre is vital to the welfare of the nation, and I want to promote it and not to stop it. I am supporting this Resolution because, instead of sapping the moral fibre of the nation, I think it will increase the strength of the nation.
  What does sap the moral fibre of the nation is hopelessness. You find a man looking forward to old age who is engaged in toil. It is the hopelessness lying in front of him that saps his moral fibre If, however, we give some certainty to the man in his old age, or to the man engaged in work, that he can rely on, then all his efforts will be directed to extending that certainty, and instead of robbing him of his motive for thrift, it will give him hope and it will be an inducement to thrift. That is why I have always stood for universal old age pensions. I have the same feeling in regard to the Motion now before the House, and because I think it is good for the child the State, and the individual, I give it my hearty support. I have been
  1442
  particularly anxious to promote a country which is fit for heroes to live in, and I am quite content also to promote the welfare of a country that is fit for children to live in. For these reasons I ask this House to unanimously pass the Resolution which is now before us.
  Viscountess ASTOR: If there is one question that ought to be above party politics, surely it is the question of widows' pensions. This ought to be a question upon which we should all be agreed, although some questions are very difficult to keep out of party politics We know perfectly well that, although the late Government were in sympathy with pensions, they found it to be one of the most difficult of all questions to deal with, and if this question of pensions for widows had been as simple as some hon. Members opposite have made out, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would have brought in proposals at once. As a matter of fact the older politicians ought to be ashamed of looking the pension question in the face. Politicians have been pleading and fighting for better wages and almost every other sort of thing, and yet no one had been found to fight for the widows in the past. We must, however, face the difficulty now. There are four things that drive people to ask for State help. They are sickness, old age, unemployment and widowhood. The first three have been dealt with in some form of insurance schemes, but the widows have had to go to the wall. In my view of all the people who ought to have been forced on to the Poor Law, the widows are the last of all. We have been told that the State should not interfere in this matter, because it takes away initiative; but no one can say that of a young widow with children, at any rate, no one who knows anything at all about the difficulties. I will read to the House a pitiful letter, which is really only typical of thousands of others—
  "I have just been reading about widows' pensions. How true it is, and what sufferings it would save, only those who have gone through it can possibly know. I was left a widow with five children all under the age of 13 years, and no pension, and I struggled on with what I earned as a tailoress. I worked from 8 a.m. till 8 p.m. first part of the time, and did work for people when I got home at night, and more often it was 2 a.m. when I retired. I did that for two years and three months; then I had a breakdown, and the children, of course, mentioned it to the governess of the school, who

  1443
  interceded and got the three youngest in an orphan's home; but my youngest little girl, who is now seven years old, has been sent home to me, as they cannot bear the responsibility of her. She is not very strong, and her health gives way very often. I must add that I am not strong now myself, and at present am ill in bed. I have had a most terrible struggle. I have to go 'to work, but the worry is getting someone to look after my little one, and I have been worried terribly of late, and I am sure that is the cause of my illness."
  That is only one of thousands of cases, and, speaking as a woman, I cannot conceive how a Christian nation could have gone on so long neglecting the widows when they, of all people, should have 'been the first charge on the State. I rejoice now to think that all parties are in favour of widows' pensions, and I think we can trust the Prime Minister to carry a scheme through. I do not agree that this is a shelving Amendment, and if I believed it was I should vote against it. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh!"] Those hon. Members who interrupt know that it is one thing to talk out of office and another thing to talk in office. I do not want to go back to what happened last year, but if the Labour Government in dealing with the surplus, instead of taking something off taxation, had devoted that money to widows' pensions, they could have carried out this reform. I do not, however, wish to make this a party matter.
  Some hon. Members talk about this question in a rather vague way, but my view is that if women had had a vote as long as men had had the vote, we should have had this reform long ago. None of them are in any position to hold up their hands in horror at any Government, and I want to leave it at that. As I have said, I rejoice now that we have all come to see the necessity for it. I am in favour of a contributory system, of loathe charity—I loathe the idea of anybody, rich or poor, getting something for nothing. I hate it. It is a bad principle, and I am perfectly certain that most hon. Members think so, too, in their hearts. I am convinced, also, that the average working man of this country hates it as much as anyone else. If you put it on a contributory basis, it will be far better for the whole moral of those who are getting it. I hope very much that the front Opposition Bench will really tell the truth about this matter,
  1444
  because they know as well as we do that it is one of the most difficult of all problems. It is not only a question of money, but a question of administration, and the reason why they did not bring it in at once was that it was too difficult, and they could not get it done in time. I hope that Members opposite will realise that the Government, having given their pledge, mean to carry it out. After all, the present Government have no excuse, because they have a large majority behind them, and they have also behind them the country, which believes them, and sent them here with that enormous majority because it believed them.
  There are one or two things that I want to ask the Government. There are some cases in which the difficulty is very great. If the present basis is taken, of insurance of those employed in industry, it would, presumably, leave out present widows, whose husbands, being dead, cannot insure their wives. I hope that the Government, when bringing forward their proposals, will remember the case of the present widows, and also that of a large number of workers who are not industrially employed—cobblers, for instance, and small shopkeepers, who are not insured, but who work for themselves. It is going to be very difficult to include them, because they are not insured, being in business for themselves.
  Mr. J. JONES: Six stamps on your card!
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am in earnest about this, and I really think that, if hon. Members opposite were, we should not have these interruptions from the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), particularly after dinner.
  Mr. JONES: I have had no dinner to-day yet. I do not pay seven and sixpence for mine.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I want to ask the Government to bear in mind those who are not insured, because, if the bread winner dies, they are in a really tragic position, and I hope that in some way, in the new scheme, their case will be dealt with. Again, if these people are going to be taken off the Poor Law, they will have to get an adequate sum to keep them and their children. That is an absolute necessity. Mr. Rowntree in his book on "Human Needs of Labour," put the scale in 1914 at 12s. a week for the

  1445
  widow plus 3s. 6d. for each child. In November, 1923, his figures were 21s. for the widow and 6s. 1½d. a week for each child. When the Government bring in their scheme, they ought to bear in mind that, if a widow is to stay at home, as you want her to do, and keep up her home and take care of her children, that cannot be done unless she is given a sufficient allowance. I am perfectly certain that it is the wish of the country that widows with young children should be able to stay in their homes and bring up their children properly. That is the whole argument for unemployment insurance. Therefore, I beg the Government not to bring in any niggardly scale, which will not be enough to give them what the whole country desires to give them.
  10.0 P.M.
  Further, I hope the Government will consider making a dowry grant on remarriage. They did so in the case of the soldiers and sailors, and it is really a very sound policy. I cannot go into the whole question now, but the Government will see the reasons why, during the War, a dowry was given to a widow on remarriage, and they will find that it was a very sound policy. From the point of view of the State it is not extravagant, and it is a more moral policy from the point of view of the widow. I hope I have not kept the House too long, but I do feel that Members in all quarters of the House should not try to make party capital out of the widows and fatherless, who have for too long been neglected. Do not think for one moment that the Members on this side of the House are not just as much interested in the case of the widows as Members opposite are.
  Mr. JONES: They make more widows than we do.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am not dealing with the hon. Member at this time of the night.
  Mr. JONES: That is an old insult from her.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Mr. JONES: I am not going to stand her insults. She is continually making personal references to me.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Mr. JONES: I will agree to your ruling, but not to hers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been interrupting during the whole of the evening.
  Mr. JONES: I have not been here the whole of the evening.
  Mr. SPEAKER: At any rate, during all the time he has been here.
  Mr. JONES: I have had sufficient provocation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I shall not be able to allow the hon. Member to stay in the House if he continues.
  Mr. JONES: All right, I can get out of it.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask the Noble Lady—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think not.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am just going to sit down, because I realise that many other Members want to speak, but I do want to say that we want something practicable and workable. Although some hon. Members opposite may not believe individually in a contributory scheme, do not let us fight over that, but let us have something practicable and workable. I want to urge that upon the Government, in order that they may give real relief to these widows and children.
  Mr. SUTTON: I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments, because I have been informed that a number of Members want to speak, particularly Front Bench men. I do, however, want to say a word or two in support of this Motion. The Noble Lady who has just sat down has been pleading very eloquently for mothers' pensions and for pensions for children, but I am afraid she is going to go into the Lobby against mothers' pensions and pensions for children.
  Viscountess ASTOR: No!
  Mr. SUTTON: She will go into the Lobby, along with her party, for deferring these pensions which are necessary at the present time. The hon. and learned Member for Chelmsford (Sir

  1447
  H. Curtis-Bennett), who moved the Amendment to this Motion, wanted to know what the late Government or the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had done last February, when we were in office and not in power. He is now not in his place, or I should have reminded him that the Labour Government had only been in office and not in power one month when the question of mothers' pensions was discussed in this House, and that it was an impossibility in one month's time in taking office to prepare a scheme for mothers' pensions. I am of opinion that had the Labour Government been in office for another year, during this year we should have had a scheme of mothers' pensions, because I believe my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had appointed the Committee to go into the whole questions of pensions for widows and orphans.
  During the last Election Members of this House connected with all parties, from the Government side, from the Liberal side and the Labour side, advocated mothers' pensions, but, unfortunately, now that the opportunity has presented itself for the first time of bringing it forward, I am sorry to say that the Government who are in power with a large majority want to defer this question for a long time to come. They are speaking of a contributory scheme. What does it mean? It is said, as the Mover of the Resolution suggested, that we have 175,000 widows in this country with some hundreds of thousands of dependent children. Who is going to contribute for that number of women and children in years to come to get a pension? It will be an impossibility. I am of the opinion that even the Government with their large majority will not attempt for a few years to come to legislate in the direction that they are intimating with the Amendment to-night moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chelmsford. What little experience I have of this House is that never until the last Session of a Government, before they appeal for a General Election, do they bring forward anything that is going to benefit the people as a whole. Seeing that they advocated, along with other Members of this House, a pension scheme, I am of the opinion that something
  1448
  ought to be done. It may not be done at once, but they could at least prepare a scheme, perhaps in a few months' time. We have 175,000 widows in this country. Take the case of the colliery disaster that happened the other evening. There you will have another large number of widows and dependent children who will have to apply to the Poor Law guardians for relief. Those of us who live in the midst of poverty-stricken areas and who are at home for week-ends see these people, many of whom come and tell us how they have been blown into when they have to appeal to the guardians for support when they have lost their breadwinner and have dependent children upon them, and many of them come with tears in their eyes. We are all most anxious that something should be done for the widows and children. There is no contributory scheme for the high officials in the Army and Navy, and in the case of ex-service men there is no contributory scheme. They get their pensions as a right. We on this side of the House believe that people who are unable to contribute to a scheme on account of their poverty and of the low wages they have received, seeing they have contributed to the wealth of the nation, ought to be entitled to pensions when they are in need of them. I shall not transgress. I promised to speak about 10 minutes, and I have pleasure in supporting the Motion, and I hope even hon. Members opposite will come into the Lobby with us to help us to carry this Motion.
  Mr. FORD: I would certainly not support the Amendment to this Motion if I thought there was the least substance in the charge that it was a shelving Motion. I would rather, if I may venture to do so, deprecate anything that has been said on either side that has tended to raise any party feeling in this matter. It is far too serious a business for party feeling. All of us are up against the brutal and essential considerations of finance in this matter. It is a matter of proportion, of considering with the greatest sympathy the needs of the widows and her dependent children. But there are other cases that have to be considered also. If we are going to begin to fritter away the resources that can be collected and conserved for a very big scheme for the

  1449
  benefit of the whole people without having got a proper financial basis for it, we are going to do grave injustice all round. There are many trades where the present statutory limit at which old age pensions can be received ought to be substantially reduced. There are trades in which men and women are worn out much sooner. There are cases of inadequate provision made in many cases to the dependants of the men who fought. It is all very well to say that people in the industrial world contribute to the nation. These men gave their lives directly and knowingly, and the inadequate provision is a thing that hurts us all to contemplate.
  The scheme the Government have in view is a great scheme of national insurance in which all these things will be brought together on a contributory basis for those who are coming into the scheme. It is ridiculous to say that you are going to make an old age pensioner contribute or that the widows of the men who have died already in the incidence of the accidents of industrial life are to be made to contribute. That is nonsense. We must have an actuarial basis to the scheme or we are not entitled to embark on a big scheme like that. The only thing I feel any doubt about in connection with the Amendment is that it is asking the Government to introduce this complicated scheme in this Session, but let us keep in view that we must have a great comprehensive national insurance scheme on a contributory basis dealing with it in a sensible way. We will get it, I hope; we must make every effort to get it. Let us keep that in view. Let us remember that when and where there is a surplus of funds in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the first claims from year to year should be for such a scheme as this. There is no good promising what you are going to do, what you have got the money to do. I fought an election and I lost it largely over misrepresentation with regard to the removal of the means limit for old age pensions. It was a scandalous misrepresentation. The same kind of misrepresentation might be made on this question, but the fact has been proved that the people who talk common sense on this subject came back with substantial majorities, because the country realises that windy promises are no good, and that you are entitled not to hold out false hopes
  1450
  but the really solid, financially-sound way in which you can meet the very proper claims and desires of the people of this country. We have to keep that in mind. We are far more carrying out what is reasonable and sensible if, instead of trying to urge the Government to do something that in the present state of the finances of the country it is quite obvious it cannot do this year, if instead even of urging, as this Amendment does, the introduction of very complicated but very necessary legislation this Session, we urge upon the Government—I hardly think we need to do so when we remember the recent speeches of the Prime Minister and others—the absolute necessity of pressing forward the actuarial facts and bases of these schemes. It may not be so showy as saying "We will introduce a Bill this Session," but if they will work, not in order to play a trump card at an election as is suggested, but if they will work and take the lay mind in along with the expert and see that a really sound scheme is produced, that will be far more than any little political advantage which can be gained by playing this or that card and alleging this suspicion or that. Let us, therefore, support this Amendment as the best thing we can get at present, and, at the same time, seriously urge the Government to go on assiduously and unremittingly preparing this great national scheme, which, I think, ought to be the salvation of the country.
  Mr. CLYNES: We on this side of the House have at least the consolation of this subject having done some work as pioneers, and we have the further consolation of seeing a very real measure of headway made, not only within these walls, but in public opinion outside. Year by year Motions have been introduced on the initiative of the Labour party, and year by year we have seen them strengthened by the votes in the Division Lobby until last year, I think in February, there was not even a vote cast against the Motion submitted from the Labour Benches, and unanimously the House of Commons assented to a Motion precisely similar to that which is submitted to-night. It was a Motion in favour of the State undertaking fully the obligation of providing widows' pensions and clearly calling for them upon a noncontributory basis. I ask the attention of the House to the fact that then, while

  1451
  a Labour Government was in office, not a single suggestion was made from the Conservative quarter of the House that contributions should be paid, and no opposition of any kind, as I have said, was offered to the Resolution on that occasion. The objection, which we think is a real one, to the idea of the scheme suggested in the Amendment is that such a scheme would inevitably fail to reach those who were most in need of this aid. The very poorest, once more, would be found to be outside the range of the scheme, however far it might go. It is well known that in the case of every form of insurance on which benefits depend, the people most in need of the benefits have the greatest difficulty in securing them and frequently fail entirely to receive them, because of their inability to pay. There would be by inquiry and delay a very great aggravation of the existing distress and difficulties due to the absence of any adequate provision for pensions for widows.
  The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment made, if I may say so—and I say it with the general assent of the House—a speech of real excellence, but the general merit of that speech, surely, did not apply to his argument that unless a contribution was paid, the pension could not be received as a right. We must put right upon a broader and more generous basis than the payment of a contribution, and we are entitled to say, that if it be true that a pension cannot be received as a right without a contribution having been paid for it, then many rich men who have received pensions are not entitled to them.
  I congratulate hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the House upon the simulated seriousness and upon the excellence of the pretence with which they have so often put the question, why the Labour Government of last year did not introduce a Measure and carry it through, covering what is now before the House. I shall not shirk the effort to answer that question. The last Government, I suppose, was the shortest one on record in recent times, and the reason why we did not carry through this provision, like many others that we should like to carry through, is that we came into office too late and were pushed out of office too early. We came so late that we
  1452
  could not be answerable for the conditions of national finance at that time; but we were honest and made provision for this scheme. The declaration of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is on record, when he said that a scheme was well advanced in its preparatory stages, and that financial provision for making it good would be made in the next Labour Budget.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Was that scheme contributory or non-contributory? It would be very helpful if the House could know that. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
  Mr. CLYNES: Throughout, at every conference, and at every Labour gathering, whether in this House or outside, the scheme always has been on a non-contributory basis.
  Mr. J. JONES: God help them if it was not.
  Viscountess ASTOR: This is a very important question.
  Mr. CLYNES: On this matter of pensions, the Labour record is clean. No one can charge us during our term of office with having neglected the just interests of pensions in this country. Beginning with the old-age pensions, we removed almost entirely the disabilities under which many thousands of old-age pensioners suffered, and we added a very large number of new old-age pensioners who had not been entitled to pensions on any previous occasion. We do not under-estimate the financial difficulties of this question. Statesmanship is a quality designed to face and overcome difficulties. What is the good of making a boast of doing easy things I We recognise difficulties, but I say that there is still wealth enough in this country to draw upon in support of the children who are in such a state of distress and want because the father of the children is dead.
  We have had to meet it is true very heavy demands for the pensions which we pay now. Very likely the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will later give the House some record of what is the present obligation of the country in respect of pensions. In anticipation may I say that taking the figures relating to all kinds of War

  1453
  pensions as well as to old age pensions, and taking the whole sum put together paid since the end of the War to all these pensioners, it is not too much to say that nearly the whole of that money would be made up from the duty on beer alone. We have very large resources of all kinds upon which to draw and taxation, if need be, for such a purpose is not a measure from which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would shrink. The children have a claim upon this House as well as the aged, as well as the soldiers, and this is essentially a children's question. It is primarily a question of greater care for the children, greater opportunities for their education, greater certainty for their health and care than, say, providing even an ordinary means of livelihood for the mother.
  There is nothing more pathetic than the plight of the widowed mother in this country. Her struggle for life, even in conditions of ordinary good fortune, is enough to face and undergo, but one great handicap in the case of women referred to in this discussion is a handicap which would be diminished if not removed by a fuller application of our great financial resources. I agree with the Noble Lady as to what is the effect on the children of what may be described as institutional upbringing. To rear children in an institution is not a good thing, but many thousands have to be sent to homes of all kinds because of the inability of the widow to make duo provision which will make it unnecessary to break up the home. We on this side have often been charged falsely with not having due regard to the home life of this country, and hon. Members might on this occasion join with us in seeking to rescue those children from institutions and in that direction doing what is possible to secure a proper place for the children in the home.
  The proper person to rear and care for the child is the mother, and it would pay the State and pay the mother to undertake the necessary human and material task. It will save the physique of the children. I read recently some lament about our inability to fill our armies, as we were easily able to do in bygone times, and that one cause of our difficulties in recruiting was the enormous proportion of men rejected from the Army who were willing to join it. Some five out of every eight men who offered themselves for
  1454
  military service even now are not fit for it. Probably they are drawn largely from the children of the widowed mothers. In a commercial sense, in every sense of character and manner, as well as for reasons of general physique, I assert that it will pay this country to pay this bill, and we have reached a stage I hope at which Parliament, and the nation as well, will readily accept this new obligation even although it may be a heavy financial burden.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): It is very pleasant to speak on behalf of the Government in a Debate which has produced such general agreement. After the very moving appeal on the merits of the case, as we have heard it from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and other hon. Members on all sides of the House, who have urged the importance of early legislation on this subject, it is not necessary for me to cover the same ground. I have for very long past felt that it is very remarkable, considering the provisions which we have made for the misfortunes of ill-health, of old age and of unemployment, that we have waited so long to deal with a class of misfortune which is far more shattering in the domestic life of our people. Seeing also the amounts which we have found out of public resources for the education of our people, it is high time that we should ensure that our future citizens should not lack adequate maintenance and sustenance to enable them to take advantage of those mental opportunities which the State has recently extended. I am sure that we all recognise the heroic and heart-rending effort which many of these widows, left in penury, make to keep their homes together. If I do not take up the time of the House further on that matter, which is of general agreement, it is because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to stand too long between them and their opportunity. We are all agreed on the major premises. We have to have legislation. But we are sharply divided on the alternative methods of dealing with this question. On the one hand, there is a section of the Labour party which is in favour of a non-contributory scheme.
  Viscountess ASTOR: No, no!
  Mr. GUINNESS: I understand it was only a part of the Labour party, but this is a matter which needs a great deal of inquiry and explanation, and I would like to be quite clear as to what was really-meant by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Are we to understand that the Labour party have never made inquiries on any basis, except the basis of a non-contributory scheme? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make that quite clear?
  Mr. CLYNES: All manner of inquiries were made. My hon. Friend who moved this Resolution can depend upon the unanimous support of every Member of the Labour party in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The explanation clears away a misapprehension. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman and those who sat with him in the last Government were not convinced as to the possibilities of an non-contributory scheme, and they did examine, as we are examining, the alternative of dealing with this matter on a contributory basis. After all, there is nothing to be ashamed of in that attiude, and I ask that question, not as a matter of criticism, but because I thought Members of the House were misunderstanding, and those who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman were misunderstand, a remark that fell from him during his speech. This matter must be considered in terms of cost, and it is very remarkable that in all the proposals for a non-contributory scheme, there is the same element of vagueness. The-most definite proposals we have had were those brought forward last year by Mr. Dukes, who said that the provision for widows' pensions and the pensions of their dependants should be the same as those given to War widows—26s. 8d. for the widow, 10s. for the first child, 7s. 6d. for the second child and 6s. for the third child. He did not go into those details, but that, I assume, was what he meant. He gave the cost of that scheme as £20,000,000. I have made inquiries from our experts, and I am informed that such a scheme would cost £16,000,000 for the widows during the period of their children's dependency, £10,000,000 for the children and from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 for mothers left in difficulty owing to the incapacity of the breadwinner. So it was not a matter of £20,000,000, but somewhere between £30,000,000 and £35,000,000.
  Mr. J. JONES: How many years would that cover?
  Mr. GUINNESS: That would apply to all widows during the period while the children were dependent upon them.
  Mr. JONES: How much per year
  Mr. GUINNESS: On the basis which is laid down—and this is not our scheme but the scheme of hon. Members opposite and I am only giving an illustration of the cost—the amount for the widows would have been 26s. 8d. Hon. Members opposite had the opportunity of carrying such a scheme. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year gave away a surplus of much more than £35,000,000. He gave away a surplus amounting in a full year to no less than £48,000,000. On Customs and Excise alone he gave concessions amounting to £32,000,000, a sum which would have been nearly enough to finance such a non-contributory scheme as is advocated by his supporters to-day but which was looked upon with so much doubt when hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite were responsible for the government of the country. What did the late Chancellor of the Exchequer say on this matter last year?
  "I doubt if ever there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a position more unfortunate than that in which I find myself. I am expected to do all kinds of impossible things. The miracle of the loaves and fishes was a comparatively trivial thing compared with what I am expected to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1924; col. 1890, Vol. 169.]
  What about my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "With 400 majority!"]—who is left with an absolutely bare cupboard? His predecessor deliberately shaved the bone, so as to leave only £4,000,000, and, as a matter of fact, only £3,500,000 has been left according to the figures published this morning.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Very good budgeting.
  Mr. GUINNESS: We are not discussing the Budget now. If £34,000,000 of remissions in the financial year which has just closed did not represent enough loaves and fishes to finance a noncontributory scheme, I think it is pretty obvious that it is difficult for my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to attempt anything of the

  1457
  kind at present. The deeds of a Chancellor of the Exchequer live after him, and we have to face a further drop of £14,000,000 as a legacy from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it is not merely because of any temporary lack of resources that we are compelled to reject the method, which finds favour opposite, of a, non-contributory scheme for dealing with mothers' pensions.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Widows' pensions.
  Mr. GUINNESS: No; mothers'. I am dealing with their scheme, and the Noble Lady may not have noticed that it is definitely limited to mothers' pensions, but it is by no means to be assumed that it would remain limited to mothers' pensions. If you have non-contributory pensions in a matter of this kind, it is inevitable that you will be driven to concessions far beyond what were originally proposed, and if you begin with widows with children dependent upon them, you may be quite sure, in the light of our experience on old age pensions, pre-war pensions, and other instances of that sort, that we shall be irresistibly pressed to go far beyond the original scheme. If, however, you deal with the problem by a system of insurance, you have a definite test: What additional risk can be assumed by the fund without threatening insolvency? If the State is merely a partner in an insurance scheme, the credit of the fund and the vital interests of the insured are a defence against the extension of benefits beyond what can be justified on an actuarial basis. I believe that such a safeguard is absolutely necessary in the interests of our national finance.
  The Treasury in these days is beset day after day with insistent claims to pay one section at the expense of the rest of the community, and our constant problem is to conserve the general interest against special encroachment, in spite of our very elaborate method of Parliamentary procedure, which hedges the system of public finance with such elaborate safeguards against encroachment on the part of hon. Members who are playing up to their constituents. Though the finances of the country are very strong, after all, our resources are limited. The structure of British commerce and industry is very well built, but even there there is a limit to the weight which its foundations can hear, and already
  1458
  there are ominous signs of cracks and settlements, which point to the necessity of lightening rather than adding to the stresses which the foundations can carry. Our policy is to deal, therefore, with this question on the only safe basis of a contributory scheme, such as that brought forward so forcibly by the hon. and learned Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Curtis-Bennett), in the very eloquent maiden speech which he made to-night. Of course, I cannot commit myself to all the details of the rather ambitious scheme of all-in insurance which be outlined, but in a word, our method is that of State-aided self-help. Our policy is not doles from charity, but pensions as a right. We believe that only in that way can you avoid that inquiry as to means which has been resented as inquisitorial, as in the case of the old age pensions administration. If you have the test of insurance it is perfectly simple to see whether or not people are qualified by the condition of contribution. All those who have studied this matter during the past year are coming more and more to the opinion that it is only by a system of insurance that this matter can be safely and adequately dealt with.
  It is interesting to find, not only on this side of the House, but below the Gangway on the other side, that this opinion exists. The Noble Lord who leads the Liberal party—
  Mr. J. JONES: To disaster!
  Mr. GUINNESS: I refer to the Earl of Oxford and Asquith who, in the joint manifesto he issued with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), said:
  "The Liberal party advocated pensions for widows and allowances for orphans, to be carried out by a comprehensive policy of contributory insurance."
  To-night we have witnessed a new split, and a new fissure in the party, for the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Thorne) has thrown over his leader. He has committed himself wholeheartedly to a scheme which was brought forward by the hon. Member who sits next to him above the Gangway (Mr. Kelly), and in spite of what his leader has said, he asks, Why it was the Conservative party did not agree with the Labour party in supporting a non-contributory scheme? He went further, and he asked: Why did not the Conservative party oppose a non

  1459
  contributory scheme last year? The fact is that the present Minister of Agriculture, who spoke in the Debate last year, was careful to save himself being committed to a non-contributory scheme. At the end of his speech he said:
  "In that I include the desirability of a close examination of the question whether or not that is the best way of doing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1924; col. 1898, Vol. 169.]
  At that time we were already engaged, as a party, on an inquiry as to the actuarial basis of a system of widows' insurance. That is the explanation of the impossibility of committing ourselves more than a year ago, and before this inquiry had been advanced. The last Election, however, could have left the House in no doubt as to our position. None of our pledges were more specific than those given on this subject, not only by the Prime Minister, but by all his followers. I suppose there is hardly a Member inside the House who did not commit himself up to the hilt, in his speeches and in his Election address, to dealing with these mothers' pensions during the present Parliament. I would remind the House that, on this side, we are restrained in our Election promises. Hon. Members will find that we have limited them to what we think is within our intention and our power to perform. I would remind hon. Members opposite that a sound scheme of insurance must not only be built upon sympathy but also arithmetic. It is for that reason that the Treasury are now associated with the Ministry of Health in examining this problem in all its bearings with a view to bringing forward definite proposals. It is obvious that an insurance scheme needs far closer and detailed examination than a scheme which throws the whole burden on the public Exchequer.
  The complications of the scheme which will satisfy the House have been shown by the hon. Member who sits for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). She asked whether existing widows—so did hon. Members opposite—are to be brought in, or whether they are to wait till the scheme has rolled up a credit out of which they can be paid. That is a matter which needs careful inquiry. The Noble Lady also asked if a dowry would be given to the widows who marry again. Probably, there would be a great actuarial benefit
  1460
  in compounding the liability to the widow who is bringing up children if she can get a breadwinner to take over. That, again, is a matter which wants a good deal of inquiry, and it needs not only a study of arithmetic, but also a study of human nature.
  Besides these particular points, the Prime Minister, in his manifesto at the last Election, indicated that he was proposing to cover a far wider field than merely widows' pensions. He defined his object to supplement the present old age pension with provision for the aged people beyond the possibility of employment in industry at an earlier age. These subjects cannot be dealt with in the few months that have been at the disposal of the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS "The last Government!"] You were not able to deal with a far smaller scheme. On behalf of the Government, I can only say to-night that we are glad to accept this Amendment, in full confidence that during this Parliament, as soon as our inquiries are completed, we shall be able to bring forward a Measure to give relief in their necessities to the widows and the orphans.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: This proposal began with a sympathetic plea for widowed mothers. It has terminated with a most tearful appeal for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been said that he has been left only a shaved bone on which to dine. He is rather worse off than the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who has not had any dinner at all.
  Mr. J. JONES: I cannot afford it!
  Major HORE-BELISHA: What the House, and particularly this side of the House, wants to know is, when these widows are going to get their pensions. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a great punctilio of the precise words on which a motion can be voted for or voted against. He takes conscientious exception to the terms of the Motion, and thinks no honest Conservative can vote for it. It so happens that every Conservative Member of this House voted for a similar Motion with a good heart a few months ago. The Motion, which was not even challenged, and was, indeed, welcomed with unanimity and enthusiasm by hon. Members who

  1461
  were then in opposition, was a Motion to give, by the agency of the State, pensions to widows with children. We have the same Motion to-night, and we are told that the Government are going to reject it.
  Mr. GUINNESS: There was no Division.
  Major HORE - BELISHA: Precisely. What I want to know from my right hon. Friend is why he wants to divide on the Motion to-night?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Why has the hon. Member thrown over the joint manifesto of his leader—months later?
  Major HORE-BELISHA: It is a very well-known method of advocacy, but one more suited to the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment than to the right hon. Gentleman who is now indulging in it, to try to shelve one's responsibility and inconsistency by pointing out divisions in some other party. What the Liberal party are anxious for, and that with unanimity—[Interruption]. I am not in the witness box—what the Liberal party are anxious for is that a scheme of widows' pensions should be brought
  into operation. It would be a vindication of Liberal history. The Liberal party have been responsible for every single measure of social insurance upon the Statute Book, in defiance of hon. Members who sit upon the other side. Where were they when we proposed old age pensions? They were not in the Lobby with us. Where were they when we proposed the insurance scheme? They were not in the Lobby with us. What we do know is that only just over a year ago, at Plymouth, they gave adherence to the very principle of the, Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend. They have now turned round and say that any widow accepting a 'pension upon these terms would accept the stigma of charity. It is a little bit late in the day to talk of charity. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to search his own conscience and see if he cannot see his way to accept this Motion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 274.

  Division No. 71.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawson, John James

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lee, F.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Lindley, F. w.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Greenall, T.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lowth, T.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mackinder, W.

  Barnes, A.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Barr, J.

  Groves, T.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, T. W.

  March, S.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Maxton, James

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Montague, Frederick

  Bromfield, William

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murnin, H.

  Bromley, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hardie, George D.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Buchanan, G.

  Harney, E. A.

  Palin, John Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Harris, Percy A.

  Paling, W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Potts, John S.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Connolly, M.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South)

  Ritson, J.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)

  Dennison, R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Duncan, C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Dunnico, H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  England, Colonel A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Scurr, John

  Forrest, W.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sexton, James

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Gibbins, Joseph

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

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Gillett, George M.

  Lansbury, George

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon, J

  Slesser, sir Henry H.

  Thurtie, E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Smillie, Robert

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wignall, James

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Snell, Harry

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Windsor, Walter

  Stamford, T. W.

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

  Wright, W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Sutton, J. E.

  Welsh, J. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Taylor, R. A.

  Westwood, J.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Albery, Irving James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

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

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Drewe, C.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Atkinson, C.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Elveden, Viscount

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Balniel, Lord

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Barnett, Major Richard W,

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Finburgh, S.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Bethell, A.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Ford, P. J.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Bird, E. R.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Looker, Herbert William

  Brass, Captain W.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fremantle, Lt. Col. Francis E.

  Lougher, L.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Gaibraith, J. F. W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. V.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lumley, L. R.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gates, Percy

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  McLean, Major A.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Gower, Sir Robert

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Burman, J. B.

  Grace, John

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Cassels, J. D.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

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

  Meller, R. J.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hanbury, C.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Christie, J. A.

  Harland, A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cope, Major William

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Couper, J. B.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Oakley, T.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Penny, Frederick George

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Percy, Lord Eustace Hastings)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Perring, William George

  Crook, C. W.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  1464

  1465

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Waddington, R.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Skelton, A N.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Preston, William

  Slaney, Major p. Kenyon

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Radford, E. A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wells, S. R.

  Ramsden, E.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Ropner, Major L.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R. Ripon)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Savery, S. S.

  Tinne, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Titchfield, Major the Marguess of

  Sir H. Curtis Bennett and Sir

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Geoffrey Butler.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. MACLEAN Mr. MACLEAN rose—
  It being after Eleven, of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of First Schedule.
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'tenpence' stand part of the Schedule."
  Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  NITROGEN FIXATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Mr. J. BECKETT: I wish to draw attention to the sale in 1920 of the
  1466
  Government factory for the extraction of nitrogen from the air, and also to the circumstances in which the Government sent a Commission to the German factory for the fixation of nitrogen in order to discover the German process known as the Haber process for extracting nitrogen from the air. I have asked a series of questions extending over a month from the Secretary of State for War on this matter, and I find that, in regard to almost every key point which would give us some clue as to the nature of this very mysterious transaction, we are told it is not in the public interest to give information, or that the Minister has not the slightest idea of the information we want, or that the matter is now so old that information cannot be secured from the Disposal Board, and so we go on. This subject is not only of interest because of the rather mysterious nature of the transaction, but it is also of very great interest to the agricultural industry and to the chemical industry.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): May I ask the hon. Member who is the Minister concerned, and has he given any warning that he was going to raise the question?
  Mr. BECKETT: Yes. Notice was given formally to the Speaker two days ago, and one of the Whips opposite was informed a little while ago, when it appeared that the matter could be brought up, and I understood he had given the information necessary. As far as I can trace the history of this trans

  1467
  action, the Government, after sending a Commission to Oppau, to discover the German method of the fixation of nitrogen, sold the factory, which had certainly cost the British taxpayer a very large sum of money, to Messrs. Brunner, Mond, Ltd., who were the firm paying for the exploitation of this invention, at a figure very much below the price which the British taxpayer had been called upon to pay. I want to put to the Minister responsible—I am not quite sure whether the War Office is still handling it, or if he has referred the matter to the Exchequer—who were the members of this Commission? I have already asked that question through the ordinary procedure, and have been told that it is not in the public interest for either the House or the country to know who the members of this Commission were who were sent to Oppau. I want to know whether the Chairman of that Commission is now a director of the firm exploiting the Haber process. I want to know if any report was received from that Commission that reported from Oppau to the War Office or any other responsible Department? If such a report has been received, I want to know when it was received. I should very much like to know, and I am sure that the public would be interested to know whether the report was received from members of this Commission before or after they left the Government service and entered the service of Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company?
  I am sure also we should be interested to know whether the report was received by any responsible Government Department before the sale of the factory under private treaty to Messrs. Brunner Mond. In reply to a question the Secretary of State for War said this factory was very widely advertised before it was sold by private treaty, the terms of this treaty again being against the public interest to disclose. I want to know if, when that factory was advertised, other people knew that the Haber process was being thrown in with the factory like a pound of tea? I also want to know whether the private treaty contains any reference to the Haber process being included? The information I have, which I shall be the first to withdraw if it is wrong, is that immediately on the return of the Commission from Oppau its members, who
  1468
  were already in Government employ, resigned their commissions and took up remunerative posts in the employ of the company that had bought up the factory, and I am further informed—and again I hope I am wrong—that this report was not received by any responsible Government Department.
  In view of the fact that Members of the present Government were in the Government at that time, and that Members of this House were concerned with both the original purchasing company and with the directorate to exploit this new invention, and concerned with the new importing company to import Chile saltpetre, which was the main factor for obtaining nitrogen before this new method was obtained, I should like the Government to tell us what price was paid for this information, and how many of the members of the Commission are on the directorate or in the employ of the company. It would also be extremely helpful, and would clear up a lot of mystery about the transaction, if we could be informed whether there was any Clause in the Treaty making it a condition that the firm obtaining the factory and the Haber process were obliged in any way to obtain a certain minimum production and to sell the produce at any minimum or maximum price. In view of the fact that Germany and France a-re now practically self-supporting in this matter, and that the French Government deemed this process important enough to use a national factory for the purpose, it -appears to me that we should get the information which I desire, and I should be very glad if we could have that information. [HON. MEMBERS "Answer!"]
  Captain DOUGLAS KING Captain DOUGLAS KING rose—
  Mr. MACLEAN: Are we not to have a reply from the array of Whips on the Government Bench: from the Cabinet which is now sitting on the Front Bench?
  Mr. MAXTON: Whips that cannot crack!
  Mr. MACLEAN: Surely they can make some reply to the statements that have been made.
  Captain KING: I rose, but I understood that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, had called upon the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). I should like to explain,

  1469
  in the first place, that I have had no notice that this question was going to be raised to-night. Notice was given about 10 days or a fortnight ago, and I was here to answer, but after 11 o'clock the Motion was postponed until some future occasion, when notice was to be given and there would be a Cabinet Minister to answer. I do not like to say that no notice was given on this occasion, but I have explained to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) and other hon. Members opposite, that the question really is one for the Treasury. The whole question of selling this factory to Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company was carried out nearly five years ago, in 1920, so I understand it, by the Disposal Board. The War Office had not at that time, and never have had, and have not at the present time, anything to do with the question. It has never come under the War Office at all.
  The Disposal Board, of course, is now a defunct body, and their legal executors are the Treasury. If the hon. Member requires any information of transactions carried out by the Disposal Board, I can only recommend him to put a question down, or give notice of such a Motion to the Treasury, so that they may make inquiries. I understand that the documents dealing with the transactions of the Disposal Board are, I think, stored in a warehouse at Manchester. Consequently, to obtain any such information would involve a considerable amount of time and public expense to obtain the documents wherewith any information could be given. But, as representing the War Office at the moment, I can give no information on the subject. The only Government Department, I imagine, that can give any information would be the Treasury as the legal executors of the Disposal Board.
  Mr. BECKETT: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member has given the House an assurance that this information is not in the possession of the War Office?
  Captain KING: To my knowledge there are no documents at all at the War Office dealing with this question. Neither the ownership of the factory nor the sale of the factory came under the War Office. It has never been a War Office question. It was dealt with, first of all, before the
  1470
  Disposal Board came into being by the Ministry of Munitions, and, after that, the sale was carried through by the Disposal Board.
  Mr. J. JONES: I would ask your ruling Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have been in formed since I came into the House that this afternoon my name was mentioned ix, connection with a particular question re garding a statement I am alleged to have made in connection with the administration of unemployment benefit. I would like to know if I am in order in raising this matter now, and if the hon. Member who raised the question is present in the House, so that I might have on opportunity of meeting him face to face.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order in raising this question, but I cannot compel the attendance of the hon. Member to whom he refers and of whose identity I am unaware.
  Mr. JONES: I would like to know if I shall have an opportunity of raising this question, because I object to being stigmatised as a liar in my absence. I would like to be called a liar to my face, if I am to be called one.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I doubt if it would be in order to say that to the hon. Member to his face, but I think the hon. Member might confer with Mr. Speaker and, if the matter is of a serious nature, an opportunity might be found for a personal explanation.
  Mr. MACLEAN Mr. MACLEAN rose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Has not the hon. Member exhausted his right to speak?
  Mr. MACLEAN: I have not spoken.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Possibly the hon. Member's utterance was only interrogative.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is very nice to have such a long memory as to be able to recall what I said about seven minutes ago. I want to put this point to the representative of the War Office. He said, in reply to the statements of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead that the War Office never handled this matter. Will he kindly explain why, if that be so, the Secretary for War has himself undertaken to reply to every question that has been addressed to him on this particular

  1471
  subject? Why has he here, when any question was addressed to him, intimated that the proper authority on the question was the Treasury? He has always stood at that box and answered every question in a manner that gave no information—that it was not in the public interest to reveal the terms of purchase, that it was not in the public interest to
  1472
  let the names of the different officers who went on this Commission be known or how much was paid for it, and whether the patent was included in the matter or whether the sale was advertised.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
  Order.

ROYAL NAVY.
  HOSPITAL, GIBRALTAR (CONVERSION).
  HOSPITAL, GIBRALTAR (CONVERSION).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (WAR SERVICE AND PAY).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (WAR SERVICE AND PAY).
  GENERATING STATION STAFFS (LEAVE).
  GENERATING STATION STAFFS (LEAVE).
  BENEVOLENT TRUST.
  BENEVOLENT TRUST.
  ADMIRALTY.
  ADMIRALTY.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  NEW CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GERMANY (INCOME TAX).
  GERMANY (INCOME TAX).
  ITALY (FOREIGN LOANS).
  ITALY (FOREIGN LOANS).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  GOVERNMENT ISSUES.
  GOVERNMENT ISSUES.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
  DRUNKENNESS.
  DRUNKENNESS.
HOUSING.
  CONSTRUCTION (OFFICE OF WORKS).
  CONSTRUCTION (OFFICE OF WORKS).
  TEMPORARY SCHEMES.
  TEMPORARY SCHEMES.
  LABOUR SUPPLY (APPRENTICES).
  LABOUR SUPPLY (APPRENTICES).
  SUBSIDIES.
  SUBSIDIES.
  STEEL-CASED HOUSES (SUBSIDY).
  STEEL-CASED HOUSES (SUBSIDY).
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, LONDON (COMMITTEE).
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, LONDON (COMMITTEE).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS GRANTS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS).
  LAND REGISTRY (MESSENGERS).
  EX-WARRANT OFFICERS.
  EX-WARRANT OFFICERS.
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (POST OFFICE).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (POST OFFICE).
  WAR OFFICE.
  WAR OFFICE.
WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
  OXFORD UNION.
  OXFORD UNION.
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS,
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS,
  EMIGRATION (BUILDING AND ENGINEERING TRADES).
  EMIGRATION (BUILDING AND ENGINEERING TRADES).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (LABOUR DISPUTE).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (LABOUR DISPUTE).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  MINING AREAS (AFFORESTATION).
  MINING AREAS (AFFORESTATION).
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  ROTA COMMITTEES.
  ROTA COMMITTEES.
  MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS, BLAENAVON.
  MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS, BLAENAVON.
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).
TRANSPORT.
  WANSTEAD-SOUTHEND ROAD (LAND ACQUISITION).
  WANSTEAD-SOUTHEND ROAD (LAND ACQUISITION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR TAXATION AND ROAD GRANTS.
  MOTOR TAXATION AND ROAD GRANTS.
  KERBSIDE PETROL PUMPS, MANCHESTER.
  KERBSIDE PETROL PUMPS, MANCHESTER.
  OUTRAGE ON BRITISH SOLDIERS, QUEENSTOWN.
  OUTRAGE ON BRITISH SOLDIERS, QUEENSTOWN.
  COASTING TRADE.
  COASTING TRADE.
AGRICULTURE.
  SUPERPHOSPHATES.
  SUPERPHOSPHATES.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  COWS AND HEIFERS.
  COWS AND HEIFERS.
  IRISH PRISONERS, SCOTLAND.
  IRISH PRISONERS, SCOTLAND.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HORLEY DISTRICT GAS COMPANY (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE EASTER RECESS.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a word as to the programme of business for the next few days. It will be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit at the beginning of next week. So far as I know, the business is not of a very important kind on Monday or Tuesday, but until I look more carefully into the Order Paper I cannot say. So far as Government business is concerned, that is true. We may have to sit on Wednesday, but it will be a formal sitting, and then I hope your Lordships will have a very good holiday until April 28.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Can the noble Marquess inform us what business will be taken on the 28th? Is it on the Order Paper?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. It is necessary to sit then because there are certain Bills the last stage of which we have to finish on the 28th, as they are Bills which depend upon a date. It may be necessary to put down effective Government business on that day. I will let the noble and learned Viscount know.

BELLIGERENT RIGHTS AT SEA.
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE rose to move, That having regard to the information now available as to the actual working of the sea blockade of Germany during the late war, this House requests His Majesty's Government to make a statement as to the effect of any Treaty, Declaration, or other diplomatic instrument now affecting the full rights of this country as a belligerent to act at sea upon sea-borne trade in time of war.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the indulgence of your Lordships for the first time for the very few minutes which it will take me to explain the reason of the Motion standing in my name on the Paper, let me say at once that it is not my intention to attach any blame for what has happened in the past to this person or that; neither do I intend to refer to the past except so far as it may be necessary to do so in order to ascertain the present situation and how that situation was arrived at. It is with the future that I am concerned, and it is in regard to the future that my Motion has been framed. There may be exceptions but, generally speaking, I think no one will be found to deny that the people of this country desire, and will always insist upon, the preservation of our sea power. But, as will be obvious to your Lordships, no amount of actual power at sea, however great, will be of any avail unless we can use that power to the full and in the proper direction. And the sole object of my Motion to-day is to ascertain, if possible from the Government itself, the exact nature and extent of any limitations at present existing upon our rights to use in future our power at sea.
This is a matter of immense practical importance. No man can doubt that for one moment who considers the events of the late war. In 1914 we had a supreme Navy, unmatched in strength, skill and resources. It is certain that had that Navy been used throughout in accordance with the long-standing laws and traditions of this country in the matter of sea power, the war would have been one of months rather than of years. It is impossible to estimate the value of the life and treasure that would have been saved. But it is common knowledge now that our power at sea was not, in fact, so used, at least until the war had already

861
lasted for well over three years and the results were deplorable and far-reaching not only for England but for the whole world. I trust that in speaking of our power to use our Navy in war time I shall not be misunderstood. I do not refer to our right to use the Navy against an enemy's Navy; that right, of course, we always possessed to the full and it was most admirably exercised. My point is that the military value of overwhelming force at sea does not consist only, or even chiefly, in its power to overwhelm the corresponding naval forces of the enemy. It consists far more in its power to refuse the enemy all those sea-borne supplies for his armies and populations without which neither those armies nor those populations can continue their resistance for long.
In peace time no one denies the enormous economic importance of seaborne trade. The oversea trade of a country is everywhere regarded as an index of its prosperity, and if in peace times a modern State must have access to the sea, in war time under modern conditions that access becomes an absolute economic necessity for her, especially if the war is in any degree prolonged. The reason for this is simple. No country contains within its borders, not all the countries of Europe taken together contain within their borders, enough even of the physical materials required to enable them to carry on the operations of modern warfare for more than a very short time. They must replenish their supplies from overseas. The power, therefore, of cutting off those essential supplies from overseas is the true and final power of an overwhelming Navy and is the chief military reason for its existence. To secure the great road of the sea for its own people and to refuse it to its enemies—that, and not the fighting of great naval actions, is the primary and essential function of a Fleet. If, in order to fulfil that function, fighting becomes necessary, fighting must, of course, be done. But if a Navy can fulfil that function completely without fighting so much the better for that Navy and for the country to which it belongs.
The number of Fleet actions fought by England during the Napoleonic Wars was very small and the actual destruction of ships and men effected in those actions was slight; but the pressure of the Navy upon the trade of Europe destroyed the power
862
even of the Emperor Napoleon, and Europe in these days is far more dependent upon the sea for its supplies than it ever was a hundred years ago. The extent to which Germany depended, in 1914, upon the sea for anything but a war of the shortest duration was admitted beforehand by her own leaders.
"It will be necessary"—
said General Bernhardi, in his "Germany and the Next War,"
"to take further steps to secure the importation from abroad of supplies necessary to us, since out communications will be completely cut off by the English"
That was what Germany was expecting at our hands at the time of the declaration of war in August, 1914.
This naval function of cutting off the enemy's sea-borne supplies differs from all other forms of fighting chiefly in this, that it sheds no blood, it destroys no property and is earned out always, not in the heat and confusion of battle but in the calmest deliberation, under the direction of legally constituted Courts—namely, the Prize Courts of the captor's country. It is surely impossible to conceive a more humane operation of war. It is with that operation of war, and with the right of this country to exercise those powers, that my Motion is concerned.
If your Lordships will look at the words of the Motion itself, you will see that it refers to the "full rights of this country as a belligerent to act at sea upon seaborne trade in time of war," and I should like to explain what I intend by that expression. I am no lawyer and I speak in the presence of the most distinguished lawyers in the land; but I think they will support me at least in these two general propositions—firstly, that the decisions and judgments of those Prize Courts to which I have just referred, especially the decisions and judgments of our English Prize Courts, have always been, and still are, accepted with the greatest respect and substantially without question by all civilised countries; and secondly, that the law which those Courts administer is not the domestic law of their own country but that great body of doctrine known as International Law or the common law of nations.
According to the accepted doctrine of that law, as it stood before the year 1856, the rights of a properly commissioned

863
naval force at sea to act upon sea-borne trade in war time were substantially as follows: So far as property belonging to the enemy was concerned that might be captured upon the high seas, wherever it was found. If it were found in an enemy ship, then both ship and property would be condemned as good prize and confiscated to the Crown, but if the enemy property were found in a neutral ship, then the property alone was confiscated and the neutral ship was set free, with payment in full to her owners of freight and demurrage. In this way the neutral shipowner sustained no loss from his venture. The sole legal duty of the neutral was to observe neutrality, and the only conditions in which the Prize Court would hold him to have broken neutrality were three, namely:—he might not break blockade; he might not engage with other belligerents in what was called unaccustomed trade, and he might not carry to the other belligerent goods which, in all the circumstances of the case, a Prize Court would on the evidence hold to be contraband; that is to say, goods actually consigned to an enemy port and of such a character as to be of direct military assistance to the belligerent.
Those, broadly speaking, were the rights of a belligerent at sea and the obligations of a neutral up to the year 1856, and on that clear and simple basis we fought the Emperor Napoleon and faced a situation in which, for over three years, from 1809 to 1812, we had not a single friendly port in the whole of Europe. But we maintained our position, and what Napoleon himself thought of its strength he explained to Lord Amherst, at St. Helena, on July 1, 1817, when he said:—
"As long as you keep the command of the sea, yon only need Ambassadors to get what you want. For you are able to blockade the whole of Europe. And I know the effect of your blockades. You put a country in the situation of a body soaked in oil, which can no longer breathe."
It is perfectly true that in 1856, in circumstances which have never yet been explained, a document called the Declaration of Paris appeared upon the diplomatic horizon and was signed on behalf of this country. This Declaration contained four articles of which only one, the second, is of any importance to the matter in hand. This said that "the neutral flag covers enemy's merchandise with the exception of contraband of war."
Whether this Declaration ever became entitled to the dignity of being called a Treaty is doubtful, and it is still more doubtful whether it ever, in fact, came to form part of the common law of nations as administered by the Prize Courts, and there are two reasons for those doubts. One is the fact that on the same day as the Declaration itself was signed all the contracting Powers also equally formally agreed "to maintain the indivisibility of the four principles mentioned in the Declaration" and that indivisibility has never, in fact, been maintained in war time by one of them. The second reason is the fact that the United States of America have never to this day agreed to the Declaration at all. Then came the long negotiations begun at The Hague on April 3, 1906, which ended in the Declaration of London of 1909. That Declaration enormously weakened the rights of belligerents at sea, and at the same time greatly increased the uncertainties and difficulties to neutrals. It was signed on behalf of England on February 26, 1909, but, luckily for this country, a new Court, to be called the International Prize Court, was required to administer its doctrine, and this necessitated an Act of Parliament. A convenient vehicle was found in the already existing Naval Prize Bill into which, in 1910, new clauses were inserted setting up the proposed new International Court. This Bill was passed in another place, but was rejected by your Lordships' House on December 12, 1911. The result was, of course, that the whole thing fell to pieces, and all the countries who had subscribed to it upon grounds of high humanitarian principle, abandoned it with one accord so soon as it was seen that England would have nothing to do with it.
It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that all these long negotiations were but one further instance of the determination of the military Powers of Europe to lessen, if they could, that very economic power of England at sea to which my Motion refers. In any case the practical result of all this, and the point which I would venture to ask your Lordships especially to notice, is this. In August, 1914, so far as strict law was concerned, no limitation existed upon our full belligerent rights at sea, except those contained in Article 2 of the Declaration

865
of Paris, 1856, and whether or not that Article would, in fact, have been enforced by the Prize Courts is, as I have said, doubtful, but nothing else at that time existed, either in law or in Treaty, to prevent us, had we chosen to do so, from exercising our full belligerent rights at sea—to which I have already referred.
But this course was not adopted. On August 20, 1914, by Order in Council, the Declaration of London, with five quite unimportant modifications, was adopted, and there then followed a long series of Proclamations and Orders in Council altering and re-altering long lists of contraband articles, taking new ground, claiming new rights, imposing new duties upon all concerned; and to enable all these new arrangements to be carried into effect an entirely new machinery was set up in place of the old and tried machinery of the Prize Court. A series of Committees, which finally became crystallised into a body called the Contraband Claims Committee, were set up inside the Foreign Office, and it was this new and hitherto unheard-of body, not a judicial body but a Departmental body, which decided from day to day, upon a procedure of its own, what trade was to be allowed to run unchecked at sea.
It is not necessary to deal in detail with the effect of this course of action, because in the end each step in turn was denounced by its own authors. Thus the Reprisals Order of March 11, 1915, which destroyed the Declaration of Paris, was itself destroyed by the Maritime Rights Order of July 7, 1916, which also expressly denounced and abolished the Declaration of London and, in effect, brought us back at long last to at least the assertion of the old and settled doctrine in these matters. To quote the actual words of the Foreign Office explanation at the time, we must in future confine ourselves
"simply to applying the historical and admitted rules of the Law of Nations."
As a matter of fact, it was not until many months after July, 1916, that these historical and admitted rules were actually enforced, but from the moment that they were actually enforced, about four or five months before the Armistice, the effect was immediate and the resistance of Germany collapsed.
All these Orders in Council were entirely illegal, as was declared by the Privy Council in their judgment in the case of the "Zamorra." We are thus left at the
866
present moment with no coherence or settled principles anywhere, and the result of this lack of coherence during the time under review was that while enemy trade and property were steadily exempted from capture as such, neutral trade and property was continuously and unlawfully interfered with, and the situation so created, while assisting the enemy on every hand, roused very real and justifiable resentment in America. It is interesting to observe now that the only justification ever suggested for this course of action was the necessity of avoiding disputes with America. If that were the object, it was certainly not achieved, as was amply shown by the long official correspondence with America which has since been published. That correspondence shows throughout that the complaint which America made against our proceedings in respect of her trade at sea in the earlier part of the war was that those proceedings were unlawful, and it also shows beyond doubt that if we had been content from the first merely to enforce against neutrals our ancient and undoubted belligerent rights at sea, America would have acquiesced in that enforcement.
Unhappily, this correspondence also shows that we ourselves, while engaged in trade on a large scale with Scandinavian neutrals under licence from the Contraband Committee, we were endeavouring to prevent America from con ducting a similar trade. The result of this was that while our friends, the neutrals, were thus unlawfully antagonised German trade flourished. Of this there can be no doubt whatever for the figures of the whole trade of Scandinavia during the war have been published, and published by no less an authority than Rear-Admiral Consett, in his book called "The Triumph of Unarmed Forces.' As your Lordships are aware, Admiral Consett was our own naval representative in Scandinavia from 1912 until 1919, and in 1920 was appointed Naval Adviser to the Supreme Council in Paris. The testimony of such an officer must be regarded as unimpeachable; in any case, not one of his facts or figures has so far been questioned.
I will not weary your Lordships by quoting more than three figures which will suffice to show the state of affairs. I. will take one commodity only, cotton, which, as I need not point out, necessarily

867
came to Scandinavia from overseas and was of essential use to Germany in the manufacture of explosives. Sweden alone before the war, in 1913, was sending to Germany and Austria 236 tons of cotton. In 1914 Sweden was sending them 4,600 tons and in 1915 no less then 76,000 tons, and of this enormous quantity over 10,000 tons was supplied directly to Sweden by the United Kingdom and the British Empire. That is only one instance, but I think it is a sufficiently striking one, and I am perfectly satisfied that if any of your Lordships will examine the figures of Admiral Consett in further detail they will be found to show that from 1914 until 1917 Germany was being steadily supplied from overseas with all the essentials for war.
Your Lordships will observe the state of affairs. There was our Fleet, the finest and most efficient force at sea the world had ever seen. No merchant ship could get by that Fleet; every merchant ship was in its power. There also were the Prize Courts of this country ready and able to consider evidence and to apply the law in every case of capture brought before them. The whole machinery required for enforcing our undisputed rights at sea was there, and in the end every one of those rights had, in fact, to be enforced under the hard presure of events, but for over three and a half years of actual fighting, to the great injury not only of this country but of the whole world, the full belligerent rights of this country at sea were not enforced. On the contrary, they were deliberately set aside; and why? Simply from lack of belief in the old tried and well settled principles of (he law of war at sea.
I am prepared to believe that, sooner or later, the late war had to come, that it was inevitable, that it was forced upon us; but I do not believe for one moment that it need have lasted, as it did, for four years, with a loss of over five million men killed ashore. On the contrary, I believe that the surest, and indeed the only, way to have enduring peace in Europe for the future lies in the preservation by England of an overwhelming Fleet and a plain declaration by England to the world of the principles she intends to observe at sea in war time in the future. These last, as I have tried to show, are at the present time a matter of complete uncertainty. The
868
Declaration of Paris was, in effect destroyed by the Reprisals Order of March 11, 1915. Is that still in force? The Reprisals Order was superseded by the Maritime Rights Order of July 7, 1916. Is that still in force? We do not yet know the answer to either of these questions.
Upon a subject of such importance and complexity opinions may well differ as to what principles should be considered to be sound, but I suggest that in such a matter, involving, as it does, the whole future peace and steadiness of Europe uncertainty and incoherence cannot in any case be right. They, at all events, can hardly now be adopted as the established policy of England, and, if not, then it is surely not unreasonable to ask His Majesty's Government to tell us our actual position in the matter at this moment. That, and only that, is what my Motion asks the Government to do, and to that end I hope and trust your Lordships will support it. I beg to move.
Moved, That having regard to the information now available as to the actual working of the sea blockade of Germany during the late war, this House requests His Majesty's Government to make a statement as to the effect of any Treaty, Declaration, or other diplomatic instrument now affecting the full rights of this country as a belligerent to act at sea upon sea-borne trade in time of war.—(Lord Redesdale.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Government to observe great caution in answering the questions put to them. The noble Lord, in a most lucidly expressed speech, has asked for two things. First of all—and this is quite legitimate—he has asked for a list of the diplomatic instruments which modified our old belligerent rights. It is quite desirable that we should know this. But he has asked a second thing which goes much further. He has asked the Government to declare that we intend in any future war to use the Navy in sufficient strength to put an end to the export to any country with which we may be at war by any neutral Power of materials which may assist the country with which we are at war. The noble Lord referred to the war which commenced in 1914, and he said, possibly with truth, that if we had put our complete rights into force, and if we had stopped all imports into

869
Germany, the war might have come to an end very much more quickly than it did. That may be right, but should we have been entangled with Germany alone in that case?
I think one of the most successful things that was done in this country in the early stages of the war consisted of the negotiations—most delicate negotiations, accompanied by partial concessions—which enabled a great deal of trade to go on, trade with neutral countries and particularly with one very great Power which afterwards came to our aid, but which might not have come to our aid if the principles of the noble Lord had been adopted in the bold and bald fashion which he suggests. It is all very well to talk of Napoleon's conversations with Lord Amherst. That was a very long time ago and the face of the world has changed since then. International trade has become of enormously greater importance than it was in those days, and, what is still more to the point, of enormously greater volume. How can you commit yourself beforehand to a policy of interference on the scale which the noble Lord desires without prematurely raising questions which you may never have to raise?
I am not now entering upon the question whether the old rights are rights which can be successfully maintained in the days in which we move. Perhaps they can be. I am only anxious not to raise abstract questions because I am quite sure that if you do raise them you will prove to be trailing your coats in a way which will encourage other people to tread upon them, and you will do yourselves no good. What steps are to be taken towards defining our rights in any future war is a question which needs the most careful consideration. We cannot consider it as if it were an abstract question which we can take up or lay down. We have to bear in mind the susceptibilities of other people who do not see things as we do. We may be driven to the assertion of the rights which we did assert in the last two year's of the Great War. We may have to assert these rights if we are going to succeed, but we certainly do not make our position easier by laying down, in a period of profound peace, principles which will bring us at once into controversy with other great nations whose trade is upon the sea and with whom we desire to remain in
870
friendly relations. At the present time no country is raising the questions which the noble Lord has raised. They may have to be raised, but do not raise them now. This is not a. good time at which to raise them, and by keeping silence about them you are giving nothing away. You are only avoiding finding yourself in a state of entanglement which it is very desirable that we should avoid.
I have risen, as I said at the beginning, to say that part of the noble Lord's Motion seems to me to be very legitimate. He is asking for information. But the wider question which he has raised seems to me a very undesirable one to discuss now. If we are to discuss it, it must be on some very important occasion with a Motion before the House going directly to the whole question. I hope that such an occasion will not arise, and I think that we shall do best to keep ourselves free from this kind of controversy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this Mot on has appeared on your Lordships' Paper on several occasions and has been postponed. I am not quite sure what motive my noble friend had in postponing it from time to time.
LORD REDESDALE: May I interrupt the noble Marquess for one moment to tell him that it was down for a definite date, and then the Government went out? That is the point. It was down for a definite date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not complain of the noble Lord having postponed it. I was going to praise him. I was going to suggest that it had perhaps occurred to him that a subject of this great delicacy and importance might not be a very fortunate subject for public debate in your Lordships' House. I agree in that respect with ray noble friend who has just sat down, the Leader of the Opposition. I think that this is a very difficult and delicate matter, which requires to be approached with great care and, may I add, with considerable reticence; and I hope that in criticising that which I have to say this afternoon your Lordships will be good enough to bear that in mind. I am not, of course, in any way personally responsible—I am sorry in some respects that it is so—for any proceedings during the war. I was not in office, this Government was not in office and we had nothing to do with it,

871
and therefore, if I have a word or two to say in defence of those great public servants who were Ministers at that time, it will be from a purely impartial point of view and merely because I am convinced that in the great efforts which they made to save this country, and in the success which crowned those efforts, they are entitled more to praise than to criticism.
My noble friend has spoken very clearly and very pointedly of the Law of Nations as it affects belligerent rights. I think he attributed much greater precision to it than it really possesses. At any rate, I do not propose to go back into the dim and distant past, for that would serve no useful purpose whatever. Suffice it to say that, so far as powers were concerned, the Orders in Council under which the Government of that day operated in the war were ample for all purposes. My noble friend says that they were modified. Of course they were modified. He seems to think that the matter was very simple. It was very complicated, and the Orders required to be modified from time to time as experience showed them to be defective. Order in Council followed Order in Council.
That has always been the practice of this country in time of war. There have been certain great principles of law which bind (he country, and those have been applied by Orders in Council, and those Orders in Council are far more precise in their character than the law which binds the country. These Orders in Council, giving ample powers—municipal powers of the country—to its belligerent servants alone, have been modified as experience of the war showed that those modifications were necessary. But my noble friend spoke all the time as if our action was a purely independent action, which we might take, or forbear from taking, just as it suited our interests. He strangely forgets what was the real situation in the war. We were in great difficulty. The position was not simple—it was very complicated. The matter was not entirely in our own hands. It was not merely a question of what our rights or our Orders in Council were, but what in the highest interests of this country, and of the world, it was politic to do under the circumstances.
Does he think we could ignore the great neutrals who stood outside the war? Does
872
he think it was merely a question of enforcing just what our Fleet could enforce? He spoke with becoming pride of the power of the British Fleet. It is quite true it is enormously powerful. We were, and are, all proud of it, but he would not counsel this country, and would not have counselled it then, to use the Fleet without reference to the interests and wishes of neutrals. The noble Viscount said just now: What was one of the main objects of the policy which governed this country during the earlier part of the war? Was it not to make it possible for the United States to enter the war as one of our Allies? The whole event of the war turned upon that. It was the vital matter, and yet my noble friend does not think it mattered whether we embittered, or embarrassed, or antagonised her. All that appeared to him to be a matter of indifference: there was the power of the British Fleet! Yes, my Lords, it is not a question of power, but of policy in its highest sense, and therefore I cannot accept the criterion which my noble friend submits to your Lordships.
No, we had to consider the position of the great neutrals. Anything like a complete blockade in the old sense of the term was impossible in the circumstances. I need not go into the geography of it, but my noble friend knows that it was impossible. It was a question of how we were to treat neutrals and their property—how we were to treat the imports into neutral countries, consigned to neutral consignees, and the property of those neutrals. It may be that my noble friend thinks, or indeed that he knows, that some of that property ultimately reached the enemy, but that did not make it possible to ignore the rights of the neutrals. They had to be considered, and not only had they to be considered then but they will always have to be considered. He says that all these things were known by a certain gallant officer who has written a book. That gallant officer occupied an important official position, but he was not responsible for the government of this country, and that makes a great difference.
I wonder whether it is true to say that the attitude which we adopted towards neutrals in the earlier part of the war was misdirected, and that the much more stringent attitude adopted at the end of

873
the war was more successful. I am not sure that it is true. I believe that the attitude of coming to an agreement with neutrals was, in point of fact, more successful than the more stringent and drastic policy adopted towards the end of the war; that is to say, we prevented more of what ultimately turned out to be contraband reaching the enemy by the former plan, than we did by the latter plan. I do not criticise the adoption of the later plan, but I doubt whether the more stringent plan was the more successful. Then my noble friend criticised us for keeping up trade with neutrals. Why should we not? There was certain trade which neutrals had and which we could not do without, and therefore to have quarrelled with the neutrals would have been equivalent to cutting off our nose to spite our face.
I have said as much as this in order that I may recall to your Lordships what you very well know—namely, that the matter was not simply a matter of the power of the British Navy or of what we should have done if there had been none of these great neutral Powers in existence. The matter was one of the greatest delicacy and difficulty, and had to be achieved by the greatest tact and diplomacy, and I think it ill becomes noble Lords, if I may venture to say so, after the great efforts made at that time, to criticise the policy which was, after all, in the end, wholly successful.
The noble Lord wants to have a declaration of the position of this country now. I deprecate going into that very deeply at this moment, and for this reason: The situation produced by the war, the experience of the war, the complete destruction of many of the ideals which had governed belligerent rights up to that time, have produced a situation requiring complete reconsideration by the Powers of the world, and that reconsideration is going on. It was going on, as I well remember, when we were in office two years ago. As a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence at that time I know that the matter was repeatedly under our serious consideration, and that consideration is going on at this moment. To go into it in any great detail now would not, I think, help matters forward, but rather retard them. That the public law of Europe is again in a stare of evolution—I mean
874
the belligerent public law of Europe—can be seen by your Lordships by observing the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, which, of course, is binding on this country, or rather will be binding on this country as soon as it is ratified by the other signatories. At present, as your Lordships know, the Washington Treaty has been ratified by this country but it has not been ratified by France, and until it is ratified by France it is not binding on this country. So it would not be accurate for me to describe it as binding on this country, because it is not, actually binding, though it would be binding if France were to ratify it.
It will be seen, by looking at the particulars of the Treaty of Washington, that all these matters are being reformulated by the great civilised Powers. All the matters relating to the right of search, the authority to attack merchant vessels, the question of the conditions under which that can be done and the conditions under which they can be destroyed, are formulated in the Treaty of Washington, and also the use of submarines as commerce destroyers, which, as your Lordships know, under that Treaty is forbidden. This will show that the whole of this matter is in a condition of evolution. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose if I were to make a declaration of the position of this country while that process is going on, and I would therefore ask your Lordships to excuse me.
But of one thing your Lordships may rest assured, that the policy and attitude of this country will be governed by the experience of the war, by all those things to which my noble friend has called attention to-night, and in the ultimate result I earnestly hope we may be able to build up again something like a proper jurisprudence in these matters, which may help us, if ever the need should arise again, to conduct another war with some regard to those principles of humanity and civilisation for which this country has always stood.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think the House as a whole will be most grateful to the noble Lord for having brought forward this exceedingly important question, but I fully feel the force of what the noble Marquess said, when he pointed out the unwisdom, perhaps the impossibility,

875
of His Majesty's Government making public any declaration of policy in these matters at the present time. But I do hope, and I rather gather from the latter part of his speech that it will be the case, that His Majesty's Government, with the help of their expert advisers, will consider the lessons that we learnt in the war as to the methods of blockade and as to the law to be applied by this country for the purpose of rendering that blockade effective. I do not suggest that they should make public the result of those deliberations, at present at any rate, but I do think it is vitally important that they should get the best possible legal, military and naval advice to go over the lessons of the war to find out where, if possible, improvements of practice may be made and where it may be desirable to follow the same course again if the same disastrous necessity should ever arise.
May I refer to one point raised by the noble Lord which is not without importance? Is the Declaration of Paris still in existence? As a matter of fact, it was never signed by the United States of America at all, but it was brought up in the House of Commons, shortly after it had been signed in Paris, I think no less than three times with a view of getting it ratified, as it required to be, and on each occasion there was opposition to ratification, with the very strange result that in each case the Government of the day avoided an issue upon it, and there was no decision whatever. In one case the previous question was moved, and on another occasion it was talked out. But there was this remarkable result, that this Declaration was never ratified by either House of Parliament. In those circumstances it is not immaterial to ask the question: Is that Declaration binding on us now? As the noble Lord pointed out, one of the most vital questions which arose in the late war was whether the Flag should cover merchandise, except contraband of war, and if we were not bound by the Declaration of Paris we should be in a position of much greater freedom.
I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that our action as regards blockade in the early part of the war was one of the most intense difficulty. Had it been mismanaged we should undoubtedly have had either a rupture, or something very like it, with the United
876
States of America. For my part, I think that if we had not had here the late Mr. Page as American Ambassador during those troublous and most critical times the position would have been even more dangerous than it was. As a matter of fact, we did not assert anything like what we considered to be our full belligerent rights, but we adopted what turned out in the long turn to be rather an ingenious way of dealing with things.
We enormously extended the definition of contraband, extended it far beyond anything, so far as I know, that had ever been done by International Law before, and it is remarkable to remember that the Declaration of London, which was sought to be foisted upon us in 1909, would have made it absolutely impossible to declare cotton contraband, because cotton is one of those articles which, under the Declaration of London, was never in any case to be declared contraband. Well, we did declare cotton contraband. We declared a very great number of other things contraband which had not been declared contraband before, and we carried that doctrine of contraband into effect, as I think those who were concerned in the matter will agree—and I see the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, here who knows the facts as well as any one—by greatly extending the doctrine of continuous voyage, and a very valuable doctrine it was for us. By it, we were able to trace cotton going into Holland for Germany, and to seize it en route. I only mention these things to show that these are matters which require consideration at the present moment, and I trust that the Government will be prepared, if ever the necessity should arise again, with a somewhat, more settled policy than we had at the beginning of the late war.
LORD REDESDALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GERMAN DISARMAMENT.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the defaults in disarmament alleged against the German Government include matters for which a time limit is prescribed in Article 203 of the Treaty of Versailles; and to move for Papers. The noble and

877
learned Lord said: My Lords, this Question has also been for some time on the Order Paper but, as the noble Marquess will know, there were special reasons why it was postponed. The noble Marquess, as is quite right in matters of this kind, asked me what the points were which I desired to raise, and I sent him a copy of the notes on which I am going to speak to your Lordships this afternoon. I do not believe in not giving full information on an important point of this kind.
Article 203 of the Treaty of Versailles is in common form, and part of the importance of my Question, as will appear when I come to what has taken place in the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva, is that it is in a common form applicable not only in this Treaty, but in the Treaties also with Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria. I think I ought to read the words of Article 203 in order to make the terms of my Question entirely intelligible:
"All the military, naval and air clauses contained in the present Treaty, for the execution of which a time-limit is prescribed, shall be executed by Germany under the control of Inter-Allied Commissions specially appointed for this purpose by the principal Allied and Associated Powers."
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the powers given and to be exercised under the control of the Inter-Allied Commission are carefully safeguarded and limited—namely, to the execution of the military, naval and air clauses for which a time limit is prescribed.
The first object of my Question is to ascertain whether any of the complaints which have been made and are being formulated, as I understand, against Germany for not having fulfilled her obligations of disarmament, came within those terms and were they obligations for which a time limit was prescribed. I have noticed, and I think I may state it as common ground, that so far as naval and air matters are concerned no complaint is being made. The complaint is really limited to military questions. I may be wrong about that, but at least military questions are really the difficulties involved.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to Article 213 which is to be found not only in the Treaty with Germany but in the Treaty with Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria. It is in these terms—
"So long as the present Treaty remains in force, Germany undertakes to give every
878
facility for any investigation which the Council of the League of Nations, acting if need be by a majority vote, may consider necessary."
Therefore, it is clearly contemplated that a time will come when the jurisdiction of control or supervision passes from the Allied control bodies to the Council of the League of Nations. That is a very important factor indeed, for two reasons. First of all, every one would allow, I think, the authority of an impartial body appointed by the League of Nations, and if that body found that certain obligations had not been complied with, would be satisfied that Germany or any other country might be regarded as being in default. Secondly, there is no doubt that the maintenance of these Allied Controls is not only a considerable expense to the countries involved, but is, naturally, a cause of considerable irritation. There can be no doubt that, while human nature is constituted as it is, control of the defeated by the military Allies on the other side is sure to raise friction and trouble.
That being the case, last June, when I was a delegate to the Council of the League in succession to the noble Viscount, I brought this matter before the Council on behalf of Great Britain and on instructions from Great Britain. I said that the time had come, in the opinion of Great Britain, when, at any rate in regard to Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary, the control should no longer be in the hands of the Allies; that those, countries should be no longer submitted either to the expense or irritation of it; and that the Council itself should institute a supervising body. When I brought that forward a resolution based upon it was proposed by the French delegates, and in the result the Council adopted the view that it ought to provide for a supervising body. The question, of course, arose as to how that supervising body should be constituted. There was one point with which I need not trouble your Lordships. There was a legal point which was referred to a commission of jurists who issued a report which we immediately accepted and adopted; the question being who were entitled to sit upon the Council when a matter of this kind was dealt with. But the more important matter was referred to the military and naval advisers of the Council of the League.
Your Lordships are aware that under the Covenant of the League a permanent body of military, naval and air advisers is constituted, which, at the will of the Council, give information upon all points concerning naval and military matters, especially those dealing with questions of disarmament. This matter was referred to and considered by the permanent Military Council of advisers. When the Council itself met again in August this question was raised. The British representatives said, and rightly said, that so far as the Council was concerned their duties were limited to Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary, and could go no further. The military advisers representing other countries upon this permanent body desired to include also the case of Germany. When I first went out in August I was confronted with this: We, the advisers appointed on behalf of Great Britain, have come to a deadlock. Our functions are limited to Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary; whereas the representatives of other countries—particularly France and Italy I think, though it does not matter for the moment which they were—say that it is no good providing for supervision by the Council unless the case of Germany is also included.
I need not tell your Lordships that a matter of that kind immediately raised a difficulty, but it was solved in this way. After reference home for instructions—the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary himself came to Geneva shortly afterwards—it was arranged that the British representatives should consent to the consideration of the case of Germany at the same time as the cases of Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary were considered. Consequently, at the end of the Council meeting, a joint proposal was made by the military and naval representatives of the various countries to include in their scheme of supervision a scheme which was" applicable to Germany as well as to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria. Two or three days, I think, were occupied by the Council in order to reconcile certain views, and ultimately a unanimous decision was reached by which a supervisory system could be applied to Germany as well as to the other countries. That shows that this question has been considered very carefully and that provision has already been made for supervision by the Council and superseding the control of the Allied Powers.
I do not want to exaggerate for one moment. The Council was not deciding at that time whether its powers had superseded the powers of the Allied control bodies but was making provision for it. The Allied Control Forces act under the supervision of the Conference of Ambassadors sitting at Paris. Why they should sit at Paris, I do not know; but this question arises. The Conference of Ambassadors have not the staff, or the assistance of expert military, naval and air advisers which the Council have provided under the terms of the Covenant itself, so that in one case you have a body which is very little assisted by expert advice, and in the other you have a body with all—sufficient expert advice at its control.
There is one other matter also which I want to emphasise before I put my Question. There never was an intention of what I may call a unilateral disarmament of the defeatist Powers. The Covenant of the League contains, of course, a corresponding obligation upon all countries to disarm to what I may call a defensive level, and in the series of articles which are set out in the Treaty of Versailles under Part V this Preamble is inserted, which applies to all of them:—
"In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."
Your Lordships will notice the words" in order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation."
But beyond that, when Germany was raising objections to the terms of the Treaty, the Allied and associated Powers at Paris gave this official answer in a document to the complaint of Germany:—
"The Allied and Associated Powers have already pointed out to the German delegates that the Covenant of the League of Nations provides for ' the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, and the enforcement by common action of international obligation.' They recognise that the acceptance by Germany of the terms laid down for her own disarmament will facilitate and hasten the accomplishment of a general reduction of armaments."
Then they go on to say that they intend to open negotiations immediately with a view to the eventual adoption of a scheme of such general reduction.
We know perfectly well that, although that is the expression of an intention immediately to open negotiations, no general progress has been made up to the present time. I am not now dealing with the Washington Conference, to which a reference has been made, and in which this country, at any rate, made very notable and large concessions. I do not in the least complain of that, but there has been no move for general disarmament except—though I do not want to go into that to-day—that there was a practical scheme for a world conference under the. conditions mentioned in the Protocol. The noble Earl the leader of the Liberal Party pointed to two very important terms in the Treaty of Versailles in the speech he made the other day—namely, Articles 428 and 429. I should like to associate myself with the argument that he then addressed to your Lordships. It was, in effect, that those two Articles did not contemplate trivial matters but contemplated matters of real and vital importance. I think that is perfectly true, but that important question raises a different matter—who is to decide whether there has been a default or not? That is the important question that I raise.
Is it to be decided by the Allied Control Forces, or is it to be decided under supervision by a body appointed by the Council of the League of Nations? That is obviously an extremely important point. We are dealing with a question of fact. Are you to have it decided by an impartial body, or are you to have it decided by a party which, at any rate, would not be regarded as impartial by one of the parties concerned. When I was sitting on the other side of the House, and in close connection with the Foreign Office, this matter was a great deal considered. I will not go into the matters that came up for consideration. I believe that they eventuated in a difference of opinion between certain persons as to when supervision of the Council of the League superseded the provisions relating to Allied control.
My question raises this point: After all the specified matters have been dealt with, when does a time come for bringing in the impartial authority of supervision by the League of Nations? This is a matter which, I know, the Noble Marquess is much interested in. It
882
is what I may call the general peace spirit in these matters. I know of my own knowledge at the present time that the method of supervision in the case of Germany will be determined and settled by the Council of the League so soon as the occasion arises. I do not want to exaggerate. They have not decided when the time arises, but they have the machinery ready, because it was present to the minds of a great many people that if the time had not arisen it was likely to arise very shortly.
There is one, point that has been raised on the other side that I want to touch upon very shortly. It has been said that until there has been a general absolution, so to speak, of these various countries—Germany, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary—until they have complied with all their obligations, the Allied control should be maintained. I understand the strength of that contention, but the answer to it is this. If you look at the Treaty terms—and Germany is entitled to the full benefit of those Treaty terms—you find a distinction between matters which have to be set right in a prescribed time, and those for subsequent delegation or supervision to the Council of the League. I told the noble Marquess the points that I intended to raise. I think they are extremely important points, especially having regard to the issue to which the noble Earl referred the other night—namely, the issue of the further occupation of the Rhine bridgeheads, or a Rhine bridgehead, on the ground that Germany was still in default. I beg to move for Papers, if there are any which the noble Marquess can lay before the House in further elucidation of this matter.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it may possibly be of interest to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken if I inform him that in the summer of 1921 I was in Berlin myself, that I had friends on the Control Commission, and that I was able to investigate their papers and to realise the work which they had done. Much to my surprise I was informed that their work was practically completed. That was in the summer of 1921. If the work was practically completed in 1921, what has been going on during the last four years, or nearly four years? There is one thing upon which I believe everybody

883
is agreed. I believe all the military authorities are agreed upon the point that under no conditions can Germany possibly be in a position to make war for a comparatively long period.
The fact is that the Germans—I am speaking particularly of the military Germans—with that stupidity and clumsiness which they frequently show, have by their own action extended the retention of this Control Commission for a perfectly unnecessary period. If they had been rather more sensible, if they had not obstructed in a senseless way on trivial matters and had complied with the demands of the Commission, the Commission would have been got rid of long ago. It might have disappeared two years ago. It is largely in consequence of silly and senseless opposition that the Commission is still there. As a result, this foolish action on the part of the German Government—I must say there is some excuse to be found for it, because the Germans have always contended that the Allies have acted illegally towards them—has provided the French Press and a portion of the English Press which is more French than the French Press, with arguments to the effect that there are millions and millions of armed Huns underground, or in the air, who are prepared to burst upon an astonished world at a moment's notice and lay everything in ashes.
It is, no doubt, very reprehensible that the German military authorities should set themselves to evade the provisions of the Treaty. But who would not do the same? I often wish we could put ourselves in other people's places. I wonder what the position would be in this country if there was a military control here consisting of Germans and Turks and Bulgars, all ex-enemies, and an enormous force of these people occupied our industrial districts, perpetually impeding our traffic and our communications. I wonder whether we could sit down quietly under it; whether we should not obstruct as much as we could and nourish hopes that some day we might re-establish our old position. It does not seem to me to matter very much whether the German disposition is peaceful or warlike, because we have it on the highest military authority that, whatever their feelings may be, they are not in a position to carry out any acts of hostility
884
whatever. That should be sufficient for anybody.
I have seen a number of these Control Commissions, not only in Germany but in other ex-enemy countries, and with all my heart; I should like to see them disappear as soon as possible. I should like to see them put an end to without any further delay. People here do not realise the position. We are always talking here about disarmament, the blessings of peace, and the curse of what we call militarism. Who has been disarmed, and who is disarming? The only countries who have been disarmed are ex-enemy countries. All the other countries, or some of them at least, are maintaining larger military establishments than they did before the war, but no Allied country shows any signs of disarming except perhaps our own. And yet the farce is kept up of maintaining in these miserable, bankrupt ex-enemy countries these Commissions at the expense of these bankrupt ex-enemy Governments. If they had to be paid for by their own Governments they would have disappeared long ago and none of these excuses would have been found for maintaining them.
The truth is, though nobody utters it, that whenever an ex-enemy country shows any sign of recovery then all their neighbours, who are all armed to the teeth, at once profess extraordinary alarm, assert that the ex-enemy country is plotting a new war, and demand additional precautions in the shape of Control Commissions and further military occupations. How is all this going to end? How can there be any finality to it? If the French ideas of security are going to be allowed to prevail, these Commissions will be eternal; we shall never see the end of them. And what is worse still, any technical offences discovered by these Commissions will be utilised for the purpose of prolonging the period of occupation. I may be quite wrong, but from what I have seen I am quite unable to believe that Control Commissions do any good at all. Far from eradicating the spirit of revenge, all they do is to accentuate it; they keep up that warlike atmosphere which we all profess to be so anxious to destroy. I believe that one of the most efficacious steps in a small way towards restoring a better feeling throughout Europe would be to put an end to these Control Commissions

885
at the earliest opportunity. I hope the, noble Marquess, who is to reply, will hold out some hope that there is going to be a termination of this perpetual source of irritation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have in the first place to express my most sincere thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his great courtesy in the matter of this Question. It has been postponed, I am sorry to say, entirely to suit my convenience. I am also obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in furnishing me with some information as to the points he was going to put this evening. I will do my best to answer his Question, but I feel at a certain disadvantage in replying to him. In these matters he is an expert. He is not only very learned in the law, but has a great knowledge of the actual work of the League of Nations and of the subject matter of his Question.
The noble and learned Lord, in the terms of his Question, asks the Government:
"whether the faults in disarmament alleged against the German Government include matters for which a time limit is prescribed in Article 203 of the Treaty of Versailles."
The answer, of course, is in the affirmative; it is so. There are matters in default, matters of importance, which are included amongst the time-limit clauses. I do not want to overstate it. There is no doubt whatever that a very great deal has been done by way of disarmament in Germany. That is perfectly true, but it is also true that there are very substantial matters which have not been done. I do not desire to speak with anything like severity of the German Government. They, naturally, have had considerable difficulties to contend with, but they were bound by the Treaty to carry out certain measures of disarmament, and in material respects they have not done so.
I give as an example such matters as the transformation of munition factories into factories for civilian purposes, and the passing of the necessary legislation to carry out the Treaty. In both of these respects, and also in other matters, the German Government have not yet fully carried out the Treaty. They show a very good spirit at the present moment, which we are glad to see, but upon the specific
886
Question of the noble and learned Lord the answer is as I have stated. That decision is in the hands of the Inter-Allied Military Commission.
My noble friend who has just sat down has spoken in strong terms—he generally speaks in strong terms—of these Inter-Allied Commissions. The whole machinery of war, and of the sequelæ of war, is in many respects unsatisfactory. It is not consonant with our ordinary procedure, whether national or international, and of course we shall all be delighted when the time comes that these special Commissions can be done away with. But I really cannot see by what other machinery the Treaty rights of the Allies are to be enforced except by such bodies as the Inter-Allied Military Commission. They are very adequately manned by very competent officers, and I am quite sure that your Lordships would believe that the representative of this country carries out his duties with every regard that he can possibly pay to the susceptibilities of everybody who is concerned so far as his duty allows him to do so.
I cannot agree with the strictures of my noble friend who sits behind me. Whether there has been default or not must be decided by these inspecting bodies, the Allied Military Commissions, and they must continue to act until the time-limit clauses are fulfilled. As yet, they have not been fulfilled, and I am informed that what is true in that respect of Germany is in a measure, though probably not in anything like the same measure, true of the other ex-enemy Powers to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. When the time-limit clauses have been fulfilled, when, that is to say, the execution by Germany of those clauses has so far advanced that a final settlement is assured—I think I have used the appropriate terms—then the Commission and its supervision will come to an end.
Then comes in, as I understand the procedure, the supervision to which the noble and learned Lord has referred—namely, the supervision which has been established by the League of Nations. They have a general right of supervision which extends, not merely to the time-limit clauses but to all the military clauses of the Treaty. The duty may be cast upon them of supervising the execution of all these provisions of the Versailles Treaty and, as I need not say, the noble

887
Lord is quite right in stating that the League of Nations, I think largely at his own instance, took measures to institute the necessary supervising bodies so long ago as last September. That is a very prudent procedure. All the machinery is there already, so that as soon as the Inter-Allied Military Commission has finished its work under the conditions which I have described, the supervision will pass to the instrument of the League of Nations.
The noble and learned Lord spoke with a certain amount of criticism of the Conference of Ambassadors and said that he did not think that this Conference had any military expert advisers to keep it straight in military matters. The answer to that, as I understand it, is a very simple one. They obtain their technical advice from the very Inter-Allied Military Commission to which I have just referred, and when the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission was made recently it was submitted to the Conference of Ambassadors and was sent back by them to the Inter-Allied Commission in order that the special matters in which Germany was substantially in default might be formulated by that body. That is the position in which the matter stands at this moment. I have brought the thing absolutely up to date. The substantial defaults of the German Government are in process of formulation by the Inter-Allied Military Commission. That is the situation.
The noble and learned Lord concluded his speech by speaking in a very becoming way of the great interest which this country has in the limitation of armaments, and he said that I should, no doubt, agree with him. Of course I agree with him. It is to the great interest of this country that there should be a limitation of armaments, both on general grounds of international policy and also because it evidently reacts upon our own obligation to make preparations for another war. On every ground we ought to be in favour of the limitation of armaments, and I hope that your Lordships realise that no greater mistake could be made than to think that, because the Protocol has not succeeded, the interest of His Majesty's Government in the limitation of armaments has disappeared. That would not be at all the case. We still hope, and hope confidently, that the efforts of His Majesty's Government and
888
of other Governments will tend towards that consummation of the limitation of armaments, which, as I have said in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, His Majesty's Government so much desires. I hope that I have been able effectively to answer the Question which my noble friend has put to me.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I contribute one word to this discussion? I did not hear the whole of the speech of my noble friend Lord Newton, but I understand that his complaint was that these Commissions irritated without really doing very much good. I am reminded of an article which appeared some three or four months ago, I think in the Quarterly Review, by a member of the Military Commission in Germany, in which he showed that the limitation of Germany's troops to 100,000 is not really much use because this number is chiefly composed of officers and non-commissioned officers who would at once form the nucleus for expansion into a very considerable army at short notice. That article also stated, if I remember rightly, that the numerous chemical industries are capable almost at a moment's notice of being converted into industries for the production of poison gas. I think my noble friend's contention was that you cannot by any ordinary means or by the supervision of a Commission of this sort achieve the limitation of armaments. It is almost impossible to create a power which will prevent a possible enemy, at comparatively short notice, producing an army or some military force capable of aggression, and armed in some degree so that it might be a very dangerous instrument and a menace to the peace of other countries. That is the real objection to these Commissions. They naturally irritate the country in which they work, and at the same time they are not able to carry out successfully the intentions with which they were originally formed.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for the answer that he has given to my Question. It appears to me that on major points we hold the same opinions. There are just two matters upon which I should like to say one further word. The noble Marquess said, I think particularly in regard to the

889
factories not being converted from war equipment to peaceful uses, and as regards certain laws not being passed, Germany was still in default.
I quite agree that so long as Germany is in default, under Article 203 the Allied control must remain in operation, but will it be possible—I do not say now but when further investigation has been made into the Report of the Allied Control in reference to Germany; I do not think there has been a special Report with regard to other countries—to give information either by Papers or in some other way showing what is the real nature of the defaults of which complaint can quite properly be made, in order to show whether they are really matters of substance or, as the noble Earl said the other day, matters in themselves, trivial? I think the question was asked in another place, and the answer was that the information could not be given at this time; that it required further investigation and further analysis. If, when that further investigation and further analysis has been completed, the information can be given, I think it will be of enormous advantage all round. It will bring the crucial matters to the mind of Germany, and bring to the minds of other countries the question whether the matters complained of were matters of substance or comparatively trivial. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, that no amount of what I may call, for this purpose, hostile investigation is ever likely, in itself, to be wholly successful.
There is one other matter upon which I should like to say a word in order to show that I appreciate what the noble Marquess said, and in order to show what I meant. What I meant was that the Conference of Ambassadors had not military advisers except the Inter-Allied Control Commission itself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I spoke hastily. The military advisers of the Conference are the Military Committee at Versailles, over which Marshal Foch presides. I think I misled the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought he meant they were actually the Inter-Allied Commission. I have no doubt the noble Marquess is perfectly accurate, but what that brings to my mind, and to the minds of
890
a great many people whose sole desire is all-round disarmament and a peaceful spirit, is that you do not get an outside body of military or naval advisers assisting the Ambassadors' Conference in the same way as you do the permanent Military Committee of the Council of the League. I do not want to go into that further, but so far as the League is concerned there is a special body appointed for this purpose in the Covenant itself. Having regard to the speech of the noble Marquess, I do not press for Papers and I hope that he will bear the other matters in mind.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE METHODS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to call attention to the unbusinesslike procedure of the Post Office in such matters as the delivery of telegrams, the redirection of letters, the charging of an express fee when there is no express delivery, the refusal to give a free receipt for the charges on a telegram, and the repudiation of liability for registered letters; and to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee of business men to make recommendations on these and similar unbusinesslike methods.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I find it quite impossible to address myself to the Bench opposite without expressing my personal sense of the loss which we have sustained by the passing from our midst of the noble Marquess who so long led this House, and in saying that I am expressing, I know, the feeling shared by the House. Now, in the indictment, such as it is, that I propose to present against the Post Office to-day, your Lordships will be glad to learn that I am not proposing to include matters relating to the telephone service. Those matters are susceptible of having a great deal said of them. I have a record here of a nature which I think will be familiar to many of your Lordships, in which I get through to a number successfully at one moment, two minutes after I am rung up for the next number, a wrong number, three minutes after I am again rung up for a wrong number, an hour later rung up again for a wrong number, and then occasions on which I ask for a number, do not get it, and find afterwards that

891
someone is sitting by the telephone all the time. The telephone service would be a fruitful subject of discussion, and I think it is fortunate for your Lordships' patience that I do not propose to include it to-night, particularly as I understand there already exists some sort of an Advisory Committee with regard to telephonic matters.
There are remarkable things done by the Post Office as a Government Department, in the way in which it conducts its business. They are methods of conducting its business which would be immediately fatal to the success of any commercial concern, but which the Post Office is able to justify owing to two facts—the fact that it has a monopoly, and the fact that it is a Government Department and therefore cannot be sued like an ordinary person who breaks a contract. Your Lordships' House is fortunate in having several ex-Postmasters-General among its members, and it has been suggested to me that I might perhaps say that in this year or that year the Post Office was not subject to any complaints. My complaint is not against any Postmaster-General, and at any rate not against the present one, in. whom I have great confidence, but it is against the system of the Post Office as a whole. Rightly or wrongly, there is a general impression—and I think when your Lordships have heard some of the instances you will think it is not unfounded—that the Post Office is rather a martinet Department and lives in a world of its own, without any regard to the trouble and the inconvenience caused to those who are compelled to use it, and is very reluctant to listen to complaints or to be moved by them.
I just wish to weary your Lordships with one or two instances of the sort of thing that does, in fact, happen. I should tell your Lordships that this Question has been upon the Paper for a long time, and indeed throughout the life of the late Labour Government, and when reference was made to it in the public Press I was inundated by shoals of correspondence and complaints. Here is a case where a packet, both registered and insured, and containing £10, was addressed to some address in Germany. The packet disappeared. The sender of the packet, to whom £10 was a consideration, made inquiries of the Post Office,
892
and after several months the Post Office adopted a defence which was ingenious and, I dare say, in itself successful. It said that the packet had been seized by the Army of Occupation in the Ruhr. If that was the case, the Post Office can hardly be blamed. Anyhow, the unfortunate sender has lost his £10, and has received no compensation whatever for it.
A publisher wrote to me and said that he had sent off many presentation copies of a new book on July 4, 1924. Of the copies he sent off at least eight were neither received by the addressees nor returned to the sender. They simply disappeared in the post. He also says that several addressed to the London area took a whole week for delivery. Then there are many cases of letters which are clearly and correctly addressed, which are delayed owing to their being carelessly delivered at the wrong address, and perhaps being handed back to the postman the day after, or even the day after that. There are worse cases of letters, which are fully paid and correctly addressed, which are never delivered at all, and these cases are infinitely more numerous than they were before the war. The administration of the Post Office in this respect has become very much worse.
There are also cases, in which the Post Office may plead some excuse, in which a letter is not quite correctly addressed, but in which the address could be ascertained with the utmost ease by looking up any work of reference, even the Post Office's own publication, the Telephone Book. The Post Office now adopts the attitude that it is not its business to deliver a letter to the correct address and to take the trouble to look up any work of reference, even its own Telephone Book. It prefers the trouble and the annoyance, both to itself and the sender, of returning the letter to the sender, and simply saying "insufficiently" or "incorrectly" addressed. That does not seem to be a businesslike proceeding. I cannot see that it benefits the Post Office; it certainly does not benefit the sender of the letter.
I have here a case which is worth noting as illustrating what I said just now about the somewhat peremptory and martinet attitude of the Post Office. It is a case of letters, properly stamped and addressed, never reaching their destination,

893
and never being heard of again; and. after correspondence, this is the Post Office's official reply, and I invite your Lordship's attention to it:
"The Postmaster-General is not legally liable for the loss, damage, delay, non-delivery or mis-delivery of anything sent by post."
No doubt that is true, but I do ask your Lordships whether any trader could conduct his business on that principle for a single moment, and I do ask you whether that is a sufficient attitude for a public Department to adopt when it has failed to render a public service, and a service which, owing to its monopoly, no one else can render? But that is the official attitude.
Then there are cases, now very frequent, of prolonged delay in delivery. I have a case here of a letter posted in the London area at 7.15 p.m., and delivered at an address in the London area at 1.30 p.m. the next day. These things are not unusual, I have a case here of a telegram handed in. at a country post office at 10.20 a.m., and not delivered in London, fifty miles away, till four hours later. Four hours for a telegram to go fifty miles!
There are other matters somewhat of the same kind. There is a new invention. I do not propose to mention its name, because I have no intention of giving it a free advertisement, nor do I guarantee that it is a good or a bad invention. It is an attachment to a telephone, which certain telephone subscribers desire to use, and which the person who makes the apparatus naturally desires to supply. The Post Office answer is that people are to be prevented from using this apparatus, even though they are. prepared to take the risk of a line going wrong or anything of that kind; they are not to be allowed to use a new invention which is not the Post Office's manufacture. There may be practical reasons for that, though I rather doubt it, but it is all part of the same attitude.
This is rather an amusing instance: In a village there is a collecting box, with the usual slit, which will only take an ordinary letter. An enterprising tradesman in this village desired to post some circulars, which were too large to go into the slit of the village letter box. He therefore waited until the postman came
894
round to collect the letters, and said: "Will you take these circulars?" The postman, no doubt quite correctly, said: "No, I am forbidden to take circulars. I cannot collect anything unless it is put into the box"—and the box was of such a character that he could not put them in. That, again, is another instance of what I call unbusinesslike administration.
Further, there are cases of telegrams sent to a registered address which has been discontinued. The Post Office used to charge a guinea, and I think now charge two guineas a year, for a registered address, and there may, therefore, be something to be said for their refusing to deliver a telegram to an address which is no longer registered. Obviously they have not been paid for that special service, but they know perfectly well for whom the telegram is meant, and the sender did not know that the registered address had been discontinued. It seems a little hard if they cannot, perhaps by charging a fee, avoid such inconvenience. Then there is a good deal of trouble about telegrams sent to telephonic addresses. The Post Office Guide says that you can send a telegram to a telephone subscriber by simply putting his number and exchange. If you try to do that you are told that it is not enough, that you must also put his name, and, if you ask why, the Post Office quite frankly tell you that it is because their disbelief in their system is so great that they cannot guarantee to transmit numbers accurately.
And here is another curious thing, which seems to me not to be founded on any business consideration; probably some of your Lordships have experienced it. You have a telephone at your address, you move to another address, and you desire to have a telephone there. If you should ask to have your telephone moved from your old address to your new-address the Post Office make a charge for it. I do not know what it is, but it is something quite substantial. But if you say you will have a new telephone at the new address they make no charge for it, and you can start with a new telephone. Why you should be charged more for removing the old telephone than for putting in a new one is a thing that really only the Post Office can understand; I am quite unable to give any reasons for it.
My next illustration is, I think, unusual; I will do the Post Office the justice to say

895
that. It is the case of a letter sent from the City to Bloomsbury, a total distance of a couple of miles. That letter took fifty-two hours in transmission. That seems rather a long time. Then there are things which the Post Office might do that it does not always do, such as the stopping of lottery circulars and betting circulars. I know it has often been urged upon them that they should interfere with this, but they have always shown a singular tenderness, even when they know what these circulars are.
Here is a business complaint, and a business complaint of a very serious character—a really remarkable record. I do not wish to give the name of the firm, except, of course, privately, but these are people who do a very large business in what is called the mail order system. That is to say, they advertise extensively, they receive remittances by post, and send off goods in response to those remittances. These people in three years, have suffered a loss by pilferage of the goods they have sent off—not of the postal orders coming to them—of £1,116. That seems to reflect on the administration of the Post Office.
Then there are great inconveniences in the shorter hours. There are smaller towns now in which the only post office in the place closes between one and two o'clock daily, and on the early closing day closes at one o'clock for the rest of the day, so that these towns, after one o'clock in the day, are cut off from telegraphic communication with any other place in the kingdom. In spite of high wages and shorter hours, I cannot help thinking that something might be done to remedy that state of affairs particularly since, as a rule, the telephone exchanges are not closed in this way. In another case which I might quote, a trader tells me that two gold chains were sent to him. value £25, of course with all the precautions of registration and insurance. They were not delivered, and he gets no compensation. And we have to remember the remark-aide contention which the Post Office has made about registered letters. I believe it still makes this contention. It is that if they deliver to the addressee the envelope of a registered letter they have completely fulfilled their contract, although the contents may have been abstracted in transit. That shows
896
a courage of which no private trader would be capable.
There is another small matter which has been mentioned to me and I can imagine that there are some reasons for it. I should also think that some explanation might be made. There is a rule at present, I believe I am right in saying, that a poste restante address—that is to say, letters addressed to a post office—can only be used for three weeks. I can imagine some reasons for that provision, though they are not very sound ones. But I am told that in fact and in practice, it causes great inconvenience to commercial travellers and people of that sort who have no fixed address. They want a fixed centre at which their mail may arrive and they can be sure to get it, but it is impossible for this arrangement to be extended.
Then there is a matter I mention in my Question, the matter of an express fee. The Post Office, some years ago with a great flourish of trumpets, introduced a system by which a letter might be delivered out of course of post on payment of an express fee of threepence when the letter was sent; that is to say, that on arrival at the office of destination it should be sent out, as if it were a telegram, by a special messenger and delivered at once. Naturally, this only applies to comparatively big centres where there are telegraph boys available and where the distances are short. But instance after instance has come to my notice where the Post Office takes this express fee of threepence for a village in the country where they know perfectly well there is no express service, and where the letter gains absolutely nothing by this payment and is delivered in the ordinary course of post next morning. It seems to me that in cases like that the address might be looked up in the Post Office Guide and the sender might be told: "You are only paying your threepence for nothing." But it is not done. I am not sure whether this threepence is refunded. It might be, but the Post Office does not always return money for services which are not rendered.
I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the last part of my Question, which is:—
"… and to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee …"
Of course, I am only suggesting that it shall be a Departmental Committee, and that it shall be staffed, not exclusively by Post Office servants, but by business men to make recommendations on these and other methods. The Post Office has undoubtedly difficulties to deal with. It is a very great organisation, and there are difficulties of administration. As soon as any organisation becomes as large as the Poet Office a good deal of strictness in rules is necessary. But I cannot help thinking that it might be organised on rather more businesslike lines. I cannot help thinking also, fearing as I do the tradition of the Post Office, that this might be somewhat assisted if advice were to be given to the Post Office by business men chosen by Chambers of Commerce, or in some other way, who could suggest means of getting over what to the departmental mind seems insuperable.
I should like to suggest that some Committee might be set up permanently which should be an Advisory Committee, not merely in the sense that they should only answer questions submitted to them by the Postmaster-General, but that they should be allowed to meet at their own will and to take the initiative in submitting recommendations to him. I think such a Committee would help to bring the Post Office more closely into touch with those whom it professes to serve. I am convinced that a great many of the matters I have mentioned to your Lordships could be solved by business people with ordinary business instincts, and that they have not really the insuperable character which the Department attributes to them. I should like to know whether the Postmaster-General would not consider the setting up of a Committee of this character, thereby making the Post Office more useful than it is. We cannot do without the Post Office. We do not want to break its monopoly, but I think we desire that the services for which we pay should be rendered, and that when they fail to be rendered some measure of justice should be meted out to those who have suffered. I beg to ask my Question.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I in the first place thank the noble Earl for his kind reference to the late Leader of this House, the purport of which we very much appreciate. The Question of the noble Earl as it appears on the Paper
898
contains a very sweeping indictment of the Post Office, but in his speech I think he has made that indictment and the scope of his charges even wider and more sweeping. He v as good enough to give the Post Office the heads of the questions to which ho wanted replies, and the Post Office have done their best to give information on those matters. I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not follow—he will not expect me to follow—all the different cases he has mentioned of which we have not had notices. If he could let my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General know what his complaints are in respect of them, I am sure that every inquiry would be made and good explanations would probably be found for a great many of them. They were such matters as the attachment to the telephone, circulars going wrong, the registered addresses to which telegrams are sent, the telephone at the new address, and in regard to the telegraph office which was cut off at one o'clock. There must be, I am sure, some very good explanations which I could have given the noble Earl had I had notice of those points.
With reference to the Question which the noble Earl has placed upon the Paper, first of all, the registered letter he referred to was, I think, a letter to Germany, and my information is that the registration compensation that we pay in this country applies only to the inland post. The foreign system is the outcome of the Postal Union Convention which is subscribed to practically by all civilised nations and, therefore, our terms of compensation do not apply. As to the registered letter which the noble Earl stated arrived as an envelope with nothing inside it, as far as I can understand compensation is given in such cases provided that all the conditions of the Post Office are adhered to, such as the sending of money or valuables or anything which wants registering in a Post Office registered envelope. There are other conditions, but I am afraid it is too much to expect everybody to read the Post Office Guide and to know it; but all the conditions under which registered letters have to be sent and compensation is paid are laid down in that guide.
The noble Earl asked also about a receipt for a registered letter. It is not quite clear what it is that the noble Earl

899
wants. A certificate is given free when a registered letter is handed in, and, as a further safeguard, the sender can arrange to have advice of the delivery of the letter on payment of threepence.
EARL RUSSELL: It is done for no extra charge in the United States.
THE EARL OK LUCAN: A great many economies have been effected here and I have no doubt that is one of them. In regard to telegrams, the noble Earl in the memorandum which he sent to the Post Office referred to receipts for telegrams. A receipt for a telegram can be obtained at a charge of one penny. This is very seldom made use of. If a receipt were to be given gratis it is to be feared that there would be a very large number of applicants, and that there would be considerable congestion and crowding at post offices, so that those engaged in work at the counter would be considerably hampered and hindered in the sending of telegrams. The noble Earl suggested that the public should prepare slips to hand in in order to save time, but the Post Office consider that that would not materially hasten the operation, or save time, because the slips would have to be checked, and the time, probably, filled in, so that there would most likely be a loss instead of an appreciable saving of time.
With regard to the non-delivery of imperfectly addressed telegrams, to which the noble Earl referred, I can only tell him that wherever possible the Post Office do locate the addressee. The local directory is usually consulted, but very often the address is so abbreviated that it is very difficult to follow it up. If the telegram cannot be delivered, the sender is at once notified free of charge. With regard to imperfectly addressed packages, the Post Office do all they consider possible to get these packages to their right destinations. They consult the Post Office Guide, and in some cases the county directory. They also consult the local directory wherever that is possible. They believe that reference to the local directory at the delivery office is. usually, much more satisfactory than reference to the Telephone Directory. I do not know if the noble Earl meant to refer to cases where people change their address, but, as he knows, and as most of your Lordships know, it is possible
900
for anybody changing their address to have their new address registered for the first year free, and for the second and third years at a charge of 1s., and after that at a charge of 5s. a year. If people would take the trouble to do that there would be no difficulty in their letters following them.
Express letters were also referred to by the noble Earl. He complained that express letters sent to be delivered from the delivering office by a messenger instead of by the ordinary postman very often fail to reach their destination as early as is expected. I understand that senders of express letters are always warned that it is only safe to send such a letter where there is a telegraph office, and, therefore, where there are boys or other assistants who can take the letters to their destination. Very often it is found that these express letters are posted in pillar boxes, and therefore the sender cannot be warned that very likely his letter cannot be delivered, but in all cases he can, on application, get back the express letter fee if the letter is not delivered. In places like London people are warned that it is no use sending an express letter by the night mail to a small country office which does not open until nine o'clock in the morning. If the letter arrives before that time it will probably be delivered sooner by the ordinary postman.
The Post Office know of no reason why copies of the books mentioned by the noble Earl should not arrive at their destination. They would be very glad to have particulars of any cases in which there has been a failure to deliver, and they would go into the matter. They have had very few complaints themselves. In dealing with this question of delay in delivery of letters, I should like to point out the enormous volume of correspondence that has to be dealt with by the Post Office. Yearly, about 3,500,000,000 letters and over 2,000,000,000 other postal packages are dealt with. The Post Office experience is that the vast majority are delivered at the proper time, but it is impossible, within reasonable limits of time, to produce safeguards against occasional delays. Efforts are constantly made to induce the public to post early, but those efforts meet with only a very limited degree of success. I have dealt, so far as the Post Office information goes,

901
with the Question of the noble Earl, and I can only say in conclusion that my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General does not consider that it would be advisable, or that it is necessary, to appoint a Committee such as the noble Earl advises There is already an Advisory Committee of business men who are consulted, and who meet, I understand, to decide all matters of principle, but on these questions of detail the Postmaster-General does not think the Committee suggested by the noble Earl is necessary.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as one of the ex-Postmasters-General to whom the noble Earl alluded I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that it is one of the few supporters of the Socialist Opposition in your Lordships' House who thinks it necessary to attack the one Department in the State which is run on the principle of nationalisation. It has been thought advisable in the past that the State should distribute to all parties in the community an equal service, irrespective of distance. I shall not attempt this evening to justify the attacks which have been made on the Poet Office by the noble Earl. I think I could supply from my own recollections a number of excuses for certain of the faults to which he has alluded.
What I want to remind the noble Earl, and also those who think with him in regard to the nationalisation of the means of production and distribution, is that when they appeal to us to bring business principles to bear they should remember that these are services in which business principles in the ordinary sense cannot be introduced. It is for that reason many of us are opposed, and will remain opposed, to the nationalisation of services in this country. The last words of the noble Earl were to appeal to business men to carry on the industry on businesslike lines. The main reason why efficiency cannot be secured in public Departments in the same way that it can under a system of private ownership is the inability to discharge from the service men who are not thoroughly efficient. In the public service you can only get rid of men who, owing to some real dereliction of duty, are no longer required in that service. But the Post Office, after all, is a very capable service. I believe that nationalisation is a system that ought not
902
to be supported, and I am very glad that a Socialist like the noble Earl has found it necessary to find fault with that system as embodied in the Post Office.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have been deeply impressed by what has ex-Postmaster-General. It is, of course, inevitable that the Post Office should be a State service, but it is not inevitable that it should be loosely administered. The Navy is a State service, but the Navy is much better administered than most private undertakings of which the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has spoken. So also is the Army in most respects. It is a question as to whether you have got that efficient organisation which enables you to bring proper supervision to bear, and whether you have that spirit in the service which induces the people in it to carry out what is required. It is not true that you cannot get rid of inefficient people in a State service. It is almost invariably from want of consideration and stupidity if you fail to get rid of people who do not succeed. Does any one suppose that in the Navy there is no method of getting rid of an inefficient seaman? Not in the least. Nor in the Post Office. It is all a question as to whether you have trained and supervised your people properly. We are not an intelligent nation so far as organisation is concerned—
LORD GAINFORD: Is the noble and learned Viscount in favour of military discipline being brought into the Civil Services of the country?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No, but military efficiency. How to get lid of an unsuitable or inefficient man is a thing which is known in great private enterprises. It can also be done in the Navy and the Army. You have, of course, to proceed under a different set of Statutes; and this brings me to what I rose to say. I think my noble friend Earl Russell has brought out a case for an inquiry of the kind he suggests. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction all over the country about the administration of the Post Office. It is clumsily done; it is not done on a system which is up to the level of the system which obtains in other Departments. It would be very much to the advantage of the country if the

903
Postmaster-General would appoint a committee, which should contain representatives of outside business interests, and ask it to look into the system, see whether it is as well administered as it could be, and whether the system is the best one that can be devised.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: You have a Committee in existence at the moment. I had the honour of serving on it for four years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I know. But what we are complaining of is that it has not looked into these things. It would be well if a fresh and vigorous inquiry were made into the administration of the Post Office. The Army was subjected to a very severe investigation, and I do not see why the Post Office should not be subject to an inquiry. Until it is done you will not have that alacrity and keenness which you ought to have and which is required in order to put matters right. If the noble Earl's Question has served no other purpose it has served a useful purpose in bringing to the sense of the House that there is much dissatisfaction throughout the country with the state of things in the Post Office, a state of things which some of us think might be made much better.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I am much interested by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount because he entirely supports his follower in the House in the attack he so brilliantly made on the administration of the Post Office. The noble Viscount says that, after all, the Post Office is not the only Department which carries on various duties in this country. That is true; but the Post Office is the only Department which carries on what maybe called something in the nature of a commercial business. That is to say, it does work for which it is paid and it makes a profit out of the work it does. It is the only Department of the Government which carries on a commercial business, and the noble and learned Viscount was well justified in saying that here was the only unofficial representative of the Labour Party in this House making a most brilliant attack on the system of nationalisation as applied to a commercial undertaking and perpetually
904
saying that what you ought to do is to imitate the private trader; that it is the private trader that is really efficient in this matter.
Many of us on this side of the House heard these observations of the noble Earl with a great deal of sympathy, and if it were possible to transfer the postal service to private enterprise I have not much doubt that it would be carried on with greater efficiency than it is carried on at present. But it is the only nationalised commercial service of the State and it is the one Department selected by the representatives of the Labour Party in this House for criticism and attack. Surely that is an observation which is worth recording in the debates of this House.
As to the noble and learned Viscount's request that a Committee shall be appointed, what is it? He says we cannot trust the efficiency of the State to administer these services, what we want is that some private individuals, with their knowledge of private enterprises, should be appointed as a Committee to advise a Government Department how they can apply business principles to the work of that Department. "Business principles" was the phrase constantly recurring in the speech of the noble Earl. It is rather a striking piece of advice coming from the noble and learned Viscount. Such a Committee already exists, and the difficulty no doubt is not in laying down principles of organisation, upon which such a Committee would be admirably constituted to advise, but how to deal with the actual details of the administration of the Post Office.

TRAFFIC REGULATION.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to take any steps further to limit the speed and weight of present-day traffic, more especially upon second and third-grade roads, which are now most unfairly starved to the detriment of the ratepayers: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper because I think the time has arrived when the Government should take into consideration the question of the roads of this country, both as to their suitability to carry the traffic which they are now called upon to bear and as to

905
the adaptability of the vehicles which now pass over these roads. The policy of the Government is a large expenditure, between £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, upon the main roads and certain of the great arterial roads leading to the Metropolis. As regards the latter point I make no criticism, because more than twenty years ago, in a letter to The Times, I defended the construction of these main arteries and I was supported in my contention by no less an authority than the noble Earl, the Earl of Balfour. But my contention is that whereas much is done for the main roads, it is at the expense of the second-grade roads that feed the main roads, and also of the third-grade roads.
How comes it that the second-grade and third-grade roads are in the deplorable state in which we find them at present in many parts of the country? There are many reasons, but the main reason is that the local authorities are unable to exercise powers of transferring certain heavy traffic for which these roads are unsuited or of closing certain portions of the roads. Possibly the noble Viscount who will reply to me from the Front Bench will draw my attention to subsection (4) of Section 7 of the Roads Act, 1920, which gives this very power to the local authorities. But the local authorities have not been able to put this section into operation, not only on account of the various difficulties with which it is surrounded but also on account of the expense. Some few years ago a local authority attempted to put the section into operation at a cost of some £2,000, and, as a result, other local authorities have refrained from doing anything of the kind, contenting themselves with doing the best they can for the roads under their control with the amount of money placed at their disposal.
Let me give an illustration of what occurs. A short time ago a certain road, about a mile and a half in length, had become broken up owing to the passage of a heavy motor omnibus. The local authorities would have liked to divert the route. The proprietors of the omnibus said that the route was unprofitable and that the loss to them would be something like 5s. Per week in fares. But the road had to be reconstructed at a cost of £5,000, one-half of which fell upon the ratepayers. Thus the ratepayers in that locality were paying many pounds perweek
906
in order that the omnibus proprietor might make some 5s. a week. It may be asked how the road came to be in this condition. A road gets into this condition because these heavy vehicles, averaging anything between five and ten tons in weight, are, according to the evidence of surveyors throughout the country—and upon this question they are unanimous—faulty in mechanical construction.
It is true that when they are fully loaded and moving at a slow rate they do comparatively little damage, but when, towards the end of their journey, having delivered most of their passengers, they are comparatively empty and are trying to make up speed, the tail end of the vehicle, if I may use that expression, goes bump, bump, upon these lightly built roads and beats them into what is known technically as pot holes. If these pot holes could be treated without delay in the proper way by being filled up with tar metalling, and then if the road were tar sprayed in order to bind the whole surface together, comparatively little damage would be done, but the local authorities cannot do this because tar-spraying is a very expensive matter and they receive only one-quarter of the grant for this purpose.
There is another direction in which matters might be improved. If these vehicles were compelled to carry pneumatic or semi-pneumatic tyres there would be a great improvement. It will be said that this would occasionally cause some delay. That is, I believe, the only possible objection. Pneumatic tyres might be costly, but if sufficient time were given for the old tyres to wear out and the proprietors were only then required to put on new tyres of a stated pattern no great damage would be done to the owners of these omnibuses. It may be urged that eventually the expense would come upon the general public, that the consumer always pays. That is quite true, but surely it would be better that some infinitesimal charge should come back to the consumer than that the ratepayers, who already pay so large a proportion of the expense, should be compelled to make it good.
Let me give another illustration of what takes place in consequence of weight being placed upon roads that are unfit to carry

907
it. In the district in which I live, the Chiltern Hills, there are numerous lightly-built, narrow and tortuous roads and considerable steep ascents and descents. In one place, where about half a mile of road had just been reconstructed and was in good repair, the following day a large tractor drawing a couple of trailers went down that half mile of road and practically broke it up. There was a pit at the bottom of the hill from which heavy ballast was being taken, and it suited the proprietors to cart it up this hill rather than take an alternative road of some three quarters of a mile that was at their disposal. As a result, in the space of three weeks, the road had more taken out of it than would have been taken out of it in as many months had conditions as to weight and rate of speed been different.
Now let me pass on to the question of speed. Again, I may be told from the Front Bench that the speed of these vehicles is limited to twelve miles per hour. That is perfectly true, but they not infrequently, on certain stretches of road, go at the rate of twenty and twenty-four miles per hour. I recently had a letter from the experienced chairman of an important road board. He stated that if the vehicles never exceeded a speed of twelve miles an hour the cost of upkeep of the roads in his district would be one quarter of what it is now. That is a very bold statement. It is frequently said that the public have the matter in their own hands and that the police and the magistrates deal with this question. The police force in this country performs its difficult duties, which call for so much tact, extremely well, but I venture to assert that if the police force of this country were quadrupled they could not succeed in apprehending one in a hundred cases of vehicles exceeding the speed limit. Perhaps some noble Lords present may have been familiar in days gone by with the King's Regulations for the Army in which there is a paragraph concerning discipline which points out that it is not the severity, but the certainty of punishment which acts as a deterrent from crime. Naturally drivers, knowing the chances are a hundred to one in their favour, take the risk. Then it is urged that the police are not backed up by the magistrates. I can only speak for the Bench on which I sit. As a rule, when
908
we know that the driver of the vehicle is in the employ of a rich firm, who will presumably pay his fine, we invariably impose a very heavy fine indeed, but, on the other hand, where we know that the driver is a poor man or in the employ of a poor firm, and that in all probability he will have to pay the fine himself, as a matter of expediency we consider the possibility of throwing the man and his family upon the rates, and also common humanity, and impose only a small fine.
It may be asked: What is the remedy for this excessive speed? I have no remedy to offer. I leave that with the Government. But if I am asked why it is that the speed limit is invariably exceeded, it is because men in business are compelled, in self defence, to exact from their drivers the passing-over of a certain route within a given time, or the delivery of a certain number of parcels or packages within a certain time. The drivers are frequently delayed by customers en. route, and again, in certain parts of the country, on certain days, owing to their having to pass through market towns or other places where there is a glut of traffic, they are obliged to make up for loss of speed when they come to a stretch of road where they can do so.
There is one more point in close connection with the roads that I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice. On many of these narrow roads, which were never built for the traffic that they now have to carry, there is a considerable amount of cottage property, and this heavy traffic, going along those roads, particularly on certain soils and in certain states of weather, shake the foundations of the cottages, cause fissures in the walls, loosen frames and chimney-pots, and do other damage, and the unfortunate owner, who already has to pay heavily in rates for the roads, is having his cottage property destroyed at the same time. I do not think that any noble Lord will deny that that is a great grievance to property owners. It is a great grievance, particularly at a time when certain Acts with regard to small property are being extended for a number of years, with the result that many of us who, from patriotism or humanity in many cases, allowed these cottages to pass into the hands of tenants whom we did not want during the war, and now require these cottages for our own servants,

909
are unable to regain possession because it is well known that in most places it is impossible to furnish alternative accommodation. So we are hit in both ways.
There is one other matter which I would like to bring to your Lordships notice, and that is the question of the railways in conjunction with the roads. In recent years much of the heavy goods traffic formerly taken by the railways has been carried by the roads, and particularly the main roads of the country, which cost between £3,000 and £10,000 per mile for construction only. A considerable amount of that traffic, which is now borne by the main roads at great expense to the ratepayers, might be put back upon the railways by the construction of containers for certain classes of goods. That has already been done in the case of furniture vans; and by means of simple mechanical contrivances, and by good will on the part of the traders of this country, and by incentives in the case of the railways, much of the traffic which is now upon the roads might be re-transferred to the railways.
My speech has travelled over wide grounds, and may I be permitted for a few moments to summarise what I have said? My suggestion is that greater power should be given to local surveyors, under the authority of their district councils, to divert heavy traffic from roads unsuitable for the carriage of that traffic; that an increase should be given as regards the tar-spraying grant to the local authorities; that every encouragement should be given to the railways, on the one hand, and to the traders of the country, on the other, to get back some of the heavy traffic from the roads to the railways. I can imagine that whoever replies from the Front Bench will say that this is a very large subject dealing with the whole of the roads of the country, and one in which some hundreds of millions of money is concerned. I concur. Therefore I ask the Government to set up a committee of experts on roads, railways, mechanical construction of heavy vehicles, and to add to these a certain number of ratepayers' representatives and a certain number of the representatives of trade. I consider that such a committee would be able to furnish a vast amount of valuable knowledge to the Government. Finally, let me say that, this is a great
910
national question and has nothing whatever to do with Party in any sense of the word, and that there is no reason why any noble Lord, sitting in any part of this House, should not support me in the Division Lobby on this matter. I beg to move.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this Question has travelled over so many roads in the course of his speech that perhaps he will not mind if I confine myself to one or two of the more high-class, or classified, roads, instead of dealing with all the unclassified roads in the country. He has told us that, I think twenty years ago, he was a great pioneer of arterial roads, but if he has followed the road controversy during the last twenty years he knows that two very important limits on speed have been, and are being, constantly broken. One is the twenty-mile speed limit for light motors and the other is the twelve-mile speed limit for heavier motors. He has asked me a rather large Question, but he seemed to suggest not so much objection to the speed limits as to the enforcement of them. He has already complained of the charge for roads, both rates and taxes, hut he wants also to increase the number of police—which, although an efficient, is not a very cheap body--otherwise, I do not quite see how he can enforce these rules.
I may tell him that it is the intention of the Government as soon as possible to bring forward a Road Vehicle Consolidation and Amendment Bill because nearly all our rules and regulations about speed on roads, and so on, date from the years 1903 and 1904 when the motor car was a very different vehicle than what it is now. There has been no increase, I understand, from the max mum permissible axle weights or speeds since 1904, and in the interval there has been an immense improvement in the tyres and springs fitted to motor vehicles and in the construction of roads. This Bill will be based very largely on the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Bond Vehicles issued in March, 1922. I understand that their recommendations follow the principles of differentiation as regards the maximum permissible speeds between heavy motor cars fitted with

911
different types of tyres—namely, pneumatic, resilient and non-resilient.—and of different unladen weights, and whether drawing a trailer or not. By this means an inducement will be offered to the use of types of vehicles which do the least damage to roads.
The other point which the noble Lord suggested was that there should be special limitations imposed in the case of second and third-grade roads. I suppose he meant unclassified roads. I am advised that this suggestion cannot be carried out. The maximum speed, the unladen weight and the front and back axle weights of heavy motor cars are, by law, painted on the vehicle. You could not have special limits for Class I and Class II roads and other limits for other roads. Laden vehicles do not usually confine their journeys to Class I and Class II roads and as the driver would not be able to alter his load in passing from a Class I road to an unclassified road, the effect would be that you would have weight limits for unclassified roads stereotyped generally and that, of course, would be an impossible thing to do.
I will not call your Lordships' attention to the particular section, which the noble Lord quoted so correctly, relating to the powers of the local authorities and public inquiries, but I do not think he laid sufficient stress upon it, because under this section orders have been made during the last four years restricting the use of heavy motor vehicles on a large number of highways and bridges throughout the country, on the application of the county boroughs or county councils concerned. In some cases the order prohibits the use of the highway by locomotives and by heavy motor cars, or by passenger-carrying vehicles with a seating capacity for more than fourteen passengers, other than the driver. A great many regulations of that kind have been made, so I do not think the noble Lord really gives sufficient weight to what has been done under that section.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: It is the excess of cost.
VISCOUNT PEEL: To whom?
LOUD RATHCREEDAN: To the ratepayer.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of holding these inquiries?
LORD RATHCREEDAN: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Whatever the cost may be I only want to suggest to the noble Lord that a great deal has been done to make orders under these particular Regulations. The last point he raised was the question of not dealing quite fairly and generously with the unclassified roads. He knows of the portions of 25 and 50 per cent. respectively received by Class I and Class II roads, and these grants, which are called classification grants, form by far the heaviest call upon the Road Fund. For this financial year they amount to £9,500,000 out of a net revenue of about £15,500,000. The county councils of England and Wales receive over £5,500,000 in classification grants, which indirectly provide a considerable relief to the county rates, to which the rural districts contribute. The rural district councils also receive directly about £400,000 annually in classification grants.
The noble Lord knows very well that a great many complaints have been made on the lines that we have heard this evening, pressing for the making of definite grants towards the maintenance of non-classified roads on the basis of 10 per cent. of the approved cost. It has been very difficult to adopt this suggestion, because of the tremendous charge on the Fund—which is contributed by the motorists themselves—for the reconstruction of existing Class I and Class II roads, and the construction of roads and bridges. Indeed, the grant of money to these particular roads would really run counter to the general principles governing the distribution of the Fund, which is that the money should be expended on the maintenance and improvement of roads bearing a considerable amount of through traffic, as distinguished from traffic of purely local origin. The Road Fund is not an institution devised solely for the purpose of relieving local rates.
During the last two years sums amounting to £3,750,000 have been specially allocated from the Road Fund for the improvement of important roads in rural areas. That policy was initiated two years ago, and these grants are given on two principles. One is to enable Class I and Class II district roads to be brought up to main road standard, so that they may be taken over by the county authorities

913
as county main roads. The second is to enable the more important district roads which are not in Class I or Class II to be reconstructed and made fit for the traffic passing over them, particularly those district roads which carry heavy local omnibus traffic.
The policy of pressing for Class I and Class II roads to be brought up to main road standard and taken over by the county authorities is sound on general grounds, and it has the advantage of spreading the charge for roads over the rather wider area of the county councils, and so relieving the rural rates. A great many of these rural district authorities have been attempting for years to maintain their more important roads with unsuitable materials, simply because they could not face the large capital expenditure of reconstructing them, and the object of these grants now being made is to enable them to reconstruct them in a better and stronger manner. I understand that the Minister of Transport hopes that larger provision will be made for this purpose in the financial year 1925–1926. In that way, indirectly perhaps, the complaints which have been made this evening will, to some extent, be met.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Question on the Paper is a serious one, but the noble Viscount, although his reply was somewhat ample, really did not very fully deal with it. What the noble Lord asked was whether steps will be taken further to limit the speed and weight of present-day traffic. What you want is not so much further to limit the speed, at any rate so far as enactment is concerned, but to enforce the limitation of speed. The noble Lord spoke as if there was no difference between the excessive speed-limit of a light motor car and of a heavy vehicle. There is all the difference in the world. The light motor car which exceeds the speed limit may, or may not, cause danger to the public—I do not think it does—but, at all events, it causes practically no damage to modern roads. But when you get these terrible vehicles, weighing from three to seven tons, bumping and dancing over the roads at twenty miles an hour, the damage they do is incalculable. I am very much opposed to waste, and public money is being wasted by repairing roads only in order that they may be broken up by these vehicles. It is really a very serious
914
question, and I think something ought to be done to limit these vehicles to their statutory speed of twelve miles an hour.
The noble Viscount seems to think that extra police would be expensive. The cost of extra police, if they laid themselves out to entrap these vehicles, would be far more than repaid by the fines collected, and the local rates would be saved an enormous proportion of their present expenditure. This waste of public money that is now going on is remediable without any fresh legislation, and I hope the Government will not disregard that aspect of the matter.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I fully acknowledge that light motor traffic of under 20 horse power does no damage whatever, and it must be remembered that it is the motorists who supply the greater part of the money for the roads. But I contend, and all surveyors in the country admit, that a heavy motor omnibus going over one of these lightly-built roads, especially when the weather is bad, will do more damage in one day than the cost of the licence of one of these vehicles for a whole year would pay for—that is, between £60 and £70. I gave your Lordships an instance of a road on which there was a gravel pit at the bottom of a steep hill. That road was broken up in some three weeks. There was an alternative route some three-quarters of a mile round and less steep, which might have been used by these vehicles if only the local authority had had power to permit it.
I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said. If a Bill is going to be introduced and various improvements made in different directions, I will reserve myself until then so as to see what the Government is going to do. I might mention, with regard to speed, that I specially said I had no panacea to offer; it was for the Government to see that the speed was regulated. I know of no way of keeping it down to twelve miles, and I consider that the police on the one hand and the magistrates on the other do the best they can in the circumstances.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord does not ask for an increase in the police?
LORD RATHCREEDAN: No.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CIVIL SERVICES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, it has been my unfortunate experience for two nights running, at the moment when your Lordships or all the more volatile amongst you begin to think of preparing for dinner, to ask you to listen to a somewhat tedious disquisition, and I fear that I must repeat to-night the demand which I made upon your Lordships' patience last night. My excuse must be that the conscientious manner in which your Lordships have examined the Questions which have engaged attention in the House before mine has made the moment somewhat late at which I rise. I cannot for that reason neglect the duty which is imposed upon me, for this Bill is one which has great consequences for India. Its Parliamentary fortunes, too long by successive accidents delayed, are being attended with extreme anxiety by many meritorious public servants to whom its passage means much.
I think that the most useful manner in which I can deal with this important matter is to inform your Lordships as shortly as I can of the effect of the principal provisions of this Bill. They are limited in scope, but they are essential in the form in which I offer them to the consideration of Parliament if His Majesty's Government are to carry out a decision, already announced, to accept and put into force the main recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India, which was presided over by a member of this House. Viscount Lee of Fareham. I have summarised those recommendations as briefly as I can. They aimed on the one hand at removing certain anxieties, financial and otherwise, of the Services and on the other at satisfying Indian opinion that the principles underlying the reform scheme would be observed in Service administration. I must, therefore, make it perfectly plain that the recommendations are a deliberate compromise between the Indian point of view and Service opinion and in approving them generally, as His Majesty's Government have now approved them, the need for maintaining the balance between the two points of view has been
916
steadily kept in mind. No useful purpose is gained by ignoring the fact that there are two points of view amid which those who are responsible for the Government of India, either in India or in this country, must steer a prudent and in my judgment a middle course.
The recommendations which benefit the Service, are recognised as benefiting them, and have been accepted, are as follows. First, in the matter of pay, this takes the form of granting small increases in overseas pay and, perhaps more important, of issuing the overseas part of the rupee pay in sterling at 2s. the rupee as a protection against a fluctuating rate of exchange. This means an addition of about £135 a year to the pay of an officer in the middle years of his service. In the second place, there is an increase effected in the pensions of members of the uncovenanted Services from Rs. 5,000 (that is to say, £437 10 s.) to Rs. 6,000 (which is £525) for 25 years' service and from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 7,000 for 30 years' service. In the third place, there is the grant to all officers of non-Asiatic domicile in the course of their service and to their wives of four return first-class passages and one single passage for each child. We may be asked quite reasonably in these days of economic stringency as to the cost of the financial relief involved under these three heads. It may be put at one crore of rupees at 1s.6d the rupee; that is to say, about £750,000 a year—no inconsiderable allowance.
The recommendations designed more particularly to bring the organisation of the Services into accord with the existing Constitution which have also been accepted include, first, the taking over by Local Governments of the responsibility of engaging and controlling future recruits for the Indian Educational, Civil Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Services, of the Buildings and Roads branch of the Indian Service of Engineers and, in two Provinces, of the Indian Forest Service. Each of these Services has hitherto been uniform for all India, but the fields of administration which they serve have since the reforms been controlled by the Governor, acting with Ministers responsible to the Legislature, and this makes what is called
"provincialisation" of the Services concerned a natural, and indeed an inevitable, step.

917
In the second place, there are certain Services directly administered by the Government of India—called Central Services—other than the Ecclesiastical and Political, which will now be controlled by the Government of India instead of by the Secretary of State, with certain reservations of control to the Secretary of State where either the Service has strategical importance, such as Railways, or its personnel is military, such as the Survey of India. In the third place, accelerated Indianisation, to use a phrase which I did not invent, is accepted as a principle with a view to producing, in the case of the Indian Civil Service and Police, a "cadre one half European and one-half Indian in 15 and 25 years respectively."
These three measures, which in the aggregate fill the opposite side of the scale in the kind of equipoise which has determined the conclusions of the Commission, and especially that which is known as Indianisation, are apt to be criticised, have been criticised, and will unquestionably be criticised on the ground that they will swamp the Indian Services and impair their efficiency. It is no part of my present plan to indulge in a lengthy historical survey, but it is only fair to the present Parliament, to their immediate predecessors, to the Government in which Mr. Montagu was Secretary of State for India and under which the noble lord, Lord Chelmsford, who I see opposite, was Viceroy—it is only fair to all of these to remember, if there be blame to be implied in the inception of Indianisation—which I certainly, holding my position, could never concede—that it is not of modern origin, that it is not the product or the child of any one of those Governments.
Let me very shortly remind your Lordships of how those who are accounted the classical teachers of the true principles which ought to be applied in our relations with India, have spoken of this. The terms of Section 96 of the Government of India Act, only reproduce the provisions of the famous Statute, the 1833 Act, which has been quoted and acclaimed as the Magna Charta of India for a period now of one hundred years. What were the words then used?
"No native of British India, nor any subject of His Majesty resident therein shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth,
918
descent, colour, or any of them be disabled from holding any office under the Crown in India."
That has been proclaimed indefeasible in law, and has for a hundred years been confirmed by this country in its dealings with India. That section which still stands as the governing principle of our relations with India, was supplemented in the Preamble of the Act of 1919 with the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and after this matter had been examined with scrupulous and meticulous care for many months by one of the most responsible and capable Joint Committees which the Houses of Parliament have ever appointed to deal with a matter of grave public moment. It was supplemented in the Preamble of the Act of 1919 by the express pronouncement that it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration.
I, therefore, found myself, in the responsibility which fell upon me, the legatee of a deliberate policy of long standing, and I had to apply my mind, in the recommendations which it was my duty to make to my colleagues in the Government, not as one who came there for the first time to deal upon a novel basis with matters which were open to dispute and discussion, but I found myself confronted by principles and provisions which I was bound to observe, and I had no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that it was our duty to support the very delicate compromise which the Lee Commission had reached in its entirety, with one or two inconsiderable exceptions, which need not disturb the generality of the statement that I make.
But your Lordships may reasonably ask how do I attempt to judge the future, and how do I think that this stipulation will in fact work out? In 1924, Indians in the Indian Civil Service constituted seventeen per cent. of the total number of officers and in the police eleven per cent. Though time alone can show, an increase of Indians in fifteen and twenty-five years to fifty per cent. for those two Services (which is not in itself a very violent change), should not prove too rapid a progress in giving effect to the policy of Parliament declared in the Preamble to the Government of India Act of 1919. But let us have no delusions. A condition of the possibility of maintaining that balance, of relying upon that balance to

919
provide us with a competent and reliable civil administration in India, depends, and almost must depend, upon the inclusion upon the English side of its contribution of the very best of the young men whom the schools and the Universities of this country can provide. It is, of course, equally true—I will not say that it is a fortiori true, because no comparative statements in such a matter are desirable or indeed tolerable—that the standards of the recruitment of the Indian members of the Civil Service should be of such a character as to ensure that men of the best brains, the best character, the best all-round calibre are supplied to represent the Indian population.
But at this moment I am dealing in this House with the English contribution, and it is right that your Lordships should understand that, in my opinion, the gravest anxiety which confronts the Secretary of State for India at this moment does not lie with movements and tendencies in India, grave and menacing as some of these have been. I am not very gravely alarmed, attempting to look at the matter in real perspective, by these. The gravest anxiety at this moment, in my judgment, is in this circumstance, that that which beyond all question was almost the finest illustration of what I will venture to describe as the best Civil Service in the world has undoubtedly, since the year 1914, shown many signs of lack of popularity and of consequent decline. If you trace the history of the association of this country with that great sub-continent—as I shall still venture to believe, one of the brightest pages in the whole of our history—you will realise that never would the success with which we have maintained our position there have been conceivable had it not been for the devotion, the ability, the courage and the character of our Indian Civil Service. When I addressed myself some months ago for the first time to this question this was the element in the whole situation which alone caused me a vague, and at the present time an undissipated, anxiety.
I cannot give you the explanation completely why the Indian Civil Service has ceased to offer exactly the same attraction that it did in my young days
920
at Oxford thirty years ago. I remember well when I was at Oxford that in every college the flower of the young men attempted the competition for the Indian Civil Service, the man, who was a scholar of his college, captain of the boats, or of the football team. If you took eight of such men in any given college, you would find three or four of them presenting themselves for examination for the Indian Civil Service, and you would always find that four or five of the best men in every college at Oxford would be successful in that examination and would carry on the great traditions of those who had preceded them. It was the efforts of these men, laboriously, unostentatiously and without advertisement, carried on through generations, that has made possible that association of partnership, discreditable to neither and honourable to those who undertook it, which has constituted the real history of this country in India. That membership has declined since the war. One explanation undoubtedly is that those poignant and pregnant years killed a large number of those who would naturally have presented themselves for this competition, disabled many others and atrophied in others the spirit of adventure.
Therefore we find that from the year 1914 there has been a distinct and grave decline in the number of those who have presented themselves for examination. I cannot doubt that the growing competition of our modern life, the fact that other professions, competitive professions, are so overcrowded, together with the comparative security which is still offered to the very high spirit of adventure of our youth, will redress the balance and restore the numbers of those who offer themselves for this Service. But I should be misleading your Lordships if I did not make it plain that at this moment the number of those who are offering themselves is not sufficient and that our problem, unless things improve, may not be to discuss whether there should be 50 per cent. of suitable natives of India but to ensure that there shall be 50 per cent. of suitable candidates from these Islands.
Such steps as are in my power to take I have not failed to take, ably assisted as I have been by many Englishmen with special and distinguished knowledge of

921
India, who have been good enough, on my invitation, to visit the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Scottish University, and many others. I have paid visits to some of these Universities myself, and contemplate more, and I am not without encouragement from meeting with the students themselves in these Universities and meeting the tutors who are in the capacity of advising them as to their career, that when I address your Lordships in twelve months' time, if I am still in the same position as I am now, I shall be able to give you better reassurances upon a point so vital to the future of India.
I have to mention two measures, unrelated to the matters I have hitherto discussed, which appeal both to Indian and Service opinion and have been accepted in principle by the Government. I cannot to-night make a more precise announcement in relation to them. In the first place, there is the question of the reorganisation of the Medical Services with a view to separating the Civil from the Military Services, so strongly recommended to the Commission. The result would be to put the former, that is the Medical Service, on a Provincial basis and secure for the Civil Services and their families medical treatment by European officers while maintaining a war reserve of officers in civil employ. The detailed proposals of the Government of India upon this matter have not yet been received but they are expected shortly.
In the second place a very complicated matter—which I will not pretend to deal with in detail to-night—presents itself for consideration—namely, the constitution of a Public Service Commission long since pressed upon the authorities both in India and at home. It was strongly recommended by the Lee Commission. It is conceived of as being a Commission charged on the one hand with maintaining adequate standards of recruitment in India for the Services, and on the other with protecting the Services by the establishment of a body of the highest standing to advise the Executive Government in regard to the discipline of the Services and their general interests.
I have been in close discussion upon this matter with the Viceroy for some weeks. I cannot pretend that we have
922
yet arrived at a conclusion. The difficulties are enormous. In the first place, you have to determine whether such a body is to be subordinate to the Government of India, or whether it is to be independent in its decisions of that Government. In the second place, you have to decide whether it is to be allowed to invade some of the functions of the Secretary of State, and although I hope I am the least likely of anyone to allow any question of the importance or dignity of the office which I hold to came into collision with any consideration of public interest, I have at the same time to remember this always, that no one has ever left this country to undertake duties as an Indian civil servant who has not been assured before he went that he individually had an individual right to appeal to the Secretary of State, and I am bound most carefully to safeguard that position. I shall, I think, find it my duty to do so.
I have only a very few words to add. The Act of 1919 itself gives to the Indian Legislature and the Provincial Legislative Councils power to vote Supply, but in doing so they provide that proposals for certain categories of expenditure are not to be submitted to that Vote. Amongst these categories of expenditure are "salaries and pensions of persons appointed by, or with the approval of, His Majesty or by the Secretary of State in Council, and salaries of Chief Commissioners, Judicial Commissioners, High Court Judges and Advocates-General." Clause 1 of the Bill makes two changes in these provisions:—(a) by defining and extending the meaning of the expression "salaries and pensions," and (b) by extending the classes of persons whose "salaries and pensions" as now to be defined, are to be protected.
As regards the first point, it is probable that the intention of the framers of the Act of 1919 was to exempt from the Vote all emoluments and official payments of all kinds, whether by way of remuneration or pension, payable to protected persons. The use of the word "salaries," however, has made it necessary in the past to include under that heading various payments which cannot, except by a straining of language, be regarded as falling within the term "salaries" as technically used in India. Moreover, the decision taken on Lord Lee's Commission's proposals involve concessions,

923
notably the grant of free passages, which it would be impossible to class as salary.
The object, therefore, of subsection (3) of Clause 1, which might puzzle your Lordships, is to make the terms "salaries and pensions" all-embracing, and thereby to remove any doubts as to the meaning intended to be placed upon them. In this connection it may be noted that the Commission definitely recommended that the passage of the concession should not be subject to the votes of Councils. I will add one word only as to the second point. The concessions recommended by the Commission are to be granted to certain categories of servants whose members are not appointed by the Secretary of State in Council, and consequently whose salaries and pensions, however interpreted, would not be covered by the sections as they stand, and paragraph iii (c) and iv (d) extend the class of persons to be protected.
I do not think that I need at this stage of the Bill analyse in detail all its clauses and sections. I have stated enough of its general effect and its tendency to make it quite plain to your Lordships that this Commission was sent out to attempt a comprehensive examination upon two major points. The first was: In what respects, if any, ought there to be, having regard to post-war conditions, an alleviation in and an improvement of the conditions of service of the Superior Indian Civil Services, as they are called? The second was: What, if any, changes or modifications ought to be recommended which would make it possible to effect these alleviations without any affront to reasonable Indian opinion? The Commission was appointed, not, I think, by my immediate predecessor, but by Lord Peel. It consisted of a number of very experienced men, and I do not wish to pass from the Motion that this Bill should be read a second time without expressing my deep sense, and the sense of the Government, of gratitude to the members of this Commission for their devoted labours.
They travelled, not always at element seasons of the year, over vast geographical distances, and it may perhaps be an illustration of the exertions which they undertook that I believe that the Chairman is the only member of that body who has not since succumbed, to grave illness They presented a Report. There are some elements in that Report in relation
924
to which I myself, as I examined them, felt some doubt, and certainly other members of the Government both felt and expressed doubt. But we formed a clear view on the whole that, having appointed men of ability and experience to undertake a task of great delicacy and difficulty, and being confronted by a Report from them with which on the whole, considering it in general perspective, we found ourselves in agreement, the wiser course was to accept that Report as a whole and to recommend it to Parliament as a whole, in the belief and expectation that when the perspective is examined it will be found that those who were appointed by our predecessors to report upon this question discharged their task adequately, competently and sympathetically. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, it would be quite unreasonable for me, having regard to the established habits of your Lordships' House, to attempt at this time of the evening to say some things that I would have liked to say in pursuance of the commentaries upon the present situation which the noble and learned Earl has so eloquently and so sympathetically developed, and I do not wish to stand in the least degree in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill by moving an adjournment of the debate, although some of your Lordships might have liked to have a further discussion on the subject. I will say as briefly as I can why I and my Party are prepared to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
I spoke in your Lordships' House, I think last July, on the subject of the then situation with regard to the Report of Lord Lee's Commission, and I indicated reasons why at that time I was prepared to agree to the principles of that Commission's Report. Put in the very briefest compass they are these. First of all, we thought it right that the emoluments of the Indian Civil Service should be as far as possible—although they could not be entirely—restored to what was intended to be their value when the contracts of service were entered into with many of those who are now in the Service; that is to say, that the impoverishment which they have suffered owing to the fall

925
in the value of the rupee, and owing to the increase in the cost of living, should be so far as possible redressed, exactly in the same way as it has been redressed on behalf of at any rate the superior ranks of the Civil Service in this country. Here the Government recognised that owing to the fall in the exchange value of the £—that is to say, owing to the increase in the cost of living—the rates of pay in the Civil Service ought to be readjusted. The rates of pay in the Indian Civil Service were readjusted just about the time when the rupee was at 2s. Since then the rupee has very considerably fallen in value, and we thought it right to do in regard to India that which had been done with regard to our own Civil Service, and that something like a return should be made to what was intended to be the real emolument offered to civil servants when they were appointed. That is the first principle.
The second principle was this: That where a public servant has been appointed by the Minister, acting on behalf of His Majesty, the contract which has been made and entered into with him shall be safeguarded and observed, no matter what constitutional change may thereafter take place with regard to the administration of patronage and the control of supplies. That is to say, we endeavoured to guarantee that those officers who had been appointed prior to any modification of the Constitution and to any future modification of the administration of Transferred Subjects, should be guaranteed in the position in which they were appointed, and, inasmuch as the Report of Lord Lee's Commission makes the concession of the transfer of certain other subjects and Services to provincial management, that those civil servants who are at present serving in those Services should not have less security in regard to their emoluments and their position than they have at the present time before these changes are carried out. Those are the two main principles which, as I take it, this Bill is intended to implement.
The actual details of how those principles are to be worked out will be found in Rules which will be framed by the Secretary of State and the Government of India and which will be laid before your Lordships' House for consideration, and it would be idle for me to attempt to go into any of the other consequences
926
sequences of this Bill before those Rules are before your Lordships' House When they come before the House I understand, from conversation with the noble Earl, that it is his intention that they shall be referred to and considered by the Joint Select Committee which has recently been set up, composed of members of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons. That will be the place for scrutiny and examination of the details and of the actual effect of those Rules, and I take it that we may also understand that this Bill itself will be referred to that Committee for examination of its provisions before your Lordships deal with it on Report. On those two understandings I see no reason whatever why I should stand any longer between your Lordships and any other member of the House who may wish to address you on the Second Reading of this Bill.
I would like just to add one word with regard to what the noble Earl said as to the prospects of recruitment in the Indian Civil Service. I have been very glad to see the action taken by the noble Earl in inducing Lord Meston and others to go to the Universities and speak on the subject, and I know that they have spoken with great effect and public spirit, in order to endeavour to induce young men at the Universities to look with the favour with which they used to look upon the Indian Civil Service. In the course of the interviews which I had when Secretary of State with many representatives of all shades of Indian opinion, more than one Englishman, not in the Civil Service but rendering in a private business capacity very good service to England and the Empire, did say that he thought young men in England were a little unnecessarily discouraged, and a little less adventurous than they might reasonably be, in regard to the future prospects of work in the Indian Civil Service.
He said that, although the Indian Civil Service is not such a guaranteed job as it used to be, and although there is not the same prospect of being able to retire on a pension and come into Parliament, and there is not the same chance of going out as one of a privileged class, yet there is abundant field for public service. As everyone knows who has been in India, and has made private friends among Indians, if an Englishman will go out into

927
the public service of India not as one of a class appointed to rule another country, but as private adventurers and bankers go out to take part in some of the social and organic work of the country, they will find an abundant response of friendship from Indians, and will find adventure in contributing to the work of the Empire as their predecessors did. That consideration has been impressed upon me by gentlemen working in India, not in the public service but in a private capacity. That was their hopeful feeling in regard to the future good work of the Civil Service, and it is because the noble Earl has tried, through his missioners in the country, to inculcate that spirit, that I am glad to support his endeavours.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I owe an apology to the noble Earl for detaining the House for a few moments, because I told him yesterday that I was not going to speak on this Bill. I am tempted to do so because of the remarks he made with regard to the crusade among young men in the Universities, and because I happen, since November last, to have been residing at Oxford in connection with the Statutory Committee of which I am a member. I have therefore had an opportunity of hearing what has taken place and of learning the difficulties which are felt by the undergraduates with regard to entrance into the Indian Civil Service at the present moment. I would like to say, that I do not think, from what I have heard, that they are so anxious as to the monetary side. It is not the monetary side which is worrying them at the present moment. They would be quite willing to go out at a small recompense, merely from the spirit of adventure, but to the question of what is really worrying them it is, I think, rather difficult for us to find a true answer.
They feel that there is a certain insecurity of tenure if they go out; that they may find at thirty or forty years of age that, keen as they are upon their work, their task in India is finished, and that they have to resume public life in some other sphere. Of course, this insecurity is not peculiar to the Indian Civil Service. We know how many men in the Navy and Army, of recent years, although they had regarded both professions as life professions, have, through the exigency of circumstances, had to forego their careers prematurely; but it is cold
928
comfort to hold out to these young men that the uncertainty which they fear is in common with other Services, because there are undoubtedly special reasons why they think that their position would be insecure in the Indian Civil Service.
I can only express my own personal opinion, because one can only look at it from one's own experience and one's inferences from experience. Personally, so long as India requires a British force and Army, whether to protect it from external foes or to maintain internal security, so long, I believe, will it be necessary to have that British complement in the Civil Service which will be the complement of the Army on the side of internal security. I think that the two are bound up together, and that the British Army in India is required, not merely for defence from foes outside but also for internal security, and that the British Army could not do its work with regard to internal security, unless it had with it and behind it the British element in the Civil Service. Therefore, my own personal opinion is that so far as we can see, with reference to candidates coming forward for the Indian Civil Service at the present moment, one can safely say to them: "You can enter the service and be sure that you will have a life service in the career that you have chosen." I will not enter upon other parts of the Bill, because Lord Olivier has made it abundantly clear that if he had been on the other side of the House he would himself have had to bring forward a Bill of this nature. I feel that it is not necessary for those on this Bench to add anything further to what he has said in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I have now to move that the Bill be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs. Lord Olivier asked me whether the Rules would be submitted to the Committee. I am in slight doubt as to what Rules he means, but if he will speak to me privately I have every desire to be reasonable and have no wish to withhold anything from the Committee which will be useful.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is commonly known as the Boy Scouts Bill, and I am glad to assure your Lordships at this late hour that it is an agreed measure. It was first brought forward in 1921, and it has twice been passed by your Lordships' House. The aims and methods of the Boy Scout movement were the subject of inquiry by the Privy Council before it received its Royal Charter of incorporation. I regret to say that they have been to some extent endangered by imitation and even fraudulent representation for some years past, and I believe that this Bill provides the appropriate remedy and protection. I wish to spare your Lordships any further debate, and I do not think there
930
will be any opposition. I have, therefore, now to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Burnham.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, it is all very well talking of Boy Scouts and other benevolent organisations, but the noble Viscount has brought this Bill forward in a form which creates an entirely new criminal offence, and it also alters the law of copyright materially. I do not rise to detain your Lordships, for the exposition of these things, but to suggest to whoever represents the Government that the Law Officers of the Crown had better be consulted about this-Bill before it goes further
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.