Sitting of 8 December 1925

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bournemouth Order) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire Electricity Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill upon Thursday.—[The. Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Campbeltown Harbour and Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Rend the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
    l. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can report any pro-
    220
    gress in the settlement of the dispute at Hull and other ports between the wireless telegraphy operators and the shipping companies?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. My Department is in touch with the parties to the dispute, but I regret that it has not yet been possible to make any advance towards a settlement.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: When did the right hon. Gentleman take over the negotiations for the settlement of this dispute?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: So far as the dispute is concerned. it has never been taken over, and has always been subject to my Department, being a question of a dispute.

    COAL-CARRYING VESSELS.
    Dr. WATTSasked the President of the Board of Trade if any steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report, dated 10th April, 1024, of the informal committee on coal-carrying vessels, set up by the Board of Trade, and also of those contained in the second Report of this committee, which was issued on 15th May of the present year?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The recommendations contained in the First Report of the informal committee on coal-carrying vessels were given effect to in instructions issued in January, 1925 (Circular 1651). The- Second Report was referred to the Classification Societies, as they were interested in the matter, and, on receipt of their replies, instructions were drafted and placed before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. The Report of this Committee has now been received and is being considered by the Board of Trade.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SCOTTISH SHALE INDUSTKY.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the White Paper [Cmd. 2538] dealing with the Scottish shale industry does

    221
    not give the capital of the industry prior to its absorption by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited; and will he procure the figures to make the Report complete?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The paid up capital of the Scottish shale oil companies before the formation of Scottish Oils, Limited, on 3rd September, 1919, was that given on page 14 of the White Paper, no change having taken .place between that date and the 30th September, 1925, except in the case of the Scottish Oil Agency, Limited, of which the paid up capital was increased from £100,000 to £125,000 during the year 1920.
    Mr. HARDIE: What is the intention of a White Paper if it does not go back far enough to give a comparison of the earnings of these companies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It does go back. As I have already pointed out the hon. Member did not ask me about earnings, but about capital. It gives the capital both before and after amalgamation.
    Mr. HARDIE: It does not give the capital of single companies showing the earnings on the actual capital.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will look at the last page of the White Paper, he will see the capital of each of these companies.
    Mr. HARDIE: But that is not the actual capital used in the production.

    BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPERATION.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Dyestuffs Development Committee, constituted under Section 6, Article 2, of the Dyestuffs Import Regulation Act, was consulted before the decision was taken in respect of the surrender by the Government of its right to veto and control the actions of the British Dye-stuffs Corporation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, but His Majesty's Government were satisfied, before coming to a decision on the matter in question, that they were fully apprised of the views of the various interests represented on the Committee.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair or wise to come to this decision without consulting this Committee?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. The Government, upon whom the responsibility rests, investigated the whole matter extremely closely, and satisfied themselves that they took into consideration all the relevant facts.
    Mr. HURST: Is not the Dyestuffs Corporation absolutely free to give up dye manufacturing and simply do the work of distributing German dyestuffs?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have an answer on this point in regard to another question, but if the hon. and learned Member refers to the statement of the chairman, made at the general meeting, he will see that nothing is further from their intention.
    Mr. BETHELasked the President of the Board of Trade why the Government has surrendered to the British Dyestuffs Corporation capital of the nominal value of £1,100,000; and whether he is aware that this sum relieves the corporation of all depreciation and thereby prejudices the interests of the other competing dye-making companies and firms in the country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER; I regret that I am unable to accept the premise advanced by my hon. Friend, or the conclusion which he draws from it.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair that the whole of the depreciation of the British Dyestuffs Corporation should be wiped out, and that these firms, by this action, should practically be closed down?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is eminently desirable that any company should write down its capital to a figure which corresponds to the actual position of the business.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY; The outside firms have no chance of doing that, and it, is only owing to this gift of £1,100,000 by the Government to the Dyestuffs Corporation that this is possible.
    Mr. HARDIE: Was not the money called Government money to be used for

    223
    research purposes and are not the companies now taking over that research work free whereas other companies have to pay for their own research work?
    Mr. BETHEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think every company engages in. research work.
    Mr. HARDIE: But these companies are getting Government money and the others are not.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation on this matter?
    Mr. BETHEL: That is my question.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At the proper time the action of the Government can be challenged, and they will reply.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will it be possible to challenge this action after the transaction has been completed or before?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: I answered that question a fortnight ago in the House when I stated that there would be an end to all administrative responsibility if the Government was not entitled to carry on this administrative business.
    Mr. BETHEL: I will raise the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the House.
    Mr. HURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the intended amalgamation of interests between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the German Interessen Gemeinschaft, it is his intention to introduce a Bill to repeal the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of any such scheme of amalgamation as my hon. Friend suggests. In this connection, I would ask my hon. Friend to refer to the assurance given in Lord Ashfield's speech at the general meeting of the shareholders of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, both as regards the future manufacture of dyes and the interests of the colour users. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Ashfield stated in Manchester that this pact between the Interessen Gemeinschaft in Germany might come in, and, if that is the case, does he not see that the British Dyestuffs Corporation will simply become agents for this German firm? Will he make inquiries to see whether the research chemists of the British Dyestuffs Corporation are being discharged?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My answer deals with both those points, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see from what Lord Ashfield said at the general meeting that he is wrong in both those respects.
    Mr. WEBB: Has the transaction to which reference has been made between the Government and this corporation actually been completed, or is it still under discussion?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. The Government have made a firm offer and it was put before the shareholders and it has been accepted by them at the extraordinary general meeting subject to confirmation at the adjourned general meeting.
    Mr. WEBB: Do I understand that it is not within the power of this House to express any useful opinion on the action of the Government?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: As I said when this matter was first raised the Government have taken, by administrative action, what they consider to be the right and proper steps, and it will be open on the proper occasion for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise the administrative action of the Government.
    Colonel DAY: When will it be open to us?
    Mr. MACKINDER: What is the relation of the market value of the shares to the amount of money which the Government have received for those shares?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. HURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cum of money paid or payable down to date by the Government to the British Dye-stuffs Corporation by way of commission on the sales of reparation dyes?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The amount paid or payable to the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, for commission on sales of reparation dyestuffs to the end of October, 1925, is £81,800.
    Mr. HURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into this disastrous adventure in State interference?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The Government consider it most desirable that they should cease to be a shareholder in this company and should be in the same position, vis-a-vis all dye making companies, and for that reason it was our view that it is undesirable that the Government should be directly associated with any one of them.
    Mr. BASIL PETO: Does he not think that the whole history of this unfortunate affair should be a warning to the Government not to engage in State trading?
    Colonel DAY: When will the House have an opportunity of discussing this matter?
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: What is the total loss in this respect to the British taxpayer?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot answer that question without notice. I think it is a question which should be addressed either to the Prime Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.
    Colonel DAYY: May we have an answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: At end of questions.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is intended that next year's British Industries Fair, which hitherto has been purely an exhibition of goods, is to be converted into a trading concern by permitting exhibiting manufacturers to Hell their goods to private buyers?
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the President of the Board of Trade why it is proposed, at the British Industries Fair of 1926 to permit exhibiting manufacturers to sell their goods direct to private
    226
    buyers; and what is the reason for this innovation?
    Mr. CADOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, at the forthcoming British Industries Fair, exhibiting manufacturers will be permitted to sell their goods direct to the private buyer; and whether he is aware of the strong feeling among retailers against the proposal?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL(Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am in consultation with the interests concerned, and am at present unable to add anything to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). I am sending a, copy of that answer to the lion. Members.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the British Industries Fair is to be a temporary or a permanent institution?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It depends on the success it meets with on the present occasion. We hope to make it a great success, and then we shall reconsider the whole matter.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it intended to subsidise it continually to the unnecessary extent of £25,000 a year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that it is unnecessary expenditure. It is necessary to carry on the Fair, and if, by giving £20,000 or £25,000, we can make a success of it, I think it will be thoroughly justified.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Has it been considered whether some of these exhibitions might be held at a place which belongs to the public, namely, the Crystal Palace, and could any assistance be given with regard to that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in computing the national trade balance for the year, regard is had to the volmue of invisible imports represented by the

    227
    interest on capital invested in this country by Americans and other foreigners; at what figure he estimates this figure for the present year; and what were the comparative figures for 1924 and 1913?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the article regarding the Balance of Trade in 1924, printed in the " Board of Trade Journal " for 29th January, 1925, under the heading " Net Income from Overseas Investments," the answer to my hon. Friend's question is given, namely:
    "Under this heading is included the income from investments in Empire and foreign countries remitted to the United Kingdom, less the income remitted overseas on account of the investments of other countries in the United Kingdom."
    I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this article, which contains a full explanation of the estimates on this subject made in my Department.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade when, in view of the urgency of maintaining a key industry and providing work for unemployed, a definite decision may be expected upon the safeguarding of the steel industry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Goodman Roberts), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year 2,500,000 tons of steel and iron were imported into this country which could have been made here, and that had that been done 100,000 men would have been employed who are now unemployed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade the full capacity in tons per annum of British steelworks, together with the quantity now being produced, and the approximate number of men who would find employment
    228
    directly and indirectly by a revival in the steel production industry to the extent of a million tons per annum?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is estimated that the productive capacity of steel plants in Great Britain is about 12,000,000 tons per annum. The quantity of steel produced in October was 647,000 tons. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) on 1st December, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 100,000 men would have been employed had it been possible to make this iron and steel in this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that foreign steel manufacturers are selling steel imported into this country at a lower price than they are charging consumers in their own country in order to capture our markets; and if he will state what is the approximate difference in price?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no direct evidence of the practice suggested in the question. It has, however, been reported that various associations of manufacturers in Germany allow rebates on home prices of iron and steel in respect of material used in the manufacture of goods for export. The amounts of the rebates vary, but a figure of 6 marks per ton has been mentioned in the case of pig iron.
    Mr. CLARRY: May I ask what that amounts to per ton? I did not quite catch the figure.
    Sir P CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is 6 marks per ton in the case of pig iron.
    Mr. CLARRY: That is a preferential rate for home consumption?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is a rebate on home prices.
    Mr. CLARRY: That practically amounts to a preferential rate for home consumption.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if any of this steel was made from iron ore produced in the British Empire by long hours and short wages?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITING.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether any difficulty has been experienced in recruiting suitable men in the Army following the recent pay cuts affecting junior officers and men now joining the Colours?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): No, Sir. The numbers enlisted since the lower rates have been in force are slightly in excess of the numbers for the corresponding period last year, although November shows a falling off as compared with October.

    PHARMACISTS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that prescriptions containing dangerous drugs and poisons may be dispensed in the Royal Army Medical Corps by persons other than medical officers or pharmacists, he will give instructions that such prescriptions shall in future only be dispensed by a medical officer or pharmacist, or under the direct supervision of a medical officer or pharmacist by whom the quantity of the dangerous drugs or poisons shall be checked?
    Captain KING: All Army dispensaries are under the direct supervision of a medical officer. The only persons, other than medical officers, who may make up prescriptions in these dispenssaries are qualified Army dispensers, and they may only make up prescriptions signed by a medical officer. I am not aware of any reason for considering that the present procedure is not satisfactory.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has a qualified Army dispenser qualifications equal to those of a chemist's assistant?
    Captain KING: I believe that "qualified dispenser" is a well-recognised description.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Has any attention been called to the
    230
    unanimous Report of the Committee on the Payment and Status of Pharmacists in the Army?
    Captain KING: Oh, yes.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not that Report state that pharmacists should be employed by the War Office?
    Captain KING: In one of the recommendations of the Report certain duties were allotted to pharmacists.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is it the case that such a man in the. Army would not be allowed to dispense under the National Health Insurance Act for the civil population, and does my hon. and gallant Friend think that the Army should be in a different position from the civil population?
    Captain KING: I am not aware that a qualified dispenser is not allowed to make up prescriptions in ordinary civil life.
    Brigadier - General CHARTERISasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to Recommendation 3 of the committee appointed by the Army Council to consider the employment of pharmacists in the Army; and if a superintending pharmacist is now in subordinate charge of the dispensary in each and every military hospital of 100 teds and over?
    Captain KING: I am aware of the recommendation referred to. The Army Council Instruction was cancelled in April, 1922. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Captain BOURNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, as a result of representations made by the Army Council, pharmacists who volunteer for service in the British Red Cross units are no longer regarded as officers; and whether he can state the grounds on which these representations were made?
    Captain KING: The War Office have advised the Central Voluntary Aid Detachment Council, who consulted them on the subject, that the status of pharmacists in their detachments should not fee higher than that of non-commissioned officers in the Army. The reason is that the status of members of voluntary aid detachments should be appropriate

    231
    to the duties they may be required to perform in war. There are no appointments of officer's rank for pharmacists in the Army.
    Captain BOURNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that units of the British Red Cross Society are regarded as being in the nature of a reserve to the Royal Army Medical Corps in time of war, he will give instructions that quartermasters, whose duty it will be to order and superintend the distribution of medical supplies, shall be qualified pharmacists?
    Captain KING: No, Sir, I should not be justified in giving such instructions.

    COAL ALLOWANCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the allowance of coal both for officers and other ranks of the Army is very inadequate during the winter months; and whether he will take steps to increase this allowance?
    Captain KING: Fuel is issued to the troops as required within annual limits fixed by the scales laid down in regulations. These scales have been found generally adequate, and there is power under the regulations to increase them in exceptional cases. Certain minor adjustments, mainly of personal issues to officers and others, are under consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in some cases officers' messes have to spend over £100 during the winter on the purchase of fuel, and also that the men have to buy fuel in order to keep their barrack rooms reasonably warm?
    Captain KING: I do not think that that affects my answer.

    CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
    Mr. J. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the officers in the Corps of Military Accountants were led to believe that they would receive permanent commissions and that their appointments have been terminated by three months' notice, he will consider the desirability of awarding a gratuity based on the length of service
    232
    as compensation for the loss of position and to enable the officers to live while seeking employment in civil life?
    Captain KING: I am unable to assent to the opening statement in this question. The case of these temporary officers of the Corps of Military Accountants does not differ from that of other officers who are demobilised from time to time as their services cease to be required, and I regret that no gratuity can be granted to them on the termination of their temporary employment.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what assistance is being given to these men with a. view to finding them work?
    Captain KING: I should require notice of that question.

    DOMINION SUPPLIES.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee, which shows that the self- governing Dominions purchase British goods per capita to the extent of £6 17s. 3d. as against Europe 12s. Id., South America 18s., and the United States of America 8s. 6d., he is prepared to arrange for the use of Dominion supplies in the Army in preference to foreign supplies?
    Captain KING: It, is the practice of the War Office, in purchasing supplies for the Army, to give effective preference to Dominion products over those of foreign origin.

    RHINE ARMY (MARRIAGES WITH GERMANS).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for War how many marriages have taken place between non-commissioned officers and men of the British Army on the Rhine with Germans during the last six years'?
    Captain KING: The total number of such marriages from the commencement. of the occupation up to the end of June, 1925, recorded in the Army Register of Marriages, was 619.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Arising out of that, may we have the number of children?

    OCCUPATION OF WIESBAPEN.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the married

    233
    quarters at Wiesbaden are of equal comfort and convenience to those at Cologne; whether he can say for how long the occupation of Wiesbaden is contemplated; and if any reduction of the Army of Occupation is likely to take place in the near future?
    Captain KING: There has not been time enough yet to judge how the married quarters at Wiesbaden compare with those at Cologne as regards comfort and convenience. As regards the second part of the question, I cannot add anything to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question by the hon. Member on the 18th November. As regards the third part, a reduction of the British Army of Occupation by one infantry battalion and a battery of medium artillery is contemplated.

    ACCOUNTING STAFF.
    Colonel ENGLANDasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of his assurance that the proposal to discontinue the cost accounts of combatant units was to be subject to the approval of the Committee of Public Accounts, under what authority the preparation of these accounts has already been discontinued and notices of dismissal issued to the accounting staff engaged upon them; and whether, in view of the decision of the Public Accounts Committee not to give this approval until they have heard further evidence on both sides of the question, he will arrange to suspend these notices of dismissal pending the Report of the Committee?
    Captain KING: My right hon. Friend is at this moment discussing the whole question with the Public Accounts Committee.

    POISON GAS FACTORY, ST. HELEN'S.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Secretary -of State for War, if he is aware that the-tenants of 16 houses owned by his Department situated at Abbot's Field Lane, Sutton, St. Helen's, Lancashire, have received notice to quit; and if, in view of the fact that these people at the end of the week's notice will be rendered homeless owing to the, great shortage of houses in the district, he will consider it advisable to provide adequate housing
    234
    accommodation or suspend the notice until such time as such accommodation is procurable?
    Captain KING: I am aware that these notices have been given. Owing to their situation the cottages cannot continue to be occupied without risk. The tenants have had long warning of the Department's intention and I regret that in the circumstances I could not consent to the suspension of the notices.
    Mr. SEXTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the nature of the risk, and in view of the fact that these 16 houses are habitable, what is the reason these people are being removed? What is the danger?
    Captain KING: I cannot agree that the houses are in a habitable condition. They are in a very dilapidated condition. The risk, as the hon. Member is probable very well aware, is that they actually adjoin the experimental factory of poison gas and we do not think it is right to subject the inhabitants of these cottages and their children to any possible risk.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some of these people have lived there for 50 years, and that the innovation of the poison gas factory was a war emergency, and now that the emergency for poisoning people has gone, will he remove the poison gas factory and leave these people in the houses?
    Captain KING: I cannot give that undertaking.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Are these cottages being removed so that the poison gas factory can be extended?
    Captain KING: No, that is not the intention. I have stated the true facts. We do not consider it is fair to let these people take any risk.
    Mr. SEXTON: They have nowhere to go.

    TATTOOS.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Wembley Tattoo had any result on recruiting for the Army; and whether he has been consulted regarding unofficial tattoos to be manned next year by ex-service men?
    Captain KING: I think it is probable that tattoos have a beneficial effect on recruiting, and the Army Council hope that tattoos may be organised next year by the military authorities in commands on the lines of those at Aldershot and Tidworth. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but I would like to take this opportunity of saying that the War Office could not give facilities for unofficial displays of this kind.
    Mr. THURTLE: Do the Government consider the tattoo had had the effect of fostering the spirit of militarism?

    TROOPS IN IRELAND (ACCOMMODATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the uncomfortable conditions in which the troops in South Ireland, especially at Spike Island and Berehaven, exist; if he is aware that sufficient married quarters are not provided; and if he will take steps to ameliorate these conditions?
    Captain KING: Yes, Sir. The matter is receiving consideration.

    DISCHARGES (ILL-HEALTH).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for War how many men have been discharged from the Army in each of the last three years, including 1925, for ill-health; in how many of these cases the men have claimed that their disability was due to service; in how many 'cases these claims have been admitted and in how many rejected; and whether, in any case, the said applicants have had the right to appeal and, if so, to whom?
    Captain KING: The number of men invalided from the Army in each of the last three years ending on 30th September have been 2,920, 2,673 and 2,606 respectively. No statistics are available showing in how many of these cases the men claimed that their disability was attributable to service, but the number of cases in which disability was accepted as due to service were 373, 419 and 347 respectively. Applicants have no right of appeal against the decision of the Chelsea Commissioners. The Chelsea Commissioners are an independent body who adjudicate upon the soldier's claim
    236
    and are not subject to the control of any Government Department in administering the pension regulations.
    Mr. THURTLE: Would the War Office consider the desirability of setting up some machinery of appeal in these cases?
    Captain KING: I think really the Chelsea Commissioners give such very careful and sympathetic consideration to all cases that such a court of appeal is not necessary.
    Mr. HAYES: Are these cases referred to a medical referee in the case of the matter being pressed by the ex-service man?
    Captain King: The Chelsea Commissioners have their own medical advisers whom they consult in all these cases.
    Mr. HAYES: A medical referee, not a medical adviser.
    Captain KING: There is no appeal from the decision of the Chelsea Commissioners.
    Captain HOPE: How many of these men were discharged as medically unfit in the first three months of their service?
    Captain KING: I could not give the figures. I should require notice.

    NATIONAL MEMORIAL (MERCANTILE MARINE).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War what progress had been made by the Imperial War Graves Commission in respect of the national memorial to commemorate those members of the mercantile marine who fell during the War owing to enemy action?
    Captain KING: A great number of different interests have had to be consulted with regard to the best form of memorial to the in men of the mercantile marine who lost their lives in the War, but I am glad to be able to say that agreement has now been obtained and I hope that arrangements will shortly be completed which will enable my right hon. Friend to make an announcement on the subject.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Where is the Thames Embankment memorial to be?
    Captain KING: I can give no further information.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Where is this monument going to be erected?
    Captain KING: That is the question to which I have replied.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WAR OFFICE (CIVIL STAFF).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War if the reduction in the civil staff in the War Office is keeping pace with the reduction in the military staff; and what is the percentage reduction in each case since 1918?
    Captain KING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The civil staff has been reduced by 88 per cent, since November, 1918, and the military staff by 89 per cent.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain the delay in the fixing of the civilian clerical complements for the Royal Military College, Woolwich, and the application to that office of the terms of the Report of the reorganisation sub-committee of the National Whitley Council, which were published over five years ago?
    Captain KING: The complements for this office are in an advance stage of preparation. I do not think there has been any undue delay, having regard to the difficulty of carrying out a large scheme of reorganisation, which involves the fixing of permanent establishments on a new basis for all War Department out-station offices.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the scheme of clerical reorganisation approved by the Treasury in May, 1925, has not yet been applied to the department of the chief inspector of armaments at Woolwich; that an official examination of the work in this establishment was carried out as far back as 1st July, 1925: and will he state the reason for the delay, which is causing dissatisfaction among the members of the staff?
    Captain KING: Complements have now been fixed, and will be put into force at an early date.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is cognisant of the fact that certain members of the civilian clerical staff of the Artillery College, Woolwich, with many years of approved and satisfactory service in the department to their credit, are still in receipt of a maximum basic rate of pay of 32s. per week; and whether he will say what action he proposes to take to bring these men within the ægis of the Report of the reorganisation sub-committee of the National Whitley Council?
    Captain KING: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on 7th instant to a question by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North regarding the scheme of reorganisation which is being applied to all War Department out-station offices'.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the widespread discontent prevalent in the out-station offices consequent upon the delay in applying the clerical reorganisation scheme in these offices; and whether he can now state the exact date on which the new scheme will be introduced?
    Captain KING: The reorganisation involves the fixing of establishments for every out-station office and the re-grading of every individual clerk therein. Complements have been fixed and re-grading carried out in several offices, and every effort is being made to expedite progress in the case of the offices which still remain to be dealt with; but in view of the many considerations involved in fixing complements on a permanent basis, I regret that I cannot yet fix a definite date for the completion of the work.

    CINEMATOGRAPHY (TECHNICAL ADVISER).
    Lt.-Commander KENWORTHYasked (1) the Secretary of State for War what are the duties of the technical adviser on cinematography to the War Office; and how long has this post been in existence;
    (2) the Financial Secretary for the Treasury whether he has knowledge of an

    239
    official known as the technical adviser on cinematography to His Majesty's Government; what salary does he receive; on what Vote does this salary appear; and what staff is allotted to this official?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): There is a technical adviser whose duty it is to assist Government Departments generally in questions relating to cinematography and to supervise the preservation and use of films in the possession of the Government. He was first engaged in October, 1915, by the Customs and Excise Department as a part-time expert adviser in connection with the import duty on films. Since that date he has served under various Departments, and his present appointment under the Stationery Office dates from 1st April, 1924. His salary, on a scale of £600-£800, plus cost of living bonus, is included in the Vote for Stationery and Printing. His staff consists of one operator and two women assistants.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the duties of this official been added to recently, and was he responsible for making the arrangements for filming the Locarno Pact ceremony?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot answer that without, notice. I have no knowledge.
    Colonel DAY: What previous experience has this technical adviser had of the film industry?
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member must put down a question.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that previous to his present position he was in the employ of the London County Council Fire Department?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this official, besides being a technical expert, acting as a kind of liaison officer between the Government and the cinema industry?
    Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS COMMITTEE.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Prime Minister if the committee set up
    240
    to examine the privations existing in such necessitous areas as West Hartlepool has yet reported; if such Report can be made available to the Members of the House; and what are the Government's proposals to relieve the distress obtaining in the Hartlepools?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Committee recently appointed to examine and report on any scheme which may be submitted to them for Exchequer assistance to local authorities in necessitous urban areas have not yet issued a report. As regards the list part of the question, if my hon. Friend is referring to individual cases of distress, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that adequate provision for relief is available through existing channels.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: When will the Committee be able to report?
    Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the hon. Member refer this inquiry to the Prime Minister and ask the Prime Minister to give it immediate attention, in view of the great dissatisfaction and distress in the necessitous areas, owing to the poverty which exists there?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there is any justification for that statement. The Committee has been appointed, and it is getting on with its work.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member inform me whether this Committee is only considering necessitous areas in England, or does its functions extend to Scotland? Is any action being taken in regard to necessitous areas in Scotland?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better put his quest on to the Scottish Office.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member not inform me what is the area covered by this Committee? Does it apply only to England or to the whole of Great Britain?
    Sir K. WOOD: I must ask the hon. Member to put down a question.
    Captain MACMILAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the investigation of this Committee regarding necessitous areas is related to the investigation

    241
    of the Committee of Inquiry into unemployment insurance; and, if not, will steps be taken to co-relate the two?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is a special inquiry. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend the terms of reference.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (QUESTIONS).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Prime Minister who is the Member in this House to whom questions for the Lord President of the Council should be addressed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. In cases where hon. Members are in any doubt, I would suggest that they should address their questions to me and I will arrange for an answer to be given.

    GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a. member of the medical profession who is struck off the list by the General Medical Council has no redress or appeal against such decision; and whether he is prepared to set up a committee to investigate the procedure of the council in its relation to modern methods and usage of the medical profession regarding the Medical Act of 1858?
    Major HENNESSY (Lord of the Treasury): I am asked by the Lord President of the Council to say that there is no appeal from the General Medical Council to another Court, but a medical practitioner struck off the register may at any future session bring up his case for revision, and his name may be, and often is, restored to the register. In all inquiries the Medical Council is assisted by a lawyer of great experience and ability. Since its creation in 1858, it has performed the duties entrusted to it without serious criticism, and as at present advised my Noble Friend does not think that sufficient reason has been shown for setting up a committee of inquiry.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that members of the Bar, solicitors, and members of all professions except the medical profession have an independent court of appeal, and will he take steps in this case to try to get one?
    Colonel SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that practitioners struck off the Roll have a right of appeal to the Privy Council, if they care to exercise it?
    Major HENNESSY: I will see that the observations of my hon. Friends are conveyed to my Noble Friend.

    FOREIGN VISITORS' HOTEL BILLS (PERCENTAGE IMPOST).
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum which, as a result of his inquiries, it is estimated would result in a normal fiscal year from a percentage impost levied on the hotel bills of foreign visitors to this country pro rata to the degree of luxury or economy observed by them?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. PILCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government have been so behindhand in making these inquiries in a year of a probable Budget deficit?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Whoever said or admitted that we have been behindhand?

    CUSTOMS DUTIES (WAREHOUSE RENTS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether goods held up pending the decision of the Customs officers as to whether they are dutiable or not are chargeable for warehouse rent?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Warehouses and sheds for the accommodation of imported goods are provided by dock companies, wharfingers, etc., and not by the Crown. Any question of a charge for warehouse rent is therefore a matter for settlement between the warehouse proprietor and the importer concerned.

  INCOME TAX.

    BRITISH LOSSES IN RUSSIA.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if British companies and individual traders who lost property or money as a result of the nationalisation of property in Russia were allowed to write oft in full the amount of such losses before arriving at the amount of Excess Profits Duty or Income Tax due to the Exchequer; and, if so, whether he can state the amount so written off as bad debts since 1917?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The losses to which I gather the hon. Member refers would be largely capital losses not allowable for purposes of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax. For the rest, the question of allowance depends so much upon the facts of individual cases and involves such a variety of considerations that it is not possible to deal with the point within the limits of an answer to a question. No statistics are available which would enable me to reply to the second part of the question.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the trading losses of British firms in Russia would be available for allowances for writing off; that in regard to factories owned by British firms in Russia the capital value is allowed to be written off in calculating the Excess Profits Duty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have to be very careful in answering questions which may have a legal consequence. The effect of my answer was that the losses referred to would be largely capital losses and not-allowable for the purpose of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax.
    Mr. TAYLOR: May I press for a reply as to whether in regard to the losses of industrial undertakings in Russia belonging to British firms, the value of these losses was allowed to be written off before the Excess Profits Duty was arrived at?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given an answer which would indicate that, as a general rule, such losses would not be allowable for the purpose of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax.

    BASES OF ASSESSMENT.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is
    244
    aware that there are 13 different bases of assessment in force for Income Tax purposes, which makes the compilation of Super-tax returns extremely complicated, generally requiring the services of professional assistance; that this could be obviated if incomes under Schedule A, No. 3, B, D, and E, falling to be directly assessed were assessed to Income Tax on the basis of the profits of the year preceding the year of assessment, then many of the various bases of Income Tax assessment could be abolished and the assessment of the preceding year be adopted for Super-tax purposes; and will he, in these circumstances, arrange for' taxpayers to make only one return for Income Tax and Super-tax, so that in the majority of cases the Super-tax assessment could be made locally by the inspector of taxes and sent to the special commissioners for approval and allowance as in the case of Income Tax payers who elect to be assessed by them instead of the local commissioners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the variety of bases to which my hon. and gallant Friend refer? although I do not follow his calculation of their number. A remedy for the inherent difficulties of the subject is not easily found but the matter is one which has my constant study.
    An HON. MEMBER: Has the right hon. Gentleman personally been able to understand Income Tax returns without assistance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have for many years employed the services of an expert.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could make considerable economies if he would amalgamate Income Tax and Super-tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. These are extremely difficult matters and require very careful consideration. I have been devoting a great deal of time and thought to the subject, but whether anything will come of it or not is a question which I cannot answer.

    BRITISH MUSEUM.
    Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the possibility

    245
    of making the north door of the British Museum available for public use so as to facilitate access to the Print Room and serve the general convenience of visitors and students approaching from the north?
    Mr. McNEILL: I understand that the extra cost of the staff that would be required to give these improved facilities would be between. £800 and £900 per annum, and I regret that in present financial circumstances I do not feel justified in incurring it.
    Sir M. CONWAY: Does my right hon. Friend realise that so long as the north door is closed the expensive lift near it is practically useless, also that the Print Room and other galleries at the north end of the Museum are very far away from the main entrance and can only be reached from it by a complicated route, and that in consequence the special exhibitions from time to time held and changed in the north galleries are little visited by strangers ignorant of the intricate geography of the Museum?
    Mr. McNEILL: I thoroughly appreciate all that, but I also appreciate the cost of the removal.

  SCOTLAND.

    FERRY SERVICE, LOCHALSH AND KYLEAKIN.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland who are the contractors for ferrying between Lochalsh and Kyleakin and the contract price for the said ferry services; whether he is satisfied that the ferry charges are reasonable; and would he be prepared to consider the offer of ex-service men to provide a better and cheaper service than now exists?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The arrangements with regard to this ferry are not under my control, but I have communicated with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, who own the ferry rights, and am informed that the contractor for ferrying is Mr. John Clark of Kyleakin, Skye, and that he pays an annual rent of £100 to the company under a lease which expires in about two years. In the circumstances, it would not appear to be practicable for
    246
    the company to make arrangements on the lines indicated in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction among the farming community with regard to the fees charged for the use of the ferry, and does he think it wise? Will he make inquiries?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will make further inquiries.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Registrar-General for Scotland classified the deaths from small-pox in Scotland in the years 1870 to 1875 into vaccinated, unvaccinated, and doubtful; and, if so, will he state how many deaths were registered in each of those classes in each of those years, stating also the age classification of each class?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Such classification was not introduced in the Registrar-General's Reports until a later period. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

    AGRICULTURE (LAND DRAINAGE).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Scottish Agricultural Conference, and to indicate when a day will be given for discussion?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I cannot at present add substantially to the reply which I gave to the question put by the hon. and gallant Baronet a fortnight ago. I am not in a position to say whether a day can be given for discussion.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that the farmers of Scotland were asked by the Government to attach great importance to the proceedings of this Conference, seeing that this Conference reported over four months ago, and recommended, in the first instance, that drainage was the first necessity of Scottish land, and seeing that the only action of the Government since has been to cut down the grants

    247
    hitherto given, will the right hon. Gentleman not undertake to come to a decision before Christmas?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the agricultural community in Scotland at the alleged apathy of the Government, and will my right hon. Friend not give an undertaking to make some pronouncement as to the Government's agricultural policy before the end of the present Session?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot make a promise of that kind. The matter is receiving constant and careful attention, and there is no foundation for the allegation in question.
    Mr. HARDIE: In view of the urgency of this question, will not the Secretary for Scotland approach the Prime Minister and curtail some of the holiday's of Parliament so as to get on with this business?
    Sir ALEXANDER SPROTasked the Secretary for Scotland what funds are at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland this winter for land drainage grants; and if the Board are having to refuse applications for fresh grants this winter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The sum at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for grants under the land drainage unemployment scheme which is in operation this winter is approximately £16,500. Applications for grants are being confined to persons who unsuccessfully applied in the last two years and no fresh applications are being entertained.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the Government's own Conference, having reported that drainage was the primary need of Scottish agriculture, the only action taken by the Government has been to cut down these grants to one-third?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No; this provision is a continuance of a temporary provision, and the new policy of the Government will be presently announced.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the payment one-third of the provision in the last three years?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Are large numbers of grants being refused?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No; the amount available this year under the unemployment scheme is the sum which I have stated, and I have decided that in the first instance only those who had previously put in applications and have been disappointed should be considered.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Are any extra grants being given for drainage in Scotland? Could not a special rate be levied so that Scotland might drain itself?

    SHALE OIL INDUSTRY DISPUTE (RELIEF).
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the action of the Scottish Board of Health in refusing sanction to parish councils in the shale oil areas to give relief to men affected by the present trade dispute; and if he will accede to the request of the local authorities that they should be permitted to give relief at least until the umpire's decision has been given?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am advised that under the circumstances of the present-trade dispute it cannot be considered that the men directly concerned in the dispute who applied for relief to the parish council were unable to obtain employment in the sense of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Act, 1921. Accordingly when application was made to the Board by certain parish councils for sanction to overdraw their bank accounts to provide for the expense of relief to be given by them under the above Act, the Board considered it to be their duty to call the attention of parish councils to the illegality of granting such relief, and I regret that under the circumstances I am unable to accede to the request that has been made by the pariah councils.
    Dr. SHIELS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that it has not yet been determined whether this dispute is a strike or a lockout, and why should the Board of Health have taken sides in the matter before the point is determined?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly that is the description which the hon. Member gives to the matter, but I am advised that the Board is pursuing the proper course.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: In the circular issued by the Board of Health, did the Board draw the attention of the parish councils to the fact that they can give relief for the children and the womenfolk?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am certain that the parish councils are well aware—conferences took place—of the circumstances under which they can give relief.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. In the circular issued did the Board draw the attention of the parish councils to the power they had to help the women and the children?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The best way would be for me to send a copy of the letter to the hon. Gentleman.

    HOUSING (DUNDEE).
    Dr. SHIELSasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fact that the Dundee Town Council Housing Committee has unanimously refused to avail themselves of the £40 additional subsidy on the ground that the houses eligible were not sufficiently attractive, and that the limit of 10 per cent. of skilled building labour was impracticable; and if ho will consider adding to the list of selected firms and modifying the specified conditions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been informed of the decision referred to, but I do not consider that the refusal of Dundee to participate in the scheme is a reason for adding to the list of selected firms or modifying the specified conditions.
    Dr. SHIELS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the convener of this Housing Committee stated that the houses of the Coralite Company who are on the list were the worst finished houses inside that he had ever seen., and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Atholl houses, which also comply with trade union conditions, should be placed on the list?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Housing Committee are so thoroughly dissatisfied with the types of houses offered that they desire to ascertain whether it is possible to extend the scope of selection, as they are absolutely satisfied that no satisfactory
    250
    houses can be provided with only 10 per cent. of skilled labour? 1s the right hon. Gentleman prepared to grant some latitude in that respect?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I cannot alter the terms and the conditions until I have received final replies from the local authorities in Scotland.

    UNEMPLOYED BUILDING TRADE WORKERS (GLASGOW).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the great need of housing in Glasgow and also the number of unemployed building-trade workers in that city; and if he will take any steps to secure the provision of houses and absorb the unemployed labour?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that there are a number of unemployed building trade workers in Glasgow. I understand that the difficulty at present mainly arises from a great shortage of labour in certain key trades, in particular plasterers. The last return in my possession shows, for example, that, in the Knightswood scheme, there are 412 houses at plaster work stage, and only two foremen, two journeymen and two apprentices at work, a shortage of 30 plasterers and two lathers being indicated here by the Corporation. Committees were set up last year by the building industry to deal with this question, and I am awaiting their suggestions. Meanwhile, I am pressing upon authorities the need for using all methods to secure the speedier supply of houses.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour, in answer to a question; last Wednesday, stated that the week previously there were 17 plasterers who were idle in Glasgow and drawing benefit, and that he could not place them in work, and that the Corporation of Glasgow could not find them jabs? Will the right hon. Gentleman state why there is the contradiction as to a shortage of plasterers while there are 17 men drawing benefit and no work can be found for them by the local authority?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement. The Minister

    251
    of Labour said that no work could be found for the men. I am so dissatisfied with the position that I am having special inquiries made at this moment as to the number of plasterers who are unemployed.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men last Thursday sent a special deputation to the Glasgow Corporation asking that work could be found for them at a place stated, that the 17 men were prepared to start work the next day, and that no work has been found for them up to the present?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact, but I am at the moment making inquiries into the subject.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    PILLING MOSS, LANCASHIRE (BORING).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary for Mines whether any Government officials are commencing boring operations for coal in the area of Pilling Moss, Lancashire?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): No, Sir; I have no knowledge of anything of the kind.

    SUBVENTION (PROSPEROUS COLLIERIES).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the number of collieries showing a profit in each area and the total amount of such profit for the months of August, September, and October, and the amount of subvention paid to the collieries in each group showing a profit; and if he will state the tonnage of coal raised at such collieries and the percentage which this bears to the total tonnage output of the country for the same period?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on let December to the right hon. Member for Ogmore.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a number of collieries in this country which are consistently making, a profit of 2s. per ton, in addition to which they are receiving
    252
    a subsidy to the same amount, and will he take such steps as are necessary to prevent the anomaly continuing?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: The hon. Member does not quite realise the position. The subsidy is paid according to the number of manshifts worked in each colliery. By the subsidy the wages are raised from the owners' scale to the higher scale asked by the men, irrespective of the profit or loss made by the colliery. If the subsidy were withheld from the more prosperous collieries you would be subsidising the inefficient to the disadvantage of the efficient collieries.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid as subsidy to the coal industry for the months of August, September. October and November?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: The amount of subvention, in respect of the four months to 30th November, paid up to that date was £7,585,948. The estimated total liability for that period is about £8,700,000.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the figure in the White Paper represents actual expenditure or is an estimate—because it happens to be exactly the same amount as that given for October?
    Mr. DIXEY: When will the Report on the mining industry be published?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: In answer to the first supplementary question, I may say that a large number of the figures in the White Paper, certainly those up to the end of October, are definite figures, but beyond that they are probably estimates.

    SAFETY IN MINES RESEARCH BOARD.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that a member of Nobels Explosives Company, Limited, is a member of the Safety in Mines Research Board; and whether, in view of the large business connections of this firm with the collieries, he will, in the interests of safety, have this position filled by a person who will be free and unbiassed when considering suggested safety appliances for shot-firing?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: No member of the Safety in Mines Research Board is associated with Nobels Explosives Company, Limited, but the head of that company's research department is rendering valuable service as a member of the Explosives in Mines Research Committee. I have the fullest confidence in his impartiality, and disagree emphatically with the suggestion that it would be in the interests of safety to replace him.

    MIXES CLOSED, COUNTY or DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines closed in the county of Durham on 31st July, 1925, also on 30th November, 1925, and the number of miners unemployed on each date?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: On the 31st July, 1925, 07 mines in the county of Durham, normally employing 40,600 wage-earners, had closed and not re-opened since the 1st January, 1924. On 30th November, 1925, the corresponding figures were 91 and 34,300 respectively. The number of colliery workers in the county of Durham whose unemployment books were lodged at exchanges on 27th July, 1925, was 41,821, and on 26th October, 1925 (the latest date available), 48,189. These figures include persons on short time.

    COAL PRICES.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary for Mines' whether he is aware that grading of coal by the pit-head price is successfully practised in Germany, and whether he will examine this and other methods of grading with a view to protecting British household and other consumers from being sold inferior grades of coal as best?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not quite follow what the hon. and gallant Member means when he speaks of grading of coal by the pit-head price. I have certainly never heard of such a system being adopted in Germany: grading in that country is on the basis of quality and calorific value. As regards the last part of the question, I hope that the Royal Commission will shortly be reporting on this subject.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission will not report Until
    254
    the winter is over, and that many people are suffering grave hardship by the existing price of coal in London?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the next question on the Paper.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has not this been a grievance requiring attention for the last five years—as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself showed when he was sitting on this side of the House?
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the rise in the price of all grades of household coal, and of the fact that the Royal Commission will not publish its Report till the winter is practically over, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to check this rise in price?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: In present circumstances it is inevitable that, with the increased demand, the price of household coal in the winter months should increase, and there is nothing new about that. I am watching the situation carefully, and it is obvious that the investigations which the Royal Commission are making into the question of household coal prices will also strongly deter any exploitation of the public at present.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in London the price of coal has gone up to the poor people in many cases by twopence per cwt., and that an increase of 3s. 4d. a ton is not at all justified, but calls for immediate legislation to suppress these plunderers?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I shall be very glad to have any information which the hon. Member can give me.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to take steps to protect the poor against plundering?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: If I am perfectly certain there is a grievance.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not the fact that this question has been repeatedly investigated and it has been authoritatively recommended that action should be taken, and that this continued inaction and non possumus attitude is bringing the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government into disgrace?

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (PAPER).
    Mr. HALL CAINEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce the proposal for a. duty on wrapping paper in the next Session of Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; certainly.

    IRELAND (CONFIRMATION AGREEMENT) BILL.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Treasury has now completed the formulation—officially stated to be in preparation in March last—of the British claim against the Irish Free State Government under Article 5 of the Treaty: and if so, what is the amount so formulated; and if not, whether he will state approximately what in the view of His Majesty's Government is the amount of the liability of the. Free State to the British Government under Article 5?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A preliminary claim was formulated as a basis of discussion. As regards the remainder of the question, I propose to deal with the matter in Debate this afternoon. I think it would mislead the House if I attempted to give figures without the necessary explanations.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to undertake that the figures to which he alludes will be given before the House is invited to discuss the agreement, that is to say in the first speech from the Government Benches.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, and it will then be clear to my hon. Friend the very limited amount of information which the Government can give, and he will realise the impossibility of dealing with this matter by question and answer. I will give all the information I have.
    Mr. THOMAS: Simultaneously with giving that information and in order that the House may judge accurately, will the right hon. Gentleman also give any information, in possession of the Government as to the counter-claim from the Irish Free State under Article 5?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure I have that, but I will certainly give the House all the information I have, and I apologise beforehand for any possible disappointment.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would this be the right moment, Mr. Speaker, to repeat the question which I put yesterday as to Standing Order 67, or shall I defer it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member may perhaps put the question to me now.
    Captain BENN: As you are aware, Sir, Standing Order 67 lays down that a Money Resolution is required for the release of any party from any obligation due to the Crown. In the Bill which is now before the House I find that paragraph 2 of the Schedule, line 35, says:
    "The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligation under Article 5."
    The point I wish to put is, whether under our Parliamentary forms, which are designed to retain in the hands of this House control over expenditure, the release of this obligation does not involve a Money Resolution in connection with this Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Since the hon. and gallant Member raised this point yesterday, I have looked most carefully into the question along with my advisers. I have examined both the Article to which he has just now referred and the Article in the original Agreement, and the result is as follows:
    It was laid down and agreed that the Irish Free State should assume an obligation for a certain expenditure to be settled by agreement or, failing agreement, by arbitration, there being also certain sums to be ascertained in the same way which would be set off from the first liability.
    The relevant words of Standing Order 67 are
    "or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown."
    Under the earlier Treaty, the sum is not ascertained, nor has it yet been ascertained. It is possible that the sum to be set off might prove greater than the liability of the Free State. It would seem to me, therefore, that to describe such an unascertained and hypothetical

    257
    debt as a sum of money owing to one of the parties would be an undue straining of the words of the Standing Order.
    Captain BENN: May I ask whether, therefore, your ruling is based upon the assumption that the sum of money due from the Free State might be less than the sum due from Great Britain?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, it is not based on an assumption, but it declines to be based on hypothesis.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: May I very respectfully ask whether in giving that ruling, Sir, you have taken account, of Article 43 in the supplementary heads of the working arrangements for implementing the Treaty, arrangements which were made in January, 1922, but which were not presented to Parliament in the form of a White Taper until July, 1923? That Article 43, if I may respectfully say so, seems to have some bearing on this question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That was also examined by myself and my advisers at the same time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister, in the event of the; Ireland (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill being disposed of early, what other business, if any, is intended to be taken, and also whether he can to-day announce the business for Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to take the Ireland (Confirmation: of Agreement) Bill, the Government of India (Civil Services) Bill, the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment (Money) Resolution, the Mail Contract (Fair Isle and Sumburgh) Motion, the Coastguard Bill, Second Beading, which, I understand, is non-controversial, and the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, Motion, which was debated some, time ago in this House, but which, I think, is also non-controversial. At that point, assuming that we get as far as that, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will then move the Adjournment of the House. I am sorry that I cannot now announce the business for Friday, but I hope to do so to-morrow.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, with reference to the Votes which are to be taken in Committee of Supply to-morrow, it will be possible to take the Coal Mining Industry Subvention Vote before the British Empire Exhibition Guarantee Vote? I do not press the point, but it appears to be of major importance that we should have the discussion on the former Vote first, and that it might be for the convenience of the House.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think it would be better to take the Coal Vote first.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be an opportunity given to discuss the Government's policy with regard to the British Dye stuffs Corporation?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should think that a discussion on that particular subject before Christmas is unlikely.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that here we have a case that is of interest in all parts of the House, where a large sum of money is involved, and does he not think it right to give an opportunity to discuss it? I do not want a long opportunity, but some opportunity.
The PRIME MINISTER: It may be possible to raise it during the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but it is not so long before we shall be meeting again.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in arranging the business before the end of the Session, he will consider the inadequate time that has been devoted to Scottish questions? I would point out, quite respectfully, that the recently himself paid a visit to Scotland and saw the conditions there in regard to housing and the important matters arising therefrom, and in view of the extremely acute position in Scotland, will he not consider the possibility of giving time to discuss Scottish housing before the Adjournment? It is admitted on all hands, even by the Minister of Health, that the position there is more acute than in England.
The PRIME MINISTER: There, again, it is entirely a question of time. It is always a pleasure to me to have a Scottish debate.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Consolidated Fund Bill which will arise out of to-morrow's discussion will not be strictly confined to what is in that Bill, namely, the British Empire Exhibition Guarantee and the Coal Subvention? I ask that because the Prime Minister stated just now that we could possibly discuss the Dyestuffs Corporation on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, if the strict rule were followed, that discussion must be confined to subjects contained in the Bill, but I will consider the point further.
The PRIME MINISTER: May I say, with reference to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that I
had thought of the point which was referred to you and it occurred to me that there would be ample opportunity for discussion on the Estimates. It might well be that there would be very little discussion of those points on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and we should then have the rest of the day for raising the subjects that hon. Members might wish to debate.
Mr. SPEAKER: The suggestion of the Prime Minister is the best way of meeting the wish of the House.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided Ayes, 285: Noes, 126.

Division No. 470.]

AYES.

[4.0 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gee, Captain R.

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Clarry, Reginald George

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Albery, Irving James

Clayton, G. C.

Goff, Sir Park

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Grace, John

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Grant, J. A.

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

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Greene, w. P. Crawford

Astor, Viscountess

Cooper, A. Duff

Gretton, Colonel John

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cope, Major William

Grotrian, H Brent

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Couper, J. B.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Crook, C. W.

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

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

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hammersley, S. S.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Berry, Sir George

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Harland, A.

Bethell, A.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Betterton, Henry B.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harrison, G. J. C.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Hartington, Marquess of

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

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

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Haslam, Henry C.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hawke, John Anthony

Blundell. F. N.

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Dixey, A. C.

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Drewe, C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hennessy, Major J. R. Q.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Elveden, Viscount

Hills, Major J. W.

Briggs, J. Harold

England, Colonel A.

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

Briscoe, Richard George

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

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Homan, C. W. j.

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

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Hope, S r Harry (Forfar)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Bullock, Captain M.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Fermoy, Lord

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Burman, J. B.

Fielden, E. B.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Finburgh, S.

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

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Fleming, D. P.

Hudson. R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh"n)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Ford, P. J.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Caine, Gordon Hall

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Campbell, E. T.

Forrest, W.

Huntingfield, Lord

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Hurd, Percy A.

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

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Frece, Sir Walter de

Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

Chapman, Sir S.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Jephcott. A. R.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Joynson Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Christie, J. A.

Gates, Percy

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Oakley, T.

Smithers, Waldron

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pease. William Edwin

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

Lamb, J. Q.

Penny, Frederick George

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Lane-Fox, Colonel George H.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

Philipson, Mabel

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Loder, J. de V.

Pielou, D. P.

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Looker, Herbert William

Pitcher, G.

Templeton, W. P.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Power, Sir John Cecil

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Preston, William

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Lumley, L. R.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Radford, E. A.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of. W.)

Ramsden, E.

Vaughan-Moroan, Col. K. P.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Wallace, Captain D. E.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

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

McLean, Major A.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Watson, Bt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Macmillan, Captain H,

Remnant, Sir James

Watts, Dr. T.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wells, S. R.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Rice, Sir Frederick

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Malone, Major P. B.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Margesson, Capt. D.

Rye, F. G.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Salmon, Major I.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Meller, R. J.

Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sanderson. Sir Frank

Wise, Sir Fredric

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sandon, Lord

Womersley, W. J.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Savery, S. S.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Murchison, C. K.

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

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Wragg, Herbert

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

Shepperson, E. W.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

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

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Pirsf'ld.)

Skelton, A. N.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Colonel Gibbs.

Nuttall, Ellis

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

NOES

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

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Owen, Major G.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Ammon, Charles George

Groves, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Baker, Waiter

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Riley, Ben

Barnes, A.

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

Barr, J.

Harney, E. A.

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

Batey, Joseph

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Rose, Frank H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hayes, John Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Bromfield, William

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Bromley, J.

Hirst, G. H.

Scrymgeour, E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

Buchanan, G.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sexton, James

Cape, Thomas

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)

Shiels, Or. Drummond

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Compton, Joseph

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

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Connolly, M.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sitch, Charles H.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kennedy, T.

Snail, Harry

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Day, Colonel Harry

Lanspury, George

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Dennison, R.

Lawson, John James

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Dunnico, H.

Lea, F.

Stamford, T. W.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lowth, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Fenby, T. D.

Lunn, William

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Mackinder, W.

Sutton, J. E.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

March, S.

Taylor, R A.

Gibbins, Joseph

Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley

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

Gillett, George M.

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

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Gosling, Harry

Murnin, H.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

Naylor, T. E.

Thurtle, E.

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

Oliver, George Harold

Tinker, John Joseph

262

263

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Windsor, Walter

Varley, Frank B.

Westwood, J.

Wright, w

Viant, S . P.

Whiteley, W.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Wiggins, William Martin

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonda's)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Edwards.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Bill read a Second time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRELAND (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill which is to confirm the agreement which was come to a few days ago between the British Government and the Government of the Free State and the Government of Northern Ireland, to confirm and amend the settlement which the Treaty of 1921 made law in the early days of 1922. It is not, perhaps, inaccurate to say that just as, partly owing to the lapse of time, and partly owing to the growth of a finer spirit, it was possible to ratify the Treaty of Locarno—following the Treaty of Versailles—so it is found possible to-day to make a step in advance towards peace between the North of Ireland and the Free State by superimposing this. Agreement on the one which was passed four years ago.
  If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will note that I have to deal, first, with the first Sub-section of the first Clause which is, indeed, the operative part of the Bill. This is the part of the Bill which contains implicitly the Schedule, the latter it self being the Agreement. I would ask the House first to look at the Agreement, and, by way of illustration of what I am saying as to what is possible to-day with what was possible four years ago, to note that the first four paragraphs contain in themselves expressions of amity, concord and goodwill which would have been deemed impossible four years ago by this country or by any of the parties to the Treaty. one has only to look back for a moment at the circumstances in which that Treaty was passed. It was passed during the great armistice which came in one of the bloodiest period of internecine strife that Ireland had ever known. It was an Agreement carried through almost -against time. It was an Agreement which, indeed, was ratified by this House, and which I supported in a speech with my whole heart, as I would again
  310
  to-day support it. It was a grand act of faith. Even those of us who had the most faith in it could not but be conscious of the difficulties and dangers that lay around that Treaty, both from the nature of the circumstances in Ireland at that time and also because, owing to those very circumstances, there were one or two points left in the Treaty which really were not settled but were only postponed to same future day of settlement—questions which at that moment were too difficult to settle.
  I remember very well the late Mr. Bonar Law making his first appearance in this House in December four years ago after his retirement on the ground of health. In a speech supporting the Treaty, he said that the only serious objection to it was Article 12, the Article with which we are dealing this afternoon. Article 12 we propose to revoke by this Agreement and by the power of this Act. I would ask the House for a moment to consider what Article 12 has meant in Ireland. Owing to no fault of those who concluded the Treaty, owing possibly to the way in which that Clause was drafted —and I feel very strongly that: it could not have been drafted at that time more definitely and clearly than it was—the expectations of the Free State were aroused no less than the apprehensions of the North, and yon had on either side of the Border a feeling living all the time, and at the same time growing up with threatening force, of these expectations on the one hand and those apprehensions on the oilier, which made those who were most really anxious for the peace of Ireland feel that until the boundary question was settled and out of the way there could be no question of permanent peace in that island. It resulted in the maintenance in the North of that large force of Special Constabulary which was, in itself, a charge, and to which the Government of this country felt that it owed a duty to subscribe.
  During the four years that have elapsed a better feeling has undoubtedly arisen along the Border. Yet the very fact that a better feeling had arisen made all those who were following the history day by day view more anxiously the risk of that feeling being disturbed by some unhappy decision, or, indeed, by a decision which might commend itself to one of the two parties but which might not win the approbation and the support of the other

  311
  side. So far as the Government of this country and the Government of the Free State are concerned, they have adhered in the letter and in. the spirit to the Treaty which was signed between them four years ago; and it was because of their loyalty to the Treaty that last year this House, at the instigation of the Government then in power, implemented the Treaty by setting up the Boundary Commission, at the request of the Free State,
  As the House knows, By Act of Parliament the Report of the Boundary Commission had to become law the moment that it was promulgated. I am convinced, whatever Commission had attempted to deal with that question, whatever body had had to deal with it. it would have been beyond the power of mortal man to give any decision which could have been equally acceptable to both sides of the Border. Had the Commission remained united to the end, and the unhappy circumstances not- occurred which led to the breaking-up of the Commission before it made its Report, and had a unanimous Report been made, then I think it is highly probable—at least, it is certain—that the Report would have been presented, and highly probable that the Report would have become effective. But I am dear that neither that Report nor any "Report would have become effective without leading at the best to a prolonged unsettlement along the Border, and very possibly to trouble of a kind which we are at the moment relucant to contemplate. I would say here that the House must not be misled by any statements that have been made as to the contents of the Report of the Commission.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Hear, hear:
  The PRIME MINISTER; The map that has appeared and the statements that have been made are., in many respects, far from accurate. I am in the position of being the only one of the three Prime Ministers who has seen the map and has seen an advance proof of the portion of the Report which was to have accompanied it. My two colleagues, Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave, for reasons of their own which I fully appreciate, have not thought, fit to see these documents,
  312
  and they do not intend to see them in any case. It was in anticipation of a situation arising fraught not only with difficulty but with danger that the Governments came together to discuss what could be done The Governments, as the House knows, came to this Agreement, but all the while there was hanging over them and over the country the Report of a Commission; for it must be clearly remembered that the Commission are an entirely independent body over whom, once set up, no Government have any power or authority. If they choose to issue their Report to-night, there is nothing to prevent them doing it, and their Report would have the force of law. Therefore, it was necessary to see—we saw them last Thursday—Mr. Justice Feetham and Mr. Fisher.
  I wish here to say a word about that interview. We had to tell the Commissioners that we knew how prolonged and arduous their labours had been, and the sacrifice of time they had made to carry out the work entrusted to them. We had to tell them that, however much their Report could be justified, as it could be, in law and in equity, yet we were convinced that the issue of that Report-—and I say again the same applied to any other Report—would bring conflict and misery in Ireland; suppression might bring, probably would bring, peace. I cannot speak too highly of the way in. which Mr. Justice Feetham met us. He said at, once that he rejoiced that an agreement had been come to, which appeared to him to be a far better thing than any result that might be imposed upon the people, and that- so far as he and his colleagues were concerned no question of amour propre,, no question of wounded pride. no question of the loss of their time and their labour, and the feeling that, possibly, it had all been in vain, would weigh for one moment with them. I explained to him, and I am sure the House will agree, that though their labours at the moment may seem to have been in vain, yet they really are bearing fruit far beyond what could have been expected when that Tribunal was set up, for had it not been from the, may I say belated, realisation of those responsible for the two Governments of Ireland of what an imposed boundary might mean, we should never, the three of us, have been brought together in that Conference that providentially ended in such an agreement as

  313
  we were able to conclude. That must be the consolation and the reward of the Commissioners, and I think it is a real one.
  The award itself will not see the light. It will be presented to the Government and put away with their archives, for publication, possibly, in some future year, when, maybe, the Irish boundary itself will arouse about as much excitement in Ireland as Offa's Dyke or Hadrian's Wall between the component parts of this island. I wish to-day, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to record in the most unqualified way our sense of gratitude to the Commissioners. I record our sympathy with them in the position in which they have been placed. I do this because I consider they have been most unfairly attacked. They have been charged with giving way to improper influence and to political pressure, with having allowed their judgment to be distorted by outside influences. They have been unable to refute these charges publicly, because they were begged to keep silence even from good words until we had secured the passage of this Act. It is entirely in deference to our appeal that the results of their labours are being suppressed. Their failure, if failure it was, was a failure inherent in the situation. It was rooted in the indefinite terms of Article 12, in the inevitable postponement from 1921, because the difficulty could not be resolved at that time. There is little use in agreeing on the revocation of Article 12 unless at the same time you can amend the Treaty of 1922 in such a way as will take out of it every possible source of friction, every possible source of trouble in the future. It would be an incomplete work if we left it at this point.
  5.0 P.M.
  Now I come to the second Clause in the Agreement, the revocation of Article 5 of the Treaty and Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule of the Bill. I wish to make some observations before I come to the details of these Clauses. When I spoke about leaving in the original Treaty a subject of friction or of trouble in future years, I was not alluding to the definite payment of a definite sum of money. It was a different kind of friction and trouble I was thinking of. What there is in Article 5 is a perfectly indefinite possible liability, undefined, and as such it hangs round the neck of those whom it concerns, and indisputably, whatever the
  314
  result of arbitration in future years might be, the existence of that Clause as it stands affects their credit. We have to remember this. Had there been no settlement of the Boundary question by agreement, one of two things would have happened. You would either have had chaos in Ireland as the result of a decision which was not acceptable either to the North or to the Free State, or you would have had the award, which could and would have been put through, but would have left behind it, either in the North or in the Free State, a sense of injustice, a sense of having been unfairly treated, a sense that they had been deceived. I do not say that would have been deserved, but I do say, without fear of contradiction, that that would have been left behind. Under the circumstances of the case, I think it is much more likely that it would have been left behind in the Free State than in the North. Had that been the case conceive the atmosphere in which this Government would have had to have proceeded to arbitration on the original Clause 5 of the Treaty. It would have held out no hope of a permanent settlement, no hope of agreement, nothing but the prospect of creating one more of those festering sores in the life between Ireland and ourselves which it has been the supreme object of British statesmanship for many years past to eliminate.
  Let us look for a moment, by way of preface, at one or two facts connected with the economic position of Ireland which I think are hardly familiar to Members of this House unless they happen to he close students of Irish affairs. As soon as the Treaty operated in the Free State the country was plunged into civil war. the new Government had to maintain an army of 50.000 men, costing in 1923 £10,000,000, in 1924 £7,000,000, and that in a country whose revenue amounted to £26,000,000. The damage done cost them £10,000,000 in compensation alone, apart from damage done to public property and the inevitable losses to trade and commerce. Moreover, and this is a point that I think will come as a surprise to many Members of this House, the Free State Government are collecting the land purchase and local loans annuities, which will continue for many years under past legislation, to an

  315
  amount in round figures of about £3,000,000 a year and are paying pensions to police and civil servants retired from public service in that State to an amount of over £1,600,000. That latter payment will not, of course, last for nearly as long as the former, but the point I wish to impress upon the House is this, that between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 of that amount is being paid annually and will be paid outside the country, being paid to this country. It is an external debt and that while Ireland is suffering from an adverse trade balance. She is suffering from that as we are, but it does not make the payment any easier. As a matter of hard fact, the Free State is paying outside her own borders a, sum that is calculated at not less and may be rather more than one-tenth of her revenue, a greater sum proportionately than this country is paying out in similar conditions. It is difficult to estimate what we have to pay out outside our own borders; in any case, I feel certain that it is not as much as one-tenth of our revenue. I think that those circumstances, when you come to consider the question of finance as between Great Britain and the South of Ireland, must have due weight given to them, and they are circumstances which are not present to the minds of moat people in this island.
  Where does the interest of Great Britain lie? Does it lie in keeping the South of Ireland poor and trying to squeeze debt out of them? As a matter of pure business, and that alone, the interest of this country lies in a prosperous Ireland, and it must do so for two very good reasons. The first one is this, that Ireland ought to be a great market for our manufacturers, and the second reason —and this is rather a selfish one—is this, that if you have a prosperous Ireland Irishmen will work in their own country and will try and make their own country rich and prosperous. A poverty-stricken Ireland means a continuous flow of immigration of a poor class of people into Great Britain, where at present our own problem of unemployment and bad trade is as severe as we can face. For those two reasons, if for no other, our interest lies in a prosperous Ireland, and one of the reasons why I commend this Bill so whole-heartedly to the House is that I believe that if Irishmen themselves will
  316
  follow on in the spirit in which they have negotiated these Amendments to the Treaty prosperity w ill be assured to them.
  Now I must trouble the House with a brief statement of the position—so far as I can explain it—of the finance. My right hon. Friend who will speak later will deal with any points which may be raised during the Debate, but as I undertook to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), I think it only right, in introducing this Bill, that the House should be put in possession of all the facts I can lay before it. Under Article 5, the British Government have put forward a preliminary claim as a basis for discussion. This claim was that the free State should assume a capital liability in respect of the public debt of the United Kingdom and War pensions as existing at the date of the Articles of Agreement, and the amount put forward was £128,000,000. The addition of the accrued interest would increase this sum to £155,000,000, or I might express it in a form easier to understand, as an annuity of about £6,250,000 for 60 years. But this claim was subject to abatement—and here we get into the region of hypothesis and very difficult calculation—in respect of the value of British assets connected with public debts, including the proper share of the Free State in our claims against the Allies and reparation receipts, and also subject to discussion of the Free State counter-claims under Article 5, as to which we have no concise knowledge. In default of agreement the question was to be settled by arbitration.
  It will therefore be clear to the House that the amount which might have been awarded, to whomsoever it was awarded, is wholly speculative, and it is an x in the equation to which now no solution will ever be found. In consideration of the abrogation of this undetermined liability, if it be a liability, under Article 5, the Free State have now undertaken to bear full liability for compensation for material damage done in the Free State area since January, 1919, and to repay to the British Government the amount which this Government has paid or is still liable to pay under the previous agreements. Those amounts are calculated at something; over £5,000,000, and the representatives of the Irish Free State offer to discharge that obligation by

  317
  immediate payment of £150,000 and an annuity of £250,000 for 60 years from the 1st April next. That offer has been accepted by the British Government. The initial payments due from the Free State Government under this Agreement will be set off against payments amounting to approximately £900,000 which would have been made to the Free State Government by the British Government under the existing Agreement.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Will that payment be in cash?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will come to that. The boundary settlement will enable the police forces in Northern Ireland to be placed on a more normal footing. The British obligation, which we have always felt on this side of the House to assist the North of Ireland in maintaining this force, will therefore cease after the present financial year. To assist Northern Ireland in meeting the expenditure necessarily involved in maintaining the force since last April and demobilisation, we have undertaken to ask Parliament to vote a Grant-in-Aid of £1,200,000 as a final payment by the British Exchequer in aid of this force. I wish to make it abundantly clear to the House and to the country that this agreement makes no change of any sort or kind in the obligations, whatever they may be, which the British Government have undertaken towards those who have suffered injury to person or property in the Free State either before or since the truce. It is purely a transaction between the two Governments, and it does not mean that any individual who, before the present Agreement, was entitled to look to the British Government, must in future look to the Free State. It in no way affects any of the arrangements previously made for the alleviation or relief of distress arising out of civil disturbances which took place in the Free State during the period covered by this Article of the Agreement. The Irish Grants Committee continues in being, and the Committee which the Government recently promised to set up will operate as though the Agreement had never been made.
  In addition to the financial obligations which I have endeavoured to describe, the Free State Government have undertaken to promote legislation increasing by 10 per cent. the measure of compensa-
  318
  tion under the Free State (Damage to Property) Compensation Act, 1923. The Free State are alone responsible for compensation in respect of damage done since the truce of June, 1921, and that compensation is awarded under the Act referred to. The meaning of this provision is that everyone who has obtained a decree under that Act and everyone who has obtained a report, that is to say, a recommendation by the court, for an ex gratia payment by the Free State Government, will have the amount of his decree or report increased by 10 per cent. This, of course, will apply not only to those persons why may feel that they are entitled to look to the British Government for assistance but to everyone who has suffered damage for which compensation, either statutory or ex gratia, was payable under the Act. The Free State representative estimated that the cost to the Free State Government of this Article would amount to approximately £1,000,000, payable in 5 per cent. stock redeemable in 10 years. We believe that this increase will provide a substantial measure of relief to those who have suffered. As I have already said, we do not regard it as discharging the British Government from any obligation which it made itself in the past towards any of the sufferers.
  Now I come to Clause 5 of the Agreement. That deals with the Council of Ireland Services. I think the House will remember that separate Parliaments were to be established in Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, but certain services, railways, diseases of animals, and fisheries were allotted to the Council of Ireland, consisting half of representatives of the Free State and half of representatives of Northern Ireland. Under the Articles of Agreement the provisions relating to the Council of Ireland were kept alive in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland alone, so that if and when this provision came into effect the Free State would have had the complete and solo control of those services within her borders, but the Free State would have had a 50 per cent. representation in Northern Ireland.
  It is quite obvious that to put that into force to-day would be a source of great trouble in the future. The Free State agreed soon after the Treaty came into force to postpone that portion of the

  319
  Treaty for five years, but in two years' time the Free State would be able to demand her representation. By this Agreement she surrenders her right and gives to Northern Ireland complete control over those services, as she herself has in the South of Ireland. It has been represented that this is a retrograde provision in that it adds one more element of permanency to the partition between Northern and Southern Ireland. The contrary is the truth. To enforce a settlement on Ireland whether regarding the control of the services or the boundary must indefinitely put off the day, if that day should ever come, when North and South may unite; and it would afford a better chance of a union, in Ireland some day when they can agree between themselves on this union than if they had a settlement imposed upon them, and especially if that settlement were imposed upon, them from across the water. Let me remind the House that we must read the words of this provision in the light of the words at the end of the Article, namely, that
  "the two Governments of North and South shall meet together as and when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common interest arising out of the exercise and administration of the powers in question."
  These words were put in, not only with the consent of Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave, but at their desire, and there is a real intention on the part of those two men that these words shall be translated into action.
  Now I have finished with Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill, and it only remains for me to say a few words about Sub-section (2). As I have often told the House when I have been dealing with Bills, I am not a lawyer, and I confess that the words of Sub-section (2) convey nothing to me. This is what they really mean. For the purpose of greater accuracy, I have provided myself with something in writing. Sub-section (2) fixes the 1st April next as the day on which the Council of Ireland Services in Northern Ireland are to be transferred by the British Government to the Government of Northern Ireland and repeals as from that date the provisions in regard to the Council of Ireland laid down by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The date has been chosen because it
  320
  coincides with the end of the financial year, and any other time would have made it more complicated with regard to those services. The proviso in this Subsection authorises the continuance of the present position with regard to railway rates and charges in Northern Ireland until the Parliament of Northern Ireland have had time to legislate.
  I have described, as I have been best able and at greater length than I intended or should have desired, the provisions of this Bill which I am commending to the House this afternoon, and which I hope the House may think fit to pass to-day. There is no doubt that a Measure of this kind is like to bring a little sooner that peace and settlement in Ireland which we all desire, and, it passing such a Bill, the more readily and the more wholeheartedly it is done the more apt it will be to fulfil what we all hope. The Irish border is in a way an accident of history. It has been an accident fraught with terrible events in that history to Ireland and to this country. For the first time in history, you have Irishmen themselves agreeing as to what that border shall be. That is an Immense advance. I remember at the time when the Treaty passed this House four years ago, I had the honour of speaking last in the Debate in December, 1921, and I used one phrase: —
  "We have in the Agreement the seed* of peace."
  That was true then, but the ground at that time was hardly a fertile soil. It was a question whether those feeds would ever germinate, but I wish to say in this House that during this last fortnight I could have had no more staunch, loyal helpers in the cause of peace than Mr. Cosgrave and Sir James Craig, and I wish to express my gratitude to them for their courage and for their statesmanship. I wish also to express my gratitude to those of my own colleagues who have worked so hard on the details of this settlement in order to bring it to a successful conclusion.
  Now, in this House and throughout this year, we have been engaged in much strenuous and controversial work, and sometimes our struggles have been bitter, and so they will be in the future. But there are two pieces of work to which this House will have put its hand by the time we go to our own homes for

  321
  Christmas, two pieces of work that will have received the almost unanimous support of all parties, both directed to securing peace, one the Pact of Locarno and the other this Pact here. It is impossible to say what may accrue from this. I would not put our hopes too high, but, at any rate, for the first time the Irish people are agreed where they have never been agreed before.
  The two peoples or, rather, the four peoples, the Irish, the Welsh, the Scottish, and the English, have indeed been through the fire during the last 10 years. They will never feel again as though they had not passed through it, and time alone will show whether those people will emerge as dross or as purified by the refiners fire. I have always believed it would be as purified by the refiner's fire, and I believe that in the future, building on these foundations and seeking for that peace which we have tried to embody to-day, we may all of us, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, as component parts of the great British Commonwealth, rise in time to the full height of our stature for the betterment of ourselves and of our own people, for the betterment of our own Empire, and of the whole world.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We have listened to one of those characteristic speeches of the Prime Minister which, from beginning to end, we all recognise as giving expression to absolute sincerity. But, curiously enough, the Prime Minister this afternoon seemed to jump over, as I feel bound to point out to the House, various episodes and important decisions in connection with the Irish history that he has given us. I cannot help drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, in approaching this problem to-day, when we go into the Lobby, as we shall do, in support of this Bill, we shall be adopting in connection with Irish affairs precisely the same attitude that we adopted when we were on the Government side of the House; and incidentally, I may remind my right hon. Friend that that attitude is not quite the attitude that was adopted towards us. When we took office, we found ourselves in the difficulty which the Prime Minister has already pointed out. We found ourselves called upon to interpret something, namely, Article 12, about which we knew nothing. We
  322
  refused to give any interpretation, because we recognised then what the Prime Minister proves to-day—that to attempt to impose a settlement on Ireland by any outside authority was not only likely to cause trouble, but was ultimately doomed to failure.
  The first thing we did as a Government was to invite Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave to meet us, and I do not mind saying now that the first suggestion we made as a Government to both of those gentlemen was this: "You yourselves agree amongst yourselves to say that Article 12 shall not operate." The very first proposal that we as a Government made to them both was the very proposal that is now to be embodied in an Act of Parliament. Why did we make that proposal? We made it because any knowledge of Ireland, whether it were North or South, proved conclusively, to us at least, that the only way to get permanent peace was by both sections mutually agreeing amongst themselves. Unfortunately, we failed. We gave effect to Article 12, and we gave effect to it in spite of the opposition of my right hon. Friend. In spite of everything that was said against us, in spite of the challenge in this House, in spite of the challenge in the country, we said, "This promise is a promise by England to Ireland, and we intend to ratify it." That was our attitude.
  We appointed the Boundary Commission, and here let me say that I associate myself whole-heartedly with everything the Prime Minister said about Mr. Justice Feetham. He is not the little, pettifogging lawyer that some people have called him. He proved, as the Government must admit, and as they have very generously admitted to-day, that he was not only a big man, but recognised, whatever may be said about his chairmanship or about the Commission, that his first obligation was to bring peace to Ireland. Therefore, I want to associate myself whole-heartedly with everything that the Prime Minister has said in that connection. There is, however, an old saying that Irishmen, North and South, only agree when they are getting something out of England. That was the experience of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the experience of the present Chancellor, it has been the experience of everyone, and,

  323
  incidentally, it is the experience in my own union. Our members, both in Northern and in Southern Ireland, all agree that there is plenty of money in London, and they always unite in trying to get it. Therefore, I can quite understand that, when this announcement was first made, there were a number of people who merely approached it with the feeling that it represented another attempt to bleed the British taxpayer.
  I want to say quite frankly what my view of Article 5 was. Let me observe that, although there have been many questions about Article 5 in this House, I think those on the Government benches who are now responsible for Article 5, and especially my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will agree that neither he nor anyone else who was a party to that settlement ever assumed that Article 5 could be given effect to until Article 12 had been determined. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will agree with that interpretation. Not only was it impossible to separate them, but by the very nature of things, the one depended on the other. I have heard the calculation of my right hon. Friend that the Treasury estimate was somewhere in the region of £150,000,000 under Article 5. I think £128,000,000 was the first figure, with interest up to £150,000,000. I understand that that was the Treasury estimate of what Article 5 was worth to the British Exchequer. I also had an opportunity of hearing what the South of Ireland's estimate of Article 5 was. 11 was put to me that the estimate nf the South of Ireland—and they have made some wonderful calculations— was £250,000,000 due to them. As one who knows something of the Irish temperament in this matter, I quite frankly told my friends, and I think it was the view of all of us who were connected with it, that when we got down to brass tacks and attempted to estimate any value so far as pounds, shillings and pence were concerned, in the case of Article 5, we must write it down as nil; and I should have no hesitation in saying that that must have been the view of anyone who had gone carefully into the question and made anything like a calculation.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. All I can say is that, if he is anticipating very
  324
  much revenue out. of it, I hope that, if he is making any forecast on any other items, it will prove more profitable than even his anticipation has been in connection with this, or God help us next April! But, whatever the view may be, whatever the estimate may be, whatever may be said on one side or the other, there can be no doubt that you cannot estimate peace in connection with this great question on a mere balance-sheet of pounds, shillings and pence. No one could say what the ultimate cost to the British taxpayer would be if trouble arose, and, therefore, I do not approach it in that spirit. But, on the other hand, I want to put this point: Although the boundary is said to be stereotyped at the moment, the value of this settlement will not be the abrogation of Article 12 and Article 5, but it will be the meeting together of representatives of the North and South to deal with, to administer, and to settle things that are common to both; and I believe that, just as when people who have differed in the past, who have been almost enemies, have been thrown together, they understand each other better, and I believe that that in itself will be the befit guarantee of peace in Ireland that could be provided.
  I hope, however, that not merely the letter but the spirit that is behind this will be manifest in North and South. I hope, for instance, that in the North It means that the Catholics will themselves take part and contribute to the well-being of Northern Ireland. Instead of isolation, instead of boycotting Parliament, instead of standing aloof, I hope that, as a result of this settlement, we shall find the Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland taking part and contributing, as they can contribute much, to the well-being of Northern Ireland. I hope, equally, that that spirit will prevail in the South. I hope, also, that the spirit of which the Prime Minister spoke will be given effect to. There are a number of prisoners in Northern Ireland at this moment, and I believe there are some in Southern Ireland. If I can make any appeal here, let me say that there are people in this country who feel very keenly for those prisoners. There are people in England and in Scotland who not only are deeply interested in those prisoners, but who believe that, if this great scheme is to be the success

  325
  we all desire, the real spirit of peace and good will must enter into the whole thing, making a clean start by releasing those people as evidence of that new spirit. I have to say, on behalf of every member of my party, that we not only wish well to the scheme, we not only say we hope it will be a real and final settlement, we not only say we will do nothing to hamper or cripple the settlement, but we are entitled, in making those statements and giving that assistance, to voice this appeal on the Floor of the House of Commons to both Governments, and to say to them, "Now is the time to release your political prisoners; now is the time, when you are making a fresh start."
  There is one other question that I should like to ask the Prime Minister. I could not quite follow all the details of the finance as he read them out, but I presume my right hon. Friend is going to deal more fully with them. Do I understand that the £1,200,000 referred to is a final grant for the constabulary of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Mr. THOMAS: Do I understand that it is independent of all existing commitments.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing has been taken as yet in the Estimates for the current year.
  Mr. THOMAS: It is a final instalment, due exclusively in connection with the constabulary. There is no other commitment of any sort or kind implied or understood in this Agreement at all. I only want to know that quite clearly, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it when he comes to reply. There may be criticisms about the finance of the Bill. It may be that there are people who will even to-day say the British taxpayer is making too much sacrifice. So far as my knowledge of Ireland goes, I have no hesitation in saying that Members in all parts of the House ought to welcome this settlement. It will enable the Irish people to see that, whatever may have been their complaints in the past about the treatment of them by the British Government, since the Irish Treaty was made we have fulfilled and discharged every obligation. That, I think, will be admitted on their. side, and it is only fair that the British people
  326
  should understand some of the difficulties of the Irish Free State. No one without knowledge of their financial difficulties can appreciate all they have been up against, and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the way they have performed a difficult task and at the same time endeavoured to be faithful and honourable to their obligations. That is the spirit in which we approach this settlement, not in a desire to make any party capital, but to say to the Prime Minister, "You have done well in this. You have made a good settlement. But please remember that, just as in Locarno, you reaped where we sowed; we prepared the ground for this settlement."
  Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I think there will be very great regret in the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who has been so long, so closely, and so prominently associated with the handling of Irish problems unfortunately should be absent to-day. On his behalf, and speaking for my Liberal friends and associates on these benches, I wish to offer to the Prime Minister and the Government our unstinted congratulations upon this Irish settlement. We welcome it, not only as affording a satisfactory settlement of a very perilous and difficult controversy, but also as offering the bright hope of a happier chapter in Irish history in the future. The. Prime Minister alluded, in his eloquent and sincere speech, to the difficulties inherent in Article 12 of the Treaty of 1921. Those difficulties were indeed formidable. They did not become easier as time went on. I have very little doubt that the solution which has now been so happily reached is by far the best solution of the problem that could be conceived. It is certainly a great advantage that the boundary question should be settled by the accord of British statesmen, the representatives of the Irish Free State and the representatives of Northern Ireland, rather than that it should be imposed on the country by the award of the Commission. I wish to associate myself with the tribute the Prime Minister has paid to the statesmanship and moderation of Mr. Cosgrave and Sir James Craig and also the width of view, the self-control and the statesmanship of Mr. Justice Feetham.

  327
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) indicated that there might be in various quarters of the House some dissatisfaction with the financial provisions of this instrument. I admit that, when we consider the estimate which the Treasury formed in the first instance and the various burdens as to which we are about to have some painful reminders in the course of the next few days, the financial side of this operation is likely to give a good deal of anxiety to many Members of the House. But I am wholly in accord with the Prime Minister in thinking that, even if the sacrifice is great—and we cannot, as we pointed out, estimate its dimensions—it is a sacrifice well worth incurring in the cause of Irish peace. I very well remember the discussions between Ireland and England that arose many years ago as the result of the Report on the Financial Relations between the two countries, and when I was concerned, as I was, as a Member of the Government with the drafting of the Act of 1920, one of the great difficulties was the difficulty, -indeed the impossibility, of forming a just estimate of the claims on the one hand and the counter-claims on the other. I, therefore, very heartily welcome an arrangement under which all these perplexing and irritating sources of financial difference may be swept out of view at one blow. I am sure the Prime Minister has done wisely in including a financial settlement in the same instrument as that which is primarily devoted to a settlement of the boundary question, and I hope very much that the voice of the British taxpayer, hard pressed as he is, will not be too loudly heard.
  We on these benches have always cherished the belief that if Ireland were ever to be given responsibility for managing her own affairs, our faith in her capacity and her integrity would not be misplaced. We have held that view for many years. We have urged it, and I think the events of to-day prove to us that our faith has not been misplaced. The solution, indeed, has not some in the exact way in which the leaders of Liberal thought expected it would come. We did not, I think now, give full weight to the deep and sincere sentiment of Protestant Ireland, and I believe the settlement that has now been reached—a settlement
  328
  under which the Protestant Irishmen of the North and the Catholic Irishmen of the South are left free to work out their own destinies, and to combine when it appears to them reasonable that they should combine on matters of common interest affecting both sections of the community—holds out a real hope of an enduring Irish peace. I remember very soon after the outbreak of the War I was in the company of Lord Morley, who took a view very unfavourable to the war policy that was followed by the Liberal Government. I remember his closing a discussion on the War with these words:
  "Remember there is a little island on the other side of St. George's Channel with its wounds unstaunched, with its wrongs unredressed, waiting for justice, When the War is over, you will hear of Ireland."
  We did hear of Ireland. Ireland passed through some of the most tragic and tormenting years of her unhappy history, but in the end statesmanship found a way out, and, fortunately, the statesmen were not confined to one party in the State. Conservatives and Liberals, and I will gladly add members of the Labour party, too, worked for a settlement that should be enduring. So we earnestly welcome this Bill as marking a further stage towards the conciliation of both sections of Irish political thought and political opinion and as affording an earnest of the reconciliation of the Irish and British races all over the civilised world.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. D. D. REID: Perhaps it is fitting that a representative of an Irish constituency should say a word on this Bill. I am afraid I must deal with the matter on a lower level than the eloquent speakers who have preceded me. May I remind the House that, between the time of the introduction of the Irish Treaty Bill and the time last year when the Bill was brought in by the Labour Government enabling a member to be appointed to the Commission in place of the Commissioner to be appointed by Northern Ireland, we placed it on record that it was our view that the proviso under Article 5 of the Treaty, which set up the Boundary Commission, was not justified at any time in view of the pledges made to those who were responsible for accepting the Act of 1920 in the North of Ireland. I have no wish to go into what has happened since

  329
  that time, but now we find, as the result of this Agreement and the Bill which proposes to carry it into effect, that our contention is sustained—we find the boundary is loft unaltered and therefore I need hardly say we welcome the Bill. I f hon. Members who talk so glibly about unrest had lived through times like there have been near the border, when people are distracted from their ordinary occupations, when they are not only distracted in mind but have the time taken away from their ordinary occupations, we should probably hear less about finding our own salvation. What we want is to have causes of friction removed, and in this question of the border we have one cause of friction removed, and therefore we welcome the Bill. There is a second point, the Council of Ireland. When the Council of Ireland formed part of the original scheme, to deal with certain general services in Northern and Southern Ireland, there was a reason, perhaps, for its existence, but when it was confined to Northern Ireland, and when it only enabled representatives of the Free State Government to interfere with certain services in Northern Ireland, it had practically become nothing more nor less than a bargaining council. It would only have been the means of introducing a great deal of difficulty. That has been cleared out of the way and we welcome it.
  Hon. Members who have spoken have, perhaps, somewhat exaggerated the disunion between North and South. It is true that we have different views on many subjects, but it is not true that we live in an absolutely cat and dog state. The practical result of this Bill is that we have two great potential sources of evil, two great potential sources of trouble, cleared out of the way, and for that reason we frankly welcome the Bill. As to Article 5, I agree with the view taken by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I do not believe that Article 5 would ever have produced any appreciable revenue for the British Government. Therefore, when Article 5 is given up it means very little in hard cash. I do not think the British taxpayer need feel aggrieved about that For these very commonplace reasons, we welcome the Bill and wish to see it passed into law as soon as possible.
  Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: This is a good Bill. It is the first contribution which the Unionist party, or the Conservative party, have made to the prosperity of Ireland. It is the one and only thing for which the Irish people have any cause to be grateful. It seems to me that this country is in danger of being chloroformed into forgetting the past, by the unction with which converted rakes talk about their good actions of the present. Throughout the whole length of this controversy there has not been one helpful contribution made towards healing the wounds of Ireland or assuaging her sorrows from hon. or right hon. Members on the other side of the House. The fact that this Bill is brought forward is a definite and complete vindication of the men of the past who for 40 years were slandered and reviled by Members who sat opposite in this House. It is a complete repudiation of the whole policy of the Unionist party from the day it was formed right up to the time when it culminated in the Black and Tan policy of the party which now sits on the benches below the Gangway on this side of the House.
  I am not going to talk about the money part of this Bill, because the liabilities of peace are always negligible compared with the costs of war. In this Bill, whatever sacrifices there may be, they are negligible, if they bring peace to Ireland, compared with the enormous expenditure which would have been involved in any development of dis-peace. I cannot help wondering what would have happened in this House if, in the course of time and the change of circumstances, a Bill which involved the sacrifice of a potential, and perhaps unrealisable, asset of £150,000,000, had been brought forward from these benches instead of the benches opposite. I can imagine the country being stirred by the fervid eloquence of those whose names I see appended to this Bill. I can see the newspapers, in the control of men whom we would look upon as perverted if we Sid not know they were imbecile, filled, from the "Christian Herald" to "Comic Cuts," with malignities against the Irish, with charges of treason against the Socialists, with talk of our being lovers of every country but our own, and of our being willing to scatter broadcast the pinched and parched resources of this

  331
  struggling island for the sake of bribing votes from the Southern Irish who dwell in this country.
  I can imagine the wonderful rhetoric with which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, under whom I have sat with delight and instruction so frequently—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope you have profited by it.
  Mr. MITCHELL: He would have stirred not the minds but the passions of the people, over which he has much more control, by his speeches in regard to the Socialist Government daring to introduce a Bill of this kind. It has been introduced as though the whole record of the present occupants of the Government Benches had been one of kindness and benignity towards Ireland. There used to be a custom that men who came to the Bar of the House of Commons went down on their knees. The last man who made obeisance in the House of Commons bore the unusual name of Baldwin. It would be not an unfitting thing. I think, if the Leader of the Unionist, Conservative, Tory party, in bringing in this Bill— which he has been driven to bring in. not by the impulses of justice but by the influence of the facts of force in the past—had come to this House and asked forgiveness on behalf of his party for the havoc, the tragedies, the misery, the woe and want which he and they have caused in that unhappy land.
  The whole history of this country has been shouting lessons to the Tory party about their conduct in Ireland. The monuments which we see in St. Stephen's Hall are daily proclaiming lessons to which the Tory party have not listened. They have had the lesson of the United States, they have had the lesson of Canada, they have had the lesson of United South Africa, and yet. they went on until they even corrupted right hon. Gentlemen of the. Liberal party to their way of thinking, and they wound up with the Black and Tans. Have they not yet-learned the tragic and pathetic futility of this effort to dominate another set of people with the ideas and the policies which we ourselves have?
  There are other problems to be solved. This Bill is a declaration that the Unionist party have been wrong Tight through in their attitude to Ireland.
  332
  There are now other problems to be considered. I will not speak about the problem of Home Rule for Scotland, because there is not there a problem which excites the same passion and the same misunderstanding. There is the problem of Egypt. There is the problem of India. There is the problem of China. There is the problem of Africa.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This Bill does not range over the whole world. It refers to Ireland.
  Mr. MITCHELL: I agree that it does not range over the whole world but the principle which is embodied in this Bill has affected the whole world and may yet affect the whole world. The Prime Minister has, very largely, the future of this country and of many other countries in his hands. He is, if I may say so, without either the effect or the appearance of flattery probably the most lovable man in public life to-day. If he would learn by the history of this Bill and would apply his mind to the problems which confront this nation in other spheres, and, instead of listening to the whisperings of the dull and twilight souls which surround him, would rely upon his own sure instinct be could abolish all this idea of domination. He could completely destroy all those sorrows that come from misunderstanding. He could recognise that other civilisations of great age are built up under different traditions. Then, instead of having Britain looked upon as a tyrant, as she is it some places, he could have her looked upon as a nation that uses the pure gold of statemanship, that makes those who hate us love us, that makes those who fear us have faith in us, and that makes those who are suffering to-day receive from this great nation the blessing that can come whenever one great nation touches another. The choice is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I am glad that this Bill has been brought in. I shall vote for it with a full heart. I only hope that the lesson will be carried further over a wider area and that we may have in other parts of the world the same blessings of peace, understanding and good will that have been brought, however tardily and it may be reluctantly, to the sorrowing island across the sea.
  Colonel GRETTON: I will not attempt, even for one minute, to follow the nights of imagination of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He appears to consider that the highest act of statesmanship is to haul down the British flag throughout the world and to make speeches of beaugeste to the rest of mankind. That is not a policy which the people of this country are as yet, thank God! ready to accept. I return to the subject of the Bill before the House. Frankly, it is a Bill which takes the place of what has been from the. beginning a bad business. It is; a distinct improvement, in my judgment, of the situation. May I ask the House to consider how this case has arisen. I need not go further back than the Home Rule proposals which were brought forward by the Liberal Government shortly before the commencement of the Great War. In the negotiations, the claim of Ulster to he still included under the British flag was urged most strongly, and the Ulster representatives at that time were always ready to accept the present boundary, or something very nearly like it. The case was raised again in 1916 and in 1920. The whole difficulty regarding the boundary has been that those who represented, first, the Southern Provisional Government, and later the Free State Government, made claims to large areas of the territory of Northern Ireland which it would have been impossible to concede, and which the Boundary Commission was well advised to set on one side.
  The British Ministers did not act wisely over this Boundary Commission. Article 12 was put into the Treaty in order to get agreement toy the representatives of Southern Ireland in 1921. It was not desired by Northern Ireland, and there was no reason why any British Minister at that time should have desired to keep the boundary question open. It was a characteristic device of the Government of that day to get over the difficulty. The Commission was set up. One of the great difficulties in obtaining a settlement in Southern Ireland was that all parties of politicians in Southern Ireland held out exaggerated hopes as to what the result of the Commission was to be, in the accession of territory to the Free State. When it was found that these great accessions of territory, which
  334
  had been ignorantly and wrongly anticipated, were not to be realised, the Government in Dublin found itself in a difficulty. I am conscious that they, in the interest of the Free State, have come to the best conclusion possible by accepting the position as it stands, and as it might have been stabilised in 1914, 1916, 1918 and 1920. The whole matter, moreover, has been a cause of great expense and anxiety to the Northern Ireland Government.
  I want for one moment to turn to the case of the British taxpayer and Article 5. The Prime Minister, in representing the burden which the Free State have to bear in the form of exporting cash to this country, took rather an extreme view. One of the payments which he mentioned, about £4,500,000, is the old payment under the Land Purchase Acts. Those Acts, passed by successive British Governments, enabled tenants in Ireland to acquire their land at a very low rate of purchase by paying an annuity—a rate which was generally lower in total than the rent which they had paid before they had any purchase attached. Those payments were made without difficulty, and there were extraordinarily small arrears, amounting to only a few hundreds a year, while the British Government ruled in Ireland. The case is not so easy now, for the Free State Government are having difficulty in collecting these annuities, and I am informed on credible authority that there are some 22,000 warrants out for non-payment of arrears. However that may be, this is a payment in the form of rent, which was formerly collected without difficulty and paid to those who advanced the money for the purchase of the land under the various land purchase schemes.
  Then there is the payment for civil servants and others whose liability to pension was taken over by the Free State. Many of them are still living in Ireland, but a considerable number have come over here. They have come here because they were the loyal servants of the British Government, and they found that residence in some parts of Ireland was far from comfortable. What is the British taxpayer sacrificing in payments under Article 5? He is sacrificing something, some important moral claims. Northern Ireland undertook the same obligations as were undertaken by the

  335
  Free State. Northern Ireland punctually-paid every penny, but the Free State have done nothing of the kind. Whatever the reason or excuses, the Free State never paid one penny, and it has never hitherto made the British Government fix what the amount of these contributions should be. Mr. John Dillon, a well-known Member of this House for many years and a prominent Irishman who has a great knowledge of Irish affairs, declared that the annual payment should have been some £10,000,000, and others have agreed as to that sum. It has been said that there are high counter-claims which may be set against this payment of debt. In his speech, the Prime Minister said frankly that they had never been formulated. No, they never have been formulated, because no serious man in his senses with any knowledge of finance or the facts would accept the exaggerated sums talked of loosely in Southern Ireland, and such claims have never been presented to any British Government. They were derisive claims.
  There were, no doubt, some off-sets of one kind or another, but, on the other hand, the payment by the Free State of the share of War debt and War pensions would have been a substantial and serious relief for the British taxpayer. There has never been hitherto any sign of any intention to pay one penny. There are very few in this country who know anything of the situation in the Free State and the way in which these financial questions have been dealt with hitherto, who believe that any substantial sum would have been paid. In fact, it is said that the British Government have made a good arrangement because they have sacrificed no money. There is a good deal of truth in that view. The Government of the Free State have shown no eagerness to meet their obligations. For that reason, I think that the British taxpayer, in the long run, is sacrificing very little money in abandoning Article 5.
  There is another aspect of the case. What is going to happen in regard to the payment of damages? There was the rebellion against the British power and the later rebellion against the Government of the Free State. The damages amount to very large sums. A terrible tale of sufferings and loss has been told.
  336
  An extraordinary arrangement in the Treaty of 1921 was that the British Government would undertake to pay damages inflicted by its armies and its Black and Tans up to the time that the Provisional Government was set up in Tune, 1920, and that after that date the Provisional Government, and, later, the Government of the Free State, should undertake to pay for injuries. That has worked out in this way. The British Government undertook to pay damages claimed and approved, which were inflicted in the days of the rebellion, and the Provisional Government and the Free State Government undertook to compensate those Irishmen and others who had been loyal to the British flag and had supported British rule in Ireland so long as it lasted, and had suffered in consequence.
  What has been the effect of this agreement? A Commission has been set up and the claims first dealt with were those claims made by the adherents and friends of the present Government in Ireland. The Commission could go no further until the terms of reference were extended in the early part of this year, so as to include a wider class of cases. The British Government have met their obligations in full. In the last vote taken in this House on that account some £900,000 was voted to be spent. What has been the case as regards those, in Ireland who are loyalists? A very great number of them have been driven out. because the persecution and the boycotting have by no means ceased in Southern Ireland, though they are less prevalent than they were. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Free State Government are doing their best to suppress than kind of thing. But the Free State Government is not a very powerful Government, nor is it a very stable Government. No Government founded upon violence, upon arson, and upon assassination can expect to be powerful or stable. They themselves in the days of the rebellion created the very state of things which it is now their duty to repress. They are face to face with the spectres of their own acts. I would remind hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House that every act of statesmanship, good or bad, has its consequences.
  This is not the time nor the place to go through a long catalogue of the wrongs

  337
  which have been suffered by the unfortunate people in Ireland who were abandoned by the British Government. The British Government have done what they can up to a point;, but the Ministers of succeeding Administrations have been very shy about pressing the Free State Government strongly upon these cases of damage. At last in another place, in consequence of a Debate during the summer, it was agreed to set up a Committee to investigate cases of claims for compensation by loyalists. That Committee has not yet sat, although it was appointed in July. I hope it will proceed without delay, and that such cases as it may find to require pressing will be dealt with vigorously, and that steps will be taken to see that they are met justly if not generously by the Free State Government. The point in most of these cases seems to be concerned with what are called consequential damages, which have hitherto been ruled out by an official set up in Ireland to deal with damages.
  Let me give the House an instance. There was a hotel keeper who had been a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and during the bad times a party of nine or ten of the Royal Irish Constabulary were ambushed near his Hotel, six or seven being killed. He went out and brought the bodies and the survivors into shelter, and nursed and cared for those who were wounded. In consequence of his action, his hotel was raided, plundered and burned, and the little land he had was taken from him, and, under threats to his life and to the Jives of his family, he was driven out of Ireland and was never able to go back. That man gets no compensation, in so far as damage he suffered comes under the head of "consequential damage."
  There is another class of case which should be pressed very strongly. It is the case of a man who had a small property in Ireland with a house. A farm which was attached to the property had been let for several years, but he had not been able to collect one shilling of rent. This man was driven out of his house: the house was burned, and the contents were lost or destroyed, and the demesne was taken over by others. This man has been served with Income Tax demands by the Free State Government as if he were still occupying the house,
  338
  and he has, in fact, paid the claims for Income Tax. The other day he went to the Commission and obtained an award of some thousands of pounds, and the whole of that award was immediately claimed by the Irish Free State Government for unpaid arrears of Income Tax of which he know nothing until he received the award. The award was sequestrated, and not a shilling of it has been paid. That case, I happen to know, is now before the Government. It is a shocking case, and no one in this House would defend an action of that kind.
  I came across another case of the same kind the other day. It is the case of a widow who had a very small property. The little land she had was taken from her; she could not collect her rents, and, after a long time, the case came before the Commission, and there was an award. The Free State Government claimed Income Tax in respect of the land—the use of which had been denied to her because they had not kept order and protected her—and their claim came to within a few pounds of the total award. That is the kind of thing which is going on, and which we urge the British Government to take up. Surely, these are things which ought to be settled at this time. There has been great generosity on the part of various British Governments in dealing with the Irish question, and I venture to claim in this House, that generosity should be shown in such oases by those who have received generous treatment from us.
  I fear the hopes which have been expressed in the eloquent speeches of this afternoon that this is a final settlement of the Irish question will prove to be unfounded. Those of us who have been in politics for a generation and more have seen many Irish settlements, each one of which was said to be final. I fear we shall find the Government of the Free State again in difficulties. They will come again for assistance to the Government of this country, then we shall have another settlement—we shall have one more "final settlement." This House, I venture to think, will be wrong if it does not face the real state of things in Southern Ireland. Southern Ireland is in the hands of politicians, and the politicians of all parties are united in one respect. The foundation of their polities

  339
  in the preaching and promotion of hostility to this country. I do not believe this state of things will last for ever, but at present, whether it be the Free State politician or the Republican politician, that is the foundation of their action. I will not detain the House by giving instances, but any hon. Member who cares to read the Irish papers will find confirmation of my statement. I always deplored—I looked upon it as one of the greatest crimes ever committed by a British Government—the abandonment of the unhappy, helpless people in Ireland to the things which they have gone through since the British Government, in a moment of weakness and enthusiasm and sentiment, laid down its responsibilities and handed over millions of people to an unhappy fate. However that may be, this Bill, so far as it goes, will be accepted by the. House, and I for one have no intention of opposing it.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The last speaker seemed to tempt certain Members of this House into the discussion of very deep and controversial affairs, and I think his references to the Free State Government were particularly unfortunate. He said that Government was the product of the bomb, of rebellion and—even worse—of assassination, and that any Government so founded was bound to be bad. Whether it be true or not, I think that remark, coming from a Conservative Member, is particularly unfortunate. If one is to go back to the foundation of the Free. State Government in this connection one must also go back into the history of what caused the Irish people to rebel. Who taught them the business of shooting? One will find that it is not into the Free State. Government, but into the gun-running of Northern Ireland and the seditious speeches of Members of the present Government that we must look, and. if we do so, we shall possibly by much nearer the origin of rebellion in Ireland. I for one resent the hon. and gallant Member's remarks just as I would resent them if they were applied to the North of Ireland.
  My object in rising is to express the view that we here cannot settle the affairs of Ireland. We must remember that yesterday the Bail met in the Free State and, whether we like it or not, there was a minority definitely unconvinced of
  340
  the wisdom of this settlement. The only people who can make it a settlement are the people in the North and the South of Ireland. I have no complaint to make against the Government's financial terms. I do not grumble at the liquidation of a debt of £150,000,000. Indeed, I only wish the Government had gone even further and wiped out this proposed payment of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, because I am convinced that £150,000,000 or £160,000,000 is a cheap price to pay for peace in Ireland. Peace and prosperity, however, can only come to Ireland if the mass of the common people are prosperous and peaceful and. comfortable. We have to remember that the Free State Government—and I am not criticising them for this—on account of the smallness of their revenue and the demands on their exchequer, have had to economise, and one of their chief economics has been the reduction of payments to old age pensioners. These old age pensioners were citizens of this country when the pension was granted, and I would like the "British Government to liquidate all debts and make it a condition that the old age pension in the Free State should be restored to the amount at which it stood when the British Government was in control. That would have been a gesture to the people of Ireland showing that we were concerned for the welfare in the poorer section of the community there.
  The right hon. Gentleman who was Colonial Secretary under the Labour Government referred to the question of Irish prisoners. It may be argued that these men have been convicted of criminal offences, but all of them took action for political reasons, and none of them can be characterised as criminals in the ordinary accepted sense. I want to see this Treaty given a proper, decent chance of success, and it can only be a success if goodwill is engendered on all sides. We cannon secure goodwill if we have in this country, quite apart from. Ireland, a certain number of Irish people who think that these prisoners are being wrongly and even badly treated. One of the big gestures that could be made would be for the Governments of the North and the South of Ireland, and even of this country, to unite in saying, "We are going to make a clean, fresh start, and no person who from political motives has com-

  341
  mitted a criminal offence shall be retained in prison." I want to ask the Government if, in future negotiations, they cannot impress upon both the North and the South of Ireland the desirability of this taking place. There are in Scotland at present still two or three Irish prisoners separated from their wives and families and kept in prison.
  There has been nothing said about the people who are really involved in this settlement, namely, the folk who are residing on the boundary between the North and the South. Are they prepared to accept the settlement arrived at today? I have grave fears that they might not be prepared to accept it. I do not accept even this financial concession as big enough. I would like the Government to wipe the slate clean of every financial debt that the Free State and the Northern Government owe us. Allow them to make a fresh start and to devote their future revenue to making the conditions of the common people better than they have ever been. Politics do not make a common bond. The bond that makes people come together is their usefulness in life and how far they can get good out of their working-class conditions, and I hoped the Government could have gone further than they have gone. Our problem of Ireland, and even of Protestantism in the North and Roman Catholicism in the South, is sometimes not only confined to Ireland. Sometimes it spreads to this country too, and I hope this settlement will mean that people will face their social problems, not as Roman Catholics, nor as Protestants, but as working folk and as people wanting to make their nation a better nation than hitherto.
  Captain EDEN: I think the House was in closer sympathy with the speech to which we haves just listened, at any rate, the earlier part of it, than with the speech which was delivered by the last hon. Member who spoke from those benches. I can at least agree with my hon. Friend opposite that no good will certainly be done by delving into the past either of political parties in this country or of political parties in Ireland, and though it may be a very delectable pastime to stir the pools of acrimony, it is not a pastime from which we shall derive any profit whatever. We can hardly expect that any agreement will meet with universal approval from
  342
  all sections of opinion in this House or in the country. There is first that section of critics which sincerely believes that the flaws in this Bill are numerous, so numerous, perhaps, as to outweigh its merits, and we have also the smaller section of the public and of the Press which is determined to be satisfied with nothing, which enjoys dissatisfaction. Listening to the speeches of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past week, I gathered that the bane of his life were those who indulged in the practice which he picturesquely described a? tariff-mongering. I can tell him of a practice which is worse than that, and that is the practice of gloom-mongering, and for those who indulge in that practice we can offer no cure but to ask that they should visualise what would have happened had the Government failed to bring about this agreement, the bitter recrimination and the suspicion, breeding mischief, which would have inevitably resulted.
  I think all sections of the House will be prepared to congratulate the Government on the promptitude with which it dealt with the situation. In a case like this delay is inevitably dangerous, and engenders suspicion, which only too often in the past has been the atmosphere which has hovered over these negotiations, and the promptitude of this settlement is by no means its least merit, leaving no bitterness born of sustained haggling and months of bargaining. I confess to being glad that the boundary remains as it has been for the last four years. I do not pretend to think that it is the best boundary that the mind of man could devise—far from it—but it has one transcendent advantage, and that is that it is the boundary to which those who live alongside of it have become used. Those of us who went last autumn to visit the boundary areas told the House, when we came back, of our firm conviction that it would be dangerous to attempt to transfer any section of the territory under the jurisdiction of one Government to the jurisdiction of the other, not because we did not admit that anomalies existed, but because we felt that habit, custom, and use, which had to some extent brought peace to the boundary areas, should not be disturbed. Men, after all, even Irishmen, are creatures of habit, and this Bill, in that it continues the existing habits of every day, and does

  343
  not ask the people on the boundary to start all over again, in a wise measure, fostering progress.
  There is, I know, criticism on the- financial side, upon which I do not propose to enter, except to say that surely here as in other financial matters a bird in the hand is still preferable, even if it is a small and fluttering bird. I would ask the House to remember that last year, when these discussions were in progress, the present Foreign Secretary, replying to a suggestion made by my noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) said that it would be no poor investment for the British people to invest money to bring about peace in Ireland. That is undoubtedly true, and while I do not admit that the balance sheet is ill drawn, I say it is not fair to take it at sight on a hard cash basis, because we have assets on the credit side which cannot be realised in terms of hard cash. We have the asset of the improved trade and employment which must result, and one other important asset which has not been touched upon, and to which I would draw the attention of the House.
  For years past, for a century or more, conditions in Ireland have resulted in creating in Europe from time to time a difficult, embarrassing atmosphere for British statesmanship. Everybody knows it. Nobody who has studied public opinion abroad during recent years will deny that the running sore of the Irish difficulty has been a source of anxiety to us in Europe. With those who did not like us, with those who wanted a weapon for anti-British propaganda, the weapon was there. With our own friends, it has sometimes been a cause of tension, and even within our own Empire the effect of Irish disputes has had a direct and frequent repercussion. That is an aspect of the settlement of which we should not lose sight.
  It has been stated that this Agreement is the direct outcome of the spirit of the Agreement at Locarno. I do not think that is quite true. I think it goes deeper than that. It is a spirit that is abroad to-day that has made the Locarno Agreement possible, and that has made this Agreement possible, also, Without that spirit both these Agreements could never have been. At Locarno the European horse was ready to drink, and last week
  344
  the Irish horse was willing to drink. Tentatively, we may dare to hope that the spirit of the after-the-War years, carping, enervating, intolerant, inflaming passions and fostering suspicions, has been laid, and that reason vanquishes prejudice.
  We have heard already pious hopes expressed that the result of this Agreement will be to bring Irish unity closer. I hope that endeavours on this side of the Irish Channel will be confined to the expression of such hopes and will not take the forms of direction or advice, however well meant. If the Anglo-Saxon wants to bring about Irish unity, the best service he can render, in the light of history, is to keep silent on this subject. But in the case of the relations between Great Britain and Ireland there is no such embargo upon speculation. We have no rules to guide us as to what the future may hold, except that the unexpected invariably happens. Ireland is a country of surprises. May we, perhaps, hope that this if? the last, the greatest, the eternal, surprise that the Irish people will spring upon their Anglo-Saxon neighbours, that amity will reign within and without, between the North and the South, and between both and this country, and that an understanding will grow all the stronger for the difficulties of the years gone by? At least, we can say that one source of dispute, of trouble, and of suspicion has been removed. Mutual knowledge must do the rest. Bickering is ever a child of ignorance.
  Mr. HARNEY: As a Southern Irishman, I feel that I ought to say a few words in this Debate. I would like at the outset to congratulate the Prime Minister, not only upon the part he has played in effecting this settlement, but upon the very conciliatory and, I should say, noble expression of what he has done that he has given us to-day. It was in very strong contrast indeed to another speech that we heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton).
  Mr. J. JONES: All the bitters come from Burton!
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. HARNEY: I will not say that is what ails it. Out of a 40 minutes' speech delivered for the purpose of commending the Bill to the House. 36 minutes were

  345
  devoted to corroding the very spirit that underlay that settlement. I am one of those who believe, and I know a good deal about Ireland, that it is destined sooner or later to become a political unit if for no other reason than that economic considerations are constantly tending in that way. That happy period is being deferred always by one influence or another. In the last two years it has been this boundary. When the Act of 1920 divided Ireland into two, it was only natural that the line should create bitterness, mutual recrimination, which ricochetting one from the other should have brought about a festering sore. That is now four years ago. These recriminations have been dying down. The people on one side of the line are beginning to adjust themselves to the position, and what was rightly felt by all those engaged in the settlement, the Premier of Northern Ireland, the Premier of Southern Ireland, and our own Prime Minister was, I should think, that it is far better to leave such old wounds as were created by the line which was drawn in 1920 to heal themselves than to create a new line which would make new wounds. It would be a new laceration, not merely as the old one was of one Ireland, but of two Irelands. However bad the first line may be, it is better to have the old grey line than to draw a new red one as would undoubtedly have been the result.
  There is a good deal more that the settlement has done. The mere fact of the two Prime Ministers' meeting was a recognition by the peoples that they represent, that after all it was better for both parts of Ireland to be on friendly terms. Although both of them repudiated the Council that was created by the Act of 1920, because it was put upon them, both of them now have said, "We will substitute for that Council Cabinet Conferences." They will adhere to that because it is of their own making. I, who know Ireland, can assure the House of this, both North and South are of that temperament which is hot-headed and sensitive. Though they may quarrel among themselves, the House may be assured that at bottom, in their inmost hearts, they like one another better than they like any outside people. If they are
  346
  let alone, if these irritating influences are removed for a time, then I have not the slightest doubt that in a time measurably nearer this country will have the advantage of discovering what we Irishmen have always known, that Ireland is capable of becoming one country, a prosperous united country, and a country that is loyal to England.
  I have not a word to say about the financial part. I think it is quite likely what the late Colonial Secretary said that, while the claim of this country could be measured at £150,000,000, the counterclaim will be very much higher. A settlement now has been made, not to settle differences between two contending Powers, but by the voluntary action of the parties themselves, who come over here to London and say, "We have both discovered that the fight which has been going on for all those years past is foolish of us. We are anxious now to forget all about the boundary, to let it pass into the limbo of buried controversies; to substitute for it free conferences in the well-founded hope that in a few years considerations of business and of mutual assistance will create one undivided and contented Ireland; will end the fend between north and south, and end the feud between this country and Ireland, which is a matter of centuries." The Prime Minister has to-day put his hand to that settlement, and what he has said to-day so touchingly and feelingly honestly represents the spirit of the work which he did.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I am sure it will be agreed in all parts of the House that this Debate has been maintained on a very high level of sentiment. There is, however, one consideration and one class of people who have been strangely ignored throughout the whole of this case, and that is the long-suffering British taxpayer. I yield to no one in the House in my admiration for the temper, and I say this with the deepest sincerity, in which the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I will strive to emulate that temper. In one-sense that is not at all difficult for me, for ever since I fought my first parliamentary election—I am sorry to say 39 years ago—I have been very deeply concerned with this question. Ever since that day I have tried to make myself

  347
  more and more intimately acquainted with every phase of this Irish question. I have traversed every part of Ireland, and most ardently and most sincerely do I desire that peace may be finally restored in that island—or rather I should say will be for the first time established in that island.
  Let me come to the details of the Bill. The first operative Clause of the schedule deals with the question of the boundary. The Prime Minister told us that the Treaty was an act of faith, but he also intimated that faith could not issue in good works until the boundary question was out of the. way. He said that if we got no settlement of this question one of two things would happen. Either there would be chaos in Ireland, or there would be on one or other side of the boundary a lingering sense of injustice and unfairness. I do not for one moment deny that there is a large measure of truth in that observation, and I hope that we may now regard the boundary question as out of the way though I myself would be very sorry to leave that question without one word of high tribute to the great services which have been rendered by my fellow-Wykehamist, Mr. Justice Feetham.
  One word, in the second place, on the Clause in the Bill which deals with the virtual disappearance of the All Ireland Council. I recall the debates which took place in 1920 on this question. Under the present Bill, powers granted under the partially abortive Act of 1920 to the Council of Ireland will be automatically transferred to Northern Ireland—Clauses dealing with railways, fisheries and diseases of animals. The House will remember that that Council was intended to pave the way to the ultimate union of the two Parliaments which were then to be set up in Dublin and Belfast, I can only say in reference to this matter of the Council that I feel unqualified satisfaction that any ambiguity which was still lurking in subsequent agreements and Acts regarding the position of Northern Ireland and especially ambiguities which are still to be found, or were till the production of. this Bill, in the second, seventh and tenth Clauses of the ill-fated Act of 1920, should be cleared up.
  348
  What I want more particularly to say a word or two about is in regard to the disappearance of the liabilities under Article 5 of the Treaty. I hope it will not be resented by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I venture to make a very respectful protest to them, that they did not find it possible to issue before this Debate began a White Paper giving us details of its financial arrangements. I did my utmost to listen. I listened with all the attention I could to the explanation which was given by the Prime Minister. I am sure he gave it with all possible lucidity under the circumstances, but those details given to us in the speech of the Prime Minister ought to have been before the House in a White Paper before the Debate began. It was impossible, however attentive they may have been, for Members, except, possibly, the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. Graham), who I hoped might have spoken this afternoon, to grasp the details of that statement. That must be my excuse for putting one or two questions in case the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reply on this Debate.
  In the first place—it is almost a farcical question, I am afraid—but I suppose we may assume as a fact that not one farthing has been received from Southern Ireland under Article 5 of the Treaty? I should be grateful if that point could be made absolutely clear. The second point to which I would invite the. right hon. Gentleman's attention is as to the arrears of the payments which were to have been made under Article 5 of the Treaty. So far as I followed the Prime Minister, he told us that the nearest estimate which the Treasury could give us of the total capital liability of Southern Ireland under Article 5 was £123,000,000, plus a sum which, with accrued interest, would bring it to £155,000.000. That is what I understood. Obviously, then, there is a sum of something approaching £30,000,000 for accrued interest in the liability, and as I understood the whole liability might have been discharged by an annuity of £6,250,000 for 60 years. I do not think that ever could have been possible for Southern Ireland, but they have entered into a contract, for the carrying out of the Shannon works, with a German firm, and are embarking on enterprises in all direc-

  349
  tions involving sums very considerably in excess of that amount. On that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to enlighten us.
  The third point on which I should like some little further information is in regard to the amount of compensation for the malicious damage done in what I may call the pre-truce period, that is to say, the period between January, 1919, and the 11th July, 1921, the amount which has been actually paid on account of that malicious damage. I do not think the Prime Minister gave us that figure, but I should very much like to have it if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position give it. That amount, I fancy, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000, but, whatever it is, I understood from the Prime Minister—I should like to have it confirmed—that amount is to be paid to the British Government in cash, and not in bonds or stock. I pass to the financial point which is raised in paragraph 4 of the Schedule. under which
  "The Government of the Irish Free State hereby agrees to promote legislation increasing by 10 per cent. the measure of compensation under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923"—
  That, I take it. is an Act of the Dublin Parliament—
  "in respect of malicious damage to property done in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State between the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and the twelfth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."
  I am not quite certain as to the significance of that latter date, the 12th May, 1923, and I should like to know exactly what it means. The point on which I want information is this. What will that extra 10 per cent. for post-truce damage amount to? It is to be payable, I understand, in Irish Bonds. So far as I can make out, it will only bring the amount of the Bonds which have already been paid in compensation for that damage up to their par value—they stand at present somewhere about 90 per cent.—but on that point I should like further information. If it be true that the total liability under this section amounts to about £600,000, it follows that for the payment of about £4,000,000 in cash—that is the repayment to the British Government for malicious damage in the pre-truce period —and about £600.000, representing 10 per
  350
  cent. payable to the Southern Irishmen who have received compensation for injuries in the post-truce period. Adding these two sums together, we get a sum of about £4,600,000 in return for which we are to remit liabilities amounting to £155,000,000.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not liabilities— claims.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: Very well, we are to give up claims amounting to £155.000,000. This is a point on which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself may be particularly sensitive. I want to know what was the value of that £155,000,000 put in the original Treaty for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the present Government were very largely responsible. Perhaps I may be permitted to recall the exact words of the Article:
  "The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof"—
  The date, of course, was the 6th December, 1921—
  "and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counterclaim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire."
  I want to know what was the value of that Article 5 put in the original Treaty. Are we to understand that Article 5, which was the only financial consideration that Great Britain obtained under the Treaty, was from the first a brutum fulmen merely intended to throw dust in the eyes of the British taxpayer? When we were discussing the Treaty of 1921, or when we were discussing the Bill of 1922, was there any suggestion made by the authors of the Treaty or those responsible for the Bill that this was from the first an empty form? I frankly confess I am concerned, on behalf of the British taxpayers, about all these expensive gestures for peace. Are we alone among all the peoples of the world to pay our debt--, and without any reference to the debts due to us? We are unanimous in our determination to. pay, but ought we with such apparent levity—because the financial Clauses of this agreement seem to have been framed with levity—to aban-

  351
  don all hope of receiving anything from anybody else?
  My final point is in regard to the Loyalists of Southern Ireland. I have great concern for the taxpayers of Great Britain, but I am also concerned as to the position of the Loyalists of Southern Ireland, that is to say, persons to whom compensation for post-truce damage was due. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to tell us what has actually been received in bonds for that post-truce compensation, and not only what has been received, but what they may expect to receive. I do not for one moment desire to question in regard to the perfect good faith of the Free State Government, but I would point out that if we pass this Bill, to the Second Reading of which we are asked to assent this afternoon, we do, as a fact, part with the last vestige of our financial power to secure compensation for the Southern Irish Loyalists. And what do we, the taxpayers of this country, get for this immense financial surrender? We are relieved of certain financial liabilities in regard to Northern Ireland, and we got the great satisfaction of clearing away a difficulty, I hope for ever, about the boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland. That is all.
  I am very sorry that it should have fallen to one who is more concerned than, I think, most people in this House for the future of Ireland, who has had an intimate acquaintance with Ireland in the past, to have to dwell on details in this discussion which, to some people, may seem sordid, after the lofty sentimental atmosphere in which we have been moving in this Debate. But I do not think this Debate ought to close without putting these questions, and I respectfully put them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVIS0N: I am glad that, even at this late period of the Debate, the position of the terribly overburdened taxpayers of this country should at long last have been put before the House. While we one and all sympathise and agree with the desire, in the lofty and eloquent words with which the Prime Minister commended this Bill to the House, from beginning to end of his
  352
  speech I could find no reason given why Clause 5 of the original Treaty had been abrogated. Everything that the Prime Minister has said could have taken place —the idea of friendship between the Governments—everything could have taken place had this original agreement still remained. Do let us just look at the facts of the case for one second.
  First of all, the Clause in regard to the boundary ought never to have been inserted in the Treaty because the boundary was indelibly fixed by the Act of 1920, which gave Ulster, at the request of the British Parliament, a fixed area. Nevertheless, without consulting Ulster at all, it was provided that if she did not consent to come into an All-Ireland. Parliament a new boundary was to be fixed between her and Southern Ireland and that this boundary was to be fixed by a Commission. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. Ho will remember the very long Debates when the Treaty was before this House, and when we again and again appealed to him, at any rate, to define what the meaning of this boundary was, and that there should be limits fixed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Colonial Secretary, again and again told the House that the Treaty, as it had been entered into, must stand exactly as it was, that not a paragraph, not a word, not even a comma was to be altered in the Treaty; and that the House must take it, to use his own words, with all its advantages and all its defects.
  It was provided in the Treaty, as hon. Members will remember, that one Commissioner was to be appointed by the British Government, one by Ulster, and one by the Free State. Ulster, having had this boundary fixed by Act of Parliament, and by this House, naturally declined to have anything to do with fixing a new boundary. The matter was referred to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that this Clause in the Treaty was bad. What happened then? When we tried to get the Treaty made clear so as to show what the position of Ulster was, and that the rights of Ulster should not be materially damnified by what had been done, we were told that the Treaty was inviolate, and that no paragraph could be altered. When, however, the Free State finds that something

  353
  in the Treaty is not working as they anticipated it would work, then at once the Treaty is to be amended, and we have a Bill brought and passed in this House, altering a Clause in the Treaty, and providing that the British Parliament shall appoint a Commissioner in place of Ulster. For one and a half years this Commission has been travelling along the boundary of Ulster, taking evidence from the various parties, and at the end of October they had completed their researches. The three Commissioners appointed were prepared to give it unanimous decision. A map was actually initialled by the three Commissioners, showing the boundary as it was to be when the Commission's Report was published. Then the information gets out and is published, not precise but, at any rate, substantially accurate. What happens then? The Free State summon their Commissioner to Dublin and instruct their Commissioner to withdraw. Apparently they hope that by the withdrawal of one Commissioner the whole Commission will be knocked on the head. It appeared in public—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Where?
  Sir W. DAVISON: In the public Press. The Free. State, rightly or wrongly, considered that what the decision of the Commission consisted of was to be a give-and-take line—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who published this so that the public knew anything about it?
  Sir W. DAVISON: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well it has been published in the papers of the country.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Where? How do you know it all?
  Sir W. DAVISON: In the "Morning Post."
  Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, Oh!
  Sir W. DAVISON: But what has that got to do with it—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Criminal sabotage.
  Sir W. DAVISON: That has nothing to do with my argument whatever, as to how it was published or by whom. I had nothing to do with this publication, but whatever the reason it became public that a give-and-take line was to be the judgment of the Commission and not the transfer of large areas, The Free State
  354
  Government then instructed their Commissioner to withdraw, and he did, apparently with the idea that this would prevent the decision of the Commission operating. That was a wrong idea because it had been held by the Privy Council that two Commissioners could give a majority decision, and that would have the force of law. What happened then? The Free State at once came over to the British Government in London and asked them to use their influence with the Commission not to publish their Report. I have no objection at all to that. I think it was very wise from the Free State point of view. I think it was very wise also for the British Government to consider those representations. They went to the Commission, as we have been told by the Prime Minister to-day, and asked them to wait to see if any arrangement could be arrived at. Eventually an arrangement was arrived at in regard to boundaries between Ulster and Southern Ireland.
  What, however, I want to know is this: It is very material. It is all to the good—grateful we all are—that this arrangement as to the boundary has been come to between Northern and Southern Ireland. But why should the Free State be paid for doing something which they themselves asked should be done? I cannot see why the overburdened British taxpayer should be asked to remit what our Treasury—and our Treasury are not people very easily fooled—had put down as the probable amount due to this country--a sum of £155,000,000 of indebtedness. What was applicable in the one case should also be applicable for Ulster, but you have taken already £18,000,000 from Ulster in respect of her contribution to your National Debt and your War Debt, £18,000,000 have been paid.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
  Sir W. DAVISON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says. "No." Will he tell us then what amount has been paid. I understand it is not very far short of £18,000,000.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: On balance the sum is not much over £1,000,000 a year.
  Sir W. DAVISON:Very nearly £18,000,000 have been paid altogether. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means by the balance. But I

  355
  understand £4,000,000 a year has been paid. However be that as it may, a substantial sum will continue to be paid. What I want to know is why this part of the liability of the Free State has been remitted? The only explanation so far is that it is a gesture of friendship. What I say to that is that if a person has to be paid for being a friend, I do not want his friendship. I think it is all wrong to mix up these two things. Only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that unless things improved in many directions he may have to impose a further charge in respect of Income Tax next year. When the taxpayers of this country are bearing this terrible burden and are threatened with even greater burdens. I say that the Government ought not to have waived this payment which the British taxpayer, according to arrangements which they made in the original Treaty, was entitled to have. In a New York paper I read yesterday a rather illuminating sentence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper!"] The ''New York Times," which says this:
  "THE PNTIENT BEAST."
  "The Irish Boundary crisis has been exercised by a golden wand. In return for a substantial money consideration from that patient beast the British Exchequer, the Free State Government has agreed to postpone its claims on the unredeemed portions of Ulster."
  That reminds me of an old tag which we used to sing when I was a boy at school
  "Somebody tickle the donkey's chin,
  And hear the donkey bray,"
  A similar couplet might with more force be used to-day in regard to the British taxpayer, and the British Exchequer—
  " Somebody twist the donkey's tail,"
  And see the donkey pay. Pay, Pay."
  For the British taxpayer is paying all the time, whatever is done. I am glad the hon. Member for York has raised this point. I think it is a very material one. It ought to have been raised. I think the Government ought not to have given away this amount which the British nation were entitled to under the Treaty. There was no need for it, In coming to the arrangement in regard to the boundary, we are doing what the Free State has asked us to do, and the further gift is gratuitous, unnecessary, and uncalled for.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a considerable measure ox agreement among all parties of the House, and the statement of the Prime Minister was so full and comprehensive that only a few words are needed from me to suggest to the House that, probably, it will be for the general convenience that at this stage the Debate should come to an end. I have in the last two speeches been confronted, for the first time in the discussion, with a note of disagreement. The sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) were moderate. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to indicate a very sincere desire to impart into this Irish Debate some measure of old-time bitterness. I am afraid, however, that is beyond the eloquence of the hon. Member, for these questions are now passing out of the regions where they excited fierce passions in the House of Commons.
  I am only going to trouble the House very briefly and to touch once again on the purely financial aspect of the question. Article 5 was inserted in the Treaty of 1921 by the strong authority of the then Prime Minister, who, with forethought and care over the interests of the British taxpayer, made it clear that the Free State should take over part of the liability arising owing to the separation of the Parliaments and Exchequers of Great Britain and Ireland. He was absolutely right. There is no doubt whatever that when you have a separation like this there should also in consequence be a separation of liabilities. I have been asked what value should be assigned to Article 5. A great many qualifications must be entered. In the first place, it is admitted that great reductions must be made from the figures which the Treasury had formulated. What were those figures'? They are not an admitted liability: they are the statement of a claim, and a claim put forward on broad lines. Against that claim the Free State were entitled to urge their counterclaim, which has also been framed on broad lines. No one can say what an arbitrator would have awarded. We should certainly have pleaded and argued that in the Article the words "just and equitable" governed only the counterclaim and did not affect the Article as a whole; but if that contention had held good, I suppose we should have con-

  357
  sidered an award of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 very satisfactory from our point of view. Of course, if the words "just and equitable" were held by an arbitrator to cover the question of Ireland's capacity to pay, then it is probable that the arbitrator's award would have been very much less.
  Anyhow, whatever the result of the arbitration, however the Article was construed, there can be no doubt that when the results were complete the British Government would have had to review the whole situation in the light of Ireland's capacity to pay. That is only what we do with every other debtor. I read out to the House a fortnight ago a long list of negotiations with different foreign countries which we had conducted to a settlement—with Belgium, with Poland, with Czechoslovakia, with Austria-, with Serbia, with Rumania, and with other countries. In all of these we scaled down the undisputed total of what was owing on grounds of policy and of good sense, and certainly some process of scaling down would have taken place in regard to the Irish Free State, whose economic and financial well-being is, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, a cause of special and continual concern to the sister island. Therefore, I do not at all accept either the suggestion that we had no substantial or valid claim, under Article 5 or the suggestion that there was a, possibility of our obtaining from Ireland £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a, year for a long period on account of Article 5. Mr. Do Valera, I see, calculated that £19,000,000 a year might be imposed upon Ireland for a long period under Article 5. If we were the cruel sharks he delights to make us out to be, such a demand would no doubt have been damaging to those whose interest he professes to represent; but so far as His Majesty's Government were concerned, it would have been impossible to approach this subject, even if we had the award in our favour, from the point of view of ruthlessly seeking to extract the last farthing we could, irrespective of the consequences which would accrue in Southern Ireland.
  What is the capacity of Ireland to pay? Here, again, the point is disputed, but there are certain obvious considerations. First of all, for several years preceding the War, Ireland gained on the balance
  358
  financially from its connection with this country, that is to say Great Britain made no profit by taxation out of Ireland. More was spent on the administrative services in Ireland than the yield of taxation coming from Ireland to the Exchequer. In 1909 there was a loss of £2,250,000, in 1912 £1,400,000, in 1913 of £1,200,000. Practically every year before the War there was a net loss on the balance between, taxation and administrative expenditure on account of Ireland, and that was the time when Ireland included the most prosperous and wealthy portion of Ulster. War came and taxation was enormously increased, and administration and social services languished, and in consequence there grew up, especially under the inflated values of 1919 and 1920, a very substantial balance in favour of this country. But that was purely temporary. That was a condition which was bound to change as we returned to the normal. Then many other events intervened in Ireland. The Treaty was followed by a bitter struggle. We have been reminded that £20,000,000 of expenditure was casued to the infant government which succeeded to such a grim responsibility.
  The indirect consequences of the separation of the Exchequers are also serious. Large pension charges accrued. About .£1,600,000 is being paid every year on account of pension charges, which the Irish Government have accepted as a necessary feature in the change which took place. There has been a serious falling-off in Irish exports. The absence of the Irish representation from this country removed a barrier which had for many years prevented the importation of Canadian cattle; and in other ways the separation which has taken place has imposed a great strain upon the smaller island. The Free State is a comparatively poor agricultural country. Apart from its famous beverage associated with the name of the Minister of Agriculture there are few important lucrative industries in Southern Ireland; and as the price of autonomy the Free State have already accepted a lower standard of public expenditure than rules in this country. They have lowered the salaries of their teachers, they have reduced their old age pensions, they have not followed out our later developments of unemployment insurance, or of pensions for widows,

  359
  or of pensions at 65 years of age. Their unemployment fund is heavily in debt, much more heavily than ours, and, generally, they have accepted a lower standard of State service. Nevertheless, in spite of hard economies, in spite of the fact that their taxation has been generally at as high a level, if not higher, than ours, they have had great difficulty in balancing their Budget. The process of cutting the painter is a costly process, however earnestly it is desired. The big liner goes on its voyage, the small boat-labours in a rough sea.
  If we had embarked upon an examination of the Irish capacity to pay, the Debate might have taken an ironical turn. The representatives of the British Treasury would have dwelt upon the potentialities of Irish wealth, the prospects of large improvements and expansions in their prosperity once Irish affairs were exclusively in Irish hands, and the representatives of the Irish Free State would have been forced, on their part, to argue that nothing like the prosperity of the days of the Union was likely to be realised now that they were doing business on their own. But that Debate will never take place. It exists only in imagination. We can imagine its course, but what I cannot imagine is that this powerful country—with all its burdens a powerful, mighty community—could ever pursue against a small, weak nation claims which had no regard to the real capacity of that nation to pay, and which would have had the effect, if they were pressed to their ultimate conclusion, of not only affecting its prosperity but even its self-respect. What is there to build on in the enforcement of any claim? There is nothing to build on but the word of the Irish nation. Their desire and their self-interest as a new State to fulfil their obligations ought not to be exposed to the world as impossible. I do not undervalue either the natural pride or the self-interest that is involved in the maintenance of their credit. Having been in this Irish business all through I have been struck very strongly with their desire to maintain a strict financial independence and to discharge their obligations. His Majesty's Government, whatever the award, would not have been prepared to pursue that claim to a point
  360
  where that essential self-respect and desire to meet their undertakings, which is necessary to every country, would have crumbled under a weight far more than it could bear.
  When the Irish free State representatives proposed that they should assume for themselves the burden of the compensation charges we have had to pay for pre-truce damage, amounting to approximately £5,000,000, of which £4,000,000 has already been disbursed by us, and that in addition they would issue 10 per cent. more stock to the victims of post-truce damage, we thought it perfectly right on our part to agree to the complete abrogation of Article 5. The method of ' payment has already been explained by the Prime Minister. It takes the form of annuities of £250,000 a, year for 60 years, together with an initial payment of £150,000 in the present year. But under the existing arrangements we were liable to pay to the Irish Free State a sum of approximately £900,000 in the next two years. These payments we shall of course, withhold, and they will form the first instalments of the annuities which they are prepared to pay, and also have the effect, as long as they last, of a. moratorium so far as the Free State is concerned.
  8.0 P.M.
  Now I will turn to the financial relations with the Northern Government, in respect of which I have been asked some questions. The whole of our financial relations with Northern Ireland have been affected by the delay in settling the Boundary question. It is quite true they are paying their contribution, but we have had to remit against that contribution in every year sums which have been nearly equal to the contribution. The reason has been, as the Prime Minister has pointed out that the whole life of Ulster was overhung by the anxiety and the menace of this boundary question. These parishes of Fermanagh and Tyrone have been the cause of every dispute which has prevented previous Irish settlements. They were the obstacles which broke up the Buckingham Palace Conference on the very eve of the War, and everyone knows that only a year ago this boundary question very nearly became a disastrous and dominating issue in our political life in this country.

  361
  But before you condemn the solution which we adopted in 1921 of a Boundary Commission, you must consider the position in which the country stood at that time. A truce had been made. A cessation of the so-called warfare had occurred. It was difficult to continue. It was almost impossible to recommence it. The boundary question was insoluble by agreement at that time. What other plan than that set forth in Article 12 was possible? What other plan was possible than this Commission with its careful inquiry, with its suspended judgment and with its breathing space for passions to cool. The only alternative to Article 12 and to the Boundary Commission in 1921 was an immediate renewal of a vile and detestable conflict which increasingly assumed the forms of murder and reprisals. Cast your mind back to those day. Measure the advance that we have achieved, and we all have reason, I think, to be profoundly thankful and to put away from our minds at once the militancy of my hon. Friend, and the extremely sour and malignant reflections of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell). All these four years the boundary question has hung over Northern Ireland like a nightmare, but at last we have reached a solution which completely solves and terminates the boundary question. An instrument has been solemnly signed which, as far as Ulster is concerned, concedes her full claim on the authority of the Government of the Free State. While the boundary question was in suspense. Sir James Craig and his Government felt it necessary to maintain between 30,000 and 40,000 armed special constables in various degrees of mobilisation. Every year, to every Government, they were bound to make their request for financial assistance. On the basis of there being no settlement, they were proposing to me, in the discussions which naturally take place with the Treasury, that we should provide for the maintenance of all the special constables in their present state of efficiency up to at least September, 1926, and they were pressing for a sum of £2,250,000 on that account. But so soon as this settlement was reached, Sir James Craig informed me that he would be able to proceed immediately with the winding up of the special constabulary, and in consequence we were able to agree upon
  362
  a final and terminating payment of no more than £1,200,000, and I shall accordingly present a Supplementary Estimate after Christmas for that amount.
  I ought to tell the House, as I have been asked whether there are any other financial arrangements, that I also agreed not to charge the Ulster Government the estimated £700,000 which is the value of the equipment and stores which were issued to them some years ago when the constabulary was first set on foot. Although this figure seems a large one, it really is only a nominal valuation, because these were munitions of a kind which we had sold in other directions at figures very much less than that.
  The Government have also been considering some questions connected with the conditions of unemployment in Northern Ireland and, in July last, we reached an agreement with the Irish Government on that subject, in regard to which legislation will be required in the new year. That has nothing whatever to do with this settlement. It was agreed upon between the Governments before anyone had the slightest idea that events would take the course they have, but I only mention that now because I am very anxious that at no future time it should be suggested there was any consideration of any sort or kind in regard to this either with the North or with the South, which had not been fully, frankly and clearly laid before the House of Commons.
  A final and complete settlement has been reached, not on the Irish question— I am not so sanguine as to suppose that there is a final settlement of that; the Irish question will only be finally settled when the human question is finally settled —but there is at any rate a final solution of the boundary question and a solution which relieves Ulster from the anxiety under which she has lain so long. What does the Free State gain by the settlement of a boundary question? It seems to me that her gain is the greater. It was always a misdirection of Irish national aspirations to be so far unable to settle their affairs with their own fellow countrymen in the North as to have to invoke the assistance of a Commission, with an Imperial Commissioner, to draw a line of partition across the land. No one who takes a long view of the future of Ireland and her relations with the

  363
  British Empire can doubt that the scoring of this artificial line, wired in and defended as it would have been, in the troublous days which might have been anticipated, could have been other than a retrograde and false step. Far wiser, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, is it to leave the old country boundaries unchanged, as quarrels pass out of history and as animosities die, until at last that line is as far rid of sinister menace as the frontiers, which as the Prime Minister has explained to us, divide England from Wales and from Scotland.
  We must not expect too much. I do not think His Majesty's Government are under any illusion at this time about Ireland. We must not expect too much. Injuries rankle, partisanship thrives, bitter feelings endure, and intolerance, born of centuries, will not be dismissed from the scene in the course of a generation. Those who expect to see too much will be disappointed. But neither, I think, need we expect to see too little. There very probably are Members here in this Chamber now who will live in a new Parliament to see the harvest gathered in and who will find at the side of Britain a free and united Ireland, proud of her undoubted share in founding the British Empire and actively contributing to its strength and progress.
  Question put, and agreed in.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; road the Third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CIVIL SERVICES) BILL [Lords].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [4th December], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was: To leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Scurr.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. LANSBURY: When the Debate was adjourned on the last occasion, I was
  364
  trying to point out to the House that this was a Bill to make provision whereby the pension and other payments due to certain civil servants in India would be safeguarded and that a large number of other lower-paid civil servants were left out. and that in fact the Bill was taking care only of a section and not of the whole. I was trying to make the point that the Bill was amending the Government of India Act, and instead of proceeding in this sort of way to take away certain powers from the Legislative Assembly and the Councils that had been set up in India, we ought not to safeguard the civil servants and others in this fashion, but that if they needed safeguarding, we ought to safeguard them by finding the money ourselves if we were not satisfied that the Indian authorities would do justice.
  I want at the outset to join with the other speakers who objected to this Bill on Friday in saying that I have not the least objection to paying everybody a fair salary and a fair pension, because it is a cardinal principle of the Socialist faith that people should be well paid for any real services they render to the community. What I object to is the method that has been adopted here and the exclusion of the other people. I would like to say that it is rather an extraordinary thing that a Bill of this kind should be discussed to-night following the Debate to which we have just listened, because I am certain there is very much in what has been described as the traffic history of Ireland which contains a good many lessons for us to keep in mind in our treatment of India. We started India, as Mr. Montagu said, on the road to self-government, and I think it would be admitted that this sort of pin-pricking policy, in defiance of the expressed view of the Legislative Assembly, is not calculated to promote the spirit of goodwill that everyone desires in the relationship between the two countries. Further than that, I would like to point out that when the Indians desire to amend this Act, to make it more acceptable to them, they are continually told that it must be allowed to go on working until the date when an inquiry is to be held, and if that inquiry reports favourably, some amendment will take place. Considering that the Legislative Assembly has rejected the Lee Report it is very

  365
  bad that we should be passing a Bill to amend the Act over their heads, and at the same time tell them when they are demanding an extension of reforms, that those reforms cannot be considered until the proper date arrives. I consider that is a very great injustice. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that Section I takes out Section 67A of the original Act and certain Sub-sections, and proposes to put in their place the words you will find in the new Bill. If you take Section 67A and Sub-section (3) of the said Section, which relates to proposals for the appropriation of money, you will find that it reads:
  "The proposals of the Governor-General in Council shall not be submitted to the Vote of the Legislative Assembly, nor shall they be open to discussion by either Chamber at the time the annual statement is under consideration unless the Governor-General otherwise so directs.''
  Then the Bill sets out a number of things that the Legislative Assembly shall not deal with. What is now proposed is to add to the things which the Legislative Assembly shall not deal with, and they give a number of other eases. The reason for this is said to be that an Indian Judge or official may offend the local council or some members of the Legislative Assembly, and when the time comes to deal with his salary or pension they may pay him out by not giving him a rise and not dealing justly with him. If you trust the Indian people at all in the spending of their own money, you ought to trust them all the way. If it is said that a Britisher may sometimes do something which may aggravate an Indian and set his back up, you may want to penalise him and you want to defend your fellow-countrymen but he should be defended by money voted in this House, and you should not impose upon the Legislative Council and upon the revenue of India something which the Legislative Council would say should not be levied.
  I think that is a situation which, as I said on Friday last, would not be tolerated in this country or in any country that considered itself self-governing. That is the whole kernel of this business. It seems to me that this is just one of those little insults levied, no doubt quite innocently, but whatever your motives are it is an insult to say to a Legislative Council, "We will not trust you to do justice to these people, but we
  366
  will take the power out of your hands altogether and give it to an authority that may override you and may compel you to do this kind of thing."
  It has been said that this is a very small question, but these small questions cause a very great deal of friction between the Indians and ourselves, and between the Indians and the Civil Service in India. In conclusion. I would like to say that the whole business, or, rather, the whole attitude of mind towards India, ought to be put on a better footing. I cannot help thinking that the step which Mr. Montagu took a few years ago was a very big one, find as I want a very big measure of self-government for India I am still sensible enough to realise that what Mr. Montagu did, when he staked his whole future on the Bill, which is now an Act we are amending, was a tremendous thing. It marked a great big advance in our relations with India. The terrible thing to me is that, over and over again, sometimes by a big thing and sometimes by a small one, we seem to pull back from that position.
  I should like to hear from the Undersecretary some argument why we should do this thing in the teeth of the opposition of the Legislative Assembly. If hon. Members would put themselves for a moment in the position of the Indians, then, small as this thing may be, it would loom large to them as an insult. I do not think the House ought to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I wish it could be withdrawn and some better arrangement made with the Indian people, or with the representatives of the Indian people. I have had to live through a period when it was not thought wise to treat ordinary working people to do justice to exactly the class of people who are being dealt with here. The same argument that is used now that the officer, or the Judge, or the civil servant, may do something to bring him in conflict with the Indians, and, therefore, he may be unjustly used, was always used about us in local affairs and in big national affairs such as we have to deal with here. Yet I venture to say that no one who knows the working of local government in this country will deny that the workers, wherever they have got control, have always behaved fairly and justly to the experts and others to whom they have had to pay very much more money than any of

  367
  those who voted it were earning. I cannot help feeling that the experience in regard to us here must be the same; one very seldom hears any of us objecting to paying properly for expert work and for services which we consider to be of special importance. I want to treat the Indians in the same manner. There is very little education in India. The great mass of the people are uneducated, and I do not deny that they have had very little experience in local government or in national government; but I am certain that, the more you trust people, the more you put it up to them to do the right thing, the better it is. I repeat that I cannot help thinking that the step which we are taking in this Bill is a very backward step, and I very much hope the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Sir FRANK NELSON: In view of the fact that some throe days have elapsed since this Debate was adjourned, I think the House will, perhaps, pardon me if I briefly recapitulate exactly what the Bill sets out to do. The Government of India Act, 1919, removes from the vote of the Legislatures then set up under its provisions the salaries and pensions of certain classes of Indian public officials, and this present Bill—which, after all, merely sets forth the recommendations of the Lee Commission—is designed to increase slightly the range of those officials whose salaries and pensions shall be removed from the vote of the Indian Legislatures. The Lee Commission has, perhaps, in the year that has elapsed since this Bill was drafted been rather lost sight of, and more especially its terms of reference, and I should like to remind the House what those terms of reference were.
  In the first place, the Commission was to have regard to the necessity for maintaining a standard of administration in conformity with the responsibilities of the Crown for the Government of India. That is to say they were to make no recommendation which would in any way upset or conflict with those responsibilities. In the second place, the attention of the Lee Commission was invited to the declared policy of Parliament in respect of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration. In other words, they
  368
  were directed to explore the possibilities of further advances in the Indianisation of the public services. Lastly, they were directed to keep in view the experience now gained of the operation of the system of government established by the Government of India Act in respect of the superior Civil Services of India. That is to say, they were required to say whether the actual operation of the scheme of government established by the Act of 1919 had disclosed anomalies in the organisation and general conditions of the Services which ought to be adapted or removed.
  I think the House ought to be quite clear that the Lee Commission was in no sense asked to amend or alter the present Constitution of India at all. They were not asked to do that in any sense, but to anyone who has studied their Report it will be perfectly obvious that uppermost in their minds throughout their deliberations was the possibility of a future alteration of the Constitution of India. A great deal of time has been devoted by the three hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment to pointing out, if possible, that this step is a retrograde step.
  Turning to the Amendment itself, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that one gratifying fact does emerge from all of the three speeches that have been delivered in support of the proposal that this Bill should be thrown out, and that is the great tribute to the tremendous services rendered by the Civil Servants of India, and a great tribute, I think, to their honesty of purpose, their hard work, and generally to the wonderful administrative, work which they have done and, I have no doubt, will continue to do. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), in the course of his criticism said—I hope he will correct me if I misquote him—that he believed it to be to a considerable extent true that the Indian Civil Service, or the Government of India, is a system of outdoor relief to the upper middle classes of this country. I think I have quoted him fairly correctly. I deprecate with all the force at my command any such statement, and I think I cannot do better, in endeavouring to refute this state of mind, than by quoting to the hon. Member the words of Sir Alexander Muddiman, who, in the Debate

  369
  in the Indian Legislative Assembly at Simla, which has already been alluded to, used the following words:
  "I have often discussed this question with Indian friends, and I hope I have many Indian friends, and I cannot help feeling that in the backs of their minds there has always been a feeling that Englishmen in this country desire to keep up English recruitment for selfish reasons— they wish to keep their jobs for their children"—
  Miss WILKINSON: Hear, hear!
  Sir F. NELSON: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but will she let me finish? Sir Alexander Muddiman went on:
  "They have at the back of their minds some reservation of that sort. Now, I ask you, Sir. Forty-five British recruits is the present quota necessitated by the Civil Services of India. Is that a fact that is going to affect a country like ours, or race like ours? Forty-five recruits! There are many big commercial undertakings which require nearly that number of recruits."
  The present number in the All-India Services is, roughly, about 3,000. I ask the hon. Member for Mile End does he seriously think that a recruitment of 45 members a year is going, to use his own words, to prove a system of outdoor relief to the upper middle classes of this country? I do not think so for one moment, The hon. Member for Mile End, as well as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), has made a considerable point of the fact that the obligations in respect of Indian civil servants ought to be paid for by this country.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No. My point was that I understand this Bill to be one to safeguard certain people who may come under the ban of the Council or of the Legislative Assembly, and I say that, if you want to take away from the Legislative Assembly or the Council the power to deal with the officials whose salaries they pay, you ought to find the money, and not make them find it.
  Sir F. NELSON: May I put it in this way? If I understand the hon. Member correctly, he states that the question of the right of Parliament to control the expenditure necessary to keep the Indian Civil Service up to its present pitch should not devolve upon the Government of India, but upon the Home Exchequer.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, if you do not let them control it.
  Sir F. NELSON: It is a very curious thing that in the Legislative Assembly, when the Motion was put forward by the Indian Government that the findings of the Lee Commission should be sanctioned —it was, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley perfectly correctly states, thrown out—that Motion was debated for, I think, five days, and a tremendous amount of oratory was expended upon it; but, although I have read nearly all of that this morning, I am unable to find in the whole of that Debate—and I will make a present of it to the hon. Member —any mention whatsoever of any grievance on the part of Indian politicians in regard to this particular point which he raises, that if we control certain services in India the cost should fall upon the English Exchequer. I am unable to find any expression whatever, in the whole of that Debate, of any such grievance in the minds of Indian politicians.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They threw it out.
  Sir F. NELSON: They threw it out, but surely if there is any real grievance on the lines the hon. Member suggests we might very well leave it to the very competent authority of these Indian politicians to give expression to it themselves. I do not really think it is part of his very over worked part in this Parliament to endeavour to jump into the breach.
  The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) also made a speech in support of the Amendment, distinguished alike for its commendable brevity and at the same time for one of the most remarkable statements I have ever read in regard to India. I am sorry he is not in his place. I informed him that I was going to endeavour to show that one of the statements he made bears but a dim resemblance to the truth. He informed me, however, that he has an engagement elsewhere. He said:
  "The Government of India have no scruple in employing a few million human beings on Government railways, in the police, in the Army, as clerks and as teachers, at the wretched wage of £2 a month, the excuse being that an Indian public servant does not require much money."
  "I put it to this House that the first claim on those revenues is from those

  371
  wretched people who are now, in 1925, paid literally £2 a month, when the cost of living in India is declared by the Government themselves to be £4."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December,. 1925; col. 2809, Vol. 188.]
  In the Accounts and Papers 1924–25. Volume 1, page 631, among other things there is evidence to show that in certain industries and in certain parts of India a substantial margin now exists between wages and the cost of living, and I am in a position to assure the hon. Member, among other things, that the average wage—I am talking mainly of Bombay at the moment—for men in the cotton mills there has exactly doubled between 1924 and 1923. The average wage for men in 1923 was 36 rupees, which really is about £3 and not £2. Further I have made it my business to inquire this morning from official sources and I am informed that no figures have been published by the Government of India which in any way support those given by the hon. Member on 4th December as to the monthly cost of living (namely, £4 per month), nor are any figures available which would render such a statement possible. I only wish he was in his sent to endeavour to explain exactly what he means by "an army of clerks and teachers at a wretched wage of £2 a month," for I have now in my own firm in Bombay office messengers who are getting more than £2 a month. I have drivers of motor cars who are getting as much as £5 a month, and the average clerk's wage in Bombay, in a commercial office, I should think starts at about £6 to £7 a month, and, so far as I know, there is possibly some difference, but very little, between the rates at which the ordinary Government clerk is paid and that of a commercial clerk.
  The hon. Member also alluded to the Army. I do not think one can go into that at length because the pay of an Army Sepoy carries with it food, clothing and housing. But taking the general aspect of the Bill, which I sincerely hope we shall pass, the difficulties of the Indian civil servant can hardly be appreciated by anyone who has not had personal contact and knowledge of them. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley alluded to the difficulties of an Indian Judge, who might run up against the Indian local council. There is a substratum of truth
  372
  in what he put forward. If you take the case of a civil servant administering a tract of country, say, as big as possibly two or three English counties put together, and assuming that he is ordered by the policy of the Assembly, or one of the local legislative councils, to put into force a certain kind of administration which may run counter to the interests of a very influential section of the Indians in that district, it surely must be obvious to anyone that his position is exceedingly difficult. He is merely carrying out the orders given him, the policy of which is decided by the Indian Legislatures. He puts into force this administration, which may quite conceivably run counter to the interests of really influential Indian magnates and Indian interests. Sooner or later it is also conceivable that if he continues to push forward this administration he may find himself in exceedingly bad odour, either in the local council or the Legislative Assembly, and surely when these people, who are bearing the heat and burden of the day, who have done such wonderful work, as is admitted by all Members above the gangway, ask that their pensions and their salaries shall be in the last resort under the jurisdiction of this House, for that is what it amounts to, I really cannot see why there should be any rooted opposition to it. If we are to reach that goal to which I think all parties in the House really desire to reach, it wilt be mainly because of the past work done by the Civil Service and the public services of India, and also I think their future work will have a bearing upon that goal which we all desire to reach of bringing understanding as between the Indian nation and ourselves which will. I hope hasten the day, which we are all sincerely anxious shall come as soon as it is humanly possible, when we can extend full Dominion self-government to India.
  Mr. W. BAKER: The conclusion to be drawn from the speech that has just been delivered is that Indian Home Rule must be accelerated as much as possible. I want to associate myself with the speeches that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I believe that the first-named Member accurately stated the position when he said that under this Bill and

  373
  under the system that exists at present the obligation to maintain these people who are now carrying out the administration of India is not thrown upon those in this country who benefit from the government of India, but upon the people of India themselves. Having associated myself with my friends in that way, I want to urge another objection to this Bill, namely, that, as I understand it, it is designed to benefit materially certain members of the higher Indian Civil Service, while it fails in any way to confer similar advantages upon men of a more lowly status who, being of European birth, should be entitled to somewhat equal treatment.
  The men on whose behalf I speak tonight are employed in the Indian subordinate services, and are recruited for service with the Army Department of India. I gather that these men are organised in an organisation known as the Foremen's Association of India, In addition to complaining that they are not included within the recommendations of the Lee Commission, nor within the terms of this Bill, they are very dissatisfied with their general conditions of employment, and that their representations to the Indian authorities do not reach the Secretary of State in London with that speed which one would hope for, having regard to the statements which we have heard in this House. I am assured that a memorial was presented to the Indian authorities—
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Is the hon. Member aware that these men are not covered in any sense by this Bill?
  Mr. BAKER: That is the point which I am submitting to the House as an objection to the Bill, that it deals with the more highly placed officials in India while it fails to deal with the men at the other end of the scale. The memorial which these men submitted to the Indian authorities in July, 1924, was, I understand, not forwarded to the Secretary of State by the middle of February, 1925. If the Indian authorities were unable to deal with that memorial, such delay would appear to be unjustified. This organisation is affiliated to the Civil Service Confederation, a well-known organisation in this country, and the Civil Service Confederation give me to understand that
  374
  they have endeavoured to make representations to the Secretary of State at the India Office, but that they have not been successful in that endeavour. I hope that the Noble Lord will be able to-night to give an undertaking that he will look into the conditions of service so far as these men are concerned, and that he will endeavour to provide machinery whereby their reasonable representations may be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State.
  I am given to understand that these men are recruited for service in India at a comparatively late period in life, for a fixed term of years, and that one of their biggest difficulties is that, with family responsibilities, their salaries are not such as will permit them to give an adequate education to their children in India. They ask that special attention shall be directed to that point, because they feel that, being of European origin, they are entitled to give their children an education up to the secondary standard in this country.
  I gather that whilst, as far as the higher sections of the service are concerned, provision is made for members of the Civil Service and their families to visit their homeland during their period of service, these men are not fortunate enough in having any such provision. The appeal I want to make is that every man of European origin in India who is employed in the Civil Service or in any way connected with that service shall be considered as being entitled to the benefits which are being granted to the higher civil servants.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the privileges of civil servants who are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. I think the hon. Member is in order in suggesting that those other servants should be brought under the scope of the Bill, but I do not think he can go into the general question of the service.
  Mr. BAKER: I have succeeded in submitting the point which I had in my mind. I have concluded the appeal which I wanted to make, and I regret that that appeal was not strictly in order. I trust that, in reply, the Noble Lord will be able to make some concession in regard to this matter.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Those of us on this side of the House who take a special interest in India cannot but be grateful to the- hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and his friends for the interest which they take in Indian affairs. Perhaps they will allow me to say that in the remarks which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made to-night he appears to be under some slight misunderstanding as regards the objects and the scope of this Bill. The question of what contributions should be made by Great Britain to India or by India to Great Britain, or what amount of revenue of India should pass through British hands for administration, is one of very great interest, and one which, I feel confident, we could discuss for a considerable number of days before we convinced each other or arrived at a solution on very debatable points. That has nothing whatever to do with the discussion on this Bill to-night.
  The position which hon. Members opposite take up is quite clear. They say that men who are doing good work should get good pay. There is no point of quarrel with them when they suggest that the question of the pay of the Civil Service should be reconsidered. It is another question as to whether, the pay being what it is, that pay should be administered by the Indian Legislative Assembly or be under the control of the Secretary of State for India. There is nothing new in the suggestions in this Bill. The appointments of these servants are made by the Secretary of State, and the whole object of the Bill is to ensure that the Secretary of State in making the appointments should also retain the control of those servants. I would point out to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and his friends that that matter has been put very clearly by no less a person than the representative of the Labour party in another place. The words which he used could not be improved upon. He said:
  "The objects of the Bill are to secure that, no matter what constitutional change may hereafter take place, when a public servant has been appointed by the Secretary of State, acting on behalf of His Majesty, the direct contract entered into with him shall be safeguarded and observed."
  If that contract is entered into with him by the Secretary of State, then the object of this Bill is to ensure that such servant
  376
  shall have the right of appeal to the person who appointed him.
  I do not want to go into the conditions which led up to the Reform Act of 1919, or in any way to anticipate what may happen when a further Commission is appointed to consider the matter in 1929, or in any other year. It is within the knowledge of the House that a certain section of residents of India, European residents principally, while in no way ignoring the fact that the time had come for a considerable advance, thought that perhaps some of these reforms were coming too quickly and perhaps, at that time, went too far. At any rate, it is not unnatural that a class of educated men who have been appointed to certain posts in the Civil Service of India would not desire, however much goodwill may exist between different sections of the community, that their future should in any way pass under the control of those who perhaps, owing to different circumstances and different surroundings, have a different outlook in life and different ideals, both of service and of life in general. The conditions would be quite different if we were dealing with men admitted on a new basis by the Indian Legislative Assembly or its officers. That would be a new contract, and there would be no grievance on the part of men appointed under those conditions if their positions were altered or they were entirely under the control of the Legislative Assembly.
  These appointments are made by the Secretary of State, and all that is asked is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. It is not a matter only of finance: it goes much deeper than that. There are, of course, financial considerations, which are important, but the question is not only financial. When you have a service of the highest standard and with a wonderful history, the men should not be worried either by financial considerations or by questions of security of tenure. The Lee Commission Report was a compromise. It set out to secure to those who were in any difficulty or fear as to their future, on the one side security of tenure, and at the same time to try to convince as far as possible the people in India of the intention and desire of the British people to carry out, in the letter and in the spirit, the Act which they had set their hands to in 1919. That Report was unanimous.

  377
  This is not a question of European against Indian at all. The Bill with which we are dealing affects members of the Service, whether European or Indian. It is merely a question of securing for those appointed by the Secretary of State that they shall remain under his jurisdiction. There is, however, one point with which it is necessary to deal shortly. The last speaker referred to certain of the subordinate services which are not within the scope of the Bill. It is quite clear, whatever the rights or the wrongs of the case that he brought forward so eloquently, that they do not come within the scope of the Bill. There is a class of members of the Service in India, however, who probably come within the scope of the Bill, in regard to whom I want to make an appeal to the Undersecretary. When the Bill of 1919 was passed, there was a complete split-up of what were then the non-covenanted services. They were split up into three. First, you had the provincial services, which were liable to be transferred from one Presidency to another. They are now called the All-India Services. Then there were the services under the control of the Central Government, now called the Central Services. Thirdly, there were the services of men whose duty all lay within one Province. Now they are called the Inferior Provincial Services.
  This Bill undoubtedly applies to the first and second categories, but it is not clear that it applies to the third category. It is very desirable that we 9.0 P.M. should not leave these men with any grievance at all. I understand from the Debate in another place that there is a little difference of opinion technically as to whether these men come under this Bill or not, and there is also the difficulty that the Secretary of State referred to when he said it was not clear how many of the men would come under the Bill. It is clear to my mind that the services I have referred to do not include the subordinate services, which are recruited separately, generally by heads of Departments in India. The men to whom I refer were recruited from this country, British officers of non-Asiatic domicile, recruited for special work in India, and for services in which a minimum number of British officers has been considered essential. These men have done extraordinarily good work.
  378
  There are said to be under 200 of them. They are getting towards the end of their time in India, and they will be seriously affected if the terms of the Lee Commission Report and of this Bill do not come to their aid and give them the benefits which the Report would give to other classes. It is a very technical subject, and difficult to deal with in a speech of this kind. The matter might be easily rectified by putting in an Amendment to have these men reappointed by the Secretary of State.
  I am not pressing the matter to-night, nor do I in any way desire to delay the Bill. On all sides there is full appreciation of the fact that the Bill is overdue and that it would have a very bad effect in India to delay the Bill. But I do ask the Under-Secretary to look carefully into the case of these men, to see to what extent the Bill affects them, and, if it does not affect them, to see whether any Amendment can be made to bring them within the scope of the Bill. It is necessary and desirable that the recruiting of these men should be stimulated. In answers to questions recently, the Undersecretary of State said clearly how essential it was that our recruiting for the Civil Service should be improved. That recruiting depends largely upon the passage of a Bill of this kind. Equally it is essential that the prospects of men in the provincial services should be secured. I suggest that, just as this Bill as it stands is of the greatest importance to secure the future of the Civil Service in India, so it is equally important that it should embrace those who are in the provincial services. I do not think anyone who knows the condition of India and who agrees that India is passing through a difficult time, in which both she and Great Britain are learning what is the best course for the future, will deny that at this time above all others it is essential that we should recruit the best men for these great services. We want men who will live up to the wonderful traditions of the past and who will feel that in undertaking public service in India, they are taking up a life work and following in the footsteps of those who have made the Indian Civil Service probably the finest service in the Empire. These services, whether Indian or European, should be inspired by the same high ideals as in the past, and be free from political influence. These

  379
  men are training the Indians now, and they should train them with a view to the day when real democratic government will be possible in India the day— to which, perhaps, hon. Members opposite are specially looking forward, when Indians will entirely control their own affairs, the day towards which all our energies are directed when India will be ready for Dominion status.
  Mr. SNELL: It is rightly assumed that the general principle of willingness to pay adequately for services rendered to the Empire, is believed in by every section of the House. There is no dispute on that point as between hon. Members in favour of the Bill and those who are opposed to it. I had the privilege of being on the Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses when this matter was fully and carefully discussed, and I think I showed in those discussions that I had no hostility to the adequate payment of these men. It is of the utmost importance to the Indian people that the Indian Civil Service should be a contented, a happy and an efficient service. Its happiness and efficiency depends not only on the amount paid to its members, but on the security of that payment and the general conditions. I think it is common ground between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill that any unfavourable conditions in the service will react unfavourably on the Indian people. On the wider question there is considerable room for doubt as to the wisdom of this particular Measure presented in this particular way. The Title of the Bill expressly states that it is for the purpose of
  "exempting proposals for expenditure upon certain salaries, pensions, and other payments from submission to Indian Legislatures."
  That phrase is extremely unfortunate. It conveys to India a belief in the minds of the promoters of this Bill that the Indian people are unwilling and could not be trusted to pay adequately those engaged in Indian administration. Whatever may be said of the political attitude of the Indian people to this country, their generosity and sense of justice ought not to be challenged. A further difficulty is that this Bill places a. charge upon a people who are inadequately represented in the legislatures
  380
  of India and as this Measure has been before those legislatures and has been rejected by them, it cannot be assumed that the Indian people welcome the Bill in its present form. We wish, in whatever we do, to draw the Indian people and ourselves closer together, and we should think, not once but twice and thrice, before we take any step which will create new suspicions in their minds. What will inevitably occur to the Indian people in this connection will be that the governing Act concerning the Indian people themselves cannot be reconsidered until 1929, but the needs of these servants of ours can be considered at any time, and for their purpose the Act can be broken through and their case regarded as urgent. In the presentation of the Bill the Government should have considered providing some sort of accommodation in that matter. I do not wish to hold up a decision. This Bill will doubtless pass, but it will go from this House to the Indian people with the suggestion that they are not trusted to do the right thing by these services, and so far as I have any claim to do so, I regret that reflection.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I recognise the moderation of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down and, as his colleague on the Joint Committee to which he referred, I recognise the fact that it is not the first time he has shown moderation and care in his judgments on this question. I may be able to remove from his mind some of the suspicions which he seems to entertain as to certain aspects of this Measure. I think he fears, and fears unnecessarily, that it will provoke suspicion, doubt, difficulty and perhaps jealousy among our Indian fellow subjects. I suppose that on a question of this sort we must have all sorts of views put forward, and that a great Imperial question of the first importance to the Empire cannot be discussed without the intrusion of suspicions of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). Those suspicions are doubtless becoming, to the hon. Member's own genial personality, and I presume that he was persuading the House to accept his view by suggesting that this service provides a system of outdoor relief to the upper middle classes of this country. I wonder would the hon. Member make that statement if he knew, as I know, the

  381
  men among my own constituents who compose about one-third, of the Indian Civil Service. Does he think it is a fair description of these men who have been trained for this service from their early years, who have passed difficult examinations and who spend the best part of their lives working under hard conditions. I wonder if the hon. Member would go among the valleys and mountains and the villages of Scotland from which most of the recruits for the Indian Civil Service come and suggest that these men are receiving outdoor relief as members of the upper and wealthier classes. The whole thing is as contemptible as it is worthless to the making up of our minds on the question.
  I am not looking at the interests of the Civil Service when I consider this question. The interests of a. Service, of the members of that Service, of this man or that man, are a mere trifle compared with what is involved in really doing your duty, as this House is asked to do, by your servants in carrying out a great Imperial task. It is not the interests of the Civil Servant that are here concerned, it is the interests of the 300,000,000 natives in India. That is what is at stake. I am in contact weekly, and have been for years past, with those who are engaged in Indian administration. I am besought by them week after week to do what I can as a representative up the Scottish Universities to keep up the supply from those Scottish Universities that have done in the past so great a work for India. I have a responsibility to my constituents. I cannot say to them, "Go in for this," unless they have some security, not in the matter of payment of money of this or that amount, but the security that gives some chance that they may not be cast to the wolves. . That is really a thing that one must take into account before one gives advice. I have done it, and I have not hesitated to give that advice, because I know from those who are now administering in India how essential for the advantage of India it is that we should have carried on this great stream of worthy recruits for her Service.
  There is one who is very close to me, and who has a very important post to discharge in India. He writes to me that he is constantly asked by the native administrators in the provincial Govern-
  382
  ment for which he is partly responsible: "For Heaven's sake, give us some Englishmen. We cannot decide between the fundamental differences of the Mohammedans and the Indians fairly unless at the beginning you give us an impartial administrator such as we find in the English officials." Over and over again he has been obliged to write to these native administrators and say that he has no British officer available. We are making no accusation against our Indian fellow citizens when we point out the fundamental fact that they are divided into two almost unbridgeable compartments. A gulf lies between them. They suspect one another. I remember walking with an Indian administrator in a remote station in India some years ago, and he told me what a native had said. My friend said to him: "In the days of your grandchildren and mine, shall we still be here?" The native pointed to the water butts bearing the two labels" For Indian gentlemen," "For Mohammedan gentlemen," and said: " As long as these two inscriptions are there, we cannot do without you."
  We have seen in the Punjab the desperate difficulty of the Sikh dissensions, where there was dire feud between different sections of the natives. It has now been settled. I had a letter the other day from one concerned, in which he said, "For five years this has been the nightmare of my life, and I think we have now got it settled." You cannot advance step by step, as we desire to advance, to the full independence of India without the help of English administrators. We have put our hand to the plough, and we are not going to turn back. I am not one of those who would wipe out the advances we have made; but if you are to achieve full success, you must in the intermediate period have the help of those unbiased and independent representatives of our own nation who can give great help and play a magnificent r61e in smoothing the difficulties between sections of the natives. You will not do that if you allow constant attacks, if you allow uncertainty and almost despair to grow up. You felt that in order to help forward the work on which you were engaged, the first step was to give some stability to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he was Prime

  383
  Minister, called the "iron frame of administration." To have an iron frame in your administration does not mean a tyrannical thing, but merely some fixity, some impartiality, some continuity. You felt that in order to do this you must send out this Commission, as you did under Lord Lee of Fareham. You now have their unanimous Report, the Report of a Commission drawn from all political parties in this country and from the natives of India as well, and this House is asked to implement the undertaking of that Commission and to do its duty to a Service upon whose continued existence for a certain period of years the welfare of India depends.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The prophet Jeremiah denouncing the sins of Jerusalem was as nothing compared with the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) denouncing the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) for his quotation—not his own statement—that the Civil Service in India was for the outdoor relief of the upper classes of this country. Really, if that absurd statement has any foundation in fact, it must be derived from some of the Debates in this House on India.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Seurr) used these words himself and adopted them as his own.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: He used them as a quotation. I have the words here. If it is said about the Indian Civil Service, it is due to the Debates we have had in this House on this question.
  Sir H. CRAIK: He adhered to that.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Kidderminster in his difficulty in explaining what he wants because I have spent many weary hours trying to make out what, this Bill means. I ask the Prime Minister to have one casual cursory glance at this astonishing Bill introduced on Friday afternoon last. No man in his senses reading this Bill can make out what one word of it means. You cannot make out what it means by referring to the documents. Clause 1 runs
  "Sections sixty-seven A and seventy-two D of the Government of India Act shall …."
  Then it goes on to the minor alterations of these mysterious Sections. You turn
  384
  up the Government of India Act, 1919, and find it has only 42 Sections. You are referred to the parent Act of 1915 as amended in 1916, and you find it has Sections running as far as 72, but there are no "A's" or "D's " attached to them. Unless you are an India Office official or an official of the Government of India, you must be unable to make out what the Bill means. Surely it was desirable that the Noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, should give an adequate explanation of what the Bill was about. We could not find out from the Bill what it was. The Noble Lord made a short speech of 10 minutes and as far as I can make out there were two points in the Bill to which he referred, and I presume these two points are all that are included in the Bill. The two points were, firstly, that whereas the 1919 Act made it quite certain that the established services in India should have security of pay and tenure independent of the Indian Legislature, there appeared to be some doubt as to weather the Legislature had not some control over allowances. Apparently under the 1919 Act the Assembly as well as the Governor-General in Council may have had some control over the allowances to civil servants home on leave. The second point was that there were certain other small classes whom this Bill withdrew from the control of the Legislature and of the Minister and put in similar secured positions enjoyed by established civil servants. He did not tell us either the amount of expenditure by India nor did he tell us the number of the newly privileged class who are to be independent of Indian control in this way, nor, most serious of all, did he tell us whether those two samples he gave of what the Bill meant were exhaustive and included all that is in the Measure.
  Before we vote on this Bill we should have, not merely in the interest of this House, but of the Indian people, a clear statement as to exactly what this Bill involves. It will not do to refer us, as the Noble Lord did, to debates in another place. We are entitled in this House to have full and adequate explanation of any Bill varying the Government of India Act, 1919. The first thing I want to make clear to the House in regard to this Bill is that the alterations that are being made are thoroughly bad in

  385
  principle. We are altering the Government of India Act, which we said could not be altered for 10 years and without a Royal Commission inquiry into alterations. We are altering it in an undemocratic direction. It is not merely a question of whether people's salaries should be secured or whether they are adequate. The alteration is that we are withdrawing the hold over those civil servants from the Indian Legislature and transferring it to the Secretary of State. No hon. Member who has read the evidence given before the Muddiman Commission by the various Indian. Ministers could fail to observe that the principal complaint of all the Indian Ministers is the absence of control over their civil servants and of constant friction owing to the independent regime of the Civil Service and the Ministry. That has been the origin of nine-tenths of the dissatisfaction. Here in this Bill we subtract from the control of the Legislature and the Ministers a little bit more of their power and their control over those people who ought to be their own servants.
  We certainly want to know if the Indian people approve of this change which is proposed to be made by this amending Act. We know that they rejected the Lea Report. We on these benches ought to be very careful indeed how we whittle down the small amount of democratic control there is in the Civil (Service at present; how we indicate to the Indian people that, when we do make changes in the Government of India Act, they are changes in the direction of increasing the power of the steel frame whereas we know the urgent necessity there is for gradual development of democratic principles in India. If instead of developing that democratic education, we withdraw the control over the Civil Service from the legislatures, we are going in the wrong direction and making it more difficult to carry out what they want. Could we not possibly leave changes such as this till the Royal Commission is appointed? Before 1929 we must have a Royal Commission into the working of this Act, a Royal Commission which will be bound to frame the next step forward in Indian development. It may be that when that Royal Commission reports they may make representations such as these, and any recommendations they make on
  386
  these lines are bound to be infinitely more palatable to the people of India if they are combined with developments in a democratic direction in other ways.
  I do submit to the House that, in view of the extremely critical state of mind of the Indian people at the present moment, in view of the fact that now at last the Swarajist party seems to be adopting the sensible course of co-operating in the development of democratic institutions, in view of the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai has been elected for Lahore, and gone on to the Assembly in order to carry out a policy of constructive co-operation, this is the worst possible moment to put another pin prick into the Indian people, to toll them we are altering the Act of 1919, and in an undemocratic direction, altering it in the interests of the Civil Service, that we are not making the alterations which the Minority Report of the Muddiman Committee recommended, and we are not making any compensating concessions in any other direction, but are merely looking to the interests of the established Service.
  I think we might possibly have postponed this, too, for one other reason. One of the principal grievances of the Indian Civil Service has been that the cost of living has risen and the rupee has been more or less depressed. At the present moment it is well known that the rupee is being kept to 1s. 6¼d. A Cora-mission has been appointed to consider the currency question, and to decide what the rupee should be fixed at, or whether it should be fixed at all. It will go to a higher figure than it stands at to-day, in all probability: but as the rupee goes up so the financial position of everybody in the Civil Service improves. If it is fixed at 1s. 9d., it means that everybody's salary in India is automatically increased by about 15 per cent., and therefore the position of the Indian Civil Service will enormously improve. When they remit their pay to this country, in order to educate their children or pay their holiday expenses, it is going to make the position of the Indian civilian enormously better, and enable him to have the same good time that he had in 1920. I do submit that, until this Commission has reported, and has indicated to us exactly what the financial position of the Indian civilian is going to be, we

  387
  might very well postpone this question of withdrawing from the Indian people any control over the salaries of these various Services.
  There is a final word I would like to say on this Bill. When we are dealing with the salaries and the security of the salaries for the higher ranks of the Indian Civil Service, I think we ought, at the same time, to cast a, passing glance at the salaries paid to the lower branches of the service. The whole of the postal service is, of course, paid by the Government. The pay is exceptionally low. The postman's wage even in Bombay is not up to the standard of the mill-worker. When in Calcutta, the most un popular thing I did—and I did a great many unpopular things in India—was to pay my bearer 60 rupees, when, apparently, the ordinary bearer pay was 30 rupees a month, and I do not suppose the wages have gone up since then. The whole standard of wages in the Civil Service in India is appalling for the lower paid. Teachers, postal workers, railway workers are all getting a standard of wage which would horrify not only any trade union secretary, but any hon. Member of this House if he came to work it out in pound?, shillings and pence at its purchasing power in this country. That being so, I think we may ask the Noble Lord whether it will not be possible, now we are making this change in the Government of India Act, to appoint a Commission to go into the question of the wages of these State workers in India, so that we may have all the facts and figures before us, and so that the conscience of India may apply itself to a problem which shows no sign of improvement, and which certainly demands the careful attention of the Imperial Parliament.
  Mr. PILCHER: I am aware that this House is waiting rather eagerly to hear my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary. I do not propose to detain the House more than a very few moments, but I can plead that I am perhaps the only Member in this House who was called as a witness before the Lee Commission, whose recommendations this Bill seeks to implement. I have the interests of the services in India very closely at heart, not because I regard them in their capacity as a close corporation or a par-
  388
  ticular class. I have their interest at heart because I feel they are absolutely essential to the future prosperous development of India, and I would like to detain the House for a few minutes if I may to consider some of the points that have been raised during the Debate. As I sit here and listen to hon. Members and right hon. Members on the Labour benches, who really have the interests of India at heart, the thing that strikes me more and more every time I hear them talk is the extraordinary lack of exact knowledge which they bring to bear on this extremely difficult problem. I recognise their goodness of heart and their goodness of intention, but it is pathetic to see how far they do really stray from reality.
  I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It seems to me the gravamen of his criticism on this Bill is that it proposes an alteration in the existing constitution of India in an undemocratic direction. The Secretary of State is accused of desiring to whittle down the amount of control which was conceded to the Indian Parliament in 1919. This Measure is alluded to as a "pinprick." We heard a number of expressions of that kind used by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. It seems to me the right hon. and gallant Member simply has not in any way followed the phase of Indian development which led up to the introduction of this Measure It is said this Measure is due to the tact that we are trying to "limit the democratic control of these legislatures in India, when we are actually engaged in a further extension of that democratic control several years before, according to the Statute of 1910, it became due. May I remind, hon. Members that an essential part of the Lee Commission's recommendation was that the recruitment of two or three of the great Indian Services should be handed over, lock, stock, and barrel to the Ministers who were in these areas, and responsible for them. The root proposal of the Lee Commission was to give the recruitment of the Education Department, the Agricultural Department, and the Forestry Department in several of the provinces to the Ministers responsible to the local legislature. That is the prime necessity to meet which

  389
  this Bill has been put forward. It is to meet the case of a number of those public servants in India who Have hitherto relied on the protection of the Secretary of State, and of the Government of India, and are now going to be handed over to the Ministers to take their part in the new provincial services controlling the provinces. It has been necessary to safeguard the position of Englishmen who are present are temporaily in those jobs, but ultimately will be replaced by Indians. That is one of the purposes of the Bill.
  The second essential purpose—and I should like here to refer to the right hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that we might postpone this) Bill—the second reason that the Bill has been undertaken has been just precisely those disturbing economic developments in India to which he has referred. For several years we had all these major services in India in a condition of economic stress and difficulty. It is impossible adequately to describe to hon. Members the state of things. It would be necessary for hon. Members to see how these public servants were living, the stress to which their wives were put, and the difficulties they encountered in educating their children and sending them home periodically. One could not understand unless you have seen them contending against these difficulties under Indian conditions. And it is quite impossible to explain how urgent this Bill is from the point of view of actual facts. It is necessary, in view of these various considerations, that this Bill should be passed almost immediately if only to indemnify the Government of India and the Secretary of State for the measures which they took 18 months ago to meet the perfectly intolerable conditions under which these public servants lived.
  If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will cast his memory back to 1920 at the time when he was in India, he will remember probably the enormous cost of the passage to and from India. It became essential for the families of the public servants in India who had to return to England as often as necessary to give them some sort of concession, to cover something like a 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. increase in the cost of the passages to and from England since the War. A number of these concessions had
  390
  to be made. It now becomes necessary to implement or to cover them by legislation. That is the second major object of the Bill.
  It also became necessary to re-define the term "salaries and pensions." Under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform they were guaranteed from attacks by the Legislatures. There is no new principle at all introduced into this Bill, but it has become necessary to re-define those terms, because some Legislatures actually made attacks on the allowances for travelling and other purposes, and it was desirable that these allowances should be incorporated in these terms. These are the three essential purposes of the Bill.
  I would call the attention of the House to the fact that there is no substance whatever in the suggestion that this Bill is in any way undemocratic or departs from the principle laid down in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform scheme. One of the reasons for that charge being brought forward is obviously that the Imperial Legislative Assembly declared against the Bill. It has been suggested that the proposals were undemocratic and were not representative of the people of India. I should like to point out that the actual vote at the last General Election for the Indian Assembly was 343,000 voters out of a population throughout British India of 240,000,000. I would ask the House in what real sense can that vote be said to be democratic, and by what right did the Assembly denounce this Bill?
  Mr. LANSBURY: How does that effect the matter?
  Mr. PILCHER: My point is that they only represent some 343,000 in an enormous population, as large as the population of the whole of Europe without Russia.
  Mr. LANSBURY: We do not represent them!
  Mr. PILCHER: Remarks put forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Snell) suggest that the restrictions imposed on legislative action in India are calculated to arouse suspicion and misunderstanding there. May I point out that the restrictions imposed are the same in kind as those in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform Act. They do not

  391
  reflect in the least upon the generosity of the Indian people. They are simply a safeguard against the inexperience of the new legislatures. Powers to reserve some sort of control were necessary, and one of them had reference to the welfare of the public servants on which the future progress of India very much depends.
  I should like to make a very special appeal to the Labour Benches above the Gangway not to press the Amendment which they have on the Paper to defer the Second Heading of the Bill. A speedy passage of this Bill is urgent. It is urgent in the interests of the Services, but still more urgent, I am perfectly convinced, in the interests of the people of India. The continual presence of the Services is necessary, not for themselves, not for the people of the class from which they are drawn. Might I remind the House from what class these servants are actually drawn. They are drawn from the most brilliant classes in all our Universities. They are not men who need to go abroad. They are the cream of the Universities. They could have got honourable appointments very easily in almost any country in the world. It is not for them that this matter is pressed; it is for the people of India who need the services of the English public servants there. May I remind hon. Members that during the period of grave disorder which followed the enactment of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms we had constant appeals from various classes of the Indian community for the assistance of just these men whose presence in India has been criticised to-night. There were very serious riots on more than one occasion. The gaols were full of people charged with seditious behaviour and other serious crimes, and special requests were made to let them have a British Judge to try these cases. We had those sort of appeals coming in constantly, and those who know the country, who know the districts, and who know the masses, know perfectly well that, despite anything the Assembly may say to the contrary, the work of these men is most deeply appreciated by the ryots, the agricultural cultivators, who really make up the mass of the population.
  There is just one other point I would like to make, which is, that among the masses in India there still is an immense
  392
  class of illiterates. As I listen to these Debates I sometimes, wonder whether people here realise that only V per cent. of the whole population of the country are literate in any language at all. The vast majority are quite incapable of reading the newspapers, and there is no newspaper in the country which has a circulation of 50,000. They cannot study these questions, or demand a response from the Members who represent them, or appear to represent them, in the Assembly or in Council. They are in a very special sense still a charge and a trust of this House. I do appeal to this House, and particularly to Members on the Labour Benches, to give us the Second Heading of this Bill which is being asked for to-day and assist Us enactment before the House rises for Christmas.
  Earl WINTERTON: By leave of the House, and in response to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, I rise to say a few words, and at the same time to request the House, if they will do so, now to come to a decision on this Bill. In the first place it is obvious to me, from what occurred as the result of my speech on Friday last, that the demand which is said in some quarters to exist in the House for speeches of not more than 10 minutes' duration is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I read in the newspapers in the early part of last week that there was a demand that speeches on all matters other than those of first-rate importance should not exceed 10 minutes, and I can say with all sincerity that it was in deference to that demand that I made a speech of exactly 9½ minutes' duration; and I thought I had succeeded, in that time, in explaining all the provisions of a Bill which is not a first-class Measure although it deals with an important matter. However, I did not succeed in explaining it satisfactorily to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Let me say one thing in reference to his speech. I do not make any complaint of the tone of his speech, or of any speeches from the benches opposite, though I think those hon. Members are mistaken in their attitude to the Bill. But I was rather surprised to find such opposition to the

  393
  Bill in view of the fact that, as I understood from a careful perusal of his speech, the Noble Lord who represents his party on Indian affairs in another place, and who was formerly Secretary of State for India, gave his blessing to the Bill and was prepared to support it, at any rate, taking no steps to divide against it. The criticisms which have been directed against the Bill are summed up in the statement made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He asked, "What should we say in this House if the power of controlling our own money were taken away from us?" I think the position can best be explained by a reference to the original Act and the amendments which this Bill proposes to make in that Act. It will show that we are, in effect, doing nothing of the sort. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman had difficulty in finding a copy of the Act in question. The Government of India Act (As amended up to 1st August, 1924) can, I am sure, be found in the Library and in the Lobbies of this House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to say that there was only one copy in the Library, and that I tried to buy one at Abingdon Street this morning, and could not do so.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not in the lobbies.
  10.0 P.M.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am obliged to hon. Members for calling my attention to this. I do not know if it is a matter that rests with my Department, or whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House, but I will take the matter up and inquire into it. I shall be glad to provide hon. Members who desire it with copies of the Act, up to a reasonable number. What are the relevant words of the Act in question? Under Section 67A, in Sub-section (3) are these words:
  "The proposals of the Governor-General in Council for the appropriation of revenue or moneys relating to the following heads of expenditure shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly, nor Shall they be open to discussion by either Chamber at the time when the annual statement is under consideration, unless the Governor-General otherwise directs:

  (i) Interest and sinking fund charges on loans; and

  394

  (ii) Expenditure, of which the amount is prescribed by or under any law; and

  (iii) Salaries and pensions of persons appointed by or with the approval of His Majesty or by the Secretary of State in Council; and

  (iv) Salaries of chief commissioners and judicial commissioners."

  Those words are in Sub-sections (3) and (4), and those are the two Sub-sections it is proposed to amend by the present Bill, the words being
  "(iii) Salaries and pensions payable to or to the dependents of—

  (a) persons appointed by or with the approval of His Majesty or the Secretary of State in Council:

  (b) chief commissioners and judicial commissioners."

  The House will see that here we follow the wording of the original Act. Then it goes on:
  "(iv) Sums payable to any person who is or has been in the service of the Crown in India under any order of the Secretary of State in Council, of the Governor-General in Council, or of a Governor, made upon an appeal made to him in pursuance of rules made under the Act."
  The object of that particular Sub-section, which, though it may appear very complicated in its language, is really very simple, is that if on an appeal made by any officer who is affected by this Bill he has, as the result of the appeal, further emoluments of any kind, it shall be made effective under the Act; that is to say, it shall not come within the purview of the Legislature.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many people, approximately, are affected by the extension?
  Earl WINTERTON: It is obviously impossible to say. It depends entirely on the number of appeals. Perhaps I can explain the matter best in this way. It does not include any more persons that those who wore intended to be covered by the 1919 Act, except in so far as this Act proposes to extend the number of those persons, to whom I shall refer in a moment. It depends solely on the number of appeals made. I should say, speaking from an experience now of nearly four years (with an interval when another Government was in power), that the number of persons so affected would be wry small indeed. I should hardly like to make an estimate. The Clauses which

  395
  are the most important Clauses in the Bill, one might say the only important Clauses in the Bill, make exactly the same alterations in the case of the Governors' legislative councils as are made in the case of the Assembly. They add the following persons:
  "Persons appointed before the first day of April, ninteen hundred and twenty-four, by the Governor-General in Council or by a local Government, to services or posts classified by rules under this Act as superior services or posts; and …"
  Here, again, these words may seem to be complicated and difficult, but in reality their effect is very simple. In the first place, this Sub-section proposes to give the concessions advocated by the Lee Commission, and which have been put into effect by administrative act, to those persons who were appointed either by the Governor-General in Council or by local governors to services or posts which are classified by the Rules under this Act as superior services or posts. There are some Members who feel, and that feeling was given expression to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), that that extension should go further. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State, after giving it most careful consideration and after the fullest consultation with the Government of India, decided that the Sub-section as it appears in the Bill would adequately cover all those persons who, as the result of his investigations and of the recommendations of the Lee Commission, ought to be included in the Bill and brought under what may be described as the protection of the Act. As regards the Clause referring to pensions, there again all that is intended is to put the pensions of persons who are under the 1919 Act outside the purview of the Assembly.
  May I now sum up what is my case for the Bill and the arguments for it, by saying this; I, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was a close observer of the progress of the 1919 Act through this House, and I certainly thought at that time, as I believe he thought and others like the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). who was also a very close observer of the- Act, that the intention of the Act was to exclude absolutely from the purview of the Assembly the salaries of persons appointed by the Secretary of State in
  396
  Council. Indeed, I should not have been in favour of it if it had not been so, and I and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who took great interest in the Bill, would have strongly opposed the proposals, for it was because we believed, for reasons which it is unnecessary to go into now, that those appointed by the Secretary of State in Council should not come under the purview of the Legislative Assemblies, that we supported the Bill. All that these rather complicated Clauses do is to make clear and definite what we believe to have been the intention of Parliament at that time. I deny absolutely, with all respect and, I hope, with all courtesy, the contention made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, that this is in any way a breach of the spirit or the letter of that Act.
  There is only one other Clause of importance in the Bill, and that is Clause 2, which states that no rules or other provisions made or confirmed under this Section shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Secretary of State in Council to deal with the case of any person in the Civil Service of the Crown in India in such manner as may appear to him to be just or equitable. This has not been raised in the Debate, but the reason for the Clause is that, in 1919, for the first time, the Indian Civil Service and other services comparable to it were brought under a code of Rules made by the Secretary of State in Council. I believe the reason was that Mr. Montagu felt, in view of the changed conditions in which they were going to serve, Civil Servants would in future like to have a code of Rules under which to serve, similar in some respects to the Royal Warrant under which officers of the Army serve. On the whole, I think that has been satisfactory, but my noble Friend has found it impracticable in some cases, and I have had personal experience of them, for as a result of these Rules, when a hard case arises where it is obviously desirable to make some allowance or concession, we are precluded by the Rules from doing it. We therefore, under this Clause, take the opportunity of obtaining powers from Parliament to enable the Secretary of State to dispense with those Rules in particular cases. I need hardly give the assurance that that power will only be exercised comparatively rarely.

  397
  I hope I have succeeded in explaining to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentlemen and the House generally what the purpose of this Bill is. I would only add that it is in no sense a. racial Bill, as has been suggested in some quarters. Indeed, I am not sure that the speech to which we have just listened did not, to some extent, give the impression that it was a Bill which only concerns Europeans. That is not so. It concerns Indians and Europeans. It is not a racial Bill. It is quite true that the Assembly, by a majority, rejected the Report of the Commission, but it is equally true that every Indian member of the Commission signed the Report, and that the Report was unanimous. It was a striking tribute
  to the way in which Indians and Europeans can work together that they should have produced so excellent and so unanimous a Report. Whatever may be the opinion of some Indians who have been quoted by hon. Members opposite, I believe the great bulk of opinion in India which, after all, is sensible, reasonable and fair-minded opinion, is in favour of adequate salaries and emoluments being paid to Indians and Europeans alike who serve under the Crown in India.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 77.

  Division No. 472.]

  AYES.

  [10.13 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford

  Albery, Irving James

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hills, Major J. W.

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

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

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Applin, Colonel R.V. K.

  Drewe, C.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F.

  W. Duckworth, John

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)

  Atkinson, C.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  England, Colonel A.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, White'h'n)

  Bethell, A.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Fenby, T. D.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Boothby, B. J. G.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'hl's)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Crolt

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Finburgh, S.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Fleming, D. P.

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Ford, P. J.

  Jacob. A. E.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Forrest, W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lamb, J, Q.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Burman, J. B.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gates, Percy

  Looker, Herbert William

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lougher, L.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Goff, Sir Park

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Grace, John

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Grant, J. A.

  McLean, Major A.

  Christie, J. A.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macmillan. Captain H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Gretton, Colonel John

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Clayton, G. C.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hanbury, C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Cope, Major William

  Harland, A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Coupor, J. B.

  Harney, E. A.

  Mitchall, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Harrison, G. J. C-

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hawke. John Anthony

  Neville, R. J.

  Crook, C. W.

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

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

  Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Oakley, T.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Watts, Or. T.

  Pease, William Edwin

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Perring, William George

  Shepperson. E. W.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Pilcher, G.

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

  Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Preston, William

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

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wilson, R. R, (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ramsden, E.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Reid, D. D, (County Down)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Rye, F. G.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Colonel Gibbs.

  NOES.

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Stamford, T. W.

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

  Hayes, John Henry

  Stephen, Campbell

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Stephen, J. (St. Rollox)

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Barnes, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Barr, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Townend, A. E.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Laith)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, T.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Bromley, J.

  Lansbury, George

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Cape, Thomas

  Lunn, William

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Charleton, H. C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Weir, L. M.

  Cluse, W. S-

  March, S.

  Welsh. J. C.

  Compton, Joseph

  Murnin, H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Cove, W. G.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Dennison, R.

  Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Duncan, C.

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ritson, J.

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Scurr.

  Hardie, George D.

  Snell, Harry

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill read a, Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) AMENDMENT [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to amend the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, by substituting other provisions for those contained in Section 27 of the said Act, and to
  400
  authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in pursuance of the provisions to be substituted as aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified.)
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The object of this Resolution is one which should commend itself in all quarters of the House. It is to carry out the promise which was made to local authorities in 1919, that the State would hand over to them on a self-supporting basis the small holdings which were bought for the settlement of ex-service men. The reasons why this Resolu-

  401
  tion is necessary are set out in the White Paper which is obtainable in the Vote Office, and I need, therefore, only say a very few words. Under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, it was provided that county councils and county borough councils should act as agents for the Government in land settlement schemes for ex-service men, and during the first years, while conditions and values were unstable, it was arranged that the Government should pay year by year the ascertained losses. On the 1st April, 1926, a valuation was provided for, to enable the State to assume the excess charge over the economic return on these holdings, so as to hand them over on a self-supporting basis. Unfortunately, the Act provided for this valuation on a capital basis, and it merely provided that if the local authority's liability exceeded this capital valuation in future years the State was to pay the proportion of the loan charges represented by that capital excess. Six years ago no one could foresee the fall in money rates, and if a local authority has this valuation now carried out on the original basis, they would have to bear the difference between the present day money rate at 4¾ per cent. and the 6½ per cent. rate at which a local authority could originally borrow money.
  That is the main object of the Resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it, but there is another point I must mention. Under Section 26 e£ the Act payments were to be made in arrear up to and including the current year. Section 27 is rather obscure, but it would appear that the State contributions, after the valuation at the end of this year, should be paid during the year in which they fall due. That would involve a double charge next year, but for convenience it is proposed to defer it till 1929-30, when the beet sugar subsidy is automatically reduced The Amendments to Section 27 are necessarily rather technical and complicated, and I thought it much better to set them out in a White Paper rather than detain the Committee with a formal exposition which they might find it difficult to follow, but the provisions of this valuation have been agreed with the County Councils' Association, and they merely embody the undoubted intentions of Parliament. It is very urgent to regularise this position because
  402
  the county councils are already beginning to collect the data for this valuation, and it is to save unnecessary cost and inconvenience that I ask the House to let us have this Resolution to-night and the Bill that is to be founded upon it at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I only rise to say, after the explanation of the Minister—whom we are all glad to see back at his post—that we shall be glad to postpone discussion of the matter until we see the actual details of the Bill which are foreshadowed. Obviously, any debate that will arise will centre round the actual proposals to be substituted for Section 27. The only thing is that in passing the Money Resolution to-night I am wondering whether there is any possibility of getting a statement whether the Minister knows roughly what the additional charge is likely to be.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I think it will really save money. The existing basis of valuation is absolutely unworkable and if we do not pass the Bill local authorities will be faced with chaos. It is most important from the point of view of economy that we should get this valuation at the earliest possible moment because we believe we shall effect a considerable saving. At present there is no incentive to local authorities to administer economically. Under the new valuation any saving they can bring about will accrue to their own finances. We believe we shall be able to bring about a considerable saving owing to administrative economics. By passing this Bill we shall also be able to avoid a double charge next year.
  Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: On behalf of the County Council's Association I should like to tell the Committee that this matter has been the subject of negotiation and most careful consideration extending over many months between representatives of the county councils and of the Ministry of Agriculture, and as a result the proposals submitted are all agreed, I think, in every particular. We believe that these proposals will be equitable, and fair both to the taxpayers and to the ratepayers.
  Mr. FENBY: I congratulate the Minister and his advisers. There are certain technical details of the proposed

  403
  arrangement, but if hon. Members will study the White Paper they will find all the information they desire. The county councils, or some of them, are anxious to make a move forward with regard to settling men upon the land as smallholders, and unless this settlement is arrived at before the House rises for Christmas, it will be almost impossible to carry out the settlement for April next between the county councils and the Ministry. What I am anxious about, as a member of a county authority, is that this settlement should be effected as early as possible, so that a forward movement may be made in regard to small holdings in getting more men upon the land.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MAIL CONTRACT (FAIR ISLE AND SUMBURGH).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st December].
  "That the Contract, dated the 17th day of September, 1923, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and Messrs. Stout, of Pair Isle, Shetland, for the conveyance of mails between Fair Isle and Sumburgh (Shetland) be approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]
  Question again proposed.
  COASTGUARD BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [5th August].
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act. 1920, on the application of the Great Yarmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]
  Which Amendment was: In line 4, at the end, to add the words
  "subject to the omission of Section 7 (1) B. and Schedule L Part II."—[Mr. Neville.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. NEVILLE: I do not propose to proceed with that Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the word "approved'' and to add instead thereof the words:
  "Referred to a Select Committee of four Members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report, which shall state whether in their opinion Section 7 (1) B of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Order should be omitted; that the proceedings of the Committee "to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 151, and opponents of Section 7 (1) B of Part 2 of the First Schedule shall be heard, provided that a statement of objection shall have been deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the House of Commons before the fourth day sifter the date of this Order, but an opponent shall only be heard on the objections which have been specified in the Statement."
  I move this Amendment with the concurrence of the Board of Trade, and after protracted negotiations.
  Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I hope the House will accept it. The difficulty is entirely one of site. This is a case where a gas company proposed to dump down a gasometer, against the wishes of the parish council and the rural district council, on a site where it would seriously affect the amenities of a small village. We hope that the House will protect the interests of this small community, and not allow the gas company to override the wishes of the local residents.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): On behalf of the President of the Board of Trade I accept the Amendment.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: As the Member for the constituency in which the company's works are situated I would like to say a few words. In the first place, I would thank the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Neville) for agreeing to withdraw his original Amendment and to substitute that which is now before us. My position in the matter has been a little bit difficult, for two reasons. As the Member for Great Yarmouth it was

  405
  naturally my duty to try to support the gas company in their endeavours to shed a little light upon the dark places of the constituency of my hon. Friend. At the same time my interests are somewhat divided, because the constituency for which my hon. Friend sits was the first constituency which I had the honour of wooing, in the sense that it was my first political love. I must admit that I lost the election. It is said that "Tie better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all." My sympathies, therefore, were very largely with the hon. Member.
  Secondly, Caister is a place adjacent to my constituency, and only a tram ride distant. The two constituencies are so situated that the amenities are often shared by them, and in fact the golf course at this place is called the Great Yarmouth and Caistor Golf Club. Speaking on behalf both of my present constituency and of the one which I once wooed and lost, I am glad this compromise has been reached. With regard to a remark of the Seconder of the Amendment, I do not think it was quite fair to the gas company. The gas company have committed no crime. They wanted to supply gas to the neighbouring districts, and they complied with every regulation and gave all the necessary notices, and no objection was taken, cither by the district council or the parish council at any of the ordinary stages at which such objection should be raised. I am not blaming these bodies, but that is the fact. It was only on the very eve of this matter coming before the House in August last, that objection was raised by the parish, and that objection was naturally brought before the House by my hon. Friend. I do not think any blame therefore attaches to the gas company, and I fed certain an honourable compromise will be arrived at by which neither the constituency of the hon. Member nor the gas company in my constituency will suffer.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The attention of the House ought to be called to this particular form of Resolution dealing with these Gas Orders. Those who were in the House in 1919 and 1920 will remember that the Act referred to here under which this Order is made, establishes an entirely new form of procedure under which these Orders require the positive approval of Parliament. This
  406
  particular form of Amendment is intended to deal with, disputed cases, and its effect is to send these Orders back to go through the ordinary Private Bill procedure. There is a point in connection with this Amendment which I hope its promoters have carefully considered. It only refers to the committee the limited question of whether a particular section is to be included in the Order or not. Are they certain that this covers all that is desired? I warn the House of the danger of doing otherwise than remitting these Orders as a whole to these committees. Only a few months ago I had to move a similar Amendment but under the threat—if I may so call it—the Minister in charge was good enough to meet my wishes, and he agreed to accept a long string of Amendments to the Order. These were largely consequential, and merely meant the leaving out of one district, and they were settled most carefully by the Government Department. Ultimately, however, it was ascertained that if the Order had been passed in that form, they would have created chaos, and it was only the fact that the town clerk of Watford discovered these mistakes which caused the matter to be put right in time. I. therefore, urge the House that in the case of opposed Orders the matter should be sent back under the Private Bill procedure, and I respectfully suggest that, as a general rule, the whole Order should be sent back in the widest possible form.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Ordered,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Great Yarmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 10th July and published, be referred to a Select Committee of four members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report, which shall state whether in their opinion Section 7 (1) B of Part II of the First Schedule of the Order should be omitted; that the proceedings of the Committee to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 151, and opponents of Section 7 (1) B of Part II of the First Schedule shall be hoard, provided that a statement of objection shall have been deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the House of Commons before the fourth day after the date of this Order, but an opponent shall only be heard on the objections which have been specified in the statement."

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  LEAD PAINT (PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November, proposed the Question," That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise a question of which I have given the Minister of Labour notice, concerning the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I want to raise two particular questions which relate to Glasgow, and concerning which the Glasgow experience, I think, will be the experience throughout the country. The first question is one concerning the Regulation which is now being administered, and which has been administered for some time, relating to a person making application for unemployment benefit where he has not worked for a reasonable period during the past two years. I understand the answer may be that this Regulation was introduced during the Labour Government's term of office, but, if so, I want to say that it certainly was introduced by the Labour Government, and there is nothing lost in admitting it. I myself, along with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), approached the then Under-Secretary to the Ministry with regard to this question, and were told that the Act dealing with the two years period was not meant to operate in areas which had for a long period
  408
  been suffering from unemployment, but only in areas where trade had been comparatively good and where it was thought that men and women would have a reasonable opportunity to find work. At that time there was no idea of carrying these regulations into areas in which it was admitted that it was impossible to find work.
  Last Wednesday I put to the Minister of Labour a question, and whatever charges were made on the last occasion about figures being faked or being wrong, I am sure on this occasion he will not charge me with exaggerating the figures. I asked him how many persons who made application for benefit for eight weeks in Glasgow and how many had been refused under the Clause dealing with not having a reasonable period of work during the past two years. I think he said in round figures something in the region of 40,000 had made application, and 2,600 of them had been disqualified because of not having a reasonable period of work in the last two years. That means that 6 per cent. of applicants for employment benefit are now being cut off in a shipbuilding area. It is a question of the whole area being idle. Men are now being struck off under this Regulation, which was not meant in its operation to apply to areas which had over a long period of time widespread depression. The committee at present have also other Regulations, such as not genuinely seeking work. I have a question to-morrow asking how many persons have been disqualified in connection with other reasons, and one was the question of not genuinely seeking work. I understand that the procedure in the Exchanges is, this: The first thing a man has to answer is, Is he genuinely seeking work? If he has proved that he is looking for work, that during his period of unemployment he has searched here and there, after they have gone to the extent of gathering recommendations of one kind or another, they bring them to the committee and they cannot turn them down because they are bad, because they are rotters, because they are lazy, for, having submitted abundant proof, they must accept them. But they turn round and when the man has proved these things say, "You have not worked for two years," heedless of the fact that there has been no opportunity for it, and

  409
  that he has been unable to get work. Therefore he cannot have benefit.
  I want to ask the Minister how do his figures compare with the administration of this class with the figures of his predecessor? Is it not a fact that they show on the administration of this class a tremendous increase in the disqualifications under this heading as compared with the administration of his predecessor? Let me quote the Southside Employment Exchange. I have always made it a practice never to go near him in connection with the question of unemployment cases. I have always gone to the local manager, unless there was some question of principle involved, because I find I get quicker treatment. I get more, or at least as many, cases in connection with unemployment as any Member of the House. I represent almost the poorest district, or one of the poorest, in the whole of Scotland, and I live within three minutes' walk of the Employment Exchange. One can well understand the work my wife has to put in while I am here speaking.
  In the time of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, I never had a single case disqualified for not having worked a reasonable period during the two years, because the management of the South side Employment Exchange stated then that a man had not only to be idle for two years, but it had to be proved there were opportunities to work in his industry during the two years. I want the right hon. Gentleman to face this issue. I see the Secretary for Scotland beside him. He and I are representative largely of the parish council on the South side. The predominant part of his division is covered by the Govan parish council. If you are going to cut off these men, they must live. Society has not yet descended to the state when we are to say human beings are to die. The right hon. Gentleman is either going to refuse these people, and put terrible burdens on the local authority, or grant them benefit.
  There is a further issue. Take married men with children. It does not really matter to them if the money is refused at the Employment Exchange, for they march to the parish council and get the benefit, the amount they get there being exactly the same as it would be from the Employment Exchange, and, there-
  410
  fore, they do not care, because, after all, the thing that matters is income, and not where it comes from. But take the single person. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect single persons who are deprived of any income to live? Does he think that because a man has been two years out of work he is a bad man? If he is a bad man punish him, but do not refuse him the means of livelihood. If the Minister of Labour is going to keep on administering the Act in this fashion, it raises the most grave consequences. I listened to-day to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for E. Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), with whom I usually agree, but I must say I can raise no enthusiasm about the Women's Police Bill for different reasons. Most of these things are to protect women of an unfortunate class. I often think it would be much better if you prevented women getting to that, instead of appointing policemen to look after them when they are there. Here you have withdrawn from the female population the means of living, because they have been out of work a considerable time. The Secretary for Scotland and the Undersecretary, who know the subject, cannot get away from the fact that the withdrawal of benefit raises the gravest moral problem in our great cities.
  11.0 P.M.
  I hope the Minister is not going to tell me this is an insurance scheme. If it bean insurance scheme, run it as such, but you must accept responsibility for some counter-proposals to keep these poor people alive. I could have quoted individual cases, not one but 20, but it is not my job to do it. I could tell of men of good character, men who fought in the War, men who have rendered good service in the past—men engaged in shipping. They have walked about to find work, and cannot find it. It might be argued that a man who has been out of work for two years is, therefore, a bad man. Let me put to the Minister the experience of an ordinary man out of work. I remember when I was younger being out of work for eight or nine months. What did I find? I found that the longer I was out of work the harder it became to get a job. When I was in work, and there was a chance of some of us going to be dismissed, and were dismissed, we always liked to get a job as

  411
  quickly as we possibly could, because, when a man is out of work, he finds that his craftsmanship depreciates not only amongst his fellows but amongst the employers, and the longer he is out the harder struggle he has to get a job again.
  I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this close administration with which he is proceeding is more hard and more cruel even than that of his predecessor? Why is it you have an increase in the figures in the City of Glasgow? Why are you operating the Act in such a way that the men cannot find work? The Government must really either give them work or at least give them some maintenance. I would put a question to the Secretary for Scotland, and I apologise for not giving him notice of it, but during the Debate on unemployment the Minister of Labour definitely stated that there was no unemployment in the building trade in Glasgow. He afterwards modified that statement to the effect that there were no idle plasterers. But last Wednesday there were in Glasgow 8,000 unemployed persons in the building industry. Included in that number it was said there were bricklayers. More to my surprise the right hon. Gentleman stated definitely that there were no unemployed plasterers. But an answer last Wednesday showed there were 17 unemployed plasterers in Glasgow. The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat bitter or, at least, very critical, and cynical, in relation to some of our speeches, because some of our figures were not correct. But he himself, with all his opportunities to be quite correct in his figures, seemed to err.
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has taken any steps, through his Department, to secure that that unemployed labour shall be used to its full resources in providing houses for the people? I would ask that these poor people should have elementary justice. These folk are as good men as any in this House. One marvels, not so much at their badness, but at their goodness, and how they have remained so good and so clean throughout all their trouble. It speaks a lot for their kindness of disposition and goodness of heart. I hope the Minister of Labour, in his reply, will say to us that these 2,500 people in Glasgow, who have been disqualified, will be
  412
  given some measure of hope during this terrible winter time. We can give hope to the people abroad. We can give hope to people of the Irish Free State. Why not the people whom we know? Why not give them some hope? Why not extend to them at this Christmas season some hope? At least if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give them work let him give to these poor people what sympathy he can in the shape of at least the minimum benefit that can be secured to them.
  Mr. HARDIE: Now that this subject has been raised, I want to draw attention to what is taking place, as a result of the Government's method of getting money for the supposed scheme for widows' pensions, and the cruelties which are following on the sweeping of people from the Employment Exchanges without —as it appears to us—adequate reason. I put before the Minister the necessity for the Exchanges finding out the real causes why people are dismissed from employment. The cruelties which are being perpetrated in that way could only be described properly if one had time to go through each case and to read all the letters recounting the hardships suffered. If the case were fairly faced by the Government, they would say to us, "Very well, we know we are sweeping cases off the Exchanges without good reason, but we want to sweep them on to the parish councils." If they would say that we could understand the methods they have adopted, and especially this referee and umpire business which refines the cruelty in such a way that when we meet these cases in our own constituencies we feel something rising in us that we do not like to feel rising.
  I would refer to the case of the young woman worker who is living at home, and the specially refined cruelty of the Minister himself when he exercises his discretion as to the income going into that home. What he has done, so far as Glasgow and the rest of Scotland are concerned, is to reduce everything to the level of a parochial officer's investigation. Every means are being adopted by the Government to try to degrade, if possible, the helpless people who are unemployed. There is the degradation of having the parochial officer, or someone of that status, coming to the house to make

  413
  investigations, going into the neighbours' houses to see whether the statements made are correct, and trying to find out whether the income of the home is not sufficient to maintain either a son or a son and daughter. Take the case of the unemployed youth, with all his fresh young ideas, all his mental forces in full swing, with his fine physique and his desire to get something to do. We crush everything that is good in these youths by making them feel that they are thrown back upon the poverty of the home. The youth, with his ideas, ought to be allowed to do something to add to the income of the home.
  With regard to the dismissals of the Employment Exchanges, they adopt the most, arbitrary methods. I will cite as sin instance a case which I have just sent back to (he Minister. It was the case of a woman working in an infirmary. After three months' constant employment she asked to be relieved for the afternoon, giving a week's notice. She got the usual form handed to her in an envelope when she was going out. She gave it to the gateman, thinking it was all right. The permission was not for the afternoon but for two hours, though she took it as being for the afternoon. When she came next morning she was dismissed. But the people in the Employment Exchanges take no notice of this: they take no notice of the reason why the woman finds herself unemployed. The Employment Exchanges are becoming more inhuman every day as far as the unemployed are concerned. You have got to be like us, knowing the men all your life, and then hearing the statements, made to them in the Employment Exchanges, to realise how inhuman this machine, which was supposed to help, is becoming. The Minister himself claims to have a fair and just outlook in human relationships. That is why I am making this appeal to him to let it become the spirit of the Employment Exchanges.
  Mr. LAWSON: I am glad to have the opportunity of joining with my friends on this occasion in pointing out to the Minister that, wonderful and striking as was his explanation of this matter last week, the fact remains that those of us who live in our divisions in great industrial areas—and I live in the same house as I did when I worked at the mine and
  414
  among my old friends—are having very lamentable evidence of the result of his administration and particularly of the recent Regulations he has issued. During the Recess and during the week-ends we have coming to our homes young men who are having their unemployment benefit stopped because it is said that there is a certain amount of money coming into their homes. It is an unfair thing that the parents, who have toiled hard all their lives, should be compelled to keep a young man out of their scanty income, an income that is not calculated on a basis of holidays or luxuries, but merely upon the basis of an elementary existence. It is hard upon those parents—indeed it is a shameful thing—that after they have brought up their boy, and he has become an asset and ought to be helping them, that just because he loses his employment they are deprived not only of his income but are compelled by the Regulations of the Minister of Labour to keep him.
  I want to ask the Minister to consider a case such as that in my area. The two black areas for unemployment, as he knows, are in South Wales and in Durham. In Durham there are 12 collieries idle. I could take him round places where there is a great block of collieries idle and where for square miles there is scarcely one man in employment. The effect is that the relieving authorities are practically bankrupt. Yet at a time like this, in an area like that, the Minister lays great burdens on the guardians, burdens which they certainly cannot carry. I know the Minister will demonstrate In his own satisfaction that, there was a decrease in unemployment and that really the extent to which he has taken people off the registers of the Employment Exchanges is not so bad when you take the whole country into consideration. Yet, what do we find? That the amounts of Poor Law relief last week have gone up by leaps and bounds. It was a collosal increase in the amount of relief that had to be granted up and down the country. There is very clear indication that the Government have made up their minds that there are going to be no works of relief of any kind. I have had an instance of that: The guardians in my own Division are coming here to-morrow to meet the Minister of Health. They are bankrupt,

  415
  and they are dependent on the Minister to keep them going during the next week or two. Our people do not want relief; they want work. I hope that more and more from these benches we are going to have emphasis laid upon the fact that these people want work.
  We want to see the men we have known so well, upright men, my own neighbours, strong, straight, up and down men, who neither drink nor smoke and to -whom it is a positive pain to be unemployed provided with work; and yet, at a time like this, the policy of the Government is to take away all possibility of relief. The Minister of Transport met the county council representatives in my district, and practically he said to them: "Yes, it is a good scheme. It is a main road, which is absolutely necessary in the interests of providing work and also in the interests of traffic, but I am sorry we can do nothing in the matter; in fact, there are going to be no more relief works.' If that is going to be the policy of the Government, then not only the people in my Division and up and down the country will be affected, but I shall be in exactly the same position myself. There is no unemployment benefit for your young men, no relief for bankrupt guardians, and no relief works. Do the Government think that can continue without trouble? I am the last one to advocate trouble, but I should have very little respect for my people if they sat silent under such treatment as this.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I will answer as briefly as the time left me will allow the various points which have been placed before me. The last speaker referred to the hardship inflicted upon young persons living with their parents who could support them, and as an instance he gave a case within his own knowledge where there was scarcely one person employed in a whole block and he said that my Rules placed a great hardship upon the Guardians. May I point out to the hon. Member that where there is only one person employed in a block of houses the Rules which I made cannot and will not be applied quite clearly, in the circumstances, because—
  Mr. LAWSON: I took a certain part of the division, and I gave a particular case.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then let the hon. Member give me a concrete case, which would be worth a dozen such sentences as that. Quite obviously, where you have a block of houses in which only one person is in employment, it is perfectly impossible and inconceivable—and is not done, to disallow the benefit to young persons who are living with their parents in such a block. I have had a careful examination made of one complaint that has recently been brought to my notice—I do not say it is typical, but it is the latest case I have had. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) talked about, the refined cruelty of examining into the means in such cases. The special case brought to me was that of a family of seven and in the case of one of them benefit was disallowed. It was brought to me as a case of hardship. When I examined it, I found that there was £9 2s. per week coming to other members of the family in that house. Does the hon. Member call that a case of refined cruelty, and ought I not to examine into the means in such cases?
  Mr. HARDIE: I am not saying that that is hardship, but I am speaking of cases that come within any personal knowledge.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am giving a concrete case that has been brought before me as apart from these general accusations. Now I will take the statement of the hon. Member. He says that in the Employment Exchanges in Glasgow now they take no cognisance of the reasons that there have been for unemployment. That was his statement, as nearly as I could take down his words. These cases for extended benefit come before the Rota Committee, and in most cases in Glasgow, as the hon. Gentleman is, or ought to be, as well aware as I am, the majority of the men who do good service voluntarily on these rota committees are representatives of the workmen. I should like the hon. Gentleman to make that accusation up there, that these workmen take no cognisance of the reasons for unemployment.
  Mr. HARDIE: I am just stating a case where the reasons for dismissal have not been considered by the Umpire.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This is not a case of the Umpire, but of the Employment Exchange and the rota committees, and I should be glad to hear the hon. Member make that accusation against these committees in Glasgow— that the workers' representatives sitting on the rota committees and coming to the decisions to which he objects, are people who take no cognisance of the reasons for unemployment. He will find that they, just as much as I, resent entirely any such statement being made about them. With regard to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—
  Mr. MARCH: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the rota committees, may I ask him to say how many of the rota committees have offered their resignation because they cannot administer the Act?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the present time there are seven who are not fully functioning and, if I am right, there are two or throe of these who are not functioning at all and for whom officials have to act. The recent deputation of the Council of the Trades Union Congress that came to mo said that they themselves were advising these committees, under the circumstances, to continue their duties.
  Mr. MARCH: I know they have been advising them, but much against their will, many of them.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I allow them to settle their consciences with the Council of the Trades Union Congress. With regard to the question that the hon. Member raised, let me put to him quite briefly the answer. There has really been no difference as between my predecessor and myself in the treatment of Glasgow. There are two Clauses under which there may be disallowances, as the hon. Member knows quite well. I have not with me the figures for this particular class of disallowances—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I can give them to you now.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have the figures that I gave to the hon. Member, but I am not putting that case at all. That refers to the general character of the applicant's industrial history, whereas
  418
  the other Clause—making reasonable efforts to obtain employment—applies to what has happened, perhaps, more recently. That is the real difference as between Glasgow and the rest of the country—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not saying that Glasgow is worse than the rest of the country.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know. There is no difference in this between Glasgow and the rest of the country. Although he sits for a Scottish constituency and I do not, perhaps I am a greater friend to him than my predecessor was, as indeed happened in the Committee upstairs, when I closured many other cases, and it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) to closure the Scottish Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN; I know that.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In regard to this case, the applications from Glasgow to me—that being one of those towns that are hard hit by the industrial depression—are greater in proportion than the applications from the Kingdom as a whole. The disallowances in Glasgow are only the same in proportion as the rest of the country. Therefore, even judged by the figures, the treatment of Glasgow has given full allowance to the depressed condition of trade in the ship-building industry there. What happened was this: I know the trade has been hard hit. I will give, the hon. Member any figures I can with regard to Glasgow afterwards to show him the situation, and I recognise fully that the hon. Member at any rate does try to settle cases with the local Exchange officer before bringing them to me. In the treatment of the most distressed places, I have gone upon the principle I laid down 11 months ago in Glasgow, and that is that careful consideration ought to be had, in the question of disallowance, as regards the state of employment and the chances of getting work. I was questioned up there 11 months ago, and I said exactly the same as now. There is a difference between the general labourer and a plater or a boilermaker in a depressed trade. If you have a general labourer there is such a much greater turn in and turn out of work that you could reasonably ex-

  419
  pect him to get a certain number of weeks work in the last year or two years. With regard to the general labourer that is true, but it may not be true of a man, however skilled and with however good an industrial history, in a trade that has been so hard hit as the shipbuilding industry, the iron and steel trade and one or two others. It is precisely for that reason that I have said to one insurance committee after another, "Take those circumstances into consideration when you are actually dealing with cases." If my hon. Friend will ask the members of the Employment Committee in Glasgow—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a letter from the vice-chairman.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He will find out exactly what I said to them. He will find that it is exactly what is also laid down in the codified instructions which have been issued. Perhaps I may read those instructions?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I know them very well.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The instruction reads:
  "No definite period of employment can he prescribed for the purpose of this condition. The test varies between different claimants in different districts. In the districts where employment as a. whole has been good, notwithstanding the general
  420
  depression, a higher standard will be required than in districts which have been subject to severe depression. Each ease must be determined on its merits and in the light of individual and local circumstances, including both the normal employment of the claimant and the opportunities of obtaining such employment, and, in the absence of such employment, the opportunities of obtaining other employment. The Committee, with their intimate knowledge of the industrial conditions in their respective areas, will be in the best position to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion."
  The rest of the instrument is on exactly the same lines. What the hon. Member will realise if he will go into it is that every care possible has been taken to try to meet the circumstances of the case in deciding both on the point whether the claimant has been making every effort to obtain work, and also, what it a similar but slightly different condition, as to whether he has obtained a reasonable amount of work under the circumstances. That has been the custom throughout, and as far as I can sec and as far as I know it has been administered by the different employment committees in a way which, I think, has shown consideration for all the circumstances. and that good administration has resulted.
  It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS.
  LIFE INSURANCE.
  LIFE INSURANCE.
  WOUNDS PENSIONS.
  WOUNDS PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  BENEFICIARIES, IRISH FREE STATE.
  BENEFICIARIES, IRISH FREE STATE.
  DISABLEMKNT PENSIONS.
  DISABLEMKNT PENSIONS.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  TYPING GRADES (PROMOTION).
  TYPING GRADES (PROMOTION).
  EXAMINATION MARKS.
  EXAMINATION MARKS.
  CUSTOMS OFFICIALS.
  CUSTOMS OFFICIALS.
  PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT.
  PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (TREASURY CONTROL).
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (TREASURY CONTROL).
  FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY).
  FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY).
  ARMAMENTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE).
  ARMAMENTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE).
HOUSING.
  LEASEHOLDERS (DILAPIDATIONS).
  LEASEHOLDERS (DILAPIDATIONS).
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL TREATMENT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL TREATMENT).
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SMALL-POX CASE, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  SMALL-POX CASE, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  RICKETS (ARTIFICIAL SUNLIGHT TREATMENT).
  RICKETS (ARTIFICIAL SUNLIGHT TREATMENT).
  INFANTS (ERYSIPELAS AND VACCINATION).
  INFANTS (ERYSIPELAS AND VACCINATION).
EDUCATION.
  Grants (Circular 1,371).
  Grants (Circular 1,371).
  MERIONETH COUNTY COUNCIL (GRANTS).
  MERIONETH COUNTY COUNCIL (GRANTS).
  SCHOOL BUILDINGS (COST PER PLACE).
  SCHOOL BUILDINGS (COST PER PLACE).
  DURHAM (GRANTS).
  DURHAM (GRANTS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOLARS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOLARS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MERCANDISE EXPORTS
  MERCANDISE EXPORTS
  BRITISH DVESTUFFS.
  BRITISH DVESTUFFS.
  STRATHY POINT (PROPOSED LIGHTHOUSE).
  STRATHY POINT (PROPOSED LIGHTHOUSE).
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  EMIGRATION.
  EMIGRATION.
POST OFFICE.
  TYPING GRADES (PROMOTION).
  TYPING GRADES (PROMOTION).
  REDIRECTED LETTERS.
  REDIRECTED LETTERS.
  POSTMEN (ELECTRIC TORCHES).
  POSTMEN (ELECTRIC TORCHES).
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
ROYAL NAVY.
  HOSPITAL BEDS.
  HOSPITAL BEDS.
  INVALIDING DISABILITY (ATTRIBUTABILITY).
  INVALIDING DISABILITY (ATTRIBUTABILITY).
  MESSING, PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS.
  MESSING, PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS.
  VICTUALLING ALLOWANCE.
  VICTUALLING ALLOWANCE.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOY.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOY.
TRANSPORT.
  THAMES BRIDGES.
  THAMES BRIDGES.
  MAIN ROAD MAINTENANCE.
  MAIN ROAD MAINTENANCE.
  LONDON TRAFFIC
  LONDON TRAFFIC
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
  ROAD-WIDENING SCHEME, TOTTANHAM AND WALTHAMSTOW.
  ROAD-WIDENING SCHEME, TOTTANHAM AND WALTHAMSTOW.
  UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (GRANTS).
  UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (GRANTS).
  KENT MAIN ROADS (IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
  KENT MAIN ROADS (IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
  RAILWAY TERMINI (BOOKING OFFICE FACILITIES).
  RAILWAY TERMINI (BOOKING OFFICE FACILITIES).
  WORKMEN, BARNET BY-PASS (MESSING ACCOMMODATION AND SHELTERS).
  WORKMEN, BARNET BY-PASS (MESSING ACCOMMODATION AND SHELTERS).
  RAILWAY ENGINE-DRIVERS, FIREMEN, AND CLEANERS).
  RAILWAY ENGINE-DRIVERS, FIREMEN, AND CLEANERS).
  TOLLS.
  TOLLS.
MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (DRIVERS).
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (DRIVERS).
  TAXATION.
  TAXATION.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (SUNDAY RIFLE PRACTICE).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (SUNDAY RIFLE PRACTICE).
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROADS AND STREETS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he can give us any forecast as to when the Irish Bill is likely to be taken? I understand it is passing through the other House during the next day or so, and, as the Government wish to dispose of the matter quickly, it may be well that we should look a little ahead and see what can be done.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I understand, through the usual channels, that the Government in another place are proposing to suspend the Standing Orders and pass the Irish Bill through all its stages to-day. Your Lordships are aware that there is a special reason for this despatch into which I need not go at the moment. In this event the Bill will be in your Lordships' House this evening before dinner, or to-morrow when we meet. In either case I am anxious to follow the example of the House of Commons and pass the Bill through all its stages in one day if your Lordships are willing. With that object I shall place upon the Paper a Notice asking your Lordships to suspend the Standing Order, and if the Bill reaches us tomorrow I shall ask your Lordships to agree to it to-morrow.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Marquess that it might be as well if the Bill took precedence of other Orders to-morrow?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If your Lordships wish that, no doubt it can be done. Otherwise it would come in its place at the end of the Orders. If the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Earl wish, it might be taken first and I will gee that the necessary Motion is put upon the Paper. I understand that this is the wish of noble Lords.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes.

HORLEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th day of July last be approved.—(Viscount peel.)
THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "having regard to the decision of a Select Committee of this House upon the Horley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [H.L.] the Special Order be not approved." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper. I think I should explain to your Lordships why it is that I am asking your Lordships to follow the course that; is there outlined. I appear before your Lordships to-day, not as a member of His Majesty's present Administration, but as Chairman of the Select. Committee that heard both these cases and gave the Horley Gas Company their Bill. "Before I go any further I ought to give your Lordships, quite briefly, the history of this case. The Order has appeared under somewhat unusual circumstances, and it raises important considerations of procedure and policy. I will give your Lordships the history of the case and I ask you to reject the Order.
Two applications were made. First there was this Order promoted by a small electricity company in the district of Horley, and in the second place there was a Bill presented by the Horley Gas Company, whose application was heard, as I have explained to your Lordships,
1166
by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I may say that the Gas Company is an undertaking of some years' standing and has carried on its operations most successfully, so far as the supply of gas is concerned, in the district of Horley. The Gas Company were obliged to adopt the procedure of promoting a Bill for the simple reason that the new Electricity (Supply) Act was not upon the Statute Book and they were unable to avail themselves of its provisions. They accordingly followed the course which had been sanctioned by Parliament. The Electricity Company was formed and application was made for support after it had been made known that the Horley Gas Company intended to promote their Bill, and the Gas Company, in September, 1924, informed their opponents of this fact when their opponents were asking for subscriptions to their company. The Electricity Commissioners were informed of the promotion of this Bill so long ago as July, 1924. A copy of the Bill was handed to them at the same time as it was deposited in the Parliament Office so that the Commissioners might know of the intended promotion and follow the usual course, which was to defer consideration of the Order until Parliament had considered the Gas Company's Bill.
The Gas Company objected to the Order, but they were not heard by the Commissioners in support of their objection. The Commissioners granted the Order and forwarded it to the Minister of Transport for confirmation; and I should like to read to you Lordships a quotation from a member of the Commons Committee when the Bill was being considered there. He used the following words:
"There seems to be a contest here between the Electricity Commissioners and the Houses of Parliament as to who shall be able to decide between these two competing authorities on this particular Bill."
The Gas Company's Bill originated in your Lordships' House. It was considered by a Select Committee consisting of Lord Lovelace, Lord Lilford, Lord Erskine, Lord Hindlip and myself JS Chairman. Our hearing was a most exhaustive one and lasted four days. The Committee heard not only the representatives of the Electricity Commissioners but also the representatives of the Minister of Transport, and after

1167
a hearing which, as I say, lasted four days, they gave the Horley Gas Company their Bill.
I should like to quote to your Lordships quite briefly some of the advantages which the Gas Company claim for their Bill. In the first place, the Bill seeks to supply a materially larger area than does the Order. During the time when the Bill was being considered the manager of a neighbouring electricity undertaking intimated to the promoters of the Horley Gas Company's Bill that he would ask them, if the Bill went through, to supply that undertaking—namely, the Crawley undertaking—with electricity in bulk up to a maximum of 120,000 units per annum. Other advantages are as follows: (1), capital would be much more easily and more cheaply raised, as it would be raised under the Auction Clause, as required by the Standing Orders; (2), dividends would be limited; (3), cheaper electricity could be provided for these reasons: it would be generated very largely by utilising the waste heat resulting from the process of gas manufacture until such time as a bulk supply could be granted, the overhead charges would be spread over the two undertakings and only a portion of the administrative and executive charges would be charged to the electricity undertaking; (4) the same offices and showrooms would be available for both undertakings; and (5) very little increase in the staff of workmen would be needed. Further, the Gas Company would begin electricity business with an established clientèle, repeated interference with roads would be avoided and there would also be an absence of speculation.
With regard to the Electricity Order, I venture to suggest that it possesses none of those advantages. The authorised capital of the electricity company is £20,000 and it transpired that the consulting engineer had guaranteed of this amount a total of £5,000 on the understanding that he was to secure a management agreement for seven years. At the inquiry which was conducted by the House of Commons Committee, both these, schemes were examined and after a hearing lasting for three days the Horley Gas Company's Bill was rejected. In view of the course which I am asking your Lordships to take this afternoon, I
1168
think I should give you a few more facts regarding the proceedings before the House of Commons Committee. Under the Standing Order of Parliament, No. 106 of your Lordships' House, the Minister reports to Parliament upon the powers which are sought and that Report stands referred to the Committee appointed to hear the Bill. The Minister also has to perform a judicial function on every Order which is sent him, and that power is granted under the new Electricity (Supply) Act, 1925. If a memorial is lodged by any of the opponents, the Minister has to direct an inquiry to be held. But the terms of the Minister's Report undoubtedly indicated a desire, on his part, so far as we can judge words, that the Committee should uphold the Commissioners' Order. Whether this Report did or did not influence the Committee it is impossible to say, but I venture to suggest that there was an absence of that judicial spirit in which the Minister himself would have desired that anybody who held an inquiry should approach the subject.
The Gas Company very naturally felt that they were placed at a great disadvantage by the terms of the Minister's Report and felt that no good purpose could be served by their appearing upon their memorial and being heard. I might point out that the Gas Company have, therefore, been precluded from stating their case before either of the two subordinate tribunals and feel that they have no alternative but to concentrate upon this appeal to your Lordships. Although the Minister reported to Parliament that the Commissioners were satisfied with the practicability of the technical scheme as submitted by the Electricity Company and the promoters informed the House of Commons Committee that they had explored in vain the possibility of a bulk supply, the promoters at the last moment threw over the scheme which had been approved by the Electricity Commissioners and submitted a proposal for a bulk supply with the County of London Electricity Supply Company.
The nearest main of the County of London Electricity Supply Company is eleven miles away, and further power would be necessary if at any time it should be found possible to bring a supply of electricity to Horley. If bulk supply is a practical scheme now surely

1169
it was so when the Commissioners approved the original scheme. If that was so, they would undoubtedly not have sanctioned a local and separate generating station. Assuming that a bulk supply was practicable, why does the confirmed Order retain its original form and say nothing about bulk supply? I think it is pertinent to ask this question: Who are the real promoters and under which scheme is the district of Horley to procure its supply of electricity? Is it to be under some bulk supply, or is it to be under a scheme confirmed by the Minister, abandoned by the promoters of the Order and condemned by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside? I might point out that the Horley Gas Company, if they had secured power under the Bill, would have given a supply of electricity to the district within one year of the passing of their Bill—a condition which the Committee imposed. They would have utilised the method of waste heat until such time as they would have been able to supply the district with a bulk supply.
I think I need only give one more fact. The engineer of the promoters of the Electricity Order, who appeared before our Committee in March, told us when he was cross-examined that he had explored in vain the securing of a bulk supply, and he used every means in his power to defend the local generating scheme, as the only alternative. In his evidence before the Committee in the House of Commons it transpired that in January, 1925, he had commenced pourparlers with the County of London Electricity Supply Company. It also transpired later on that those preliminary arrangements had reached a more or less tangible form when he was actually giving evidence before our Committee, and only a fortnight after we had disposed of the question and granted the Horley Gas Company their Bill, a provisional arrangement was entered into that the County of London Electricity Supply Company should undertake to support the promoters before the House of Commons Committee and should continue to support them in asking for any further powers which they sought. I do not know whether your Lordships feel the same as I do, but I submit that this want of frankness on the part of the promoters' engineer is hardly consonant with the best Committee Room
1170
tactics. I submit that the Committee had a light to expect to be treated with more frankness by this gentleman when he appeared before us.
There is one final point, if this Order is agreed to I think it will be assumed by outside sources that your Lordships agree with the policy upon which the Electricity Commissioners' policy is based. Your Lordships are probably aware that under the new Electricity Supply Act, 1925, statutory gas companies? are now empowered to apply for Orders to supply electricity, and I think they will certainly wish to know how they stand under this procedure. Gas companies have a right, I think, to expect that whatever undertakings they place before Committees, or before the Electricity Commissioners, should be considered on their merits as business propositions. I venture to suggest, that the only safeguard in regard to these matters consists in allowing Parliament to retain control over the granting of Orders, and if your Lordships to-day reject this Order I can give an undertaking, on behalf of the Gas Company, that they will promote a Bill on the same lines next Session.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("having regard to the decision of a Select committee of this House upon the Horley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [H.L.] the Special Order be not approved.")—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think I can throw a little light on some of the questions addressed to the House by the noble Earl, but I think I ought to draw attention to this extraordinary fact, that the Minister of Transport, in support of the course which has been taken by Viscount Peel in moving the confirmation of this Order, is being to-day opposed by another Minister of the Crown, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. I believe such a course is quite unprecedented in your Lordships' House—the course, I mean, of one Minister opposing the recommendation of another Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble Lord, as this really touches my responsibility? The fact is that my noble friend Lord Clarendon was appointed by your Lordships Chairman of this Private Bill Committee, and he

1171
has a loyalty to your Lordships which he is bound to observe to the best of his ability. I am pronouncing no opinion whatever upon the merits of the case. My noble friend, with this obligation upon him, in the summer approached me when he knew that there might be some friction with the Ministry of Transport, and asked me what course he ought to pursue. I felt bound to say that, in the interests of the judicial procedure of your Lordships' House, he was obliged to speak as Chairman of the Committee over which he presided, but that it was, of course, quite understood that he did not speak as a member of the Government.
LORD GAINFORD: Of course, I accept the explanation of the noble Marquess. I am a comparatively new member of your Lordships' House, but the practice in another place, of which I was for long a member, was different. It was usual there for another member of the Committee to voice the opinion of the Committee, if it were thought necessary, rather than show a division among the members of the Government. But let that point go. What is really of importance is this: What is the best thing to be done for a particular community who are very anxious to secure electric light and electric power? I do not want for a, moment to suggest that the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment is actuated by anything like obstructive tactics—far from it. Nobody could have presented the case for the Gas Company in a clearer or more forcible way than he has done this afternoon. But I want to point out that the Gas Company's Bill is now dead. The other proposal, this Order, is before your Lordship's House, has passed all the tribunals which Parliament has appointed for the consideration of a matter of this kind, and, having passed the House of Common's Committee, comes up for ratification here; and within six months, if this Order is passed, the people in this locality will not only have a bulk supply of electric light and electric power, but will be in a very much better position than they possibly could be if your Lordships accepted the Amendment which has been suggested.
In that ease the noble Earl has promised that another Bill will be brought, in next year in order to deal with this subject de novo. That means
1172
that the whole of the expense which has been incurred by the people in this locality, some in favour of an electric supply company, others in favour of a small gas company, would be incurred again, and then possibly the matter may be once more deferred. On the other hand, in the event of the noble Viscount's Motion being accepted the population will be able to secure their electric light on the cheapest terms available, and the supply will be of a very satisfactory kind. The natural inclination of us all must be to support the tribunal of the House which has apparently investigated these things. But it should be pointed out that in March last there were two private enterprise concerns—and do not let us trouble about which had priority in promoting this particular proposal of a generating station in Horley. It is not that question that is of importance, it is a question of which is the better proposal—the one which was before your Lordships' Committee last March, or the much larger one which came before the House of Commons Committee two months later.
In March last there were these two comparatively small bodies in the Horley district, one composed of a number of gentlemen who had subscribed £10,000 to put up a generating station in order that their homes might be adequately lighted, and the other, the Gas Company, who, having failed to supply a satisfactory gas to the community, said: "We will put up a generating station of our own, so that we may replace by electricity the gas which we formerly supplied to our customers." But during that period the Barking station came on the scene. The Barking station, I submit, is one of the finest stations in the world. It was opened by His Majesty the King not very long ago, and it produces electric power to the extent of 100,000 kilowatts at its 800,000 h.p. station.
That station has now got vast mains—not, as the noble Earl said, within eleven miles of the Horley district, but within four miles of the area of supply. It is quite true that if you draw a line to the far end of the area you can reach the eleven miles, but within the next few weeks an Order will be secured for the County of London authority to continue its main up to the very area of the Horley district. There is no difficulty

1173
whatever now in continuing the mains—as they will be continued—to the Merstham district, which is immediately on the north, and another area which they intend to supply on the north-east. The House of Commons had before it this proposal of a bulk supply for this community instead of the comparatively small generating station which was going to be erected at Horley.
I venture to suggest that this Order will enable the promoters to become distributors. Instead of generating electricity they will become distributors of a bulk supply provided for them by the Barking station. The distributors cannot be asked an absurdly high price by the County of London Company, because the Electricity Commissioners can control that price, and can say what is a fair price for the County of London Company to charge. The consumers of the district can also apply to the Electricity Commissioners every three years to have the price which they are charged revised. If this proposal were accepted the community would have no generating station in its midst, with a factory chimney and the consumption of coal there, but would get the electricity as cheaply as it can possibly be generated in this country. It will be an abundant and reliable supply, and in the event of any factories or workshops being put up in that district, instead of requiring extensions of the Gas Company's plant, their bulk supply will always be there ready to hand and will be the cheapest possible supply that can be secured to those factories. It seems to me that your Lordships have merely to decide what is really in the interests of the community which these two rival concerns desire to serve. I think there ought to be only one answer.
In defending the cause of the Gas Company the noble Earl suggested that no useful purpose would be served by the Gas Company appearing before the tribunal of inquiry which the Minister of Transport was obliged to set up. They did not appear. They had every opportunity of appearing. They were invited to appear, but for reasons of their own they did not.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but I would point out that the Gas
1174
Company had already secured their Bill at the hands of your Lordships' Committee in this House, and that is the reason why they did not appear.
LORD GAINFORD: I said they had their reasons for not appearing. But I will explain to your Lordships that the circumstances are different Your Lordships' Committee had not before them the considerations in connection with this bulk supply at all.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There was no bulk supply or generating station in the Order.
LORD GAINFORD: The bulk supply has been arranged—
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Yes; but the point is that it is not in the Order. The original Order is for a local generating supply scheme.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that. There is a perfect answer.
LORD GAINFORD: There is some little technical point as to what is in the Order and what is not in it; but the fact; remains that there is a bulk supply available to the community if they like to take it and if your Lordships care to enable the community to have it. My point is that this supply will be an efficient and adequate supply, and that the Gas Company in not appearing before the tribunal in June last put itself really out of court, lint it is not upon those technicalities that I ask your Lordships to support the Government in the action they have taken. It is because I am satisfied in my own mind that the community will best be served by having a bulk supply available which will meet all the necessities, not only of the present day but for years to come.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, we are all disposed in this House to agree, when we can, with the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. But neither our regard for him nor the mere technicalities of the order in which Bills and schemes have passed ought to move us in this matter. The whole question is whether the bulk supply scheme is not by far the best for this particular locality in Surrey. To confine it to a small local company supplying gas as well as electricity is to

1175
leave it exposed to the very thing of which it has been the policy of successive Governments to get rid. These Governments have laid down that electricity supplies in bulk under such large schemes as the one at Barking are preferable in every respect to the smaller schemes—preferable in cheapness, because the price is controlled, preferable in quality because the system is a well-thought out one applicable in various directions, and preferable in that it all goes towards the unification of the system under which light, heat and power are to be produced. I have no wish to take up your Lordships' time. This is a question which has come, up before and will come up again; but I cannot have any opinion in this matter except that the proposal of the Government is very much the best on the merits. Whether there are minor questions about the Order which have come up here from decisions of the Committee, I do not think it worth considering. We have to consider the substance of the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, you have been reassured by the noble Marquess opposite as to any division in the Government. You have listened to speeches on the one side and on the other, and I am rather wondering whether on the whole the same effect has been produced in the minds of your Lordships as on mine. I am sorry not to agree with my noble and learned Leader, but I see no reason why we should not imitate the excellent example of the Benches opposite. What is it that we really have here? We have a company which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, had collected £10,000 from the neighbourhood to light their own homes. That was a very fine example, but I understood from the noble Earl's exposition that £5,000 out of that £10,000 was in consideration of a service agreement by the engineers and not so much connected with anybody's home. I should be glad if the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport would tell us, when he comes to reply, whether it is or is not the fact that the contemplated Gas Company's Bill does supply a larger distinct than the Order, and whether it is true that the Order merely picks out, as I understand, the "plum" of the district and leaves the outlying people unsupplied. If that is so, I do not see how, on the whole, it would
1176
be an advantage to Horley to have a smaller Order.
On the question which the noble Lord below me raised as to the bulk supply, the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, says that there is a complete answer to that; but I do not understand why we are to be told that we are to approve of an Order providing for a generating station and are to have it understood in some way that that means a bulk supply. That seems to me to be a very excellent reason for rejecting the Order in the form in which it is before us because, as I understand it, the Order we have before us to-day makes it perfectly clear that it does not contemplate a bulk supply, and I do not think we ought to pass it under the impression that it means something else.
Then there is this further question. The noble Lord who supported this Order, and who spoke second, said that it had gone through all the stages which Parliament had provided and that it now merely came to your Lordships for confirmation. That is rather to suggest that Parliament is to be bound to confirm, without examination and consideration, any Order which comes before it. I think it is very important that Parliament should retain the power of saying in special circumstances that it is not prepared to confirm an Order where the circumstances are peculiar. In this case they certainly do seem to be peculiar. There seem to have been changes of front on the part of the promoters of this electricity undertaking and there seems to have been a decision of your Lordships' Committee, after a careful hearing, in favour of the Gas Company I hope that your Lordships to-day will at any rate assert the fact that the ultimate control rests with Parliament, by not passing this Order which has been prepared, not by any Parliamentary body but merely by those bodies to whom Parliament has delegated the business of examining these things in the first place and bringing them up in a complete form. I trust your Lordships will agree that the arguments of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment are really unanswerable and have not been answered.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, as a member of the Committee, may I be allowed, in supporting my noble colleague Lord Clarendon in his Motion, to assure your Lordships that we were all abso-

1177
lutely unanimous in the consideration of this Bill when it came before your Lordships' Committee. As far as I can gather, there are only two objections raised this afternoon. One was raised by Lord Gainford on the ground of expense. But had it not been for the opposition, surely the Gas Company would have had their Bill and by next June they would have been supplying electricity, as the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, has already told your Lordships. The other point was raised by the, noble and learned Viscount opposite and was as to the bulk supply. This bulk supply is, of course, something new to anything we heard during the Committee stage. But as far as I can see there is no earthly reason, why, if your Lordships prefer a bulk supply, that bulk supply should not be given through the Gas Company instead of through the Electricity Company.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said the Gas Company was a minute company. I think I might retort by saying that the Electricity Company is almost a microscopical one. I see no great advantage in the argument of the bulk supply, and if my memory serves me aright—I am fairly certain it does—as has already been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the area under the Order is considerably smaller than the area under the Gas Company. It seems to me that if you pass the Order of the Ministry of Transport you will be depriving, at any rate for some time, a large number of the inhabitants of that part of the world of any possibility of obtaining electricity. Another point that has occurred to me—I do not know if your Lordships will agree with me—is this, that in this matter the Department has been rather apt to consider themselves in a position to usurp the powers of Parliament, certainly the powers of this House, which I am sure your Lordships are very jealous to preserve.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Marquess who leads the House for the explanation which he has given. It has enabled us to enjoy the sight of two colleagues speaking on opposite sides. I am sure the position was made quite clear, but I should, of course, have regretted very much if the practice of
1178
your Lordships' House had made it impossible for the Chairman of a Committee to explain the action of a Committee of your Lordships. At the same time, I confess that I do not think I have ever approached any debate in your Lordships' House in which I felt more puzzled than I am by the issues now before us. The Affirmative Order system is one which, I know, we all desire to encourage. At the same time it has this disadvantage compared with the Private Bill system: Under the Private Bill system rival schemes come before your Lordships under a Bill, and you have to judge between individual members of your Lordships' House responsible for the schemes. But in these Affirmative Resolutions the Government move, and are forced, therefore, to take one side or the other, or at any rate the Department represented takes one side or the other, and we are in a difficulty—which some of us perhaps feel more than noble Lords opposite—in voting upon the question, because if we happen to disagree with the Government Department we have to go into the Lobby against the Government. I appreciate, that noble Lords opposite will find that easier than we do, and perhaps my noble friend behind me will find it easier than some of us do.
I think that some of the conduct of this Order has been very unfortunate. It is most unfortunate that the Ministry of Transport did not invite the Gas Company to appear before them at an earlier stage. My noble friend Lord Gainford referred to the fact that they were invited. Yes, but in this way. Your Lordships are aware that there are two inquiries, one before the Electricity Commissioners, and one before the Ministry of Transport. In this case the inquiry could be held before the Electricity Commissioners, and in that case it takes place before the inquiry by the Committee of your Lordships' House. Acting entirely in their discretion, the Electricity Commissioners did not decide to call upon the Gas Company to appear before them. Then came the decision of the Committee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I do so because what he has just said may give a false impression. The noble

1179
Earl suggested that the Gas Company were not invited to go before the Electricity Commissioners on the first inquiry. I think your Lordships could necessarily gather from that that their case had not been considered. That is not so. They sent in full documents on the subject, and they were entitled to appear if they had wanted to do so, and they did not. I think I am entitled to put that right.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am not arguing the matter of procedure with the noble Viscount or the Department he represents. My impression was that it was the other way. I had been given to understand that the initiative lay with the Electricity Commissioners, and not with the parties themselves. At any rate, in appearing before me, the parties said in a tone of grievance that they were not summoned before the Electricity Commissioners, though I admit, and the Memorandum makes it quite clear, that their ease on paper was heard. But they were not heard in person.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, but they could have been had they liked.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Their impression is that they could not. After the decision of the Committee—I am talking now solely in point of time—the second inquiry (the Ministry of Transport inquiry as opposed to the Electricity Commissioners' inquiry) invited the Gas Company to come and state their case, but the Gas Company, I think rightly, said they would not, because they had had a decision of the Committee of your Lordships' House, and the Ministry of Transport is not a Court of Appeal from a Committee of your Lordships' House. I think the Gas Company were right in refusing to take any further part, relying on the protection they would receive from your Lordships as a result of this debate. That being so, I think it is very unfortunate that the Ministry of Transport did not hear the Gas Company at an earlier stage. It gives the impression that the Ministry of Transport have been partisans all through. That being so, I sincerely hope that the noble Marquess will not think it necessary to put on the Government Tellers in favour of the Motion before us, if we, unfortunately, as I believe, have to come to a decision on this matter.
1180
Therefore I desire to make a suggestion. I agree, of course, with my noble friend Lord Gainford. Our cardinal desire is to do the best we can for Horley, but I think it would be very unfortunate if this Order was forced through to-day, in view of its history from the beginning. I think, too, that it would be equally unfortunate if a direct negative were carried. Primarily, of course, this is a disagreement between a Committee of your Lordships' House and the Ministry of Transport, but a much more important matter than that, as the debate has made clear, is that it is a disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Clarendon pledged himself, in the event of this Order being refused, that the Gas Company would reintroduce their Bill. I understand that under the Standing Orders the proper notices for the Bill have already been given with a view to its deposit on December 17, the usual date. My noble friend also tells me that the Bill is already in print.
I would like to suggest that this Motion should be withdrawn to-day, and that your Lordships should allow the question of the disagreement between the two Houses to be decided in the only way that it can be decided—namely, by referring this Order and the Bill, when introduced, to a Joint Committee of the two Houses when we meet in the early spring. I would, of course, undertake that everything that I can do shall be done to bring that inquiry on as early as possible. I am very reluctant to make this suggestion for two reasons. I feel that it will increase the expense in a matter which is not a very great one from the point of view of bulk in comparison with the schemes that are considered by your Lordships, though it is of great importance to the parties immediately concerned. I am also very reluctant to make the suggestion because it means some delay. But, after all, it is better to have a little delay and to come to the best solution in the end.
I am sorry that my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Transport has not yet addressed us, because I was hoping to receive some enlightenment from him. We have heard a great deal about bulk supply. I would point out that this Order contains authority for setting up a small generating station. I

1181
am unable to reconcile that proposal with what I am told the real proposal is—namely, to get a big bulk supply from the Barking generating station, if this scheme is to go on surely it is better to go on in its real form and not in its wrong form. That qualifies, I hope, the disadvantage of delay. I make the suggestion in the interests of peace and with the desire of reaching the best possible solution on behalf of Horley. On the other hand, if it is not accepted and the Ministry of Transport remain of the same mind as they have always been in this matter, then I can only say that I have heard no reason which makes me think that the Committee decided wrongly last, year and I shall support the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, in the matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will deal as rapidly as I can with this matter because there is other business on the Paper which must be dealt with. I do not suppose that the promoters of the Bill by the Gas Company, or the promoters of the Special Order, ever imagined that it would threaten to produce a schism on the Government Bench or effect a formidable split in the serried ranks of the Party opposite. Unfortunately this has happened, and it partly arises from the fact of this double procedure; this procedure by Bill and procedure by Special Order. The Gas Company adopted the procedure by Bill; the Electricity Company desired to proceed by Special Order.
Let me say just what happened. It has been recited already, and I only do so in order to get on with the business quickly. The Bill was passed by a Committee of this House over which the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, presided, but it was rejected by the Committee of another place. What was the action as regards the Bill taken by the Minister of Transport? I think the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, made some suggestion that he had not exercised the full judicial wisdom which he is supposed to exercise. The Minister of Transport reported, as he was bound to do, to both Committees, to the Committee of your Lordships' House and to the Committee of the other House. It was a perfectly fair and judicial Report, and no one who reads it can impugn its judicial quality in the slightest degree. But it produced different effects in each House; or rather, I suppose I ought not
1182
to suggest that a Committee of another place is influenced by the Report of a Minister. What happened was this: the Bill was dead.
Concurrently with this Bill there was a Special Order brought before the Electricity Commissioners in February last. The noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, says there was no opportunity for the Gas Company to make their views heard before the Commissioners, and it is quite true that the Commissioners did not at that time, although it was perfectly within their discretion, order an inquiry. But that does not affect the position of the Gas Company; and on two grounds. The Gas Company sent their case by documents to the Special Commissioners. They were fully considered; it was not until after full consideration of these points had been given by the Special Commissioners that the Provisional Order was made. But there, is this further point. It was absolutely in the power of the Gas Company, if they chose, to ask that an inquiry should be held. They did not ask for an inquiry. I do net criticise their action, but they cannot now come and criticise the Commissioners when they could, if they chose, have asked for an inquiry themselves. That Order was not confirmed.
When the Bill was dead, the Minister of Transport decided again that he would have an inquiry. It was intimated to him that the Gas Company did not want to appear before the inquiry, but he did not wish to take any advantage of statements of that kind, and therefore a letter was written from the Ministry of Transport to the Gas Company asking if they wished to appear. They were perfectly able to appear. I do not criticise their reasons for not appearing. I only say that they did not appear, and therefore they cannot argue now as to the action of the Commissioners when they had full opportunity of placing their whole case before them if they chose to do so. Throughout the Commissioners themselves and the Minister of Transport seem to me to have acted with perfect fairness and with a perfect observance of the judicial position in which they were placed.
Before I consider what would be the result of following the advice given by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, let me deal with one or two incidental points

1183
upon which some criticism has been made. It has been said: What are these people doing? In their Order they are to set up an electricity undertaking of their own, a generating supply. What are they going to do? They are going to take the bulk supply from some other company. Yes, of course, they are going to take bulk supply from some other company if they can get it more cheaply; but these critics have completely misunderstood, or have incorrectly read, what the Order is. It does not say they must set up a generating station. It gives them power. It is purely permissive, and, therefore, there really is nothing whatever in the point that these people are departing in any way from their Order. And not only that. They could not under the Order set up a generating station, because, under Clause 11, before they set up such a generating station they have to go before the Electricity Commissioners and see if they have a right to do so. That, I think, entirely disposes of that criticism.
There is another point about capital. I have heard some rather critical opinions as to the amount of the capital involved. It is said it is only £20,000. What a miserable amount of capital! But you do not want to subscribe more capital than is wanted, and this is not a company which is being subscribed to by people who do not live in the area and who want to exploit the area. This capital is subscribed by the people in the area themselves, many of them small and poor people, and it is not right to sneer at a company of this kind because it has only £20,000 of capital. It is a great effort on the part of these people to produce electricity for themselves. There is no reason why they should not have their own company, or why they should be bound to take it from the Gas Company, whose business is not to supply electricity and whose gas is not always satisfactory to the inhabitants of the district.
So much for these two points. I did not want to go into the full details of the matter before your Lordships. I think the only question that remains concerns the result that would follow if your Lordships postponed or threw out this proposal. My noble friend the Chairman of Committees had made the suggestion
1184
that this Order should be withdrawn or rejected and that two Bills should be promoted next year.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I suggested that my noble friend should not press this Order now. It could remain on the Paper, and the Order, together with the Bill, could be referred to a Joint Committee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: When?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Early next Session. My noble friend Lord Clarendon made it clear that the Gas Company are prepared to re-promote their Bill. I was able to add to that information the fact that I know that they have given their notice and, in accordance with the ordinary procedure, they would deposit their Bill on December 17 for next Session. My proposal was that this Bill which will be introduced formally into your Lordships' House on the first or second day of our meeting next Session, should be referred at once to a. Committee along with this Order as competing schemes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This particular Order?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, assuming that this Order represents the scheme of the Ministry of Transport, which I doubt.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend says that he doubts that this scheme represents the view of the Minister of Transport. I am here to say that it does, and I think that, as I represent the Ministry of Transport, my word will be accepted. But I am going to ask your Lordships not to take any such course, but to pass this Order, if you are willing to do so, at once. Why should these people be delayed in getting their electricity in their own place? I understand that within six months, and probably still sooner, the necessary conductors can be laid down and these people will then enjoy their electricity. After all, both companies have not too much money, and I think that it is very hard indeed on this other Electricity Company that they should have to wait and to spend more money after this matter has come up to

1185
your Lordships' House. I should like to add one further point which has not been mentioned through the whole discussion I think your Lordships always pay a good deal of attention to the wishes of councillors in these matters. The Reigate District Council has given its assent to the electricity scheme, so that you not only have the Electricity Company, but also a public authority in the area supporting their scheme. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to support the public authority, to support the company and not to allow this delay of months which must: necessarily ensue if the whole matter is put off to be dealt with next Session. I trust that your Lordships will support the Order.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I am afraid that, in spite of my noble friend's appeal, I must press this matter to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very reluctant indeed that your Lordships' House should be in any way hurried in a decision of this kind. So far as I am concerned, and the Government which I have the honour to represent, we shall naturally, in a Division, support my noble friend Lord Peel, who represents the Ministry of Transport. He has a responsibility thrown upon him as representing that Department of the Government, and he has discharged that responsibility. It is no use saying that my noble friend ought or ought not to have accepted the particular decision of your Lordships' Committee, because an obligation is thrown upon the Ministry of Transport to arrive at an independent conclusion upon the facts which may be submitted to them. That does not, of course, control your Lordships as a House, and, if this matter comes to a Division, undoubtedly your Lordships will decide as you think best after having heard the debate. But it does control the action of His Majesty's Government, who, of course, will support the Department of the Government whose responsibility is involved.
On the other hand, I do admit that the issues which have been submitted to us have not been very clear. There has been a certain vagueness about various matters which have been put before us—as to whether the parties have had a full opportunity of being heard, as to what
1186
precisely the Order contains, and as to various other facts. I am in your Lordships' hands entirely in this matter. If there were any desire to have a little more time, certainly I should not stand in the way of it. I think perhaps it is possible that a few days' consideration might enable us to arrive at a clearer conclusion as to what ought to be done than we could reach if we decided now. It may be thought a strong measure for me to make this suggestion, but I always feel myself, in matters of this kind, under a very special responsibility. We are a judicial body in this matter, although a Department of the Government is involved, and it is very hard on private rights if by any undue precipitancy they are overridden without due consideration.
I am led specially to make this observation by this fact. The Order was referred, under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, to a Special Orders Committee, the very Committee which we set up here and which marks a new procedure in your Lordships' House. They considered this very Order, and their finding, as it stands upon the Orders of the House, is not very guiding. The Report is as follows:

HORLEY DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
"Report from the Special Orders Committee that no petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, but that in the case of the Holley District Gas Company there were special reasons why a petition was not presented against the Special Order: read and ordered to lie on the Table."
Except that they say that there were special reasons why the Gas Company did not petition, no guidance is given to your Lordships as to what course you should take. My noble friend the Chairman of Committees has, of course, explained that the reason why no petition was presented was that this Company considered that as they had laid their ease fully before the Private Bill Committee it was not necessary to say it all over again.
But that does leave an uncomfortable feeling with all of us that we have not had the guidance from the Special Orders Committee which at any rate, had hoped we should always have. I am not criticising the Committee, but that is the position in -which we stand. That adds

1187
to my desire not, if I may use so colloquial an expression, to rush your Lordships if there is any desire in any quarter of the House to have a little more time. If the matter goes to a Division of course His Majesty's Government will support the Ministry of Transport, and I hope that my friends will do the same, but if there is any desire to have an adjournment, in order that a little further consideration may be given to the matter, I shall not resist it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word in answer to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, especially as in the old days I was very much concerned with what he calls the judicial side of the House as regards inquiries before Committees. For my part I think we should meet in accepting the suggestion of the Lord Chairman. That not only provides for delay, but it allows the whole judicial atmosphere to be reinstated on a proper basis. We get, rid of suggestions on the one side or the other. I do not know whether it is in order for the Lord Chairman to propose what he has brought before us as an Amendment in order that we should not only have delay but also put the matter to be decided upon a true judicial basis.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it would be much easier to decide upon the Lord Chairman's suggestion if we had a day or two in which to consider it.
LORD PARMOOR: To that I make no objection at all, but it did appear to me that the Lord Chairman's suggestion was a solution on a judicial basis. Whether it should be moved to-day, or at a future time, is a matter for the Leader of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have very much pleasure in responding to the practical invitation of the Leader of the House to move the adjournment of the debate for a few days. I will move it for whatever length of time is thought to be desirable—for a few days or till this day week. I agree that there is difficulty in a matter of this kind. Nobody likes to vote against a Department of the Government, and still less against a Committee of this House, who
1188
have heard the matter at great sacrifice of time and convenience, and it is a general rule of your Lordships' House to support your Committees. Still more it is our rule to support the Lord Chairman. Indeed, it is quite unknown to me that a suggestion made by our Lord Chairman should not be accepted at once, and generally, by the House. The noble Marquess has suggested a little delay to enable us to come to an agreement, and I am very glad to adopt his suggestion. I move that the debate be adjourned till this day week.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills made.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very sorry to have to trouble your Lordships at, I am afraid, some length, in laying before you the provisions of a most complicated and technical Bill, and I can only ask your indulgence if I do not make it as clear as I desire to make it. Let me ask the House, in the first place, to lay aside a great deal of the prejudice which may have been excited in your Lordships' minds by certain of the provisions of the Bill as first presented to Parliament, because, in the course of its passage through another place, it has received a great deal of amendment. For example, all mention of special provisions for London has disappeared from the Bill, and railways and special properties are no longer dealt with. There is no absolute and complete break with the local knowledge of parochial organisation, and the connection with the Inland Revenue is completely done away with. There is no question of that any longer. These very important changes have been made in the

1189
Bill before it reaches your Lordships, and therefore I ask you to approach it with a completely unprejudiced mind, so far as those considerations are concerned.
The general defence of this Bill is that the present rating system is lacking in simplicity, does not promote uniformity, and closes the road absolutely to future local government reform. The changes that the Bill proposes are not in the main changes of principle, but changes of machinery—elaborate, intricate, far-reaching changes of machinery—with a view of promoting simplicity and uniformity and the opportunity for reform. As to simplicity, I am not going to trouble your Lordships with many figures, but under the present system there are very nearly 13,000 rural rating authorities.
LORD PARMOOR: Is that parishes?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. Under this Bill they will be reduced to about 650. The urban case is not so strong, but the rating authorities will be reduced by one half. Under the new system there will be no reason for the elaborate apportionment of estimates and expenditure amongst this enormous number of small rating authorities. I am informed that, in connection with the charges made for rating purposes, there were no fewer than 200,000 journeys a year which had to be performed by public officials in order to carry them through. All this we hope to simplify, and, perhaps more than anything else, there are provisions to consolidate the rates. Your Lordships are no doubt familiar with the fact that what is called the poor rate and the general district rate reached the rating authority as it were independently, so that there cannot be any proper correlation and co-ordination between them so far as the capacity to bear the burden by the ratepayers is concerned. Then I turn to uniformity. There is a deplorable lack of uniformity under our present system. Under the Bill, however, there will be but one valuation for poor rate and county rate purposes, and there are elaborate provisions by which the practice of assessment committee and assessment committee in the same county may be brought into relation, and, similarly, on a larger scale the practice between county and county assimilated.
That is the general defence of the Bill, and I will now attempt to describe its
1190
actual provisions. The general scaffolding of the English rating system, of course, remains the same. There is to be a valuation, there are to be precepts, rates, assessments, and a final appeal to Quarter Sessions. Those fundamental features remain. But there is a new distribution of function in nearly all these matters in the direction of that very simplification to which I have referred. I say "nearly all these matters," because I think it may be said that, broadly speaking, in precepting there is no change. The same authority whose duty it is to issue precepts now will, broadly speaking, still have that obligation—the county, the board of guardians, and so on.
Now I turn to the main point, rating and valuation. The great change to which the noble and learned Lord has already, in an interjection, referred is the disappearance of the parish as the rating unit. With the parish the overseer disappears. The rating authority in the county boroughs is the county borough; in every other area it is the district, either the urban district or the rural district, and it is never a smaller authority than those. There is a special advantage in having the larger unit in the country districts because, under the present system, there is an uncertainty in the burden which may be thrown upon the individual ratepayer, and it arises in this way. Let us suppose that in a parish some large property becomes unproductive from a rating point of view—some great works, say, become unoccupied and cease to pay rates. That does not change necessarily the apportionment of the rates upon that particular parish, and consequently, under the present system, the deficiency has to be made good by the other ratepayers, and a very heavy burden falls upon them. That will be altered, because we deal with much larger areas. The effect of this putting out of action of particular assessable units is spread over the larger area, and there is no such hardship as I have indicated.
I have said that the parish disappears as the rating unit, and it is true. Nevertheless, it is not true to say that there is a complete loss of touch with parochial local knowledge, because whenever a rating authority is valuing for rating purposes a particular parish then two representatives of the parish are, for

1191
that occasion and for that purpose, added to the authority. That was a change introduced while the Bill was going through another place. It preserves the great advantage of parochial local knowledge, and I am sure your Lordships will think it an improvement in the Bill. Next there is a provision under which there shall be regularity of valuation. At present it is left entirely vague, and there are all sorts of variety of practice. Sometimes valuation has not taken place for any number of years. All that is to be put upon a regular footing. It is to take place quinquennially; not that there is to be a complete recalculation every five years, but every five years the valuation is to be brought up to date. Then there is the great subject of deductions which are made from the gross value in order to find the rateable value. The House is aware that at present those deductions are made within certain limits upon the authority of the local body. Now, by the Bill, they are to be prescribed by Statute. They will be found in a Schedule to the Bill. That is in order to produce the uniformity of which I have spoken.
There is one matter affecting deductions to which I ought to call your Lordships' special attention. As the House is aware, the rateable value of agricultural land is only a quarter of the corresponding value in other hereditaments. Though that applies to agricultural land, it does not apply to the farmhouse. But the question of the farm buildings has arisen, and, in considering that question, the House of Commons came to the conclusion that, as the farm buildings had no object and no value apart from the agricultural land with which they were connected, therefore the valuation of farm buildings ought to follow exactly the same rule as the valuation of agricultural land, and the 75 per cent. deduction is inserted in the case of farm buildings.
I turn now from the rating authority to the assessment authority. Under the present law the assessment area is the union, and the assessment authority is the board of guardians or a committee of the board of guardians. Modifications in that system are introduced into the Bill. In a county borough the county borough council itself is to be the assessment authority. With regard to the rest of the country there are to be schemes which
1192
are to provide areas consisting of one or more districts which will be the new assessment areas. I think it may be said that the general pressure of public opinion has been in the direction of dwelling somewhat upon a smaller number of districts than a larger, and as the intentions of the Government have been explained up to now, they have been rather in the direction of including in these new areas a lesser number of districts than a larger as was at first suggested. The assessment committees in the county boroughs are, as I have explained, to be provided by the county borough councils, but are to consist not merely of county borough councillors. One-fourth of the members of the committee are to be representatives of the boards of guardians concerned.
But there is a further provision, the object being that there should be independence as between the assessing authority and the spending authority. Attention was called to the fact that the county council is a spending authority and that it would not be fair that it should be also the assessing authority. It is for that very reason that the Government have introduced into these committees other elements than the county councillors themselves. As I have said, one-fourth of the members of the committee are to be representatives of boards of guardians; but there is a further and a more far-reaching provision, that one-fifth of the whole body are to be neither guardians nor county councillors but, if I may use the phrase without importing any derogation, outsiders altogether.
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble Marquess leaves that point, are not these outsiders to be nominated by the county council?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is so; still, I do not think the noble Earl must suspect the county councillor of a desire to act unfairly.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The great point is that they should not be part of the everyday administration of the county council, that they should be divorced from its ordinary policy and should look at matters with a fresh eye. I do not put it higher than that, and I am obliged to the noble Earl. In other

1193
areas than county boroughs the assessment committee is to be formed by means of schemes which are to include representatives of the rating authorities, representatives of the guardians and representatives of the county councils; it is to be a composite committee of that kind. As your Lordships are aware, the assessment committee is the authority to which the ratepayer turns when he desires to object to a valuation of his property which has been made for rating purposes. It is provided that the ratepayer may object to the draft valuation list or to the current list. He may object at any time and, thereupon, the assessment committee pronounces upon his objection. When the assessment committee has pronounced upon it the decision of the committee is retrospecpective; that is to say, it goes back to the beginning of the period during which the objection is launched.
Under the present system there is an appeal from the assessment committee to Quarter Sessions. That appeal is retained, but in a modified form. Quarter Sessions will still be the appellate authority, but it will be a committee of Quarter Sessions, a committee of justices. Moreover, there is a suggestion in the Bill that the Chairman of this committee of justices should be learned in the law and should not be a pure layman. This committee of justices, presided over, if possible, by a lawyer, will have all the powers of Quarter Sessions in the matter of rating appeals.
EARL RUSSELL: Would the noble Marquess kindly give us the number of the clause?
THE MARQUESS Of SALISBURY: Clauses 31 and 32 in boroughs the Recorder will sit as Quarter Sessions for this purpose and will sit alone. It is also provided, with a view of cheapening the procedure in the interest of the ratepayer, that solicitors as well as counsel should have audience before Quarter Sessions in these matters. Lastly, also with a view of studying the convenience and, if I may say so, the purse of the appealing ratepayer, the committee of Quarter Sessions will move from centre to centre according as it may find occasion. It will be a sort of judicial circuit in miniature bringing justice to
1194
the litigant instead of forcing the litigant always to go himself to the centre to seek justice.
With regard to the provisions for obtaining uniformity in valuation, there is a provision in Clause 18 of the Bill for what are called county valuation committees. Those are committee of the county council with representatives added from the assessment committees of the county. These valuation committees will attempt, by means of conferences and in other ways, to produce uniformity of valuation throughout the county. With one exception they have no actual power. The exception, however, is a very important one, because it consists in a provision under which they have the right to appear before any assessment committee in the county against any assessment and to appear also before Quarter Sessions in any appeal. The same principle is carried one step further. There are to be not only county valuation committees but a Central Valuation Committee sitting, that is to say, in London. This Committee is to be created under a, scheme formulated by the Minister of Health after consultation with the local authorities. This is under Clause 57. They will consist of representatives of the rating authorities, of the county valuation committees and of the assessment committees. These, like the smaller valuation committees, will proceed by way of conferences to try and arrive at uniformity over the whole country. They will make a Report to the Minister, and this Report will be laid before Parliament, as would naturally be expected.
I have something more to say, I am sorry to state, but I have sketched the main outline of the new rating system as we ask your Lordships to enact it. There are, however, two matters, which I may call subsidiary matters, of great importance, to which I must call your attention. There is, first of all, the system of compounding. Under the present law, as your Lordships are aware, in respect of small house property the practice is that the local rating authority should come to an arrangement, subject to certain limitations laid down by law, with the owners of property in the localities as to what allowance should be made in return for the advantage of the rates being collected by the landlord. That is what is called

1195
the system of compounding. I need not say that the system of compounding is not done away with, but is very much improved. I may remind your Lordships that this system of compounding applies only to hereditaments that are held on less than quarterly tenancies—that is to say, held only for short tenancies.
There are two main provisions. In the first place, there is a compulsory provision dealing with very small property of less than £13 a year value. In that case the rating authority may make compounding compulsory by resolution. Thereupon they treat the owner, as the occupier, and they give him an allowance of ten per cent. That is what is prescribed by Clause 11. There is another, a more general, system of compounding which is voluntary. That applies to all property of less than quarterly tenure. There the allowances are divided into three categories. Where the owner undertakes to take the risk not only of vacant occupation but also of uncollected rates—when he, takes that very considerable risk, the rating authority are allowed to make him an allowance not exceeding fifteen per cent.
EARL RUSSELL: Is he compelled to take that risk in the cases where compounding is compulsory?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. In that case he has to take the risk of uncollected rates, but not of vacant occupation. The voluntary system is one which I am now going to describe to your Lordships. Where the landlord takes the risk of the uncollected rates only, but not of the vacant occupation, he is allowed an allowance not exceeding seven and a half per cent. Finally, if he is merely the agent for the local authority to collect the rates, and does not take any risk either of vacant occupation or uncollected rates, then the allowance is not to exceed five per cent. It was suggested in another place that these substantial allowances to owners were in a large measure passed on to the occupiers, and that, therefore, an occupying owner of this very small property was placed at a disadvantage as compared with the tenant, and very strong pressure was applied to His Majesty's Government in another place to produce some remedy. My right hon. friend the Minister of
1196
Health promised to consider it, and I am here to repeat that promise. I do not think it would be fair to leave the occupying owner without some consideration, and when we come to a further stage of the Bill the Government will have a suggestion to make on this head.
I have one other subsidiary topic to deal with, and that is the hoary question of the rating of machinery. If your Lordships will allow me, in the midst of this terribly dry statement, to indulge in a personal reminiscence, I may observe to your Lordships that when I came into Parliament in 1885 the rating of machinery was already a burning question, and it has remained in exactly the same state as it was in 1855 until this day. But at last, if your Lordships are willing to help, the present Government hope, in the year of grace 1925, to solve the problem. At present there is any amount of variety in the treatment of the rating of machinery according to the union in which the manufacturer happens to live. In some places it is reduced to the lowest minimum, in other places—and indeed the majority of places—there is a tendency not only to rate the standing machinery—the shafting, the lighting, the motive power and all those things that are attached to the edifice—but also to include as much of the process machinery as possible. That is a very natural tendency on the part of the rating authority, which wants to get as much money as it can, and, therefore, desires to assess as widely as it can. The Government have applied themselves to the problem, and they propose to solve it in the simplest possible way by rating all the standing machinery, and not to rate any of the process machinery.
Your Lordships may say: It is all very well to use these wide terms, but what precisely do you mean by them? I have a general notion of what I mean by them—namely, very much that which we should call attached to the edifice when we are speaking of our own fixtures in our own houses. But undoubtedly there is a great element of doubt in certain cases where the two types of machinery meet, as it were, and for that reason it is proposed to create a Committee of five persons, to be set up by the Minister, to lay down in detail the dividing line between these two classes of machinery. Their Report is to be laid before Parliament and your Lord-

1197
ships will have an opportunity of objecting to it if you think fit. But even then a margin of error still remains. What if people cannot agree as to the precise application of the conditions laid down in the Report of this Committee? Then there is a procedure provided that it should be taken before a referee. There is a panel of referees, which is to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, and from these referees one will be selected to which the particular issue will be submitted, so that we hope we have stopped that hole. We have laid down the general principle, provided a Committee to give the precise limitation to the general principle and a court of referees to decide in individual cases how this general principle should be, applied. That is Clause 24.
I have now finished this very dull explanation. I have tried to confine within reasonable limits a description of this very intricate Bill. For many years a reform of our rating law has been called for. It is long overdue, and until this is reformed every avenue towards greater reforms in local government is barred. There is no means of dealing with the great problems which await us in the reform of local government until local finance has been placed upon a more regular footing, and it is with the object of achieving this end that the Government have prepared this Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Marquess whether it is the intention of the Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. I have received no such suggestion, and I think most of us would be convinced that if it were referred to a Select Committee it would not pass in the present Session of Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read a second time this day three months. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for the clear way in which he has stated what is undoubtedly a somewhat complicated problem. At the same time
1198
there are large numbers of your Lordships who, from personal experience in matters of this kind and in local government, know quite well that the complications which appear formidable on paper are quite non-existent when you come to practical business. The complaint I have to make against the Bill is that, instead of following right out to its logical conclusion the Report made in 1901 by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, it has only followed it up to a certain point, and the whole position appears to me to be altered for the worse because some of the most important provisions—provisions which are essential to make a Bill of this kind of real value—are omitted. Let me say a word or two upon it, particularly in reference to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, said about a Select Committee, which may be a solution of our difficulties with regard to this Bill.
One of the basic foundations in the Report of the Royal Commission for an improvement in our rating system was that there, should be one valuation for all purposes, whether rating or Income Tax. That no longer finds a place in the Bill at all. Secondly, the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, in making recommendations as regards machinery, made very important recommendations as regards the incidence of local taxation. I am not dealing with the way in which you rate farm buildings or machinery; they are special matters which I will deal with later. The Commissioners pointed out that while the present incidence of rating was maintained it was impossible to arrive at a fair and uniform system applicable to all the varying conditions which apply in the incidence of rating. That, I think, goes to the root of the proposals of this Bill and makes some of them of very little value.
They drew a distinction between services which are onerous and which ought to be national, and services which may be of advantage to particular districts, or particular ratepayers in districts, which were said to be beneficial to those ratepayers and in respect of which local payments ought to provide for the incidental expenses. As regards onerous payments, they included education, police, main roads, and the poor law. They said they were prima facie matters of national concern, and that the

1199
incidence of expense, so far as they were concerned, ought to be regulated not on the principle of benefit received but of ability to pay. That great question, the real question, to my mind, as regards what ought to be a very large measure of relief to the ratepayer, has been entirely omitted and put on one side so far as this Bill is concerned.
I entirely agree with shat was said in another place that the burden of rates is one of the most important considerations as regards many of our industries. I do not deny that for one moment, and it is not difficult, when we come to machinery and farm buildings, to suggest that those who would receive some relief in burdens would get a benefit as regards their business. That is self-evident; but that is only half the story. It is not a question whether machinery or farm buildings ought to have the remission which is suggested but it is whether, looking at the rating system as a whole, the large number of charges now placed upon it ought not to be placed on the national Exchequer. That is the real foundation which has to be laid before there is any great reform of our system of local taxation.
I am coming shortly to what the noble Marquess has told us as regards the provisions of the Bill itself, but let me take the case of machinery. I agree with the noble Marquess that this has been a point of contention for a long time, but the proposals in the Bill as it stands are really the proposals of the Royal Commission of 1901 which, as long ago as 1902, were adopted in Scotland. From that time to this we have been waiting in vain for a similar remission as regards the rating of machinery in this country. If the noble Marquess has in his mind—I have a note of them here—the recommendations of the Royal Commission in 1901 and the actual proposals applied by legislation to Scotland in 1902, he will find that they are in substance the same as the provisions of Schedule III of the present Bill, which deals with the rating of machinery. For my part I think the principle ought always to have been established that machinery which is not used in connection with the premises as such, but which is used for production or in industries carried on for the purposes of production, ought not to be rated for local purposes. There is nothing in this Bill except that which is
1200
to be found in the recommendations of the Royal Commission in 1901, and those recommendations are associated with a new adjustment as between matters to be paid for by rating and matters to be paid for by taxation, and also with the suggestion of new sources of local finance, which find no place in this Bill at all.
I pass on to another point to which the noble Marquess referred. In a very innocent way, if he does not mind my putting it in those words—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a compliment.
LORD PARMOOR:—he referred to the proposal, which was not in the original Bill but was introduced at a later stage, under which farm buildings were to have the benefit of the three-quarters remission which is given to agricultural land. He knows perfectly well that this was a bargain between the machinery owners on the one side and the agricultural owners on the other, and that through all this series of years, whenever remission was asked for by the machine owners, the agriculturists always objected and said that if advantage was given to the machine owner they must have some compensating advantage in regard to agricultural land. They are given that compensating advantage. It is a bargain, and, I dare say, quite a fair one, between agricultural owners on the one side and machine owners on the other; but it is nothing more than that. Over all these years an attempt has been made to find some basis of bargaining and it has now been arrived at in this form. I believe that the money remitted from these two sources is considerable and I have heard that in some localities it makes a difference of as much as 2s. or 3s. in the rate. But. whatever the remission may be as regards machinery owners or as regards the owners of agricultural estates, the burden will fall on other ratepayers and I think that when you are placing a burden of this sort upon other ratepayers, you ought at the same time to consider whether the ratepayers as a whole might not have been advantaged by bringing in other sources of property to which rates might be attached.
I do not for the moment wish to consider the question of one valuation, but I want to consider the valuation of railways

1201
and special property. There again they have a better system in Scotland than we have in England, and the system in Scotland is the one which, if I may say so, ought to be adopted. It is, moreover, a system which in substance was recommended by the Royal Commission in their Report in 1901. What could be more ridiculous than to attempt to rate a railway system by bringing it down to a particular area, whether it is a new assessment area or the old parish, and trying to ascertain what rental would be given by an occupier for an impossible piece of railway separated from the rest? It is ludicrous. The only persons that I ever understood to be inclined to support it were certain persons interested in the intricacies of railway rating, but it really is astonishing that a matter of this kind, a provision so obviously absurd, should not have been put right in a Bill of this character; and it is more remarkable, if I may say so, since the will to do right was with the Government draftsman, for he introduced a provision of a reasonable character but, apparently owing to pressure during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons—whatever that pressure may have been—this beneficent proposal was thrown on one side and withdrawn from the Bill.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: There is going to be another Bill, is there not?
LORD PARMOOR: I am dealing with this Bill as it stands, as a rating Bill. I should like to deal presently with the question of one valuation, which I regard as very important, but I want to deal now, if I may, with the proposals of the Bill as indicated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and I hope that I shall be able to get through with as little trouble as he did. He stated that the Bill was designed towards simplification and, no doubt, there is a strong element of simplification in certain directions. But let us consider a little more closely what he means by this principle of simplification.
I will ask the noble Marquess to follow this test as regards assessment or valuation areas, as they are called. I will take Lancashire, which is a good test. At the present time there are 25 unions in Lancashire—that is to say, there are 25 assessment areas for rating purposes. What
1202
will happen if this Bill passes? It will take out of these areas in various places 17 county boroughs which are at present included in the unions. That leaves no fewer than 24 outside districts which have to be treated in some way or other under the scheme. I cannot imagine a more complicated idea, introduced under the plea of simplification. I think it is quite clear that, in a case of that kind, so far from having simplification as regards assessment or valuation areas, you will have nothing but difficulty and more complication than exists at the present time.
The next point to which the noble Marquess referred has really been immensely exaggerated as regards its influence on our rating machinery as it exists at the present moment. I refer to the parish authority. It really does not matter that you have an overseer and a parish authority; what matters is the assessment committee and the assessment area, and when you talk about abolishing these parish authorities I do not object to that. You do nothing more than take away an officer from a limited district or parish to which all parishioners have access in the first instance, and ascertain how they are rated and whether they are properly assessed. The noble Marquess told us that we should have a reduction from 13,000 to 650. No one knows better than he does as regards the country districts that it is not the overseer or parish which created any difficulties as regards our rating system at all. In my belief whether you have 13,000 or one is practically wholly immaterial as regards our rating machinery and system.
Now the two important authorities to which he has referred are the rating authority and the assessment authority. So far as the rating authority is concerned I think the Bill is a great improvement. The rating authority in the Bill is either the county borough, or rural, or district council area, and I think that is a great improvement. I do not share in the alarm expressed by some people at a similarity between the rating and valuation or spending authorities. I think the suggestion is exaggerated that anything wrong would be done under those circumstances. Then we go from that to the assessment areas. The assessment areas are the really important item in the Bill, and as the assessment areas or assessment bodies stand at the present

1203
time, of course, we have to wait and see what schemes may be made, but as I understand what the noble Marquess says about the assessment areas or authorities, they are to be either county boroughs or areas which are to be provided under some scheme dependent very largely upon the influence of the county councils. Everyone admits that the old assessment bodies in connection with the unions did their work extremely well. At the same time, although it is a mistake to suppose that you will have in all cases simplification, still if you were to have large areas properly constituted as suggested, I say frankly that would be an improvement in rating machinery, although there is a possibility of complications such as I have pointed out in the case of Lancashire. I certainly reserve my opinion. I think the noble Marquess hardly put quite plainly what he called the preceptive process. The change in the Bill I think is quite right. Instead of precepting on totals you come back to rating the ratepayer. Still, that is a matter of extremely small importance. I am talking as one who has been connected with county and guardian assessments, but personally I am glad it should be set right.
The only other point to which the noble Marquess referred was the compounding question. That question is altered for the better by the proposals in the Bill, but it is only an incidental matter. The only question is how far it should be compulsory and how far voluntary, and if it is voluntary what should be the percentage paid to the owner. No one would suggest that a Rating Bill which was to set right the whole machinery of rating areas and valuation in this country, as claimed, is at all necessary to set right a minor point which only affects rating in a minor way and practically to an inconsiderable extent.
I think I have dealt with the matters which the noble Marquess dealt with. That leads me, before I come to the one important point of all, to the consideration whether it would not be wise to have these matters, which are said to be matters of simplification, really gone into and considered by a Select Committee before this Bill is passed. I admit that at this late stage it is difficult to get postponement for such a purpose, but it is much more important in formulating a
1204
scheme of that kind that you should be certain that it is really a simplification and really will be to the advantage of the ratepayers and that these constant complaints which have been going on for years will no longer be heard in future.
That question brings me to what I consider to be the most important omission from the Bill. I think the whole scheme of rating reform is to a large extent invalidated by the omission of the principle of one valuation. When the Bill was introduced into another place there was one valuation of gross value for all purposes, whether local rates or Exchequer Revenue. Surely it seems at first sight almost incredible that a proposal of that kind should have been withdrawn—a proposal which I shall show in a moment has been supported in every independent inquiry into our rating system and one which, if I may quote one or two words of the Minister of Health, had the support of practically all the local authorities in all parts of the country. When I say that, I am aware that the proposals as regards London have also been excluded from the Bill, but I was one of those, and I am one of those, who believe in the London system, and whether it requires reform in certain directions or not it is based on one valuation for all purposes and has received the assent and consent of everyone for the last fifty years. It is admittedly one of the greatest improvements made as regards our rating system in this country.
Let me state how the history of this matter stands. This is what was said in the Report, which I have referred to more than once, of the Royal Commission on Imperial and Local Taxation. We sat for six or seven years, and we had as Chairman a Peer who was known for his great skill in dealing with Committees of this kind, I mean the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The Committee recommended that:
"There should be only one valuation authority in each county, and the valuation list of that authority should be the basis on which all rates and taxes for all purposes should be raised."
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: That is the Scottish system.
LORD PARMOOR: You have been fortunate in Scotland in getting many recom-

1205
mendations of the Royal Commission, which have not been applied in this country. I can only congratulate you. They have been to everyone's advantage in Scotland. Now let us look at what was the next step. There was the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, in 1920, and in it occurred this passage:
"In considering our review of this part of the subject we may refer to the expediency of having one valuation for national mid local purposes in England and Wales, outside the Metropolis."
The words "outside the Metropolis" mean that it is already done in the Metropolis. Therefore, you have to carry outside the Metropolis the same principle of one valuation for all purposes. In the final Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation the matter is again referred to and the principle of one valuation is advocated. And it is not as though we were without experience. The experience in Scotland is specially known to the noble Viscount opposite.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: In most cases in Scotland a Government official is the assessor. That makes a very great difference in having the two valuations.
LORD PARMOOR: I am going to refer to that. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. I think it is a great advantage. It is a great security not only that you have only one valuation, but that that valuation is a right one. Therefore I entirely agree. And that has been our experience in London.
LORD JESSEL: London does not want that system any more.
LORD PARMOOR: I will come also to that. But whether they want it or not, speaking on behalf of the ratepayers and the Income Tax payers, I say without any hesitation that one valuation and one only ought to be applied for all purposes. In order to answer what the noble Lord has said, I will quote in a few moments some words spoken by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health in another place. In London it was said at one time that there was some difficulty under the Rent Restrictions Acts. That was not so at all in my view. A special Act was passed to deal with the matter. It is a matter of a special kind, a sequel of War legis-
1206
lation, which has really nothing to do with the general principles involved.
This is what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health:
"I think it fair to say that apart from the criticism of the hon. Member for Fulham"—
who, I think, is Colonel Vaughan-Morgan—
"and perhaps the criticism of one other authority, there is not a single authority in the country which does not approve of the principle of one valuation for all purposes. We have, for instance, received the approval of the National Conference of Assessment Committees, the Association of Poor Law Unions, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the National Federation of Property Owners."
And then he goes on to say—
"The experience of London has justified the proposals which we now make."
Therefore you have a principle accepted as right by every impartial inquiry ever made, and you have the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health saying that all those various associations and all the local authorities are in favour of the same principle and that, as regards London, he appeals to its experience.
But he went on to make another reference to London. He said—
"In another communication which we have received from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Committee, 1924, it is stated that the system of London has worked well for half a century."
He also said:—
"It will be agreed that having regard to the practical agreement of every one to the principle of one valuation it would be impossible to make any variation of the kind suggested."—
that is, eliminating the one valuation—
"Such a variation would go right against our main proposals."
And so it does. Here was a Bill introduced on the basis of one valuation for all purposes. That principle was supported in every inquiry and by every Commission and Committee, and practically every authority expressed itself in its favour.
Why was it withdrawn? I do not suspect a strong Government like the present being open to pressure upon them to withdraw what they regard as right in a matter of this kind. I do not think that the noble Marquess who introduced

1207
this Bill gave any explanation upon this point. I confess that the withdrawal of this proposal weakens the whole Bill as a scheme for rating reform, and I believe that when objection was taken to this proposal many of those who made the objection were really not aware of the difference between the Surveyor of Taxes and Commissioners of Income Tax, the Commissioners of Income Tax being for the protection of the taxpayer and the Assessor or Surveyor being the Revenue officer. The proposal was simply that he should take his part in assessment. And why not? Supposing you want unification, simplification, how can you find it better than in one valuation which applies to all parts of the country? There seemed to be a fear that the introduction of the influence of the Revenue officer would put up the standard of rating.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: He is quite impartial.
LORD PARMOOR: I quite agree with the noble Viscount. He is perfectly impartial. I think the notion that he was going to introduce a somewhat sinister element of a particular kind has no foundation whatever either in the history of this matter or in the position that the Revenue officer holds. Then let us come once more to the principle. Your Lordships will see the definition of gross value in Clause 68. There is nothing very new about it. It says:
"Gross value' means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for a hereditament if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes …."
Exactly the same definition comes in Income Tax legislation. The term there is "rack rental," but as between rack rental and gross value there is no distinction of principle whatever. Nor has any distinction of principle been found either in Scotland or in London. And yet, for some reason which has not been explained, this basis of one valuation which was introduced into the Bill, which, I think, is the essence of rating reform, has been put on one side during the progress of the Bill through another place.
As the noble Marquess has pointed out, the Bill goes into a lot of detail, with
1208
which, of course, it is impossible to deal on Second Reading. But, as I said at the outset, the objections on principle are the result of not having followed right out the recommendations of the Royal Commission which have been accepted and are in operation in Scotland at the present time, and which would provide a better system of rating on a firmer basis. It is because of these deficiencies that I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, although, if I could, I would rather adopt the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, that it be postponed and referred to a Select Committee. I do not know whether I can make that alteration or not; if not, I must move my Amendment in its original form.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day three months").—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to join in the opening words of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down and to add my congratulations to those he offered the noble Marquess the Leader of the House on the exceedingly clear way in which he explained this Bill. He spoke, indeed, as if he had spent his whole life in listening to assessment appeals or else in sitting as a member of assessment committees. With regard to the Bill I confess that I feel it loses a great deal of its interest from the great changes which have been made in it since it was first introduced. So many matters of importance and, I might almost say, the only matter of principle have been left out of the Bill in the course of the discussions in another place. The principle of one valuation is one of them, but there were a number of others which have been mentioned in the course of the discussion—for example, the question of Crown property in London and railways. The omission of these things naturally makes the Bill a measure of much less interest than it would have been in other circumstances. All that is really left for your Lordships to do is to discuss a certain number of matters of detail, some of them more important than others.
I look upon this Bill as I suppose it was intended by His Majesty's Government as being a first step towards the

1209
reform of the Poor Law. That is a measure which I understand the Government will undertake in the course of next year. It is a necessary reform. And the way in which they approach the matter is by abolishing the work which is done in the direction of assessment by boards of guardians. I confess that I should look with a certain amount of alarm and suspicion upon anything which will add to the work of the county councils. They are overburdened with work at present, and although there are now a certain number of self-sacrificing people who come forward and perform the work of the counties, it is a diminishing class which undertakes it to-day. Up and down the country we shall find it more and more difficult in the coming years to discover people who have time to undertake this work, owing to the increasing burdens which are put upon them and of which this Bill is yet another example. For the moment I do not know that there is any alternative policy. Whether, indeed, it is successful in abolishing so many committees and authorities as the noble Marquess led us to imagine, I am not sure. I think the large number he mentioned included the overseers in the various parishes. I am not perfectly certain that they should be included in quite the same way. The figures, as I make them out are different. There are at the present moment 780 valuation committees or valuation authorities, made up as follows:—Assessment Committees, 670; Metropolitan Boroughs, 28; and county boroughs, 82. Those, of course, remain.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was referring to the local authorities in the parishes.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I understand. The Metropolitan Boroughs and the county boroughs remain under the Bill. In addition there will be no less than 253 boroughs, 647 rural district councils and 784 urban district councils. Those, I imagine, are the authorities which will be set up under the Bill when once it becomes law. Should that be so, your Lordships will see that the numbers become very considerably increased from what they are at the present time. Most of the matters of detail upon which one may fairly say something have already been referred to, but I will take the rating of machinery. I am not sure on
1210
the whole that this has been dealt with in the most satisfactory way. A distinction is already made between different kinds of machinery; there is the motive machinery on which rates are paid and the process machinery on which they are not paid. There is already, therefore, a certain classification of machinery, and it seems to be possible to make yet another distinction between the classes of machinery and to allow machinery of one kind to go free and another kind to be taxed. Why should not machinery used for the manufacture of beer, machinery for the manufacture of luxuries and machinery of that kind be still taxed? Had it been possible to make a distinction betwen the purposes to which machinery is put, I cannot help thinking that it would have been useful to have allowed machinery of that kind still to bear its burden. When all is said and done, however much you may, quite rightly, exempt certain classes of machinery from paying rates, the rates have to be paid by somebody in the end, and the unfortunate ratepayer certainly deserves every possible sympathy. Machinery used for the purposes of luxury do not seem to me to come into the same class a the others to which I have referred.
In regard to compounding, it is not, I confess, a system which appeals to me, and it seems that in some cases the individual compounded for does not realise the burden upon him. He does not realise sufficiently, even although there is an obligation put upon him in a recent Act of Parliament, how much of the money he pays goes in rates and how much in rent. Therefore, he does not bring to bear upon the question of economy in local expenditure that anxious scrutiny that I should like to see. One of the reasons for the extravagance of a certain number of our local authorities is that under the system of compounding they do not understand how much they are bound to pay. If every person was obliged to pay separately the amount due from him in rates it would go a very long way in the direction of forcing economy upon local authorities.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to the question of Crown property? That, I think, has been taken out of the Bill. In the Standing Committee in another place a clause was carried

1211
against the Government which provided for the rating of Crown property. That, however, has been left out of the Bill, and I think it is only fair to say that up and down the country there is a feeling that Crown property does not bear its fair proportion of rates in this country. People think that they have to pay more because Crown property pays so much less. In view of that, there is a certain amount of discontent with our present system which might well have been got rid of had the clause proposed in the Standing Committee been allowed to remain in the Bill. Another detail to which some reference has been made is the question of how far the same committee will be responsible for assessing and spending. The noble Marquess gave us the composition of the committee and explained that one-fourth of the members were to have no connection with the council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One-fifth.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am obliged to the noble Marquess—one-fifth were to have no connection either with the county councils or the boards of guardians. That is an admirable provision, but I am not quite sure that it goes far enough. I am not certain that the influence of the unfortunate payer is brought to bear upon the county councils. One-fifth obviously leaves the majority well in the hands of the committees as they are set up. I am not quite sure either that the inequalities are altogether abolished. The Bill provides that it is always possible that a county borough should be divided into two for these purposes. If it is divided into two and a different principle is applied to the one part of a big county borough from the principle which is applied in another, those inequalities of which we complain so much at the present time will surely still remain. I do not feel sure when you come to the moment of appeals that you will really be able to promote uniformity. Clause 18 is intended to promote uniformity. I do not understand that these committees have any power. All they can do is to fight the assessment committees at Quarter Sessions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They can appear before the assessment committee itself.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is perfectly true, but it does not follow that the assessment committee will agree to what they propose, nor that when they appear before Quarter Sessions they will have any overpowering influence in persuading Quarter Sessions to meet their wishes. But it is perfectly true that this matter, and all those other matters to which I have ventured to allude, are really only points of detail, upon which I shall not venture to detain your Lordships any longer at this late hour of the evening. I do not propose to put down, nor do I think any of my noble friends propose to put down, Amendments to the Bill in Committee, but we naturally reserve to ourselves the right to take such action as we think well if Amendments are moved in different quarters of your Lordships' House.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene in this debate had it not been for some references made by the noble Lord opposite in speaking of London. I may remind him that when these resolutions were passed there was no idea of London being in the Bill, and the authorities concerned with London, being quite happy under the present system, passed the resolutions in favour of the Bill. When, however, it came to their knowledge that, without any notice, London, which is set forth as a model to the rest of the country, was to be introduced into the Bill, they reconsidered their decisions, and they came to the conclusion that if any amendments were going to be made London would rather like to have some different system from that of the Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1869. They desired that some improvement should be made.
One of the improvements which they want, and which I think the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee now wants, is to have two valuations; for this reason: There is a great difficulty in London, because the assessments are based upon the rents. In some parts of London the rents are very heavy, and it is felt that if you value right up to the rents you are doing an injustice to the tenants, because they are not receiving any better service than their neighbours. Therefore the revenue itself is losing, in a way, by the

1213
present system. The assessment authorities do not like to assess right up to the rent, and they have not put on such a high rateable value as otherwise would be put on if there happened to be two valuations. The Minister has promised, when the Bill relating to London is introduced, to consider the question of having two valuations.
The noble and learned Lord opposite seems to me a little dissatisfied, and therefore is moving the rejection of this Bill. Although he has not got the one valuation to which he attached a great deal of importance, he must recognise that in this Bill a great many valuations have been got rid of. There were, as he knows, four or five different rates on a demand note in the county. Now these will, at all events, be simplified, and instead of there being so many rates as there were there will be two rates only.
Another point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is that referred to by the noble Earl opposite in speaking on the question of compounding. It is a great pity that the Act that was introduced to make the landlord say exactly what was paid in rent, and what was paid in rates, has not actually been carried out. It is very difficult to get that Act put into practice. The Act exists, but I am sorry to say it is constantly evaded. The authorities have gone into this matter, and they find it extremely difficult to collect personally from weekly tenants the amount of the rate. It is, in fact, almost impossible to do so. If you consider the salaries that you have to pay to the officers who collect these rates—and you have to have very good men, to pay them highly and, perhaps, to give them a pension—and if you consider also the number of collectors that you must employ to collect from these weekly tenants, you find that you lose a great deal more than you do by the compounding system. I can assure the noble Earl that that matter has been very carefully gone into, and it is felt that on the whole it is cheaper and more efficacious to allow the owners a rebate for collection than to employ so many rate-collectors who, naturally, must be well paid, otherwise they might abuse their trust.
As regards the rating of Crown property, all I can say from our London
1214
experience—and I think that in London we have more Crown property than anywhere else—is that the Treasury meet the various assessment committees in a very generous and fair spirit. There is very little difference of opinion, and on the whole the system works exceedingly well. I have nothing more to say about the Bill. London having been taken out of it, we hope that in the next Session of Parliament the advantages given by this Bill to the rest of the country will be granted to London in the new Bill that has been promised.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord below me (Lord Parmoor) dealt so exhaustively, and in such a well-informed manner, with this Bill that I do not propose to follow him into those details upon which he entered, particularly as I am nothing like so well equipped to do so. But I should like to refer to the general principles, which is appropriate to a Second Reading debate. I may say that when this Bill was introduced I welcomed it very much. I thought that we had something for which we had been waiting for a long time—the reduction of a very redundant number of small authorities, which, on the whole, I thought worked very inefficiently—I will not say badly, but at any rate very inefficiently. I thought that a great deal of unnecessary trouble was to be done away with, and that we were going to get a system of one valuation. On those points, I must say I very much welcomed the Bill an d its general principles, but I doubt whether, as has been said, it has been altogether improved in its passage through another place. I understand we have not got here the one gross valuation for all purposes that we have in the London system. That I must say I think is a very great loss, and a cause of inconvenience and expense to everyone concerned.
The, noble Marquess interrupted the noble Earl when be was referring to the reduction in the number of rating authorities. Is it not rather a farce to call a parish a rating authority when all that is done in a parish is something purely arithmetical? The parish receives a demand for a certain sum of money, and it simply has to divide that up among the rateable value and make a rate. You

1215
cannot call that parish a rating authority in any real sense of the word. It is not a valuation authority. As it happens, I have been an overseer myself. I know how clumsily this thing works, and what an absurd number of people you employ for small sums in poor country parishes. I should have thought it were possible, when altering the valuation authorities, to have only one valuation authority in a county. As I understand, counties are to be divided into assessment areas, and there is not to be only one valuation and one rating authority for the whole county. I should have thought that was an unnecessary multiplication of authorities.
With regard to this assessment committee which is to go from place to place, a committee of half a dozen or eight members, with two or three extra members to be added to it for the local district where it sits, will it not happen that the half dozen or so who always sit and know each other will act together? Their minds will work in the same way, and the two unfortunate people who come on here and there will be less and less considered? If that does happen will it not also happen that you will not get the best people to take on the position of these two extras on the committee? If so, it is not a system that is likely to give you any real assistance. You may get local knowledge, but unless considerable attention is paid to it I do not think you will find the best people taking the position of the two extra members on this committee.
There is the other question of the tribunal of appeal. I think the suggestion in the Bill is a Committee of Quarter Sessions, with some one learned in the law at their head, a sort of travelling tribunal of appeal which will probably be convenient and lead to uniformity. But what you have, not done in this Bill, and it really is important, is this: you have not dealt with that hypothethical tenant who has been a trouble to the law for half a century or more, and who has caused more expensive litigation than any other question connected with rating. Why could not the Government, when dealing with valuation and rating, do something to help to define that difficult question? It seems to me rather
1216
dreadful that you should leave this alone when you are trying to improve your system.
I was sorry to hear Earl Beauchamp say that he and his friends did not propose to put down any Amendments to the Bill. This is a complex Bill and presented to your Lordships at a late period of the Session. We are asked to pass it at short notice, and after, necessarily, a very inadequate discussion. After all, the Government might have given us this Bill a little earlier than December. The noble and learned Lord opposite suggested a reference to a Select Committee. I quite follow the Government's natural apprehension that if this Bill went to a Select Committee it might never get out. That is very true, but at the same time how is this House going to be able to exercise properly its function of revision and make this Bill, which is an entirely new departure in the rating system of this country, the best and most successful system which can be made, unless we are given more time or have some more detailed examination by a Committee?
I know the noble Marquess the Leader of the House wishes the Bill to be as good a measure as can be devised, and I recognise that, however much trouble we take, it may be necessary to have an amending measure in two or three years' time. It has come from another place amended up to the last moment in all sorts of ways and we have not had much time to consider it. There is little more time left in the present Session to consider it. If more time can be found for your Lordships to consider the Bill, I hope the Government will try to find it in the interests of good legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not tell your Lordships that the concluding words of the noble Earl who has just spoken appeal very much to me. I have always desired ever since I sat in your Lordships' House, and on whichever side I sat, that there should be more time given to this House to do its work, and I can assure the noble Earl that I use my influence as far as it goes in order to obtain more time. I shall be able to give your Lordships a good many days between the Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill, but I know that the noble Earl was thinking of a much longer period than that. That, how-

1217
ever, I am afraid is beyond my power. The difficulty of legislating under modern conditions is obvious and notorious. The time taken in the House of Commons is so enormous that if legislation is to be got through in a single Session it necessarily leaves us comparatively little time here. I have always held the view, and now I am not speaking as a member of the Government but as a private politician, that legislation ought to be carried on from Session to Session and that to bring it to an end at the Prorogation is a great waste of time. That is not a view which is largely held in the Party to which I belong and I am afraid you must consider it as only a pious opinion.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has moved the rejection of the Bill, and has done so upon the avowed ground, not of what the Bill contains but what it does not contain. He says that surely the Government, with its big majority, can do as it likes. I am afraid the noble and learned Lord has no experience of being in office with a big majority. If he had he would not talk in that light-hearted way as to what Governments with big majorities can do. Undoubtedly it is necessary when you are dealing with vast subjects such as this not to be discontented because you cannot carry all the reforms you want all at once. The thing cannot be done. You are obliged, when dealing with legislation of this sort, to give up many things which you would wish to have, if you are to save a considerable and important part of the measure; and consequently, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there have been great changes in the Bill all in the direction of leaving things out.
I take railways merely as an example because the noble and learned Lord mentioned it himself. I do not know whether he is familiar with the clause dealing with railways as it appeared originally in the Bill, but it was an extremely vulnerable clause because of its vagueness, its necessary vagueness, and therefore not easy to get through Parliament. The subject bristles with difficulties. It requires a Session to itself to deal with railway rating, and I am not at all astonished that it was necessary to leave out railways. Then the noble and learned Lord said that we ought to have dealt with the whole question of rating as laid down by the Commission over which Lord
1218
Balfour of Burleigh presided in 1901. That is a vast subject. It could be dealt with, but it could not be dealt with at the same time as the machinery of rating. You must take one or the other first, and the Government, wisely, as I think, took the machinery of rating first.
Then the noble and learned Lord says that the great blemish on the Bill is that the one valuation has disappeared. There is in this country a great jealousy in the localities against any interference by the centre. Local life and local patriotism is to be met with every day, and on the whole it is very valuable. It is the vivid interest in local life which does so much to keep public interest and public service alive, and one of the forms in which it shows itself is great jealousy of interference in local affairs from Whitehall. I share it when I am down in my county, and therefore I am not at all astonished that my hon. friends in another place resented the presence of a Revenue official who was going to interfere, as they thought, with the valuation of property in their localities and to apply London notions and London standards to matters which ought to be dealt with according to the dictates of rural human nature. Accordingly they would not have it, and, though I dare say the noble and learned Lord, finding himself in command for the first time in his life of a large majority, might have forced it through, and perhaps we could have done the same—
LORD PARMOOR: That would be Scottish nature.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: —that is not a very reasonable method of legislation, and therefore we must be content to pass what is even now a measure of vast importance and huge scope and not try to deal with these other big subjects. I turn to the speech that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. I share with him a certain apprehension that too much work may be thrown by modern legislation upon the county councils. One of these days Parliament will have to consider whether there must not be some new organ of local government, something larger than a county council and less than a Parliament, in order to cope with the kind of devolved work which increases every year. That

1219
is a very big subject, but undoubtedly one of these days it will have to be faced. In the meantime Governments naturally fall back upon the county councils because they are far better equipped than any other subordinate body.
I come next to some observations that were made regarding the rating of machinery. There is, of course, a tendency at first sight to say: Let us get within the scope of rating as much as we can and relieve the other ratepayers. But really that is not a very rational principle. After all, this machinery is used for creating the wealth of the country and one does not want to tax it more than is absolutely fair; and to apply to machinery principles which you would not apply to your own house is not fair. It is perfectly true that your house is rated in the same way as a factory is rated and all the fixtures in the house go to make up the rateable value. In the same way the standing machinery, all the shafting and all the main structural fixtures of the manufactory will be part of the rateable value. But when you come to the process machinery, the kind of thing that you can move about, you might as well have your piano rated or your arm chair. It is as distinct from the standing machinery as the examples which I have given. If you are going to be fair you must apply to machinery the same principle as you apply to any other hereditament in the occupation of any of your Lordships or of any other private individual. The line must be drawn somewhere and, although it is undoubtedly difficult to find the exact place in which to draw it—that is conceded—all the elaborate machinery which I attempted, I am afraid at too great a length, to describe to the House when I spoke before is designed for the very purpose of drawing that line at what seems to be, on the whole, the fairest place.
Something was said about compounding. There is provision in the existing law that upon the demand note there should be a distinction drawn between what proportion is rates and what is rent, and my noble friend Lord Jessel, who spoke just now, told your Lordships that the economy of compounding was so great that it was very difficult to forego it, even with the object which the noble
1220
Earl expressed, and with which I heartily sympathise, of bringing home to the ratepayer the effect of raising the rates, which he otherwise might not understand. As regards Crown property I really need not say a word, because my noble friend Lord Jessel has covered the ground. As a matter of fact, Crown property does accept a voluntary rate, which is arrived at by a conference between the Treasury valuer and the assessment authority in London, and also in the country, and no complaint is made that as a result the Crown property is underrated. Another point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that he did not think that the parochial members added to the rating authority would have any effect and that the permanent members of the rating authority would always decide matters their own way without reference to added members. I am afraid that I do not agree with him.
EARL RUSSELL: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon, but that was not what I meant. I did not in the least mean that they would be overridden. I merely suggested that as six gentlemen would always be acting together it would come more natural for them to act together and the two additional members would not count for much when they came.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They would count for a good deal because they would have invaluable local knowledge. They would be the people who would really know, and any amount of acting together would not make up for that. They would say to the others: "If you lived in Slocum Parva you would know more than that; you would realise at once that what we say is true and that you are talking nonsense." Consequently they would have great weight; the possession of actual local knowledge is a tremendous advantage in dealing with these questions. I have to thank your Lordships for the reception of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord proposes to divide. I rather hope that he will not, and I can assure him that there is no desire on my part or on the part of His Majesty's Government to crush out discussion of any part of the Bill. I propose to put the Bill down for the Committee stage for next Monday, giving almost a week's interval between the two stages, and I

1221
hope that the result of the Committee stage may be all that your Lordships may desire.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not wish to reply generally to the noble Marquess, although I think I have a right to do so as mover of the Amendment. This Bill was received by me for the first time this morning in the form in which it came out after discussion on Report in another place. To put the Bill down for Committee next Monday would give sufficient time, and I am sure the noble Marquess would give every opportunity which is possible within the limits of the time at his disposal. Accepting as I do his assurance on that point, and this being a very inconvenient time for a Division of the House, I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to a Committee of the whole House.

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Provisions of Explosives Act, 1875, incorporated with modifications.
Powers of inspectors.
4. A Government inspector shall have power to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary to ascertain whether this Act is complied with, and for that purpose,—

(1) he may enter, inspect, and examine at all reasonable times by day any licensed premises, and every part thereof, and any premises in which any petroleum is kept, or is reasonably supposed by him to be kept; and

LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I have two Amendments to propose on behalf of the Home Office, and they will take very little time. The first Amendment is to move, after the first clause of the Second Schedule, which deals with "Regulations as to conveyance by road," to add:
"(2) All regulations made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation."
This will give an opportunity, to those who feel aggrieved by any Regulations which may be proposed by the Minister, of seeing the Regulations and of making some representations with regard to them.
Amendment moved—
Second Schedule, page 6, line 29, at end, insert the said new, paragraph (2).—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (1) of Clause 4, to omit the words "is kept or is reasonably supposed," and to insert "spirit is kept, or is suspected" The noble Lord said: It is felt that the word "petroleum" is rather too wide, and so it is desired to add "spirit" and also the words "or is suspected."
Amendment moved—
Second Schedule, page 8, line 44, leave out from ("petroleum") to ("by") in line 45, and insert ("spirit is kept, or is suspected").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CIVIL SERVICES) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to ensure the passing into law during the present Session of the Government of India (Civil Services) Bill, which has already passed through all its stages in the House of Lords and

1223
is awaiting consideration in the House of Commons; to call attention to the discouragement both to the existing Civil Services in India and to prospective recruits, if there should be any further delay in bringing into effect the safeguards and other benefits provided in the Bill; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since I placed this Motion on the Paper, indeed within the last few hours, I have received from the Secretary of State for India informal assurances, on behalf not only of himself but of his colleagues in the Government, that they regard this Bill as being of peculiar importance at the present juncture, and have every intention of using every possible effort to pass it into law in the course of the present Session. In those circumstances, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to address your Lordships on the subject, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, before my noble friend asks leave of the House to withdraw, as he has persevered through a long and lively evening in the hope of asking his Question, I will take advantage of the opportunity of saying very briefly what I have to say. The noble Lord is quite right in drawing the assumption that it would be disastrous if this Bill failed to pass through both Houses in the existing Session of Parliament. It would be regarded, and reasonably regarded, by many of those whose good opinion we do well to value, as a breach of faith, and indeed I must admit that I should find myself in a position both of difficulty and embarrassment if it so failed. With the encouragement of my colleagues I have visited most of the chief Universities in England and Scotland, giving assurances to those for whom we were appealing for recruits, that it was the intention of the Government to pass this Bill into law in the course of the present Session. After three discouraging years of recruitment for the Indian Civil Service we have, during the present year, been afforded the prospect of great hopes for the future, and I have no doubt at all that the devoted labours of my noble friend and his Commission, and the campaign, founded upon the result of their exertions, that has been conducted in the Universi-
1224
ties, have been largely responsible for this encouraging and welcome change.
Let me tell your Lordships how the Bill stands. Most unfortunately, a difference of opinion in the Joint Committee delayed this Bill for nearly six weeks. The Joint Committee made recommendations which the Government were unable to accept. The result of the discussions and the postponement which took place involved the loss of nearly six weeks of time, and greatly jeopardised the fortunes of the Bill in getting Parliamentary sanction. But we still have great hopes that the Bill will pass on to the Statute Book. The Second Reading has been commenced, but not yet concluded in the House of Commons, but we hope that on Friday next it will be concluded. In that event the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday following would be available for its discussion in Committee upstairs.
I cannot doubt that those members of the Party to which I myself belong will appreciate the high Imperial consequences of passing this Bill into law now, and equally I hope that members of the Labour Party will not fail to recall that I inherited the Bill, in all its principal features, from them. I made no addition of any great consequence when I presented it to my colleagues, and it would be true to say that this is the Bill which my predecessor in office, Lord Olivier, recommended to his colleagues, and which I believe had at least received the formal* assent of his colleagues at the time when his Government fell. In those circumstances it does not seem to much to hope that while opportunities of criticism should be taken, at least it will be considered that three days are adequate for the purpose of dealing with the Committee Stage. If we can get the Committee Stage on Wednesday evening there should be no difficulty in taking the Report and Third Reading in the course of the next day or two.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: I beg to thank the noble Earl for the encouraging statement which he has made, and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion on the Paper.
Motion, by Leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.
* This word should be "informal." See columns 1227, 1228 and 1229.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 16th of November last discharged, and Rill committed for Thursday next.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Southam, Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick, in the County of Warwick:
Special Order in respect of the parishes or townships of Brewood, Featherstone and Shareshill, and parts of the townships of Essington, Hilton, Penkridge and Saredon in the rural district of Cannock, and the parish of Codsall and Oaken and the detached part of the parish of Wrottesley in the rural district of Seisdon, all in the County of Stafford:
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Abergele and Pensarn, in the County of Denbigh:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.

PRESTATYN ELECTRICITY SEPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
WOODBRIDGE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CREDITON ELECTRICITY SPECIALORDER, 1925.
MALDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
WHITCHURCH (HANTS) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CLITHEROE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CONWAY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BLACKBURN, BURNLEY AND CLITHEROE RURAL DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
RENFREWSHIRE (WESTERN AREA) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
PORT TALBOT GAS ORDER, 1925.
HORNSEY GAS ORDER, 1925.
LEIGH CORPORATION GAS ORDER, 1925.
LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1925.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.