Sitting of 9 December 1925

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bournemouth Order) Hill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen Corporation," presented by Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PRINCE AHMED SELF-ED-DIN.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the circumstances in which Prince Seif-ed-Din was originally brought to this country and placed in a lunatic asylum?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Prince Ahmed Seif-ed-Din was originally sentenced in 1898 by the Egyptian Courts to five years' imprisonment for the attempted murder of Prince Ahmed Fuad, uncle of the then Khedive, and now King of Egypt. During the Prince's detention he showed a tendency to homicidal mania, and, as no suitable institution existed in Egypt, the Egyptian Government asked Lord Cromer, in the Prince's own interests, to arrange for his reception in an asylum in England. In compliance with this request, the Prince was brought to this country in
  422
  July, 1900, and was placed in the private asylum at Ticehurst.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—whom I congratulate on his new position—if he is aware that Prince Ahmed Seif-ed-Din has since been declared sane by medical experts, and why he was kept all these years in this country without release?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question asked was, what were the circumstances in which he was brought to this country?

  RUSSIA.

    DEBTS TO BRITISH NATIONALS.
    Captain STREATFEILDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is taking any steps to secure the refunding of debts due by the Soviet Government to British companies and private individuals?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In the existing circumstances, I know of no steps open to me which would be likely to serve such a purpose.

    EXTERNAL RELATIONS (WESTERN POWERS).
    Mr. DUCKWORTHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as a result of the Locarno Pact, he has received any communication from Russian sources on the subject of participation in the improved mutual understanding of the Western Powers?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

    BRITISH RELATIONS.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps, if any, are being taken to improve the relations between Great Britain and Russia?
    Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government consider that the initiative in this matter now rests with the Soviet Government. They have expressed their willingness to listen to any concrete proposals for the settlement of outstanding difficulties which that Government may care to make; so far, however, there has been no response.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in

    423
    the rumour that the Foreign Secretary is engaged in unofficial conversations with M. Tchitcherin?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of a question of that nature.

    SIGNING OF LOCARNO TREATY (FILM).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the sole rights of taking the kinema film of the signing of the Locarno Treaty were granted to one firm; and who is his expert adviser in such matters?
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason that the contract for the Peace Treaty film are being placed with one news film company only, despite the representations of the British Film League?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The arrangements for the distribution of the film of the signing of the Locarno Treaties were made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, whose expert-adviser, as I stated yesterday, acts on behalf of all Government Departments in relation to cinematography. The distribution was entrusted to one company because His Majesty's Government were advised that this was the best method of obtaining an adequate presentation of the film. I have no reason to doubt that this advice was correct, and I am satisfied that the arrangements made are resulting in the widest distribution of the film which could be obtained consistently with its adequate presentation which is regarded as essential.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the result of this is that the film is shown at only a limited number of theatres, whereas, if a news agency had handled it, as is usually the case, this very important film would have been shown at every theatre?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not at all sure that that would have been the case.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was paid to the Government for the exclusive rights in connection with this world event?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into this matter again, and see that such discrimination is not shown to one particular firm, particularly as, if a similar discrimination had been shown to a newspaper, public opinion would have been indignant?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot give any such pledge. I have already said that I am satisfied with the arrangements that were made.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Film League, comprising all the British film agencies, made a request for the rights to exhibit the film of this world event, and that they were not notified in any way that the exclusive rights were given to one firm?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware of that last fact, but I do not at all deny it; I think it is very likely that the representation was made.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask whether it is necessary to have this technical adviser attached to the Department?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Colonel DAY: Would it not be better that an event like this should be put up for tender by the various agencies, so that there might be a general opportunity for all?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have already, in my reply to the question, given my reasons why that was not done.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Why were the rights not secured to all these companies, even if only one company were allowed to take the film? Why should the rights be confined to one?
    Sir WILLIAM LANE-MITCHELL: Is it not the fact that; the Foreign Office took the film themselves, and not any company at all?
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why all press photographers were ordered out of the quadrangle of the

    425
    Foreign Office on the occasion of the signing of the Locarno Treaty on 1st December in spite of being provided with official passes?
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether he is aware that Press photographers holding permits from the. Office of Works to take photographs in the Foreign Office quadrangle of the delegates to the signing of the Locarno Pact wore turned away by the police, who stated that they were acting upon instructions from the Foreign Office: and whether it was with his sanction that such photographers were r fused facilities for the taking of photographs which would have been of historic interest?
    Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to these questions on behalf of the First Commissioner of Works, as the official passes were issued by his Department. The instructions to the police to exclude the Press photographers were given at the last moment by an official of the Department, who had been given to understand that, if they were admitted, the work of the official cinematograph operators would be impeded. The First Commissioner regrets that, through a misunderstanding, inconvenience should have been caused to the Press photographers.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are any steps being taken to prevent another error of this kind being committed?
    Viscount CURZON: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I will convey it to my Noble Friend.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Can the Noble Lord say who told the official that the taking of the cinema film was likely to be impeded?
    Viscount CURZON: I am afraid I cannot answer any further questions without notice, but I will represent all these matters to my Noble Friend.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that films are taken when Press photographers are present, and that the latter do not interfere in any way with the film takers?

    DISTURBANCES, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked he Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state the general conclusions reached by the International Judicial Commission, which recently investigated the disturbances at Shanghai; and whether he proposes to recommend any action thereon and, if so, what?
    Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government have recommended the publication of the Reports. I can make no further statement at present.

    MEXICO (FOREIGN DEBTS).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long Mexico has been in default in respect of her foreign indebtedness; and whether there is any prospect of payments being made to her foreign creditors?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: From 1914 to 1922 Mexico was in default in respect of its foreign indebtedness. In 1022, a settlement of the major portion of the debt was effected; cash payments under this arrangement were begun in January, 1923, but have been in arrear since July, 1023. A new settlement has recently been made under which payments are to be resumed on the 1st January next.

    RUMANIA (PRE-WAR DEBT).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any prospect of payments being resumed in respect of the Rumanian pre-War debt?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the horn Member refers to State loans contracted by Rumania before the War, payment is being made, as far as I am aware, to British bondholders, except in certain cases arising out of the 4½ per cent. Gold Loan of 1913. On the 10th September last, the Rumanian Government gave an undertaking covering these eases, and are now being urged to resume payment. If the hon. Member is referring to pre-War commercial debts, contracted by Rumanian nationals, an arrangement was concluded last year, between British

    427
    creditors and Rumanian debtors, for the settlement of such debts through the Office of Foreign Payments in Bucharest.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is it not a fact that Rumania is meeting all her obligations with great punctuality at the present time?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope that is so.

  IRAQ.

    TURKISH PETROLEUM COMPANY.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the concession in the Mosul area to the Turkish Petroleum Company is now valid?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir; His Majesty's Government regard as undoubtedly valid the convention made on 14th March, 1925, whereby the Government of Iraq granted to the Turkish Petroleum Company, for a period of 75 years, the exclusive right to extract and dispose of petroleum and similar products in the whole of Iraq with the exception of the "transferred territories " and the vilayet of Basra. They welcomed the inclusion of French interests in the Turkish Petroleum Company, and have watched with sympathy negotiations for the inclusion also of American interests. If these negotiations result in American interests acquiring an interest in the Turkish Petroleum Company, such a result will be welcomed by His Majesty's Government.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Turkish Government also agreed to this concession?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I must ask for notice of any question arising out of this. I confine myself to answering exactly the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton).

    BRITISH OBLIGATIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a White Paper to be issued setting forth clearly the position with regard to the British Mandate in Iraq and the action taken or decisions come
    428
    to by the League of Nations on the subject from time to time; and if he will state whether anything in the nature of a pledge was given in May, 1923, on behalf of the British Government, that the Mandate of this country in Iraq should terminate in 1928?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The relations between this country and Iraq are defined in the Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 10th October, 1922, the Protocol of 30th April, 1923, and the Agreements subsidiary thereto. The action taken by the League of Nations is comprised in the Council's Decision dated 27th September, 1924. These documents have already been presented to Parliament this year as Command Papers 2370 and 2317. I, therefore, do not think it necessary to issue a further White Paper on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, the House was informed in May, 1953, that the Iraq Treaty in its present form would terminate upon the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations and, in any case, not later than four years from the ratification of peace with Turkey (that is to say, in 1928), but that negotiations for a new treaty to regulate the relations between the two countries would be opened before that date.
    Sir F. HALL: Would my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the suggestion that we are going to be bound to the protection of Iraq for another 25 years after the present Treaty comes to an end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I should say that that shares the fate of most suggestions—there is very little truth in it. I would ask the hon. Member to of good enough to wait until we know what takes place at Geneva.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Colonial Secretary has said that we are prepared to take on the Mandate for 25 years? What is his view about that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend reads very carefully what the Colonial Secretary said, it would be difficult to extract that meaning literally.
    Mr. LOOKER: Did this country not give a pledge to uphold and maintain the state of Iraq?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That must depend again on what is done at Geneva.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we shall not be committed to remain in Iraq for another 25 years without the House of Commons being consulted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather in the region of romance.

    MAIZE (UNITED STATES CHOP).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the unprecedentedly heavy maize crop in the United States of America, and the consquent fall in price, two credit organisations have been formed under Government auspices to enable growers to withhold maize from the market indefinitely until prices rise; and whether he proposes to allow such a restriction on the sale of a natural product to pass without representations being made on behalf of consumers of maize in this country?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have seen a report of the nature referred to in the Press, but I have no official information.
    Mr. LOOKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that diplomatic representations wore made by the United States to Great Britain with respect to the rubber restriction scheme, and are we to understand that the Department is going to allow a State-aided restriction of this description to be perpetrated on British consumers?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I may tell my hon. Friend that we have telegraphed for information about this, but have not yet received the report.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is not this merely good business from the present-day business man's point of view?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ENGINEER OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that it was provided by the King's Regulations, issued in 1923,
    430
    that the promotion of the engineer officers should be in competition with other executive officers; that such officers should continue on the general list up to the rank of commander, and should be considered specialist officers and as such should not wear a purple string that since these Regulations came into force a number of cadets have volunteered for the engineer branch of the Service; that an Admiralty Fleet Order has recently been issued whereby these provisions of the King's Regulations have in effect been abrogated, and it is provided that the promotion of engineer officers is to be in competition with other engineer officers: that such officers are to be shown on separate seniority lists in the Navy List and are to wear a purple strip; whether the Board of Admiralty recognises that those who volunteered for the engineer branch of the Service on the faith of the King's Regulations suffer injustice by reason of the above provisions of the recent Admiralty Fleet Order; and what steps it is proposed to take to remedy it?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Except in the case of officers who volunteered for engineering prior to December, 1918, and who did not accept the new Regulations then introduced, there is no provision in the King's Regulations of 1923 that the promotion of engineer officers should be in competition with executive officers, nor do the King's Regulations deal with the question of uniform. Nothing in the new Admiralty Fleet Order prejudices any cadets who since that date have volunteered for engineering duties, as (E) officers are already, under the Regulations in force since 1919, considered for promotion with other engineer officers and not with executive officers, though they have remained in [he Navy List on the general list of executive officers until reaching the rank of commander. Indeed, promotion on a separate list is, under present conditions, very considerably to then advantage. As regards officers who volunteered prior to 1923, in a very few isolated cases—not more than five in all — the officers retained certain responsibilities as to military command, while the vast majority surrendered their option in this respect. Otherwise, the changes made are limited to the inclusion of officers' names in separate lists in the Navy List and the direction that they

    431
    shall now wear the same uniform as other officers employed on engineering duties. These are purely matters of practical convenience, arising from the fact—not now questioned, I think, in any quarter —that under present-day conditions the knowledge, duties and capabilities of executive and engineer officers, though of equal importance, are definitely differentiated and cannot be combined as was once thought possible. The changes make no difference whatever to the position and status of the officers under the various Regulations, and their relative rank and precedence, chances of promotion, rates of pay, etc., are in no way prejudiced, and I would earnestly deprecate suggestions that the changes imply inferiority in any shape or form, as such is not the opinion nor intention of the Board of Admiralty.
    Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: If the engineer officers regard the wearing of this purple stripe as derogatory, why should the Board of Admiralty insist on their continuing to do so?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is to distinguish the two sections. Why they should regard the purple stripe as in any way derogatory, I. cannot understand. I should be very proud, if I had the qualification, to wear it myself.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the fact of the matter that the original attempt to amalgamate these two branches has proved in practice a failure, and is not this new change inevitable?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. This is only regularising changes that were effected in 1918, when it became clear that the amalgamation was not a success.

    FUEL OIL.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in making purchases of fuel oil, a preference is given to oil produced in the Dominions or Colonies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The answer is in the affirmative.

    DISCHARGES (ILL-HEALTH).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men have been discharged from the Navy
    432
    for ill-health in each of the last three years, including 1925; in how many cases these 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 of appeal?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The numbers invalided in the three years in question are as follow:

    1923

    …

    1,474

    1924

    …

    1,330

    1925 (from 1st January to 30th November)

    …

    1,335

    Any man invalided from the Navy has the right of appeal to the Board of Admiralty, under whose directions the naval medical authorities would give his case careful and sympathetic consideration. As regards an appeal to any medical tribunal beyond the Admiralty, I would refer my hon. Friend to the several replies already given in this House on the subject, namely, on the 1st April, 16th February and 15th December last. I regret that the information asked for in the remainder of the question cannot be given without a detailed examination of the documents of over 4,000 cases, for which no margin of staff is available.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the right of appeal is more or less useless, seeing that the men cannot be represented?

    WELFARE REQUESTS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether paragraph 2 of Admiralty Fleet Order 1986 of 1924 is to be read that welfare requests which have been refused as final are never to be repeated again although circumstances may have changed and rendered them possible, such as, for instance, the pensions to widows; and whether he will give the matter consideration before issuing the order? for the 1920 Welfare Conference at Devonport?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The reference is to Admiralty Fleet Order 1986 of 1925. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that there can be no object in repeating at comparatively short intervals of time requests which after careful consideration have been refused by the Admiralty. If it appears at any time that, owing to

    433
    changed conditions, an exception to this general rule should be made, the matter will be dealt with in the orders for the Welfare Conference. I would remind my hon. Friend that the question of widows' pension is being considered by the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust.

    Loss OF SUBMARINE "Ml" (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the rear-admiral in charge of submarines has issued an appeal for funds to supplement the pensions paid to the widows and dependants of the men lost in the submarine Ml, he will state how many pensions have been issued; what is the actual sum paid as pension to the widows of each rank and rating; and whether it is proposed to increase the amount of pension above that provided in the Order in Council?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Pensions and allowances under the conditions set out and at the rates provided in Order in Council of the 7th November, 1924, have been awarded in respect of 35 widows of men lost in His Majesty's Submarine "M/" and of their children. I am sending the hon. Member a list giving details of these awards. So far as is known there are no other widows eligible for pension. Claims from dependants other than widows and children are being investigated as and when received. I regret that there is no authority to increase from naval funds the amount of pension provided in the Order in Council.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the dependants left, as the result of this disaster, were put to considerable privations in the early stages owing to the impossibility of getting the pensions through, and the Admiralty diminished the allotments that were payable to the wives?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Why should it be necessary for the Rear-Admiral or any official to invite contributions from the outside public to assist relief that ought to have been made by the Government itself?
    Mr. HAYES: Will the hon. Gentleman please circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    434
    the list of awards referred to in his reply?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I will consider that.

    PASSAGES IN MERCHANT VESSELS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the conditions under which naval ratings under the rating of chief petty officers taking passage in a merchant vessel are embarked: and whether he will order that they are to be carried as third-class passengers and not messed and accommodated in the holds of merchant vessels?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason why men are put in the hold instead of being treated as third-class passengers?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The situation is fully dealt with in the answer.
    The reply is as follows:
    The general arrangements for the conveyance of naval ratings in merchant ships are made by the Board of Trade. On routes such as the Atlantic route served by merchant ships which have third-class cabin accommodation it is the usual practice to make use of such accommodation for the conveyance of naval ratings. On routes where third-class accommodation does not exist, or when the numbers to be conveyed justify the use of a transport, accommodation for naval ratings is fitted in the 'tween decks (not in the holds), in accordance with His Majesty's Transport Regulations approved by the Admiralty. Each rating is provided with a hammock billet and a seat at table and adequate washing and sanitary accommodation is provided. The preparation of the ships is supervised by Government inspectors to ensure that the fittings are in accordance with the Regulations, and a representative of the Admiralty is present at the final inspection held to determine that all arrangements are satisfactory. The provision of hammock accommodation for naval ratings on passage is similar to that provided in His Majesty's Ships find to which the men are accustomed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Labour the number of men in the city of Bristol who have been refused benefit during each month of the present year on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Between 13th January and 16th November the number of applications from men for extended benefit which were refused by the Bristol Local Employment Committee on the ground that the applicants were not making reasonable efforts to secure whole time employment was 391 as shown in the following statement:
    APPLICATIONS FROM MEN FOR EXTENDED BENEFIT refused by the Bristol Local Employment Committee in 1925 on the ground that the applicants were not making reasonable efforts to secure whole time employment.

    Period.

    No refused.

    13th January to 9th February

    39

    10th February to 9th March

    27

    10th March to 13th April

    28

    14th April to 11th May

    34

    12th May to 8th June

    24

    9th June to 13th July

    62

    14th July to 24th August

    11

    25th August to 14th September

    15

    15th September to 12th October

    15

    13th October to 16th November

    136

    Total

    391

    The numbers of applications for standard benefit which were refused are not available.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have applied for extended benefit in Middlesbrough during the past two months and the number who have been refused on the grounds that they have not had a reasonable period of employment during the past two years?
    Mr. BETTERTON: During the period 15th September to 16th November, 10,232 applications for extended benefit were considered by the local employment committee at Middlesbrough. Of these 811 were refused on the ground that the applicants had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment within the previous two years.
    Mr. THOMSON: In considering these cases is the local committee entitled to take into consideration the abnormal amount of unemployment in the district and to give special consideration on that account?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member clearly. If he has any case in regard to Middlesbrough which he desires to bring before the Goschen Committee, I shall be glad to have it.
    Mr. STAMFORDasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for extended benefit at the Leeds Exchanges during the last two months; the number to whom benefit has been refused; and the corresponding figures for last year?
    Mr. BETTERTON: During the period 15th September to 13h November, 1925, 8,266 applications for extended benefit were considered by the Leeds Employment Committee, of which l,606 were refused. During the period 9th September to 10th November, 1924, 7,115 applications were considered and 743 refused.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour why Miss E. W. Edwards was refused her claim to unemployment benefit on 13th August, 10th October, and 21st November, on the ground that at the time of each application she was not genuinely seeking employment; what was the evidence laid before the Stepney Committee which led them to arrive at their decisions; and the number of years Miss Edwards has paid into the fund, and the total amount of unemployment benefit she has been paid during that period?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am inquiring into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the hon. Member to inquire whether the woman officer at Stepney Exchange is in the habit of insulting the women who make applications?
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour why Miss A. L. Jeffrey was refused unemployment benefit by the Hackney Employment Exchange on 11th November on the ground that she was not genuinely seeking work, seeing that no evidence was placed before her by the officer who communicated the decision; arid will he state the number of years Miss Jeffrey has paid into the fund, the amount of unemployment pay she has received from the fund, the date she last fell out of work and signed on, the date the authorities decided that she was not genuinely seeking work, and the evidence on which their decision was based?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am inquiring into this case and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask that the answer should be put through the OFFICIAL REPORT, SO that the whole House may know what the answer is?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly. I will see that both answers are put in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of persons who have been refused benefit during the last two months in the administrative county of London on the grounds of not genuinely seeking employment;
    (2) the number of persons who have applied for extended benefit in the administrative county of London during the past two months and the number who have been refused on the grounds that they have not had a reasonable period of employment during the past two years?
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who applied for extended benefit in each month of the present year at the Rochdale Employment Exchange; and the number and percentage of cases in which benefit was refused?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for extended benefit in Glasgow who have been refused during the eight weeks previous to 16th November, 1925?
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of
    438
    applicants for extended benefit in Glasgow since the coming into operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925; and the number of cases in which benefit has been refused in consequence of the new Regulations:
    (2) the number of claims for extended benefit since the coming into operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925; the number of claims refused; and the number of such claims in which the applicant has ceased to sign at the Employment Exchange?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It has not been practicable in the time since these questions appeared on the Paper to have the detailed information required in each case prepared. The information is being extracted from the official records, and as soon as this has been completed, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman give any clue as to how these men can prove that they are genuinely seeking work?

    POOR RELIEF, GLASGOW.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that from 16th May to 15th November the number of new applications for relief of able-bodied unemployed at the Glasgow Parish Council was 1,813, and that there were 97,782 renewed applications; is he aware that the monetary relief is £17,000 greater than last year; and will he take the necessary steps to have all such able-bodied unemployed placed upon the Employment Exchange registers?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland that the figures are as stated in the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part of the question, I presume the hon. Member means So suggest not merely that these persons should be placed on the Employment Exchange registers but that they should be granted unemployment benefit. I regret that it is not possible to do this in so far as they fail to satisfy the conditions for the receipt of benefit.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are these figures, as shown in the Glasgow Parish Council, included when making up the total figures of unemployed men in Glasgow?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I could not say without notice. I should think they probably are.
    Mr. HARD1E: How does the hon. Gentleman square these figures with the statement of the Labour Minister last night?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will bring the point to my right hon. Friend's attention.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Do not these figures, which the hon. Gentleman admits are correct, show that there is a wide disparity between the number of men recorded as unemployed on the unemployed register and the number who actually have to get relief from the parish council?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That, I think, is the same question over again. There is clearly some disparity.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to his chief that these and similar figures all over the country prove that the Government is shifting the burden from the National Exchequer on to local authorities?
    Mr. HARDIE: Are cases such as were brought up last night, where youths are put back on to the poverty of the parents, included in these figures?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I was not present last night, and I am. not conversant with the precise point the hon. Member raises, but I will bring it to my right hon. Friend's notice.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If a person is disqualified from benefit, is ho removed from the live register?

    JARROW-ON-TYNE AND HEBBURN.
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the exceptional distress arising out of long-continued unemployment at Jarrow-on-Tyne and Hebburn, he will consider the advisability of relaxing the stringency of the regulations issued to Employment Exchanges in those towns in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924, Section 3 (c)?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The condition to which the hon. Member refers is a statutory one, and in administering it the
    440
    Minister is largely guided by the recommendations of local committees who have a full knowledge of the circumstances. I should be glad to enquire into any specific case.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of cases where the Minister has reversed the decision?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot do that without notice.

    YOUTHS UNEMPLOYED.
    Mr. BARCLAY - HARVEYasked the Minister of Labour the total number of young men between the age of 16 and 21 who are registered as unemployed?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Statistics of the. ages of persons registered at Employment Exchanges are not normally compiled, but the results of an investigation with regard to 1 per cent. of the claimants to benefit at the end of 1924 showed that 6·8 per cent. of the male claimants whose cases were investigated were between the ages of 16 and 20. Applying this percentage to the number of males registered at 23rd November, 1925, the number in this age group would at that date be about 66,000.

    INCOME LIMIT.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state what amount of weekly or other income coming into a house is sufficient to warrant insurance committees refusing benefit to single persons living with relatives, or wives living with husbands, or husbands living with wives, either of whom are at work?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am afraid that I cannot add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member on 18th November on this subject.
    Mr. LANSBURY: How long will it take the Minister to make up his mind on this perfectly simple question? Is the hon. Member aware that his chief promised to give me an answer very shortly? What does that exactly moan? Two years?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member will realise that I cannot answer that in the absence of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It is not my fault that the right hon. Gentleman is not. present on the day when he should be present.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it the case that in certain parts of the country rates of income are already being laid down, and that young persons are being disallowed benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It is true that it is desirable that there should, as far as possible, be uniformity, but it is also true that it is necessary there should be some elasticity.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Member quote any part of any unemployment legislation which lays down such a condition?

    EXCHANGE, EAST INDIA DOCK ROAD.
    Mr. MARCHasked the Minister of Labour why the Employment Exchange in the East India Dock Road, E.14, is being enlarged to double its present size?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The present premises in the East India Dock Road are inadequate, and the extension is necessary to enable the work to be properly dealt with.
    Mr. MARCH: How does that compare with the statement made that the figures of the unemployed are rapidly reducing? This Exchange has been open for two years.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I made inquiries on that point. There is no substantial change in the figures in this area. It was realised when this Exchange was opened three years ago that unless there was a definite improvement which, unfortunately, has not taken place, it would be necessary to increase the accommodation.
    Sir F. WISE: Is this office freehold or leasehold?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that doubling the resources of this Exchange is the Government's method of curing un employment by giving employment to officers at the, Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is argument.

    SALMON- FISHERS, BERWICK-ON-TWEED.
    Mrs. PHILIPSONasked the Minister of Labour whether the salmon fishers of Berwick-on-Tweed as a class are auto-
    442
    matically refused extended benefit or whether individual cases are considered on their merits?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Each case is considered on its merits. Generally speaking, the workers in question are found to be seasonal workers whose season does not extend over 10 months of the year and who do no other insurable work. There are some cases, however, where it is shown that there are substantial periods of insurable employment between the seasons and a number of individual cases have been allowed on this ground.
    Mrs. PHILIPSON: Will the hon. Gentleman, knowing the distress in which many of the fishermen are placed, owing to bad weather conditions and other causes, see that their cases are given the most sympathetic and fullest consideration?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I ought to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that the whole question of these fishery workers is engaging his very special attention.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does this mean salmon fishing and not poaching?

    MERSEY TUNNEL.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received an assurance from the statutory committee for the new Mersey Tunnel that all labour required locally for the work of the construction of the tunnel will be engaged through the local Employment Exchanges, and that labour from other sources be not engaged without an assurance from the Employment Exchanges that no suitable labour was available; and, if not, will he obtain such assurances, in accordance with the resolution of the Merseyside local employment committee passed in June last?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I have not asked for, nor have I received, any assurance that all the labour employed on the new Mersey Tunnel will be engaged through any specific channel, but the specification which has been submitted to me for Con tract No. 1, "Working Shafts and Headings," contains a clause which would appear to meet the hon. Member's wishes in the matter. I am sending him a copy of the clause referred to.
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether the local employment committee in Liverpool as far back as June last asked for such an insurance, and that it is only in the interests of the efficient working of the Employment Exchange that applications for employment should be made to the Exchange?
    Colonel ASHLEY: They could not give an assurance because there was no con tract asked for. This was a clause put into the tender.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether it is possible for the statutory committee to obtain a certificate from the local Employment Exchanges that suitable local labour is not available?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member had better wait and see. When he reads my answer I think he will be quite satisfied.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the Minister say whether this scheme is likely to be begun in the present winter?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Will my light hon. Friend assure us that, as the rest of the country is paying for this thing for the benefit of Liverpool, men out of work in other districts may also have a chance?
    Mr. HAYES: Will the Minister also bear in mind that while the National Exchequer is bearing 50 per cent. of the cost, Liverpool is bearing the remainder.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the Minister aware that if he gives this assurance, he will be imposing restrictions upon those who are trying to do their best for the unemployed of Liverpool and the surrounding districts?

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (INVESTIGATION).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Minister of Labour if the Committee set up to examine the workings of the Employment Exchanges and the administration and operations of unemployment pay has yet reported; and if he will give details of proposals he is prepared to make to remedy the inequalities obtaining in respect to unemployment grants?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The Committee was appointed only last month and a
    444
    Report on the subject remitted to them cannot be expected for some time.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: In view of the enormous difficulty of unemployment in the country, will the hon. Gentleman report to the Minister of Labour the necessity of immediately obtaining advice from leaders of industry and leaders of the trade unions, who can give him all the information required to enable him to act upon it within 10 days?

    HARTLEPOOLS (S. BURROWS).
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Minister of Labour why instructions have been issued to his officers at the Hartlepools to refuse the claim of Stan Burrows, who was employed for 25 years by one firm there in one unbroken service, and who, on the presumption of the early commencement of restarting of such works where he had been employed and which were now closed, informed the committee of his purpose to await the reopening of such works, and thereafter produced proof that he had unsuccessfully applied to every firm available in the, locality and county for work without success?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Mr. Burrows stated to a rota committee in August last, after he had drawn standard benefit for six months, that he had not made any effort whatever to find employment as he was waiting for his old firm to reopen. In these circumstances his claim was properly refused on the statutory ground that he failed to show that he was making reasonable efforts to obtain work. The firm in question has not yet restarted operations, and Mr. Burrows has stated that since his claim was disallowed he has looked for other work.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Is it not a fact that this gentleman has applied to every known employer in his own industry to obtain work, and bus so reported to the rota committee, and that the report furnished to the hon. Gentleman is not entirely accurate, and that this man is penalised unjustly?
    Mr. BETTERTON: If my hon. Friend's question is whether I am aware that the report is inaccurate, I am certainly not aware of any such thing.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: But it is.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S NATIONAL ROLL).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish a list of those local authorities and holders of Royal Warrants who, while being without any valid excuse, are not on the King's Roll?.
    Mr. BETTERTON: As was stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes on 15th December, 1924, a suggestion that the names of local authorities not on the King's National Roll should be published was discussed by the King's Roll National Council in their Interim Report of July, 1923 (Cmd. 1919) and definitely rejected, for reasons which are given in the Report and which still hold good. The same reasons apply to the publication of names of Royal Warrant holders.

    GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public concern in certain recent decisions, he will consider instituting an inquiry into both the powers and the composition of the General Medical Council?
    Major HENNESSY (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Everton.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (PAPER).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Prime Minister if he will reconsider the advisability of introducing safeguarding as applied to the wrapping-paper industry before the Session is over, in view of the imports coming in threatening further unemployment?
    Captain BOURNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that apprehension has been aroused in the paper manufacturing industry by his announcement that the Government do not propose to introduce the Resolution imposing a safeguarding duty on wrapping paper this Session; and whether it is possible for him to reconsider this decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall answer these questions together. I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement which I made on business on Friday last, and to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a private notice question addressed to mo by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset.
    Captain BOURNE: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of taking steps to prevent excessive imports between now and the time when the Duty is imposed?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the very great advantage to the export trade de pendent on paper as raw material, of increasing imports?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All those considerations will be borne in mind.
    Major COLFOX: Is my right hon Friend aware that there is considerable difference of opinion among his own supporters as to the advisability of imposing this Duty?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that that opposition may be counted on one hand?
    Mr. HALL CAINE: In view of the in jury to the industry by this postponement, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a Government appeal to shop keepers during the forthcoming shopping weeks to use British and not foreign wrappers.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Prime Minister if he is able to state the name of the Welsh representative to serve on the Necessitous Areas Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Welsh representative will be Mr. F. A. Phillips, for many years a member of the Merthyr Town Council and mayor last year, and well acquainted with the problems of a large urban district where trade depression has been experienced.

    BETTING (TAXATION).
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the

    447
    strong feeling in the country that some form of taxation of betting is desirable; and will be consider giving a day to discuss this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that with the present pressure of business I can see no prospect of being able to afford a day for the discussion desired by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. DIXEY: Will the Prime Minister consider discussing this question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an alternative proposal for his Budget?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not wish to debate the matter, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, before he became a Member of this House, and when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, this matter was gone into most exhaustively, and that there are one or two objections which seem almost insurmountable.
    Mr. SPENCER: Is the Prime Minister aware that, if any steps are taken with regard to betting, the first and most important is that terms equal to all shall be the first consideration, and not that some shall be sent to prison for "putting 10s. on" and others allowed to "put £10 on" and go free?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS.
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the Secretary of State for Air the percentage of fatal flying accidents that have occurred in the Royal Air Force from 1st January, 1924, to 1st September, 1924, and from 1st January, 1925, to 1st September, 1925, in comparison with the number of hours flown in each period?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): The number of aircraft hours flown per fatal accident during the period in 1925 referred to was greater by 92 per cent. than the figure for the corresponding period in 1924. I need hardly remind my hon. and gallant Friend that it would be unwise to draw too definite deductions from comparative figures taken over arbitrarily selected periods, but, as he will see, there has been a most striking and satisfactory decrease in the ratio of casualties to hours flown.
    Brigadier-General WARNER: Is this most satisfactory diminution in fatal flying accidents due to the initiation of any new system of training, or in the training of young pilots is any new type of special aeroplanes being used?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is the general increase in efficiency all round, and the causes mentioned by ray hon. and gallant Friend may have played a part.
    Brigadier-General WARNER: Thank you. It is most satisfactory.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us if non-flammable fuel is being used for aeroplanes?

    BOMBING AEROPLANE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air if the new giant bombing aeroplane which has just been added to the Air Force is intended to form part of the Home Defence Air Force?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that I am unable to identify the machine in question without further particulars. I shall be happy to give the hon. Member the information he desires if he will furnish me with further details.

    AIRCRAFT (FIRST LINE STRENGTH).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now able to give the number of machines in the Air Force efficient and immediately ready to fly on emergency under war conditions both at home and stationed abroad?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The first line strength of the regular squadrons of the Royal Air Force at the present time at home and abroad is approximately 650 machines. This figure, like that which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to his previous question on the 2nd instant, excludes the establishment of 58 first line machines on the strength of auxiliary and special reserve squadrons. This establishment is now in course of being completed, and these 58 machines, though not immediately ready for flying under war conditions, could then be made available on emergency at very short notice. Machines on the strength of training, experimental and research units are also excluded.
    Colonel GRETTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I asked this question last week and the Minister for Air then undertook to give me a reply to the question on the Paper which has not been answered, namely, what is the number of machines of the Air Force efficient and immediately ready to fly on emergency under war conditions? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me the establishment, but not the machines ready to fly under war conditions.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think I have answered the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. With regard to the machines on the strength of training, experimental and research units, these of course are not equipped for war and therefore do not come within the category mentioned in the question.
    Colonel DAY: Do these machines carry parachutes?
    Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand that all the machines on the establishment are efficient and ready to fly under war conditions? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman pledge his word to that effect?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think I have given my hon. and gallant Friend the number of machines that are ready for emergency.
    Brigadier-General WARNER: Is it not a fact that a certain percentage is always kept not ready to fly, and that otherwise those machines would be available? They are kept as a reserve to supply the places of machines which have met with accident.
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, that is so.

    BENTLEY PRIORY (PURCHASE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Air for what purpose the Ministry are arranging to buy Bentley Priory, Stanmore, for the use of the Royal Air Force; how that purpose is now met; and what is the total cost involved in the scheme?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, Bentley Priory is being purchased for use as headquarters of the re-organised Inland Area, Royal Air Force, which is to form in April next. As regards the second part, the existing
    450
    Inland Area headquarters are at Hilling-don House, Uxbridge, and this accommodation, when vacated, will be used for the Fighting Area headquarters of the Home Defence Force, which is part of the approved Home Defence expansion scheme. As regards the last part of the question, the total cost involved in the acquisition and adaptation of Bentley Priory will be approximately £40,000. I may add that the purchase and adaptation of these premises is the most economical method of providing the accommodation required for these headquarters; to purchase a site and erect new buildings thereon would entail a much heavier out lay.
    Sir F. WISE: What is the acreage?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think it is 41 acres.

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT (BOTTLED GOODS).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that, in order to escape the Weights and Measures Act, many bottled goods are designated quarter bottles, half bottles, and bottles, instead of half pints, pints, and quarts; and whether he will consider the possibility of dealing with this practice;
    (2) whether he is aware that all proprietary articles in packets, and preserved meats, fruits, and preserves in tins or glass are sold at approximate weights; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to compel producers to state the exact weight on each packet?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): These points are involved in the general subject of short weight and measure in the sale of foodstuffs, which has been referred to the Food Council. I shall be glad to consider the hon. Member's suggestions when I receive the Food Council's Report.
    Colonel DAY: When is the report expected?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I think fairly soon.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it necessary to wait for a report from this Council before

    451
    taking steps to prosecute dealers who are giving short weight? Are there not Statutes already in existence?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes; but I under stand the hon. Member complains that certain goods are escaping the law in bottles. The Food Council are examining that matter and we are awaiting their report.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to short measure in bottles, that traders are finding it very difficult to get from the Standards Department the proper stamp of the bottling machines used?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: All these matters will be taken into consideration.

    HOME AND EMPIRE TRADE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether any representations have been made to local authorities urging upon them the necessity for giving expression to the principle of encouraging home and Empire trade?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Circulars on this subject were sent to local authorities from the Ministry of Health in May, 1923, and March of this year, and jointly by the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend in October last. I am sending copies to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman circularise them again before the end of the year?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; the last communications have only recently been sent.

    TUBERCULOSIS (FREE TREATMENT).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Health which local authorities in England and Wales give sanatorium and other treatment to tuberculous persons free of charge?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sending the hon. Member a list of the local authorities
    452
    conducting tuberculosis schemes which, according to the most recent information available to my right hon. Friend's Department, do not obtain contributions from patients afforded treatment for tuberculosis.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it correct to say that there is no legal right to make a charge?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question down.

  POOR LAW.

    NEWPORT BOARD OF GUARDIANS (RELIEF STATION).
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received an application from the Newport Board of Guardians for permission to open a relief station at Abercarn, and so relieve destitute aged people from the necessity of travelling long distances to obtain relief; and will he favourably consider the application?
    Sir K. WOOD: This proposal has already been approved.

    CASUAL WARDS (OXFORDSHIRE).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he anticipates being in a position to inform the House of the result of his investigations into the conditions of the casual wards of Oxfordshire; and, if so, when?
    Sir K. WOOD: The matter is still under investigation, and my right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make any statements in regard to it.
    Mr. HORE-BEL1SHA: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to hold an inquiry into this very serious matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I am making investigations through my Department.

    POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Poor Persons Rules of 1914 and 1925, thereby differing from the practice in foreign countries, gave no right to any poor person to be admitted to the benefit

    453
    of the rules as of right, but only as a matter of discretion, and that there was, and is, no appeal permitted under such rules by a poor person whose application to proceed under the rules has been refused; and whether he will recommend, or cause recommendations to be made, that an appeal should be allowed from the discretion of the committee of solicitors referred to in the Report of Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence's last committee [Cmd. 2358] when acting judicially in certifying or refusing applications of poor persons for legal aid, and also that an appeal should be allowed from the decision of the clerks or librarians when acting semi-judicially in deciding, as directed by the said Report, whether or not such poor persons have a prima facie case for the consideration of the committee of solicitors?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): In answer to the first part of the question, every poor person is entitled to be admitted to the benefit of the rules, as of right; whether his case is prosecuted under the rules depends on whether it satisfies the conditions laid down in the rules. I do not know whether the practice in foreign countries is the same. To the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative. There are no decisions of clerks or librarians under the rules, and therefore there can be no appeal from them. I am satisfied as regards the decisions of the local committee that in the interest of everyone concerned there should be on appeal.

    TITHE RENTCHARGE (WALES).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Welsh Church Com missioners own most of the tithe rent-charge in Wales and are, according to their Annual Reports, spending about £20,000 in putting their tithe rentals in order, he will consider the desirability of transferring to them the powers and duties of the Ministry of Agriculture in connection with altered apportionments of tithe rentcharge vested in them?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I imagine that the intention of Parliament in entrusting to the Ministry the powers and duties to which
    454
    the hon. Members refers was to ensure that they should be carried out with due regard to all the interests concerned. The transactions referred to alter the liability of the land to tithe rentcharge and thus directly affect the landowners concerned. I am not therefore prepared to introduce legislation with a view of transferring these powers to a body representing one interest only, namely, that of the tithe owner.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the grounds on which he is satisfied that the evidence connecting foot-and-mouth, disease in this country with imported cattle cake is insufficient to justify him in considering the matter afresh, with a view to prohibiting the importation of such cattle cake?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The materials from which cake is manufactured are cooked, and as the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is destroyed at a comparatively low temperature, this treatment should be sufficient to ensure complete sterilisation. Rearing in mind the widespread use of imported cake, the number of outbreaks would be enormous were cake in any way infected with foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the cake, but the material from which it is pressed which may cause infection.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, but the material is sterilised by the high temperature used in preparing the cake.
    Mr. SPENCER: In view of the fact that we have not yet been able to isolate the bacillus which is supposed to give rise to the disease, how does anyone know how the virus arises?
    Mr. GUINNESS: You can quite easily get some of the infectious saliva and subject that to a temperature test and find at what temperature it becomes sterilised.
    Mr. SPENCER: You cannot find the bacillus and get the exact germ which is responsible for the disease because, as yet, we do not know anything about it.
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, but you can prove at what temperature this infected material, which is known to cause the germs, will become sterilised.
    Mr. STUARTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a letter from the Moray-shire Farmers' Club, dated 28th November, asking that Scotland should be closed to cattle imported from England, with a view to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease into Scotland; and if so, whether he intends taking action with this end in view?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the partial Standstill Order has created a wide buffer zone around all existing centres of foot-and-mouth disease, and prohibited the movement of all animals outward from within the Standstill area. I am, therefore, advised that sufficient protection against the spread of disease into Scotland has been attained, and that there is no Justification for the entire stoppage of the import of animals into Scotland from the few counties in England and Wales remaining free from restrictions.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is this another move to get Home Rule for Scotland?

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN COMMITTEE EMPLOYES).
    Colonel DAYasked the right hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee, how many employés under the control of the Kitchen Committee, male and female, respectively, were found situations during the last Recess of the House; and what steps are being taken to find temporary situations during the forthcoming long Recess for those who do not receive full or half pay during the Recess?
    Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNER: In reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, the only employés who are under the control of the Kitchen Committee during the long Recess are those engaged by the year. But we always endeavour to assist those who have been temporarily in our employ to find situations. During the last summer Recess, I understand few, if any, were entirely without occupation.
    Colonel DAY: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated in the House of
    456
    Commons on 29th July that they found all their employeés work during the vacation?
    Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at least on this side of the House, we would rather pay a little more for our food, and pay reasonable wages to those employed at the House, than turn them off with nothing for 17 or 18 weeks?
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: I do not think the hon. Member quite apprehends the situation. If his proposal were carried out, it would mean that the temporary employés would be kept during the Recess in enforced idleness, and at a great cost to the Committee.
    Colonel DAY: On a point of Order. The last time that this question was raised you, Mr. Speaker, said that you would give the House an opportunity to discuss it on some of the Votes.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure I did not say that. I have not control over the time of the House.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    COUPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 115 warrant officers and non-commissioned officers serving on a 21 years' pensionable engagement in the Corps of Military Accountants have been transferred to the Royal Army Pay Corps; whether it is proposed to transfer the remainder to other corps; and, it not, what compensation will be given the men concerned for the loss of their appointments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King):Of the warrant officers and non-commissioned officers serving on a 21 years' pensionable engagement in the Corps of Military Accountants, 52 will be transferred to the Royal Army Pay Corps, three will be transferred to other corps, and the remainder will be discharged with the compensation benefits granted under Army Orders 377 of 1925 and 180 of 1922.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman now say what steps the War Office is taking to find. these discharged men employment?
    Captain KING: I cannot without notice, as I told the hon. Member yesterday.

    CHELSEA PENSIONS.
    Colonel ENGLANDasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the importance to the men and families affected, he will consider the desirability of affording some form of appeal to applicants whose claims for a pension on the ground of disability arising from post-War service have been dismissed by the Chelsea Commissioners; and what reason there is for making any distinction between the treatment of ex-service Great War pensioners and those post-War pensioners?
    Captain KING: The different system in the case of post-War pensions is due to the special statutory position of the Chelsea Commissioners. The Chelsea Commissioners are not subject to the control of any Government Department in their administration of the pension regulations; they are, in fact, an independent body who adjudicate upon the soldier's claim.

    LONDON TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATIONS.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain the reasons for the pro posed redistribution in the administration of the Territorial units at present administered by the Territorial Associations of the City of London and of the County of London; and whether it is pro posed to introduce the necessary legislation this Session?
    Captain KING: No such redistribution has been decided upon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking into the question and will communicate further with the hon. Member.
    Sir A. BENN: Before any action is taken, will this be brought before the House of Commons, because I think I am right in saying that originally this Force was formed on the understanding that they were to be administered by their own associations, and if they are removed, is it not a case of absolute contravention of that understanding?
    Captain KING: I think my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical. As I say, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, is looking into the matter and will communicate with him personally.

    RETAIL PRICES (CONTROL).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to prevent the formation, by those engaged in the retail trade, of associations and combines which have for their object the control of prices?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I doubt whether a general measure of the kind suggested would be desirable. As regards food prices, these are being dealt with, on lines which appear to be, more satisfactory, by the Food Council, established in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Food Prices.
    Mr. BOOTH BY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that at the present time, as far as food prices are concerned, there are no such combines in existence which are maintaining prices unduly high?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: That may possibly be, but at the. moment we think the measures which we are adopting are the best measures for keeping prices within bounds.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: In the event of legislation being recommended, will the hon. Member be prepared to introduce it?
    Mr. SPENCER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that wheat prices fell rapidly just before the farmers were getting their wheat in, and immediately the wheat had been thrashed, and when the millers got hold of it, prices rapidly rose again, and can he tell us the reason why?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask the Prime Minister what business the Government proposes to take at this Sitting other than the first Order of the day, and also will the right hon. Gentle man inform the House what business the Government proposes to take on Friday next?
The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first question, we do not propose to night to go beyond the first Order and the Report of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment [Money] Resolution.
With regard to Friday, I am rather in the hands of the House about business, because, I am very anxious to give time for a discussion on the Rosyth and Pembroke Dockyards. But, owing to the position of business at the moment, it would only be possible to give Friday for that purpose if the House thought fit to take the Committee stage on Thursday, as down on the Paper, of the two Supplementary Estimates for coal and Wembley. And having in view the fact that those are the only two subjects which may be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill, if the House thought fit to treat the Report stage of those two Votes more or less formally on Friday, we could then have all the time on Friday that might result for a discussion on Pembroke and Rosyth Dockyards, which is a subject in which all three parties are interested.
Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Did we not understand yesterday from the Prime Minister that the matter of the Dyestuffs Corporation and the sale of the Government's securities in that corporation could be discussed on that Bill? You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that I raised the matter with you as a matter of procedure on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the Prime Minister told me then that there would he an opportunity for the Committee to discuss that question, and you thought there would be no objection.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member must not have under stood me. The suggestion was, in order to give hon. Members a wider range of subjects, that the two days usually devoted to the Consolidated Fund Bill, which in this case would be limited to matters we should have recently discussed, should be taken formally or very briefly, and the remainder of those two days should be given to such subjects as that to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred and to other subjects that hon. Members might desire to raise.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister what opportunity we shall now have for dis-
460
cussing the sale of the Government securities in the British Dyestuffs Corporation?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add on that subject to what I said to the hon. and gallant Member yesterday, that I thought that, owing to the limited number of subjects in the Consolidated Fund Bill, the discussion on the Second Reading, the one I alluded to, would not be a. long one, and, therefore, the rest of the day would be available, and if there was time and a general desire that that should be discussed, there was no reason why it should not be discussed. With regard to Friday, of course, I gave no undertaking at all, because I have not been in a position until to-day to say what the business on Friday would be.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what form of Motion he will put down to enable this general discussion with regard to Pembroke and Rosyth?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is a. matter of arrangement. Captain BENN: Will it be a Motion for Adjournment, for example, so as to give a wide scope?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think very likely. Why I hesitated at first was that I did not know whether any hon. Member wished to put it down in the form of a Motion of Censure.
Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that there is a Motion already down with regard to the shares in the British Dye-stuffs Corporation, and also whether there is not such a widespread feeling of indignation, particularly in the two places where the dockyards exist, that the time he is going to give is inadequate for the discussion of those subjects, mixed up with all the other questions?
The PRIME MINISTER: The time may be inadequate, but it is all there is.
Mr. MACLEAN: If it be all there is, the House can sit longer. We wasted three months in holidays. [Interruption.] I am pointing out that we have already wasted three months in holidays.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for pointing out. It is only the time for questions.
Mr. MACLEAN: Seeing that we have already had such a long holiday, and that the Prime Minister wants us to get through the business in the course of a few days, before Christmas, I take it, that is why he says the time is inadequate. Cannot we extend the Session right through the New Year, so as to have adequate discussion? We have already had sufficient holidays this year; let us get on with the business.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that there is a Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), with reference to the Board of Education Circular No. 1,371, which is exciting a great deal of interest, not only amongst educationists, but also local authorities. The Motion has been on the Paper for about a week, and we asked the other day whether the right hon. Gentleman would grant time for the discussion. May I ask whether he will give us time before Christmas?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not in a position to say what time there will be before Christmas. I hope it may be possible to do that next week. I did notice the Motion on the Paper, but I think the discussion will be far more useful if it takes place after my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has been in communication with the local authorities.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On Friday I heard the Prime Minister announce the business for to-day—I have the OFFICIAL REPORT here—as the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Now I see that the first Order on the Paper to-day is the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Bill. If it is the same Bill, why is it put down in this form, and who will be in charge of the Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) rose to a point of Order.
Mr. MACLEAN: I think you have received a letter from me, in reply to one I received from your Secretary, pointing out a certain matter, and asking to be permitted to raise it to-morrow after Questions.
Mr. SPEAKER: I beg pardon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  After the Debates which have already taken place on the Resolutions in Committee and on the Report stage, it is not very easy to find anything new to say either on the general principles of this legislation or on the particular application of it in this case.
  Mr. HARRIS: Nothing new?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member will no doubt say something, but I doubt whether it will be new. The Bill imposes duties which have been recommended by the Committees of Inquiry and which have already been endorsed by this House in Committee of Ways and Means. I suggest that, on the Reports of those Committees, these duties are fully justified. That justification has been endorsed and confirmed in Debate by a number of speeches from Members who have shown an intimate knowledge of and acquaintance with the trades under discussion. The duties relate to three industries—cutlery, gloves and incandescent mantles. Each of these is an important industry, either by reason of the volume of employment it provides or by the character of the industry. Cutlery and gloves are among the oldest industries in this country. The fabric glove branch is a new branch of an old industry, but a branch which, established during the War, has made considerable progress in recent years in spite of great difficulties.
  Unless one is to adopt an entirely non possumus altitude, I venture to submit that the case for these duties is fully established. In every case there has been a serious reduction in employment. In the case of cutlery there is a reduction, taking hours and numbers together, of no less than 42 per cent. There is a great reduction in employment in the leather glove industry. In recent years, although the consumption of gloves has doubled in
  510
  this country, the quantity made at home is as low as it was when that total consumption was only half what it is to-day.: We have discussed those aspects already at considerable length, and it has been found that, not only is employment reduced while import are steadily increasing, but that skilled men are thrown out of work and kept out of work. Whereas in days past lads came in to be apprenticed to the cutlery and glove industries, in many cases going into what was an historic family trade, apprentices are not now coming forward, not because the industries themselves are not efficient but because of the competition in wages and hours which they have to face from abroad. They are losing faith and losing hope in the industry- in which their families have worked for many years, in many cases for generations.
  The gas mantle industry rests on a rather different footing. It is, if you will, a comparatively small industry, but it is vital to the security of this country as being—I do not think anybody can deny it—the one commercial outlet for thorium and cerium, which are essential to the security of this country. During the War we found out the vital need of these elements, these rare metals, in every Service—in the Air, in the Navy, in every branch of gunnery, for searchlights. It is essential to have the production of thorium and cerium, and the one chance of maintaining that production is to give to those engaged in the extraction of those rare metals the one commercial outlet which there is for them, and that is in the gas mantle industry. The Members of this House who, without distinction of party, supported' the Key Industry Duties under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, because they regarded the maintenance and development of those industries as vital to national security, are bound, I submit, to support the present duty on gas mantles.
  It was on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) that we first discovered the great importance of these elements. It was he who said that never again must we be without them. I hope he is not going back upon the valuable work he did and the valuable experience he gained in the War. It is said by some hon. Gentlemen that to carry out these proposals is something

  511
  unduly martial. It is nothing of the kind. To be prepared with the essential elements of defence is not a militarist policy, it is the best and only insurance of peace. These, then, are the duties which are proposed.
  We suggest as the term for which they should run a period of five years, a reasonable period. To propose a less term would be ineffective for the purpose that we seek and would be undesirable, as has often been pointed out from both sides of the House, from the fact that it would create a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty in these industries and in trade generally. When, on a previous occasion, we were discussing how this policy was to be carried out, we on this bench gave an undertaking to this House that the House would have a full opportunity of discussing any proposals upon their merits and of voting upon them. The House has had that opportunity, and Members have already voted for these duties by considerable majorities, and I ask them, in giving a Second Reading to this Bill, to confirm on their merits the proposals which have already been accepted. The duties are imposed by Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill, and by the First Schedule, at the rates which were proposed by the Committees and which have already been approved in Committee of Ways and Means. Subsection (2) contains a provision giving preference to goods manufactured within the Empire. Sub-section (3) provides that double duty shall not be chargeable, but that if there is an article which could be subject to two rates of duty, only the higher duty shall be charged—the duties shall not be cumulative.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: In the case of gas mantles, will a duty of 33⅓ per cent. be charged on the value of the mantle, and also, under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, on the chemical constituents of the mantle?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member will sec that in Subsection (3) of Clause 1 it is provided that:
  "Where any article chargeable with duty under this Act is also chargeable with any other duties of Customs, the highest duty only shall be charged."
  Sub-section (4) together with the Second Schedule applies to these duties all the
  512
  usual Customs provisions which have been discussed in this House and applied to other duties. The Second Schedule applies Section 13 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, which exempts goods in transit and goods which are brought in in bond and shipped from bond. It also applies Sub-section. (5) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, which gives power to exclude from the operation of these duties goods of small value, and which is a very useful provision in administration. The next provision applied is Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1925, which provides that goods which are exported to undergo a further process and are reimported into this country shall pay duty only on the added value. The Second Schedule also adopts Section 6 (3) of the Finance Act, 1925, which provides for the case of goods which have paid duty and not been used in this country, and Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1925, which is the usual valuation Clause. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the same Act, which contains the usual provision for the reference of disputes to a referee, is also included. The last of these provisions which is made to apply is Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1925, which provides that goods shall not be dutiable if they are brought into this country a second time and have already paid duty, that duty not having been allowed as a drawback.
  I think that this Bill not only confirms the decision of the House in Committee of Ways and Means, but provides by the Schedule all those facilities for the entrepot trade which this House approved of upon a previous occasion. The articles which are brought in for the imposition of duties have been subjected to a great deal of criticism in matters of detail. A good deal has been said in regard to the procedure we have adopted as well as the principles upon which we have proceeded. I should like to say a word or two about procedure and principles. The procedure which has been challenged is one which was fully explained to this House by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself, and was approved by this House on a previous occasion. Surely the procedure which we are adopting now is that which a well-known purist in finance said was a proper procedure to adopt. I remember when the

  513
  old Safeguarding of Industries Act was introduced how the "Parfit Knight of Leith" plunged into the lists and said that this was an administrative outrage.
  Captain BENN: Hear, hear!
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: And he also said that we were violating precedents of 250 years and tradition going back 700 years. The hon. and gallant Member further stated that, if this House was worthy of its precedents and tradition, it would adopt a proper procedure in this instance. That is exactly what we have done, and I am shocked to find that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, when confronted with purity at much closer quarters, finds it much less attractive.
  Captain BENN: I presume the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to address himself to the real issue, which is, that a taxing Bill should be under the direct control of the Treasury?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He must not assume that all parties are as divided in their own ranks as his own. On this side and in this Government there is complete unity, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are not always present on the same occasion, that does not indicate any difference of opinion between us, but it indicates rather that we are busy with our work, and that we have complete confidence in one another on all the issues which are presented to this House. Therefore the hon. and gallant Member for Leith has really got what he asked for, and I am surprised that he is not more grateful to us for what we have done.
  Exception has been taken to the form of inquiry by these Committees, but I observe it is only when a Committee recommends a duty that it comes in for criticism, and when it rejects a claim then the Committee is all right, although it may be the same members and the same personnel who reject a claim for a duty in one case and confirm a claim in another case. What the hon. and gallant Member wants is a very simple procedure. He wants a Committee constituted of people who believe that in any circumstances to impose a duty is to sin against the light. The hon. and gallant Member requires a Committee which will declare that none of these duties should be im-
  514
  posed, and which would accept all the evidence against those duties and no evidence in favour of them. I observe that the applicants before these Committees have been subjected to the most stringent cross-examination by able members of the Bar, and the fullest possible case has been made out against them.
  Mr. MACKINDER: If that is so and these cross-examinations have taken place, how is it that hon. Members are not able to find out to what such cross-examination amount?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In these matters we are following the precedent laid down on previous occasions}, and on one occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). What the majority of this House desire is that these Committees shall be unprejudiced and shall sift all the facts, and I believe the Members of this House and industries generally are grateful to these Committees for what they have done. I am perfectly certain that if we had not set up such Committees at once, hon. Members opposite would have criticised us for not doing so.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how these Committees are selected?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I will. I selected people with full qualifications to conduct a business-like inquiry, and I selected them without any regard for their political opinions. In regard to many of those who constitute these Committees, I do not know their politics, and they have been selected as they were under the old Safeguarding of Industries Acts, because they had every qualification for the task, and experience has proved that they have been quite competent to perform that task. The precedent we have followed is an old one, and it is one which was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he was dealing with the Safeguarding of Industries Acts. These Committees have been selected just in the same way as they were by the President of the Board of Trade when the Balfour of Burleigh Committee was set up by Lord Oxford. We have followed all those precedents with regard to the setting up of these Committees.
  Mr. HARRIS: You have not followed all those precedents.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At any rate, I have followed the precedent set up by the Leader of the party of the hon. Member who has just interrupted me. In the matter of setting up these Committees and the financial procedure we have adopted, so far from treading the primrose path of bureaucracy we have followed the sacred principles of finance fortified by 700 years of practice and tradition. So much for procedure. Then we have been attacked in regard to the principles we have followed, and it has been said that we have violated the pledge which we gave at the last Election. I think the electors have shown at the last two bye-elections that they approved of these principles.
  Mr. MACK1NDER: Not at Stockport!
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: One of the principles upon which we stood at the last Election was safeguarding, and there certainly was not a Minister who did not stand on that platform. I do not think there was a single candidate on our side who did not declare that he stood for the safeguarding of industry, and I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a most eloquent speech upon it, and therefore we are simply carrying out principles for which we stood at the last Election. Hon. Members opposite declare that what we are doing is not safeguarding, and they assert that we are adopting a general tariff. We are only proposing three duties to-day, and yet we are told that this is a general tariff. This kind of argument reminds me of the policeman who in moving on an unfortunate couple said " Two is a crowd if I say it is." Even when Lord Oxford was leading a party in this House and was the head of the Government he laid down this principle in his Paris Resolutions, which were the policy of his party when he had the responsibility of office, and he laid down the principles which we are carrying out to-day. As for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs he actually put those principles into the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and with him at that time it was no unauthorised programme, but one on which the Liberal
  516
  leaders were united. The right hon. Member the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) were completely at one on this policy, and it was largely through their combined efforts that the policy of safeguarding was passed through this House in the original Safeguarding Act. Therefore we are in direct succession, both in precept and in practice.
  Mr. MACKINDER: When in doubt what to say, slate Lloyd George!
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I am not slating him at all. I am showing how admirable were the principles which he inculcated into all his colleagues when he was leading the Government.
  Mr. MACKINDER: When we are in doubt we slate Winston!
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only other argument which can be advanced against this method of procedure is that there is some breach of our pledge, because instead of putting on discriminating duties we are putting on general duties. But there, again, it has been emphasised from the Socialist benches and the Liberal benches that the cardinal feature of British commercial policy ought to be most favoured-nation treatment and you cannot have that with differential duties. Therefore, if you are to carry out this policy of safeguarding, to which we are pledged, the only effective way of observing our traditional policy and our treaty obligations is by general duties and not by differential duties. One of the treaties which has been raised in Debate is our Commercial Treaty with Germany. If we did put on differential dirties we should be committing a breach of that Treaty. It is because the duties are general and not differential that they are not a breach of that or any other treaty. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, our right to impose duties for the purpose of safeguarding is not only implicit in our commercial treaties but it is explicitly asserted and re-affirmed in the Protocol of the Commercial Treaty with Germany.
  The only other criticism which was advanced—and it was an argument which it was difficult to apply, I should think,

  517
  at the present time—was that by restricting our imparts of these limited classes of goods we were going to damage our trade. To anyone who has watched in recent years the course of our trade balance, the anxiety must be not how to increase our imports, but how we were to reduce our imports. Things are going better now in the balance of trade from one cause or another than they were a year ago, but we cannot be satisfied with our trade balance today. Before the War we we had on the whole balance of trade a great annual sum for investment overseas in the development of new markets and to create now trade. We want more money and ever more money saved on the trade balance in order to invest it in the development of new markets and mutual trade within the Empire, and the anxiety which I should have thought would have been felt in all quarters of the House would be to increase the balance available for that investment and not to diminish it.
  It has been said that we are going outside our pledge and that the Prime Minister has been guilty of some breach of his pledge in pursuing this safeguarding policy. But what was his pledge? It was a two-fold pledge. It was a pledge, on the one hand, not to introduce a general tariff, and we have not the least intention of introducing such a tariff. But it was a positive pledge as well. It was a pledge, in proved cases, to safeguard our own industries, and he and we should be just as guilty of a breach, of faith if we failed to safeguard industries in proved and necessary cases as we would be if he were to introduce a general tariff. There are many Liberals who in the past have been pledged to this policy, but what about the Socialist party. Where do they stand?
  Mr. TINKER: Opposed to both.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I want to follow that up. They are opposed to the Liberals or one section of the Liberals to-day, because, unlike the Liberals, they do demand action. We shall fight our battles as to whether Socialism is right or wrong, but their contention, or the contention of the majority of them, to-day is that even given a Socialist State and a Socialist basis of Society, action of some kind to safeguard againt unfair competition is going to be necessary.
  518
  They base that, as we base it, perfectly sincerely upon a determination 10 maintain and to raise the standard of living of our people. They recognise that in proved cases you must safeguard. How do they propose to do that? They propose to do it by what is a very stringent provision—namely, by prohibition. Prohibition is a policy far from the academic Free Trade principles, so dear to the heart of my hon. and gallant Friend the member for Leith (Captain Benn). Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), beats a hesitating retreat, and I think that the only one who is left on the burning? deck is the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden).
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: No.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He may have one or two companions, but I do not belive that is the sense of the majority of his party. If it were, they could not have produced their manifesto in favour of prohibition. But is their course practicable? It is one thing to set it out in a party manifesto, and it has great attractions, but would you be able to carry out that policy if you had the power in office, and were going to take, as you would be bound to take and, I am sure, honestly would take, the most effective way you could to safeguard the standard of living in our own country? You would find that that policy of prohibition, attractive as it appears, would, in practice, cut across practically every one of your commercial treaties, and you would therefore find that you would either have to denounce all your commercial treaties with all the advantages of most-favoured-nation treatment and the special tariff concessions and so on which those treaties give, or you would be driven back on some other alternative, and the only alternative you could be driven back on would be the alternative we are proposing today, that of a duty. As I have said, we shall always contend among ourselves as to what ought to be the ultimate economic basis of society, but meantime, having the common objective of maintaining our industry and the standard of life of our people, cannot we join in a practical measure to safeguard the trade by which we live and to ensure, maintain, and improve employment and the standard of living of our people?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word " That " to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "This House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is designed, under the pretext of mitigating unemployment, to establish a system of tariffs on imports for which the Government has no mandate from the country; and this House declares that protective duties will not solve or mitigate the evil of unemployment but, on the-contrary, will inflict serious injury upon our vital export trades, and, realising the urgency of the unemployment problem, calls for the energetic development of the nation's productive powers on the lines of the public ownership and control of land and industry."
  The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by appealing to Members of my own party to join with him in practical proposals for maintaining and improving the standard of living of our people. I can assure him and the Government that we shall always be ready to support any party which brings forward practical proposals which are likely to attain that purpose. But we oppose these duties because we not only believe but we know it has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt by all practical experience, that the effect of these proposals in operation will be to degrade the standard of living, to increase the cost of living, to hamper industry and to inflict a very serious injury upon our great export trade. The President of the Board of Trade began his speech by saying that after the prolonged Debates during the Ways and Means Committee stage and Report stage it would be difficult to find anything new to say. I can quite sympathise with him in that feeling. It may be difficult for those who took part in the previous stages of the discussion upon these proposals to say anything new. But I am looking forward, and I am sure every Member on this side is looking forward, to the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in our Debate to-day, when I hope, with that remarkable originality which he possesses, the House will be treated to something new on these matters. We very much regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman during the previous Debates upon these proposals. We missed his good humour, his scintillating wit, his agility and his ability to slip out of every difficult situation, whatever the sacrifice involved might be, and I am quite sure that we shall have at the close of the
  520
  Debate this evening another example of these unique qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman.
  This Bill is described as a Safeguarding of Industry (Customs Duties) Bill. It is a Bill which proposes to levy taxation on the people. A pledge was given by the Prime Minister, when we were discussing in the early part of this year the proposed procedure under the Safeguarding of Industries scheme, that these proposed duties would be introduced and embodied in a Finance Bill. That was a very definite statement by the Prime Minister and it was repeated so late as last Friday when the Prime Minister from his place said that to-day the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill would be taken. But now this proposal to impose taxation is put before the House of Commons, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose responsible duty that is, but by the President of the Board of Trade. We have heard a great deal during the last few days about the citation of century-old precedents. The President of the Board of Trade this afternoon based his case for these duties very largely upon precedents, which, he said, had been provided by other political parties. I am not in the least concerned with the controversy between the President of the Board of Trade and the members of the Liberal party. If some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting below the Gangway care to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we shall listen with pleasure, but it is not a discussion in which we are taking part.
  What is the position with which we are faced? This afternoon we have a Revenue Bill—a Bill to impose duties— and it is placed in charge not of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but of the President of the Board of Trade. And how have these proposals originated? All who have taken part in the previous discussions upon these proposals knew that all the argument, all the destructive criticism advanced on this side of the House, has been met by the President of the Board of Trade with one hackneyed statement, namely. " This is what the Committee recommended." He has never attempted by any serious argument to justify these proposals upon their merits. So the Committee say, and, therefore, the House of Commons must close its eyes, open its month, and swallow these

  521
  things because they are recommended by an outside Committee. I want to ask the House of Commons, is the House of Commons—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, already has—going to surrender its right, its duty, to regulate taxation and to impose taxation, to a committee of three persons, usually unknown persons, who have been nominated by the President of the Board of Trade? That is practically what we are asked to do this afternoon.
  Near the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he referred to a question which has often been raised in the course of our Debates on these safeguarding proposals, namely, whether the present Government have a mandate from the country for the imposition of these duties. It cannot be denied that the Prime Minister at the last General Election said that he would safeguard efficient industries, and would introduce proposals to that effect; but the Prime Minister said something more—he said that he would not use these safeguarding proposals as a stepping-stone towards a general tariff or a general system of Protection. On a later occasion he said he would not introduce Protection by a back door. Well, I think it would be impossible to invent a phrase which more accurately represented what these proposals are than the introduction of Pro-lection by a back door. I remember a speech, I believe the first speech that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after he took office, upon these proposals, and in that speech he said that if these duties were applied—I am not quoting his exact words, but I am sure he will not say I am in any way unfairly representing what he said—if these duties were applied to more than a limited number of industries, then the Prime Minister's pledge would be seriously impaired—
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Affected.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, seriously affected. May I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman? I hope he will answer it when he speaks later in the Debate. How many industries have to be protected before the pledge of the Prime Minister is seriously affected? We have had the McKenna Duties reimposed—duties on motor cars, cinema films, Jews' harps, and a number of other key industries in this country.
  522
  The right hon. Gentleman has protected the silk upon the whiskers of a cat doll, lace has been protected, and now we are asked to protect cutlery—a thousand different articles of cutlery—a great variety of gloves, gas mantles, and we were told by the Prime Minister yesterday that the Government intend next Session to proceed with the proposal to impose a duty upon innumerable varieties of paper. A number of other applications are before the Board of Trade, and I see in the paper this morning that Sir James Craig says it is likely that the linen industry may be protected. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us whore we are going to stop, and at what point the pledge of the Prime Minister not to introduce Protection by a back door will be affected. We have had about 20 duties imposed this year—
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT; No!
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Not far from 20. There were half-a-dozen under the MeKenna Duties. My hon. Friend the Member for Mosoley (Mr. Hannon) knows a great deal more about it than the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). The hon. Member for Moseley is a practical business man, while the hon. Baronet is a mere theorist. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many trades have to be protected before the pledge of the Prime Minister will be affected. I hope that when he comes to speak this evening, he will deal with that question.
  Sir HARRY FOSTER: There are 1,300 trades in the Birmingham district.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Many of these are protected under the McKenna Duties—Jews harps, for instance. What are of far more importance, however, are the views expressed by the supporters of the Government during the Debate on these proposals. Do they regard these proposals as the first steps on the road to a general tariff? They do. Nobody who has been present during the Debates of the last few days can deny that. Over and over again, from the benches on the Government side, hon. Members have risen and said that these duties were pettifogging, were piffling, were practically of no use at all except that they were an earnest of the Government's intentions. They were, in other words, the back door to a

  523
  universal system of Protection. Lord Birkenhead, whose remarks upon this matter I quoted in my speech last week, said the same thing in a public speech a few days ago.
  The President of the Board of Trade said that the case for these duties had been established by the reports of the respective committees. I venture to state again that I have never seen the reports of any committees upon any question which so utterly failed to establish the case they recommended as all of these committees' reports do. They have not established, in the first instance, the fact that these industries are of substantial importance; they have, not established the fact that there is abnormal competition; they have not established the fact that there is abnormal unemployment; and the President of the Board of Trade was utterly wrong when he stated in his speech just now that the imports of these commodities from abroad are growing, and that unemployment is increasing. It is only necessary to refer to the figures embodied in the reports themselves to prove that that statement is utterly without foundation.
  There is this difference, I may say, between the old safeguarding and the present safeguarding proposals. The President of the Board of Trade said that, so far as these particular duties are concerned, they must be of general application, because, if they were discriminatory, we should come up against the most-favoured-nation Clauses. But that is not in the White Paper. The terms of the "White Paper do not justify a tariff upon countries where the conditions are as good as or better than they are in this country. There is nothing in the terms of the White Paper to justify a duty upon goods which come from the United States of America. Therefore, to make these specific duties universal in their application is a violation of the conditions of the White Paper. In no case has one of these committees proved any one of the heads which are embodied in the White Paper.
  The President of the Board of Trade advocated these proposals on the ground that they would improve employment and stimulate trade. I want once more to express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for Moseley for providing the
  524
  opponents of such duties with such effective material as is supplied by his questions addressed so the Minister of Labour. He addressed a question two or three weeks ago to the Minister of Labour in regard to employment in the motor industry and in the lace industry, and the figures given by the Minister of Labour prove that in both those cases there are more people out of work than there were before these duties were imposed. It is no use the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) shaking his head; the figures are there. I rely also upon a question addressed by the hon. Member for Moseley to the Minister of Labour only two days ago, the answer to which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT issued yesterday. The hon. Member for Moseley asked the Minister of Labour to give the figures in regard to employment and unemployment in Coventry, Wolver-hampton and Birmingham at different periods.
  Let me give the House some of these figures. In July, 1924. the duties upon imported motor cars were taken off. On 1st July there were 23,860 persons in Coventry employed in the manufacture and repair of motor vehicles. After 12 months, during which there had been no duties in operation, the number had risen to 28,300. [An HON MEMBER: "Owing to dumped goods!"] I have listened to most ridiculous statements by advocates of Tariff Reform, but I really give the hon. Baronet the plum for having made the most ridiculous statement ever made. I beg pardon of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I really am not surprised that that remark emanated from the corner in which be sits. If the contention of the advocates of Protection were right, five or six years after the protection of the motor industry there ought, to have been no unemployment, especially in an industry like the manufacture, of motor cars, which is an expanding industry, and however much Protection may injure a trade, it would be very difficult indeed ever to completely kill a rising industry.
  Mr. HANNON: will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the figures for unemployment in these industries at the end of that period
  Mr. SNOWDEN: At the end of five years or so of protection in the motor

  525
  car industry there were 9·4 per cent. unemployed in Coventry, 13·8 per cent. in Wolverhampton and 15 per cent. in Birmingham. Tariff Reform apparently does not mean work for all. Now I will answer the question of the hon. Member opposite. I think he will agree that we have not yet had sufficient experience since the duties were re-imposed to come to any very definite conclusion. We will see how the figures stand in 12 months' time. However, during the time the duties were off unemployment fell in Coventry to 5·3 per cent., in Wolverhampton to 10·5 per cent. and in Birmingham to 8·6 per cent., and the figures of unemployment to-day .stand just a little higher than when the duties were re-imposed. There you have, not from some prejudiced Cobdenite Free Trader, but hard and incontrovertible facts supplied by the Protectionist Minister of Labour. It is quite clear that you have no guarantee that the imposition of these duties will increase employment. No one knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no one has exposed more effectively and more eloquently (he fallacy of the argument that you can increase employment by making things dearer. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the re-imposition of these duties three or four months ago is the reason why motor cars are cheaper?
  HON. MEMBERS: Yes!
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Are they cheaper?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: If they are, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is much wiser than irresponsible Members below the Gangway. As a matter of fact, the price of motor cars did come down when the duties were taken off 12 months ago, but one would expect, tariff or no tariff, in a new industry, an expanding industry, an industry where improvements in the method of construction are taking place every day to sec some progressive reduction. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, it is not of very great value.
  However, the main case advanced in support of those duties is that they are going to curtail imports, and we are constantly hearing questions put by Members on that side of the House which seem to imply that they are under the illusion
  526
  that imports are bad for trade. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, whenever a question is put as to imports of particular articles, gets up and says, " How many British workmen have these imports robbed of work? " Tariff Reformers can never see but one thing. They appear to be mentally incapable of taking an all-round view. Therefore, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I try to instruct them upon this question of the effect of imports upon the trade of the country. I am not going back to the days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a lonely Free Trader in the Unionist ranks. This extract is taken from a speech delivered quite recently. He asked the question,
  "Is it really true that our present unemployment is caused by foreign imports and that it would be cured by shutting thorn out? I studied the trade of Britain, for more than 20 years and I have never heard such a doctrine seriously propounded by any high responsible authority."
  Again if hon. Members will take the trouble to go through the trade returns, say for the last 30 or 40 years, and make two parallel columns showing imports and unemployment, they will find that an increase of imports is almost invariably followed by a reduction in the volume of unemployment. Imports are very high at present, and yet the Government are taking credit to themselves for having considerably reduced the number of unemployed during the. last 12 months. I might quote from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman quite a number of other extracts showing that he certainly does not fear imports coming into the country. He said on another occasion:
  "I do not mind even if we do become dependent on foreign nations, because we know that by that means we are making foreign nations dependent on us."
  A very wise saying and I entirely agree with it. We say that every Englishman shall have the right to buy whatever he wants, wherever he chooses, at his own pleasure and without restriction or discouragement from the State.
  The imposition of duties is bound, as our Amendment says, to seriously affect our export trade. I pointed out last week that it had already had that effect in the cotton and lace industry, and it is not difficult to understand. Take the case of cutlery. The export trade is pro-

  527
  bably more important to Sheffield than is the home trade. Sheffield exports more than twice as much cutlery as is imported into this country. What do we need most of all to increase employment and to stimulate trade? To increase our exports. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the adverse trade balance and said the way to deal with it was to reduce imports. That is not the way to deal with it at all. The way to deal with it is to increase exports, and when you put a duty upon imports from foreign countries upon articles in which this country has a large export trade, you are striking a destructive blow at the export trade of the country, because this is what happens. The aim of all tariff-mongers is to stop imports and thereby reduce unemployment. If you succeed in stopping imports you do not destroy the trade of the exporting country, but drive it into other markets, and therefore our exporters meet the competition of these foreign rivals in a much more severe form. It is our export trade that needs a stimulus to-day. Our home trade is prosperous. Our home trade never was so prosperous as it is to-day. It is employing more people to-day than it ever did. Therefore, it is our export trade that needs a stimulus.
  What would be the effect of these duties upon prices? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an interjection a moment ago when I was speaking about motor cars, and said the duties had not increased prices. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the effect of the imposition of a duty upon an old industry, upon a stable industry, would not result in increasing prices in the home market? I am quite sure he would not say that. If he has the audacity to make that statement to-night he recants everything he has said in his past speeches and writings in defence of Free Trade. Of course, we know that import duties will raise prices. That is their intention. What advantage would Protection be to the trades in this country unless it secured the home market for them? That is the Prime Minister's own statement, that the purpose of these safeguarding Measures is to secure the home markets for the manufacturers in this country. There was a very interesting incident during the recent bye-election at Ripon. A statement was
  528
  made by the Conservative candidate, who, on personal grounds, all who knew him in the House of Commons in the past will be delighted to see back. Here is a quotation from a newspaper report.
  Major Hills said:
  "Now I want to say a word to the ladies. Silk stockings are dearer, I understand. Well, I am sure you will not mind paying a little more for your stockings if it is going to help the Empire."
  A later speaker at that meeting, evidently, was not altogether satisfied with the way in which the Tory candidate had handled this question of an increase in the price of silk stockings. He said:
  "The price will not go up under the Safeguarding Act, because Mr. Baldwin will see to that."
  That statement rather rouses the imagination. One imagines the Prime Minister sitting like Canute and issuing his command that the tide of economic law shall turn back. The President of the Board of Trade claimed that they were returned at the last Election pledged to do these things.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Hear, hear.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I wonder if they secured support by making such appeals as this to the electors. The only real argument that I heard advanced from the other side during the Debates last-week was this—it was made by more than one speaker, but by no speaker more effectively than the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney): " Our factories and workshops at the present time are not working their full capacity. Therefore, overhead charges bear an undue proportion of the cost of the finished article. Fill our workshops with orders so that they can work to their full capacity and they will be able to cheapen the cost of the articles they manufacture." Nobody would say that there is not a great amount of truth in that, but when it is a protected industry the consumer has no guarantee that he will get a reduced price. On the other hand, he has the assurance of all past experience that the advantage will go wholly to increase the profits of the manufacturer.
  There is a much more effective and conclusive answer. We say that if these works have a capacity for production

  529
  which is not used now, the proper thing to do is to eliminate the most inefficient of these factories and workships and concentrate production in the most efficient factories. That is one of the main reasons why American production, even with high wages, is much cheaper than in this country.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Under Protection.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I wonder how many times we shall have to tell the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Sir H. Page Croft) that—
  Sir H. PAGE CROFT: I did not make any remark.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Baronet. I always pay respect to interjections from the hon. and gallant Baronet, and if I had not thought that he had intervened I would have proceeded with my remarks. I was dealing with the question of the concentration of production in the most efficient factories. This point was made by the Prime Minister in a very admirable speech which he delivered during the summer. I hope. hon. Members will permit me to read one portion of that speech. It is well worth hearing. After having made an appeal for an increase of 10 per cent. efficiency in English production, a thing which he said English industry was quite capable of doing, he said:
  "We are strongly individualistic, and we all like to have a day off. I like it as much as anyone, and I am having one to-day. But we cannot afford these luxuries to-day, and I should like to feel certain that all those who are directing industry have come to realise that we are in a different world from the world before the War; that we are up against the keenest competition that we have ever been up against, and that unless we can sell our goods to meet that competition, we shall not sell them at all. To do that in many ways we shall have to throw aside old methods and practices. Businesses in the same trade will have to come together, they will have to concentrate on modern plant, they will have to scrap the old. and nothing but the using of the best brains among them and the best endeavours on the part of all concerned will enable us to pull through these times."
  It is not by these piffling and pettifogging duties that you are going to restore prosperity to industry. It can only be done by bringing your inefficient workshops up-to-date, and by thoroughly
  530
  equipping them, in their management with the best brains and in the works with the most up-to-date machinery. A 10 per cent increase in the efficiency of British production would, I believe, restore our export trade to the pre-War percentage.
  What do we find in these reports which have been presented in connection with this Bill? Take Sheffield. We were told a great deal about the 7,000 people employed in the cutlery trade in Sheffield. How many factories are there? Hundreds. Under modern conditions, if foreign competition is to be effectively met, it would not be too big a factory to have all the 7,000 cutlery workers of Sheffield in one factory. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) quoted reports showing the out-of-date, insanitary, badly-equipped factories in Sheffield. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), dealing with the glove trade, told us a good deal as to the reason why, in his opinion, there should be a duty on foreign gloves. He said he had gone into homes late at night in his constituency and found old women, spectacled old women, working by lamp and candle light, sewing gloves. He said the glove industry was established in Worcester about 700 years ago. There you have an industry being carried on to-day just as it must have been carried on 700 years ago. How can you expect an industry carried on under those conditions to be efficient? It cannot possibly compete against the well-equipped and modern factories on the Continent of Europe. We submit, as an alternative proposal to this Measure, the reorganisation of British industry, its better equipment and the better utilisation of our national resources.
  These proposals are put forward as the Government's contribution towards solving the unemployment problem. Could there ever have been a more striking instance of disparity between the magnitude of a problem and the proposal for palliating it? After having been in office for 12 months the only thing the Government can suggest by way of mitigating unemployment is to put a duty on gas mantles, on cheap German cutlery and on gloves. What has become of the other proposals which from time to time the Government have mentioned in debates upon unemployment? The Prime

  531
  Minister has not honoured the House by his presence this afternoon. I wonder whether we should be justified in thinking that his interest in the unemployment question has weakened? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hope not. Ho spoke in a Debate on this question which was raised by my party a few months ago, and he told us what great schemes the Government were considering. He said that they were considering the question of land settlement. Are they still considering it?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): The right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with proposals in regard to land settlement on this Bill. That is quite out of the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I respectfully submit that these proposals are being put forward as a palliative for unemployment, and I further respectfully submit, that we are justified in suggesting other Measures which we feel would be more effective than the proposals which the Government are submitting.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman's argument will develop. We cannot have a debate on the whole subject of unemployment.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I certainly was not at that stage—whatever I may have intended to do later—arguing the whole question of unemployment. I was asking the Government about the Measures which they have from time to time suggested for dealing with unemployment. All that they are now submitting to the House of Commons are these pettifogging and piffling proposals for putting duties on these things. What has become of their pledge to deal with land settlement? What has become of their various relief schemes and with their electricity proposals? I submit that every one of these reforms, if carried out energetically and exhaustively, would do infinitely more than the present proposals will do, even if they realise the most sanguine expectations.
  6.0 P.M.
  We are opposed to these proposals because they are ineffective and they will be ineffective. Instead of increasing employment, they will decrease, employment. Instead of stimulating our foreign trade,
  532
  they will hamper our foreign trade. If they aspire to be n remedy, they are no more than a mockery. The party opposite obtained a large majority in this House, but let it be noted it is not a majority of the country. I have on more than one occasion reminded the party opposite that although they are largely numbered in this House, they are in a minority among, the people of this country. There is nothing new about that. There is nothing at all new in the Tory party imposing its minority will upon the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. He knows how true that is, because in a. speech, at a comparatively recent date, he said:
  "The Tory party is always trying to rule the people by sumo minority plan. It has always been their method."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman did not show any objection to ruling by a minority only a year ago.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no force in that argument, for we did not rule as a minority. For the passing into law of our Measures we relied upon the support and the votes of Members of this House who represented a majority in the country. For the reasons I have stated, we shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, and for those reasons I have moved the Amendment. I have just described the Government's proposals as a mockery of the sufferings of the unemployed, and I am going to conclude in the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "I say to the party which is responsible for these proposals, let them take their discredited trash where they got it from— Brummagem."
  We say to our Tory friends the country is not prepared to accept your quackery.
  Mr. LAWSON: Do I understand from your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are not to be allowed to discuss the latter part of this Amendment? Does it not follow, if the Amendment is accepted and printed on the Paper, that we can follow the line of discussing what it contains?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know yet how the argument will develop. All that I said was that the whole question of unemployment could hardly be raised on this Bill.
  Mr. LAWSON: Are we precluded from discussing alternative methods to those proposed by the Government?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It depends on how the argument proceeds.
  Lord HUGH CECIL:I will detain the House for only a brief period, and I intervene in the discussion as not precisely holding the position either of my right hon. Friend who moved the Second Heading of the Bill, or that of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. Certainly, the Amendment is equally unacceptable to the Protectionist and the Free Trader, because the right hon. Gentleman proposed a solution which is anything but a solution of freedom. He intends not a limited control, but a much more far-reaching control—that all land and industry should be in the hands of the Government, and under official administration. That certainly is not Free Trade, whatever else it is. Personally, I am a Free Trader, and I look with great distrust alike on a system of administrative control such as the Amendment foreshadowed, and on the much more moderate restraint of free exchange which is effected by import duties. Nevertheless, the criticisms which I am about to make upon this Bill are not founded upon devotion to freedom, or the principles of laissez faire, however strongly may be the case made from experience in favour of that principle. I am rather inviting the House to view the controversy that is excited over these duties from the broad point of view of the alternative between abundance and restriction.
  It is one of the misfortunes of economic debate that nearly all the things that are worth saying are so obvious that to recite them is to insult the intelligence of the audience which one is addressing. Still, if I may be pardoned for a few truisms which I hope will carry universal assent, let me say that the whole? economic process should be viewed together—that you can never really judge the wisdom of any particular proposal which relates to a part of the economic process unless you see the whole, unless you have at the back of your mind the whole process and the bearing of the particular proposal upon that. The whole economic process is, of course, making available the utilities of nature for the
  534
  benefit of man. Nature provides a vast number of utilities, and these are gradually worked up by human ingenuity, which does not at any time create, but arranges and manufactures and transports — sometimes merely transports, as in the case of coal—and so makes available the resources of nature. When the process is complete you have what you call wealth, that is natural products made available for human wealth. The term "wealth" really ought to be kept for that which is in the course of use and enjoyment. It then strictly administers to human welfare.
  Unless that be in the mind always, you get the misleading influence of supposing that at some earlier stage of the economic process the process is complete, and that may easily cause many fallacies. Even saving, excellent as it is, necessary as it often is to the economic prosperity of the country, is not an ultimately good thing. The only ultimately good thing is to have the use and enjoyment of commodities which are furnished by the ingenuity of man operating upon the resources of nature. The wealth of a country at it given moment is, of course, the aggregate of what is produced in the country. prima facie, the great mass of foreign imports is a good thing; it is so much wealth coming into the country, so much of the resources of nature made available for consumption here. I confess that I do not at all understand why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is anxious about, or disturbed, by what he calls the " adverse balance," using the phrase, which is an absurd one, in relation to a balance of imports over exports. There may be circumstances in which such a balance is alarming. If we paid for our imports out of the accumulations which we may have, that would no doubt be dangerous, but the danger would ultimately be that we should not have imports any more: when our accumulations were used up we should not be able to buy them. Therefore, an excess of imports would only be alarming because it foreshadowed a deficit of imports.
  There are many people of various schools of economic thought who, it appears to me, do not keep vividly in their minds this conception of what you want to do, which is to increase the aggre-

  535
  gate wealth of the country, but in various ways suppose that you may benefit the country by diminishing and restricting that aggregate of wealth, that aggregate of all the production made at home and of wealth imported from abroad. For example, there is the person often mentioned in our discussions, the working man, who works less hard than he might, because he wishes to give, altruistically but with economic unsoundness, a job to his mate by not working to his full power. The "ca'canny" system it is called. He is not wrong about the immediate effect, but the ultimate effect is that there is less purchasing power, less demand for labour, and the working classes are worse off than they would otherwise be.
  Similarly it was the case in the old days, and in some instances is the case even now, that opposition is excited by the use of labour-saving machinery. When such machinery was first introduced into this country, it did indeed cause prodigious mischief, and unemployment and distress. But in the end and on the whole it did enormously increase the wealth of the country, and ultimately raised the wages and the standard of living of the working classes. There are Tariff Reformers who hold to the argument stated by the right hon. Gentleman, which stands on another footing—the argument of stabilisation and increased production. But there are Tariff Reformers also who seem to fall into the very lamentable error of supposing that, if you restrict imports and thereby oblige the home consumer to purchase what he needs from home production, although he pays more for what he has to buy, and although the purchasing power of the country is reduced, yet that is a better thing to do than to let him have cheap imports. That is precisely the same fallacy as the fallacy of those who disliked labour-saving machinery, or the fallacy of those who work less hard than they might in order to make jobs for others. It. is all the recommendation of restriction.
  All restriction, everything that is truly restrictive, can never be justified. So far, I think, we are all agreed. There is, of course, quite a different Tariff Reform argument, which depends on showing that, by giving special advantages in a market, you can increase cheap production, and that, therefore, in the end, you
  536
  have not restriction, but greater abundance. That is a different argument. You get rid once for all of the old-fashioned restrictive argument. There is never anything to be said for shutting out foreign imports merely in order to turn the purchasing power of the home consumer on to home production at increased cost. I think it could be shown in this particular case, that the argument of increased production by means of Protection is very unlikely to be fulfilled. In these particular instances, it seems to me that what the Government are proposing is to charge a subsidy on the purchasing power of the country for the purpose of benefiting these particular industries. There is nothing in the figures laid before us to suggest that the decay of these industries is so bad that it would be impossible for the manufacturers, without any duty, to carry out improvements in production, such as reforms, amalgamations and the like. I am not saying that a case might not arise in which you could get a plausible argument for an import duty on the grounds suggested, but there is nothing in the figures before us to suggest that that is the actual position of these industries, and I greatly doubt whether the Board of Trade itself would tell us that they anticipate that five years hence the articles produced in these different industries, by the operation of these duties, will be cheaper than they are at present.
  I do not accuse the Government of breach of faith, neither do I accuse them of constitutional impropriety. And I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) with some surprise when he referred to that question. In the first place, I think he is mistaken in supposing that there is constitutional impropriety, and, in the second place, I am amazed that he should attach so much importance to the question. The constitutional principle relating to these matters is a perfectly simple one. It is that this House does not act proprio motv in the levying of any charge upon the people. Such a charge comes always and necessarily at the instance of the Crown, and therefore no proposal for a charge on the people can be brought forward except by the Ministers of the Crown, and they are responsible to the King on one side and to Parliament on the other. That is the

  537
  constitutional principle, and so long as it is fulfilled and conformed to, it does not matter which particular Minister recommends a, particular proposal to the acceptance of the House of Commons. I have not looked up the matter, but I have little doubt that one would find abundant precedents in the eighteenth century, when the "Lords of Trade," as they were called—I wish we could call the right hon. Gentleman (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) a "Lord of Trade"—brought forward particular proposals for taxation in Committee of Ways and Means, because it was convenient that a particular Minister should explain a particular proposal.
  I therefore do not accuse the Government of any breach of faith, and I see no impropriety in their procedure. Of course, these White Papers, which they have very properly laid before us, are not supposed to be the justification of the proposal in itself. The Government make themselves responsible for the proposal in the first place. As I say, I do not suspect the Government of breach of faith or perfidy, but I do a little suspect them of confusion of thought, and that may lead them, step by step, into a position which will be not only injurious to the country and injurious to the economic stability of our industries and finance, but ruinous to the Conservative party which they lead. There is danger in all these cases of special exceptions. If a man become a total abstainer from alcohol except on exceptional occasions, experience shows, such is human nature, that the exceptional occasions become more and more frequent, until at last the exception of the abstainer becomes hardly distinguishable from the rule of the intoxicator. The only way you can avoid that drifting down the primrose path of Protection—which I should be sorry to see happen to the Government—is by having a clear distinction founded on principle between what is and what is not a Protectionist policy.
  I can see that there might possibly be a case—not a common case—for safeguarding an industry, which would be strictly in accordance with the principle of abundance. Such a case could be made, not only on the ground of the prospect of enlisting more capital, which is the point relied upon by many hon. Members, and
  538
  making possible therefore a largo expansion of the industry, but on the more strictly defensive ground that the importation is purely dislocating in its effects, that it upsets and overthrows the normal mechanism of production here, and does not offer any security for an assured supply from foreign parts. That is what I have always understood to be meant by the expression "dumping.'' "Dumping " differs from normal importation not because of its cheapness or of "unfair competition."
  It is most lamentably to find in a Government paper, purporting to deal seriously with economic questions, that dreadful phrase " unfair competition." No human being knows what it means, and it ought never to appear in a serious economic document. It is not because of the importation being of that character that it is "dumping," but because it is of a temporary character, because it dislocates production here, and gives no assured substitute for the production that is destroyed. What I complain of in the White Paper—and the fault lies with the Government rather than with the Committees—is that the wrong questions appear to have been asked. They do indeed ask the question whether imports are abnormal. But it is obvious that the Committees have not the least idea what they mean by that. I should have thought that abnormal importation was temporary importation, and I cannot understand why an importation is supposed to be abnormal simply because it is different from that which took place in the year of grace 1913. That seems to me a very strange definition of normality.
  The real question, and the only question which, as I see it, should be asked in respect of the safeguarding of industries is: Is this temporary importation; does this importation arise out of some purely transitory conditions of foreign production; will the import coming into this country dislocate everything here, and throw out of gear the machinery of home production, and wilt it fail to furnish us with any assured source of supply? That question is not asked, and, although there are considerations in this White Paper which might be fitted into a sound argument for restricted importation, they are not arranged in that form. They are on

  539
  the basis of that very crude and unsound theory which I call restriction. They appear to be arranged—or most of them —on the theory that, somehow or other, a cheap import is an injury to this country, and is unfair competition, and should therefore be restrained. Of course, the only purpose of having a foreign trade is to have things sent here more cheaply than we can produce them ourselves. We do not want foreign trade for any other purpose. The idea that you can make everything just as easily yourself, apart from being practicably unattainable under the conditions of production, is not desirable. What we want from foreign countries are the cheap things which they make cheaply, in exchange for the cheap things which we make cheaply. A mutual exchange of cheapness is the purpose of foreign trade.
  I view with considerable distrust the arguments put forward on behalf of this proposal, and the apparent lack of any grasp of economic principles in the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade and in the case put forward in these White Papers. I earnestly hope that the Government will be on their guard against, for the third time, ruining the Conservative party. Even if I were not sure that the policy was economically unsound, and entirely unsuited to the industrial and financial conditions of our country, I should, as a mere politician, earnestly deprecate starting once more the dreary fiscal controversy which has never brought to the Conservative party anything but disaster.
  It was dreadful two years ago to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his then colleagues stumbling about like men who had lost their way on a heath, going from one bog into another, and falling into the old controversial snares and traps into which, 20 years before, much more distinguished people had fallen. The moment you start anything of that kind, you find that there are great masses of the people of this country who do not say much as long as they think nothing serious is intended. But who are violently opposed to anything like a general Protectionist policy. They are the preponderating body of those engaged in distribution, in sheltered trades, in trades like the cotton trade, which depends on export, and the body of people concerned
  540
  with directing financial matters. They are all against Protectionist theories and a Protectionist policy.
  The truth is that our industrial and financial machinery has been developed in the tradition of free imports; and whatever may be said, in the abstract, of the theory of protected production becoming more prolific than production which is exposed to competition— which is the only argument worth considering on that side—it cannot apply in our country, because the general structure is so identified with free imports that to go back upon that policy would at once arouse opposition in all sorts of quarters, and would be fatal to the party which proposed it. Let us remember that the Conservative party never succeeds in attaining office except by the help of a certain number of left-centre votes. It is the great canon of Conservative tactics and strategy that they should lay themselves out to obtain the support of those who, if they called themselves by any name, would call themselves "Moderate Liberals."
  It is more than ever necessary that the Conservative party should make no mistake because they are a dyke against a movement which must in the end be of a revolutionary character. I do not mean to say that I suspect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) of shouldering a rifle and mounting a barricade—though I think there are some persons who would be willing to do that. But really and essentially the policy to which the Labour party will sooner or later be committed will be a revolutionary policy, and the Liberal party will not be able to stop them. The Liberal party are concerned with distributing their own party funds and other peoples' land.
  The Conservative party, and the Conservative party alone, can protect us from a great Socialist movement. If you go to Holland, you will find there are very strict laws preventing anybody tampering with the great dykes which keep out the sea, and that is very proper. I do not want the Prime Minister to begin agricultural operations on the dykes which keep out Socialism. I do not want him to begin to dig and to mine and to apply Protectionist experiments. That would be a disaster. I earnestly hope, therefore, that this is the last Safeguarding of

  541
  Industries Bill which we shall see. If you go on along this path, I am sure you will get into a position that is controversially indistinguishable from Protection, not because the Government have the slightest intention of breaking their pledges, but because they do not really quite know to what their pledges economically amount. If you strictly keep yourselves to safeguarding industry from temporary inroads by imports of the continuance of which there is no assured prospect, then, indeed, there is little danger. But this present Bill does appear to be framed on no economic principles in particular, and to make, on the whole, not for abundance, but for restriction.
  I cannot help recommending the President of the Board of Trade, the next time he goes to church, and hears a dull sermon, to read from the Prayer against Dearth and Famine. He will find there that the prayer supplicates that scarcity and dearth shall be turned into cheapness and plenty. That is the essence of sound economics. We want always cheapness and plenty, never scarcity and dearth. And it is because I am afraid that this Bill, on the whole, is one which will make more for scarcity than for plenty that I, for my part, cannot vote for it.
  Captain LODER: I am very glad to be allowed to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), because so much that he has said, with all the lucidity and force of this learning and experience, is what: I had felt haltingly, I would like to say myself. Mine is also the point of view of a Government supporter, who proposes to support this Bill, and as one of those who is rather a Free Trader than a Tariff Reformer, if I must use terms which I feel refer rather to past controversies than to present actualities The word "tariff," indeed, still seems to arouse a violent spirit of partisanship, but I would submit, that, however great the difference between the two economic theories, this distinction does not correspond to any real division of political opinion in this country to-day. I was myself elected last year by as many Free Trade as Tariff Reform votes. Surely it is time we recognised in this House what I believe to be the general feeling in the country. Surely it is time we abandoned an attitude of extreme antithesis, and
  542
  ceased maintaining, on the one side, that every duty is good and, on the other side, that every duty is bad.
  I believe that the country accepted the policy of the safeguarding of industries as a via media conceived in the truly traditional British spirit of compromise. The Conservative party, if I may put it so, having abandoned their former revolutionary proposals, now come and ask the parties opposite if they will not advance one step from the really reactionary standpoint which they have taken up. The great merit of the policy of safeguarding seems to me to be that, while if gives ample opportunity for imposing such duties as are necessary in the abnormal times in which we live, yet preserves intact the Free Trade basis of our fiscal system. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite continually hurl the word "Protection" in our teeth, but they must be aware that they are deliberately confusing two distinct senses in which that word "protection" can be used. Of course, a safeguarding duty is a protective duty in the broad sense, but I can hardly believe that either of the opposite parties have so little regard for British trade, industry, and commerce that they are unwilling to protect it in any way at all. Protection, in the sense of a General Tariff, seems to me a totally different thing. This Government does not stand for that. Its pledge is explicit, and I am confident that it will be honoured. It has retained the Free Trade basis of our fiscal system. It has kept the onus of proof on the person who wants the duty. A General Tariff, it seems to me, would imply exactly the opposite, and that, I think, is a vital point which is all too seldom remembered, that, while you keep the onus of proof on the man who wants the duty, you cannot be said to be introducing a General Tariff.
  Let me remind the House that, according to figures which appeared in the "Times" a day or two ago, out of the 24 applications which have been made for safeguarding, 13, or more than half, were turned down because there was not a primâ facie case established, and, of the remainder, one has been turned down by a Committee, and only five have so far actually become substantive duties. I see, in the Motions for the rejection of this Bill, that the Liberal party emphasises the tonic which foreign competition

  543
  provides for our industry and that the Labour party once more trots out its panacea of State control. Whatever may be said for these ideas in moderation, I do not see that they justify either exposing British industry to a withering blast or smothering it beneath the dead hand of bureaucracy. I submit that the policy of safeguarding deserves more sympathetic attention from hon. Members opposite than it has so far received. They must at least adroit that its objects are praiseworthy, and that it is, after all, a conscientious attempt to see, by reference to specific industries, whether the imposition of import duties can do anything to relieve unemployment and the distress of both British workmen and British manufacturers.
  I have argued that there is no departure from existing fiscal principles in this policy, but it is true that the procedure for giving effect to it involves new methods of administrative and legislative practice. This procedure must be experimental to start with, and I do not think anyone can cavil at the reasoned criticisms which have been provided from the two parties opposite. I have some sympathy with a large number of them myself, and particularly I think there is a good case to be made for the publication of the evidence before these Committees, because I do think that hearsay is a rather dangerous weapon to leave lying about, whether it be hearsay through oral rumour or whether it be abbreviated reports in the columns of the Press. Ambiguities which undoubtedly exist in the White Paper have been dealt with by my right hon. Friend who spoke just before me, but I do think it gives an unfortunate impression when Committees reach rather hesitating conclusions as to the. fulfilment of these conditions and recommend that, on the whole, they think a duty ought to be imposed. Those who, like myself, want to keep the Free Trade basis get rather anxious when the Reports of these Committees are accepted on what appears to us to be a very inconclusive series of arguments. I am not urging the Government to be pedantic or dogmatic, or to make the procedure absurdly rigid, but I feel that we ought to know exactly where we are, and what these phrases mean, and whether they are meant to be a general guidance or to be taken strictly, word for word and sentence by sentence.
  544
  Then, again, could not the Government take more consideration of the alternative methods for improving these industries which are revealed in these reports? Is it always necessary to go for a duty? I am not at all convinced, from what I have heard from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is impossible to get a sufficient supply of thorium and cerium without putting a duty on gas mantles. I am not saying that it may not be so—I am not an expert in the chemical industry—but I have not heard any convincing arguments from the President of the Board of Trade, nor are there such arguments in the Report of the Committee. I will take the case of cutlery. I cannot help thinking that it is by strengthening the Merchandise Marks Act and by trade propaganda that you are going to get the cutlery industry on its feet again, and that the duty, as has been pointed out, will really go a very little way in covering the enormous gap that there is between the British-made article and the cheap imported goods.
  These criticisms are, after all, criticisms of comparative detail and not of principle, and I hope they will be taken in a friendly spirit, because they are certainly offered as such. I accept and welcome the policy of safeguarding, because it is an Election pledge, and because I do see In that policy a via media which may keep us out of this perpetual struggle between Free Trade and Tariff Reform, as if there was nothing between the one and the other. After all, even this present procedure has its merits, which I think hon. Members opposite might be good enough to realise. We ought to give some merit, I think, to a procedure which involves independent inquiries, which makes public a great deal of valuable information as to the conditions in various industries, though I think we might have more, which gives the House opportunities for discussing each specific case, and which only imposes a duty for a fixed period. The policy of safeguarding has yet to be tried out. and I shall support it until I hear better reasons than I have heard so far for opposing it, and I would ask hon. Members opposite to approach it in the same charitable spirit. If they are really so concerned with the improvement of trade and the relief of unemployment, I suggest that they are taking a dangerous course in offering such uncompromising and, its

  545
  they will allow me to say so, factious opposition to. an experiment which has no other aim and object in view than the improvement of trade and the relief of unemployment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speech to which we have just listened does great credit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think the House must have welcomed the candour with which he affirmed his views on fiscal principles. That he is unable to find any obstacles to those principles in these proposals is a matter of no surprise to me, when I remember the statements on Free Trade which have been made from time to time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has now undertaken part authorship of the scheme now laid before the House. The House listened, as it always does, with the greatest respect and enjoyment to the speech made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), and it did so, not only because of the intellectual skill, but because those who remember the events from 1903 to 1906 recognise once more in the doctrines he is preaching, and the way in which he presents them to the House, the accents of one of the best tutors in Free Trade we have ever known, and his most distinguished pupil was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is little doubt that the clearness of vision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Free Trade doctrines and problems is largely due to the teaching he received from the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord spoke with a clarity which was merciless, and no one suffered more from his castigation than the President of the Board of Trade who, he declared, introduced these proposals to the House guided by no principles whatever. It is comforting to hear that from the Noble Lord, because we have been saying that in Ways and Means, and, indeed, the discussions up to the present, and the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade to-day, still leave us in doubt as to what guiding rule possessed him when he recommended to the Government the adoption of these reports and the imposition of these duties. He applied different rules to different trades, different standards in different reports, different dates to different circumstances. There was no guiding principle whatever in the way in which he adopted these proposals.
  546
  These were points which were stressed in Committee of Ways and Means, and I need not refer to them now, but I do wish to direct the attention of the House to another aspect of the matter. It is this. The sole test—and it can be applied quite honestly by those in favour of these duties—is how far this can add to employment. That is the only honest and straightforward test I have heard applied with any consistency throughout these Debates. There is nothing inconsistent with the statement that if you put on an import duty on one trade only, you can quite easily add to the employment in that trade. There is nothing inconsistent in that. Indeed, a very distinguished member of the Chamberlain family, Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, who shared with his still more distinguished brother the power of incisive speech, used to repeat in letters and speeches in the old days of the fiscal controversy, the statement over and over again, that if only he could have an import duty on the commodities he produced and prevent anyone else from having it, ho would become a rich man with the greatest possible ease. It is as true to-day as it was then. An import duty put on for the benefit of one trade can easily give that advantage to any one individual trade, but that is qualified by the fact that if the import duty leads to a rise in price—and we know from experience it does, and is meant to do so— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is not meant to do so, thon these are going to be perfectly futile from the very first. The Report suggested it would do so. No one will admit more readily than the Chancellor of the Exchequer that import duties always add to prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If he does not do so, he will be going back on everything he has said before. Anyone who knows anything about political economy knows perfectly well you do not cheapen things by putting on taxes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Prove that."] I proved it in Committee of Ways and Means, and if the hon. Member had been there then ho would have been converted.
  The argument I was pursuing was that you can quite easily add to the amount of employment in a trade if you put on a duty for that trade and for none other, but that is always qualified by the fact that if you raise the price of commodities

  547
  you will, to some extent, reduce the demand for them. There is only a certain amount of money people can spend on goods that can be regarded as unnecessary. Take the case of gloves. If the price goes too high, large numbers of people will do without them. They could do without them with a certain amount of discomfort, but it would not injure their general health. If, however, you raise the price of food, it is quite obvious there is no escape from that. If you raise the price of cutlery, you probably make your own knives last longer, keeping them long after they have passed the state of efficiency. To that extent, therefore, it is qualified, and the statements which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer have always been made, I am quite sure, with that in his mind. But admitting that, we are then driven back to the one point which never seems to play a large part in the reasoning of those who represent the Government, that in order to secure that increased employment, consumers as a whole must pay. I am not at all sure that the Government have clearly in their minds in what direction they are going to add to employment in the glove industry, because we have not the whole of the evidence before us, and we certainly have never been told by the President of the Board of Trade. Indeed, in the Report on the glove industry, four of the witnesses gave their evidence in camera. I should like to know before this Debate ends whether any of those who gave evidence in camera were men who gave evidence against the imposition of the duties. Unless I am mistaken, some were. Why should there be withheld from the House the evidence of those who considered that the duties here proposed would do harm and not good? They did not believe that the increase in the price of gloves was going to do their trade any good. They believed the only thing that would add to their prosperity was the increased consumption of gloves, and the knew that with the rise in the price of gloves there would be pro tanto a diminution in the demand for them.
  Let me take one or two examples to illustrate what I mean. Take the case of ordinary sheep leather gloves. Anyone can buy them in a shop in the Strand or elsewhere for about half a guinea.
  548
  Under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, that half-guinea will be translated in a very short, time into 14s. or more. That means that a. certain number of people will do without sheep leather gloves. In regard to fabric gloves, the case is still more pointed. Many people will do without them, because those people are very much poorer; they are people who find it very difficult to make ends meet, and the demand for these gloves will come down. That is no theory; we have seen it take place, and the Report shows it. The consumption of gloves in this country is very much less than in 1913, and it is entirely due to the fact that the price went up. Now the Government are going to push it up further, and so diminish the consumption, and to that extent prevent that increased employment which even they themselves hoped. A few days ago an hon. Member, who is closely associated with Abingdon, told the House that he knew of a factory in Oxford where a large number of people had been taken on in the making of gloves in the last two months. They were taken on, so far as I could understand, because there was a demand for the gloves of that factory, and it was not due .to these duties. Why he should have given that example of what happened two months before these duties were suggested, I cannot understand, unless the proprietors of those factories knew what was in these Reports long before this House was favoured with the information.
  I need not repeat any of the arguments which have been applied with equal force to the cutlery trade, but there is an aspect in all these duties of greater importance to the employment of our people than the addition of a few score, hands in a cutlery factory or glove factory, and it is to that aspect I would wish to invite the attention of the House. One of the greatest advantages we have had in this country up to the present is that we have been able to conduct our trade with great ease and rapidity. All our ports have been free ports. Anyone who has any experience of the Continent, of Europe knows that in all the great competing ports, Hamburg, Copenhagen and Antwerp, there is a free port area. It is not there for the sake of the name, but because of its immense advantage to the entrepôt trade. Unless there were that enclave, the import duties they impose

  549
  would make it impossible for the goods which have to be transhipped in these great ports to be transhipped without the intervention of the Custom House officer. Otherwise the goods would have to go into bonded warehouses. You cannot have Customs House officials watching every road, the contents of every package examined, forms filled up, and so on. The whole of that procedure would have made that entrepot trade quite impossible. These great ports have boundaries round the free port areas, wire fences, corrugated iron walls, and the gates carefully guarded. The vessels which go in with goods for trans-shipment are there discharged. The goods are loaded again into other vessels for distribution over a wide area, generally to smaller ports, and the whole of it is done without any Custom House officer guarding the ships or goods. So long as the stuff does not come out through the gates, the trans-shipment goes on rapidly and freely, without any interruption. We have never bothered about free port areas in this country, for the simple reason that we have not been hampered with import duties, and we have not had a great long stretch of protective areas. All Liverpool is a free port and all London is a free port, and the result is that London and Liverpool between them have been the two greatest trans-shipment ports in the world.
  7.0. P.M.
  The whole of their trade has been built up owing to the absence of this very impediment which the Government are step by step creating. This may seem somewhat strange to people who do not know much about the operation of our ports. Let me give a simple illustration of exactly what I mean in regard to this. When a cargo comes in and is discharged here in London, under some of these various duties, the McKenna Duties, the Silk Duties, and those which are now being imposed, the people who have cargoes coming in consigned to them have to deal with a large number of extra forms which they have to fill up. Things like this form, which has to be filled in in order to secure the payment of a two-penny duty. Here is another which covers an enormous range of figures. There is hardly an ordinary clearance clerk anywhere in the Port of London capable of understanding the form, the
  550
  figures of which it is impossible to check. This relates. I think, to the payment of a duty of 11s. 5d. There are no less than 35 entries in it. It has no less than six columns of figures to be cheeked off and inserted. The different weights have to be very carefully examined, the goods themselves have to be examined and the values all have to be checked, if you are bringing in a large cargo from the Continent or from the Antipodes to be dealt with in this country, the amount of literature that a single cargo requires is enough to fill a wheelbarrow.
  Mr. REMER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether you have not to fill in these forms where the goods are free from the operation of the duty?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was filling up these forms when the hon. Member was at school. The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to go on with the description of what he apparently does not understand.
  I am dealing with serious business. I say that if you have the Port of London, or Liverpool, or Hull, or Bristol, impeded by a great accumulation of these things, you are bound to have delay in transhipment. What does transhipment mean, when it is translated in terms of employment? In the Port of London there are very large numbers of men who do not get work two days a week. If you are going to cut down the amount of traffic in the Port of London, you must diminish the amount of work that is available to the unemployed in London, and the same thing in Liverpool. The volume of traffic that is passing through Liverpool is less than it was. If you put further obstacles in the way, if you make it less of a free port, and if you are going to put on these restrictions you are going to make it difficult for the transport trade to be cultivated where the unemployment is at its worst. As you get free from restrictions, you are able to take on more men. You enable those who bring goods from the furthermost parts of the earth to use London as a very great distributing market.
  I know there are some hon. Gentlemen who think these things will come to London anyhow. They are not coming to London even now. Already arrangements are being made by some of the merchants who will be affected by these

  551
  duties, cutlery and gloves, and so on. Instead of their taking the shipments which came here and were put into the Colonial lines and forwarded to the most distant borders of the British Empire, they are arranging to send the goods direct from the foreign port away to the uttermost parts of the earth without coming to London at all. They prefer to get rid of ail this extra trouble, which is new, and, being an obstacle to business, it is tending to restrict the volume of traffic in our ports.
  Customs officials find it most difficult to operate these things, and the vexatious delays are piling up goods in our ports which ought to be distributed much more rapidly through our warehouses and shops throughout the country. Hon. Gentlemen who think that by these import duties you are going to add to your volume of employment in these separate trades, are overlooking the fact that by doing that you may be throwing out a large number of men in these heavier trades, covering a much greater volume of traffic and providing much more employment, than can be provided by the artificial stimulus given to a, few factories here and there. The amount of delay that goes on is perfectly well known by those who are practising in the ports. Let me give a few instances of the things that are bound to pile up, as you accumulate these duties on ill-defined articles, without any general ruling or principle applied.
  We have had some examples of what happened to goods overseas. A certain amount of dolls, imported for the Christmas market, four guineas worth, were held up because they included six-pennyworth of lace, and the duty was 2d. There were some dolls which had little toy chimes dangling from their necks. The question as to whether the chimes were musical instruments or not had to require the decision of a Customs House official. These little chimes had a silk tassel attached to them, the weight of which was stated to be 8 lbs. The Customs officials refused to accept the statement that it was 8 lbs., and it was found on inquiry that the weight was ·005 lbs. per chime. The total weight of the tassels in the whole consignment was found to be 5 lbs. and not 8 lbs. as calculated by the importer; and the warehouses were blocked and the
  552
  quays were crowded with a thousand cases because they wanted to collect five shillings worth of duty. That is the profit the country gets out of impeding the traffic of perhaps a whole quay. [An HON. MKMBER.: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman asks why not? Perhaps he is not in the toy trade. If he is merely asking for information I will tell him. The reason this is a bad thing is that you cannot have a thousand cases impeding our quays and warehouses without keeping out other things, stopping the traffic, and delaying the exit of the things that come in, and when that happens it means that the warehouses do not do their work as efficiently The amount of capital that has been used in these various businesses is absorbed so much in the, handling of the goods which lie idle until they may be turned over for a profit that it is impossible for the same amount of business to be carried on with £1,000 of capital as before the War.
  I can go through list after list to show the sort of thing that is bound to go on under these duties with increasing volume, and with an increasingly mischievous effect upon the trade of our ports. First of all, if you are going to deal with all these commodities which come into the Port of London, whether they are for transhipment or for use here, a form has to be filled up. That, as I pointed out, is a very complicated and difficult operation. The second thing is that the money at the cash office in the city is paid over only after the clerk has waited for a long time in a. queue. If that is the way that clerks have their time wasted in the City of London it is no wonder that business is delayed. Then, after waiting for some time somewhere along the river side the case of goods is opened and if the Customs officer is available it is examined. If not, it has to wait until the case is checked, and then the Port of London fee charged is 1s. 8d. Then the local carrier charges a profit on the 1s. 8d. plus 2s. 6d. to 5s. for his trouble, and that is whether the article is dutiable or not. They want 50 find out whether it goes into this category or that, and in all this opening of cases and leaving them about, as you must., with the sometimes imperfect sealing of them, the amount of pilferage that goes on is greater than it has been at any time even during the

  553
  worst period of the War. Some improvement has happily taken place in the last few months. There are the people who think it is a very good tiling to have an unbought sample direct out of the cases for their own private use. There are people who have no right in the docks and great trouble is taken to keep them out. This risk of pilfering is added to the insurance which has to be paid by all these various undertakers.
  I am not alone in taking this view. The chemical manufacturers have brought to the notice of the Government the amount of the delay from which they are suffering. The Government appears to pay very little attention to these points. Unless you are going to make these ports work smoothly and rapidly, the tendency to unemployment among our dockers and those who are engaged on our river side will be on the increase and not on the decrease. We ought to return in this country to the condition in which we were before the War, when all our ports were free ports, and when we attracted to our great free ports the goods which had to be distributed all over the world. It was that which tended to make our shipping add to the turnover of the country and add to the amount of work in commercial circles. All these are advantages far outweighing the little benefits which the President of the Board of Trade thinks he is likely to afford to a few industries which are not of major importance.
  It may be said that I have taken the merchants' point of view this afternoon. Perhaps I have, because you have got to weigh the one against the other. I am not myself a merchant. The way to make this country prosperous is by the rapidity with which you remove the restrictions upon the handling of goods in our ports. If you examine the whole of these proposals and look along the line of employment you come to the same conclusion, that the Government have lost all sense of proportion. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say when he speaks to-night, but I can quite imagine that he will say, "Why are you making such a fuss about these duties? Have they not been regarded as merely trifling? Did not the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer say that they were merely trifling?" As to the mere volume of these duties, they are
  554
  trifling, but I would remind the House that the number is very large and far larger than appears on the face of the duties. The other effects which come from transforming this country from a Free Trade country to a Protectionist country are against the interest of the larger industries upon which our national wellbeing has been built up. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take the widest possible view of his duty, I am sure he will not be misled by the doctrine that you are going to add to the wealth of the country as a whole by putting on these trifling duties, and that he will lend a ready ear to the complaint that I have been making, that these duties will do far more harm to the trade and commerce of this country as a whole, than they will do good to the individual industries that have asked for them.
  Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down who has spoken with his usual eloquence has, I fear, been a little less effective than usual in some of his arguments. He, for instance, laid great stress upon the difficulty which he has recently discovered in regard to goods entering this country. He, however, admitted that during the last few months there has been a great improvement in the Port of London. It would be interesting to know whether or not the McKenna Duties have had anything to do with this? Then he went on to tell us of the difficulties about filling up forms; he told the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Reiner) that he had been filling up forms before that hon. Member went to school. The fact is that various forms have to be filled up, forms have to be filled up before we come into this country, and in some of these matters we all do things that we would rather not do. We all, too, regret the delay in things coming into this country, but we also feel that this is not peculiar to this country. One more word with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). He spoke as if we had never had any duties in. this country at all. I have not got the figures with me, but I believe I am right in saying that we collected more duties under our Import Duty system during—it was not on the production of food—in the year 1913 than the United States of America did with its very large and flexible tariff.

  555
  I want, however, for one moment to refer to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), who greatly delighted everybody with his examination of the present system, which, it would appear, is in almost as much danger as Oxford University. He laid great stress upon the point that what we want is abundance. If, he said, you have abundance you will have cheapness. I think that is correct. I want to say that I absolutely agree with him in that. But I ask him to quote me one single country amongst the great protected nations of the world which has not increased its internal and external trade to a greater extent than we have in the last 30 or 40 years! He will agree with me that it is possible you may get abundance by wisely regulating your imports, by not decreasing their total volume but changing their character in order to assist in the protection of your workers in your own country. I want to turn now from these rather smaller points to a wider consideration of the great principles which, it seems to me, we have to consider here this evening.
  There are three great problems which, as I think, every hon. Member will agree are of more importance than any others at the present time. There is the question of unemployment. There is the question of the provision of revenue. This my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very anxiously considering at the present moment. There is also the question of the adverse balance of trade. If that adverse balance of trade is going on until you have no exports whatsoever it would become serious.
  Mr. HARRIS: Why?
  Sir H. CROFT: Not from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite; I quite agree. But I will come to that point in a moment. Why? When the productive industry of this country ceases? So long as you can buy everything cheap and give employment to the middleman's clerks, that is sufficient for some hon. Members! It appears to me, however, that if you consider these three problems—Employment, Revenue and the Adverse Balance, safeguarding is, after all, the only possible remedy which can touch all three of these problems, and some think also that it is the only way in which it can touch any on of them.
  556
  These industries have been selected and we are considering them this evening. I must say, in passing, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said, in opening, what an inequity it was that so big a protective Measure should be brought in dealing with 20 different duties, and when he sat down he spoke of the Measure as "a pettifogging small thing"—which made his position somewhat difficult to understand. These industries which have been selected have been selected by a refining process, I might almost call it by an inquisition of the Board of Trade. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that the President of the Board of Trade is going to safeguard every industry that has applied. It is a very small number of industries when you consider the number of industries that have applied, and it will be seen it has been a very strong refining process. The members of the Government are absolutely carrying out the Election pledges given by the party. They said that such industries as could prove their case would receive safeguarding. I think anyone who reads the words uttered during the Election must realise that that is true. If in any of these duties and those which have been carried earlier in the Session, we can hope, as I hope will be the case, to find employment provided ultimately for an extra 20,000 men, then, surely, we would be criminal if we did not do what we could to try to bring that about.
  Let me come, secondly, to the provision of revenue. If we take the whole of the eight industries concerned in the McKenna Duties and the Safeguarding Duties which have been introduced during this year I think we a re not too optimistic if we hope that when they have been in operation a full year, so as to have their effect, they should range from anything from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000. I do not think that is an exaggeration. In addition to that you have n direct advantages the advantages of Income Tax and Super-tax on your industries in your own country which will undoubtedly relieve the rates, and help in the cessation of unemployment benefit so far as these workmen are concerned. It is not, I think, a very great exaggeration to say that this latter might amount to another

  557
  one million or two million pounds a year. If by the financial instrument of these duties—if I am right, and perhaps other hon. Members agree with that hope—if we can both give employment and secure revenue that is a thing which we all desire to see fulfilled.
  I come now to what is more important, and which requires grave consideration— that is the question of our greatly increased importation of goods above our exports. I refer especially to the increased imports of manufactures. I think everybody will agree who is concerned with the manufacturing industries of this country that these are most alarming. In the first nine months of this year the imports of manufactures increased by 21 million pounds compared with the year 1924; by 54 million pounds compared with the year 1923, and by 17 million pounds compared with the year 1922. Whether Free Trader or Protectionist, one cannot but feel worried when you see figures of this description. In two years—and I am just taking the completed year—taking iron and steel alone, we find that for the completed year 1923 we imported 1,300,000 tons; in 1925 we imported 2,700,000 tons—that is to say that for the twelve months ending in September. These are figures which you cannot laugh at. It is no good saying; do not let us do anything that is going to keep down importations.
  These figures concern the great vital industries of this country. They must cause us to think when we see an excess of imports in these industries—the iron and steel industry. Just take the one case. There has been a reduction from 2,955,412 tons excess of exports to 906,000 tons; by more than two-thirds between the years 1923 and 1925. When you see that process going on not only in that industry but in all the great manufacturing industries in this country—I have a complete list here which I will not weary the House with—anybody who is concerned with the workers of this country and with British industry must realise that these are things which cannot be laughed at. It seems to me, therefore, that it is imperative that we who are concerned about the fact as to the imports of manufactures going up and the exports of manufactures going down should realise that it is a dangerous process, and it is imperative to cut down
  558
  some of our purchases which we cannot afford. Obviously this cannot be food— which we must have; or raw material— which we want. I want to see abundance of imports maintained in this country as they are maintained in every protected country, but I want to see their character change so that we are not importing those articles in which we led the whole world, and which are the whole basis of our industrial prosperity.
  We have heard in the Debate the old arguments from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, very ably stated. Everyone will agree with them so far, but it would look as if we had not advanced since 1913. Hon. Members opposite mentioned how imports were paid for by exports. We are always told that, but I think everybody must, in view of the difficulties of the last few years, think that so far is goods are concerned that is not true. The Chancellor may tell us something about our invisible exports increasing, and how we make up the difference, but up to the last day of June our excess of imports over exports for 12 months was £416,000,000. In the last few months the figure has gone down largely owing to the fact of imports from Australia and South Africa to a great extent being held up. I still believe, assuming that we can get over our present difficulties, that these figures are not going to lead to ruin: but I think the figures have become very serious.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Those figures include, of course, shipping?
  Sir H. CROFT: I do not want for the moment to go into that part of the argument. Again, we have been told by the speeches to which we have listened by leading members of the Liberal and Socialist parties, that the effect of these duties will be to raise the cost of things. This assertion was made over and over again before the War, though it is an assertion which, I venture to say, has never been borne out by the facts. But it was a good election point, even if unworthy of the Liberal party, which is so well-informed on other questions. If we can produce an article equally well in this country, it is very doubtful whether the rise in price owing to the imposition of a duty will be anything like the amount

  559
  of the duty. As the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University realises, there may be no rise at all; if we can get increased output at home and so reduce overhead charges, it may be possible to produce more cheaply than before. When this argument was used in the past we had no experience of our own, but now we have a certain amount of experience, and that experience shows that if security is given and an industry can increase its output and work its plant to full capacity, so far from increasing the cost of the article protected by a duty we may, in fact, reduce the price to a lower level.
  I will give the House one or two figures on the subject which I think will be interesting. Take the case of the McKenna Duties and the prices at this year's motor show. It will be found that, despite the 33i per cent. duty, of 38 foreign makes of car offered for sale there, the price of only four was increased, and they were luxury cars of the most expensive description. Of the 40 British makes of car, not one had a penny added to its price. That is a very interesting commentary on the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Were they not reduced the year before, and the year before that as well?
  Sir H. CROFT: Yes, I think we can say that since the McKenna Duties were imposed there has been a steady decrease in prices; but I am now talking of this particular year. In this particular year the British makers of no less than 80,000 light ears actually reduced prices 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. I do not suggest that I am laying down any immutable law, but when hon. Members opposite make these assertions the facts which they ought to examine are those which apply to their own country.
  Next, I want to say one or two words regarding the argument advanced in many speeches that if we have these duties exports will decline. I would like to have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who put this point so well from the Free Trade, aspect. I ask him to name any one of the great Protected countries of the world of which it cannot be said that its exports have in-
  560
  creased more rapidly than have the exports of this country. If he can quote me one, I will then admit that it is a point to be argued; but I think he will find that the total overseas trade of Germany, the United States, France and that of our Dominions which happen to be Protectionist has increased more rapidly—that is to say, both the exports and the imports—than the total volume of trade in this country, which has maintained a Free Trade policy. As far as the McKenna Duties are concerned, I can give actual proof. We were told that one of the greatest dangers of the McKenna Duties was that our exports of motor cars would go down.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Who said that?
  Sir H. CROFT: Practically every speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I do not think I will he corrected from the Liberal benches. Practically every speaker has said that by protecting a home industry we decrease the volume of exports of goods.
  Mr. DUNCAN: You are talking about motor cars.
  Sir H. CROFT: Yes, and that was said in every single Debate on motor cars, in which I took part. I think the hon. Member will find that is true. I am glad to inform the House that whereas in 1923 we exported 1,789 touring cars, in 1925 we exported 12,441, a very remarkable figure, which does not seem to bear out the argument that exports would be reduced. Another point advanced again and again is that the entrepot trade would be gravely affected. That seems to be a violation of the old Free Trade doctrine that it was only the nation which put on Protective duties which was really affected. The hon. Gentleman is now contending that foreign importers are going to suffer and not those who impose the tariff. That seems to be rather a twisting of the argument to suit the needs of the moment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I did not explain my point clearly. I was not in the least dealing with the case of the foreign importer. I was only pointing out that by Protective duties you impede traffic, and that any impediment in the way of traffic does more harm than the good you hope for from these duties.
  Sir H. CROFT: I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman for West Swansea, but to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who has made several speeches on this subject in the last few days. Mr. George Harvey, who is admitted to be a very great admirer of this country, made a remarkable speech a few days ago. He said:
  "England's period of productivity is past. Her sole function henceforth can be none other than that of the middleman."
  I realise with what glee that statement must be received by some of the champions of middlemen we have listened to in the last two or three days in the party who draw their inspiration, if not their funds, from those who are largely engaged in importing and nothing else. Indeed, it may be said that it is the triumph of Free Trade—produce nothing, because we can buy everything cheaper from abroad—it is what is laid down in this gloomy prophecy. We are merely to handle the goods of foreign countries; that is to be our function in the future.
  We on these benches absolutely refuse to say that that is the role to be allotted to this country. We believe that it is production which has made our great country, and it is production which alone will keep our country great. In this case there are two schools of thought. On the one hand, there are the prohibitionists. A Motion was carried, I think unanimously, at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour party during the past year that we should impose prohibition upon the importation of goods which are produced under a lower wage level or lower social conditions than prevail here. On the other hand, the Liberal party see the vast increase of imported manufactures— so that while we have 1,100,000 men unemployed we are importing manufactured goods which have given employment to 1,300,000 foreigners—with the greatest satisfaction. The Government are somewhat between the Devil and the deep sea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will not say that, but on the one hand they have to steer our course between the Charybdis of Prohibition and the Scylla of the remnant, the tattered remnant, of the once great army of laissez-faire.
  Generally speaking, I think we can say that the Government in this House, and, apparently, in the constituencies as well,
  562
  judging by the events of the last few days, have the support of their party. Our only complaint is, perhaps, that they have not been going forward quite steadily enough. At any rate, this is a policy on which this party has been absolutely consistent. I would remind the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University that when this country was the sole manufacturing country of the world, when we led the whole world, we were a highly protected country. I know that we cannot return to that state now. but when he suggests that this country is traditionally Free Trade, I suggest to him that we taught the whole world their fiscal business; and the extraordinary thing is that every country in the world drew its inspiration from our old historic policy, and that none of them has since attempted to change that policy. Because of that, I suggest that those industries which specially need our care and protection at the present moment should not he turned aside because they are only comparatively small, not great, industries, but that we should do something. This is the only contribution any party has made towards providing employment in this country. Let us give it a chance, and if it be found a wise policy at the end of a year or two, we can then consider whether it would not be desirable to go on and extend it to an even greater extent.
  Mr. SEXTON: May I appeal to the House to bear with me to-night on account of the unfortunate handicap under which I am labouring in having a very severe cold? I would not have spoken but for the fact that some of the arguments used in this Debate apply to a section of what are known as "sheltered trades." I happen to be a representative of the workmen in what is officially known as a sheltered trade, the transport trade. Personally, I do not see that there is much shelter for the men engaged in it. The official definition of a sheltered trade means, I suppose, that the trade as a whole has an advantage over the other trades, but the men who are engaged in it do not receive themselves any advantage from the shelter. I have sat in this House in other Parliaments besides this, and I would say at the outset of my remarks that I am not enamoured of Free Trade, I saw the

  563
  weaknesses of Free Trade long ago, with respect to the condition of the workmen under Free Trade. I have also had some experience of Tariff Reform, and between the one and the other I came to the conclusion that the lesser of the two evils must commend itself to me. Both of them, in my opinion, and so far as the solution of our social problems is concerned, are economic evils. I am anxious, as anxious as any of the Gentlemen on the Government Bench or those on the Liberal Benches, to do all I can to relieve the problem of the unemployed, having myself suffered from want of employment. If there is anything in this new suggestion that, will help us a bit, it will not find me pledged to the policy of Free Trade or semi-Free Trade. I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite if it will carry us even a little way: but while I am always listening anxiously for some proposal which will bring improvement the result, so far, has been "Nothing doing." Perhaps I may be allowed to argue from the mere sectional point of view, and if I do this I shall only be following the example of the supporters of these Resolutions, but I shall do it because they brought in sheltered trades. I will take my own particular industry as a basis on which to argue. We are told in these Resolutions that the reason for the application of the 33⅓ per cent. tariff is to help the home employer to compete more favourably with the foreign producer. The question is, do those goods come in now? Experience shows that they do, and if they do not come in after the tariff is placed upon these goods how will that help home industries? If these goods are cut out by the tariffs, what will become of the trade which I have the honour to represent?
  The case was put very admirably from the employers' point of view by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). with whose trade I have been associated for 35 years. I am one of those who handle the "oof," and who sends the goods off. We have to remember in these matters that we live on an island and our vital trade is on the sea, and our maritime supremacy is on the sea, and foreign countries have to take advantage of this state of affairs in order to send their goods across the sea.
  564
  We are the top dog in that direction, and any attempt to interfere with that position would mean that by these tariff proposals, even if you did find more employment for men in Sheffield, for every man you found employment for by these tariffs, you would put two or three men out of employment in the shipping industry. Consequently, what you hope to gain on the swings you will more than lose on the roundabouts.
  1 am more concerned with what will happen if more of these taxes are imposed. I agree that these duties are the thin end of the wedge. We are told that the effect will be that more in the cutlery trade in Sheffield will find employment. This, however, is an old, old story, and this policy of Protection goes as far back as Joseph in Egypt who put not only the corn and the money in the sacks, but the cup in the sack of Benjamin. We have been told that in order to save the country we must go the whole hog and Protection must be adopted. In the past it has been my privilege to listen to many Tariff Reform lecturers, and I have heard them, argue that the importation of cheap German concertinas had killed the English concertina trade and ruined the Birmingham Jew's harp trade, and the electors were told that if tariffs were placed on those musical instruments those tariffs would be paid by the foreigner. Experience has since shown us that that is not the case, and we do know that the purchasers of these instruments in this country and the workmen who were supposed to be protected in those trades have been penalised by getting no employment and people have had to pay more for those instruments than they did before the tax was imposed. I will sum up the situation with the following verse:
  " But will he pay? Ah! wait and see,
  And if he does, then all agree
  That his goods stilt come right merrilie,
  From fabric gloves to geysers.
  And though we make the tariff tough
  The German still remains to scoff,
  And so we cut our own nose off
  With Comrade Bosch's razors."
  Mr. SANDEMAN: I have listened carefully to the speeches made in this Debate, and what I would like to get at is, who are the people who are against safeguarding? What are the vested interests which have been alluded to, and how does it all work out? Most of those who have

  565
  spoken have been with one or two exceptions doctrinaires. I think a little experience of the working in a factory or a workshop would do them no harm, because they would learn a good deal about what both employers and employed have to go through. We have heard a good deal about the quantity of goods brought into this country which are subjected to one or two processes and then exported again. Let us consider what has happened in the past, and then we may be able to make a shot, at what is likely to happen in the future. The foreign manufacturers command cheaper labour, and their employés work longer hours. The result of this will probably be that in the near future they will perform these processes themselves, and that even if our merchant retains the business in competition with the merchants in these countries, the goods will not even be shipped in British vessels. We have been told that the consumer is the person who is going to pay for these tariffs. I know that is not the experience I have had, because I have had to shut down many a loom simply on account of foreign competition. The goods I manufacture were being brought in by merchants at prices with which I was acquainted, and I also knew that the price paid for the goods by the consumer was generally 1 per cent. under the price which British manufacturers could possibly afford to take. This left a very fine profit for the merchant. Huge orders went from us in that way with the result that we had to turn our workpeople away. A good many of us hate to turn away workpeople who have been working for us for so many years, because they have to live on their savings.
  Now I will come to the practical people and leave the doctrinaires alone. I will take first the working people. They are rather afraid of protection of any description because they think it will put the price up. But supposing these tariffs did put a little on the price, so long as the consumers had work and were not living on unemployment benefit and their savings they would not mind if they had a little more to pay with they would not mind paying an extra shilling for a pair of scissors made in Sheffield than have German scissors. In these matters the real opposition comes from the
  566
  merchants, and there is no question about that. The merchants are nearly all Liberals, and the Liberal party is largely recruited from the merchant class. A merchant will take an office and probably pay between £50 or £100 a year for an office and employ about four clerks. He certainly does pay Income Tax, and that is about all he does pay. On the other hand, the manufacturer employs probably 500 workers and he has to pay heavy rates and taxes, unfortunately he is not the man who is paying much Income Tax. I should like to see Revenue derived from Income Tax come out of flourishing industries. I know that might be a difficult task for the Chancellor of the Exchequer because as profits increase wages go up, but at any rate the money would be going round far more than it does now after it gets into the merchant's pocket. If you consider the question of the balances of these industrial companies, you will find, with a few exceptions, that the people who have monopolies are paying very big dividends. On the other hand, if you take the steel and iron trades, the manufacturers are not paying any dividends at all. Of course we should all like to see some of the revenue of the country coming from them, and we should like to see them making dividends. I know members of the Labour party would like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting something out of those trades.
  Let me consider for a moment some of the duties we have put on. We heard a great deal about the Silk Tax when it was being considered by this House, but you do not hear a word about it now in Lancashire; in fact, they are rather pleased with it: and I am sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested taking it away there would be a row about, it. As a matter of fact, I believe that after the tax has been imposed on silk, stockings are about 2d. a pair cheaper. Those engaged in the fine cotton trade are monopolists, and they do not care about any tariff, because they are in the position of being able to climb over it. They are aware that nobody else makes the yarn, and the foreigner must have the yarn. Perhaps if we wait a little longer the foreigners will be able to spin these fine counts and then we shall see the difference. I have always been

  567
  taught that as circumstances about you change you must be pretty quick on your feet if you are going to keep your end up. If that is applicable to one firm it is applicable to the country, because the country is one colossal interest with one interest entirely for everyone.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. SANDEMAN ALLAN: We have had the opportunity of listening this evening to a very interesting Debate on Free Trade and Protection, with occasional references to safeguarding. I would like to remind the House that, on this broad question of Free Trade and Protection, the whole commercial community is divided. There are a great many who hold neither the one nor the other. We cannot accept the view of the enthusiasts for a general tariff because we hold very strongly that, as regards the trade of this country in particular and of the world as a whole, the less impediments that are put in the way of trade the better. There are a great many of us who feel very strongly that a general tariff is not for the good of the trade of this country or of the world at large, and that we should work in the direction of removing general tariffs as far as possible. On the other hand, we cannot accept the theory of Free Trade which is being pressed upon us in its undiluted form. We realise that much has intervened of recent years. One of the very important matters which we should bear in mind is the fact that, during the War, when this country was unable to supply the world with a great many of the requirements needed by different countries, the industries necessary to produce those articles were established in those foreign countries. That alone is a very great factor of recent times which must be borne in mind. It should be borne in mind, too, that British industry is of some importance to this country. I only say that because we are rather apt, when hearing these discussions on one side, to hear British trade and goods pooh-poohed as long as we get the material from somewhere. It is our duty to consider, in the first instance, our industries and our trade, on which this country depends entirely for its livelihood. If our industries go down, our trade goes down, and this country is bankrupt. Therefore it behoves the
  568
  Government and every one of us to consider the industries of this country.
  I speak for many inside and outside this House who feel inclined to say to the Free Trade theory and to the Protectionist theory, "A plague on both your houses! Let us consider this matter from a purely business point of view." It is a question entirely of what is the best business for this country. Everyone knows that a business firm that says that, because 50 years ago they had a certain system, it is the system that they are going to carry on to-day is heading for bankruptcy. We have got to take into consideration the changing factors of the age. That is why I hold the view that in the best interests of this country, although there should be no general tariffs on British trade, it is our duty at the present time to protect such British industries as may be threatened, and particularly the workmen and all concerned in those industries who may be threatened by what, for want of a. better word, we may call unfair foreign competition. I might put it to the hon. Gentlemen opposite as I put it in my platform in the election. The only pledge I made was that I would vote against a food tax and against a general tariff. I put it in my platform and I put it here in this House to-night that what we have to do is to protect the British working man and all engaged in industry in this country from blackleg foreign competition whether in wages, hours of work or conditions of life.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Why not deal with blackleg competition in this country as well?
  Mr. ALLAN: I am dealing with foreign countries. I want to point out that the only way for us to deal with that black-legging is gradually to raise the foreign working man and the standard abroad to the standard at home. That is the way to clear the whole question. Once we have got that there is no need for any safeguarding of industries, because the British workman can hold his own against any other workman in. the world and beat him every time, it will take a good five years and more before we can get that through. Consequently, I feel that this Bill, which puts forward a proposal to safeguard certain industries for a limited period of time, is one that everyone hold-

  569
  ing the views I have expressed on Free Trade can support. I maintain that it is a fulfilment of the election pledges and also that it is a Bill that is going to produce revenue to this country by relieving unemployment and by increasing the profit on business available for Income Tax.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) referred to his trade. I, as a Member for Liverpool, appreciate a good deal what was said by the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), and it is important, but I do not agree that these particular duties, which are intended to develop and which are going to develop the industry of this country, are going to rob the transport trade of anything, because, if they do not carry foreign goods into this country, they will carry the raw material necessary for manufacturing the same goods in this country. We must not overlook either the one or the other. If, in addition, we develop and increase employment in times like this the whole Bill will be worth while. I have no desire to take up the time of the House, because I feel there are many better qualified to speak on these important subjects, but I think I can speak with a certain amount of authority for a large body of commercial men who hold the views that I have endeavoured to express.
  Mr. MARCH: The hon. Member who has just sat down said he told the electors he would not vote for a tax on food or a general tariff. I take it that he knew exactly what he was telling the electors when he said he would not vote for a tax on food. Presumably he had in his mind the fact that if he voted for a tax on food and a tax on food was put on, it would mean an increase in the price of food to those who purchase that food. If that is his true meaning, then the theory which we have been hearing during the last three or four days with regard to this Safeguarding of Industries Bill, that it is not going to increase the price at all, but that it is going to give the manufacturer an opportunity of getting full production from his plant, and that the goods are going to be sold at the same price, does not hold good. You will have great difficulty in convincing the people who have to purchase the goods of the truth of that theory. If the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, which is now going through the House
  570
  with its imposition of tariffs on cutlery, gloves and mantles, is not intended to keep foreign goods out, then it is no good for the people in this country who are attempting to manufacture those goods. They will get no advantage if the goods come in as fast or even faster than they did before the duty was imposed. If the duty is to be imposed for the express purpose of keeping the goods out, then you do not get any revenue from them. The result of this Bill will be that you will have the manufacturers of this country going on in the same slip-shod way, as the Report we have had on cutlery says. It states definitely that the manufacturers have not brought their plant and machinery up to date. It is not efficient in any way. There are many hundreds of those very small factories, almost like cottages, still in existence doing the outside work. How are you going to make them efficient and make their competition as cheap as it ought to be in competition with the foreigner?
  Your desire is to keep the imports out of the country in order to safeguard industries here and to find employment for those engaged in those industries. If you find employment for those in those industries what are you going to do with the people you cut off from imports and exports? I heard two hon. Members on the other side of the House speaking of the divisions which they represent. One of them said that the glove trade in his district was the best in the world. The other, speaking in the same why of his district, said that their work was well done, good and efficient, but these Members did not think about any other trade except the trade which was going on in their own localities. What is going to happen to the trade in the district which I represent, that of shipping? We have five docks in my division and over 25 per cent. of the inhabitants are dock workers, import and export workers. We have at the present time a very large number of those men unemployed. If you go on with this Bill and do as you are desirous of doing and stop the importation of goods into this country, that will not find any work for them; on the contrary, it will put a few more out of work. If, as has been said over and over again, imports into this country are paid by exports, then there will be no exports, because there will be no imports to be paid for

  571
  by exports, and another section of men will be thrown out. All that we can hear is of just a few thousand men who are likely to get employment if we get safeguarding in these three trades. We are very sceptical in this matter as to whether it is going to do any good or not. We rather fear it is going to do harm in the long run by keeping a number of men out of work; and, moreover, is it going to increase prices, not only to people working in the trade, but to other people who have to purchase the commodities?
  We claim that this safeguarding of industries is not in the interest of the people at all. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has said that he represents the workers in what is known as a sheltered trade. Presumably I also represent a body of men in a sheltered trade, but what we find is exactly what has been said by a great shipping magnate, who has made a report to his directors to the effect that shipping during the last 12 months has been worse than it has been for a number of years, and he does not see any signs of improvement in the immediate future. We have at the present time in my district 6,000 men signing on for what some people are pleased to call the dole. I do not call it by that name; I call it unemployment insurance benefit, because, if they do not pay it all themselves, it comes out of the labours of the workers generally. In my district, also, they make them sign on twice a day, because they are very douftful of them—they are dockers. To suit the convenience of the employers they are taken on twice a day, and, if a man works four hours on any one day in the week he has to pay his full quota towards insurance, as well as the man who works all the week. Therefore, we are not only hit in that direction, so far as casual employment is concerned, but we are very much hit in regard to the benefit that is supposed to be given from the Employment Exchange. We are not desirous of hampering any trade at all, but we do desire that the Government shall use their best endeavours to find work for the many and not for the few. We believe that bringing forward the Safeguarding of Industries Bill in this way, in regard to these three kinds of commodities, is only going to find work for a very few, and that it will put a
  572
  larger number of men out of work in other ways.
  Mr. JACOB: I feel sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will treat my maiden effort with your usual indulgence, and that, if I stray from the lines of Debate, you will not be too hard upon me.
  It seems to me that a Debate on the Safeguarding of Industries can hardly be kept clear of our general fiscal system. Otherwise, it would be like the play of "Hamlet" with the Prince of Denmark left out. It has struck me that, owing to the limitations of Debate, there has been a certain unreality about the Debates in this House, both on unemployment and on the safeguarding of industries. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking in the unemployment Debate the other day, demonstrated clearly that our export trade had diminished relatively to the trade of the United States, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Canada. I am sure, however, that his keen intellect must have seen that there was one factor common to all those countries, and that was that their home market was protected. They were, therefore, in a much better position than we are for mass production, and they were able on that account to undersell us, not only in foreign markets, but in our home market.
  It seems to be constantly assumed by hon. Members on the other side that an import duty will necessarily cause an increase in the price of the home-manufactured article. I think the effect of the McKenna Duty on motor cars is the best answer to that proposition. The re-imposition of the McKenna Duty on motor cars has resulted in not only a reduction in price in the home market, but an increase in the export trade, especially to Australia. In Australia they formerly used American manufactured motor cars, but lately the demand there has been for English motor cars, and very large orders have been placed in this country. It would be a great advantage to us if we could only get the tariff question in this country out of the political arena, and decide it as it ought to be decided, on purely business, common-sense grounds. For instance, in America and the Dominions there is no party which can be described as anti-Tariff or Free Trade.

  573
  There may be differences of opinion between the representatives of the farming interest and the representatives of industrial centres as to whether the duties should be higher or lower, but there is no one who advocates or even discusses the question of doing without a tariff altogether.
  The most striking feature in the development of the great English speaking Dominions overseas, from America—which was one of our first Colonies—to the very latest addition to the Dominions, the Irish Free State, has been their adoption of Protection for their industries. We have no monopoly of fiscal wisdom, and the fact that we are alone in a policy of so-called Free Trade should give us cause for reflection. The attitude taken up by the Rip Van Winkles of Cobdenism would be amusing if it were not so pathetic. Regardless of the anachronism of their situation, they parade before the House their mid-Victorian garments—rather threadbare now—and keep on repeating ancient shibboleths, which may have had some application in the past, but are considerably out of date at present. I have some sympathy with them, for I was brought up in the straightest sect of the Free Trade religion. I sat at the feet of Gamaliel, in the person of the professor of political economy at the University, and I was expected to know Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill from cover to cover—
  Mr. LANSBURY: What about Marx?
  Mr. JACOB: I am coming to Karl Marx presently. But my experience of practical business, and the trend of fiscal thought throughout the world, has convinced me that doctrinaire Free Trade can only be successful in an ideal world, where there are no rivalries of nations and no restrictions by trade unions. When Free Trade was introduced, this country had great initial advantages in its coal, iron and shipping, in its Colonies, in the skill of its workmen, and in the strength of its industries, which had been built up under a period of Protection. But since 1870 other countries have developed their manufactures behind high tariff walls, and our proportion of exports has been steadily diminishing as compared with foreign countries, although we have held our own
  574
  practically in the Dominion markets. The problem before us is how to retail. and add to those industries that still survive. I wish the House would look at the matter from a common-sense and business like point of view, instead of discussing impossible propositions such as that, on the one side, of a return to the mid-Victorian position, or, on the other side, the destruction of our whole industrial system before we attempt to build up a new one in the supposed interests of the proletariat. I am afraid the Liberal party is hopelessly Conservative in its attachment to obsolete theories. I have hope of the Labour party if it would only emancipate itself from the impossible doctrines of Marxian Socialism. The Labour party is strong and vigorous, and if it were to use its power as it has done in America and the Colonies, to secure high wages and a better standard of living for the population, there would be common ground between Labour and Conservatism. It is pathetic to see the Labour Samson, with his eyes blinded by the Delilahs of so-called Free Trade, actually engaged in pulling down the pillars of the temple of industry, the fall of which will result not only in the destruction of the employers, but even of Samson himself.
  There is not, and there should not be, any real antagonism between Labour and Capital. Wherever Capital is most plentiful, the wages of Labour are highest. For instance, in the United States, where there is probably the greatest accumulation of capital in the world, you find most employment for labour; labour is more highly remunerated and the conditions are better, whereas in Eastern countries, such as China, where there is very little capital, the conditions of employment are very bad and the wages very low. I wonder that our Friends opposite cannot, or will not, see that it is impossible to maintain the best wages and conditions except in a sheltered market. You might as well try to grow hot house plants on a wind-swept heath. Democracy in America and the Dominions frankly recognises this fact, and, spite of the attitude of the British Socialist leaders, I have great faith in ultimately enlisting the help of the more up-to-date representatives of Labour in supporting safeguarding and Preference.

  575
  An ex-American Ambassador has just published a letter, stating that Great Britain's future is only that of a middleman. He may probably prove to be right if the policy of the Opposition, whether Socialist or Liberal, be adopted, but he is as certainly wrong if the manufacturers of the country be given a fair chance in competition with their foreign rivals. The British market is probably the greatest in the world, and the citizens of this country have to pay many millions a year for the service of the National Debt, for the upkeep of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Civil Service, which are necessary for the safeguarding of the Empire routes and for the protection of the Colonies and Dependencies, as well as the home market. It seems to me only logical that those who pay the piper should also call the tune, and that our own citizens and those of our Empire should have facilities and privileges in the home market over and above those which we give to foreigners.
  Mr. NAYLOR: I have not so far taken part in these Debates, and only do so now in order to answer one or two points which have been made during this discussion. I do not regard the principle of Free Trade and Protection as having any vital connection with the problem of unemployment. With me it is rather a question of principle, and it is rather an economic than a fiscal principle. We have to go much deeper into the economic structure of society to get at the real causes of unemployment. Mention has been made by more than one speaker of the fact that we who represent the trade unions are, for that reason, actually Protectionist in principle. I want to answer that argument. We protect our labour because we are seeking to improve the standard of living of those who we represent. But that is not to say that we are inconsistent in opposing a system of fiscal Protection. Because I happen to take an umbrella out with me, and possibly a mackintosh, and to that extent protect myself against the weather, I am not necessarily inconsistent in opposing any system of fiscal Protection. What is true there is true in the illustration regarding protection for the standard of life. This is called the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. I am concerned with safeguarding the standard of living, and
  576
  even the safeguarding of industries. As a. trade unionist, my concern has been for many years to maintain wages, to maintain the value of the reward that men get for their labour, and the more money they earn the more we expect them to add to their standard of living. But when we have submitted to us a proposition which obviously must have the effect of increasing prices, that is economically a reduction of wages, because we do not measure our wages by the money we receive but by what we are able to purchase with it. Therefore, as trade unionists, we are justified in examining very closely indeed any proposition which would have as one of its results an increase in prices. Hon. Members on the other side have questioned the statement that there will be an increase of prices as a result of imposing tariffs such as those suggested in this Bill. I have not yet heard any statement made that would convince any honestly thinking man that the effect of the tariff will not have that result on prices. One hon. Member opposite reminded us that he pledged himself on his platform during the General Election to oppose any proposition for taxing food. Why did he take up that attitude? There are workers in the agricultural industry who want protecting just as much as men employed in the glove industry. If it is good for one industry, how, logically, can it be bad for another industry? The reason why the hon. Member gave that pledge was because he knew perfectly well that the cost of food would go up by the amount of the tariff, at least, that would be imposed on the article of produce. So it will be in the case of the articles to be taxed under this Bill.
  If the Government are imposing the duty for the purpose of providing employment for men and women who otherwise would be disengaged in this country, they can only do so by keeping out the product which they say keeps these people out of employment. If they are successful in keeping the competing product out and enabling the British manufacturer to produce the same article on a much larger scale, he can only do that when the price of the article has increased to the point of making it economically possible for him to produce the extra article at a profit. It is because he cannot now produce the article

  577
  at a profit that the Government proposes to help him by imposing a tariff that will enable him to increase the price of the article to the consumer who at present buys the cheaper foreign article in preference to the dearer article produced at home. Hon. Members opposite cannot escape the conclusion that the imposition of a tariff must of necessity increase the cost of the article that is protected.
  I could understand a policy of Protection if it were introduced with the full and complete intention of transforming the industrial conditions of this country into Protection all round. There was some talk a little while ago about a scientific tariff. America has shown how a scientific tariff can be imposed. The Government have not taken that course in the present instance. There is nothing scientific in selecting one or two articles of production and finding out in connection with those articles that there is a certain measure of unemployment in the industries concerned. They have discovered that there is unemployment in the glove industry, the gas-mantle making industry and the cutlery industry, and they have come to the conclusion to introduce this Measure of Protection by instalments. See where it is leading us. It begins in this way, and it is quite conceivable—here I am conceding a point to hon. Members opposite—that as far as the protected industries are concerned, it may increase employment in the glove-making and the gas-mantle making industries, but you are only protecting these sections of industry.
  If you succeed in excluding the foreign importer as far as the manufacture of leather gloves is concerned, he will promptly use the machinery at his disposal for the manufacture of some article made of the same material as the gloves, whether it be leather or fabric. Therefore, although there may be a gain in the actual glove making employment in this country, we shall lose in some other sections of leather manufacture. Then the Government will come to the House and say, "We find that in saddlery work there has been a great diminishing of employment since the tariff was put on imported gloves. We find that the saddlery industry shows a considerable falling off, and it becomes necessary, having protected gloves, and given an incentive to the foreign
  578
  importer to manufacture saddlery, to follow the tariff on gloves with a tariff on saddlery and other articles of leather manufacture. "We have a series of tariffs laid down in this Hill, and we are rapidly coming to the time when we shall be a protected country, unless the opposition that we can put up in this House is effective in staying the hands of the Government in this respect.
  What is the position of a working-class woman when she goes to market? Possibly she is wearing silk stockings, which are taxed. She may have lace upon her person which is also taxed. She goes to the shop wearing gloves, which are also taxed. She buys sugar which is taxed. The sugar is wrapped in paper which may shortly be taxed. Round the paper parcel is twine, shortly to be taxed. This is cut with a pair of scissors that is taxed. There will be little left for the working-class family that is not taxed, if the Government continues these Safeguarding proposals year after year. In all these cases the price of the article protected goes up.
  Reference has been made by one hon. Member to the effect of the tariffs upon revenue. He assumed that as a result of these proposals there will be a certain increase in revenue, and for that reason he was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Front Bench. Are the Government really in earnest in seeking to keep out the foreign imports, in which case if they are successful they will derive no revenue whatever from the tariff, or are they playing up for the possibility of getting revenue from the tariff, in which event they will not succeed in keeping out the foreign product? You have to choose between those two points. I see that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is smiling rather loudly. I hope that he will follow me in this Debate. Perhaps he will now have an opportunity of being seen by Mr. Speaker that he would not otherwise have got. Let him take up the task of answering that argument. Is he anxious for this tariff in order to keep out the foreign product or does he desire to have the tariff in order to add to the revenue of the country? If fiscal proposals are made for protecting the industry of the country they must be made general and complete. Otherwise you do not protect the industry, and you merely give an addi-

  579
  tional incentive to the foreign importer to turn his machinery to the production of some other article of a similar character. Therefore, I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, when reviewing the Reports of these Committees, should at least consider whether or not the tariff is sufficient for keeping out articles. Unless that be done, no good can ensue to the unemployment existing in that particular industry. If he is successful in getting revenue, to that extent he knows that he is not doing any good so far as employment is concerned.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It is a matter of considerable satisfaction to me that I am privileged to reply forthwith to the challenge which has been thrown: out. I have in my hand the accounts relating to the trade and employment of the United Kingdom for October last. The total imports of silk and silk manufactures during the month ended 31st October, were £2,230,000. At that time no tariff was imposed. The amount imported during the month ended 31st October, was £1,041,000. In respect of the latter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will collect certain revenue duties, and if the last speaker wants particulars he will find them in the OFFICIAL REPORT which reached him this morning, in the form of a reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put by myself. In respect to the difference between last year's imports and this year's, I think the probability is that increased employment will be afforded. Broadly speaking, what happens when you impose a duty is that you restrict but do not exclude the import. In respect of what comes in you secure revenue, and in respect of what you shut out, you secure employment.
  I have listened to-day to most of the Debate. I have heard four Free Traders in succession, two belonging to parties to which I do not belong and two to the party to which I do belong. I am afraid that none of them is present now, and I do not want to be offensive, but, so far as my personal knowledge of them is concerned, three of them have never sold anything in their lives and the fourth has sold only foreign goods. I suggest that that kind of experience is not the best to enable us to arrive at a decision as to what is likely to be the
  580
  best fiscal policy in the interests of employment and the standard of living of the people. I have listened to many speeches by Free Traders. They always assume, whether they happen to be Conservatives, Liberals or Socialists, that an import duty is necessarily borne by the consumer. They are not entitled to make that assumption; they have to prove it. They make two other assumptions, neither of which they attempt to prove. One is based on an imperfect analysis of the balance of trade. They say that exports pay for imports, that if you restrict your imports you must restrict exports, and that whatever employment you give by restricting imports, you lose on account of the consequent restriction of your export. That is a very superficial examination of the balance of trade, which contains at least five major items on both sides. I am not going to attempt in the few minutes at my disposal to go into the whole complicated problem of the balance of trade.
  Mr. HARRIS: Please do.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am satisfied that Bethnal Green would be wiser if it did hear me. I want to devote my remarks to one particular aspect of the question. There is a third fallacy of Free Traders and it is a psychological fallacy. The first is as to prices; the second as to balance of trade, and the third relates to security. If a man has no security at all, he becomes inefficient. If he has absolute security, as a rule he becomes inefficient. In between the two extremes there is some measure of security which leads to maximum efficiency. That is what I wish to secure, not only by means of tariffs but in every other direction. With profound respect to the Civil Service of this country and every other country—in this country civil servants are supremely honest—I do not think their efficiency is equal to that of persons who are exposed to some measure of competition. On the other hand, the absolutely casual worker is so demoralised by insecurity that he equally is inefficient. It is suggested that since Protection gives people security, it will make them inefficient. Our experience would lead us to believe that a moderate measure of protection which still exposes people to competition will in fact lead them to become more efficient.

  581
  Let me deal now with the problem of prices. The Free Trader tells us that an import duty is of necessity borne by the consumer. I am not surprised that they say that. The Customs duties to which we have been used in this country are Customs duties falling on commodities entirely drawn from abroad, or. alternatively, if produced in this country, are accompanied by an equivalent Excise Duty, so that the whole source of supply is taxed. In those cases it is obvious that the tax tends to be transferred to the consumer. But the case that we are considering is a different case. It is a case where one part of the supply is taxed and another part is untaxed. What will happen to prices will depend, first of all, on the ratio of the taxed supply to the untaxed supply, also upon the capacity of the producers of the untaxed supply to increase that supply and to compete more effectively with the taxed supply.
  In other words it is not an absolute problem, but a relative problem. If I want a creative tariff to build up an industry which does not exist, the initial effect of that tariff will be to increase prices by at least its own amount and possibly more. If, on the other hand, I am imposing a preservative tariff to safeguard an industry which already exists, then I am faced with different circumstances. In some instances, if the internal competition is large, there will be no rise in prices at all, but possibly later on there may be a decrease in prices. If initially the home competition is only moderate, there may be a substantial rise in prices at first followed by a steady decline as the home production increases. I have endeavoured to investigate this question by a statistical analysis of the Trade and Navigation returns, and I have arrived at some rather interesting conclusions. The prices of imports as declared in these returns are c.i.f. prices—that is cost insurance and freight. They are the prices which the importer in this country has to pay, apart from any duty and apart from the cost of conveyance from the port to the place of sale. They are, broadly speaking, what the foreign seller will receive for these goods exclusive of the cost of conveying them from his country to ours.
  Taking the eight months ended on 31st August of last year, I find that in the
  582
  case of fabric gloves which were dutiable up to 19th August, the average price per dozen pairs was 11s. 1d. There was then a duty of one-third of the value. It is true my figures cover a few days beyond the date on which the duty ended, but the Board of Trade return really covers only up to the 24th of the month, and so there is only a possible error of four or five days. In 1925, when there was no duty, the average price of fabric gloves was 13s. 3d. Why did the foreigner receive 2s, 2d. per dozen pairs more for his gloves when there was no duty than he received when there was a duty? Obviously, because when there was a duty he cut his price by that amount to maintain his sales, and to that extent he paid the import duty and the consumer did not. It may be suggested that it is an isolated case. Let me then go further and take the case of complete touring cars. It is difficult to illustrate this argument with all the cases, because in some cases only can one get units of quantity as well as units of value in the returns. For example, I cannot deal with lace because the Board of Trade return only gives value. In the case of complete touring cars in October, 1923, the average price per car was £203, and a duty was leviable on top of that price. In October, 1924, when there was no duty the average price per car rose to £253. and in October, 1925, when the duty had been re-imposed the average price dropped to £197.
  Mr. KELLY: Consequent upon the duty?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am only pointing out the facts that the dutiable car had a price of £203; the non-dutiable car had a price of £253, and coming again to the dutiable car in this year, the price was £197.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The same class of car?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad the hon. Member has raised that point. I was going to point out the difficulty in connection with these statistics of being certain that you are always dealing with the same class of car. I agree that if you had an abnormal quantity of high priced cars one month and of low priced cars

  583
  in another your average might be upset. In order to be sure on that point I do not limit myself to one month. We will take September. The price in September, 1923, was £198; in September, 1924, £241, and in September, 1925, £183. Why is there a difference of £50 or £60 between the average price of imported cars when there is a tariff and the average price when there is no tariff? Solely because the foreign producer has cut his price to that extent in order to jump over our-tariff.
  I move from motor cars to pianos, and here I can give the hon. Member who interrupted a rather interesting point. In October, 1923, when there was a duty on pianos the average price was £44 per piano. In October, 1924, when the duty-had been removed the price was £52, and in October, 1925, when the duty-was again imposed, the price rose to £54. I am certain that will gratify the Free Trade instincts of the hon. Gentleman. What is the explanation? The effect of the imposition of the duty was to cut the imports down to one-tenth. It is evident that it was the cheaper class of pianos which was eliminated, and only the more expensive pianos came in, whereas in the case of motor cars the importation in October, 1925, was greater in number than in 1924, despite the imposition of a tariff—the reason being that in that case the industry was constantly expanding. Let us take the case of clocks. I worked this analysis out for a period of six months, and I find that for the six months ended June, 1923, the average price per clock was 3s. 6d.; for the period ended June, 1924, the average price was 3s. 3d., and for the period ended June, 1925, it was 46. 1d.
  Here, curiously enough, we get a case which appears to be against my argument, but the point I am trying to establish is that some of these cases show quite clearly that the duty is borne by the foreigner; others show that only part of the duty is borne by the foreigner, and a third class show that it is possible for the foreigner to cast the duty on the British consumer. What we have been trying to establish for years is that this is, as I have said, a relative and not an absolute question. It depends on a large number of variable factors, and the whole basis of a scientific tariff where you are
  584
  seeking to safeguard existing industries is that it should operate in such a way that you will in fact force the burden of the duty on the foreign producer. Some of the figures I have quoted prove conclusively that this is possible, and so long as that can be proved, those who hold Free Trade views are not entitled to say blindly and without argument that the consumer must pay.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I have been listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), and I have admired its intricate analysis of certain aspects of the question under discussion, but after all that he has said and that others have said I am sure that the people who are living six to a room in my constituency, and living a life of grinding toil, will still be living six to a room, will still either be toiling in that grinding way or starving under unemployed conditions even after this Bill and other Bills of a similar nature have been passed into law. I am tired of what seems to me—and I say so with all deference to the House— the utter waste of time that has been in evidence during the discussion of these proposals. The people whom I represent and stand for are poor. They were poor when there was a Protectionist policy in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] The hon. Member does not seem to have heard of the period that forced his own party to support the policy of the abolition of the Corn Laws. People under all conditions of fiscal policy are poor, and they are poor, not because of fiscal policy, but because of the capitalist system. The hon. Member opposite spoke about the fallacies of Karl Marx, but he does not seem to realise that it was Karl Marx who, in the heyday of industrial prosperity under Free Trade, prophesied the exact conditions which he describes as existing to-day as the inevitable outcome, not of Free Trade, nor of Protection, but of a system of society and of economics based upon private monopoly.
  What I wanted to ask those Members of the Tory party who have been telling us that we have to protect ourselves— and they are very much concerned about the interests of the workers—against low paid labour and sweated conditions in foreign countries, is why they do not explain that those low paid conditions

  585
  and that sweating exist, not only in Protectionist America—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but in the Protectionist Continental countries. I meant to except from my argument the case of America for the moment, because America represents different economic conditions entirely, the condition of being a self-contained Continent, which makes a vast difference. Apart from America, I wanted to speak of the other countries. Why is it that you have to consider the question of the importation into this country of sweated goods from Protectionist Continental countries? If Protection is going to be of such advantage to the workers of this country, why is it that we have these underpaid goods coming into this country, against which we have to protect ourselves?
  To me, it seems that Protection does not mean anything but poverty to the workers, and neither does Free Trade. If we take, for instance, the 19th century, which represents a period of Protection and a period of Free Trade, we find that the total income of this country was £174,000,000 in 1800, and in 1920 it was £4,000,000,000 a year; that is, an increase of 28 times during the century and a quarter since 1800. If you take it per head of the population, you find that in 1800 it was £16 14s., and in 1920 £85 per head, an increase of five times per head of population of wealth in this country under both Protection and Free Trade.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear!
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member for Reading says, "Hear, hear," and thinks of the prosperity of the nation and this increase illustrating that prosperity as the last word on the subject. If the wealth of the nation has increased 28 times in that period, and per head of the population five times, why is it that the wages, the real purchasing power of the workers of this country, have not increased 100 per cent. during that period? The reason is because the present system is one of profit-making, a system of mad scrambling in the home and international markets for a trade—
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: What a shame!
  Mr. MONTAGUE: If the hon. Member had to live under the conditions under
  586
  which the majority of my constituents live he would be able to talk about things being shameful.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I know the conditions.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: You do not know them from practical experience.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I know them.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The point I want to impress upon the House— [Interruption,]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I would ask hon. Members not to keep on interrupting.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: From the point of view of the working classes of this country, and that is the point of view-about which I am concerned, the question of these little duties upon gas mantles and gloves and pocket knives is hardly worth considering, because the workers are bound to live under conditions of poverty and always have lived under those conditions of poverty, simply because they are a working and servile class, and while the system remains which keeps that class in subjection, all your fiscal changes will make not the slightest difference to their conditions. I said during the course of the previous Debate that the natural function of foreign trade is something very different from what the Free Traders and Tariff Reformers think it is. I want to emphasise that point once more in a slightly different way from that in which I endeavoured to emphasise it the other evening.
  I said the natural, moral, normal function of foreign trade is the exchange of a surplus of produce of the kind that we can turn out better and more efficiently by virtue of special natural and other advantages, and that all foreign trade ought to be that of such surpluses being exchanged for the mutual advantage of all countries which are concerned in those transactions. During the heyday of Free Trade it was perfectly true that we had those natural advantages, and that other nations did not possess them, but to-day other nations do possess those advantages, and they have as much right to turn out commodities and endeavour to sell them as we have. The idea that we, as a nation, can expect to be always the

  587
  market of the world is altogether economically unsound, and it is morally unsound as well, and I say that we want to base the whole of our economic system, first of all, upon the development of our own country, upon the provision from our own resources of as much as we possibly can of the essential commodities of life for the sustenance of the people of this nation, which implies also fair distribution of the produce of industry, a thing that cannot be accomplished under a system of Capitalism.
  What is the result? I say that we ought not to be concerned so much with foreign trade as we are. I do not believe we can get back our foreign trade to the relative degree that we had it in the past. I do not believe we ought to concern ourselves primarily with endeavouring to get it back under either Free Trade or Protection, at the expense of making the workers' conditions dependent upon the general economic conditions of the world. I find, from a pamphlet which has been sent to most Members of Parliament this morning by the Warrington Chamber of Commerce, that my idea expressed the other evening was not so fantastic after all. I find that this particular pamphlet says:
  "It may be suggested that, rightly or wrongly, Great Britain has attributed too much importance to foreign trade and was prepared to sacrifice everything with the object of encouraging it. In view of the present position, it might be desirable that this general policy should be reviewed, and, while seeking as far as possible to do nothing which would directly prejudice the export trade of the country, should now regard the development of the home trade as the first consideration, and make the policy of the country towards foreign trade subservient to the latter rather than make the homo trade subservient to the former."
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Gentleman mind reading the last paragraph?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member is rather too previous, because, although I was not going to read the last paragraph, I was going to admit that the purpose of this pamphlet is to support the policy of Protection.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: And is written by a Free Trader.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I am not concerned with that. That is not my point.
  HON. MEMBERS: Read it!
  Mr. BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to hear the paragraph?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not obliged to read it.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I have not the slightest objection to reading it, except that I promised Mr. Speaker I would not occupy much time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] The concluding paragraph simply supports the policy of Protection. I am not denying that. I am only saying this particular pamphlet does suggest, in spite of the remarks and laughter of some Members of the House when I made the suggestion, that it is not so fantastic as many Members imagine to suggest we are on the wrong tack when we make foreign trade our primary concern. That is the only point I wish to make with regard to that particular quotation. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), during the course of a very incisive speech, said that the home trade of this country was in a better position than it ever had been, and that the diminution of trade and employment was due to the reduction of our foreign trade. He regretted that, and said we required to get our export trade back. The suggestion was, not to concern ourselves so much with the question of the development of home trade.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: If I conveyed that impression, it certainly was not in my mind. What I said was that the immediate problem in order to find work is the restoration of the export trade.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I accept that correction. It makes no real difference to the point I wish to bring out, and that is that I do not believe you will solve the problem of unemployment as a result of extending to any great degree your export trade, because the economic conditions are so vastly different from what they were in years past. The nations to which we supplied the products of our industries are to-day producing them themselves, and also producing for neutral markets, as they are perfectly

  589
  entitled to do. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley said, in the course of an article in the "Glasgow Herald," that his definition of Free Trade was not confined to its application to free imports, but that it involved the removal of all hindrances to free production, free exchange of commodities, and the destruction of monopolies. I represent a school of thought which is neither Free Trade nor Protection. As I said the other night, both are disadvantageous to the workers of this country, for the reason I gave, that Protection means high prices and Free Trade means low wages, and both high prices and low wages are one and the same thing to the working classes. As a Socialist, I have an alternative policy. My policy is the organisation of industry, and the ultimate co-ordination of the industries of the world, and I want to take advantage of a debate upon Free Trade and Protection in order to press on the House that point of view. The whole history of trade unionism, of Socialist thought and of social reform has been to get away from the mid-Victorian laissez-faire policy of Free Trade, and the removal of hindrances to free competition, and the rest of it. The policy of Free Trade has been a policy of cheapness, in order that you should be able to get cheap food and cheap necessaries, so that your labour also might be cheap, and therefore more profits might be made by the exploiters. That is the policy of Free Trade. I am not concerned with the elaborate doctrinnaire defence of the policy of Free Trade. At any rate, I believe the Free Traders, as between the two, make by far the better case, by far the more scientific case.
  But what does it all amount to in the end? A mere question of manufacturer versus landlord in years past, then of one class of manufacturer against another class of manufacturer or middleman at the present time, and the workers suffer all the time, because the workers simply exist for the purpose of producing wealth, and not for the purpose of fairly enjoying the proceeds of industry. I want to say that with all the emphasis I can. I know points of view like that are rather unpopular in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hope they are more popular than I think they are, but I do want to say we have got Free Trade to-day, and there is an appalling
  590
  amount of poverty and unemployment. What is the use of talking about gas mantles, pocket knives, and trivialities of that character, when I find the greatest poverty under conditions of Free Trade? I am perfectly sure duties upon gas mantles and pocket knives will not relieve that poverty.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just, sat down into a discussion of the relative merits of the capitalist system and the .Socialist system, which he would like to see introduced, nor will I endeavour to reconcile the very divergent point of view which he expressed and the point of view expressed earlier in the Debate by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). It is obvious that those points of view cannot be reconciled. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the export trade is not of the very greatest importance. If he can explain to the House on some other occasion how it would be possible to pay for the enormous quantities of food and raw material which this country will always have to import, without a large export trade, I am sure the House would be glad to hear it.
  I approach this subject, I am bound to confess, with a very open mind. I do not, share the apostolic fervour of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) for Protection. Nor can I feel the almost religious enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley or the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) in their advocacy of free imports. It has always seemed to me to be a question entirely of expediency. On the facts of the case, I must say it impresses me very strongly that this country, which is a Free Trade country, has a larger proportion of unemployed than any other country of similar size or standing in the world, and that in America, which is a Protectionist country, higher wages are paid, and the general standard of life is higher than in any other country. That impresses me, looking at the present question as I do with an impartial mind, more than any Free Trade or Protectionist theory, but I am bound to say that I have listened to a great many speeches during the course of the Debates both on this Bill and on the Resolutions which led up

  591
  to it, and I am still somewhat in the position of one who is willing to be converted to either side on the main question of Protection against Free Trade.
  I should like to put to advocates of Free Trade one or two questions, and I hope that either to-night or on a future occasion they may favour me with an answer. We are constantly being told that it does not matter how large your imports are, the larger they are the better, because they must be paid for by exports. I presume that means, of course, that the word "exports" includes what are usually known as invisible exports, as well as the export of goods. If it be true that, no matter how large your imports are, they will be paid for by exports, it seems to me that there can be no such thing as an adverse trade balance. Yet that is a theory in economics which we have always been led to believe is true, namely, that it is possible that there should be an adverse trade balance against a country. I put it to hon. Members in order that they may explain to me on some future occasion whether it is not possible that, if you have too large an excess of imports, you end by paying for them by living on your capital, and, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) said, the end of that is that your imports automatically decrease, because you have got nothing with which to pay for them. If that problem can be explained to me, I should be very grateful to any hon Member who can show me how the theory, that you may increase imports to an unlimited extent without damaging the country, is possible.
  In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, in both speeches which he has addressed to the House on the subject—and I always listen to his speeches with the greatest interest and pleasure, apart from any partisan feeling which he may put into his speeches—has laid emphasis on the fact that the imposition of a tariff on any class of goods will lead to fiercer competition in the neutral markets by the countries against whom the tariff is placed. Is it really thought that it needs any tariff on our part to cause, say, Germany or America to compete more fiercely with us in neutral markets? It
  592
  seems to me that that competition is as fierce as it can be. Whereas those countries have the advantage of starting with two certain markets, their own and this country's free market, whereby to reduce their overhead charges and then compete with us in neutral markets with great success, we have no assured market with which to increase our output and to reduce our overhead charges, and therefore it seems to me that to say that to put a tariff on, say, against Germany, will make her compete more fiercely with us in neutral countries, is fallacious. You may create a desire in Germany to compete more fiercely in neutral markets, but it will not create in Germany the capacity to compete more successfully in neutral markets than she does now,
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I did not make my point clear, or else the hon. Member has misunderstood me. What I said was that if this market be closed, then the country which has sent any particular import into this country will continue to produce, and therefore their competition in that particular article in other countries will become more intense.
  Sir F. MEYER: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think I did misunderstand him; my point is that though that country will endeavour to continue to produce, having one market hitherto open to her now closed she will find it more difficult to produce so cheaply as she did in the past. Therefore it will be rather an advantage to us than a disadvantage, however hard she may try to compete with us in the neutral markets. One other point I would like to bring out, that is the solicitude which the party opposite has on this occasion displayed for a class which I may describe as the merchant class. I have always understood from the speeches and the writings of hon. Members above the Gangway that the class they considered the most important in the community was the worker, who produced all the wealth; some also agree that the employer who directly employs that workman, and puts his capital into it, is until such a time as a Socialist State comes into being, performing a useful function and does some service to the State. I have always heard them contend that the man who merely buys as cheap as he can in one market and sells as dearly as he can in

  593
  another market is a mere excrescence on the country. He does no good to the country. Yet we have the right hon. Gentleman saying, and on previous occasions other hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite saying, that these proposed tariffs and other tariffs are going to injure seriously the merchant trade in this country. To me it is something new that there should be such solicitude for that, according to them, unnecessary class, as against the, worker and the employer whom we are hoping to protect even in a small way by these duties.
  Finally, I do think that all supporters of the present system of free imports ought to be very grateful to us for bringing in this small measure of Protection I quite candidly admit that there is no distinction between safeguarding and Protection. I do think there is a difference between safeguarding and a general tariff, but to safeguard an industry is to protect the industry; to pretend anything else is mere juggling with words. I think the light hon. Gentleman ought to be very grateful. I hope all the hon. Gentlemen opposite are duly grateful. Hitherto they have preached theories; they have told the country that a tariff will raise prices, will not improve employment, and will diminish the general wealth of the country. They have told the country that, but, since 1846 they have never been able to prove it. Now they have got their opportunity. In five years' time they will be able to go to the country and say: Here are those duties that have been in existence for five years, and cutlery is dearer, and gas mantles are dearer, and there is no more employment. Look what Protection has done!" What a splendid argument against increasing it after the next General Election. So I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman for Colne Valley and the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Leith are grateful to us for the small Measure we are introducing. I do not profess to be optimistic enough to hope that, if prices do not rise in these industries, and if unemployment in these industries is partly removed, that he will be converted, because I look upon him as, shall I say, the Casabianca of free imports. Alone upon the burning deck he would stand deserted by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Carmarthen
  594
  (Sir A. Mond), Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). Alone he stands, alone like brave Horatius. Still, I hope that he and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and all other supporters of free: imports, will be duly grateful to us for the opportunity we give to them that at the end of the five years they will have some solid ground of facts on which to found their theories.
  Captain BENN: We are deeply grateful to the graceful and charming speech to which we have just listened and which has adorned the Debate. We are reminded that Horatius kept the bridge, but. I would also remind the hon. Baronet that the enemy did not get over the bridge. In the reference to Casabianca, too, hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps need to be reminded that instead of standing on the deck, they propose to set the ship on fire! I would commend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are glad to see on the benches, that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down admitted that there was no distinction between safeguarding and Protection. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the remarks that he is going to make in winding up the Debate will deal with that aspect of the case— that there is no distinction between safeguarding and Protection.
  Mr. B. PETO: Quote the whole of it!
  Sir F. MEYER: I would explain for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman that what I did say was that though there was no difference between safeguarding and Protection, there was a difference between safeguarding and a general tariff.
  Captain BENN: Yes, but the speech of the hon. Gentleman was devoted to showing that Protection was an excellent thing. It would be interesting to know whether, if there were another secret Session, how hon. Members would subsequently report what had been stated, or what they had said on some of these points. It has been explained by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is not a step in the direction of Protection at all. That is exactly what we want to know. The question that we have put, and which we should like to see answered, is, if this

  595
  Measure of safeguarding is a good thing, why should it not be given to every industry in the country?
  HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
  Captain BENN: That is what hon. Members opposite say. Let them frankly go to the country and put these things before the country. That is exactly what they dare not do. They did put their remedy before the country, and we know the result. Let me now take the method of procedure with which this thing has been done. Our objection has been slightly misunderstood. Our complaint of these proposed duties is that they are not, as they have been for many years ago put into one budget. This House has had, up to now, the opportunity of making an annual review of taxation. Our complaint is that we have not that opportunity in this case. This is the first of the Debates which has been attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is alone responsible for proposing the scheme of taxation that is to be imposed upon the people of the country. It was not the intention of the Government to adopt this procedure. The Prime Minister said earlier that taxes should be put into the Budget. As lately as Friday we were told that to-day we would be considering Finance (No. 2) Bill. We protested, and were told that this Finance Bill would give us the chance that we desired. Then later we discovered that this Bill was not, in accordance with immemorial practice, brought: forward by a Minister representing the Treasury, for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade taking us all by surprise, produced another Bill, the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Bill. This is the first Bill for imposing taxes that I have seen that has not the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means on the back of it. It all indicates that the intention is what we have stated it to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech on the Budget in May; but does he know that the President of the Board of Trade has been telling the brush people and others to "hurry up"? Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in control of the cash box, be really brought into it? Why should not the Office of Works introduce a Taxation Bill? Why should not the
  596
  Minister of Agriculture introduce a Taxation Bill? [An HON. MEMBER: "On hops and barley!"]
  Let us recognise once and for all that what has been the excellent practice of this House, namely, that we should have one annual review of the expenditure, and one Minister primarily responsible for deciding on behalf of the Government what taxes it is intended to put on, seems to have been abandoned. The President of the Board of Trade gave us a picture of the harmony that exists on the Treasury Bench. The subject of harmony is one in which we on these benches are, of course, interested! I do not know, however, whether the President of the Board of Trade would indicate by some gesture assent or dissent to what I propose to ask. Is he a Protectionist? Of course, he is a Protectionist. He is a full-blooded, fully fledged, whole-hogger, if that is not an offensive expression. Is there agreement on this subject between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If, for example, it were to be said by someone "that the Prime Minister is an unknown man asking for a blank cheque," would the President of the Board of Trade agree with that?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should say that it was a lie!
  Captain BENN: Perhaps, however, we may take some consolation in this matter, that the general spread of harmony is not quite so universal as the President of the Board of Trade seems to make out. Of course, this Second Reading Debate is just a preliminary expression of the opposition we intend to offer against these duties when the Bill gets into Committee. But I would like to inquire, in view of the many speeches we have had, whether some of the old-time questions have been answered? For example, what is the objection to putting a tax on steel or on corn? Is there only prejudice? Would those who have the courage to stand up against prejudice, if they followed their natural bent, put a tax upon steel or corn? What about the foreigner paying? The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who made, as I think, a very able speech, scouted "the idea that the foreigner does not pay all or part of the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reply, and I

  597
  will quote to the House what he thinks on this subject. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the leader of the hon. Member for Reading, said:
  "If they really believe, as so many Protectionists assure us, that the foreigner pays the tax, why should they exempt bread and meat and bacon and all the rest of it from their taxes; for if the foreigner will pay a duty on steel, leather or wool or more highly-manufactured goods, why does he not pay the tax on meat and wheat? What a man this foreigner is."
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What is the date of that?
  Captain BENN: November, 1923.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I point out that the figures I quoted relate to subsequent events with which, probably, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not acquainted.
  Captain BENN: The answer is that the nature of the foreigner has changed, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was nut familiar with the mass of information which the hon. Member for Reading possesses. Let me read on, because it is much more; pleasant to the House to hear quotations from this eloquence than it is to hear anything I can say:
  "What a man this foreigner is! What a delightful fellow! He will pay the duty on steel all right, but when it comes to food he will have nothing to do." No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will enlighten one of his followers, the hon. Member for Heading, when he makes his speech.
  I come to another point. We have constantly said that we regard the imposition of this duty as a breach of a pledge. Let us make it quite clear what pledge has been broken. We say that when the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade came before the House with this scheme, they made certain definite pledges. They said: "If an industry is going to have the advantage of this tariff, it must be able to prove"—those were the words of the Prime Minister, and the operative word was "must"; and the President of the Board of Trade says: "It has to prove certain things." Then they put a number of conditions, which were joined together, not by the word "or," but by the conjunction "and." They said they must prove that wages and hours are low, that exchange is depreciated, and that the
  598
  industry is suffering from other circumstances. I do not want to go into these duties in detail, because we shall have many days in which to discuss the details when the Committee stage is reached, but will the President of the Board of Trade, who promised that no industry should have a tariff unless it proved these things, say now that these industries have proved these things? That is where we say the pledge has been broken. We object to a tariff in any case, on other grounds which we have submitted, but we object to it on the ground of a breach of pledge.
  Let me take two simple instances of breach of faith—razor blades and shears, everyday articles which are in the schedule of the Bill. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the razors which have come over here from America are produced in a country with a depreciated exchange? Not at all. If anything, the American exchange is at a slight premium. Does the President of the Board of Trade say that wages paid in America are lower or that the hours are longer than here? He says nothing of the kind; and yet though he promised us he would not give a tariff unless those things were proved he now comes forward to propose a tariff. Then take the case of tailors' shears, the raw material, or lather the machinery, of a very large industry. A man came before one of these Committees and asked permission to give evidence about the production of these shears in America. He was refused a hearing. The Chairman said he represented one of those foreigners—a merchant—one of those people who brought so much destruction on the trade of the country—he was a merchant. He was turned away. What was the evidence he was going to give? It was that whereas wages in the cutlery trade in Sheffield are, I think I am right in saying, about 1s. 6d. an hour, men in America making these shears were getting 3s. 8d. to 4s. an hour.
  Mr. REMER: Under Protection.
  Mr. B. PETO: The shears cannot cut both ways.
  Captain BENN: Let us try to see if we can meet the hon. Gentleman's argument. Let us first deal with the pledge. The pledge was that they should not have a duty unless wages are lower. In that case

  599
  the wages are treble the wages in this country, and yet they get a duty. Let me ask the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) if that is a breach of the pledge? Of course, he cannot say.
  Mr. PETO: You cannot deal with the subject by simply taking one item.
  Captain BENN: The same thing could be said of thousands of other articles. Are we going to bring in everything else?
  Mr. PETO: It is not a duty upon shears made in America. It is a duty upon a vast number of articles.
  Captain BENN: When I said just now, Why not bring in everything else? the hon. Member for Reading says "We shall."
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Oh, no!
  Mr. PETO: Do not deal with one article only. [Interruption.]
  Captain BENN: It is no good an hon. Member replying to me with an unintelligible phrase. We are dealing with the pledge given by the Prime Minister. The pledge has been cut by the shears. As regards the other question, the hon. Member knows quite well that the United States of America are the largest Free Trade area in the whole world. I do not want to occupy more than my share of time, but let me take another example, mantles. In the case of mantles, the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade said these conditions as to wages and exchange must be fulfilled, and then the President comes to the Committee and says, "You have got to put a duty on mantles because I say they are necessary for our safety in the next war." That may or may not be a sound argument, but it is a breach of the pledge that certain conditions have to be fulfilled. There is no objection to the President of the Board of Trade having Committees. A Committee of Members is sitting now under the chairmanship of the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) pressing upon the President of the Board of Trade, as I understand it, a steel duty. The status of that Committee is exactly the same as the status of these other Committees which the President has set up. Sometimes these Committees hear evi-
  600
  dence and reject it, but we have absolutely no status in this House on the matter, and it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend these proposals. Even on the Advisory Committee they are told to examine into certain aspects of the case, and they are also informed that they are not permitted to receive evidence from the consumers, who, after all, are the most interested class of all. Every time we ask about the consumer we are told that the House of Commons represents the consumer. If that is so, then the case for the duty and the evidence upon which it is based should be met in the House of Commons. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade pushing into this House this effigy of the Committee, because the right hon. Gentleman has to make out his case to this House. I certainly think it is a great historic occasion to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing a line of distinguished statesmen, starting to undo the work which was done 80 years ago by distinguished Conservative Ministers, who swept away hundreds of these twopenny-halfpenny duties in the interests of the people of this country. If we had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer reintroducing the Paper Duty to-night that would certainly have completed the picture.
  What are the Government promising the traders? They are promising them security. They say to them, "Do not bother about finding a market where you can sell your goods, and do not bother about efficiency, because we are going to give you something better: we are going to give you power to bleed the consumers in this country." What is the security? It is five years. Long before that time elapses the operation of the Quinquennial Act will have driven this Government to the country. There is a Free Trade majority at the present moment in this House, and if there is any cause for rejoicing there are two things to look forward to with pleasure. The first is that these duties will all be repealed by the ensuing Government, and the second is that by introducing these duties the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are signing the doom of their own party.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I have been reading a speech male by the Chancellor of the Exchequer many years ago. and I

  601
  am bound to say that he was something of a prophet at that time. This is what he said:
  "The Tory party is the party of vested interests, banded together in a powerful combination, with corruption at home and aggression abroad to cover it up, with the trickery of tariff juggling and the tyranny of a party machine, with sentiment by the bucketful and patriotism by the Imperial pint, with the open hand at the Exchequer and the open door at the public-house, with dear food for the millions and cheap labour for the millionaire."
  10.0 P.M.
  I think that was an excellent description of the special attributes of the Conservative party with which he is now associated. I believe almost every sentence of that splendid example of the phraseology of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be applied to the policy which he is going to defend to-night. It is a policy in the interests of vested interests, it is a policy of corruption, and it is a breach of faith because the Government are taking industry after industry and introducing Protection by the back door. That is why we charge the party opposite with a breach of faith, and it is a splendid example of what has been described in America as specialised legislation to pick out an industry here and there and give them a special concession instead of a general policy for the whole community. That is corruption of the worst kind. It is rather remarkable to be returning to a demand of industry for Protection, at a time when trusts, combines, and price-fixing associations are growing so rapidly in this country. As a matter of fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on more than one occasion that trusts and price-fixing associations can hardly hope to flourish unless they are bolstered up by tariffs. It is rather significant that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has told us that the President of the Board of Trade did not think it was a good policy to introduce at the same-time as this Bill a Measure to deal with trusts and combines and price-fixing associations. I am hoping that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply specifically to what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) as to how far he thinks the Government intend going on with this policy of imposing duties here and there before he considers that there will be an interference with the pledge given by the
  602
  Prime Minister. I also want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the Cabinet he objected to the application of the iron and steel trades?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course I cannot go into any details of Cabinet meetings.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Would it be right for me to suggest that it was owing to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the application of the iron and steel trades was sent to the Civil Research Committee as a way out of the difficulty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There has never been any precedent in this House for putting a question about the interior discussions of the Cabinet. Certainly whatever precedents may exist in favour of asking such questions, there is no precedent in any decently organised Cabinet for giving an answer.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I judge from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman has fairly strong opinions about this matter which has been referred to a packed Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] —to prevent the case of a great industry like the iron and steel trade being heard. I wonder whether the Chancellor has seen the case issued on behalf of the light steel industry in regard to that application. I have here a case submitted to us signed by 23 firms in the light steel industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] Some Members of the House have expressed their surprise at a Member for Sheffield opposing a tariff on cutlery. Perhaps they will be surprised to learn at the same time that two of these firms are most important Sheffield firms, who are raising specific objections to the whole policy of safeguarding and Protection. One is the Sheffield Forge and Rolling Mills Company. The other is John Wood & Sons, Limited, actually with works in my own constituency.
  The case put by the light steel industry answers completely most of the speeches from the other side of the House. They point out that they are absolutely certain from their experience that if duties of this kind are put on, then their export trade is going to be seriously interfered with. I suggest that those 23 firms—very important firms—know their own business best in this particular matter. I am perfectly certain that the case they put

  603
  up is a far sounder case than the case we have had put up by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. They say:
  "The provision of selling products under the tariff would be in the hands of a limited number of firms, and it is quite obvious from the experience which the steel trade has of price maintenance associations that a semi-trust association would come into existence."
  And they would be hit accordingly. That is what is going to raise the prices. Members on the other side have continually said that a tariff of this kind would not raise the price and would not affect the export trade. All the evidence we get from people like the light steel industry is in exactly the opposite direction, and is also proved by actual experience.
  On the same point I must point out some facts to hon. Members on the other side of the House, especially the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). The fact of increasing imports does not necessarily mean worse trade or more unemployment. I have here the figures of the iron and steel trade of Sheffield between 1900 and 1913. Hon. Members should remember that in 1909 all the things were being said about the ruin of British industry by Free Trade that Members on the other side have been saying for the last 10 days. Well, from 1909 to 1913 the imports of iron and steel into this country increased from 1,250,000 to 2,343,000 tons. Did unemployment increase? The trade union records of unemployment show that it decreased from 7·7 per cent. to 2·2 per cent., although the actual import of iron and steel doubles. I do not think there could have been a finer illustration of the point made against his own party this evening by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil))—
  Sir F. MEYER: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I deprecate interruption.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The other point is that in spite of those increasing imports of iron and steel we see that the export of iron and steel increased by 1,000,000 tons during that period. It seems to me that there is no case at all for the Government to ask for a tariff upon the industries included in this Bill on the Reports of the Committees. I want to
  604
  say one or two words about some of the points made by the President of the Board of Trade during the Debates on the Ways and Means Resolution. First of all, he said that what had been exercising his mind was how he could correct the enormously increasing adverse balance of trade.
  "How can we export more than we are exporting at the present time?"
  I cannot understand that point of view being put by him when we find that Schedule 2 of the Bill applies the provisions of the previous Finance Act. This allows merchants who import articles on re-export to reclaim the duty. Secondly, however, manufacturers here using raw material, as in the case of razor blades and gloves, have to pay the duty which they cannot reclaim on re-exporting. How is that going to affect the problem he spoke of, of righting the adverse trade balance? I believe it will have no effect at all.
  I was attacked the other night for daring to suggest about the cutlery industry of my own city that it was inefficient. I gave actual extracts from the report of the medical officer of health and of the inspector of factories which I thought were conclusive, but one hon. Member, whose home is in Sheffield, said there were only 160 workers affected by the bad conditions in the factories to which I drew attention. I am reinforced by answers given to-day, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow in reply to questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Cecil Wilson). The inspector of factories, according to these answers, reports that the number of tenement factories in Sheffield is 99, and that there are approximately 2,500 persons employed in them. In other words, rather more than one-third of the total number of persons at present employed in the cutlery industry are employed in tenement factories. In another answer the Home Office say:
  "Placard copies of the now Regulations for the grinding of cutlery and edged tools will be issued to 1,619 occupiers in Sheffield: 1,354 of these are engaged in cutlery work."
  Here is an industry employing, according to the President of the Board of Trade, between 7,000 and 8,000 people. The Home Secretary tells us to-day that there are over 1,300 using factories and work-

  605
  shops. Can it be said that that industry can be made efficient to meet competition from abroad? Surely, it cannot be argued from those figures. Then, if I may, I want to say a word or two about the general question, of hours and conditions. One of the conditions laid down in the White Paper is that the industries which succeed in getting a tariff under this procedure should be subject to unfair competition from abroad. When I quoted, the other night, an extract from the Report on the Economic Conditions in Germany, issued by the Board of Trade, the President of the Board of Trade rather doubted, as I thought from his answer, that the facts were being given. I have here a copy of a letter from the Chamber of Commerce at Solingen, in which they say:
  "In reply to your inquiry, we beg to inform you that at the present time the workers in the Solingen cutlery industry are, as far as their working hours are con-corned, subject to the legal regulations in accordance with those set down on the 23rd December, 1923"—
  that is to say, the 48-hour week. That Is the view given to us by the Solingen Chamber of Commerce.
  Another point that was made was that we were subject to very unfair competition from abroad because of the superior financial position in which German industry found itself because of the writing off of debentures and other liabilities at the time of inflation. Let us look at the position of these German industries which are giving us such unfair competition, according to hon. Members. Here is a record of bankruptcies—a very good indication, I suggest, of what the state of the country is. In June, 1925, there were 766 bankruptcies and 328 receiverships. In July there were 797 bankruptcies, in August 751, in September 914, while in November the number had increased to no fewer than 1,345. Who can suggest, therefore, that German industry is so flourishing, from the point of view of having got rid of its liabilities, that it is going to be capable of creating very unfair competition with our industries in this country? I suggest that the Government have not made out their case from that point of view either.
  I now want to say a word or two about the effect of the attitude of the Government, in this policy of theirs, upon inter-
  606
  national relationships. The President of the Board of Trade, in replying the other night, did not, I thought, pay quite enough attention to what had gone before in this matter. It is true that I referred specifically to the spirit of the Locarno Pact; but, on this policy of increasing artificial barriers between this country and other countries. I would ask the House to give some attention to what happened at Geneva this year, and also to what was done at the Brussels International Conference some four or five years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the financial policy of the Government this year, returned arbitrarily to the gold standard—
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: Gold exchange.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It may be called the gold exchange, but in any case what I am going to say will not make any difference, because at the Brussels Conference—and I rather fancy the President of the Board of Trade was present; I think he was then in charge of the Overseas Trade Department—a resolution was passed which stated that, if we were to get back to a proper position of international equilibrium and stability, every artificial barrier between nations, preventing the exchange of goods and services, should be removed. That was the resolution of the International Conference. This year that has been followed by, as I think, very important speeches by M. Loucheur and others at Geneva, to the effect that, instead of going about a plan of this kind to increase artificial barriers between the nations, this country, in common with others connected with the League, should unite in an International Economic Conference with a view to settling their differences, not on the basis of creating further economic strife by tariffs, but on a basis of world economic co-operation. I want to put it to the Government to-night that it would have been far better, having regard to what took place at Geneva this year, that they should have waited until at least the preparatory committee which is proposed as a result of this year's Geneva Conference had been set up, and that they might have been assisted towards laying a foundation of permanent peace.
  I am anxious not to take too much time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Those who have sat right through a

  607
  Debate dealing with an important financial matter of this kind have a right not to be shut up in that way. I am trying to get through, more hurriedly than I wanted to, in order to meet the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am anxious to do that, but that is not the way to encourage it. I specially want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because he will be consulted on this at a later stage, to the kind of suggestion that is made for an International Economic Conference. M. Loudon said:
  "The problem of security and disarmament was closely bound up with that of the world's economic relations. M. Loucheur had very rightly observed that the most frequent cause of wars seemed to be the economic struggle between nations. Nations must co-operate if they are to avert the economic anarchy which threatens us all."
  On top of that, the Belgian delegate said:
  "It cannot be denied that the economic world to-day is evolving along lines quite opposed to disarmament, and the task of the League of Nations is not merely to readjust but to convert. As the representative of a small industrial State I venture to lay stress upon the dangers of Protection."
  There is one of our Allies, one of those moving along the new economic path, and yet at the very moment that is developing the Government, whilst giving verbal assent to that proposal at Geneva, are plotting to increase the number of artificial barriers between the nations of the earth. It is most unfortunate to embark on that policy. In our Amendment we suggest that there are other ways of dealing with unemployment than by introducing Protective tariffs. I am a convinced and unrelenting Free Trader. I expect some of my hon. Friends would not go all the way in that direction, but although the President of the Board of Trade tried to make a special appeal to them, he will find that there is no difference of opinion on our benches as to what is the real cause of unemployment. It has been said many and many a time in my hearing that to propose tariffs for the cure of unemployment is to apply a plaster to a wooden leg, and that is really the view of hon. Members on these benches.
  We believe the whole problem of the world to-day is not a problem of produc-
  608
  tion. We believe that with modern inventions and developments, problems of production have been practically settled. The problem is how to relate consumption to the increasing powers of production. I am gad that M. Loucheur at Geneva suggested that that should be one of the problems to be considered in the world economic conference. How are you going to help to relate the problem of consumption to increased production by putting on tariffs? You are going to actually assist in reducing the consumption of the nation. We take the point of view—and there will be a day, I think, when we shall be able to bring our views to a proper fruition—when what the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) feared will come about when he warned the party opposite not to do anything which would prevent them from getting the votes of the moderate Liberals. He knows better perhaps than anyone that the policy the Government are embarking upon at present is the policy most likely to bring them down. He was associated with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, 20 years ago, in opposition to the Government of the day pursuing a policy like this, when it did not know, whilst Birmingham was preaching its policy, whether the policy was to be whole-hogger or only retaliation. When that controversy was going on in their party, the Noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were opposed to the fallacies of Protection, whether on the basis of retaliators or as whole-hoggers. The Noble Lord could speak in the brilliant way he spoke this afternoon, from the point of view of one who could say, "I told you so." He, with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, warned the Government of the day that they would go down. He warned the Government on the occasion when the present Prime Minister went to Plymouth and said that unemployment would never be cured if they went on pottering about and came back and asked for a measure of Protection. The Noble Lord warned them of defeat at that time. He has warned them of defeat now. This thing is most likely to bring the Government down, and the Noble Lord knows that when that happens there is no alternative before the country except that the party on these benches should put their policy

  609
  into operation. That is why he spoke in the way he did this afternoon.
  We have a remedy other than tariffs for dealing with the problems of relating consumption to the increased powers of production. Production outpaces consumption all the time for the reason that the workers are poor because they are robbed, and they are robbed because they are poor. When they have worked to produce wealth they get such a poor share of the wealth they produce that they are unable to buy even the goods which they produce by their own labour. The failure, in consequence, of their purchasing power, prevents consumption from keeping pace with production. Until we move to a state of society in which there is greater justice in the distribution of the products of industry, so that labour gets its fair reward and its purchasing power if properly maintained, we shall never have a cure for the problem of unemployment. There is coming a time when we shall have no longer to tinker about with tariffs of this kind, of which I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is thoroughly ashamed; but we shall be able to move to a real, sane, ordered system of society and industry in which the worker in the community will get a proper return for his labour, and his purchasing power will solve the problem of maintaining consumption with production.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We have been gradually getting some distance away from the Bill which is now under the consideration of the House. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) in the extremely powerful, far-reaching and expansive peroration of his speech. If I have not been present at all the Debates that have taken place on this Bill and the Financial Resolutions which wore necessary before it was introduced, it certainly was not out of any want of respect to the House, nor, I trust, out of any want of diligence in the discharge of my duty. Nor was it out of any abrogation of responsibilities which are inherent with the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am responsible for every duty which is proposed in this House, in a peculiar degree, and as long as I have the honour to hold my present office no duty will be proposed in this House which I am not prepared wholeheartedly to
  610
  defend. But when the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) charged me the other night with being guilty of ca' canny in leaving the Chamber, I really think that his definition was not accurate. There is no ca' canny about the proper division of labour. On the contrary, for two or three men to be sitting about looking on while another perfectly well qualified person discharges a job, is much nearer ca' canny.
  I am not going to deal with the details of these duties, because they have been exhaustively discussed in the last few days and are going to be exhaustively discussed, I have no doubt, in the latter part of our proceedings. Neither am I going, except indirectly, to touch on the large general issues which arise on the well-worn and well-studied controversy of Free Trade or Protection. I am going to devote myself, in the main, to a far more specific issue, an issue stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) in his speech this evening, in his charge of a breach of faith —an issue stated in much more detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who has been very mild to-day. As the controversy has extended on this Bill, his attitude has become modified, or, if his attitude has not become modified, the expression which he has given to his feelings has become considerably modified. But the right hon. Gentleman made a grave charge against the Government at the opening of these Debates. He said that the Government were engaged in a deliberate and carefully designed plan to use the huge majority behind them to upset the long-established fiscal system of the country and to impose upon this land, in violation of the wishes of the people, a system of Protection. That is not true.
  I do not think that the House can do justice to this situation without looking back for a moment on the past- sequence of events. Let us look back, then, to 1918. In 1918 there was fought an election at which the principle of safeguarding, of anti-dumping as it was called, was affirmed, not only by the Conservative party, but by 140 members of the Liberal party, including at least half the present leaders of that party. The conditions which governed that safeguarding policy,

  611
  subsequently embodied in the Act, were, first of all, that the Duties should be exceptional; secondly, that they should be temporary; and, thirdly, that they should be Duties discriminating against particular countries and not large Duties of a general character. When the Labour Government was in power this Act lapsed —all except the anti-dumping provisions. The Government then in power approved its lapsing. That policy was strongly controverted by the Conservative party, who protested against the Act being allowed to lapse and declared that if they had power they would revive and new that Measure.
  At the same time the Prime Minister —who was then Leader of the Conservative party and of the Opposition—made a most clear statement to the country that he would not institute a general tariff, that he accepted the verdict of the country at the Election of 1923, and that he would not utilise this safeguarding procedure as a means of introducing or creating a general tariff in this country. As a result of his appeal a very large majority was given to the right hon. Gentleman. I tried a year ago to state in a sentence as well as one could, the fiscal policy which we considered was sustained by that majority. It was: safeguarding without a general tariff and Imperial Preference without protective duties on food. It is no use partisans saying they will take half of that policy which they like and reject half which they do not like. That is the policy as it stands, as a whole, and it must be accepted and enforced so far as we have power, both in its positive and its negative side. No sooner had the Government come into office than they found themselves in the presence of a draft Treaty with Germany. The five years period in which Germany was bound by the Treaty of Versailles had expired and she was able to resent any discriminating duties imposed against her. It was, therefore, quite clear that irreconcilable antagonism existed between the discriminating duties which had hitherto constituted the safeguarding policy and the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause which was the foundation not only of our commercial policy but also the foundation of the Treaty which we signed with Germany.
  612
  That being so, when the Government signed that Treaty with Germany, they annihilated altogether the possibility of employing discriminating duties, and as a matter of fact, the state of the world was such and all our arrangements were such, that all our commercial treaties would have been vitiated by a continuance of that policy after the first five years which followed the War. We therefore adopted the principle of safeguarding by means of general duties. There is something anomalous about that because a country in which conditions may not be open to criticism is involved in a duty which is imposed because of competition arising from countries where the conditions are unfavourable. But there was no other alternative unless the whole policy of safeguarding was to be abandoned. Do not let us quarrel about terminology. What is a general duty? A general duty is a duty imposed in respect of a particular commodity from all countries whence it originates. What is a general tariff? A general tariff is an aggregation of general duties sufficiently large to constitute a general occupation of the whole field or the main part of the field of imports into any country. , Whereas, so long as safeguarding expressed itself in discriminating duties there might be no limit as to the number of duties, so long as the prescribed conditions were observed, a new situation supervened as soon as the general duty was adopted because it was quite clear that if a certain number of general duties had been imposed the pledge against a, general tariff would be affected. There-fore, when we decided to adopt general duties, or shortly after we came to that decision, we also thought it necessary to alter the procedure of safeguarding. The procedure had been to pass a Bill giving general powers, omnibus powers as it were, and then to carry the duties through by the shortened procedure of a simple Resolution, after it had been laid on the Table for so many days.
  But when we decided to move into the general duties as against the discriminating duties, we thought it also right to revert to the old, traditional, Parliamentary procedure of inviting separate sanction, under all the elaborate restrictions of our financial procedure in each particular case. I think that both these decisions were right and straightforward.

  613
  I am sure that it would have been madness to wreck our most-favoured-nation policy by insisting upon discriminating duties, and I am certain that the presenting of each duty separately to the House, under all the forms of financial procedure, is not only a strict interpretation of our pledge, not only a respectful attitude toward the financial traditions of the House, but it is also a sure guarantee against our being drawn beyond our pledge in this Parliament. The Liberal party particularly, instead of welcoming this new procedure which we adopted— this old procedure, I should say, to which we reverted—broke into a most loud and angry outcry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, for instance, was consumed with indignation because we had not proceeded with a Safeguarding of Industries Bill, but if we had proceeded with such a Bill, he would have had scarcely any opportunity of resisting the present taxes which are now passing through the House.
  The procedure we adopted, at the cost of so much time and trouble, was adopted out of a sincere respect for the traditions and procedure of this House, and also with the scrupulous intention of avoiding any breach or pledge, and yet it is this very procedure which was the cause, on his part, of the most extreme, complaint. Why, one of the reasons why these charges of bad faith—which form so much of the stock-in-trade, I will not say of those who have spoken in this Debate, but which have formed so much of their arguments in other Debates, and form a large portion of the criticism we meet with in the Press—make so little impression upon these benches, awake no echo of self-reproach in our bosoms, is because we have had them all before, in regard to the dropping of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which Act we dropped only out of a more scrupulous desire to observe our pledges.
  From the moment that we decided to adopt the full financial procedure for safeguarding duties, the necessity for any formal public inquiry passed away. Who has ever questioned the right of a Government to propose, by the regular financial procedure, any tax that it might think fit? Who has ever questioned the right of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that? It is the duty of a Government
  614
  to make inquiries, private inquiries, official inquiries, secret inquiries, into every question which ultimately emerges in legislation. It is their duty to satisfy , the House that their proposals are sound, it is their duty to satisfy the House that there is no breach of pledge, and the Parliamentary procedure for dealing with financial Bills is specially and admirably adapted for that purpose, but so long as that financial procedure is in force there is absolutely no need for any White Paper or for any special or formal inquiries such as are being held.
  Why, then, have we not only followed the traditional procedure, but, in addition, adhered to the system of public inquiries? It is because we consider our- selves limited in our safeguarding policy by exceptional conditions. That is an essential condition of our policy, and we have no intention of being placed in a position where it might be supposed in the country that anything like a general rule is to be established by industries who claim to come under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Therefore we have gone out of our way, not only to adopt the financial procedure, but also to maintain the special procedure of inquiry. The old method was to abridge the procedure in this House. Now we have the full financial procedure, and, in addition, the inquiry. And yet, when we have adopted all These Measures, the Opposition complain of the procedure we have adopted, even although it is one which gives double, or even more than double, security against fiscal change I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, Are they quite sure they are proceeding in the best interests of Free Trade in threatening to use this procedure in the most ruthless fashion?
  I certainly agree that every financial proposal should undergo the most searching examination at the hands of the House; but when the right hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, plainly indicates an intention—I will not say to obstruct, because that would not be Parliamentary—but an intention to use all resources, and to attempt to resist the will of the House other than by argument, and to carry his point by adding to the physical inconvenience of Members, to use these resources of procedure to the very utmost,

  615
  I am bound to say I think they run the risk of arousing a demand that the procedure should be simplified at some time or other. But, after all, what is the real position? The Liberal party—I hope they will permit me to say what I have to say; I do not wish to add by any words of mine to any pain which they may feel— but by their decision in January, 1924, to place the Socialist party in office, the Liberal party abdicated their position as the great defenders of the Free Trade system. Consequently they have deprived themselves of effectual power to defend Free Trade, and if His Majesty's Government were really rogues, if we were really engaged, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, in a deliberate and carefully designed plan to upset the long-established fiscal system of the country, if we were really engaged in such a conspiracy, and such a treacherous and dishonourable proceeding, if we proposed to carry a general traiff, either at a stroke or in several instalments, nothing that the Liberal party could do, and nothing that the Free Trade members of the Labour party—of whom, I believe, there are a good many—could do- could prevent us carrying our fell purpose into effect. The Government could quite easily introduce a Bill next year, pass the Safeguarding of Industries Bill through the House, and thereafter they could set up as many inquiries as they liked, compose the committees of those inquiries as they chose, lay the results of those inquiries in shoals, in droves, and in batches on the Table of the House, and see them pass into law with extraordinary facility, almost by an automatic process.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Is that a threat?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That, or something like it, is what we have been urged to do quite recently. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By Lord Rothermere. Lord Rothermere told us in a remarkable article which he wrote:
  "What is this fustian about keeping pledges, why should any one man's declaration stand in the path of the wishes of the party?"
  Everyone knows the vendetta in which these newspapers have been engaged, and I am sure that all the House, and every party, admires the Prime Minister for the contempt with which he treats it.
  616
  Lord Rothermere's policy is not the policy of the Conservative party. It would not receive the assent even of the strongest Tariff Reformers on this side of the House, and there is not the slightest intention of doing that sort of thing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley and hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway know perfectly well that whatever they may say, whatever antics they may indulge in, they can trust to the honour of a historic political party. We know that in their hearts that is their feeling, and that is the reason why we treat with considerable composure all these charges of treachery.
  I wonder whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith, who is perched up there, is quite wise in exaggerating the consequences of this fiscal Measure in the way in which he and his friends have done. He no doubt, has in his mind the story of the little boy who shouted "Wolf!" with such disastrous results at the end. I would like to know what would have been his position if a real wolf or a whole-hogger appeared after he has fired all his ammunition? My hon. and gallant Friend contributes so much to our entertainment, and enlightens our Debates so often and so long, that there is not one of us who would not sympathise with him sincerely if he found himself in the terrible position of being confronted with a genuine fiscal outrage, and having nothing at his disposal but a bankrupt vocabulary!
  It is suggested that my speeches in 1923 convict me of inconsistency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!" and Interruption.] But who has not changed since 1923? Who fought the Election of 1923 on the capital levy? Who fought the Election of 1923 against Socialism, and put the Socialist Government into power? After all, I may be, pardoned for defending myself. The Conservative party fought the Election of 1923 on a general tariff. We fought the Election of 1924 on the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Red Letter!"]— safeguarding! I opposed Socialism in 1923. I opposed the general tariff in 1923. I oppose it equally tonight. Let us really see—I do not want to detain the House very long—what has happened in regard to this safeguarding policy. We have been in office for nearly a year with an overwhelming

  617
  majority. How many duties of a safeguarding character, or duties based in the fiscal sphere, have been proposed for the consideration of the House? There are those relating to silk, gas mantles, paper, and the McKenna Duties. Half of these duties already have been imposed during the Coalition, with the support of a very large number of Liberal Members and Liberal leaders. The principle had been conceded. There are three new safeguarding duties that are the survivors of 24 applications which have been made under the White Paper procedure. They represent, I am informed, approximately one-300th part of our imports.
  11.0 P.M.
  We have been in office a year, one-fifth of our full period. During that year we have, I am credibly informed, lost one bye-election by a majority of 200, and but for the intervention of the Quinquennial Act we might look forward to 200 years in office. But that would not be nearly long enough to carry through a general tariff, at the rate we are going on. If 1-300th part of the ground were covered in the first year, 300 years would be required to achieve the full policy. The right hon. Gentleman asked me, and it is a pertinent question, "How far are you going? Where do you draw the line? When are you going to stop?" No such question as that is raised at the point to which this policy is developed at the present moment. The Government have in no way intruded into any sphere of argument in this matter which in the slightest degree raises the general issue or calls their pledges in question. That is not my opinion only. I will quote the opinion of Lord Oxford. Dealing with these questions in February, Lord Oxford said our policy was small, trumpery and pettifogging. I have heard the word "pettifogging" reinforced by the word "piffling."
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I was quoting at the time.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought it was a little below the level of the right hon. Gentleman. In March Lord Oxford described our safeguarding of industries policy as "small beer," and as late as the 6th November he said the time had not come for the full Protectionist meal but the Government were giving their supporters such crumbs of comfort as
  618
  they could extract from the safeguarding of industries. Where do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite stand? Do they wish to goad us into further action? Small beer—crumbs of comfort—pettifogging—trumpery—piffling; and then, almost without a break, there is a complete transition, and we are invited to contemplate a ghastly, shameful breach of pledges, a hurling of this country headlong into Protection. The language which is poured out about our conduct would really be extravagant if it were applied to the darker episodes in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. I have no objection to a proper use of strong language, but a certain amount of art and a certain amount of selective power is needed, if the effect is to be produced. When all that the dictionary contains is poured out on the one hand to show the pettiness and triviality of the Government's policy it is not without a mental shock that we can trust ourselves to hear the most violent condemnations of our sweeping and momentous changes.
  I only have one or two more words to say. From the moment that general duties are adopted, it is not only the number of the duties but the character of the duties and their consequences that come into question. All the duties we have imposed hitherto are either on luxury articles, or on finished articles, or articles which pass to the general consumer almost immediately without any further stage. They create, therefore, no dislocation in the higher ranges of industry. I am bound to say that I see no objection where a case is proved to our reducing our imports on finished and luxury articles, nor do I believe that our general Free Trade system will be affected thereby, nor do I believe that great industries like shipbuilding, distributing trades, the cotton trade and even agriculture will be injured or disturbed. Nobody can say that our export capacity will be weakened by these duties. No one can say that a diminution of unnecessary imports and luxury imports will be injurious. No one can say that the future is compromised by such duties or that the main industries of the country will be dependent on these industries, because they could be swept away in the same way as you swept away the McKenna Duties when you had the power. There are

  619
  industries which would like to make out a good case for these duties under the terms of the White Paper of safeguarding, but to put a duty on certain industries would cause a repercussion and would entail consequential duties so numerous as to constitute a section of a general tariff. There are industries which could prove their case, and which, on the basis of a scientific general tariff, and as part of such a tariff, could quite logically and consistently be passed into law. But to create such duties on these articles in isolation would be absurd, invidious, and impossible to reconcile with any view either of Free Trade or of Protection.
  Duties on such industries would inevitably cut to the root of our fiscal policy if one great chunk of a national industry was to be protected from the bottom to the top, and we should be inevitably committed over the whole field. Then, indeed, the question of Free Trade or Protection would be raised, and it would become an important political factor in our political life and the life of the present Parliament, and these undertakings and pledges would have to be examined with scrupulous care. The White Papers which have been drawn up confirm our policy, and they provide explicitly, even if the case is proved, that the Government have full power reserved to them to reject it before or after inquiry if they consider the effect of the duty on other industries would carry them beyond the limits of their pledge, or out of the scope of a reasonable or harmonious treatment of the subject. There is no question of the Government being drawn, through the working of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. into any breach of their undertakings. The charge has been made in reference to the iron and steel trades. I am laying down general principles by which the Government are governed and in accordance with which they will continue to deal with all the cases which are presented. One would suppose that the parties opposite were persons specially concerned about the strict fulfilment of the Government undertakings and the faithful observance of the Prime Minister's pledge. Surely the Liberal and Labour Oppositions would have the least right to complain if that pledge were broken. If we were deceivers, they were never deceived. The
  620
  hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway (Captain W. Benn) is longing for the moment when he will be able to say, "I told you so; this is what I knew would happen all along." But there were probably, I suppose, at least a million Free Trade votes which were given to the Constitutional cause at the last Election in consequence of the very clear declaration of the Prime Minister against a general system of Protection, and if these voters trusted to the word of the Prime Minister, and if we may judge by the result of recent electoral manifestations, they trust to his word now, they know perfectly well that if it were thought necessary by the Government in the interests of the country to make a sudden and urgent change in our fiscal system, that change would first of all have to be submitted in a simple and honourable fashion to the electors as a definite issue.
  We have on these benches no sympathy with partisan, pedantic or doctrinaire views upon the fiscal question. There is a great desire, not confined to one side of the House, to examine on their merits, in an unprejudiced and businesslike spirit, some of the new points and new features which have arisen under the conditions of modern and post-War industry. There is a readiness to await the results of the minor and tentative experiment on which we are engaged. Why should the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Snowden) fear to await the results of this experiment? He has declared that every duty produces unemployment and increases the cost of the article protected, and if he has confidence in his opinion, why is he not prepared and glad to await and watch the development and the working of these duties in the next few years.
  While we hold ourselves fully entitled to proceed as we are doing, this House of Commons has neither the intention nor the right to revolutionise the fiscal system of the country or to erect a general tariff either at one stroke or by calculated instalments nor the right to take legislative steps which would irrevocably compromise the decision of future Parliaments. The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in his brilliant speech, referred to the great responsibility which rests on this Government and this party at the present

  621
  moment. It is our duty to secure for the country a period of settled and stable government in which its energies may revive and its industries recover. That is what the country needs; that is what the country has demanded, that is what we promised to give it, and that is what we are determined, to the best of our ability, to give to the country, and we have no intention of raising rupturing issues which would divide friends and unite opponents. We stated most clearly the platform on which we stood. It was a platform on which
  Free-traders and Protectionists could stand together as they did during the long years when that great statesman Lord Salisbury guided with success the gathering and growing fortunes of the State. From that platform no taunts will lure us; from that platform we will not be driven by abuse or denunciation, at once extravagant and undeserved,
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 142.

  Division No. 475.]

  AYES.

  [11.15 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hanbury, C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cope, Major William

  Harland, A.

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

  Couper, J. B.

  Harrison, G. J, C.

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

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Apsley, Lord

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ashmead Bartlett, E.

  Crook, C. W.

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

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

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

  Astor, Viscountess

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Atkinson, C.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hills, Major John Walter

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

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

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Bennett, A. J.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Berry, Sir George

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Bethell, A.

  Drewe,

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

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

  Elveden, Viscount

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westons.-M.)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Finburgh S.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Fleming, D. P.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ford, P. J.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Jacob, A. E.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Galbraith, J. F. w.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Burman, J. B.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Gates, Percy

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prismth. S.)

  Grace, John

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Looker, Herbert William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Charterls, Brigadier-General .J.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Guinness, Rt.. Hon. Walter E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Christie, J. A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mac Andrew, Charles Glen

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Macintyre, Ian

  Preston, William

  Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray Fraser

  McLean, Major A.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Sugden, sir Wilfrid

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Ramsden, E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Renter, J. R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Meller, R. J.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Waddington, R.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W, W.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wells, S. R.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sandon, Lord

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Neville, R. J.

  Savery, S. S.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Oakley, T.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Perring, William George

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Pilcher, G.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry

  Pownall, Lieut..-Colonel Assheton

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Barnston.

  NOES.

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

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Fisher. Rt. Hon, Herbert A. L.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Forrest, W.

  Lunn, William

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Mackinder, W.

  Baker, Walter

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  March, S.

  Barnes, A.

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

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Barr, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Batey, Joseph

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Montague, Frederick

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Groves, T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  Briant, Frank

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

  Murnin, H

  Broad, F. A.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bromfield, William

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Bromley, J.

  Hardie, George D.

  Palin, John Henry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Harris, Percy A

  Paling, W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hartshorn, St. Hon. Vernon

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Charleton, H. C.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Riley, Ben

  Compton, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ritson, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scrymgeous, E.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Scurr, John

  Dennison, R.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sexton, James

  Duckworth, John

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)

  Duncan, C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Shiels, Dr Drummond

  Dunnico, H.

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

  Short, Alfred (Wedneshury)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lansbury, George

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  England, Colonel A.

  Lee, F.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  624

  625

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Snell, Harry

  Thurtle, E.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Viant, S. P.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Windsor, Walter

  Stephen, Campbell

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Wright, W.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Sutton, J. E.

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

  Taylor, R. A.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Warne.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Whiteley, W.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

  LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) AMENDMENT [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "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 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.)
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Guinness and Mr. Ronald McNeill.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, by substituting
  626
  other provisions for those contained in Section Twenty-seven of the said Act and to 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": presented accordingly, and road the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 274.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16 th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TAX OFFICE, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
  TAX OFFICE, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  ADMIRALTY.
  ADMIRALTY.
  MINISTRY OF PENSION'S (HUTS, ACTOX).
  MINISTRY OF PENSION'S (HUTS, ACTOX).
  WRITING ASSISTANTS AND SHORTHAND TYPISTS (PROMOTION).
  WRITING ASSISTANTS AND SHORTHAND TYPISTS (PROMOTION).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (RISCA BRANCH OFFICE).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (RISCA BRANCH OFFICE).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION).
  OVERTIME.
  OVERTIME.
  SLATE AND LOAN SOCIETIES.
  SLATE AND LOAN SOCIETIES.
  MAJOR SHEPPARD (COSTS).
  MAJOR SHEPPARD (COSTS).
  BROADMOOR LUNATIC ASYLUM (MR. J. G. PRICKETT).
  BROADMOOR LUNATIC ASYLUM (MR. J. G. PRICKETT).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICERS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICERS.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  SHEFFIELD CUTLERY FACTORIES.
  SHEFFIELD CUTLERY FACTORIES.
  POLICE FORCES MERGED.
  POLICE FORCES MERGED.
MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  PETROL PUMPS (TESTING).
  PETROL PUMPS (TESTING).
  TWO-SEATER TAXIMETER CABS.
  TWO-SEATER TAXIMETER CABS.
  LONDON PARKING STATIONS.
  LONDON PARKING STATIONS.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  PRICES.
  PRICES.
  SHIFTS WORKED.
  SHIFTS WORKED.
  POST OFFICE (AUXILIARY SORTERS, MOUNT PLEASANT).
  POST OFFICE (AUXILIARY SORTERS, MOUNT PLEASANT).
EDUCATION.
  ROTHERHAM (GRANT).
  ROTHERHAM (GRANT).
  STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (CIRCULAR 1371).
  STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (CIRCULAR 1371).
  CENTRAL AND SECONDAEY SCHOOLS.
  CENTRAL AND SECONDAEY SCHOOLS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INCREASED EXPENDITURE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INCREASED EXPENDITURE).
  GRANTS, SCOTLAND.
  GRANTS, SCOTLAND.
  NAVAL STRENGTH (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  NAVAL STRENGTH (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DISTURBANCES, SWATOW.
  DISTURBANCES, SWATOW.
  DIVING APPARATUS.
  DIVING APPARATUS.
  PRIZE MONEY AND WAR MEDALS.
  PRIZE MONEY AND WAR MEDALS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CADETS, CRANWELL).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CADETS, CRANWELL).
  ALIENS (PERMITS).
  ALIENS (PERMITS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  APPLICATIONS FOR BENEFIT (RE-HEARINGS).
  APPLICATIONS FOR BENEFIT (RE-HEARINGS).
  EBBW VALE.
  EBBW VALE.
  NIGERIA (EUROPEAN CIVIL SERVANTS).
  NIGERIA (EUROPEAN CIVIL SERVANTS).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  FIGHTING SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).
  FIGHTING SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).
  GRANTS IN LIEU OF RATES.
  GRANTS IN LIEU OF RATES.
  ADMIRALTY (STATIONERY AND PRINTING).
  ADMIRALTY (STATIONERY AND PRINTING).
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.
  FOREIGN CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (TAXATION).
  FOREIGN CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (TAXATION).
  GERMAN REPARATION (UNITED STATES).
  GERMAN REPARATION (UNITED STATES).
  CASUAL WARDS (INSPECTION).
  CASUAL WARDS (INSPECTION).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  FOREIGN SEAMEN.
  FOREIGN SEAMEN.
  WIRELESS OPERATORS.
  WIRELESS OPERATORS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT, CANTON).
  BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT, CANTON).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMTTTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in reference to this Bill I beg to move that Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with and that the Bill be now read a third time. This will expedite, without in any way hindering, public business.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill, with the Amendments, read 3a accordingly, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CIVIL SERVICES) BILL.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I beg leave to make a personal statement with regard to something which fell from the noble and learned Earl, the Secretary of State for India, yesterday evening. I had left the House when my noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham put his Question about the Government of India (Civil Services) Bill, as I was under the impression that he was not going to raise the question at all last evening. In commenting upon Lord Lee's statement the Secretary of State for India said:—
"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."
That goes a little beyond the substance of the matter. The Bill was not in existence so far as I was concerned when I left office, and although the Bill does not go further than what I had personally recommended to my colleagues, what I had in fact recommended, of which I left a record for my noble friend's
1228
information, had not actually received their formal assent. I left on record the Minute I had written in order that there might be, so far as possible, continuity in the action of the India Office, and in order that my noble friend might be assured that he would get my support in this House for the Bill. I think the record should be corrected by my statement being placed on the records of the House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am very much indebted to my noble friend. As a matter of fact the OFFICIAL REPORT of last night's proceedings contains a slight error. I did not say, as the OFFICIAL REPORT represents, that this Bill had received the formal assent of the colleagues of the noble Lord. What I did say—and I believe it is correctly reported in The Times and in most of the newspapers, though I have not consulted them all—was that I had reason to believe that it had received the informal assent of the noble Lord's colleagues. But the intervention of the noble Lord is of great value because he has very candidly stated that he left certain recommendations for his colleagues. He was good enough, by a courtesy which I greatly appreciate and with a desire, I have no doubt, to maintain the continuity of Ministerial tradition, to equip me with the recommendations which he had offered for the consideration of his colleagues. He is perfectly right in saying that it was not in the form of a Bill. But I am equally entitled to say that the recommendations of the noble Lord, well conceived and widely conceived, were the foundation of the Bill which I and my colleagues have recommended to Parliament.
The noble Lord had availed himself of the recommendations of the Lee Commission. The noble Lord was obliging enough to convey to me the impressions which he had derived from those recommendations. I availed myself of the recommendations of the noble Lord and, as far as I was able to do so and with the assistance of the draftsman, I translated them into the terms of a Bill. The noble Lord knows as well as I do the Imperial importance of that Bill passing into law in the present Session of Parliament and I would most earnestly entreat the noble

1229
Lord to use all the influence I know that be possesses with those who belong to his Party in another place to see that, while everything that, is disputable in his proposals and mine is closely canvassed, we shall not run the risk of losing this Bill with its immeasurable Imperial consequences by unreasonable obstruction. I know the noble Lord well enough to know that his influence will be used in that direction.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, may I add that I wish to make it perfectly clear that my colleagues are in no way estopped from any action they might take in another place in regard to this Bill by my personal commitments which I left on record. They are not estopped from any action they have taken or may take, either because they think the matter has been presented at the end of the Session and they have not had time to deal with it, or for any other reason.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that I am at least entitled to say this to my colleagues in another place, that it is the view of the colleagues of the noble Lord that, reinforced by the high authority of the noble Lord who was then Secretary of State for India, I have presented for their consideration propositions which the noble Lord himself would have presented had he still held my office. That is all I want to say.

IRELAND (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI. and XXXIX. be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting so that the Bill may have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be passed through all its stages.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill, read.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time I am conscious of many memories which surge upon my mind and which must, I think, be present in the minds of many of your Lordships. When the Irish Treaty was signed some years ago we signed it in an atmosphere which was singularly ill-designed to attain any measure of permanent appeasement. It had been my duty, sitting upon the seat which is occupied by the Lord Chancellor to-day, to defend many acts which were very difficult of defence, to recommend many policies which were very difficult of acceptance and looking back over those troubled years. I can hardly remember any moment which seemed less likely to develop into an atmosphere which was likely to establish a permanent settlement than that in which those of us who at that moment were responsible discussed the terms of the Irish Treaty.
We had hardly emerged from an atmosphere of assassination. We were hardly able to select from those who, directly or indirectly, had been responsible for the campaign against which we ranged ourselves, men with whom we could reasonably attempt a compromise. Yet I think your Lordships will be willing to do us this justice in the difficulties in which we were placed. The nation was exhausted by the efforts of a great War. At the conclusion of that War we found ourselves engaged in hostilities with large sections of the population of Southern Ireland. The tale of casualties, of murders, of losses and of incendiarisms grew day by day and week by week. We had to ask ourselves this question: Will the fortunes, not of England alone but of the British Empire, be better served by continuing these hostilities in an ascending scale, or will they be better served by attempting in reach an accommodation?
I think that all of us—and I speak, believe me, without dogmatism in a situation so difficult as to exclude, in sensible mouths, the use of dogma—were throughout acutely conscious that even if we had mobilised the whole strength of this ration, exhausted as we were, even if we had made up our minds ruthlessly to war down these elements at a cost, as we were advised by the then Chief of the Imperial General Staff, of 200,000 men

1231
and a contingent expenditure of some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 (and I think we might even have faced those tasks, incredible as they were in the then condition of the nation) we were confronted even then, had we faced them, by the certain knowledge that after we had warred down, if we had warred down successfully, those who were in arms against us, it would have been necessary to reach some terms of accommodation with them.
It was in an atmosphere, as I have already indicated, little favourable for calm consideration, that those of us who are responsible for the first Irish Treaty approached our task. Whether it was for good or whether it was for bad—and it is no purpose of mine to be controversial to-night—those of us who negotiated that Treaty realised early in the course of its negotiation that we had the advantage of finding opposite to us at the table of No. 10, Downing Street, two men of great courage and of great honesty. I did not examine the antecedents of either of them, just as I would not have invited either of them, in relation to the Irish question, to examine into my antecedents, but what is certain is this: that in Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith we had the advantage of finding ourselves face to face with two vital and courageous men.
Mr. Collins lost his life in arms, the victim of an ambuscade by extreme forces in Ireland, within a few weeks of the moment when he had signed the Treaty, and I still recall of Mr. Griffith, who died worn out by the burden of exceptional responsibilities, that in the last night of all, and within two hours of the signature of the final Treaty, at the moment when it seemed more likely to me and my colleagues that the Treaty would not be signed than that it would be signed, he said: "I think these terms are fair, and if I sign them alone I will sign them, and I will go back and I will defend my signature before the Dail." He was a man of singular personality and of singular courage, and at the moment when it seems to me—I state the prediction with reserve—that the course we then adopted has been justified by the events, I would pay a tribute to one of the most remarkable men with whom I have ever been engaged in negotiation.
This, at least, is plain. The Bill which went through all its stages without one
1232
hostile criticism in the House of Commons last night would not have been possible if we had not signed that Treaty. Let no one make the mistake of lightly supposing that those of us who set our names to that instrument assumed that responsibility without a deep sense of the uncertainties which beset our path. We had to measure those anxieties and those uncertainties by the known anxieties and uncertainties of the only alternative, and the only alternative was that we should set ourselves to the gradual destruction in Southern Ireland of everything which had set itself resolutely, and by the methods which were known to all of your Lordships, to destroy the British rule in Ireland. I at least, speaking on behalf of this Government, which has accepted and implemented the decisions of three previous Governments, am entitled to make this plain, that it would not have been possible for mo here to-night, representing the Government, to ask your Lordships to accept this Bill had it not been for the foundations that were darkly and doubtfully and anxiously laid down when the earlier Treaty was signed four years ago.
It has been said, and with great truth and justice, that there were Articles in the earlier Treaty which were so obscure as to be dangerous. Undoubtedly there were. Does any one think so lightly of the capacity of those who signed that Treaty as to imagine that they were not alive to the dangers of Article 12? I state plainly to your Lordships that there was no signatory of that Treaty but knew that in Article 12 there lurked the elements of dynamite. We knew it well. It was forced upon us in this sense, that whether it was for good or for bad that that Treaty should be signed, it never could have been signed, it never would have been signed, without Article 12, and I can tell your Lordships, if we are to refer to the historical psychology of this matter, that we, the English signatories, took a clear view. We thought that, just as we had undertaken great anxieties and great responsibilities, so some anxieties and some responsibilties must be bequeathed to those who came after us. We thought that the atmosphere at that moment was one which made it absolutely impossible to attempt a boundary solution. Supposing that we had proposed to those who sat on the

1233
other side of the table at No. 10, Downing Street, to stereotype the existing boundary, what do you think the prospects would have been of a settlement? We were bold enough to think that the years would bring appeasement and education. We took the risk of supposing that it might be possible for our successors to approach the determination of the boundary in a calmer spirit, and in an ampler atmosphere.
I myself, in a stormy atmosphere, had to explain Article 12 sitting where the Lord Chancellor sits to-day, or rather in those days, if my memory serves me rightly, I was generally standing on the left of where the learned Lord Chancellor is to-day. I had to defend these proposals in a stormy atmosphere. I was assailed by a great weight of legal authority upon the duo meaning of Article 12. I had taken the individual responsibility of giving a clear and confident opinion to the Government, of which I was a member, as to the legitimate and only meaning of Article 12, properly construed. Never the less high legal authority in this House ranged itself against the advice which I had given. I may be permitted the human weakness, four years afterwards, of pointing to the fact that whatever else may be known or may not be known of the decision of the Boundary Commission, this at least is certain, that they accepted and acted upon the view which I as Lord Chancellor stated and recommended to your Lordships four years ago.
Here it is proper that I should say a word about the "Boundary Commission. A very distinguished Judge, bearing an honoured legal name in this Empire, has consented now for a period of eighteen months, abandoning his own proper judicial duties, to devote himself to the high Imperial duty of attempting to accommodate the difficulties which have arisen between ourselves and the Irish Free State in relation to the boundaries of Ireland. I did not, until yesterday, see the grounds upon which the Commission have founded their conclusions. Indeed, until the day before yesterday I did not even know what conclusions the Commission had reached, and therefore I think it is very necessary that I should say in this House that we are all of us under an enormous debt of gratitude to the learned and distinguished Judge and
1234
his colleagues for the work which they have done upon that Commission. The extent of our obligation to them is not diminished by the circumstances that, for high public reasons, all the parties concerned have asked the Commission not to publish their award.
Let us reflect for a moment upon the debt which we owe to the distinguished Judge. No man abandons his own special duties and tears up his domestic and his professional life by the roots in order to make a contribution to our Imperial necessities without having the human desire that that which he has done should be valued for its quality. I can only say this, that if we were to publish that to which the learned Judge has devoted his labours for so long a period of time it would immensely increase, high as his reputation is already, the judicial repute, in which he is held. I would say to him, as the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday and on behalf of the House of Commons—and perhaps in this association I may make myself the mouthpiece of your Lordships—that we all appreciate the efforts he has made, the sacrifices he has undergone and the high quality of public spirit which has led him to acquiesce in the indefinite postponement of any publication of his labours.
The question of the boundaries was, unfortunately, complicated by a most mischievous and unpatriotic publication of what purported to be an advance edition of that which the Boundary Commission was to decide. I should have thought this was at least plain: that upon the highest grounds of Imperial and patriotic interest, it being known that this was a Commission dealing with the most delicate matters, it being also known that when their Report was published action must follow, no newspaper would have thought it proper, for the purposes of what in modern speech is often described as a "newspaper stunt," to attempt to anticipate the decisions of that Commission. I am sorry to say that in this regard there was a gross and lamentable breach of the honourable traditions of British journalism, and it was a breach which I think can only be inadequately defended upon the grounds of a dwindling circulation. Had that temptation not been succumbed to, to re-

1235
ceive by backstair channels a communication which was known by those who accepted it and published it to be deeply confidential, had not that breach of the ordinary good faith of journalism been committed, Ulster would have received, what I think it would have greatly valued, a unanimous award from a tribunal which would have included a representative of the Irish Free State. All that they had stood for, and let me say all that I have stood for was well founded in the terms of the original Treaty.
We find ourselves to-day in a different atmosphere. The representatives of the Irish Free State insisted a year ago upon Article 12 being implemented. I was not at that time a member of the Government; I was not at all in the counsels of the Irish Free State. Had they consulted me as to whether they should insist upon immediate effect being given to Article 12 I should most strongly have advised them not to take that step, but I suspect that they were not their own masters. I suspect that those extremist forces in Southern Ireland which have always existed and which always will exist, though they may be gradually reduced alike in numbers and in influence, were too strong to make it possible for the Free State Ministers to postpone further their demand that Article 12 should be carried out. And so the demand came, and your Lordships have not forgotten, in the days of the Labour Government here, the crisis which immediately followed. The representatives of Northern Ireland refused to take any part in the proceedings and thereupon this country, by special Act of Parliament, nominated a member, not I believe unacceptable to Northern Ireland, to take the place of their representative.
So the matter proceeded until the moment came when the award was ready. It may be said that they asked for the boundary award, and the boundary award was prepared; that it was valid, whether it was signed by two representatives or by three. What complaint has the Free State Government to make?
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That is a very legitimate question, and let me try to address myself to it. I say plainly that they have no complaint to make, they have no valid complaint to make.
1236
It is not the task of statesmanship to ask whether a man with whom you are in process of negotiation or controversy has any logical and valid complaint to make. The task of statesmanship is to ask whether, when he makes an invalid, an illogical complaint, what is going to be the result when you have pointed out to him how illogical and invalid it is; and that alone is the question we have to ask ourselves. My noble friend behind me cheered when I put the question: What was the grievance in view of the fact that the Irish Free State themselves had insisted upon this award? Let me counter that cheer by asking plainly what would have happened—because we are dealing with practical politics—supposing we had received an award on the whole favourable to Northern Ireland? Your Lordships will not forget that the terms of the original Treaty produced this consequence in law, that the moment the award was published that which the award determined became ipso facto, automatically, and at that moment, the law of the land. In other words, in every transferred district the post offices, the police and the whole machinery of authority pass from one Government to the other, I do not know whether there is any one here who thinks that the process would have been a particularly smooth one. I am in a position to tell your Lordships that neither the authorities in Northern Ireland nor the authorities in Southern Ireland would have contemplated such an automatic change without feelings of the deepest anxiety and without anticipations of violence in many quarters.
We were offered another alternative, and that was to balance Article 12 against Article 5. Here the criticism may be easily made that Article 12 had no relation to Article 5. That criticism is perfectly well-founded. Article 12 dealt with boundaries and Article 5 dealt with finance. I have never in my experience and recollection of politics discovered that there was anything imponderable, if I may use the expression, between finance and any other subject known to human politics. No one will make the mistake of supposing that a young Government, charged with responsibility for the finances of a young State, can place on one side as an unimportant consideration the question of its financial situation. What did Article 5 do? A

1237
clear appreciation of this is very important and, indeed, is essential to an understanding of the whole situation.
Article 5, if I may summarise in popular language its effect, said this: An arbitrator shall make an estimate of what, in relation to the War commitments of the British nation, the Irish Free State ought to pay. But it also used language which I shall not subject to precise technical examination but which made it possible for the Free State to put forward any counter-claim in which they believed; and it contained further a phrase to the effect that they should pay or deduct what was "fair and equitable." I shall not argue here to-night (it is not worth while) as to what was the true meaning of that limitation "fair and equitable" in the construction of Article 5 as a whole. I myself have always held a clear view, and I so advised the Government of the day, that it, did not mean that you could raise as between the two countries every single issue over a period of two or three hundred years which involved the conceptions either of fairness or of equitable-ness. I took the view, and I am sure, as a lawyer, that I was right, that the meaning of the terms "fair and equitable" was closely defined and governed by the words that follow.
But the matter could undoubtedly have been disputed. Your Lordships know that the Childers Commission. I suppose some twenty-five years ago, by an award which has never been assented to by any considerable opinion in this country, and which to me has always seemed frankly absurd, decided that in the whole balance of history we were indebted in as immense sum of millions to the Irish people. I am not suggesting that such a contention could have been sustained before the arbitrator. It is quite certain that such a contention would have been brought forward, and it is also very materiel] to notice that, in this arbitration of, I should think, infinite length and, I should imagine, so costly that it would have absorbed before it was concluded any monies that were involved in it, they would equally have been entitled to demand an examination of the proportion which ought to be paid to Ireland in respect of our Reparation claims from our Allies and the whole of the varied and complicated financial machinery of the War.
1238
How much in the end we should obtain from this arbitration I do not know. I believe that our claim would have been roughly in the region of £150,000,000 They, of course, with the vivid imagination which is one of their most engaging qualities, put their claim at about £200,000,000. I am not suggesting to you that any arbitrator in the possession of his senses would have failed, on the balance, to award a very large sum of money to this country. I have no doubt that such would have been the result, and I myself have always thought, taking, as one must take in these matters, a rough estimate, that probably the result of the award would be a figure of some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 in favour of this country.
Let us assume that I am not either too sanguine or too pessimistic in this view. Let us assume that the result of the arbitration would be to establish an award of £50,000,000 in favour of this country. May I ask this question: Where was that money to come from? Is it seriously suggested that there is available in Ireland to-day any sum of money which, whether capitalised or distributed over a period of sixty years, would afford £50,000,000 to this country? The expectation is extravagant. Let us for one moment examine the contemporary situation in Ireland. At the present moment the total Revenue of Ireland is about £26,000,000.
LORD CARSON: Is that in the Free State?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The Free State, of course.
LORD CARSON: You said "Ireland."
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Lord will not misunderstand me. I am dealing only with the question between ourselves and the Irish Free State. The finances of Northern Ireland, of which I will say a word in a moment, are in a wholly different and well-understood class. I am dealing, of course, with the Irish Free State, and the total Revenue of the Irish Free State amounts to about £26,000,000. They have not, if you attempt a true financial analysis of their position, balanced their Budget: in the present year, and it is extremely doubtful, I am advised whether in the next

1239
three years they will be successful in balancing their Budget. What charges are at present imposed on a national Revenue of £26,000,000? If you take that which they pay towards Irish landlords and towards local loan annuities and that which they pay in pensions to police and to civilians, you arrive at the astonishing figure that, out of a Revenue of £26,000,000, they are paying nearly £5,000,000 out of the country to-day, leaving them a sum of some £21,000,000 to deal with all their national necessities.
If anybody says to me: How did you, then, who were one of the signatories to the Treaty, ever come to make yourself a party to Article 5? the answer, I think, is not particularly difficult. At the time we signed Article 5 two considerations were present to our minds and the first may serve as a reminder how fallible is human anticipation. I and my co-signatories were so little able to anticipate the future with accuracy that we thought that unless Article 5 were included in the Treaty there might come a moment in which the immunity of Ireland in relation to and comparison with the taxation in this country might possibly attract British capital and British factories to establish themselves in Ireland to the prejudice of the commerce of this country. We were most greatly deceived in this apprehension. We were so much deceived that it is the fact to-day that taxation in Ireland is even greater than in this country and therefore one of the principal reasons which led us to insist on Article 5 has completely disappeared in the economic development of the history of the two countries.
We ought, I think, also to notice this. We left in Ireland a scale of establishment, possible to them under our tutelage, wholly extravagant to them the moment that tutelage was withdrawn. Let me make a general observation upon this point. I have never varied in my view that those in the South of Ireland would have been well advised if they had adhered to the British connection with all that the British connection meant. I have never varied in my view that all their social services would have been more resourcefully administered had they attuned continuously their fortunes and ours. They took a different decision. They are, I think, even to-day, beginning
1240
to suffer from the consequences of that decision. This, be it observed, does not affect the wisdom or unwisdom of the decision taken when we signed the Treaty, because we had to deal with the psychology of a nation. We had not to deal with a nation necessarily wisely informed, and I have never felt the slightest inconsistency between support of the Treaty and a profound conviction that those who insisted upon the separation of Southern Ireland had reached a decision calamitous for themselves, and a calamity which would one day certainly be realised.
What was, in fact, the financial result? They succeeded to a scale of Pensions, to almost every conceivable form of social service, the financial terms of which were sound in relation to the resources of a mighty Empire but which were wholly unsuited to the resources of a comparatively impoverished agricultural community. Paying, as they must pay, nearly £5,000,000 a year to people who do not reside in Ireland, and who spend no portion of the money in Ireland, reducing, as in the calculation you must reduce, the Revenue from £26,000,000 to £21,000,000, what is the prospect that we could ever have obtained from this country any real contribution to our war indebtedness? Were we to make them bankrupt? Is it really suggested, as a new stage in the economic development of this Empire, that any prospect that we entertain of gradually re-establishing the prosperity of the whole would be advanced by having at our doors a bankrupt Ireland—I am speaking, as my noble and learned friend behind me will understand, of the Free State—an Ireland which would be all the time rightly accounting its bankruptcy to the terms we were exacting from it?
I have heard it said that we were being blackmailed, and that the concession which we were proposing to make by the substitution for Article 5 of a very modest provision, was one which would be induced by illegitimate menaces. I do not recognise the justice of this charge. We have had to deal with France; we have had to deal with Italy; we have had to deal with Czecho-Slovakia, and with Servia and Roumania, in terms of War Loan. Not one of those countries, though some of them are extremely wealthy, and though some of them are taxed less than

1241
our citizens, and none of them is suffering from our burden of unemployment—there is no one case in which we are not contemplating immense modifications of that which, in the letter of the law, they owe to us. Is it really to be suggested that it is so wrong to attempt a comparable on even a greater modification in respect of an island which, however great and however bitter the differences between us and them have been, has nevertheless played a large part in our Island history, and has been, alike with us, not a Dominion but a parent State, and whose economic union with us is vital in the years largely to follow?
I do not believe there is a single one of your Lordships who, had he been placed in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not have reached the conclusion which this Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all others, has reached. I say "of all others" because there has never been a Chancellor of the Exchequer more deeply concerned to explore and exploit every conceivable source of revenue. I do not believe there is one of your Lordships who, had he occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have said: Whatever other sources of revenue are open, I am going to a nation with a net revenue of £21,000,000, and ask them to pay us phantom millions, of which they are not the masters and will not be the masters in any ascertain able period.
There was a charge which it seemed to me was very proper to be supported by the Irish Free State, and that was in respect of the damages inflicted upon the properties of Irish loyalists. Very many moving and poignant debates have taken place in this House upon the subject of the wrongs sustained by loyalists in Ireland. I was never happy when I sat in the seat of the Lord Chancellor and it was my duty over those anxious years to reply on Irish subjects. I was never happy when those topics were raised before your Lordships; I do not know that the Duke of Devonshire who answered for them in later years was happier than I was. They were a class who deserved well of your Lordships' House and of the country. Though, amid great difficulties, I did the best with my humble powers that I could for them, they were a class of whom even now it
1242
must be said that they have not in my judgment received their just compensation.
We have, at least, made this arrangement with the authorities of the Irish Free State. The amount which we, the British Government, have already paid in compensation is, in round figures—I am dealing in round figures only—the sum of £5,000,000. The Irish Free State have charged themselves with that responsibility. In addition, for post-truce injuries they have bound themselves to issue bonds, which will place them in the position to give a 10 per cent, increase of the compensation which has hitherto been established. It is proposed that they shall make an initial and immediate payment of £150,000 with that object, and that thereafter, for a period of sixty years, they shall contribute £250,000 a year. It was our obligation to pay a sum of £900,000 in the next year to the Irish Free State, and it is contemplated that that £900,000 shall inure in part payment of these liabilities. To me I confess there is something entirely satisfactory in the fact that these losses and damages should be made good, not by us but by the Irish Free State Government. Not that since the Treaty those who have been responsible for that Government have been responsible for these losses, but, after all they are the legatees of all that went before. They have inherited the political conditions; it seems to me that they are, and ought to be, the heirs of the responsibility.
I have this only to add upon the subject of the financial settlement which I recommend to your Lordships. At the time when we signed that Treaty it seemed to us altogether reasonable that the Irish Free State should pay something to the cost of the War. We did not suspect the burden to which they themselves would be subjected. In the course of the three years which followed the Treaty they found themselves involved in a civil war—in a civil war which meant the maintenance of a great Army, and which in three years cost this impoverished State a sum of no less than £20,000,000. I think there are many now listening to me who, if they had been told at the time the Treaty was signed that within six months the forces of the Irish Free State would have been found besieging the Four Courts, putting down

1243
their opponents by the sword, and executing the leader of that revolutionary movement, Rory O'Connor—I think if your Lordships had been told at the time of the signing of the Treaty that the conception which was taken of the responsibilities of those who had entered into this Treaty was of that character, that many of our responsibilities might have been removed. Let us, at least, remember this. It did not fall upon us, haying regard to the settlement that was achieved, to put down that civil war. They put down that civil war. There is no civil war to-day in Ireland, and they put it down at a cost of £20,000,000.
I should be misleading the House if I affected to claim that now for all time we have attained a settlement of our Irish difficulties. I make no such claim. I never have made such a claim. Vainglorious indeed would one generation be in English politics who made a claim that we had once for all resolved difficulties which have bankrupted statesmanship in this country now for a period of hundreds of years. But I say this, that just as there succeeded to the Treaty made in Paris Conferences at Genoa, at Cologne, in Switzerland, and I know not where else—just as there was a culminating point in those negotiations which has led us to the Treaty of Locarno, so I, not dogmatically but hopefully, discern some real note of progress in the Bill which I recommend to your Lordships to-night.
And how far back this controversy goes! I must be allowed to make this claim, even if only that I may retain some shred of political consistency. I always opposed all the Home Rule Bills which were brought forward when I was in Parliament, because they contained the mad and ignorant determination to coerce the Northern Province of Ireland. That is my defence for all I ever said and all I ever did and every word which I spoke against those Home Rule Bills. You may ransack every speech I made on the platform or in Parliament, you will never find a speech in which I argued against, the right of the South of Ireland, the moment they excluded the North of Ireland, to arrive at a conclusion which would give them self-government. The controversy is, indeed, old. It has assumed formidable dimensions, and at some of the most critical periods in our
1244
history. I remember that just before the War a Conference, took place at Buckingham Palace. I think my noble friend (Lord Carson) was one of the negotiators. It broke down on this very question of the boundary. And now at last, at the price—if I may say so without giving offence to any one now—at the price of waiving a doubtful debt, we are afforded the opportunity of obtaining a settlement which in my judgment would have been gladly accepted at the time of the Buckingham Conference.
It may be that it is true that this is not the last word. I cannot measure what are the difficulties which the present Government of the Free State have to face in the Dail. I believe that they will survive those difficulties. If they were defeated in the Dail I am certain they would appeal to the country. I am sanguine enough to believe that they would not appeal in vain. If they appealed in vain we should be confronted with a new situation, and that situation again, in its turn, it would be our duty to face, and we should not shrink from it. But I do not anticipate so melancholy a conclusion. I found myself upon the fact that, for the first time so far as I know, in the history of Irish affairs there has been promulgated an instrument which has affirmed the conjoint good will of England, of Northern Ireland, and of Southern Ireland. And I know this, that there was established in the course of these discussions a degree of personal confidence between those who spoke for the North and those who spoke for the South which had not hitherto been known in this bitter and age-long controversy.
I have this to add. Ulster has been involved, naturally, reasonably and inevitably, in great charges as long as this boundary question was unsettled, for the maintenance of forces in the neighbourhood of 30,000 men who were prepared for any contingency upon the border. The early and harassed history which followed immediately upon the Treaty did not make it easy for them to abandon the scale of this semi-military establishment. Yet it plainly and entirely exceeded the scale of their own resources and, therefore, this country formed the conception of its own responsibilities in this matter which has led it to make a very great contribution towards the expenses of this constabulary force. Sir

1245
James Craig has informed the Government that in view of a settlement in which he entirely concurs it will be possible for him immediately, or almost immediately, to disband this force. One last contribution, which, I think, will be gladly paid, is due from this country towards the cost of that force and towards the cost of its disbandment. It is a sum, I believe, of £1,200,000 which will be included in the Estimates after Christmas. Apart from that, which was already in honour due and which must have been paid, there has been no financial consideration of any kind paid to Northern Ireland in respect of this settlement.
I observed in Punch to-day a cartoon of great humour which represented John Bull, with a placid and suffering expression upon his paternal face and with a large pocket upon each side of his traditional coat. In the pocket upon one side were placed the hands of Sir James Craig and in the pocket on the other side the hands of President Cosgrave. We are as a nation deeply affected to-day by financial burdens and anxieties; nevertheless we are a great, wealthy and resilient nation. In dealing in terms of finance with those whom, we are so deeply concerned to conciliate now and ultimately to bring together, we must think always in terms of our relative resources. The resources of these countries in relation to our own, even at a moment when we are so deeply pressed, are negligible, and no nation has ever permanently occupied a great place in history who could not subordinate questions of finance, however embarrassed its finances might be to considerations of high policy.
As I stand here to-night recommending the Second Reading of this Bill I am reminded of an occasion a few years ago, when I recommended the Second Reading of that Treaty which was the necessary substratum of this proposal and without which this proposal could not have come into being. I remember with deep emotion that one of my dearest friends felt it his duty with bitterness to attack that which we then proposed. Of all the circumstances which render that an unhappy memory to me it is the circumstance that my old friend both in the law and in politics—Lord Carson—should have taken at that moment a view so unfavourable of that which I was
1246
proposing. The differences between the noble and learned Lord and myself have long since been composed. It is a happiness to me to recall that our friendship has been completely re-established and whether we were right or whether we ware wrong in proposing the original Treaty—and I always admitted it was disputable whether we were right or whether we were wrong—this is the necessary consequence of that Treaty. This, my Lords, believe me, affords a richer promise of hope than that Treaty, fashioned in a moment of hatred, ever afforded or ever could afford. Let us go forward to the future in hope.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble and learned Earl through the long historical survey or the apologia which formed the major portion of his speech. In the comparatively-brief observations I intend to offer I will address myself rather more directly to the Bill which is before your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Earl claimed that this Bill would not have been possible without the Treaty of the Coalition Government. I may, therefore, I trust, be permitted to claim that the Bill would not have been possible and that this Irish settlement could not have been effected had it not been for the action of the Labour Government last year. What do I mean by that? It was in October, 1924, that the Labour Government, as its last act, passed through your Lordships' House the Bill which set up the Boundary Commission for Ulster. As a result of that, this settlement has indirectly, though in effect, come about. At any rate, it could not have been done without it.
I am not criticising the settlement. I and my colleagues on this Bench support it, and, looking at it as a whole, we think it should be fully approved. I shall have certain points to raise and some, questions to ask; but looking at matters as a whole, we think that this settlement is one which should receive the unchallenged assent of your Lordships' House. May I be allowed to say, though, that the action of the late Government last year was not a very easy one to take. It would have suited the late Government better from the Party point of view to have

1247
taken another course. But we did not do that. We introduced the Bill to which I have referred. It is true that in your Lordships' House we did not receive very much appreciation or support for the course which we then took. In fact, it was only with difficulty that the Bill was passed; but it was passed, and I repeat that that Bill paved the way for the present settlement.
This settlement has four main provisions. I propose to say a word or two about two of them only, because I desire to address my remarks in the main to certain aspects of the financial matters arising out of this Bill and out of the Agreement made last week. The noble and learned Earl has dealt at length with the boundary question. All I will say about that is that this disturbing and discordant factor which has so embarrassed and weakened both Governments in Ireland is now, we hope and believe, removed from the area of controversy, and that in itself is an enormous and incalculable gain. There is a very important provision in this Bill to which the noble and learned Earl did not refer at all. It is in subsection (2) of Clause 1. That is the provision which sets up machinery for meetings between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Free State. It may well prove as time goes on that this is the most important clause in the Bill. Only the future can show. It is impossible yet to say what will come of it, but I would fain hope that it may pave the way for most beneficial conferences between both the Governments and may lead to unity, which seemed a short time ago scarcely attainable.
Having said that about those two provisions of the settlement—and they are most important—I pass on to consider some of the financial matters upon which the noble and learned Earl spoke at considerable length, I do not think, if I may say so, at too great a length having regard to the importance of the matter. The noble and learned Earl spoke at considerable length about the provision in this Bill which abrogates Article 5 of the original. Treaty and relieves the Irish Free State from liability in respect of a contribution to our National Debt and in respect of a contribution to the cost of War Pensions. My col-
1248
leagues and I agree with the noble and learned Earl that the abrogation of this Article is in all the circumstances a wise proceeding. This matter, when you come to the figures, has been, is and I suppose now always will be, one of controversy and difference of opinion. The noble and learned Earl gave certain figures to your Lordships bearing upon it. He pointed out that, whereas everything was very indefinite, a certain very preliminary and tentative claim had been framed—and the Prime Minister said this yesterday—by the British Government, amounting to £128,000,000 of capital and £27,000,000 of interest, a total of £155,000,000. He observed, and of course very properly, that there were certain deductions to be made from that quite apart from the main counter-claim of the Free State Government. Those deductions would be on account of monies which might be received by us from the Allies in respect of Debt due to us. The noble and learned Earl spoke of Reparations from Allies, but, of course, he meant Debts from the Allies. Such Reparations as are expected will come from some of our late enemies and, of course, certain items with reference to those will have to be taken into account.
Then we come to the question of the counter-claim and the noble and learned Earl spoke about it at some length. He said it had been put at £200,000,000. As a matter of fact the late Colonial Secretary, speaking in another place yesterday, said it had been put as high as £280,000,000 when he was in office. He saw figures which purported to arrive at some such total as that. If any such figure were sustainable it is quite clear that the prospect before this country in respect of contributions under this clause would not be a very encouraging one. But for my part I do not attach very much importance to any of those figures. They will be matters of controversy and, no doubt, great interest for many years to come, but of academic interest. All I will say is that I have always regarded any contribution from the Free State to our National Debt as a doubtful asset.
Still, the Article was there and it has undoubtedly been a certain handicap to the Free State. Its abrogation is a real gain to the financial credit and stability of the Free State because nobody could tell how eventually the matter might have

1249
worked out. It might have been, as the noble and learned Earl has suggested, that some figure would have been arrived at by arbitrators, but here I think, if I may say so with respect, he did not quite sufficiently elaborate the difficulty. I heard him say there wag no such sum of money as £60,000,000 in the Free State. Of course there is not in the sense that money could be transferred here. The point I want to make is this—it is a point which the Prime Minister dealt with yesterday—I think that even if a sum had been arrived at finally that sum would have had to be paid to this country in goods. The noble Earl said that the amount which the Free State at the present time has to transmit abroad is about £5,000,000 a year. That is not what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He said it was between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: £4,600,000 he said.
LORD ARNOLD: I have his words here. He said:—
"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 …."
And if you look at it in another way it comes to a smaller figure because if the Revenue is about £26,000,000, one-tenth of that, to which reference was made by the Prime Minister, reduces the amount to £2,600,000. However, this is not very germane to the subject, but it is a little difficult to deal with when members of the Government do not agree. I think the noble and learned Earl will find that I am perfectly correct because I took the trouble to take out the figures before I came here.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I do not think the noble Lord is quite right. I think the Prime Minister ignored, as a Minister reasonably may, some small amounts. The noble Lord will see that on columns 314 and 315 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he says:
"The Free State Government are collecting the land purchase and local loans annuities, which will continue for many years under past legislation, to an 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 is the £4,600,000 which I had in my mind.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble and learned Earl does not appreciate the point I was making. The point I was making was that between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 had to be transmitted abroad by the Free State. How is the noble and learned Earl's statement to be reconciled with the further statement of the Prime Minister of what is calculated at not less, and may be rather more, than one-tenth of the Revenue?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord will forgive me. I think that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was misstating the proportion. I should have stated a different one. I will only deal with the figures given to us by the Free State representatives. They would add about £250,000 more to the £4,600,000. Of course some of that is spent in the Irish Free State, but the proportion of that is so very small that it is not worth arguing about.
LORD ARNOLD: As I was observing it is not really an important matter, and I do not propose to pursue it further. I took the words of the Prime Minister, but of course I dc not know what he may have meant. What I have given to your Lordships are the words that he used. The last point I wish to make about it is this. In all the circumstances we agree that it is a wise thing to have abrogated that Article, and I think that the effect which this may have upon the financial stability and the credit of the Free State should be beneficial.
Then we come to the more detailed financial matters. The noble and learned Earl explained, and it is down in the Bill, that the Free State has undertaken to repay to the British Government the monies already paid by the British Government in respect of damage done for malicious injury since July, 1919, and also they have undertaken to promote legislation to increase by 10 per cent. the compensation awards made under the Act of 1923 for damage done between July, 1921, and May, 1923. There are two or three questions that I should like to ask about these provisions. I presume this 10 per cent. increase is a flat-rate increase, and I gather it applies not only to awards which have been made, but also to ex-gratia payments that have been paid. If that is not so, why should ex-gratia

1251
payments be omitted? I want to ask what is the precise position in respect of this 10 per cent. increase and future awards. Has it any relation at all to future awards? Are they going to be increased by 10 per cent.? A little information on this point would be very valuable. If this is not meant as regards the future, what does it mean?
I now desire to raise a point which I think is very relevant in regard to this ten per cent. increase. The noble and learned Earl has referred to the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House on many occasions. I have only been a member of your Lordships' House for rather less than two years and I can remember five debates in connection with injuries suffered by Irish loyalists in Southern Ireland and the compensation paid to them in one way and another for the damage done to their properties. As a result of two debates which were held in your Lordships' House last July the Government agreed to set up a Committee to investigate this matter and see whether any further compensation should be paid to the loyalists for damage done to their property. I was very surprised to see in the Press some four months after this Committee had been agreed to, a statement to the effect that no meetings of the Committee had been held. I should like to know I whether this information is correct. I was, however, still more surprised to see in the report of what took place in the House of Commons yesterday that Colonel Gretton said that even yet, in the middle of December, no meeting of this Committee had been held.
It seems to me to be a most singular state of things. In July last we were told that these various matters were urgent, to use no stronger word, and the demand for the appointment of this Committee was so clamant and insistent that the Government had to yield and agree to the appointment. What has happened? What are those members of your Lordships' House who are on this Committee doing in the matter? They told us there were great grievances, a great deal of distress, that the matter was urgent, and yet here we are five months after the Committee was appointed and not one single meeting of it has yet been held. The position calls for some explanation.
LORD CARSON: The noble Lord must remember that there is a Conservative Government in power.
LORD ARNOLD: That is true, and it is, of course, responsible for a great many things. That may be the explanation. If it is let us have it, because I think your Lordships are entitled to some explanation. The debate of last July was adjourned, the Question is still on the Paper, and I think this House should have some explanation of this extraordinary state of things. In the next place I want to ask—and in view of this Bill it is only right that your Lordships should be informed—how this matter of the Committee stands in relation to the future? So far the Committee has not met, but I suppose it is going to function some day. Very well. Does the Government still contemplate, in addition to this 10 per cent. increase to compensation awards under the Act of 1923, to bring about which the Free State has agreed to promote legislation, giving to the Irish loyalists in certain cases further compensation which will, of course, be given at the expense of the British taxpayer? The noble and learned Earl said that it was a great satisfaction to him to know that all the damage which had been done would be paid for by the Irish Free State.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I did not say "all the damage."
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble and learned Earl. But this Committee is in existence and I think we are entitled to some information on this point. The Prime Minister, in another place, yesterday, said this:
"This agreement makes no change of any sort, or kind in the obligations .… which the British Government have undertaken towards those who have suffered injury to person or property in the Irish Free State."
That statement requires a little amplification, otherwise there might be some misunderstanding. If the Prime Minister is referring to what he has just been saying it is all right, but if it is taken to refer to what he goes on to say then I think a certain discrepancy arises. What is the position? A Committee is appointed to go into the question of compensation and see whether in certain cases more compensation should be given.

1253
Later on the Free State Government agree to increase the compensation awards by ten per cent. There is, therefore, a change in the position; and it does make a difference. Is not this to come under the purview of this Committee? Are they still going to proceed as though the ten per cent. had not been given? Taken literally that might be the interpretation put upon it.
I would like to ask, although I am afraid I shall not get any reply—it is an important matter seeing that the Committee has not yet met—whether the Government can give us any estimate of the burden which is likely to be placed upon the British Exchequer in respect of the working of this Committee if, and when, it gets to work? That is an important matter, and I should appreciate some information on it, more particularly because the plan of getting out of their difficulties which has been resorted to more than once by His Majesty's present advisers, by means of a large cash payment, is an expensive plan. It may be comparatively easy for the Government but it is expensive for the taxpayer, and we are entitled to some information as to what liability will ultimately come upon the British Exchequer, particularly having regard to the fact that the compensation has been increased by ten per cent.
I have finished, but I respectfully submit that these questions are quite relevant to this Bill and to this discussion. At the same time I agree with the spirit of the concluding observation of the noble and learned Earl. I am not content that the matters of which I have spoken should interfere or impede the settlement that has been made. I am not content with that. On the contrary, I repeat that so far as we are concerned we think the settlement, looking at it broadly, is a good one. We think it should go through. We wish it well, and we hope it will be of great and lasting benefit to the Irish people.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House and to which you are asked to give a Second Reading is so entirely in harmony with what has been said so often by noble friends of mine from this Bench that it is quite unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships for any length of time this evening. Still less
1254
do I feel it necessary to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken in the somewhat severe and unnecessary criticisms which he has offered on various details in the Bill. This is a time when it is necessary that men of good will should combine together in order to assist this settlement and enable it, at this critical moment, to pass with ease and without any disturbance. It is most unfortunate that criticisms of that kind should be offered in your Lordships' House.
I should like, however, to offer my congratulations to the noble and learned Earl, who has left the House, upon the fact that it has fallen to his lot to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It must have been a matter of no small satisfaction to him, having been so largely responsible for the Irish policy of the Coalition Government, to find himself in the position of moving this Bill this afternoon and so putting the culminating point to a policy for which he was so largely responsible. I will not elaborate that point in his absence.
What I should like to do is to utter a gentle lamentation upon the cost, which will undoubtedly follow from this Bill, to the unfortunate British taxpayer. It does look as if nowadays, whenever anybody disputes about anything, they always expect to be compensated by the British taxpayer—whether it is coal or Ireland, it is always the unfortunate British taxpayer—and everything is made easy by being paid for out of our pockets. One of the best features of this Bill, I think, is that the large sum of money which has been paid for eight years for the Ulster special constables will be no longer payable; this, at any rate, will be something in the pockets of the people of this country. Not unnaturally the noble and learned Earl who introduced this Bill referred to Locarno. It is the "stunt" word of the moment, and I would say, as has been said about Locarno, that I hope that this measure is not the end but that it is only the beginning of fresh measures of conciliation and of good will amongst the people of Ireland. I rejoice especially to think that, as one result of this Bill, there will be re-established the Council of All Ireland.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I understood that it would be re-established, and hoped

1255
that it would be re-established, and that, as a result, people from every part of Ireland would have been able to meet together to discuss matters of common interest and matters upon which they disagreed. For myself, I hope I shall be forgiven if I venture to quote from the speech which I made on this very subject on October 8 last year, and in which I ended by saying:—
"I believe that in this matter our chief hope lies in bringing public opinion in this country to bear on the controversy in Ireland and impressing upon Irishmen the desire we have that they should, by themselves, settle their own disputes."
I am happy to think that this is exactly what has happened with regard to this matter. Irishmen have come together and they have settled this matter in accordance with their own wishes. I hope that this is the beginning of a new era in this connection, that what they have done in relation to this matter will always be the course that will be followed by Irishmen in the future, and that they will be able in the same way to settle any other matters of dispute which may arise between them.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I desire to offer only a very few observations to your Lordships upon the very important Bill that has been brought before you to-day. At parts of the speech of the noble and learned Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill I felt from time to time inclined to be controversial, but I am saved from becoming so because I think that when the noble Earl's speech is examined it will be found that one of the great features of it is the bold condemnation that he himself made of the greater part of the Treaty of 1921, which he brought about, and of all that resulted from that Treaty. One is always disarmed on finding a frankness of that kind—on finding, for instance, the statement that what immediately followed the Treaty was a war that cost the Irish Free State £20,000,000 in money, and I cannot say how much in material damage—I have heard it estimated at £50,000,000 or £70,000,000—or how much in the lives of Irishmen, many of them shot, I do not say wrongly under the law, by the Free State Government whose colleagues and friends they had been in the outrages which had led up to the Treaty in 1921. I might follow out the line that the noble Earl felt it necessary to take to-night,
1256
but I think it is such a candid confession of a great deal that might otherwise have to be said that I do not intend to pursue any controversial line whatsoever beyond that which I have already indicated.
I have the disadvantage of being an Irishman and therefore I know something about Ireland. I have lived there for a great part of my life and I have never ceased to take an interest in Ireland. Consequently, when I speak upon Ireland now, I speak with no undue optimism nor, I hope, on an occasion like the present, shall I speak, in the few words that I have to say, with undue pessimism. But I cannot but feel gratified in the part that I, at all events, have played in the politics of my own country, and by the fact that from start to finish one thing that this Bill shows and demonstrates is that Ulster in her claim has been right. I go back, as the noble and learned Earl did, to the Buckingham Palace Conference. Heaven knows, I remember the responsibilities that were upon my own shoulders at that time! The claim of Ulster then was that the six counties should be left out and should not be handed over to the Government of the other twenty-six counties, and it was upon that matter of the boundary that the Buckingham Palace Conference, presided over by His Majesty on the first day, broke off on the very eve of the War.
I cast my mind back to 1916, not very long before the Battle of the Somme, in which the Ulster Division lost 6,000 men in fighting your battles and their own. I then spent several weeks in Ulster trying to get the Ulster people to agree that the six-county boundary should again be accepted, as it was thought that it would help to win the War to set up Home Rule in the middle of the War with a view to obtaining more sympathy from the United States, who had not then come in. I remember the patriotism with which these men, bearing much that was sorrowful for them and being separated from their fellow countrymen and co-religionists of the other counties, passed a resolution saying that they would be willing in the interests of the War to agree to the six counties, but unfortunately all that went for nothing through the greater wisdom of your politicians over here. Then, when the Act of 1920 was brought in the same

1257
contest arose, and there I thought—I am wiser now—the boundary was finally settled by the solemn Act of the two Houses of Parliament, signed by the King, and that the six counties had to be handed over for good or ill to the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill had hardly become an Act, and the King had hardly opened the Parliament of Ulster, when there came into the foreground for your political purposes an entire upsetting of the whole of that arrangement.
The Treaty, which was so fully described by the noble Earl, and which was the product of an outbreak in the Free State and of outrages which have been so eloquently discussed to-day, was made. What did it do? Once more behind the back of Ulster, at midnight in Downing Street, you put in a provision which might lead to the greatest possible disasters — a provision once more challenging what you had settled in 1920—this unfortunate provision about the Boundary Commission, which has kept Ulster, during all these years of difficulty and unemployment, in a state of uncertainty which nobody in this House, unless he happens to understand Ulster, can possibly appreciate. It has led to outbreaks along the border which I thank Heaven are becoming less every day. It has led to disappointment in people on both sides of the border—some who might be put in and some who might be put out. Then, only last year when Ulster, who had no hand or part in any of its terms, refused to take part in having her own boundaries judged after she had accepted the Act of 1920, the Government of the day and the Houses of Parliament passed an Act entirely altering the Treaty and rendering it compulsory for Ulster to have her case judged without any representative of her on the Commission. For a whole year we have had this Commission going round, the result being an Election, which became necessary in the North of Ireland in the early part of last year, in order that the hands of the Prime Minister might be strengthened — an Election upon this question of the boundary, in which he was returned again by a large majority.
All this time you have had, as my noble friend the Earl of Birkenhead said, practically under arms, 38,000 Ulstermen kept upon the borders—what I think are called
1258
"Specials"—at an enormous cost. I rejoice, to-day, that that situation is at an end. But if I am optimistic that that may lead to good between the North and South, I am pessimistic for other reasons. In the first place I trust no British Government in relation to Ulster, and I do not know whether this country will now cease the unfortunate policy, which she has pursued on all these occasions to which I have referred, in her dealings with the Free State, of making Ulster a mere pawn in the political game and the political policy this country has carried on. I hope it may be so. I hope, and I beg that at all ex tints for some years to come this country will see what Ulster has gone through, that she will see how right Ulster has been all through, that she will see that this very day is the vindication of the position which Ulster took up, and that she will take care that never again will Ulster become a pawn in the negotiations between Great Britain and the Free State.
That is probably all I need say upon that point. If the settlement of the boundary leads to better relations between the North and South, I think great advantages may accrue from this Bill. For my own part I have always hoped, and always longed, that the very best relations should subsist between the North and South of Ireland—I am a Southerner myself—but so long as you had a question like this open it was almost impossible for the North and South to come together.
The greater part of the speech of the noble Earl was taken up with the question of finance. Except as an English taxpayer I am not really concerned with it, but I have this additional advantage, that I never was in the least taken in by this question of what is called Article 5, under which you were to get large contributions from the Irish Free State. I knew from the start, when the Treaty was signed and that Article was put in, that it never would be put into force, and I have been made the more certain of that because four years have elapsed, and no attempt has been made even to set up the Committee of Arbitration provided for by the Article. Now the Article is cut out. Why was it put in? It was put in because the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had made one speech after another saying that, in any settlement as

1259
regards Ireland, the one thing he would take care of was that Irishmen should never be allowed to pay less towards the cost of the War than were their fellow-citizens in this country. The provision put in was mere window-dressing. It was to avoid the criticism at the time of the breaking up of the United Kingdom that you were foregoing the whole debt.
What did they forego? At the time of the Union Ireland was in a state of bankruptcy. The joint Exchequer of the two countries took over the whole of the Debts. They have gone on increasing that Debt ever since. The whole of the War Debt was incurred as much for the benefit of Ireland as for the benefit of this country, and the whole thing is wiped out. Of course it is, and I quite agree with the noble and learned Earl that it would have been utterly impossible ever to get paid. How could you? You have run away out of Ireland, not even taking care to preserve the lives and the properties of those who were your loyal fellow-countrymen over there. You had not time even to do that. And then you tell me that you are solemnly going to demand from the Free State—what was it, £220,000,000 or £150,000,000? Well, it is very easy to calculate it. This House passed a Bill in 1920, which said that the proper contribution from the Free State was £10,000,000 a year. Take that at twenty years purchase, that would be £200,000,000. How were you going to get it? Were you going to send a gunboat up the Liffey? Why, you had been beaten out of the country already. Were you going to blow up the Custom House—which had already been blown up by the Free Staters? The whole thing was ridiculous.
Do not bother yourselves about Article 5. Do not worry your hearts out that you are going to pay a single penny the more. There is no money in it. It is what I believe they call in the City "paper"—and bad paper. Of course, in a Treaty like this it sounds well. I am quite willing to take it, if you like, that it was an act of great generosity, but I do not think that was the way the noble and learned Earl put it. I think he said it was a bad debt, and so it was, and it was never meant to be anything else. So I do not stop for a moment to consider the other provisions as regards
1260
finance, though I suppose it is my Irish sense of humour which gives me some sort of pleasure in contemplating the substitution for £200,000,000 of some £4,000,000.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: £150,000,000, less deductions.
LORD CARSON: Yes, I know, but I am taking it as settled by the Act of 1920, and substituting something like £4,000,000, which is to be spread over sixty years. £250,000 a year instead of £10,000,000! It is really almost as good as a play to put that into the Treaty at all. It was not worth while. And the first part of it is to be paid by the Government retaining £900,000 that they have promised to pay—for what? As compensation to men whose property had been damaged when they were manufacturing bombs and other implements of war for the purpose of blowing up British troops.
My Lords, do not trouble about finance. Concentrate on the reality. There is always a great deal in reality in these matters where England and Ireland are entering into arrangements of this kind. Concentrate on the reality. The reality is that the boundary has been settled. That is a greater reality than many people who have not followed events might know. Far better settle the boundary as it is even than have a better boundary under the award of the Commission. To turn men out from under the Government that they are under is a far more difficult and dangerous process than turning men in under another Government, and it is far better that men should stay in as they are than that you should raise new grievances, by including people who do not want to be included and excluding people who do not want to be excluded. Therefore, so far as I am concerned—and it is the main point, after all, of this Bill—this is a great advantage.
I hope that Ulster will be left alone for sometime. I cannot read without some anxiety the news from Ireland to-day, because I see that a majority of the Dail, including those who do not go to the Dail because they refuse to take the Oath, are apparently opposed to this settlement. That is one of those matters which make one who looks for peace rather anxious, and I hope the difficulties

1261
may be overcome in some way or other. It is very little use passing a Bill in the Dail if the majority of the Dail are not really in favour of the Bill. But I hope wiser counsel from day to day may prevail in Ireland. So far as I am concerned I hope that those whose interests I have always attempted during my long public career to champion in the South and West of Ireland, as well as in the North of Ireland, will throw in the whole weight of their endeavour and influence in supporting this Treaty, and in aiding and helping not only the Government of Northern Ireland under Sir James Craig, but also the Government of the South and West of Ireland under Mr. Cosgrave.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lord, I hope that you will allow me, as one who since he first entered Parliament some thirty-three years ago has been deeply concerned with the affairs of Ireland, to offer a few words on this Bill. There are two subjects of great satisfaction in connection with this Agreement. The first is that now at long last the Government of Northern Ireland has been allowed to retain that which it always contended it should retain, that is, the Six Counties.
The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken described the deplorable results which followed from the insertion of Article 12 in the Treaty, and if any stronger condemnation could be given to that clause you would find it in the words of the Prime Minister himself yesterday in the House of Commons, in which he pointed out that it was quite impossible that under that Article there could be any report which would not lead to the gravest danger and unsettlement. His words were these:
"I am clear that neither that Report (of the Commission) 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 should be most reluctant to contemplate."
We wonder why, in view of that fact, this Article ever got inserted into the Treaty at all.
The noble and learned Earl gave us his account of it, and he told us that those who negotiated for Great Britain clearly foresaw the grave dangers of this Article 12. I think he described it as likely to produce results such as a charge
1262
of dynamite would produce. He then went on to tell us that the Free State negotiators insisted upon the Article being inserted; in other words, he threw the whole blame for inserting that Article upon the Free State and, I suppose, by inference, the Free State was really responsible. But I leave the noble and learned Earl to settle with his Free State friends whether he and his colleagues or the Free State were most responsible. My noble and learned friend Lord Carson, who has just spoken, has told us some of the consequences which have followed—perpetual unrest—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Does not the noble Lord realise that if Article 12 had not been inserted in the original Treaty this settlement would have been impossible?
LORD DANESFORT: I realise that this settlement would have been unnecessary.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Unnecessary?
LORD DANESFORT: Unnecessary if this Article had not been inserted. I know that the noble and learned Earl is anxious to understand any legitimate criticism so may I point out to him that he said that we objected to inserting this Article because we looked upon it as a sort of charge of dynamite, but the Free State insisted upon its being in and we had to give in. Therefore, I repeat that the noble and learned Earl throws all the blame for the insertion of this Article in the Treaty on the Free State negotiators.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If I am not embarrassing the noble Lord, may I ask him whether he would rather sacrifice the Treaty than have Article 12 in it? That is the question, and he must make his decision.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble and learned Earl really does not appear to apprehend what I have been saying.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I apprehend it very clearly.
LORD DANESFORT: He says that he is not responsible for Article 12.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: No, I did not.
LORD DANESFORT: He said, at any rate, that he looked upon it as a source of the greatest danger, as a charge of dynamite which must lead to disastrous or dangerous results. If he did that, I think it would not have been put into the Treaty unless he was forced to put it in. He tells us, as I understand him, that he was forced to put it in by the Free State negotiators. Therefore I think I am not carrying the argument too far when I say that the noble and learned Earl throws the blame for this Article upon the Free State negotiators, and I say that is a dispute between him and the Free State which I leave him to clear up.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I will clear it up. The noble Lord need not worry about that.
LORD DANESFORT: I am glad to think that I have done something to help the noble and learned Earl. I really do not want to go into the question of the disastrous results of this Article. They are patent on the face of them. They led to unsettlement, uneasiness and anxiety in the Northern parts of Ireland. What we are concerned with now is that this disastrous Article is put an end to once and, as I hope, for all.
The other cause for satisfaction which arises out of this Agreement is that the Prime Minister made it plain yesterday that all the obligations undertaken by the British Government for relieving the terrible sufferings of the Southern Irish loyalists would be carried out to the very letter and that this Agreement would in no way affect those obligations. That has given very great satisfaction, I think, to Irish loyalists. May I remind your Lordships of what the Prime Minister said:—
"… this Agreement makes no change of any sort or kind in the obligations … which the British Government have undertaken towards those who have suffered injury in person or property in the Free State either before or after the truce …. 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."
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, wanted to know whether this Committee was operating. I can assure him that it is operating and I hope it will operate satisfactorily. I am glad to be able to give
1264
him that assurance and, no doubt, the noble and learned Earl, in his reply upon the debate, will inform him further exactly what has been done.
But while expressing satisfaction that the British Government have not abandoned their obligations to the Southern Irish loyalists, I cannot but feel deep regret that this opportunity, the last perhaps that will be afforded to us, was not taken to get some better terms from the Free State Government to make amends to the Southern Irish loyalists for the terrible sufferings to which they have been subjected. I understand that an additional 10 per cent. has been promised to the paltry compensation given under the Act of 1923, making up, I think, the value of the depreciated Free State bonds which were issued at par. But had more pressure been brought to bear upon the Free State Government in this settlement, I believe they would have done something more to make amends for the terrible losses sustained by the Southern Irish loyalists.
Having said that there are those two elements of satisfaction, may I for one moment touch upon a question which it seems to me has been entirely neglected in this settlement? I refer to the question of justice to the British taxpayer. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, that it has become too much the custom, when any trouble arises in this country or elsewhere, to call upon the British taxpayer to put his hand in his pocket and pay millions of money. Trouble arises, there is a demand for peace or a hope of peace, and the remedy that is almost invariably tried is to ask the British Government for some millions of money. Under entirely different conditions from those now existing it might sometimes be a just demand. But the British taxpayer is groaning under the burdens he has now to bear, British industry is paralysed in many cases by the taxes, and this is the time chosen totally to neglect, as I think, in this settlement the interests of the taxpayer.
Let us see how the matter stands. Article 5 is abrogated. I will not read it again. We all know that the Free State solemnly promised to pay to the British Government their share of the National Debt and the cost of Pensions. It was a deliberate act on the part of the British Government to ask for, and it was

1265
a deliberate act on the part of the Free State Government to give, this promise, and I think it would be insulting to both Governments to suggest that when the Free State promised to make this contribution they really never meant it at all or that when the British Government inserted Article 5 in the Treaty they never intended to enforce it. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, who has just spoken, took a rather gloomy view of Article 5 and, possibly, was not particularly complimentary either to the British Government who demanded it or to the Free State Government who acceded to the demand. I assume, therefore, that Article 5 was put in with the intention on the part of the Free State Government to honour their obligation and on the part of the British Government to enforce it. Indeed, I observe that as recently as March last His Majesty's present Government regarded that obligation as enforceable, because they actually formulated a demand upon the Free State for £155,000,000 which they thought a just sum. Therefore when the noble and learned Earl tells us it is absurd to regard it as impossible, perhaps he will explain why. In the early part of this year so far were we from regarding it as impossible that we actually formulated a claim.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I will explain that. At that time it was assumed that an arbitration was going forward. It was known that the Free State claim was in the neighbourhood of £180,000,000. We put forward a fighting claim. The noble Lord, as a Chancery lawyer, will understand why we did so.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not as a Chancery lawyer in the least understand it. I do not wish to be acrimonious if I can help it, but the attitude of the noble and learned Earl challenges me. The point that I was endeavouring to make, which I have no doubt the noble Earl will appreciate, is this. He now says that this Article is not and, as I gather from him, never was enforceable. What I say is that if it is his attitude now that the Article is not enforceable, and that the claim cannot be pressed, why did he or the British Government in April or March last put forward a claim of £155,000,000? That is the question.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That is what I have told you.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble and learned Earl said something about having gone to arbitration. That is not, if I may venture to say so, my point at all. My point is this: If you have a claim which you say is not enforceable, what is the good of putting it forward, and telling the world there is a claim for £150,000,000? I will leave that to the noble and learned! Earl to explain, and he may be able to do so. It was put forward as a claim of £150,000,000 as late as April last, and I cannot imagine that any respectable Government would go to another Government which owes them money and say: "We claim £150,000,000," knowing all the time in their hearts that they could not get a farthing of it. It certainly is a strange action. Let me for one moment see what we do under this Agreement, and what we get. We give up a claim of £150,000,000 put forward by us. It is true, as the noble and learned Earl says, that that is subject to abatements. Your Lordships will notice that the amount has never been suggested—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It was suggested in the Childers Commission.
LORD DANESFORT: The Childers Commission had no such question under their consideration at all.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I say this was the basis of the Irish counterclaim put forward in public. The noble Lord either knows of it or ought to know of it.
LORD DANESFORT: I am quite aware, possibly as well aware as the noble and learned Earl. I think that his attitude is rather provoking, and is making my manner rather more combative than I intended. I will endeavour to avoid that. Of course I know about the Childers Commission, and of course I know there is a possible, or would be a possible, claim for abatement. What that would have amounted to is a totally different thing. The noble and learned Earl suggests that it would have reduced our claim to £50,000,000. May I remind the noble and learned! Earl that an Irish Nationalist paper in the North of Ireland, the Irish News, said that the claim of

1267
the British Government under Article 5 could not amount to a less sum than £60,000,000, and they are not likely to put the claim at a higher figure than was reasonable, so that according to the Irish Nationalists the claim could not be less than £60,000,000, and our claim was £155,000,000. But whether it be £155,000,000 or £60,000,000 or £50,000,000, to me it matters not if we give it up without adequate reason. Why did we give it up? Because we have got a promise of the Free State to repay us £50,000,000 in the course of sixty years, and that is what we have got in exchange for our claim of £155,000,000. The noble and learned Earl said in substance, and I am not at all sure that the Free State will thank him for it, that the Free State could not pay a penny. I gather from him—he will correct me if I am wrong—that they cannot balance their Budget, and will not for several years to come, and in fact, I understand, he puts forward a claim to bankruptcy.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Really the noble Lord must observe some contact with facts. He says I have suggested the Irish Free State cannot pay a penny. I never said anything of the kind. I stated in my speech that they were going to pay £150,000 down, and £250,000 for fifty years. Let us have a little contact with facts.
LORD DANESFORT: I understood from the noble Earl that he said they could not balance their Budget.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I did not say they could not pay a penny; that is what you say I said.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble and learned Earl said they could not possibly pay anything like the sum claimed, even the lower sum of £50,000,000. I do not think the Free State Government will thank the noble and learned Earl for putting it forward that they are in such a deplorable financial position.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Are you their mouthpiece?
LORD DANESFORT: Certainly not. I put forward my own opinion, that if I were in the position of the Free State I should not thank the noble Earl for putting forward my financial position as
1268
of so deplorable a character as he represents. Therefore I do say, as regards the Agreement, that the interests of the British taxpayer have not been regarded. I greatly regret that this matter has been so hurried through both Houses of Parliament that the public at large, and I think even members of your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, have not had time to consider it in all its aspects. I realise, however, that this Agreement has been signed and comes before your Lordships to recognise it, whether you approve of it or not. It is impossible to vote against it, but I think it is quite reasonable to criticise some of the provisions of the Agreement that we are asked to ratify. My last word is this. The advantages of this Agreement in getting a settlement—as I hope, a final settlement—as regards the boundary question in Ulster are enormous. It is hoped that the settlement of the question will lead to a better feeling between the North and South of Ireland. In that hope I most cordially agree. Therefore I shall vote, if it is necessary to vote, for this Bill in the fervent hope that it may mark and will mark a new era in the long period of unsettlement and disorder and will in Ireland, and will lead to a reconciliation.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked one or two questions which I think I may answer. In the first place, I may say that the ten per cent. increase is a flat rate. It applies to reports as well as to awards, and it applies to future reports and awards as well as to past. The noble Lord was well entitled to ask me about the delay in the meeting of the Committee. There has been a delay—I think a regrettable delay—which was largely due to the fact that the noble Lords concerned, including, I may say, Lord Selborne, the mover, were away from London until the end of November and it was impossible to collect the Committee. Lord Selborne, Lord Danesfort and the Duke of Northumberland have now preferred the list of typical cases, which are now being examined with a view to an early meeting. The Committee will now proceed in its deliberations. If the Committee recommend payments over and above the compensation payable under the Act, and if the

1269
Government accepts this recommendation, the cost will, of course, fall on the British Government, but, naturally, the additional ten per cent. payable under the Agreement will be taken into account by the Government if not by the Committee. I think that fairly answers the questions asked by Lord Arnold.
Now I must say a word on the debate, which has been, on the whole, fairly harmonious, except that everybody has differed from everybody else. Lord Beauchamp has expressed his regret for the British taxpayer, but Lord Beauchamp was answered by Lord Carson, because the noble and learned Lord said that in no event would anything have been recoverable. This was a claim, not an established liability, and if the noble and learned Lord is right on this point—on some points I must say, with great respect to him, I think he was wrong—then it was an answer to Lord Beauchamp. If it is the fact that the resources of the Irish Free State are such as I have stated them, then there can be no doubt that the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right and the noble Earl on this point has expressed undue apprehension. We have given nothing away, because there is nothing to give.
Now I address myself to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. I have listened to many foolish speeches in this House. I have made some myself, but never in all the years during which I have been a member of this House have I listened to a speech so foolish. Let me test his observations and make an examination as to whom the noble Lord stands for. Does he represent Sir James Craig in this House? Sir James Craig has gone home to Northern Ireland expressing thanksgiving for this settlement. He has gone home and is received with acclamation by his Parliament and by every public body in the North of Ireland. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any claim at all to speak for Northern Ireland, but if so let him decide his differences with Sir James Craig. Sir James Craig has spoken to me on this subject and if he had listened to the maddening recriminations of the noble Lord, I know what Sir James Craig would have said about him.
But the noble Lord, realising that he is on rather a slippery foothold in profess-
1270
ing to speak for Northern Ireland, was good enough to say that he was deeply concerned on behalf of the Irish Free State because he considered that what I had said might reflect on their financial solvency. Let the noble Lord wait until the Irish Free State invite him to become their mouthpiece in this House before he comments in this way on a statement which I made on the word of a high financial authority from the Free State itself. I will take the liberty to assure him that it was the Irish Free State Minister of Finance. The criticisms of the noble Lord are not helpful to anybody. They are not helpful to Ulster. They are not helpful to the Irish Free State. They are not helpful to this House, and they are not helpful to the British Empire.
At the end came a peroration which I think was the only considered part of his speech because it was the only sensible part of the speech. In his peroration he said he hoped this settlement would be received as an ultimate settlement, that there were great advantages involved if it was attained and that he entertained the fervent hope that it might be attained. Has he done much to establish his "fervent hope" by the speech he made to-night? If there had been forty people in this House holding this "fervent hope" of the noble Lord there would have been great prospects of this Bill becoming law! The noble Lord asked a question as to why we ever assented to this article. I have already told him why, and if he had done me the honour to listen with ordinary intelligence to what I said he would have known that I said we knew the day would come when in a milder spirit we could address ourselves to this topic. That day has come, and it is by reason of the risks we ran in the earlier Treaty that you are to-day reaching the stage when Ulster is protected and with a safe boundary. We did that. What contribution did the noble Lord make four years ago when the decision was taken which alone has safeguarded the boundaries of Ulster? If it had not been for the decision we took then there would not have been this settlement to-day, and the noble Lord would still have been here maundering the same imbecilities and giving the same advice.
We, at least, have adhered to a consistent policy. We have been conscious

1271
of the risks we ran. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, though he disapproved of various stages in our journey, has recognised that in the event we have been able, assisted much by the spirit of Ulster herself, to secure for her a boundary which she, considered indispensable to her. It is surely no small matter in asking for the Second Reading of this Bill that I am able to claim that the Irish Free State desires it, in spite of Lord Danesfort; that Ulster desires it, in spite of Lord Danesfort; that the British Government recommends it, in spite of Lord Danesfort; and I cordially invite your Lordships to support the House of Commons and give a unanimous vote in support of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) House resolved itself into Committee: Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

NORTHAMPTON GAS ORDER, 1925.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Northampton Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 17th June and published, be approved subject to the following addition:—
After Clause 11 insert the following clause:
For the protection of the Northamptonshire County Council.
"The following provision for the protection of the Northamptonshire County Council (in this section referred to as 'the County Council') shall, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing between the Company and the County Council, apply and have effect (that is to say):—
"Section 8 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, incorporated with this Order, shall be read and have effect as if in respect of any street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, under the control or management of the County Council, the period of fourteen clear days were inserted therein instead of the period of three clear days in the said section mentioned, and the notice therein
1272
mentioned shall be given to the surveyor of the County Council: Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of any opening or breaking up for the purpose of laying, connecting or repairing consumers' service pipes."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VICTORIA DOCKS ROAD SCHEME.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to call attention to a deputation to the Minister of Transport in March, 1924, when he stated that the scheme for the Victoria Docks Road had been under consideration by the Ministry of Transport for several years, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to promote a Bill in connection with this matter, what would be the total estimated cost of the scheme, whether the Ministry would contribute and how much, and what contributions, if any, have been arranged from local authorities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I invite your Lordships to descend from the heated atmosphere and the negotiations of high contracting parties to a matter mainly of local interest, although of some national importance. This Question is not in the least controversial. It is asked merely for the purpose of obtaining information and for the purpose, which is often very useful, of stimulating a little the authority concerned. The scheme to which the Question refers is generally known as the Victoria Docks Road scheme, and the district to which it refers is that which lies cast of the River Lea and is known for the most part as Silvertown. Since it contains very important docks it is occupied also by large factories, which all give rise to busy traffic, and the flow of vehicles to and from the docks and the traffic delays there are considerable for obvious reasons, not only on account of the width of the streets but because, in addition, there is a level crossing called White Gates, known, I believe, very unfavourably to those who use that locality, which causes constant delay. Your Lordships will hardly wonder at this when I tell you that the level crossing is used in 24 hours by 2,852 vehicles and, out of those 24 hours, it has to be closed for a period exceeding nine hours to allow trains to pass. Your Lordships can imagine the

1273
congestion, which is cumulative, because the level crossing is followed by bridges which have to be opened and shut and which shut vehicles in between these points.
This matter has been discussed now, together with the scheme for a new road, for a very long time. In fact, it was originally raised many years ago, and this particular scheme, I think, has been under consideration for a very considerable period. A deputation last year visited the then Minister of Transport., Mr. Gosling, and raised the question of when the scheme would be proceeded with, and he stated, in the words which your Lordships will find in my Question, that it had been under consideration by the Ministry of Transport for several years. It is the object of my Question to expedite that consideration. This is a large scheme and an expensive one, but it is important for this reason, that the traffic to which it refers is traffic going to and from a very important part of the docks of this City and affects very vitally the commerce of London. The delays which occur all add to the expense and it is very important that they should be ended from the point of view of commerce.
I do not wish, in view of the unexpected business that came before this Question and the business that has to follow, to delay the House to-night, and therefore I propose, having stated shortly to your Lordships that this is a scheme for a large new road in this district—of which I have been furnished with a picture and which is going to cost a good deal—to limit myself simply to asking the noble Viscount who is going to reply whether any further result has followed the several years' consideration by the Ministry of Transport; whether they have yet arrived at any scheme—one reason for delay was the setting up of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which is now in existence and which can now be consulted on the subject and, I believe, has powers which might be useful; whether they propose to promote, if necessary, a Bill or whatever other measure is needed to authorise this scheme; what the total estimated cost of the scheme will be; whether the Ministry will contribute; and what contributions, if any, have been arranged from local authorities. I suppose that this is a scheme to which the Road Fund might
1274
properly contribute if the noble Viscount's colleague does not raid it for other and less legitimate purposes. I do not know whether the Government themselves are prepared to contribute. I can quite understand that at the moment they may say that economy comes first. So long as they will carry that out, and not raid monies which are devoted to other purposes, perhaps it will not be necessary for them to contribute from public funds, but I should be glad to know what the position of the scheme is, and if there are any Papers in connection with the matter which the noble Viscount would lay upon the Table—any Report from the Ministry or anything of that sort, showing what has been going on—I should like to move for them. I beg to move.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, at any rate in the main point that he has put before the House. There is no doubt that this is a very much needed improvement to the East End of this City. This is a road which I personally have known for some years. I have always been struck by the great congestion of all kinds of traffic on it and the necessity of doing something to ease that congestion. I think that it was so long ago as 1912 or 1913, when I was a member of the Road Board, that we first had this subject in our view. Even in those days, it was known to be a very bad case of congestion of traffic and a sore point in the general traffic in the East End of London. The noble Earl referred to a possible contribution from the Road Board. I am glad that he said that they should contribute to, not pay for, the scheme because, in this kind of improvement, it is not fair to call upon the Road Fund to contribute the whole cost, or even a large proportion of it. That Fund has already been bled too severely for schemes which were really not in the nature of improving the roads so much as providing for unemployment and for objects quite unconnected with the original purposes for which it was established.
I do not think that any of your Lordships could imagine without going there the danger and difficulty of entering traffic at this point. It is rather a curious feature of this traffic that it is largely horse-drawn, short journeys being made between the Victoria Docks and various

1275
warehouses, and it is quite different in character from much of the traffic in the East End. I understand that at the present moment the Treasury have something like £16,000,000 of savings or hoardings, if I may put it in that way, from motor taxation, some of which, no doubt, could be used for this purpose, and there are other bodies, including the London County Council and certain local authorities who, I think, should contribute. Those directly interested are the County Borough of West Ham, the County Borough of East Ham, the London County Council, which certainly should help in this matter, the Essex County Council, the Corporation of the City of London, which is interested in trade, and the Port of London Authority, which is obviously interested in the traffic backwards and forwards between the docks and warehouses being made as easy as possible.
I do not intend to detain the House at this late hour, but I should be very glad if the noble Viscount, even if he cannot give an altogether satisfactory reply too night, would impress upon the Ministry that this is one of the most urgent cases for improvement in London. When I was on the Road Board the cost was estimated at about £2,500,000. That has now risen to between £3,000,000 and £4,660,000—it is impossible to say exactly what it would be. Some of the worst features of this road to the Victoria Docks could be remedied for far less than that and it might be possible to recommend that though the whole scheme cannot be carried out at once, the difficulty caused by the level crossing which is known as the White Gates could be remedied and a great deal of trouble removed. One point that should not be forgotten is that the working people of that part of London, who have to keep what is known as "time" at their factories, often get delayed for considerable periods, as the noble Earl has already foreshadowed to the House, by this level crossing. They lose time and, in consequence, they lose part of their wages. This is a very urgent ease, and I do hope that the noble Viscount who will answer for the Government will be able to give us some hope that it may be taken in hand by the Ministry of Transport at an early date.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I hardly think the noble Earl will expect me to
1276
admit that the Ministry of Transport requires any stimulus in carrying out its arduous and complicated duties, and although I have no doubt he is anxious as to the future of this proposed road, I could not help suspecting that there was also something in the nature of a desire to find out what might be the design of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the Road Fund. I dare say he, will allow me not to make any statement on these Budget matters. As regards the whole question, of course it is generally admitted that this proposed road would be a very important improvement, giving fresh access to the docks, and I do not think my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has spoken too strongly of the advantages which would be obtained. I have to say, however, that the scheme itself, as the noble Lord has intimated, is one of great magnitude and also of great complexity. It involves, for instance, the destruction of a great deal of house property, and also the preparation of a housing scheme to provide alternative accommodation for the people who would be displaced.
In the last year or two, I think, the proposal has been examined very carefully—not ten years ago, but in the last year—and preliminary surveys, drawings and models have been prepared; but until the matter has been gone into in a good deal further detail, I understand that it is not possible to give an estimate of the cost of this great scheme. The scheme was before the Minister of Transport earlier in the year and he referred it to the London Traffic Advisory Committee. They reported that in their opinion it was one of the most urgently required improvements in the area of Greater London. As to the question of finance, I understand that no steps have been taken at present to arrive at an allocation of the cost, in the event of the project being undertaken, and so it is very difficult at the present moment to express any opinion as to the time when the matter may be proceeded with, but presumably when the allocation and distribution of the finance has been settled, and details have been worked out, it is for the local authorities and not the Minister of Transport to promote a Bill.
The only other question is that of laying Papers. I am afraid there are no Papers to produce. I should hesitate

1277
to call the noble Earl's attention to the Administration of the Road Fund, 1923–24, in which the scheme, or what is involved in the scheme, is set out in considerable detail. If I did not know that he had studied the matter deeply I might advise him to read some of the paragraphs of that Report, but I know that in his case that is unnecessary.
EARL RUSSELL: I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, and if there are no Papers I will withdraw my Motion. Although the noble Viscount says that the Minister of Transport requires no stimulus, I am sure he will not be surprised if I remind him again of this matter in the course of, say, six months.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Probation officers.
(2) The probation committee of a probation area may pay such sums by way of salary or remuneration to the probation officers appointed for the area and to any persons, not being probation officers, named in probation orders made by any court of summary jurisdiction sitting within the area or by any court of assize or quarter sessions in respect of persons who have been committed for trial by examining justices sitting within the area, and such sums on account of expenses incurred by those officers and persons in the performance of their duties, as may be agreed upon between the committee and the local authority liable to defray that salary, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), after "duties, as," to insert "subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to scales of salaries, remuneration and expenses." The noble Lord said: I think this and the following amendments to Clause 1
1278
are practically drafting. The Home Office is advised that as the Bill stands there is a possible inconsistency between Clause 1 (2) as amended and Clause 8, and the Amendment on the Paper is required to make the situation quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("as") insert ("subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to scales of salaries, remuneration and expenses").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("defray that salary") and insert ("make the payment")
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("as")
Page 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Venue in indictable offences.
11.—(1) A person charged with any indictable offence may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended, or is in custody on a charge for the offence, or has appeared in answer to a summons lawfully issued charging the offence, as if the offence had been committed in that county or place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place:
Provided that, if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this subsection that the accused would suffer hardship if he were indicted and tried in the county or place aforesaid, the examining justices shall forthwith (but without prejudice to their powers under Section twenty-two of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848), cease to proceed further in the matter under this subsection.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "A person charged with any indictable offence," to insert "committed in England or Wales." The noble Earl said: You may remember that on the Second Reading I raised a question on this clause, whether the language was not so wide as to include the possibility of

1279
trying offences committed anywhere, and the noble Viscount on the Woolsack was good enough to state that he would consider it. I have put down an Amendment intended to meet the point, but if the noble and learned Viscount has considered the matter I should be glad to know what is his view.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, after ("offence") insert ("committed in England or Wales").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the manner in which he has put this point. I am quite satisfied that under no conditions could an offence committed out of England and Wales, not now triable in our Courts, be tried under this Bill, which in no way extends the jurisdiction of our Criminal Courts. If this Amendment were inserted it might create uncertainty as to the other clauses of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) after "justices," where that word first occurs, to insert "or to a Judge of the High Court of Justice." The noble and learned Lord said: On the Second Reading I pointed out that it seemed possible, under the clause as it stood, that a man might be tried in a place where there would be great difficulty for him to get his witnesses, and far away from the place where the crime was supposed to have been committed. I could not at the moment see any particular object in the clause. The Lord Chancellor explained that the object was to save occasionally transporting people from one place to another, and so that a man might be tried where he was arrested. I can see possibly some small advantage from the point of money and of convenience if that is done, and I do not want to interfere in any way with the action of the Executive or the police in such matters, but I do still think there is a danger that in times of stress or excitement, or with a justice who is not very discreet, the clause might be worked to the disadvantage of a prisoner. I have accordingly suggested that there should be a power of appealing from the discretion of a justice to a Judge of the High Court of Justice, just as there is at this
1280
moment a power of appealing, in matters of bail, where undue bail has been asked for or bail has been refused, to a Judge of the High Court of Justice sitting in Chambers. Probably it is very rarely that the power would be used, but the existence of that power would have a steadying effect upon the police and justices, and when it is required to be used it can be done very simply. I am in great hopes that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, after ("justices") insert ("or to a Judge of the High Court of Justice").—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not like this proviso at all, and in a subsequent Amendment I have tried to introduce words which I think might, or ought to, limit its application. I think it would tell hardly, particularly in the case of poor prisoners. I certainly hope that the Amendment of the noble Lord will be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that if effect could be given to this Amendment it would have to be re-drafted so as to give a clear power of appeal. But, in any case, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. The whole object of the proviso is to assist and expedite the administration of justice. The main part of the clause is to the effect that if a man is apprehended in a particular county, or a summons is issued against him in that county, and he appears, then the hearing may, if the examining justices think it right, take place in that county. That, of course, is to save the transport of people from place to place, to facilitate a quick hearing, and to enable the hearing to take place in most cases where the offender is found. The proviso makes it clear that if the justices think that any hardship would accrue to the accused by reason of their taking that course then they shall not proceed.
I agree that that leaves the discretion with them, but I have always found—and I am sure the noble Lord has always found—that magistrates are careful in using their powers. I think that this discretion may be trusted to them, and I feel some difficulty in imagining a case where, in sonic small charge, the prisoner during the course of the proceedings—for that is the expression—would be allowed to delay the whole matter until

1281
he went to a High Court Judge and asked the opinion of that Judge upon the question of the more convenient jurisdiction. If the noble Lord presses it I will certainly think it over once more between now and the Report stage, but my present view is that it would only complicate matters and minimise the value of the clause.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am afraid that I have not made my point clear. The earlier part of the clause enables the justices to enter into the examination of a prisoner at the place where he is arrested, though the crime may have been committed far away. If the charge is a charge against a man residing in some particular part of the country but happening to be arrested in another part, it may be very difficult for him, particularly if he is a poor man, to get the local witnesses who are required. No doubt the proviso is prepared in order to meet that case. But what I want the proviso to say is
"Provided that if at any time it appears to any examining justices or to a Judge of the High Court of Justice during the course of any proceedings …"
that the accused will suffer hardship, then he should obtain the benefit of the proviso. I do feel that it is not right that a single justice should be given the power to determine the venue where a man is to be tried, it being a non-natural venue.
I do not myself see the objection to the form of the words I have proposed, but I am perfectly prepared to accept any other Amendment. I hope that the Government will see their way to allow this power of appeal. It is not only in small cases that it would apply. These may be very serious charges indeed—charges of serious sexual offences, and you might easily have a charge of murder tried under this clause. I hope the Government will allow the natural and simple course of an appeal being taken to a High Court Judge who would decide the matter summarily and at once, at no serious expense or trouble to anybody. I think there ought to be some concession on this point.
EARL RUSSELL: A strong point is that made by the noble Lord about the non-natural venue. I do not much like this change in the law at all, and I do not see any particular reason given in the
1282
clause why it should take place. It is quite a new theory that you try a man where you happen to catch him, and if you are going to do that it is surely not for the purposes of justice, but for the purposes of administrative convenience. If it is to be done it should be surrounded with all possible safeguards.
LORD PARMOOR: If it is a question of drafting there should be no difficulty about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider it very seriously.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "hardship," to insert "or be put to additional expense." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment on the same proviso. The clause is not to be put into operation
"if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this subsection that the accused would suffer hardship …"
in the circumstances specified. That appears to me to be a very wide expression, and I desire to protect a poor person who has been charged with a criminal offence against his being put to any additional expense. I know from my own experience in Quarter Sessions that that is a very important point. It may be said that the amount of expense is small, but I do not think that answers my objection. I do not think the prisoner ought to be put to any additional expense. Directly you raise the question of the amount of additional expense you give the whole discretion to the justices.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("hardship") insert ("or be put to additional expense").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not think this Amendment is necessary. The effect of it would be that if it would cost the accused an extra shilling to be tried in one Court rather than the other the whole machinery of the clause is to fall to the ground. Surely, if any substantial extra expense should be caused that would be "hardship," which a magistrate would be willing to consider,

1283
but to say that if it caused any extra expense the whole thing should go would I submit, be somewhat absurd. This Amendment comes rather badly from my noble friend, because in the Bill as his Government introduced it the clause was only operative if there were "undue hardship" caused to the prisoner. So he appears to consider a certain amount of hardship to be due to the prisoner.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to go into personal matters, but I happened to be away at Geneva at the particular time, and there were many matters that I should have objected to. It is quite true that the word "undue" has now been eliminated, because I put down originally an Amendment to take out the word "undue." But it has been very properly eliminated. I do feel, however, on the question of expense, that no expense in a matter of this kind should be put on a poor prisoner by a change of venue from what I might call the natural venue to a place where he might be separated from the surroundings with which he is conversant. However, I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of dividing and, as the noble and learned Viscount does not see his way to accept my words, I will not press them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Provisions as to taking of depositions and caution to and statement of accused on proceedings before examining justices.
The evidence which may be given by the accused or his witnesses under this section shall be such evidence only as is material for the purpose of enabling the justices to determine whether the accused ought or ought not to be committed for trial, and, if so committed, for what offence.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to omit this paragraph from subsection (5). The noble Lord said: The words I propose to omit are:
"The evidence which may be given by the accused or his witneses under this section"—
that is the section we are considering and which deals with the change of venue—
"shall be such evidence only as is material for the purpose of enabling the justices to determine whether the accused ought or ought not to be committed for trial, and, if so committed, for what offence."
1284
That is to say, that the whole case cannot be heard but only a portion of it, for the purpose of enabling the justices to determine whether the accused ought or ought not to be committed for trial. I suggest that it is impossible to determine that point without hearing the whole ease. One of the most material witnesses at the end of the case is the person charged, if he desires to make his own statement. I very much object to the notion that at this period and for this purpose any individual charged with an offence should not be at liberty to put forward his whole case for the defence, but that he should be limited to one particular only. I am moving that the whole paragraph be left out.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out lines 23 to 28.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wonder that the noble and learned Lord desired an explanation of this paragraph because, to those who are less familiar than he with the practice of petty sessional courts, it seems rather strange The fact is that this is a consolidating Bill and it is intended to give effect to the practice as it obtains to-day. This paragraph represents the practice to-day, which has been determined by the Courts to be the proper practice. That is really the case. The justices have to consider whether they will commit the accused for trial or not, and they are carefully warned by everyone that it is not their business to try the case but that when they come to the conclusion that there Should be a committal for trial it is better, not only for the prosecution but for the accused, that the evidence should not proceed further than is necessary to determine that point. So it has been held that they have the right, indeed they have often been told it is their duty, not to try the whole case out.
Take a case of criminal libel. The magistrates may say that the case ought really to be tried. But the accused may say: "No, I want to justify the libel here in this petty sessional court. I want to call all my witnesses and prove that the libel was true." You may have a trial going on for days on an issue which the magistrates really have to right to determine when all the evidence is over. If they have made up their minds that they ought to commit, it is

1285
better that they should say so and let the evidence be directed entirely to the question as to whether there shall or shall not be a committal for trial and not to the other question, which in that case will not arise in that Court, as to whether there should be a conviction. I am told, and I believe it is true, that this represents the practice to-day. If so, I do not think that noble Lords mould wish to alter it.
EARL RUSSELL: Is that a quite exhaustive description of what might happen? Criminal libel, of course, is a very peculiar thing and there is no doubt that you cannot justify it before the magistrate. But supposing you are charged with an ordinary felony or theft and your defence is not so much to traverse the evidence of the prosecution as something in the nature of an alibi: that is a thing your may be allowed to put forward and which must be put forward in the police court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
EARL RUSSELL: Because it is not evidence as to whether there is a prima facie case made out against you, which is rather a point for committal. It is evidence, that, where there is a prima facie case made nit, there is a complete answer which, if the justices believe, disposes of it then and there.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clearly in that case such a course would be followed.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not sure that it could be under this. Is it necessary to put this paragraph in? Will not the rules of evidence govern the matter without there being any thing statutory about it?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think the Lord Chancellor is right and I think it is for the advantage of the accused. The magistrate is not to try the case and, therefore, it is not necessary for the accused to produce all his witnesses. One of the most telling arguments against the defence is: "Why did you not raise it before?" It is a very fair argument against the prisoner that he has a chance of making his statement before the magistrates and has not done so. It is a little hard upon him if, when he brings
1286
some witnesses to the trial which he was not conveniently able to bring before, it is said to him: "You could have brought these witnesses before the magistrates but you did not," and, therefore, they are discredited. I think it is to the advantage of the prisoner or the person accused teat he should not be able to bring his whole case forward before the magistrates because it will save him from having the reflection made upon him later that he has not done it. I think most people accustomed to defending prisoners would tell your Lordships' House that on the whole this provision is for the benefit of the prisoner.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry I cannot agree with Lord Phillimore and with the Lord Chancellor. The comments which Lord Phillimore has mentioned are undoubtedly made. But I have sat very often in petty sessions and Quarter Sessions, and I know of no such practice as that referred to by the Lord Chancellor. Let me take an illustration—I am not quite certain that I have it accurately and I should be very sorry if it were not accurate. But take the Poor Prisoners Act under which a prisoner asks and ought to be allowed to have counsel to defend him. He is not entitled to it unless he has already disclosed at the preliminary inquiry what is the nature of his defence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He must disclose it, but he need not prove it.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes; but that is a very fine distinction, if I may so put it, to ask any magistrate to make, and it may put the accused in a very serious position indeed, because it will be said at once that disclosure was made as to the nature of the defence but no evidence was given which supported it in any way. So far as the Poor Prisoners Act is concerned, I think that would reduce it to a nullity. I am sorry to say that I take the other view and, if necessary, I shall have to ask your Lordships to divide.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am very reluctant to interpose, but looking at it, like Lord Phillimore, from the point of view of the poor prisoner and assuming, unlike Lord Phillimore, that I happened to be innocent, it is surely a great

1287
advantage to me when I come to be tried that I should tell, through myself and my witnesses, precisely the story I told in the first instance before the magistrates. Upon that ground I hope that the interests of the innocent prisoner in this respect will be preserved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to have a Division at this early stage, and as the noble and learned Lord feels strongly about this I will think this over before the Report stage and, perhaps, the noble and learned Lord will put it down again.
EARL RUSSELL: Will not the Lord Chancellor accept it now?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to controvert the Lord Chancellor. I know there are difficulties about a Division and I do not want to be obstructive in any case. But might I ask that this paragraph should be deleted now? I am willing to consider before the Report stage any matter he brings forward. That, surely, is the proper course.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not like taking things out of a Bill and putting them in again, and as I have behind me the experience of Lord Phillimore I could not do that to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to go to a Division, but I am afraid in that case I shall have to do so.
EARL RUSSELL: What do you expect an honest prisoner to do? You expect a man who is wrongly accused to disclose his whole defence the moment he comes before the magistrates. He says: "I am an innocent man, and I am wrongfully accused. What I actually did say was so and so, and I told my story at the earliest possible moment." You could have no stronger testimony in his favour when he comes to trial than that. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will accept this Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think noble Lords are under a misconception. This does not prevent a prisoner from stating fully what his case is, and swearing to it. It does not prevent a prisoner from calling witnesses. It only says that the magistrates are not, after a certain point, to be compelled to hear all the
1288
witnesses out, and to try out the case. I can assure the noble Lord, as the learned Lord Chancellor has said—and my experience as a Judge in the Crown Court confirms it—that it is to the advantage of the accused.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very reluctant to intervene in the debate, which I have very imperfectly heard, and which is being conducted by noble and learned Lords, in whose profession I have great confidence but no great capacity to mingle. I should venture to think that the offer which has been made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is one which ought to be accepted. He has said that in consequence of the observations which have been made by noble and learned Lords he is quite willing to consider this question between now and Report. I have heard that offer made thousands of times, and I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it should be accepted. It is not an easy thing for a Leader of the House in this particular period of the year and at this period of the evening to get through public business, and if the result of a Division were to show—I do not think it will show—that there were not sufficient noble Lords present to carry on the business, then I do not think that would be in the interests of all concerned. Although I am responsible for the Bill being put clown for this evening, I do not think it was my fault that it was postponed till the later stages of our proceedings. Your Lordships are all aware that the Irish-Bill came upon us like a thunderclap, and had to be dealt with. In these circumstances I would ask noble Lords opposite to try to co-operate, with us in carrying on the business. It will be a very reasonable thing to allow this matter—a delicate matter of Quarter Sessions procedure—to stand over until the next stage of the Bill, and I rather hope that will be done.
LORD PARMOOR: I appreciate the nature of the appeal which has been made by the noble Marquess, and I am not unprepared to assent to it as regards my Amendment. On the other hand, sometimes leaving these matters over for consideration is a convenient way of getting rid of them. I am speaking quite frankly. To my mind this is a very important matter regarding the fair trial of prisoners.

1289
—an extremely important matter. I am sorry that I differ from my noble friend Lord Phillimore, and from the learned Lord Chancellor but if the Lord Chancellor assures us on this aide of the House that this matter will have attention, I am willing to come and talk it over with him, but if the standing of it over is merely a method of getting rid of an immediate difficulty then I do not agree. Having regard to what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has said I shall not press my Amendment further if the learned Lord Chancellor will understand that I really want to have it considered.
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies may I say another word? This is, of course, a very important Bill, and the Committee stage is a very important stage. It is not in the least the fault of the noble Marquess, or of anybody, that there is a very thin House for it, but it is very unfortunate. I have an Amendment later about which there will be very diverse opinions in the House, and upon which it would be rather absurd to take a Division in a House of this size. If this is put off, will the noble and learned Lord see that on Third Reading we have some sort of guarantee that it will be taken earlier in the evening and in a full House?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is only to Report stage and not to. Third Reading that this is put off. I think I may be allowed to say that when I ask for time to consider a point I do consider it. I have had the honour of conducting many Bills through this and the other House, and I make it a point, if I think there is a real matter to be dealt with, of dealing with it, on my own Amendment if need be, on Report, or at any rate giving an Amendment of any noble Lord full consideration. I recognise that this Amendment has received considerable support, and I will consider it with the utmost desire to arrive at the best decision in the public interest.
EARL RUSSELL: Can the noble and learned Viscount make any promise that the other stages will be taken at a rather more reasonable hour?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We do not expect another Irish Bill in this House. On the Report stage I shall
1290
certainly ask my noble friend to put down this Bill as the first important Order.
LORD PARMOOR: In those circumstances I withdraw my Amendment for future consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Power of justices to commit to, and of court to direct re-trial at, convenient assizes or quarter sessions]:
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had an Amendment on the Paper to add to paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1), "or be put to additional expense." The noble Lord said: These are the same words as I proposed for insertion before, and I assume that the learned Lord Chancellor takes the same view with regard to them therefore will not move again.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:—
Power to dispense with grand jury at quarter sessions where all persons committed have pleaded guilty.
".—(1) If by the fifth day preceding the day appointed for holding any quarter sessions no persons have been committed for trial at the sessions except persons in respect of whom a certificate has been transmitted in pursuance of Section four of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, stating that they have pleaded guilty or admitted the truth of the charge, there shall be deemed to be no business requiring the attendance of grand jurors at that sessions, and the provisions of the Assizes and Quarter Sessions Act, 1908, shall apply accordingly.
"(2) In any case to which this section applies an indictment against any person for the offence in respect of which he was committed for trial may be presented to the court without having been found by a grand jury, and where an indictment is so presented it shall be proceeded with in the same manner as it would have been proceeded with before the commencement of this Act, and all enactments and rules of law relating to procedure in connection with indictable offences shall have effect accordingly.
"(3) An indictment against any person presented to a court of quarter sessions in pursuance of this section may contain, in addition to the counts for the offences specified in the caption of the depositions, any further counts founded on facts or evidence

1291
disclosed in any examination or deposition taken before a justice in the presence of the accused.
"A court of quarter sessions may in any case direct any such further counts as aforesaid to be added to any indictment presented to the court.
"(4) Rules may be made under the Indictments Act, 1915, for carrying this section into effect, and in particular for modifying, so far as is necessary for the purpose of this section, any enactment, including any statutory form, and for applying with the necessary modifications the provisions of Section three of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, relating to certificates of an indictment having been found."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment to which I referred in debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. The other House has, after debate struck out from the Bill the clause which would have abolished grand juries at Quarter Sessions. I, of course, accept that decision, but I would like to take this opportunity of dealing with a small part of that subject. I can put the point in a few minutes. The Administration of Justice Act, 1920, provides that when a defendant pleads guilty before examining justices the clerk to the justices shall forward a certificate to that effect to the clerk of the court of trial, and the grand jury at the court of trial shall, on production of the certificate, return a true without hearing any witnesses. In other words, where the defendant has pleaded guilty at petty sessions and is sent for trial, the grand jury have no function at all to perform except to look at the document to see that it is a certificate that the accused has pleaded guilty, and then to find a true bill.
It does seem to me an outrage to ask twenty-three grand jurymen—with necessary allowance for absentees, usually you summon twice the necessary number of grand jurymen—it does seem to me an outrage to have forty or fifty grand jurymen, most of them busy men, made to come to Quarter Sessions, possibly in some cases from the other end of the county, for the sole purpose of looking at a piece of paper and seeing that the defendant has pleaded guilty and then formally finding a true bill. Some noble Lords may say that never happens. But it does happen. I heard a very distinguished Chairman of Quarter Sessions only a few days ago say that in the last four years it has happened three times in his court. If it happens as often as
1292
that in other courts, there may be many cases where this waste of time occurs, and. I hope your Lordships will agree to this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 13, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: I have been a consistent supporter of maintaining the principle of grand juries at Quarter Sessions, and I have addressed your Lordships on more than one occasion on the principles of the maintenance of grand juries at Quarter Sessions. I have also myself proposed a clause in order to ensure that they should be so maintained. The present position has been put quite fairly and frankly by the learned Lord Chancellor. On an open vote in another place, where the Whips were taken off, by a considerable majority an Amendment was accepted which re-introduced the principle of summoning grand juries for Quarter Sessions exactly on the same footing as for Assizes. I have heard the Lord Chancellor more than once—and I am not saying this in any antagonistic sense—call attention to the possible loss of time. I do not take that view at all. If there is one matter on which the people of this country are ready to give services for national purposes of the most serious kind it is to assist in the administration of justice. It is said that jurors have to suffer a good deal by reason of the public duty they undertake; but it is a great public duty, and a duty which they are willing to perform and to which they do not take the objection one might anticipate.
I desire that there should be no distinction between Assizes and Quarter Sessions. At Quarter Sessions, if this Bill passes, you will have cases of a very serious kind, and why should the poorer class of prisoner who is probably worse defended at Quarter Sessions than at Assizes be deprived of any advantage of this kind? I will give instances. I have known cases of prisoners who have pleaded guilty, and I have pointed out to the grand jury that, although the prisoner appears to have pleaded guilty, it may well have been under a, misapprehension. I have not the same regard for justices as the Lord Chancellor has, although they do their business extremely well; but on more than one occasion I have

1293
pointed out to the grand jury that although the prisoner appears to have pleaded guilty they must take an independent view—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not made my point quite clear apparently. In the case covered by this Amendment they cannot do that. They must find the prisoner guilty, and therefore it is useless to talk to the grand jury about what magistrates may have done.
LORD PARMOOR: In a case where a prisoner has pleaded guilty the grand jury may consider the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No they cannot.
LORD PARMOOR: There is no reason why they should not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Act of 1920 says they shall not.
LORD PARMOOR: I looked carefully at the Act of 1920 because that is the Act which excuses jurors from coming to Quarter Sessions under certain conditions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Oh no, that is another Act.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it is the Act of 1920.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, it is not.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not dealing with the 1908 Act but with the Act of 1920. I think it is possible the Lord Chancellor may have in his mind the Act of 1908 which is referred to in his Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we are at cross-purposes. The Act of 1920 provides that where an accused has pleaded guilty at petty sessions and is sent for trial the grand jury, on a certificate of that plea being produced to them, must find a true bill, and cannot throw it out. That is the Act to which I refer. This Amendment provides that when that happens, and it is made clear five days before the Quarter Sessions that there is no other case in the list, then the case shall come under the Act of 1908 and the grand jury need not attend at all.
LORD PARMOOR: In connection with that there is a provision for dispensing
1294
with the grand jury in certain cases. I want to get the principle quite clear. I do not look upon the grand jury as being summoned for criminal purposes only, but as part of our whole jury system which I regard as increasingly important. What does the next part of this Amendment mean in which it says:
"In any case to which this section applies an indictment against any person for the offence in respect of which he was committed for trial may be presented to the court without having been found by a grand jury."
There you contemplate the very provision I refer to. You contemplate the case where a prisoner is tried by Quarter Sessions and has pleaded guilty, his case not having been before the grand jury. If the Lord Chancellor is able to convince me I am wrong I am open to conviction; but those are the words. There is a direct contemplation of a prisoner being tried at Quarter Sessions without his case having been before the grand jury.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He has pleaded guilty.
LORD PARMOOR: Is it the case that this clause only applies to cases where the prisoner has pleaded guilty?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Most certainly. If the noble and learned Lord would do me the honour of reading the subsection he will see that the whole clause applies to cases where the man has pleaded guilty and the function of the grand jury is purely nominal.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am anxious to save grand juries at Quarter Sessions, and being anxious to keep grand juries at Quarter Sessions I support the Lord Chancellor. The only chance of keeping grand juries at Quarter Sessions is to avoid their being summoned in cases where the man has already pleaded guilty, and where it is known that the grand jury can have nothing to do.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to interfere with business, and therefore for the reasons which have been given I do not propose to divide against this new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Court of quarter sessions on appeal to state case on point of law.
(3) If a court of quarter sessions is of opinion that an application under this section is frivolous, it may refuse to state a case, and where the court does so it shall, if the applicant so requires, cause the clerk of the peace to deliver to him a certificate of the refusal, and the reasons for the refusal shall be stated in the certificate:
Provided that the court shall not refuse to state a case where the application is made by or on behalf of the Attorney-General.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to omit the proviso in subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: I do not want the Attorney-General in matters of this kind to have any preferential position. I do not want any distinction made in his favour. I think it is extremely hard on prisoners generally that special privileges should be granted to the Attorney-General that are not in accordance with the ordinary criminal procedure, and I therefore move that the words:
"Provided that the Court shall not refuse to state a case where the application is made by or on behalf of the Attorney-General"
be omitted. I presume that they apply to almost any case, because application might be made on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, for instance, and would then come under the words "by or on behalf of the Attorney-General." It is very unlikely that at Quarter Sessions an application would be made by the Attorney-General himself, it would be made on his behalf. I object very much to any privilege of this kind being given to the Attorney-General, and I therefore move that the words of this proviso be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out lines 7 to 9.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that the noble and learned Lord is under a misapprehension. In very few cases does the Attorney-General appear at Quarter Sessions, either in person or through some counsel who represents him. It is only in such cases that this proviso would apply. It would not apply to ordinary cases of prosecutions at Quarter Sessions. Let me add that this proviso is not new. It is the rule and statutory
1296
as regards the stating of cases at petty sessions and is found in an Act of 1857, which relates to the dealing by justices with cases out of session. There, too, they have to state a, case if the Attorney-General asks for it. After all, the Attorney-General is a public officer who acts in the public interest and it is only in the public interest that he will require a case to be stated, although the justices might be unwilling to do so. It does seem a pity that in this new provision, which for the first time makes it compulsory upon the justices to state a case if required, there should be a clause which makes it impossible for the Attorney-General, if he thinks fit, to get a case stated. I put it, not for a moment on the grounds of privilege for an individual—
LORD PARMOOR: Oh, no, it is the system.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I put it on the grounds of the public interest that where the Attorney-General thinks that a real point of importance is raised he should be entitled to call upon the Court to state a case.
LORD OLIVIER: I should like a little more elucidation, if I may say so, from the noble and learned Viscount. This refusal can be made only if the application is frivolous. Is it part of our constitutional theory that the Attorney-General cannot make a frivolous application?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Really these objections are traversing the whole of the principles on which our procedure rests. The Attorney-General is an officer of justice and as such has always had certain duties, certain liabilities, certain responsibilities and certain privileges given to him, and to say that the justices should be able, when the Attorney-General applies for a case to be stated, to say that his application is frivolous is really to turn matters topsy-turvy.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble and learned Lord is quite wrong there. It is not a privilege which the Attorney-General has at the present time. The Lord Chancellor has pointed out quite rightly that it is a privilege which he has before the magistrates—
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Lord must forgive me. I was not dealing with this specific point but with the whole class of procedure. He may not have the privilege now, but it is analogous to the privileges that he has.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to get into controversy with the noble and learned Lord, but, as a matter of fact, that is the very point. Are we to extend in this direction the privileges which in certain other directions the Attorney-General now possesses? I am not expressing the view that the Attorney-General is likely to act unreasonably. What we are dealing with here are the methods of trial, and what I have in mind is the position of the prisoner. It seems to me that in every clause of this Bill you are bringing in an official element, and one thing that we want preserved is the independence of our Courts from official interference, whether from the Attorney-General or any other official. In those circumstances, why should not the Court of Quarter Sessions be entitled to deal with the Attorney-General or any one who acts on his behalf as they would with counsel in any other case Here we have a provision that, unless the application is frivolous, the Court is to grant a case for the opinion of a superior Court. I agree with the noble Lord beside me that the only outstanding case is the frivolous one. I do not want merely to deal with words, but I do object most strongly to any special privilege of any kind being given to what is really the official element: and the Attorney-General is rather more than an official in this case, because he so often represents the Public Prosecutor. I hope that we shall keep our criminal jurisdiction quite free from any special privilege given to the Attorney-General.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I make an appeal to the noble Lord? This clause gives to every one the right to have a case stated—
LORD PARMOOR: Provided it is not frivolous.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going on to say that the exception is that, if the magistrates think the application frivolous, they can refuse to state a case. The proviso does assume, as the
1298
noble Lord opposite suggested, that the Attorney-General is not likely to make a frivolous application. It is founded on that view. It is only if the noble Lord thinks that the Attorney-General is likely to make a frivolous application that his Amendment has any value at all. I am acting in this matter to a great extent on behalf of the Home Office, who promoted this Bill in the other House. They, I know, attach importance to keeping the practice in Quarter Sessions in this respect the same as in petty sessions, and therefore I do not like to give way. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his point, at all events to-night.
LORD PARMOOR: I admit that there is a great difficulty, as has been pointed out, and that it is impossible for the House under present conditions really to deal effectively with Amendments which are, in my opinion, Amendments of great importance. You cannot have Amendments of greater importance than those which deal with the administration of justice. Of course, there may be differences of opinion, and, if this House thinks after consideration that the difficulties which I raise are not real difficulties or are not difficulties which ought to be met by Amendments, there would be an end of the matter. But really it is reducing the Committee stage of an extremely important measure, dealing with the liberty of the subject, to a farce to go on under the condition that there can be no Division without stopping all the business of the House. I personally shall move no farther Amendments. It is utterly useless to proceed with Amendments in conditions of that kind. I move no further Amendments because, in any opinion, it is an utter farce.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the noble Lord presses this Amendment?
LORD PARMOOR: I will not press it. It is no use.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Amendment of County of Hertford Acts, 1874 and 1878.
(3) Every court held under this section shall be a court of quarter sessions for the

1299
whole county of Hertford, and shall have power to hear, determine, and dispose of all business accordingly, including any business pending in either of the two divisions of the said county at the date on which this section comes into operation.
(6) This section shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have two Amendments of a formal character on this clause. It is proposed that the clause should come into operation on June 1 next, with most other parts of the Bill and, that being so, certain words are not needed here.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, leave out line 40 and insert ("commencement, of this Act")
Page 21, lines 18 and 19, leave out subsection (6).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Summary trial of indictable offences]:
LORD PARMOOR, who had on the Paper an Amendment to omit paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (1), said: I shall not move the Amendment at this stage, but will do so on the Report stage.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Form of documents in criminal proceedings before justice]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments to this clause are really drafting Amendments which explain themselves.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, leave out lines 30 to 33.
Page 26, line 34, leave out ("Notwithstanding anything in this section")
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("anything in this section continue to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Procedure on charge of offence against corporation]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments to this clause are drafting, and they follow upon the decision in the other House on the clause relating to grand juries at Quarter Sessions.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("to present to the court of")
Page 27, line 11, after ("which") insert ("in the case of an adult")
Page 27, line 39, after ("assizes'') insert ("or Quarter Sessions")
Page 27, line 41, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 42.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33, 34 and 35 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new clause:—
"(1) If any person receives, detains or has in his possession any document to which this section applies as a pledge or a security for a debt or with a view to obtaining payment from the person entitled thereto of a debt due either to himself or to any other person, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
"(2) This section applies to certificates or official documents evidencing or issued in connection with the right of persons to pensions or allowances payable out of any grant which may be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in pursuance of any Act for civil non-effective services."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I am in your Lordships' hands about proceeding further with this Bill now, but I want proper time to move this Amendment. The effect of the new clause which I am proposing is to put documents relating to Civil Service pensions on the same footing as those relating to Army and Navy pensions. As your Lordships know, no one is allowed to advance money on a pension paper relating to Army and Navy pensions. The object, of course, is to protect people against pledging their livelihood, so far as it depends upon a State pension, in advance. There are Acts securing that in the case of an Army or Navy pension, but no such legal provision exists in the case of Civil Service pensions, and I desire by this Amendment to put Civil Service pensions on the same footing. It follows the same wording as the sections which deal with the Army and Navy, and I think the effect of this clause is to put Civil Service pensions on the same footing.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 36, at end, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD OLIVIER: It is a provision with which I am very familiar in its present application, and being in receipt of a Civil Service pension I very -sympathetically agree to the new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 40 agreed to.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:—
"So much of section fifteen of the Theatres Act, 1843 (which enacts a penalty for acting plays before they have been allowed or after they have been disallowed, by the Lord Chamberlain) as provides that the licence (if any) of a theatre in which an offence under that section is committed shall became absolutely void shall cease to have effect, but the Court dealing with any such case may, in their discretion, in addition to imposing a Pecuniary penalty under that section, order that the licence, if any, of the theatre in which the offence was committed shall become void or shall be suspended for any specified period."
The noble Viscount said: This is a matter which need not occupy your lordships' attention at any length. It is a very minor amendment of the Theatres Act, 1843, which provides that wherever a play is given, or words are spoken, or songs introduced, and so forth, which have not received the licence of the Lord Chamberlain, the persons introducing them are to be liable to conviction and punishment, but the manager of the theatre in which these unlicensed performances are given is subject to the very severe penalty of losing his licence for the theatre altogether. The result has been, as often happens where the punishment does not fit the crime but is excessive, that in several cases where a manager has been summoned before the magistrates for a violation of the Act of 1843, the punishment has seemed to the magistrates to be so severe that they have declined to convict. They had no other alternative except to deprive him of his livelihood by depriving him of his licence.
The clause which I have the honour of submitting to your Lordships gives the magistrates a discretion. The punishment of the offender who has sung the song or spoken the words of the play will
1302
remain the same as under the old Act, but the magistrates will have discretion in the case of the manager who has permitted the unlicensed performance to take place. They may either fine him pecuniarily, or suspend his licence for such time as may seem good to them, or withdraw his licence altogether. I may say that the various managers interested in this matter held a meeting not long ago, at which representatives of the Society of West End Theatrical Managers, the Theatrical Managers' Association, the Entertainments Protection Association, and the managers' section of the Stage Guild passed a resolution asking that this Section 15 of the Theatres Act, 1843, should be amended in the direction indicated.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 10, at end, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE EARL OF CROMER: At this late hour I hesitate to occupy your Lordships' time, but as I have the privilege of presiding over the Department mainly responsible for administering the Theatres Act of 1843, I would ask leave to say a few words in support of the Amendment. Experience shows that the question of unlicensed material being produced in theatres is more apt to occur in the provinces than in theatres under the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction in London. In former days, when companies in the provinces and theatres in the provinces mainly produced stock plays, the question of producing an unlicensed play hardly ever arose. Recently, however, since the introduction of the touring system and the form of entertainment known as revues, various cases have been brought to notice of unlicensed material having been produced.
The result of that has been that on three recent occasions prosecutions have been instituted with the endeavour to put a stop to this offence. In the last three instances the magistrates before whom these eases have come have declined to record a conviction, because of the penalty which would have attached, as my noble friend has explained, of the theatre licence being withdrawn. Therefore I would recommend to your Lordships' favourable consideration the question of an amendment on these lines, in order that when unlicensed material is brought to

1303
notice, and when prosecutions are instituted, an opportunity may be given to uphold the law and at the same time to redress what is certainly a grievance which the theatre managers had every intention of bringing to the notice of the Home Secretary, as my noble friend mentioned just now. That step on their part would be no longer necessary if your Lordships admit the justice of this Amendment, and recommend it for favourable consideration in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this would effect a very valuable amendment of the Theatres Act.. Under the law as it stands, if the magistrates convict, the licence is automatically forfeited. That means a very serious loss to the owner of the licence. That is not only a hardship upon some people who have committed an offence without properly realising all the facts, but it leads to the acquittal of people who ought to be convicted. I was afraid it might be the case that sometimes magistrates, knowing that the effect of conviction is to forfeit the licence without any discretion or their part, might be very unwilling to convict even where the evidence rather Pointed in that direction, and what the noble Earl who has such knowledge of these matters has just said proves that in his experience that has actually happened, That is a most undesirable result and I am sure your Lordships would be right in accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following new clause:—
Power to release on bail before charge is accepted.
". The section substituted by Section twenty-two of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, for Section thirty-eight of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall have effect as though the following subsection were added thereto:
(2) If, on a person being so taken into custody as aforesaid, it appears to the superintendent, inspector or other officer aforesaid that the enquiry into the case cannot be completed forthwith, he may discharge the said person on his entering into a recognizance., with or without sureties for a reasonable amount, to appear at such police station and at such time as is named in the recognizance, sinless he previously receives
1304
notice in writing from the officer of police in charge of that police station that his attendance is not required, and any such recognizance may be enforced as if it were a recognizance conditioned for the appearance of the said person before the court of summary jurisdiction for the place in which the police station named in the recognizance is situate.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the clause which was promised in another place with a view to giving effect to one of the recommendations arising out of Mr. Rawlinson's report in connection with what was known as the Sheppard case. It became evident in that case that where a person was taken to a police station with a view to his being charged with an offence the police had no power to grant bail until they actually had charged him with the offence. Now it does sometimes happen that the police want to make further inquiry before lodging a formal charge and it is desirable that they should have time to do that, because it is a pity that a charge should be actually made unless the police intend to go on with it and that the man should be brought before a court simply for the purpose of being discharged. As things now stand the police do not like to delay making the charge because they have to keep the man in custody in the meantime and they cannot allow him to go away on bail. The effect of this clause would be that, even before they make the charge, the police may, if they are satisfied that the man is a responsible person and would come again, or on his finding proper securities, grant him bail, binding him over to appear either at that police station where he is or at some other convenient police station which is a suitable one for the purpose of the charge.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 19, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD OLIVIER: I see in subsection (2) the words:
"he may discharge the said person on his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties for a reasonable amount, to appear at such police station and at such time as is named in the recognizance, unless he previously receives notice in writing from the officer of police in charge of that police station that his attendance is not required."
It does not say that he is to be required to appear somewhere else.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, the clause states that he may be bound over "to appear at such police station and at such time as is named in the recognizance." I think those words "as is named in the recognizance" apply to "such police station" as well as to "such time."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Short title, interpretation, extent, repeal and commencement.
45.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Justice Act, 1925.
(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

The expression "examining justices" means the justices before whom a charge is made against any person for an indictable offence, and references to examining justices include a reference to a single examining justice:

The expression "quarter sessions" include quarter sessions held by adjournment and intermediate general sessions.

(3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
(4) The enactments set out in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
(5) This Act shall, save as therein otherwise expressly provided, come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (3): "and references therein to warrants issued shall not be construed as including warrants issued elsewhere than in England or Wales." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is proposed for the purpose of making clear that the "warrants law-fully issued," referred to in Clause 30, refer only to warrants issued in England and Wales. Some doubts have been expressed.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "shall, save as therein otherwise expressly provided" and insert "except Part I thereof shall"; and to leave out "January" and insert "June"; and, at the end of
1306
the clause, to insert "and Part I of this Act shall come into operation on the first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-six." The noble and learned Viscount said: All these three Amendments deal with the time when the Act will come into operation. The proposal is that the Act as a whole shall be in force as from June 1 next, except that the probation part shall not operate until July 1. July 1 is the natural date for the purpose, and will give time for the probation rules to be drawn up.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 16, leave out from ("Act") to ("come") in line 17, and insert ("except Part I thereof shall")
Page 34, line 17, leave out ("January") and insert ("June")
Page 34, line 18, at end insert ("and Part I of this Act shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-six'').—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Offences triable at Quarter Sessions.
1. Offences under Sections sixteen and seventeen of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.
4. Offences under Sections fifty to fifty-six of the Post Office Act, 1908.
7. Offences under the following provisions of the Larceny Act, 1916, that is to say, Section twelve, Section eighteen, paragraph (iv) of subsection (1) of Section twenty, Section twenty-four and subsection (2) of Section thirty-three.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out the first clause. The noble and learned Lord said: If I am not vox clamantis in deserto, I am vox clamantis in quasi deserto, and it would be useless to take up your Lordships' time at any length, but I want just to explain and to put on record my view—the view of a Judge who, after all, had sixteen years experience as a Judge of Assize—of these matters. I have chosen out of this Schedule certain cases that I propose to eliminate. They are, all but two, cases where it is possible to give a sentence of penal servitude for life. The charter of Quarter Sessions, an early Act of Queen Victoria, drew the distinction and said

1307
that no offences punishable with penal servitude—it was transportation for life in those days—should be tried at Quarter Sessions. Parliament, at the instance of Lord Bramwell, made an exception in the case of burglary, which theoretically might result in the sentence of transportation for life. I should correct what I said. Quarter Sessions can try a case where it is a second offence and the second offence entails greater punishment, and may even entail transportation for life, but can never try a case where the original offence warrants transportation for life, except in the case of burglary, and there Lord Bramwell pointed out that the distinction between housebreaking and burglary turned on a certain hour of the clock, and it was rather ridiculous that one should be tried separately from the other
With that exception, I believe I am right in saying that Quarter Sessions have no power to try such cases, and I have proposed to eliminate them all. I have added two classes of offences because they hang together. One of these classes touches setting fire to crops, and the other class touches setting fire to stacks. The latter is punishable by penal servitude for life, the former with only fourteen years, but I thought you could not separate one from the other, and therefore I have introduced crops as well as stacks. And in regard to some of the Post Office offences I have introduced one offence which is coupled up with the others, which does not have so severe a penalty. Practically I have ventured to suggest that it is not right that any but the highest criminal courts should try cases of this great gravity, and I do not think that Quarter Sessions, with all respect to them (and I have sat there myself at times), is the proper court to try cases of such magnitude
The Lord Chancellor will be able to tell your Lordships whether these sections have been submitted to, and approved by, the Judges of the King's Bench Division. If they have, and if the Lord Chief Justice has expressed an opinion—I had hoped to see him in his place here—I can only say that I respectfully disagree. But if they have not expressed an opinion I think they ought to be asked to express an opinion, and at any rate I offer my protest, and I humbly move this Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 35, leave out lines 4 and 5.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the case of one of these offences, the matter was dealt with by the Committee over which Mr. Justice Horridge presided
LORD PHILLIMORE: Every one?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, one of them—under Section 17 of the Malicious Damage Act, setting fire to stacks of corn and things of that kind. That Committee recommended that it should be made triable at Quarter Sessions as well as at Assizes. I am told that they would have made a similar recommendation as to Section 16 of the same Act
LORD PHILLIMORE: Section 16 is a less serious matter
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a less serious matter. There was some mistake and it was thought that Quarter Sessions had power already to deal with the offence; so that Sections 16 and 17 really stand on the same footing. The list has been very carefully considered, and I should like the Bill to remain as it is in reference to those two offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Malicious Damage Act. I would say the same of the section which deals with sacrilege, for this reason, that very often an offence which is called sacrilege is really a question of stealing money from boxes in a church
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And Quarter Sessions is well able to deal with that offence. There remain of the offences to which the Amendment refers only those relating to the Post Office, to put it generally
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think that is so
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As to those, I should like time to consult again the two Departments concerned. I think the Home Office and the Post Office are not entirely agreed as to whether those charges ought to be triable at Quarter Sessions or at Assizes only. If the noble Lord will give me time, by not pressing

1309
his Amendment now, I will try to get them in line or to adjudicate between them myself, and then will make my suggestions to your Lordships' House.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I suspect it will be found that the Post Office will prefer that these offences should be tried at the Assizes. Is my conjecture right that at present that is rather the idea?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is the present idea
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble and learned Viscount will know, but I cannot help thinking that those trials are very seldom contested. As a rule, the Post Office have taken such pains and the matter is so clear that it is generally merely a question of discretionary punishment. Therefore, very little time is taken up by these cases going to the Assizes and the benefit is had of the best possible Judge in a matter of discretionary punishment. Where they are really fought cases—I have known two eases very seriously fought—they are generally serious, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider the question further. I do not press my Amendment now, and I understand we shall be told on the Report stage whether the noble and learned Viscount agrees or not
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to
Second Schedule agreed to
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the Repeal Schedule, and the Amendments to the Schedule which stand in my name are required to make the Schedule consistent with the remainder of the Bill. I beg to move
Amendments moved
Page 38, line 3, after ("eleven") insert ("except so far as applied by any other provision of the Act, or by any other enactment")
Page 38, line 40, in column 3, at the beginning insert ("As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-six")
Page 39, leave out lines 22 to 25.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment

BALDOVAN INSTITUTION FOR THE TREATMENT AND EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill entitled the Baldovan Institution for the Treatment and Education of Defectives Order Confirmation Bill, and to move that it be read a first time
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, on the Motion for the Adjournment, hope the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will forgive me if I comment on what has happened this evening. Throughout the discussion upon the Criminal Justice Bill your Lordships' House has not been in the position in which I think it ought to be when considering important Bills, especially those introduced by the Government. Between now and the close of the Session we know that other important Bills will come before us. We cannot tell that they may not come up later even than tea-time. Something ought to be done to ensure that the House may be in sufficient force to deal adequately with, important measures. There is an Order of your Lordships' House which renders the position particularly difficult and critical. That has been illustrated once or twice this evening. It provides that unless there are not less than thirty members present a noble Lord cannot proceed to a Division upon a question about which he feels very strongly—as was the case in

1311
regard to my noble friend Lord Parmoor this evening—without running the risk of throwing the whole of the business into confusion. I do not like to make a suggestion about members being present, but I should have thought that out of the innumerable company at his command the noble Marquess the Leader of the House might contrive to keep a House. I cannot offer to give him any assistance as a Whip on this side save in regard to the very limited number of nine in an extreme case; but we certainly will do our share on this side of the House when there is important business to be considered. I cannot help appealing to the noble Marquess to do something to prevent a recurrence of what we have seen this evening
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord has called attention to what has passed this evening. I can assure him that it was with the greatest personal regret that I was aware that the Opposition were placed in a difficulty. May I say that I thought they showed great consideration in the circumstances in not using the power which was undoubtedly in their hands to arrest the course of public business? I have already had an opportunity of pointing out to your Lordships how difficult the situation was this evening in consequence of circumstances over which we had practically no control. The very late period of the Session makes
1312
it of great importance to get on with business
There are two other matters to be thought of. In the first place, noble Lords, although the number is very few, sometimes attend on a particular night because certain business is set down for that night, and if that business is postponed the effort they have made is entirely thrown away. That was actually the case to-night. Two noble Lords, men of considerable position and of great occupation, came up specially to move an Amendment in Committee. They moved that Amendment and your Lordships agreed to it; but had they gone away earlier their time would have been thrown away. The other consideration is that though noble Lords, through their own kindness, may have lost an opportunity of moving Amendments in Committee, they always have the Report stage and the Third Reading stage in which to do so. Therefore, their opportunities are not altogether gone. The noble Lord has made an appeal to me which certainly has not fallen upon deaf ears, and I will do my utmost to prevent a recurrence of what has happened to-night by trying to keep a House adequate to enable noble Lords to divide against the Government if they wish
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.