Sitting of 21 December 1925

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    ANGLO-INDIAN DOMICILED COMMUNITY.
    Colonel APPLINasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the official status of the Anglo-Indian domiciled community in India; and whether they are recognised officially as European-British subjects or statutory natives of India?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): For purposes of employment under Government and inclusion in schemes of Indianisation, members of the Anglo-Indian and domiciled European community are statutory natives of India. For purpose of education and internal security, their status, in so far as it admits of definition, approximates to that of European British subjects.
    Colonel APPLIN: May I ask the Noble Lord whether this dual description of this community is not likely to be a danger to their status in India, and whether he can suggest anything which would safeguard the people for whom we are responsible in their position in India as it will be in the future?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, I am afraid I cannot. The definition of this community has always been a matter of some difficulty, owing to their position; but this classification has lasted now for some time, and I certainly cannot admit that under it Anglo-Indians or the domiciled community suffer any disabilities.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the Noble Lord look into the question of the Indian Medical Service, to which this dual classification does make a difference?
    Earl WINTERTON: That is rather a different point. The question I have been asked is as to the classification of the domiciled community as such.

    VOLUNTEER ORGANISATIONS.
    Colonel APPLINasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether it is intended to retain the existing volunteer regiments in India; if he can state how they are officered and manned, and from what class or community the rank and file are recruited; and whether it is intended to raise a regiment or battery of artillery of Anglo-Indians for service within the Indian Empire?
    Earl WINTERTON: There are two volunteer organisations in India, the Auxiliary Force and the Territorial Force, both of which it is intended to retain. I presume my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the Auxiliary Force. Membership is open to European British subjects, a term which for this purpose is held to include Anglo-Indians. Commissions are given by selection, and are open to all who are eligible for membership of the force. As regards the last part, the whole question of the military employment of Anglo-Indians is now under consideration by my Noble Friend and the Government of India.
    Colonel APPLIN: May I ask the Noble Lord to give very careful consideration to the raising of a regiment of Anglo-Indians, in view of the good service done by a battery of Anglo-Indians in Mesopotamia?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have already said that the matter is under the careful consideration of my Noble Friend.

    DEPRESSED CLASSES (REPRESENTATION).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Under secretary of State for India the number of people within British India who belong to the depressed classes (outcastes); whether these people have representatives in the Legislative Assembly; and what number are permitted to vote at elections?
    Earl WINTERTON: The term "depressed classes" is susceptible of varying definition, and the number of persons so described cannot, therefore, be accurately estimated. Lord South-borough's Franchise Committee estimated

    1927
    the number in British India at 41 millions by a process which was not exactly similar in all provinces. I have no information how many members of the depressed classes are qualified as voters. They have, as such, no representatives in the Assembly; on the other hand there is nothing to prevent such a person who is otherwise qualified from being elected or nominated a member of that body.

    OPIUM TRAFFIC.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Government of India agreed at Geneva to allow an independent committee of the League of Nations to visit India to examine the control of the opium traffic?
    Earl WINTERTON: Under the Protocol to the Geneva Convention a Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations to decide at the end of five years whether control in the signatory countries is sufficient to prevent completely the smuggling of opium from constituting a serious obstacle to the effective suppression of the use of prepared opium in those territories where such use is temporarily authorised. The Protocol has been accepted by the Government of India.

    STATEMENT regarding prosecutions arising from seizures of cocaine by the Customs Authoritie at Bombay.

    Date of Arrest.

    Name of Accused.

    Sentence.

    31st August, 1925

    …

    Taro Ohta

    …

    9 months' rigorous imprisonment.

    7th September, 1925

    …

    Rhadikhan Mujadkhan

    …

    Fine of Rs. 250 or 3 mouths' rigorous imprisonment (the fine was paid).

    16th September, 1925

    …

    Kamakubo Tani

    …

    6 months' rigorous imprisonment.

    28th September, 1925

    …

    Fusatoka Mayada

    …

    9 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 or 3 months' rigorous imprisonment (the fine was not paid).

    FLOODS, PURI (RELIEF MEASURES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there are any food stores left in the famine-stricken area of Puri; and if the Government propose to do anything to alleviate the sufferings of the inhabitants of this district?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no information as to the damage done

    COCAINE TRAFFIC.
    Colonel DAYasked the Undersecretary of State for India if there have been any prosecutions in Bombay for the three months ending 30th November for the illicit sale of cocaine and, if so, will he state the names of the defendants and the punishment inflicted on them if they were convicted?
    Earl WINTERTON: Current reports of such cases are not officially received except of those arising from Customs seizures at the ports which are required for communication to the Secretariat of the League of Nations. The particulars asked for in regard to four cases under this head which have occurred since 31st August, 1925, and led to convictions, will, with the hon. Member's permission, he circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as the information is in tabular form. I have seen reports in the Press of a recent case in which G. H. King, J. E. Turnell and E. L. Messias appear to have been convicted and sentenced respectively to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 or a further three months' imprisonment, and to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 or three months' further imprisonment.
    Following are the particulars promised:
    by floods in Puri except what has appeared in the Press. He understands, however, that relief measures have been undertaken, and does not doubt that the local authorities are doing everything possible in the matter.
    Colonel DAY: Is the Noble Lord aware that many of the population here are having to subsist on uncooked water-lilies?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have seen some very misleading attacks in the Press by some gentlemen in India, including a Rev. Mr. Andrews, upon the local government in connection with this matter. As far as my noble Friend has any information, it is essentially a matter for the local government, and that government has taken every possible step to deal with the matter.

    BRITISH CAPITAL INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will state the total amount of British capital invested in India, including industrial concerns in India, Indian import and export trade, and the banks of India, and the total annual yield from such investments?
    Earl WINTERTON: The information for which the hon. Member asks is, I am afraid, not available.

    IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture is urgently in need of funds so that it may properly carry on its work; and whether, seeing that this college, if properly equipped and provided with the necessary staff and buildings, will be able to help materially in the development of our tropical Empire, it is proposed to give it any financial assistance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards financial assistance, I am not able to add anything to the answer which was given to my hon. Friend on the 14th December.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. McDONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed to increase the Grant-in-Aid from Exchequer funds for the financial year 1926-27 to the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, in view of the increasing importance to this country of agricultural development in our tropical Crown Colonies?
    Mr. AMERY: I am unable to add anything to the information which the Under-
    1930
    Secretary gave on the 14th December in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden).
    Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any educational institution under official auspices in the Empire other than the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad for training personnel to fill positions on the agricultural staffs of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates?
    Mr. AMERY: The Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, is regarded as the main training centre in the Empire at which instruction covering the whole field of agriculture and agricultural science under tropical conditions can be obtained. Some instruction on a limited scale is also available at the Colombo University College and at the Botanic Gardens, Ceylon, and at the Agricultural College, Mauritius.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any students have already passed through the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture; and, if so, to which Colonies they have proceeded?
    Mr. AMERY: I am informed by the secretary of the college that 39 students have already passed through it, and that 25 are known to have taken up appointments, four each in the Gold Coast, Uganda and Trinidad, two each in the Sudan, Barbados and British Guiana, and one each in Ceylon, Nyasaland, Southern Rhodesia, Natal, Jamaica, Antigua and Guadelope.

  IRAQ.

    BRITISH TROOPS.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of British troops stationed in Iraq; and what is the continuous period of duty in this country without leave?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, it would be contrary to the public interest to give the information requested. As regards the second part, the normal limit of the tour of duty of British personnel in Iraq is two years.

    BRITISH OBLIGATIONS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if our obligations in respect of Iraq involve us in responsibility for faking such measures as may be necessary to protect that state from external aggression?
    Mr. AMERY: I propose to deal with this point in the course of this evening's Debate.

    MOSUL (POPULATION).
    Major HARVEYasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies the number of Arabs, Turks, Christians, and Jews, respectively, resident in the Vilayet of Mosul?
    Mr. AMERY: According to the latest Iraq Census, the respective totals of the races referred to in the Mosul Vilayet are

    Arabs

    …

    …

    166,941

    Turks

    …

    …

    38,652

    Christians

    …

    …

    61,336

    Jews

    …

    …

    11,897

    The above figures of Christians do not include the 8,000 Assyrians who were driven into Iraq by the Turkish incursion of last year, nor the Chaldean refugees from the Goyan country, who number some 3,000. The total population of the vilayet also includes 494,000 Kurds and 26,000 Yazidis.
    Colonel APPLIN: How many of these Turks are Osmanlis?
    Mr. AMERY: None, really. They are principally a type of Turcoman who have always lived in that part of the world, and are not actually connected with the Turks.

    NIGERIA (GROUND-NUT CROP).
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the forthcoming ground-nut crop in Kano, Nigeria, is estimated at 150,000 tons; and if he is satisfied that the Government railway is now able to deal expeditiously with all produce requiring transport from Kano to Lagos?
    Mr. AMERY: The Nigerian Government, in anticipation of a large crop, have purchased 12 additional locomotives
    1932
    and have taken steps to secure additional locomotive drivers to cope with the traffic. I hope that the resources of the railway will enable it to deal satisfactorily with all the produce offered for transport to Lagos.

    WEST AFRICAN COLONIES (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT).
    Mr. WILSON furtherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has decided to invite the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to visit the West African Colonies; if so, when the visit will take place; and whether he will request the Under-Secretary to prepare a Report upon the economic development of those Colonies for publication as a White Paper?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will leave Liverpool on 20th January, will visit Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and the Gambia in that order, and according to the programme will be back in England on 8th May. He will be accompanied by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) and two officers of the Colonial Office. He will prepare a Report, which I hope to lay before Parliament, on his visit, in which he will deal, inter alia, with economic development.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    COLONIAL OFFICE (MEDICAL DIRECTOR).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have definitely decided to appoint a medical director in the Colonial Office?
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has yet been definitely decided to appoint a medical director in the Colonial Office to act as a liaison officer between the Crown Colonies and the Civil Research Committee, and as adviser to him on medical matters?
    Mr. AMERY: I will answer these questions together.
    There is nothing to add to my reply on the 30th November to the question of the hon. Member for Dartford (Colonel McDonnell).
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it will not be a great expense but an economy in the long run to appoint such an officer?
    Mr. AMERY: I think there is a good deal to be said for such an argument.

    FOOD COUNCIL (STAFF).
    Mr. G. HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of staff employed by the Food Council; and what is the approximate annual cost incurred in its maintenance?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The staff employed by the Food Council has varied in size from time to time in accordance with fluctuations in the volume of the work. It now consists of seven persons, of whom one devotes only one-half of his time to Food Council matters. The total cost in salaries and wages at the present time is at the rate of approximately £2,650 per annum.
    Colonel DAY: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this portion of the staff receive half salaries during the Recess?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARVEY: Is there any connection between the Food Council and the old Food Commission, which has been disbanded?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: None that I know.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether, in re-engaging ex-service staff in connection with the increased pressure of work in his Department, he employed any ex-service women in the women's branches; and, if not, whether he will be prepared now to employ any such women to alleviate the overtime being worked by the permanent staff?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the latter part I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wandsworth on the 23rd ultimo.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Health why, when he was prepared to take untrained staff from the Ministry of Pensions had they been called up as permanent civil servants under the recent writing assistant examination. he cannot employ some of the same staff in a temporary capacity so long as the temporary rush work lasts in the Ministry?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has thought it right to recruit the additional staff required for pensions work from the temporary ex-service male clerks whose services in other Departments have become redundant, and he is, therefore, not prepared to engage ex-temporary women clerks.

  KENYA.

    NATIVE PUNISHMENTS.
    Major CRAWFURDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Committee appointed in Kenya to consider the overcrowded state of the prisons recommended that natives convicted under the Masters and Servants Ordinance should be separated from the rest of the prisoners; that in the proposed Bill for the creation of detention camps the proposal of the prison commissioners has been extended so as to apply to convictions under 30 separate Ordinances: and that the convictions under the Masters and Servants Ordinance alone in 1922 exceeded 2,000; and if he has been able to form any estimate of the number of prisoners who will be concentrated in the camps under the Schedule of the 30 Ordinances attached to the Bill?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative, but the Native Punishments Commission did not confine their recommendations to the case of offences under the Masters and Servants Ordinance. With regard to the last part, the Commission advised that for technical offences fines should ordinarily be imposed, and they pointed out that, even at the time of the report, imprisonment was not ordered in all these cases. As an illustration, I may mention that, whereas they quoted figures of 2,187 for punishments in 1922 under the Masters and Servants Ordinance, and 2,216 for punishments in the same year under the Native Hut and Poli

    1935
    Tax Ordinances, the commitments to prison under these Ordinances in 1924 were 692 and 772 respectively. The total number of commitments to prison for all technical offences in 1924 appears to have been in the neighbourhood of 4,200, and it may be taken that under the new Ordinance approximately this number of offenders will be placed under detention instead of being associated in prisons with criminals.
    Major CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the members of the Government of this Colony, in May last, issued a statement that this method of imprisonment would ensure a useful labour supply to the Government, and will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this will not be used as a method of providing cheap labour for that Government?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not aware of that statement, but will look into it and let the hon. and gallant Member know.

    AFRICAN NATIVE ASSOCIATION (ADDRESS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the address of welcome to Sir E. Grigg drawn up by the East African Native Association; and whether he can state why this association was refused permission by the Government of Kenya to present this address to His Excellency on his arrival at Nairobi?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no information about the address in question. An address on behalf of the native population was presented by the Acting Chief Native Commissioner and a leading Kikuyu Chief.

    CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (AGRICULTURAL OFFICERS).
    Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officers will be required annually during the next three years to fill positions on the agricultural staffs of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates; and how many graduates from the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad will be available for this purpose?
    Mr. AMERY: It is not possible to forecast with certainty the demands of the Colonies and Protectorates for agricultural officers, since such demands necessarily vary from year to year. A scheme has been introduced this year, with the co-operation and support of the Colonial Governments, under which from 16 to 18 post-graduate scholarships in agriculture and agricultural science will be offered annually for 10 years. The holders of these scholarships will receive, inter alia, a course of instruction in tropical agriculture, in most cases at the Imperial College in Trinidad, after which they will be available, if required, for service in the Colonial Agricultural Departments. The first selection of scholars took place this summer; 16 scholars were selected, of whom 14 were given two-year scholarships and two one-year scholarships, and it is intended that only the minimum number of appointments compatible with the exigencies of the public service should be filled in the interval before the scholars already selected become available for duty.
    Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELL: Will the supply of duly qualified officers be sufficient to meet the demand?
    Mr. AMERY: We shall have to see that it is so.

    GIBRALTAR (PETITION).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiries into the delay which has occurred in connection with the petition which was submitted to his predecessor by a deputation from Gibraltar on the 8th August, 1924; and, seeing that nearly 18 months has elapsed and that the people of Gibraltar are looking forward hopefully for a satisfactory conclusion to their petition, and in view of the dissatisfaction now being expressed that a matter of such importance to the inhabitants should be hell in suspense, will he give the matter instant consideration with a view to an early settlement?
    Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to my reply to the hon. Member given on the 17th instant.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea when he is

    1937
    likely to be able to give me this information, because 18 months is a long time to wait?
    Mr. AMERY: This is a matter which affects a great number of Departments, and inquiries have been addressed to them. I will bear in mind the hon. Member's desire, and will try to expedite a decision.

    OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the Overseas Settlement Committee there are; and how many of these are official, and how many unofficial, members?
    Mr. AMERY: In addition to the chairman and vice-chairman, there are 16 members of the Overseas Settlement Committee. Of these eight are official and eight unofficial.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Does the Colonial Secretary not think it advisable to add a little new blood?
    Mr. AMERY: I think the blood in the Committee is very good blood, and it is always dangerous to make the Committee too large.

    EAST AFRICA (MEDICAL SERVICES).
    Sir SYDNEY HENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to strengthen the medical services throughout East Africa; and what is the attitude towards recruitment in this country for such services adopted by medical schools and societies?
    Mr. AMERY: It is not possible to give definite figures pending consideration of the Estimates for the various Dependencies for the coming financial year, but I anticipate a considerable further extension of medical work in Eastern Africa in the near future, especially in Kenya, Uganda and the Tanganyika Territory. It is hoped to increase the personnel of the East African Medical Service by some 20 or 30 officers during the next year. The attitude towards recruitment adopted by the medical schools and societies has been very helpful
    1938
    in the past, and I hope to secure their cooperation in filling up the many new appointments which are about to be created.
    Sir S. HENN: Is it not a fact that, speaking generally, the medical schools in this country are offering considerable discouragement to students offering themselves as entrants in the Colonial Medical Services?
    Mr. AMERY: There have been some points of difference and difficulty, but the general attitude has been helpful.

    TANGANYIKA (INFANT MORTALITY).
    Sir S. HENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention have been called to the rate of native infant mortality disclosed at the recent education conference at Dar-es-Salaam; and if he can state what steps are being taken, or will be taken, to deal with the matter?
    Mr. AMERY: I am aware of the high rate of infant mortality in Tanganyika territory. Active measures are being taken to improve medical and sanitary conditions. The number of medical officers has been increased by 12 this year and numerous native assistants, including sanitary inspectors and nurses, are being trained.
    Mr. HADEN GUEST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the rate of infant mortality?
    Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that I have not that information with me, but it if excessively high, and I think we are all agreed that every effort should be made to reduce it.

    NEWFOUNDLAND (PARLIAMENTARY VACANCY).
    Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer he has returned to the representations which he has received with regard to the vacancy in the constituency of St. John's East, Newfoundland, for which no writ has been issued, although the statutory period of six months has elapsed?
    Mr. AMERY: In reply to certain representations addressed to the Prime Minister and myself by Mr. Hickman, Leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland, I telegraphed to the Governor of Newfoundland asking him to inform Mr. Hickman that I had not felt myself in a position to tender my advice to His Majesty with regard to the matter.

    HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.
    Mr. G. HARVEYasked the Minister of Aggriculture if, in view of our increasing dependence on food imports, there has been any recent increase in food production at Home; and to what extent?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The calculation of the fluctuations in the volume of production of agriculture as a whole presents many difficulties, and I regret that I am not at present in a position to measure the recent changes, if any, which have taken place. This question, however, is receiving close attention, and I anticipate that the report on this year's Census of Agricultural production which I hope will be published in the course of next year, will contain information on this point. I may remind my hon. Friend that estimates are issued annually of the production of certain agricultural crops.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have the Government taken any steps towards increasing the agricultural acreage for food production at home?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is quite aware of what has been done by legislation.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Why have the Government not done anything in this matter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think they have. There is the sugar-beet subsidy, only to mention one thing, and that has done a tremendous amount of good.
    Mr. HARVEY: In view of the fact that 88 per cent. of our food was imported from abroad last year, is this not an extremely serious matter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I question whether that figure is at the present time applicable. Curiously enough, for the last 11 months pretty nearly all our importations of foreign foodstuffs are down.

    MACHINE GUN CORPS MEMORIAL.
    Major CRAWFURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will recommend to the authorities concerned that the present inscription in the Machine Gun Corps memorial at Hyde Park Corner should be replaced by the passage from the Psalms, "He hath scattered them that delight in war"?
    Captain HACKING: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer to his previous question on the subject of the inscription of this memorial. The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Major CRAWFURD: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the reason given for this inscription by his predecessor was that it was to connect the monument with the figure of David on the top, and is he aware that the Psalm is also connected with the figure of David, and that in the meantime a good deal of indignation has been expressed to me over this matter from various parts of the Empire?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether since 26th November any ships carrying His Majesty's mails or subsidised by the Government have proceeded to sea without wireless operator; whether any have proceeded to sea with an incomplete complement of wireless operators; if so, will he give details; whether he will further state what salaries the operators in these ships were signed on at; the nature of the contracts between His Majesty's Government and the shipping companies concerned: whether such contracts contain a fair wages clause, and whether that clause is being complied with?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Since 26th November about 24 ships conveying mails to destinations overseas have proceeded to sea. without wireless operators, and about 14 others were without a full complement of wireless operators. I have no official information as to the salaries

    1941
    paid to operators on these ships. The question of subsidies does not arise in connection with any of these ships. Six of them are sailing under a formal mail contract with the Postmaster-General which provides for a mail service under specified conditions in return for a fixed annual payment. These contracts do not contain a fair wages clause.
    Mr. BAKER: Is it not the duty of the Minister, in these circumstances, to endeavour to bring this dispute to an end?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Perhaps I may answer that supplementary question. The parties are already meeting to-day, and in these circumstances I think it far better that it should be left to the parties to see if they can arrive at an agreement.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Arising out of the Minister's answer, is this House to understand that certain contracts are entered into by the Government with outside firms which do not contain the fair wages clause with respect to the workpeople employed by those firms?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, it does; I am asking a question arising out of the original question.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am informed that these contracts do not contain that fair wages clause.
    Mr. MACLEAN: That is not my question. Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Government to enter into contracts with outside firms without insisting on the fair wages clause being observed which has to be observed in all other Government contracts?
    Mr. KENNEDY: Failing agreement between the parties in this case, what action do the Government propose to take?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There are other questions on the Paper with regard to that.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing utility of wireless on ships, he will take steps to secure a settlement of the present dispute and, in the event of the employers refusing to co-operate
    1942
    in any policy of conciliation, enforce the Regulations with respect to the use of wireless on ships?
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to prevent loss of life and ships at sea through inefficient wireless signalling or through the absence of wireless operators, he will take any steps within his power to compel those responsible for seeking to enforce a reduction in the wages of seagoing wireless operators to follow the example of other employers who are paying, and are willing to continue to pay, the present rates?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that his decision to waive the Regulations relating to the use of wireless on ships is acting to the prejudice of marine wireless operators, who are resisting a reduction in wages, he will consider the advisability of enforcing the Regulations in question in the event of the employers refusing to co-operate in any efforts to settle the dispute?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The Board of Trade are in close touch with the Ministry of Labour, who are taking such steps as they can to secure a settlement of this dispute. As regards the Board of Trade, I do not at present see any reason for altering the attitude described in the answer given to the hon. Member for Hull Central on 30th November.
    Mr. BARNES: Does not the action of the Government so far make them parties to the dispute on the employers' side by waiving these Regulations? If the employers refuse to admit their obligations, which affect the safety of life at sea, what do the Government intend to do in the matter?
    Mr. HAYES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department have satisfied themselves, before waiving these Regulations, that the employés did not have a good case?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not think that is a matter for my Department. The Department is dealing, as far as it can, with a position in which it is really not directly concerned. It is not causing ships which have no operators to go to sea without them.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: Has the Board of Trade considered the question of the time limit during which these Regulations should be waived?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not think that arises out of the main question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the hon. Gentleman has been defending the waiving of these Regulations in the interest of the employers, can ho quote a case where the Regulations have been waived in the interest of the workers?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not for a moment admit that the Board of Trade have taken either side. It would be a very serious matter, when operators are not available, if the Board of Trade were to insist on ships remaining in port until they get them.
    Mr. MACLEAN: This has a very important bearing upon safety at sea, and I want to know from the hon. Member's reply whether he is putting it to this House that there is not a sufficiency of operators available for the shipowners for wireless services on board and that, in consequence, he has had to waive these Regulations, or whether there is an ample supply of wireless operators and the shipowners will not employ them because they wish to enforce the reduction.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had that a fortnight ago.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in the interests of the public, seafarers in general, and ship passengers, he will institute a court of inquiry to ascertain the facts, and to express an opinion, upon the merits of the dispute in which sea-going wireless operators are at present concerned.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour whether the employers con-corned in the dispute of the marine wireless operators have been approached by his Department; if so, with what result; and whether he can state any further developments in the efforts of his Department to settle this Dispute?
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Labour whether he has further considered the advisability of instituting a court of
    1944
    inquiry, under the Industrial Courts Act, with respect to the dispute arising out of which marine wireless operators are out on strike, and ships are going to sea unable to transmit or receive wireless messages?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope that a meeting of the two parties to the dispute will take place this afternoon, and in the circumstances it is not desirable that I should reply definitely at present to the point raised by the hon. Members.
    Colonel DAY: If there be not a successful issue, will the right hon. Gentleman invoke his powers?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It would obviously be entirely undesirable to make any statement as to what one would do in a hypothetical case, in view of a meeting which one hopes will be successful.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: May we take it that it is not a matter of indifference to the Board of Trade that British vessels should be allowed to go to sea without wireless operators?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not empowered to speak for the Board of Trade, but I am quite certain that there is no one either in the Ministry of Labour or in the Board of Trade who would regard this as a matter of indifference.

    WIRELESS DISTRESS CALLS.
    Brigadier-General MAKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that while British ships suspend wireless communication for three minutes every half-hour to listen to distress calls according to Appendix X, Handbook for Wireless Telegraph Operators, whereas foreign ships do not do so, and in addition use these periods to push through their messages, thus interfering with the S.O.S. calls, he will endeavour to reach some international agreement on the question to avoid such confusion?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply Endeavours will be made at the next International Radiotelegraph Conference to reach an agreement on this question.

  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

    GOVERNMENT DECISION.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to state whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Civil Research Committee in respect of the iron and steel industry?
    Mr. REMERasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the decision of the Government as to the application of the steel industry for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and if he has received a memorandum from the leading steel manufacturers to the effect that unless something is done quickly a financial crisis will arise?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The application of the iron and steel trades to the Board of Trade for the appointment of a Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure was referred to the Committee of Civil Research, and its Report has been received by the Cabinet. The Civil Research Committee has given the subject prolonged and detailed consideration, and has heard a large number of witnesses, representing employers and employed, engaged in the iron and steel industries and in allied trades. The evidence revealed a serious situation. The pressure of foreign competition, aided by long hours, low wages and depreciated currencies, is being severely felt by our manufacturers, and had His Majesty's Government been able to deal with the iron and steel industries in isolation we might have regarded the case for inquiry as complete. It became Clear, however, in the course of our investigations, that the safeguarding of a basic industry of this magnitude would I have repercussions of a far wider character which might be held to be in conflict with our declaration in regard to a general tariff. In all the circum-stances of the present time, we have come to the conclusion that the application cannot be granted. The Government will keep these industries under close observation with a view to promoting their well-being should any other measures be deemed desirable. It is hoped that the loan for railway development in East Africa which was recently approved will be found helpful, and further similar projects are under consideration.
    Mr. REMER: Has the Prime Minister received the memorandum referred to in the last part of my question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. REMER: In view of his answer, might I ask if he would arrange for a Debate on this subject before we adjourn?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it the intention to publish the evidence taken during the investigations of this Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  POOR LAW.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the divergence of opinion on the proposals for Poor Law reform outlined by the Minister of Health and the opposition which has been evoked, notwithstanding the general desire for an alteration in the methods of relief of distress, he will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee of Members of the House, representing all parties, in order to ascertain if it is possible to arrive at an agreed Measure on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. friend has adopted the plan of publishing his provisional proposals, with the express object of obtaining suggestions from those experienced in local government and Poor Law administration, which will lead to a scheme commanding as large a measure of agreement as is possible in a matter of this kind. I do not think that such a Committee as the hon. Member proposes is desirable at the present time.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor had agreed to such a suggestion, and that negotiations passed regarding the appointment of such a committee, and does he not think it would be worth trying?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that my right hon. Friend's procedure, having regard to the time before him, is the wisest to take at this time, and my answer was that such a committee as is proposed is not in his opinion desirable at the present time.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Health whether, in the Bill for the reform of the Poor Law, which he proposes to introduce, he will preserve the legal right given by 43 Elizabeth, c. 2, of every destitute person to receive necessary relief?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to previous questions on this subject, of which I am sending him copies.

    SCABIES (CASUAL WARDS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether he can make any Return to the House of the number of cases of scabies detected in the work house casual wards during the year 1924 whether he can indicate the length of contagion before discovery; and whether, seeing that this disease is due to improper and inadequate diet, he will order special precautions to be taken?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid the information for which the hon. Member asks in the first part of his question is not available. As regards the second and third parts, my right hon. Friend is advised that this disease may be detected by careful clinical examination within from two to three weeks after infection and that there is no basis for the suggestion that the disease is due to improper or inadequate diet.

    EMPIRE PRODUCTS (MARKETING).
    Mr. SNELLasked the Prime Minister when the proposals of the Government, announced 12 months ago, to devote the sum of £1,000,000 annually to promoting the marketing of Empire products in this country will be laid before the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make any statement at present. As I have already announced, the whole matter is at present under consideration.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the Prime Minister aware that the first Report of the Imperial Economic Committee was published as far back as last August, and that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Dominions at the Government's delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not heard any dissatisfaction expressed, but I am aware that there has been some delay.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TIME LIMIT AND FINAL AWARDS.
    Major COHENasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to inform the House what the Government propose to do in connection with the war pensions national public petition and the points raised by the deputation from the British Legion which waited on the Minister of Pensions on 31st October, 1925?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply. The position of the Government on the proposals made in the petition was fully stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend by the Prime Minister on the 19th ultimo. With regard to the subordinate points which were put to me by the recent deputation. I hope to be able to send a. reply in the course of the next few days.

    MAGHULL HOSPITAL (EPILEPTIC PATIENTS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Pensions whether any curative treatment other than 4½ hours work daily is provided for the epileptic patients at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Maghull; whether he is aware that the patients are allowed group leave from 12.45 until 3.15 p.m.; that the mid-day meal is given before leave is taken: and that men taking leave in groups of three or more, in the event of one of the patients having a fit, the others must leave him or run the risk of being punished for being out over the leave hours; and whether, in the cases where men are fined 3s. to 6s. for being out after leave has expired, the deductions are stopped from the allowance paid to the wives?
    Major TRYON: The treatment for epilepsy at this institution includes ail the known curative and ameliorative methods. The four hours' leave granted is the maximum under the Regulations which apply to all Ministry hospitals. It rests with the medical superintendent to determine at what time leave shall be taken in suitable cases. Where leave was

    1949
    overstayed in the circumstances referred to, the medical superintendent would not regard the matter as one of misconduct. With regard to the last part of the question, any fine imposed for misconduct is, under the rules of the Ministry, payable from the personal allowance due to the man only and not from any allowances payable to his wife and family.
    Mr. HAYES: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance. May I ask him whether in any case in which a fine has boon inflicted the infliction of such a fine has meant the suspension of the free travelling warrant for the man in connection with Christmas leave?
    Major TRYON: I must have notice of that question. Obviously the infliction of a fine would not affect the financial question of the free travelling warrant.
    Mr. HAYES: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds that there are any such cases at this hospital will he have that put right?
    Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will give me particulars I shall be most happy to look into them.

    LEGITIMACY BILL AND MARRIED WOMEN (TORTS) BILL.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to reintroduce the Legitimacy Bill and the Married Women (Torts) Bill early in the next Session of Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that pressure of other business has made it impossible to pass into law the Bills referred to by my hon. Friend, but I hope to introduce them next Session.

    IMPERIAL WIRELESS.
    Lord APSLEYasked the Prime Minister if he can now state what definite decision has been reached, and, if so, for what reasons, in connection with the application of the Commonwealth Government that, in conjunction with the Amalgamated Wireless Company, it should control the Beam wireless station in England?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Australian Wireless Company applied for a licence to operate a wireless station in
    1950
    Great Britain for communication with Australia, and they have been informed that, in conformity with the policy adopted by the late Government and confirmed by His Majesty's present Ministers, the operation of all the Imperial services in this country will be concentrated in the hands of the Post Office. A contract for the erection of wireless stations for communication with Canada, South Africa, India, and Australia was made by the Post Office on the 28th July, 1924, and approved by Resolution of the House of Commons. These stations are approaching completion, and, when they and the corresponding Dominion stations are available, direct wireless services will be opened between this country and the Dominions.
    Lord APSLEY: Are there any wireless stations in this country, whether publicly or privately owned, belonging either to any of the Dominions or to any foreign country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so, but I would be glad if my Noble Friend would put that question to the Postmaster-General.

  RUSSIA.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S SPEECH, BATTERSEA.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the references, made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Battersea, on 11th December, to the heads of a friendly foreign State; and whether the opinions expressed by the Chancellor represent the considered views of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government endorse the principle involved in the Chancellor of the, Exchequer's statement, having regard to the well-known activities of the Third International, but it is our hope that the Soviet Government will eventually dissociate itself from that body, and thus render possible a continuous improvement in the relations between the two countries.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Government, and not to the Third International?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I do not think it is; I read the statement very carefully.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the average member of the public would take it to refer to the Russian Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not so low an opinion of their intelligence.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to discriminate between the Third International and the Russian Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly our trouble at the present time.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take steps to deal with the softies and fatheads—[Interruption.]
    Mr. THURTLE: Does not the Prime Minister think that offensive references of this sort tend to weaken the potency of the Locarno spirit?

    ECONOMIC RELATIONS.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire and report to Parliament on Anglo-Russian economic relations, and include in the terms of reference consideration of the interests of those anxious to resume fuller commercial relations, the interests of small claimants, the interests of holders of Russian stock, industrialists having past or present interests in Russia, and also the amount of compensation already received by certain firms and investors from the British taxpayer by way of allowances for bad debts before the amount subject to Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty was determined?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Such a Committee would not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, serve any useful purpose at the present time in the absence of any indication on the part of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the extent to which, and the measure in which, they are prepared to deal with British claimants.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Belgian Government have set up a Committee to inquire along those lines?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If that be so, that may be a beginning of better relations.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the Prime Minister say whether the British Government have a full list of claims up to date, and whether Members of the House are entitled to have access to the list of claims against the Russian Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should require notice of that question.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a report of a speech by M. Rykov, chairman of the council of commissaries in Russia, to the effect that, provided disarmament is general, the Russian Government on its part will abolish the army and all war industries; and whether His Majesty's Government would be prepared to participate in a conference at which Russia would be represented to consider the feasibility of this proposal, on the understanding that effective and satisfactory machinery would be devised to ensure the impartial enforcement of any decisions come to?
    Captain GEE: Before the hon. Member answers the question, will he bear in mind the fact that the Russian Government have never yet carried out a promise they have made.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have seen Press reports of M. Rykov's speech, but His Majesty's Government have no official knowledge of any such proposal. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. H. GUEST: Will not the Government take steps to find out, officially, whether that speech was made or not, and if it was made, follow it up?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that at its last; Session the League of Nations invited the Soviet Government to take part in this Conference.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (CINEMATOGRAPH PROJECTORS).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Air how many cinemato-

    1953
    graph projectors are in use in the Royal Air Service; and what is the cost?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is 21, all these being projectors which were purchased during the War. As regards the second part, the cost of current for working the projectors is trivial, and the only material expenditure is that for the provision of instructional films. This expenditure, for the present financial year, is estimated at a little under £1,000.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is there any chance of a reduction in this cost?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is only for constructional purposes. It is a very small sum.
    Colonel DAY: Were these projectors purchased on the advice of the technical advisers?
    Sir P. SASSOON: They were purchased during the War. I am afraid I do not know.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not the fact that these cinematograph projectors have a great scientific value?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, that is so.

    HOURS OF LABOUR (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Prime Minister what steps the Government have been taking to promote the ratification by the various Powers who signed the Peace Treaty of the Washington 'Convention for the regulation of working hours in industrial undertakings, in view of the importance of this ratification for the welfare of the workers and the prevention of unfair competition in trade?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 16th December, 1925, on this subject to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, to which, at present, I have nothing to add.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the organised working class of this country regard the ratification as a contractual obligation?

    FOREIGN FILMS (TAXATION).
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are in existence any commercial treaties with foreign nations the terms of which would preclude the imposition of a tax on foreign films shown in this country, calculated on the amount of the prices paid by exhibitors for hiring them?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am advised that a tax on the exhibition of foreign films, which did not apply to British films, would be contrary to the provisions of several of our commercial treaties.

    MILK CHURNS (SEALING).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he has received application from any local authority for power to order the sealing of milk churns containing milk in transit from producer to retailer; and, if so, what action is being taken by the Department?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received a number of communications suggesting that a Milk and Dairies Order should be made requiring the sealing of milk churns, and he is in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the matter.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the hon. Gentleman not also received a communication from local authorities deprecating any arrangements toeing made which would prevent their taking samples at railway stations?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that, but I will inquire.

    WELLINGTON (SANITARY INSPECTOR).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Health if the advertisement of the Wellington (Salop) Urban District Council, which appeared in the "Municipal Engineering and the Sanitary Record" of 10th December, for a fully-qualified sanitary inspector, preference being given to a person holding the meat and food certificate, at a salary of £156 per annum, was first submitted to him for his sanction, in accordance with Article 8 of the-Sanitary Officers' Order; whether he

    1955
    sanctioned the same; and whether this salary is regarded by his Department as adequate to obtain and retain the services of a qualified and experienced sanitary inspector?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not received any proposal from the Council in this matter, but he is asking for their observations on the subject.

  POST OFFICE.

    UNSEALED LETTERS.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the existing arrangements of his Department for dealing with unsealed letters stamped ½d.; and is he aware that complaints are being made by traders that this class of letter containing invoices is often delivered several days after receipt of goods which are despatched at the time of posting?
    Viscount WOLMER: Any printed paper prepaid ½d. which is posted later than 4.30 p.m. in London (or such time as is announced at the local post office elsewhere) is liable to be held over for despatch the next morning. It should be delivered the same afternoon or on the morning of the following day, according to the distance which it has to travel. I am aware that complaints have been made; but my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to modify the arrangements, which afford much relief in sorting offices at the heaviest period of pressure and enable the night mails to be cleared punctually and economically.
    Mr. CLARRY: With the exception of the time, may we understand that there is no adverse discrimination?
    Viscount WOLMER: That is so.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) is in communication with the Postmaster-General on this subject, and can he say that his answer will not in any way interfere with a reply being sent to the hon. Member for East Cardiff?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am certain the Postmaster-General will treat the hon. Member for East Cardiff with all proper deference.

    STORNOWAY (TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES).
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Postmaster-General what steps have been taken or are being taken to have telegraphic facilities restored from the mainland to Stornoway, in the Island of Lewis?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Arrangements are being made to open wireless communication between Tobermory and Lochboisdale as soon as possible, in order to afford telegraphic communication between Stornoway and the mainland, pending the repair of the cable, which may take some time.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Stornoway fishing industry is dependent on telegraphic facilities?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, I fully realise that, and that is why I am taking steps in this direction.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of keeping pigeons and thereby saving the taxpayer a large expense?

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (FOREIGN EMPLOYES).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of foreigners employed in the beet-sugar factories in Britain?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The only information I have is with regard to the number of permits issued under Article 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order of 1920 in respect of foreign workpeople to be engaged at the beet-sugar factories in this country. During 1925 this number was 271, including 120 for erecting and operating machinery, 144 process workers and 7 other technical experts. Some have already returned home. In ail cases' the permits were issued for strictly limited periods and on condition that British subjects are trained by the foreign workers.
    Captain GEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that the same conditions are imposed upon every beet-sugar factory that may be instituted, and that the permit shall be issued for a specified period only?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes. The policy is the same in all cases.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman prepare a statement showing the numbers of foreigners and British workers employed in this industry?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will communicate with me as to exactly what he wants, I will see how far it is possible to give him the information.

    MOTHERWELL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (DISMISSAL).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. S. Barr was dismissed from Motherwell Employment Exchange, on the 2nd October, on the ground of redundancy; and whether he will state the special qualification of the man who was engaged during the following week, when the work increased, rather than Mr. Barr, who was formerly on the staff?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Has not the Minister had inquiries made by this time, as this is a very important matter for the young man who has been dismissed on account of redundancy?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member's zeal about the matter was so great perhaps he would have put a question down a little earlier, and then I would have been able to give him an answer.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already raised it with the Parliamentary Secretary, and that it is because I have not got satisfaction that I have raised it now by a Question on the Paper?

    LIBERIA (AMERICAN LOAN).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an arrangement whereby a large American loan is proposed to be made to
    1958
    the Repubic of Liberia, coupled with other arrangements of a controlling or influencing nature; and whether, in view of the effect of this proposed loan on the existing indebtedness of Liberia in which England is interested, and also on the position of the American nominee, the controller of customs and financial adviser, who acts under international obligation, His Majesty's Government and the Republic of France have been consulted in the matter and have assented thereto?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): My attention has been drawn to this proposed loan and to the arrangements connected therewith. The loan is a private one, and His Majesty's Government have not been consulted. His Majesty's Government have carefully considered the possible effects of this scheme on British interests and, on the information before them, there is no reason to believe that any British Treaty right will be infringed by the arrangements which it is understood will be made in connection with this loan. There is, furthermore, no reason to assume that the interests of the existing British bondholders or the position of the American Receiver-General will be affected prejudicially by the terms of the proposed loan.

    SIGNING OF LOCARNO TREATY (FILM).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the foreign rights of the Locarno film were ceded to Mr. William Randolph Hearst's organisation, the International Film Company; and what price was paid for the privilege?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The foreign rights of exhibition of the film taken at the signing of the Locarno Treaties were included in the contract made with the British company to whom the distribution of the film was entrusted with the understanding that adequate, presentation and publicity should be obtained for the film in the U.S.A. as well as in other foreign countries The second part of the question does not arise.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation in America has always been very anti-British? Is it not bad policy that an organisation of that kind should have the exclusive rights in this film?
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Member will see from my answer that the Government have nothing whatever to do with that.
    Colonel DAY: Who had the granting of these rights, as they were given to one firm?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have already said that it was in the hands of the British company who got the contract for distribution.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the second part of my question does not arise? Has he any information as to how much was paid for the film and how much the Government will gain or lose by the transaction?
    Mr. McNEILL: That does not arise. I gave figures the other day of what was paid by the distributing company. There is no separate figure for the distribution of the film.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of knowing whether the Gaumont Company made a profit by selling this film to the Hearst organisation?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not in fact know, and I do not know whether there are any means of ascertaining.
    Colonel DAY: Who gave the rights to the Gaumont Company?
    Mr. McNEILL: I answered that question last week. A contract was made between His Majesty's Government and the Gaumont Company.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to inquire how much was paid to the Gaumont Company by the Hearst Company, and let the House of Commons have the facts?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot pledge myself, because I do not know whether there are any means of finding out.

  ROYAL NAVY (TUBERCULOSIS CASES).

    MEATHOP SANATORIUM.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that recently there were 10 or more ex-naval officers and men inmates of the Meathop Sanatorium, some of them with 20 years' service; that a medical board took place which consisted of an examination by one doctor, and that the findings in each case were that the disability was constitutionally not caused by nor aggravated by service; and, in view of the loose term and the dissatisfaction among these ex-officers and men, will he cause inquiries to be made into some of these cases and remove any doubts that may exist?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Naval cases of tuberculosis are invalided by Board of Survey at naval hospitals. In a very few instances, however, where the patient has already entered a sanatorium prior to coming under naval observation, it may be necessary to hold a survey with a view to invaliding without causing the patient to be moved. This survey may be carried out by the Admiralty surgeon and agent of the district in conjunction with the sanatorium authorities. The report of such survey would be examined by the Naval Medical Department at the Admiralty before action is taken, in a similar manner to that adopted for other naval medical surveys. I have no information as to the cases of tuberculosis in Meathop Sanatorium to which the hon. Member refers, but if the names of any special cases he may have in mind are furnished to me I will cause inquiry to be made.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware of the dissatisfaction of these officers and men, and am I to understand that no direct representations have been made?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: That is my information. If the hon. Member will give me the names of cases, I. will look into them.

    SCHOOLS (PRACTICAL INSTRUCTION).
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education how

    1961
    many schools are without provision for practical instruction for boys and girls?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I assume that the hon. Member refers to practical instruction in handicraft, gardening, dairywork and domestic subjects, such as is normally given to older boys and girls in public elementary schools. In the returns for the year raided 31st March, 1924 (the latest year for which figures have yet been tabulated), out of 22,609 departments containing older children, 5,964 did not show any children receiving practical instruction and 4,089 mixed departments showed provision for one sex only.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    HEADQUARTERS STAFF, CAIRO.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for War the numbers attached to the Army general headquarters at Cairo at the present time and in pre-War days?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The numbers of the staff are 27 officers and 57 clerks as compared with 10 officers and about 30 clerks before the War. Administrative and Departmental services comprise 16 officers and 23 clerks as compared with seven officers and about 15 clerks before the War.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the increase in the number of officers?
    Captain KING: I would remind the hon. Member that the number of troops is nearly doubled.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (CLERICAL EMPLOYÉS).
    Sir GERALD HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War why the civilian clerical employés' in the Royal Engineer services have not had their rates of remuneration and general conditions of service adjusted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report, dated February, 1920, of the Reorganisation Sub-committee of the National Whitley Council; and whether he is in a position to state the approximate date on which these adjustments will be made?
    Captain KING: Civilian clerical employees in Royal Engineer services are included within the scheme of reorganisation which is being applied to all Wai-Department out-station offices in the United Kingdom. The relation of this scheme to the recommendations of the Reorganisation Committee of the National Whitley Council was explained in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on the 8th December. Very close investigation is necessary before complements of posts on reorganisation can be fixed. I am not able to promise that the scheme will be applied to all the scattered Royal Engineer offices throughout the United Kingdom by any definite date, but the figures of complements for those offices are now in an advanced stage of preparation.

    CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
    Sir G. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, under the special circumstances of the case of the temporary officers of the Corps of Military Accountants, who were the only personnel of the corps thrown out of employment on the 30th November last without gratuity or compensation of any kind, special efforts will be made to find them suitable employment without unreasonable delay?
    Captain KING: Yea, Sir. Employment has been found for some of them, end we shall continue our efforts to find employment for the rest. Their qualifications are now under examination by two Government Departments with a view to the possible employment of a certain number, and the War Office will be only too glad to be informed of any suitable vacancies in civil life.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    ADMINISTRATION, LONDON.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for War if he has taken any steps regarding the proposed redistribution of administration of certain Territorial units in the county of London?
    Captain KING: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has caused letters to be written to both the Associations concerned to ask for their views and no redistribution will be made without the assent of the Associations.

    YEOMANRY (ARMOURED CARS).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to state when the obsolete Peerless armoured ears still possessed by yeomanry armoured car units will be replaced by a more modem type of British manufacture?
    Captain KING: No, Sir; I regret that I cannot yet say.

    POLICE OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the percentage value of wages for superannuation purposes of police officers in 1914 under the Police Act, 1890, and prior to the compilation of the memorandum furnished by the Government Actuary to the Geddes Committee in 1922?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am not sure that I quite understand the hon. Member's question. The value of the pension rights was, of course, increased by the grant of widows' pensions in 1918, but I am not in a position to give the percentage of pay which this increase represents. Apart from the widows' pensions, I think the hon. Member may take it that the value of the pension rights, reckoned as a percentage of pay, enjoyed by police serving immediately prior to the commencement of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, differs but little from the corresponding rights enjoyed in 1914, assuming, of course, that the maximum pension scale permissible under the Act of 1890 applies in both cases and the rateable deductions are at the rate of 2 ½ per cent.

    MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether he has now received replies from all or any of the Governments of the Dominions as to the Resolution relating to the nationality of married women passed by this House on 18th February; and whether he will lay Papers giving the terms of these replies?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 19th November and 17th of this month in answer to questions on this subject
    1964
    by the hon. and gallant Member for the Totnes Division of Devonshire (Major Harvey), and the hon. Member for the North-West Division of Camberwell (Mr. Campbell).

    MATRIMONIAL AGENCIES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the opportunities afforded professional bigamists and adventurers by a number of matrimonial agencies in the matter of preying upon credulous persons and whether he will consider legislation to deal with the question?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware of any case for dealing with such agencies by legislation, but I would, of course, consider any facts that could be placed before me.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a prosecution has just taken place in a case where one man has deceived hundreds of women, and does he not think that the time has come for legislation to deal with such cases?
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon Gentleman say whether the bigamist profession has a large number of members?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In reply to the first supplementary question, my attention has been directed to the case mentioned, but I think it is greatly exaggerated by the hon. and gallant Member. Such cases , receive due consideration.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. gentleman in favour of giving that particular bigamist the Victoria Cross?
    Captain GEE: Withdraw.

    COLOURED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the unanimous resolution which was recently passed by the Cardiff Coloured Association to the effect that the registration of coloured British subjects in Great Britain as aliens is undesirable and unjust, and that steps should be taken to remove the existing law; and if he will consider introducing a Bill to alter the present state of affairs or whether any other means can be found to

    1965
    overcome the present practice of making it necessary for British coloured subjects to register as if they were aliens?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not seen any such resolution, but I presume that it refers to the Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order which I made in March last under the Aliens Order, 1920. This Special Order requires coloured alien seamen to register with the police, but it has no application to persons who are able to produce satisfactory proof that they are British subjects.
    Captain EVANS: Are we to understand from that reply that British coloured subjects coming, say, from Arabia, are not required to register?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly not. No British subject is required to register.

    BANK OF IRELAND (BRITISH GOVERNMENT CREDIT).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount standing to the credit of the British Government at the Bank of Ireland?
    Mr. McNEILL: The balance at the credit of the Exchequer account at the Bank of Ireland on Saturday night, the 19th December, was £743,087 18s. 5d.

    SUPER-TAX (RETURNS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the inspectors of taxes to inform the Super-tax Department what are the total assessed incomes of those persons who make complete returns to the inspectors, and whose incomes are high enough to be liable to Super-tax?
    Mr. McNEILL: The reply is in the affirmative.

    DOLGARROG DAM DISASTER.
    Captain BRISCOEasked the Home Secretary what further steps it is proposed to take, in view of the disastrous collapse of the two dams near Dolgarrog, North Wales, to prevent danger to the public from such dams?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Government have carefully reviewed the situation and have come to the conclusion that there should be a further investigation of a technical character into the design and construction of the dams which gave way and other local dams under the control of the Aluminium Corporation and the North Wales Power Company. It has now been arranged that these companies will employ an engineering firm of high standing, not hitherto connected with the dams, whose name will be submitted for the approval of the Government, to hold a full investigation on these lines. The report of this investigation will be available to the Government, and the whole question will be further considered in the light of that report.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that somebody who has a good knowledge of the district, technically and otherwise, will be one of those to take part in the inquiry into this very serious matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. and gallant Member will see from my answer to the question, I have no real power in the matter. I must proceed by negotiation. The companies have agreed to submit the plans of the dam to an independent engineer, and as soon as I have had a report from the engineer, I shall be able to consider whether or not any legislation is necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman not invite the companies to agree to somebody who is an expert and who knows the district well taking part in the inquiry? I think they will agree.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me or my Department the name of anyone in the district whom he would like to have called as a witness, I will submit that name.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Thank you.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the report public?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the engineer who is going to carry out the inquiry to

    1967
    make particular investigation as to the depth to which the foundations were carried?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A good deal is known already in regard to those matters, and it is in consequence of those facts that I am asking for the inquiry.

    HEDJAZ (ABDICATION OF KING ALI).
    Mr. WARDLAW- MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information regarding the alleged abdication of the King Ali of the Hedjaz; whether Jeddah has fallen to the Wahabis; and whether the Government has received any communication from Ibn Saud?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. Information has been received that King Ali abdicated officially on the 19th December and that a provisional Government under the local Governor is making arrangements to hand over the town of Jeddah peacefully to Ibn Saud, whose troops are expected to enter it on the 23rd December. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Captain BENN: When are the terms of the new Treaty with Ibn Saud to be made public?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have only just received this question and I am afraid I cannot give that information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister on the procedure proposed for to-day and, with the permission of the House, to make one or two observations which will make the purpose of my question clear. There is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with an international question of the most supreme importance, and raising, for good or for ill, very serious issues as to the commitments of this country. On that subject a statement before the House rose was not only anticipated and desired, but was asked for recently by the
1968
Leader of the Opposition. Now we find that the House, at this closing hour of the Session, with very depleted numbers indeed, is to be asked by a division to commit itself to the policy recently pursued by the Government. Into the merits of that policy I do not at this moment enter. A Government has its authority and its majority to apply it, but a minority has its rights, and I hope the Prime Minister in no sense intends to disregard those rights, I submit to the Prime Minister that no opportunity has been given to the Opposition to consider the terms of this Motion or to determine whether or not any Amendment should be placed on the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), I understand, did see a copy of this Motion after the House rose on Friday, but it was not until it was seen on the Order Paper on Saturday morning that in any sense it was presented in Parliamentary form. In view of those facts, I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can permit a discussion on the subject of this Motion by moving the Adjournment of the Debate, and by not pressing the Motion which is on the Order Paper to the Division Lobby.
The PRIME MINISTER: I will be as brief as I can in replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), but I must make one or two observations. I agree with him as to the importance of the Motion—-I regret its necessity—on which I was prepared to say something when I spoke later in the Debate. I may, perhaps, anticipate to this extent what I am going to say. Having regard to the fact that this matter has of necessity only come before the House practically the last day of the Session, I am going to take the rather unusual step when we come back of submitting the new Treaty in its complete form to the House of Commons, giving a whole day for the discussion of that Treaty in the terms in which it will go to the League of Nations, and asking the House either to accept or reject that Treaty. So much for that.
I may say that it is equally inconvenient for all of us who are anxious to go away for our holidays to have to consider—as I am afraid any great and Imperial Parliament must at times have to consider—an important matter at the close of a very long and very exhausting

1969
Session. It was only late on Thursday evening that the Colonial Secretary returned from Geneva, and it was only in the course of Friday that we arranged how we could give expression to the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to do as he asked me by an exhaustive series of questions. I spoke in answer to a subsequent question in this House in the same series of supplementary questions of a Debate that we should have, being entirely anxious to meet his wishes, and a Debate almost necessarily carries with it the corollary of a Motion. The responsible members of the Opposition, I think, knew within half-an-hour or so of when we did that the Motion was going down. I am aware that it is awkward to make arrangements in a hurry, but after all, just as in a football match the game is never over till the whistle has gone, so in the House of Commons our work is never done until the Prorogation, and while I am anxious in every way to meet the desire of the Opposition, I cannot, I regret to say, see my way to remove a Motion from the Paper which has been put down after deliberation by the Leader of the House.
Mr. CLYNES: I would like to make this observation on the statement which we have just heard. My conclusion is that the further procedure to be followed by the Government with regard to the Treaty in the next Session is the best justification we have for asking that this Motion relating to the policy of the Treaty should not be pressed to a division now. With every regard to the figure of speech which has been used as to the football match, I do not think an Opposition ought to be kicked about in this way. I regard this Motion as an effort unduly to coerce the Opposition into anticipating the decision which Parliament might reach when the Treaty has been dealt with during 1926, and I think that the constitutional practice should be, on that side of the House at least, that of observing Parliamentary traditions in relation to an Opposition's rights. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that this Motion must go to a division, I can only now say that when this business is approached later in the day I would ask my hon. Friends behind me, with whom I act, to protest in the most vigorous manner that they can by leaving the House and taking no part in the discussion.
Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is it competent for a Motion of this kind to be put down in the manner in which it has been put down without the House having been given an opportunity of putting an Amendment on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: An Amendment can be moved without being put on the Paper, and I am open to receive any Amendments which it might be desired to move.
Mr. MACLEAN: I quite understand that we are in order in handing in a manuscript Amendment, but that does not get over the difficulty, because the rest of the House is not able to know what is the business or how far it is suggested to amend a particular Motion that has been put down. Because of the supreme importance of this Motion, bearing as it does on an international question, I submit that it would have been in order for the Prime Minister to put it down in such a way that it would be possible to put an Amendment on the Paper to it.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a matter of order for me to deal with.
Mr. MACLEAN: Since it was in the mind of the Government and the Whips to put this Motion on the Paper, why were no approaches made to the Opposition in time, while the House was still sitting, so as to enable them to put an Amendment on the Paper?
Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: May I ask whether it is not the case that a Motion in connection with this matter was put down by a station of the Opposition last week and that there has been considerable discussion by different parts of the Opposition on this very question.
Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock."— [The Prime, Minister.]
Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask if this Motion is debatable.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have collected the voices.
Mr. STEPHEN: I think we should be allowed to say a word or two on this Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is too late.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Government

1971
Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [The Prime Minister.]
Mr. MACLEAN: I want to ask a question.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question that can arise.
Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put his point of Order after I have put the Question to the House.
Mr. MACLEAN: Are you going to collect the voices before you take my question?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot put a question to me while I am proceeding to put the Question to the House. He will have an opportunity of putting a point of Order, should he wish, after I have put the Question.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. MACLEAN: I am going to protest against your action. Are you going to take my question?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be seated and covered.
Mr. MACLEAN: I propose to put the question—[Interruption.]
The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 70.

Division No. 502.]

AYES.

[4.3 p.m.

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

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hills, Major John Walter

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

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

Crook, C. W.

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

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

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

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Apsley, Lord

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

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

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

Atklnson, C.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Huntingfield, Lord

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Dixey, A. C.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

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

Edmonson, Major A. J.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Betterton, Henry B.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

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

Elvedon, Viscount

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Blundell, F. N.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lamb, J. Q.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Briscoe, Richard George

Fermoy, Lord

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Ford, P. J.

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Loder, J. de V.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Looker, Herbert William

Bullock, Captain M.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Burman, J. B.

Gates, Percy

Lumley, L. R.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Gee, Captain R.

McDonnell Colonel Hon. Angus

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

McLean, Major A.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Campbell, E. T.

Goff, Sir Park

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Gower, Sir Robert

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Grant, J. A.

Macquisten, F. A.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gretton, Colonel John

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Malone, Major P. B.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Margesson, Captain D.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Christie, J. A.

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

Merriman, F. B.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

Meyer, Sir Frank

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hammersley, S. S.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Clarry, Reginald George

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Clayton, G. C.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hartington, Marquess of

Murchison, C. K.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Haslam, Henry C.

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

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

Cope, Major William

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

Oakley, T.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Savery, S. S.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Penny, Frederick George

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Perring, William George

Skelton, A. N.

Wells, S. R.

Pilcher, G.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Smithers, Waldron

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Ramsden, E.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Wise, Sir Fredric

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

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Wolmer, Viscount

Remnant, Sir James

Streatfield, Captain S. R.

Womersley, W. J.

Rentoul, G. S.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

Rice, Sir Frederick

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Salmon, Major I.

Tinne, J. A.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

NOES.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Palin, John Henry

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Groves, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Baker, Walter

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

Ponsonby, Arthur

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hardie, George D.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scurr, John

Briant, Frank

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Broad, F. A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bromley, J.

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

Sitch, Charles H.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Snell, Harry

Crawfurd, H. E.

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Dalton, Hugh

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

Taylor, R. A,

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lansbury, George

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

Day, Colonel Harry

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, E.

Dennison, R.

Lee, F.

Viant, S. P.

Duncan, C.

Livingstone, A. M.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dunnico, H.

Lowth, T.

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

Fenby, T. D.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

March, S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Gillett, George M.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Windsor, Walter

Gosling, Harry

Montague, Frederick

Wright, W.

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

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

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Naylor, T. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to ask your ruling. Before a Question is put by you, and before the voices are collected, is a Member in order in asking a question upon business either from the Prime Minister or from whoever is the Leader of the House on that particular day?
Mr. SPEAKER: If it be a Motion under Standing Order No. 1, then no question can be asked. If, on the other hand, it be a Motion outside Standing Order No. 10, a question can be asked. If I did the hon. Member any injustice, I extend to him my apology most sincerely. I was under the impression that on; the first Motion I had collected the voices before he rose, and I am still under that impression. If I am in error, however, I tender him my apology.
Mr. MACLEAN: I quite accept that statement. There is no necessity for your apology. I was rising on the second Motion, "That the proceedings
1974
be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order," and I wanted to ask the Prime Minister a question, and that I understand has been done.
Mr. SPEAKER: No; those questions are asked at the end of Questions, I always wait to see if there are any questions as to what is going to be taken, but not after the Motion has been put.
Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask whether, when the Leader of the Opposition asks a question by leave of the House, such as occurred this afternoon, it is customary that during his statement he should make attacks upon the Government and exhort his followers to a certain course or whether that is not contrary to custom?
Mr. SPEAKER: I was not aware what was going to be said, but I saw no reason for objecting or Interfering with the course of the statement.
Mr. MACLEAN: May I be allowed to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, when we take the, first Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Mr. MACLEAN: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury a question. The sixth Order on the Paper is the Second Heading of the Rating (Scotland) Bill. I do not know whether he intends taking that to-night.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): We hope to get Orders (1) Rating and Valuation Bill, (2) Criminal Justice Bill, (3) Tithe Bill, and (4) Sandwich Port and Haven Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments, and (5) Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill [Lords], Committee; and the Motion on Iraq standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask whether this Motion that has been made is debatable.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I do not think we should proceed to consider the Lords Amendments. After what has already been said to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, it seems to me this House has been put into a very unfair position, and if the matter of Mosul and the questions appertaining thereto are of so much importance, it is a farce to go on with the discussion of the Amendments to the Rating and Valuation Bill. The House has not had a sufficient opportunity for the consideration of the Amendments that have been made in the other House. There are far more outstanding questions than the Amendments to this Rating and Valuation Bill, which I feel that this House would be far better discussing at the present time, and, therefore, I submit that we do not proceed with these Amendments.
  Mr. MARCH: I would certainly like to support my hon. Friend. Being one of
  2038
  the Members of the Rating and Valuation Committee, it seems to me that we have got pretty well as many Amendments from the Lords as we had to consider in Committee, and we were there some 10 days considering alterations to this important Bill. I think the Minister himself will admit that this is a very important Measure, very wide-spreading, and will cause a good deal of contention in the country. I, along with other Members of the Committee, cannot agree to sit here and consider these Amendments of the Lords without full consideration. It seems to me we shall not be able to claim much credit if we accept these Amendments, and say that this Bill is to be worked as an Act of Parliament by various people throughout the country. In my opinion the Minister would not be justified in taking these Amendments this afternoon.
  Mr. HARD IE: I want to lodge my protest against this method of conducting business. On Friday afternoon, two hours before the House was due to rise, the Prime Minister came in and rushed a new system of housing upon us. Today we are to have something else rushed through. There is the question of unemployment. But that is a home question and there is no time for that, and the Government want us to rush through the business in order to get on to the question of Iraq. They are not going to do it. We have made up our minds to fight every inch we can, and we shall divide at every chance we get.
  Mr. THURTLE: I should like to add my voice to the general protest against these Amendments being considered at the present time. This Bill is of vital importance to the whole country, and the Amendments deserve to be considered in the fullest possible House. It is common knowledge that on this, the last day of the Session, the House is not anything: like full. A large number of Members, both from the agricultural districts and from the urban districts, are not in the House to-day, and these Amendments vitally concern the constituents of those Members. I certainly think we ought to have the full intelligence, the full knowledge, of the House brought to bear upon these very important Amendments which have been sent down to us from the House of Lords.

  2039
  There is another point. This House ought to take into consideration the relative importance of the subjects it decides to discuss, and I consider this particular subject for which time is asked this afternoon, is not nearly so important to the people of this country as a whole as other subjects which may be discussed at a later stage. Therefore, I protest very strongly at the Government seeking to take several hours of the very valuable time of this House in asking us to consider these Lords Amendments. After all what is the House of Lords? I have no title, I believe, to refer to it in a particular sense, but I regard this House of Commons as being infinitely more important than the other place.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now discuss that.
  Mr. THURTLE: I have not had time to go through the list of these Amendments from the other place, but I find, from a very rapid glance, that they are very numerous. There are no less than 15 pages of them, and they number 91. I think everyone will agree that the task of giving adequate consideration to Amendments of this character is such, that there is really not sufficient time the last day of the Session for us to perform that task properly. Not only are the Amendments numerous, but there are some which deal with matters of vital importance to great urban constituencies like that which I have the honour to represent. I know from a cursory glance there are such Amendments, and if I am going to discharge my duty faithfully by my constituents—and it has been my object ever since I came into the House to do that whenever I see a Motion on the Order Paper which tends to impose additional burdens on my constituents— it is my duty to bring the full play of my intellect to bear upon that proposal, and to see whether or not I can prevent injustice being done to my constituents. Looking, as I say, in very cursory fashion through these Amendments, I am bound to come to the conclusion that, because they are so numerous and so complicated in their character, there is not adequate time, between now and the time when the House will be prorogued, for the proper consideration of all these Amendments. Therefore, supported, I hope, by every one of my fellow Members
  2040
  on those benches, I am determined to raise my voice against this very unnecessary and unjust proposal.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I want to take exception once again to the manner in which the Government, are rushing business through this House, in that we are being asked to consider this Bill of 90 pages of closely printed matter this afternoon. A long period is spent in Committee on this Bill, the House goes through a Report stage which takes up several days, and, alter Third Heading, the Bill is sent to the other place, and comes back to this House with 15 pages of Amendments containing no fewer than 131 specific and definite Amendments. As far as I can see, the Government are under the impression that they can treat this House and that they can treat the Opposition in this House with contempt. That may be all right for people who allow themselves to be treated with contempt. As long as I am here, I am going to protest, and, what in more, I am going to fight against any Government trying to rush through this House 131 Amendments to this Bill, then the Tithe Bill, then the Criminal Justices Bill with Amendments from the other place, and then go on to Mosul and discuss the Iraq situation, and carry a Resolution.
  I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is going to he the adviser with regard to this Rating and Valuation Bill, if he, in his capacity as a legal luminary outside, would allow any Court to rush through business in this v ay, or to treat any of the counsel in a case in the way this Government is treating the Opposition this afternoon? It is not only an insult to the Opposition, but it is an insult to the country to be asked to accept a Bill of this character, thrown at us with four other Bills and a Resolution with regard to Mosul on the same day. The Government have complained, and are complaining, that they have not time to deal with many Bills, and have-dropped them from the list. So far as we are concerned, they are not going to get this Bill and the other Bills down to-night. I shall speak upon every Amendment on this Bill and the four subsequent Bills, and there are sufficient Amendments in all these Bills to keep us Dividing right through until the House is supposed to meet to-morrow at 11 o'clock, without any discussion at all. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am

  2041
  glad the supporters of the Government appreciate the number of Divisions they are going to get. No doubt it will send up their score, and it will give, what some of them require, a good deal of exercise, as a result of which I am sure they will enjoy their Christmas holidays very much more.
  I take it these Amendments which the Lords have made to the Rating and Valuation Bill have been put in by them in all good faith, but that does not mean that when they come before this House we are not to be allowed sufficient time to examine them, and to debate them in a way that will enable us to decide exactly what this House desires to do with regard to these Amendments. Many of these Amendments in this long list, although, as I have said, they have been made in good faith by the other place, are absolutely, in my opinion, ineffective and undesirable. The great bulk of them are ineffective in so far as they are likely to make better the Bill which left this Chamber. When you look at these things in a practical way, I submit that, so far as this Bill is concerned, there is one more argument of the necessity of abolishing the other place altogether.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have been wondering what would have happened if Lord Banbury had been in this House now. I have heard him on many occasions protesting against legislation in a hurry, and we have the fact that we are asked to take another 130 Amendments to this Bill, and a lot of Amendments to some other Bills, and to put them through practically in a comparatively brief time and without any discussion at all. I remember hearing Lord Banbury say that one result of this slipshod method of carrying through legislation was to make work for lawyers and Courts of Justice. This is a Bill which will be very easy to operate in that fashion. What guarantee have we about it? We are told that these are all drafting Amendments, but who has told us this? The people who have told us this are the people who brought the Bill originally into the House of Commons itself, and put it through in the form in which it went to the other place. I understand that the other place could not possibly have given full consideration to any of the Clauses in the circumstances, or any of the Amendments which they put in, except one or two.
  2042
  There are two Amendments that I have had time to pick out, and they are the substance. Lord Banbury himself got a very good portion of the Clause removed that deals with trading interests. There was a claim that trading profits should be put on the demand note, but Lord Banbury saw the red light and got the whole of that, as regards municipal trading profits, knocked out altegether. That is a matter which we on these benches feel very strongly about. Then there is—
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member, on the question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," to raise the question of specific amendments?
  Mr. SPEAKER: A reference to the matter is in Order, but the hon. Member must stop at that.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention until the time comes of debating the matter. I was calling attention to this particular Amendment because of its importance, and because Members of this House have had very little information that such Amendment had been passed before they were called upon to discuss it, and decide upon it. There is another equally important-Amendment about which I should like to have the opportunity of consulting the trade unions concerned. That is in relation to a quarrel that has taken place between trade union barristers and trade union solicitors. It is one of those disputes about demarcation, where one branch of the law should come in and the other should be kept out.
  I had no opportunity of consulting my friends in either of the organisations concerned. I shall have to listen to what the right hon. and learned Gentlemen, probably the Attorney-General, or his partner, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, have to say, but I should have preferred to consult people outside to hear what they had to say on the question. I object further to this hurrying on of legislation, because it is on the assumption that the House has not got proper time, and that there is not proper time available to do the business. The only reason there is not proper time is that Members want to get away tomorrow. We could have sat on Wednes-

  2043
  day. We could have sat on Thursday. We could come back immediately after New Year's day, and have done the business in a businesslike manner. We are called upon, however, to deal with legislation of this sort, and the Government refuse altogether to give time to discuss questions that some of us here think are of infinitely more importance than these. It is for these reasons, and for many others with which I do not want to weary the House that I, at least—and I hope, hon. Members on this side—will do my best to protest, and vote against this Motion, and vote against every other Motion on the Paper this evening.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I also desire to join my voice in protest with that of my colleagues. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is not merely a method of hurrying on legislation, but it is, in effect, asking us to cease our functions as legislators, and it is treating this House as if it were a squire's club. There are at least 90 per cent. of Members on the other side who are ready to support the Government in this action, and I suggest that they have not honestly and correctly read these Amendments, but are ready to vote, for they are under the orders of an oligarchy and the slavish direction of the Government. This particular question, Mr. Speaker, is not merely a question of Amendments from the other side. We know that Members in the other House have a peculiar interest in land and valuation—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We must rest content with dealing with our own House in matters of this sort.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: The function of this House, Mr. Speaker, is continuously to make a struggle and safeguard the pecuniary interests of our electors against the rapacious demands of the Members of the other House. We are not quite sure as to what may have crept into these eleventh-hour Amendments. They may completely destroy legitimate and constitutional interests, and the rights of our constituents. We are bound to safeguard these against every Amendment that comes from the other place, especially on questions relating to land and valuation. It may be pretended that these are merely drafting Amendments, but we see
  2044
  there are proposals made to omit wholesale many of the Ci3,uses, or to insert new Clauses; and these are far from being merely drafting Amendments.
  We are told that these amendments are altogether unimportant, of no value at all. The Government possesses sufficient influence over their own friends in the other House to leave such unimportant matters, and not to worry this House with them. Why bring in unimportant revisions in legislation merely to disturb the process of legislation as carried out by this House? If these Amendments are important, then I should like to know if this House has tacitly to agree that we are unable to do our own work efficiently, and discover that 136 serious errors are found out by members of the other House? That would certainly seem to be a very grave reflection upon the capacity and ability of Members of this House to deal with legislation. If the Government honestly presume and want us to believe that all these Amendments are not of any far-reaching consequences, and that we must just say "yes" as if we were putting on our old exits and hats to go out on a holiday, we may just as well do that, but if they are important then, I submit to the Government, that they are not acting in conformity with the dignity and responsibility of this House to ask us to look at more than 100 Amendments in not even 100 minutes, and simply give our blessing because they happen to have come from the other House. It is not as though this House had not primarily gone carefully through the various stages of this Bill. We are told by members in another place that we do not know our business, that it is not merely an error here and there in the Bill, but that in over 100 places we do not know our business, and that they are going to put us right where we have gone wrong.
  If the Government themselves are equal to accepting that sort of reproach, then it is their first duty to send their members away to the country, and an opportunity should be given for more competent members to come back than the present occupants of the Government benches. If the Government themselves are prepared to say that these are frivolous Amendments, then they ought to advise their friends in the other place to withdraw them. I appeal to the Government to modify their attitude in this respect, and to give us that sufficient

  2045
  time for which we are entitled to ask as representatives of responsible constituencies.
  Mr. J. JONES: Observations have been made with regard to the Constitution and the other Chamber. I am not going into the latter matter. I do not propose to debate the Lords. They are Lords, and they cannot help themselves. But i have always noticed that whenever Lords' Amendments have been submitted in the ordinary way as legislation, generally speaking, very few Amendments have been brought forward to any Bill, and most of them have been Amendments upon which there could be very little criticism. I think I could ask even the oldest Member of this House, wherever he may be sitting, to tell me whether, in his recollection, such a number of Amendments have ever been brought forward to be dealt with in so small a space of Parliamentary time.
  I am not going to enter into most )f the Amendments—though I could do it if necessary—but some of them are fundamental to those of us who are representatives upon local authorities. We know how they will affect us in our own districts. In my own this Valuation Bill means a 6d. increase in the £ upon our rates. There are Members on the Government benches who know that this Bill is going to affect them in exactly the same way so far as rateable values are concerned. Yet we are here asked to buy a, pig in a, poke. I do not care whence it comes. Whether it comes from the House of Lords or from Madame Tussaud's. But I am not going to get "waxy" over it.
  I want to ask the House to recognise that the House of Lords may be a revising chamber so long as we are prepared to stand it. So long as it is a revising chamber, surely, we are the last people, and we should have the last word to say in matters of this character, because finance is closely interwoven with the structure of this Bill. If we have the last word to say, why should we not have the time to say it in? If the Government had had their way, we should now be discussing Mosul. I do not know where it is, and I do not care. I know only that some of the new Mussolinis are going to explain it to us, I know more about West Ham. This Bill affects hundreds of
  2046
  thousands of people who will be the victims of some of its provisions. The Lords Amendments will affect these people deleteriously. Although I am not a member of the House of Lords, I would be prepared to argue this Bill against any of them.
  Among right hon. and hon. Members on the benches opposite are lawyers, and there is no one who will get more out of the Bill than the lawyers. I am not saying another word about that, although I happen to be a member of an assessment committee. We have to meet these gentlemen. We know that they are very clever. They will always speak on either side according to the necessity of their profession. We are only common or garden people who have to face the music as ordinary citizens. We are here to protect our constituents, and we want to know where we come in. We have not had, and we never will have, a proper opportunity of discussing any of these 131 Amendments. Cannot the Government postpone this Bill until they have had an opportunity of discussing them with the intellectuals on their own back benches? It is a very clever dodge to bring a Bill of this important character along at the last moment. We have had no chance of finding out what these Amendments involve. The Amendments are modifications of practically all the Clauses of the Bill. We want to know where we are, because we do not know where we are. We know how the House of Lords do these things. I have been watching them. Out of about 300 Members of the other House, you generally find about 20 present to discuss these things, and they get their orders from the foreman who sits on a sack of wool.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not allowable to make reference to the proceedings of another place.
  Mr. JONES: I cannot make that reference, because they do not proceed. I say that in the framing of these Amendments there were never more than 50 members of another place present. We have a right to say that if men hold public positions on a body to carry out legislation, they ought at least to do the body the honour of attending and carrying out the work they are supposed to do. Instead of that the work is done by legal gentlemen. The Law Lords have done

  2047
  this job, and I am suspicious of them. I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts. We want to oppose these Amendments. Let us have time to discuss them in their proper order.
  Mr. NAYLOR: I make one other appeal to the Government not to proceed with these Amendments, and I do so on different grounds from those advanced by my colleagues. I am inclined to treat Amendments that come from the other place with the respect that they undoubtedly deserve, and it is because the other place has seen fit to amend this Bill in so many particulars that I am convinced that this House would not be doing the other place justice by proceeding immediately to consider the Amendments. If, as has been suggested, these are merely drafting Amendments, what were the Law Officers of the Crown doing in allowing such bad drafting to go from the House of Commons for correction in another place? The Law Officers are expected to be masters of their own business, and the fact that it has been necessary to make so many drafting Amendments—these are not all drafting Amendments, though very many of them are—is evidence that the Law Officers have not been so vigilant in framing this Bill as they should have been with so important a Measure.
  In looking through the pages of Amendments I am bound to ask myself whether I can possibly give each of them the attention that it deserves. I find that there are important advances from file meaning of the original Measure. It is quite true that, so far as the Metropolis is concerned, this Measure does not affect the position, but everything that we pass in this Main Bill must be very closely followed in any other Bill relating to London generally. Therefore, the Bill should not pass in its amended form without full discussion. The conversation in progress between Ministers on the Front Bench opposite seems to indicate that our appeals will go unheard. The House of Commons has fallen rather low when a suggestion from the Opposition Benches that the Law Officers have not done their business as they should have done it can pass without any apparent notice being taken of it, and without their feeling under an obligation to answer the accusation. That is an additional
  2048
  reason why our protest should be made. Most of us here are prepared to discuss the Amendments on their merits, but it is impossible to do that in the short time at our disposal. However honest we may be in our desire to examine each of these Amendments, it is not possible for us to give to them that consideration which our constituents would expect us to give.
  Your duties, Mr. Speaker, are much more difficult when an attempt is made to rush legislation in this way, It means that you will be endeavouring to secure the passing of these Amendments at a time when many hon. Members will be desiring to express their views. We speak of free speech outside this House. Are we to forget the lights of free speech within? Surely no Government has the sight to dictate to any Members or to any party how long it ought to take in considering important Amendments of this kind. I protest most strongly against our being expected to pass or to reject these alterations of the Bill within a period of a few hours. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of what has been said from these benches, and will gracefully withdraw from its position by giving the House full time for consideration of the Lords Amendments.
  Colonel DAY: I must add my protest to that of other hon. Members against the Government's procedure. If hon. Members opposite expressed their own opinions on the subject, I believe that they would be adding their protests to ours. Many of them have sat here through the early hours of the morning discussing this Bill. If is very disrespectful to us that, after so much discussion here, the Bill should go to another place, have these Amendments made in so little time, and then be sent back here in the expectation that we shall push the Amendments through in an hour or so. We have not only this Bill, which is of great moment to many of my constituency, but also the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, the Sandwich Port and Haven Bill, and the Tithe Bill. It is only fair that Members of the Opposition should have time to consider the Amendments to these several Bills. I heard the Prime Minister this afternoon speak of a football match and playing the game. I would remind him that it is very unfair of the Government, with a great majority,

  2049
  to try to trample on the minority in this House, and to rush these Amendments through without an opportunity for discussion. There are 131 Amendments to this Bill, and if we had a reasonable opportunity of discussing them, no doubt the Minister of Health would see that some of them were removed, having regard to the considerable time that has been spent in consideration of the Bill since its introduction in this House.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. DALTON: After the many appeals that have been made we may hope soon to get some response from the Government. That we should have, on the last effective day of the Session, four or five Bills brought before us, of which this is the first and most important, with this enormous mass of detailed Amendments, is clear proof that the time table of the Government has been mismanaged. The only thing to have done was to have jettisoned some of the cargo, to have lightened the ship, in order to get through the business; in reasonable time. This Bill is a Bill which occupied a very large part of last Session. It seems to me very bad management on the part of the Government to have sent a Bill to the House of Lords such a short time before the conclusion of the Session, when there were a largo number of drafting Amendments to be made. We ought to protest against this growing tendency to refuse on the Floor of this House to accept Amendments that are moved from the Opposition side, and then, later on, for a lot of drafting Amendments to be inserted in another place. It is very unsatisfactory, because it means that instead of the House being able to discuss these matters in the first instance here, we have to take them all in a great hurry at the end of the Session. It has already been said that between 130 and 140 Amendments have been put down to this Bill, some of them of great importance, and some of them absolutely trivial. Some of them could very well have been accepted at an earlier stage. It is because of the future conduct of business, as well as in regard to this particular problem, that I protest against this House being involved in all this mass of Amendments, many of which might have been dealt with at an earlier stage.
  A point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones)
  2050
  when he observed that this Bill is a Bill dealing with finance—
  "An Act to simplify the law in regard to the making and collection of rates,"
  etc. It seems to me that it is very nearly a Bill which would come within the scope of the provisions of the Parliament Act. It is quite true that the Government mismanaged their business and sent this Bill to the other House within a month before the end of the Session, and it is quite true that the Speaker's certificate would not cover this Bill, even if it were ruled to be a Money Bill. This is a ease where the House of Lords has been sailing very near the wind in regard to the privileges of this House. It has been laid down in the Parliament Act that this House only shall deal with the matters of raising and spending money, and although it is true that the Lords might say, as an excuse for their conduct, that this is a matter of local finance and not national finance, it is only right on this Motion that a word of caution should be spoken from these benches about a very serious precedent which has been set, in a Finance Bill, even though it be a local Finance Bill, being mauled about in another place to the extent of 140 Amendments and 15 pages of type. I have no doubt that the Government would be only too pleased to see further breaches made in the wall which was built up around this House in regard to finance in the year 1911, and, if for no other reason, we should take a Division on this question in order to protest once more that this is the House, and not the other House, which is the guardian of the financial policy of this country.
  I do not suppose it will be possible at this late stage to protect this Bill technically against the Lords, because the Session is so shortly coming to an end; therefore, I have merely to limit myself to making this protest in general terms. I submit that when you have a majority in another place of the same complexion as the majority in this place, then it is urgent that we should pay very careful attention to the rules and practices of the House and to the Parliament Act procedure, because no great conflict of principle is going to arise between the two Houses. The majorities in the two places will play into each other's hands, as we well know, and it is just in circumstances of that kind that a precedent

  2051
  might be let through which will be very embarrassing to the next Labour Government when we desire to introduce a Finance Bill which the Lords, through the constitutional negligence of the present Government, we might find are enabled to deal with and amend. For these reasons, I make an appeal to the Government to postpone the consideration of this Bill.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to add my protest to the opposition to this Bill, particularly as the Bill is positively the most important Measure introduced by the present Government. It has attracted attention throughout the country because it affects every ratepayer and every business in the country. We have spent many weeks in this House and in Committee stage seeking to make the Bill acceptable to the people and one that would apply the principles of equitable rating. It has gone to another place, and that place has considered fit, in a few days, to rush through over 130 Amendments. It is true the Government in this House might say that nearly all of them are drafting Amendments. That, in itself, is a matter of opinion. We had a large number of so-called drafting Amendments presented in this House, which, when they were fully considered, turned out in many instances to be of vital importance, and not merely drafting Amendments. The same thing applies to the Amendments which are sent down to this House from another place. Some of them, possibly, we may agree to and not discuss as absolutely drafting Amendments, but considerable numbers of the so-called drafting Amendments are something much more. There are certainly at least half-a-dozen Amendments in the Lords Amendments which are of the utmost importance. There is one which ought to appeal to the Law Officers at any rate. That is the one that deals with the proposal that solicitors shall not take part in appeals at the Quarter Sessions. I do not propose to discuss that Amendment, but I am entitled to show that there are several very important and far-reaching Amendments in this set of Amendments and that it is impossible for Members of this House to honestly say to this House or to convince their constituents that they have been given reasonable opportunity and time to study them and relate them
  2052
  to the Bill as it left the House in the Report stage. There is not a Member of the House can honestly say so, whether he is a lawyer, or anything else. I, therefore, protest that we must have far more time to consider all these Amendments than is possible in a. half-hour's Debate this evening. The responsibility rests on the Government to find a way out. If they are going to press these Amendments on the House, then we have to take up the rights of an Opposition and will oppose at even possible stage and occupy the time of this House to-day and to-morrow and other days if necessary, to see that the rights of this House shall not be trampled on by the other House.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member stated that he was not going to discuss the Amendments; I hope he will keep his word.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I submit that for 130 Amendments to be thrust upon us last Friday by another place expecting us to devote our week-end to this kind of thing is unreasonable. We did not take the time necessary to consider them, and their relation to the Bill. I would point out to the House that a very large number of Members are connected with bodies in the country which will be seriously affected if these Amendments were accepted in the House to-night. The Government are raising a hornet's nest about their ears on that one Amendment concerning the solicitors. It would be interesting, to find out now whether the legal profession is one trade union or two trade unions, and is organised on a craft basis or upon an industrial basis.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not refer to that, it is out of Order.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I am only refer ring to that Amendment about the solicitors as an illustration. I think it is a most important illustration because that particular Amendment is one that will attract the greatest opposition in the country and in this House, and it therefore remains to be seen whether the legal profession is organised upon an industrial basis or upon a craft union basis, whether they are in one body—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not refer to that. I have told him it is out of order.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I stand corrected on that point. I would like to point out to the House that this is not merely a fictitious opposition. We consider that the other House may have in its jurisdiction tried honestly by these Amendments to improve the Bill, in the interests of the general body of ratepayers. In so far as the Amendments have been seriously considered and decided upon by the other place, so should we require adequate time in this House to consider these considered Amendments, and we are not getting it, under the programme of work outlined by the Government for the consideration of this Bill. I want, therefore, to protest. I might say that I have received a number of letters from several bodies of ratepayers, and the legal profession protesting, against certain Amendments to this Bill. How are we going to have time to discuss them adequately in the hours the Government intend to give us? For these reasons I shall certainly vote against the Motion, and, if we are defeated, as we shall be, in the Lobby, we shall keep you walking for the rest of the night.
  Mr. SCURR: The treatment the House has received this afternoon by the Government is on a par with the action of the Government throughout the whole of the discussion of this Eating and Valuation Bill. When, in a Memorandum to the local authorities of this country, the Ministry of Health set forth the main proposals of this Measure, those proposals were generally accepted by the various local authorities, because they were bringing about an improvement in our rating and valuation system.
  The Bill as originally introduced was very largely drafted on the proposals that were contained in the memorandum. It was accorded, therefore, a general blessing by this House when it went to Committee upstairs and there was no factious opposition from those of us who sit on these benches. We did our best to help the Minister of Health in his work. On more than one occasion it was the votes of the Members of the Opposition that saved the Government from defeat on one or two of their principal proposals in face of their own supporters, and then after two or three days, after a tremendous fight on behalf of the Minister of Health, he forgot his family traditions and made a cowardly surrender
  2054
  to the back benches, who are supporting him on the present occasion. The consequence was that in Committee upstairs and afterwards on Report in this House the Bill has been so amended that it is not at all recognisable as the Bill that was originally introduced. It has now gone to another place, and there, I am informed, these 130 odd Amendments, contained in the 15 pages, are supposed to be drafting Amendments. When we turn to page 2 of these Amendments I see that, under page 6, there is an Amendment to line 13 to leave out Sub-section (4) and then to insert a number of words amounting to 34 lines. This is a drafting Amendment, 34 lines! I find other Amendments with 20 and 30 lines. Drafting Amendments! I look at one of these, and I am really puzzled as to its moaning. It says:
  "A person who is in occupation of a hereditament for part only of the period in respect of which the rate is made, shall, subject to the provisions of this Sub-section, be liable to be charged with such part only of the total amount of the rate as the number of days during which he is in occupation boars to the total number of days comprised in the said period."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is entirely out of order to discuss these Amendments.
  Mr. SCURR: I was reading it to show how, with that involved language, it was impossible in the time at our disposal, on the eve of the close of the Session, to discuss the Amendments. All the way through the Government have treated the House in a manner which, in every sense of the word, is reprehensible, with regard to the conduct of this Bill. We had, first of all, London included in the Bill. London is now put out of the Bill, and the. Minister of Health has said that in the time to come next year, or possibly in 1927, he will introduce a Bill which will concern London. If it is possible to delay a Bill dealing with London for two years, cannot the Government defer this Bill, instead of taking it at the fag-end, practically the last day, of the Session. Why should not this Bill also be put off until 1927? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health knows that the majority of rating authorities in this country do not want the Bill at all, and will think a great deal more of him if he drops it. If hon. Members opposite dared to have the courage of

  2055
  their convictions and to throw aside the party whip, they would go into the Lobby and throw out this Bill. For the Minister to ask us, at the fag-end of the Session, to go through all these Amendments is a disgrace and a scandal in every sense of the word; and, as far as I am concerned, if the Minister will not say what he ought to say, "I will withdraw the Bill and we will consider it anew next Session, when we will have proper time," I will fight every Amendment which comes before us this afternoon.
  Mr. BROMLEY: I do not know that I should have risen to take part in this discussion, strongly as I feel about the hurried nature of this legislation, had it not been for the hilarity provoked on the Government Benches by the statement of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) that this was not a fractious or factious opposition. I always try to regard this House as a very serious Chamber, concerned with the welfare of a large body of people who have entrusted us with their business, and when a quite honest and, so far, a dignified protest has been made against the Government's treatment of the Opposition, it ill-becomes hon. Members opposite to treat it with hilarity. I want to add my very serious protest to the rushing tactics of the Government, with their big majority, in trying to force business through in this way at the end of the Session. Some of the people who have sent Members on these benches to this House—and in a mistaken moment have also sent hon. Members on the benches opposite—still believe very strongly in democracy and disbelieve in the authority and government of the hon. people who sit in another place. Some few years ago there was a great election stunt about its abolition. I am afraid that was merely party tactics, for election purposes, but that does not do away with the fact that there are a large number of democrats in this country who believe in its abolition, and, consequently, we who are here representing democrats must raise our voices when the power of another place is used so drastically in adding these very large Amendments to a Measure which is now to be rushed through. We hear sometimes of the terrible rule of a form of government called
  2056
  Soviets in Russia. Just as I object to autocracy governing anywhere, so I object to a Soviet in another place being sufficiently all-powerful to be able to shower Amendments on to this House at the last moment, and to our being asked to accept them willy nilly and without consideration.
  But to come to my own feelings in the matter. I want to say, and I say it with every respect to hon. Members opposite, and to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, that I realise, they are beset with difficulties, and I have no desire to minimise them, but I do suggest that it is impossible for anyone, with the best intentions in the world, to go carefully through these pages and pages of Amendments and dual with them with that logical understanding which we ought to apply to legislation. I have the honour to represent a constituency which can be justly said to be a necessitous area. I have watched very closely, with anxiety and with grief, the passage of the Rating and Valuation Bill, because it will press exceedingly heavily on my constituency, with its thousands upon thousands of unemployed, some of whom have found it impossible to obtain work for three or four years. There are tradesmen going-out of business, bankruptcies are following each other almost daily, there are empty shops, and the general position of the town is like that of a bird with a broken wing. Knowing this, and knowing the damage this legislation may do, I am yet asked as a serious legislator suddenly to take into consideration 140 or so Amendments which may intensify the horror of the thing for those whom I am endeavouring to serve. All this is to be done at the will, if I may say so without being offensive, of an autocratic Government. Therefore, I am compelled to protest against these Amendments being taken in this hurried fashion, and I add my request to the Minister of Health to take the Measure back and give us a legitimate and fair opportunity of consideration. We know, to our sorrow, that, however justifiable our protests may be, the Bill will eventually go through, not, I am sorry to say, in the interests of the ordinary ratepayers of necessitous areas, but in other interests; and for that reason we ought not willingly to submit to this forced legislation.

  2057
  As hon. Members on these benches have said, the Amendments are not just drafting Amendments. There is one as to which I have notification that my constituents are very much interested in it. I know that I shall not be allowed to discuss it, but I do want to say this about it as a trade unionist and a member of a disputes committee in which we settle demarcation disputes between organisations. In regard to this Bill there is a demarcation dispute between two organisations who have not yet honoured us by becoming affiliated to the trade union congress. I can see by the storm of protest it has aroused among residents in my division that it excites pretty keen feeling. One of the Amendments made in another place takes away from a certain body of law-abiding citizens the right of carrying on and practising their profession under certain conditions. In the interests of the members of that union whom I represent, I naturally want time to see whether those Amendments will detrimentally affect them. Much as I am used to examining demarcation disputes, I cannot, with the best intentions in the world, adjudicate fairly upon them at so short notice.
  I appeal to the Government to give us further opportunity for considering these Amendments, and I add my protest to their rushing tactics. As respectfully as possible, I again suggest that it does not redound to the credit of the Government that because they possess a brutal machine, as far as voting power is concerned, they should force the House to pass ill-considered legislation in a hurried or panicky fashion. If the appeal to the Government to withdraw these Amendments for the time being is ignored, I, in common with other speakers from these benches, must carry my protest further in the Division Lobby on all these Amendments. I would again appeal to the Government so to arrange the business this afternoon that we may do it in a sane, proper and dignified manner, and then we can go for a holiday, which everyone in the House needs, satisfied that we have done our duty to the country, and not rushed the business in such a manner as to evoke, not only protests at the moment, but soreness at other times.
  Mr. BECKETT: while I have sat listening to the eloquent appeals of my
  2058
  hon. Friends on these benches I have been hoping we should be favoured with some reasons from hon. Members opposite as to why, at this very late stage, the House should be called upon to consider a whole bookful of Amendments introduced into a Bill which, by its very nature, ought to have been exempt from interference by the House of Lords, We do not believe in the House of Lords as it is at present constituted, but I understand there are some 400 Members of this House who do believe very strongly in the necessity for that Chamber. I am sorry we have not been favoured with speeches from some who do believe in the House of Lords to tell us something of the fount of wisdom and knowledge and rating ability residing in that Chamber which entitle them to spring on us at this stage of the Session a whole series of sweeping and drastic Amendments. This Measure is one that affects very vitally indeed the whole life of the poorer sections of the community. In my own constituency, and in many others which are very hardly hit areas, especially those connected with the coal, shipping, and the iron and steel trades, which are suffering so badly at the present moment, it is a matter of vital importance.
  Mr. ERSKINE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER, withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. BECKETT: I gave way to the hon. Member in the hope that he was going to give us some reasons why we should concur with the action of the Government in this matter. I hope hon. Members opposite are going to give us some better reasons for asking us to pass this Motion than the mere parrot cry of the Closure. I moved the rejection of this Bill on the Third Reading in the hope that I might be able to persuade the Minister responsible to make some concessions to the necessitous areas, and although I got no concessions I would like to point out that this Bill at that stage did not threaten the local authorities with such drastic proposals as are foreshadowed in the Amendments which we are asked to adopt, and which have been sent to us from another place. I cannot imagine any hon. Member opposite who has had any business experience permitting the directorate of any company with which he may be connected to sit in some

  2059
  stuffy chamber all night and then proceed to deal with important and sweeping Amendments, affecting the very life of the business in which he is interested. I suggest to the Government that if it is not good enough to treat your private interests and your private business in this manner it is certainly not good enough to ask us to transact national business in that way. When I look at this long list of Amendments, I realise the tremendous futility and injustice of attempting to deal with them. Of course, I know I should be out of order if I attempted to deal with the merits or demerits of these Amendments, but I think I should be in order if I simply indicated some of the more important Amendments in order that hon. Members opposite may see the vital necessity of postponing this Motion until we have had more time to consider these Amendments. There are a few drafting Amendments on pages 1 and 2 of the Lords Amendments to which no hon. Member could raise any reasonable objection, but when we come to line 13 there is a proposal to leave out Subsection (4) and insert the following words:
  (4) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the assessing of persons to and their liability in respect of a rate—
  ("(a) a person who is in occupation of the hereditament for part only of the period in respect of which the rate is made, shall, subject to the provisions of this subsection, be liable to be charged with such part only of the total amount of the rate as the number of days during which he is in occupation bears to the total number of days comprised in the said period;
  "(b) a person who is in occupation of the hereditament for any part of the said period may be assessed to the rate in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection, notwithstanding that he ceased to be in occupation before the rate was made;"
  That Amendment, as far as I can understand it, means that the powers which are already being taken away from local authorities to raise income to meet their many needs are being made greater every week by the Government proposals, and the small income at their disposal is being swept away by new paragraphs and
  2060
  Amendments which are calculated to improve the position of the large ratepayers as against the small ratepayers who have to bear the burden. I want to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not really playing the game, after you have passed a Bill, taking away the income of these small local authorities by machinery which hits the poorer authorities in the urban areas very seriously, to use your huge majority to force these things upon us in this House, and then in another place where there is an even larger majority than in this. House in favour of the landlords as against the tenant, you are now suggesting the insertion of more Amendments calculated to relieve one class of the community. You refuse to give us reasonable time to state our objections and you also refuse to give us the benefit of your wisdom in order that we may be convinced of the necessity for adopting such autocratic methods.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I wish to add my protest against the Government's management of the business during the whole of this Session. Now we find ourselves confronted at the last minute of the twenty-third hour of the day with a whole series of Amendments presented almost in the form of a three volume novel, and we are expected to pass them without adequate discussion because we are told that they are mere drafting Amendments. The conduct of the business of this House by the Government for the last two or three weeks has been of a scandalous description. After a vacation lasting 14 weeks, we come back here and proceed to work overtime by sitting night after night until two or three o'clock in the morning. No reasonable body of men will consent to conduct their business in that way. After curtailing the period of discussion in that way, we are now asked to come here and swallow all these: Amendments, holus bolus, whether we like them or not. The municipalities do not want this Bill, which simply sets one interest against another.
  Amendments have been accepted placing our great municipalities at a great disadvantage at the expense of other portions of the community. As a matter of fact, the constituencies of hon. Members opposite have been bribed by a series of

  2061
  wholesale Amendments under which agricultural interests have benefited, and have been given power to extract at the expense of the industrial community hundreds of thousands of pounds in addition to the assistance which they have already received under other Bills. I protest against the method which has been adopted by the Government. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out some of these methods, but there is an Amendment on page 6 which has already been quoted as far as paragraphs (a) and (b) are concerned, but paragraph (c) reads as follows:
  "a person who is in occupation of the hereditament at any time after the rate is made may be assessed to and shall in the first instance be liable to pay if he was in occupation at the beginning of the period the whole rate, or if ho came into occupation subsequently a proportion of the rate calculated on the basis that he will remain in occupation until the end of the said period, but shall, if he goes out of occupation before the end of the said period, be entitled to recover from the rating authority any sum paid by him in excess of the amount properly chargeable against him in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this sub-section, except in so far as he has previously recovered the sum from an incoming occupier."
  To call this a drafting Amendment is an absurdity, and I do not think even the Minister of Health understands it himself. More time ought to have been given for the careful consideration of these Amendments which are not drafting Amendments at all. I think it is quite time that an emphatic protest was made from these benches against the rushing tactics of the Government, and the use of their overwhelming majority in this way. The other place is using its power in rather a remorseless fashion, and they are doing whatever they are told by the Government without any consideration whatever, and therefore I think we are justified in protesting and I hope the plea which has been put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Beckett) will be listened to by the Government.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask when the Lords Amendments to this Bill were available to Members of the House. I am told they were only dealt with late on Thursday evening in the House of Lords, and were only available-on Saturday morning. Many hon. Members by that time had returned to their
  2062
  homes and their constituencies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That would be a reasonable question to put to hon. Members opposite, because on this side we know something about the views of our constituents, and we feel it a moral obligation on our part to explain to our constituents what the Government are doing. From the fact that so many Members on these benches, and, I presume, on the other side also, did retire to their homes, they would have had little or no time to go through these 140 Amendments, and, bearing in mind the very important international question referred to by the Prime Minister, it is almost asking too much to expect Members to give detailed attention to the various Amendments which they are called upon to consider this afternoon. To refer to the drafting Amendments is one thing, but to refer to the very vital Amendments is quite another thing. Might I draw the attention of the House to one particular Amendment, which is going to revise the considered opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage of this Bill that solicitors should be given audience in. any case of appeal? It seems to mo that to ask us to revise the considered decisions and conclusions that were reached on the Report stage is asking altogether too much.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that the business has been so complicated and so badly arranged at various intervals during this year that we ought not on the very last day to enter into detailed, lengthy, and technical Debates on Amendments such as these. I suggest that, if. the Bill is to have the effect anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman, careful consideration should be given, in the last stage at all events, to any change that may (be effected as the result of the acceptance of any one of these Amendments. For these reasons, I think we are at least entitled to say that the fact that the Amendments wore not available to Members before Saturday of last week, and that they have had little or no time to examine them thoroughly and put themselves in a position to cast an intelligent vote, justifies us in asking that these Amendments be not dealt with to-day, and, indeed, that they be deferred until we can go into them thoroughly and examine them as they ought to be examined, and then give a final judgment on the

  2063
  140 Amendments one by one. For this reason I add my protest against the method adopted in bringing these 140 Amendments before us to-day.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  No one who has listened to the Debate this afternoon, and who has notice the unwonted unanimity of the speeches from the benches opposite, could fail to be moved by them. It is quite true that, in our anxiety to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite to return to their homes at the earliest possible moment— [Interruption]—we had thought of taking this afternoon the Amendments that have been made in another place, so that those who still remain here could rejoin their friends. I see, however, that in that we were mistaken, and that hon. Members opposite desire to have a little more time to study the Amendments. We, on our side, are also anxious to get through the 'discussion of a question of some international importance that is to be found on the Order Paper, and if it be true that hon. Members opposite, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), do not propose to remain here to listen to what may be said in the course of that Debate, that will give them at any rate ample time in which to study the Amendments— [Interruption]—
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. Are Members in this House permitted to pretend to listen to one Debate and study another question in the House at the same time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think they often do that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:—and to assure themselves that they are of that importance which has been attributed to them by some hon. Members opposite. In the circumstances, therefore, I think it would be desirable that this Debate should now be adjourned, and I hope that, as we are meeting the desire which has been put to us with so much moderation by hon. Members opposite-, we shall receive some consideration from them, and that they will be prepared to take some of the other business on the Order Paper to-day as well as the Motion which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is going to move.
  Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentle man, no doubt, considers that he has made an adequate reply to the observations of my hon. Friends who have already addressed the House. He has been sufficiently facetious, if he has not endeavoured to present, any case to justify his Motion. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said has in the slightest degree altered my mind as I expressed it in the earlier part of the day, and we shall resist the Motion.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I do not think that we should accept this Motion. I myself moved that we should not proceed with the Lords Amendments, and I gave various reasons why; and I was supported in my contention by practically the unanimous voice of the Members of this House. I think we had a unanimous voice in this House that we should not proceed, because, as I understand, the Minister of Health agreed with us that it was a preposterous business that he and the Government had sought to undertake to-day the consideration of all these Amendments to this Bill. With regard to the question of the adjournment generally, I do not think the Government are treating the House with proper respect. It is true that there are very important international questions involved in the matter of Mosul and what has been taking place in connection with Mosul, but at the same time, if those questions are of such paramount importance, I submit that the. Government have no right to come along in the fashion that they have and fling this business at us and try to get us to discuss this question without proper notice being given to every Member of the House as to how the business is going to be arranged. I am sun? that, as an Opposition, we have been very conciliatory to the Government time and time again, and have tried to meet them on every occasion when they have been reasonable in their proposals; but I am sure that my colleagues on these benches are not simply going to allow the Government to deal with us in any fashion that they think fit. I, myself, while admitting that there is this important international matter, believe that there are very many domestic matters which are of greater importance still, and that, if we began to treat our own working-class people properly, if the Government treated the working-class

  2065
  people of the country properly, then the Government would find that a great many of their international problems would find a far speedier solution. I myself put a question to the Prime Minister to-day, which was answered by the Minister of Labour. It, too, had to do with an international question—it had to do with the ratification—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not allowable on the Motion before the House, which is "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am trying, in connection with this Motion that the House do now adjourn, to give reasons why that Motion should not be accepted, and one of the reasons, I submit, why it should not be accepted, is that there are so many matters of pressing domestic importance that should be considered by this House before it adjourns.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question is not "That the House do now adjourn," but "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. STEPHEN: With regard to this Debate adjourning, I think, myself, that it is very disrespectful on the part of the Government to came to the House and treat it in this fashion. I think the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that we have already spent so much time in this connection, should have given us some indication as to what the Government are really intending to do for the rest of the day. At Question Time the Prime Minister indicated a certain course, and the Minister of Health has now moved that this Debate be adjourned. He has never given us any indication for how long the Debate should be adjourned, what he intends to do with the Bill, whether he is intending to go on with it this Session or not. There is simply the Motion before the House, "That the Debate be now adjourned," and not a member of the Government is advising the House in the least degree as to the course the Government are proposing to take. I believe that a minority has certain rights, and I believe that the minority in this House, if its rights are not going to be given to it by the majority, will find ways of asserting itself and securing that its rights shall be observed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose—
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am not going to give way. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to seek to interrupt me in that fashion. I have tried to do the same with regard to him, and he has never been courteous enough to give way to me. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am following hie example. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] I simply want to point out that, if the right hon. Gentleman had information to give us, he should have given it when he was moving his Motion, but, in that highly condescending manner of his, in that sort of "know-all" attitude that he adopts when addressing Members on this side of the House, he did not think it worth while, and now, when I am trying to make a protest on behalf of myself and my colleagues on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us a little more information. I hope that, as this Debate on the Adjournment proceeds, we shall get from the Government Front Bench far different treatment from that which we have been receiving, that we shall be taken into their confidence in a way that we have not been hitherto, and that, whichever Minister replies, whichever Minister takes part in the Debate, will try to give us some indication for more than five minutes ahead of what the Government propose to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
  6.0 P.M.
  I am gratified by the signs of assent which have been given from all parts of the House to that statement. I know hon. Members on the back benches oppotite will let their Government know that they are not going to be treated by them in the fashion they have been treated to-day. It is all very well for us to come here expecting that the arranged programme is going to be carried out. Even if we are on the back benches we are entitled to be given far more consideration by the Government than has been given to-day, and I hope my colleagues on this bench will not agree until the Government tell us more about its plans, what it is going to do with regard to this Debate, what it is going to do with regard to this Bill ultimately, whether it is going to act in a very business-like fashion and say, even though it means sitting into Christmas, we are going to give the benefit of our labours to the country and do as much for the welfare of

  2067
  the people as possible. So far in the conduct of this administration in the year it has been in office there is nothing to suggest that that is going to be the case, and I am surprised at the optimism of hon. Members opposite who by their cheering seemed to think that their Government was going to repent and take heart of grace. I think we are entitled to more consideration from the Government, and I hope we are going to
  get a proper understanding so that the business of the House can be conducted in a proper and business-like way.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in Ms place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 503.]

  AYES.

  [6.5 p.m.

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Edmonson, Major A. J.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

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

  Lumley, L, R.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Atkinson, C.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  McLean, Major A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Macnaghten. Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Barnett. Major Richard W.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Barnston. Major sir Harry

  Fermoy, Lord

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Ford, P. J.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fester, Sir Harry S.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Gates, Percy

  Merriman, F. B.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Goff, Sir Park

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Briscoe Richard George

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Murchison, C. K.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Gretton, Colonel John

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

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.>

  Butt. Sir Alfred

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R, (Eastbourne)

  Oakley, T.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hanbury, C.

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Cassels, J. D.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hartington. Marquess of

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Perring, William George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Pilcher, a.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Pilditch, S r Philip

  Christie. J. A

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ramsden, E.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hills. Major John Walter

  Remer, J. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Rentoul, G S.

  Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Salmon, Major I.

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

  Horne. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Sandemar, A. Stewart

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Crook, C. W.

  Hurst. Gerald B.

  Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gusatve D.

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

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

  Savery, S, S.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

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

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Skelton, A. N.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Joynson Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Womersley. W. J.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Watson, Rt. Han. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wells, S. R.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Major Hennessy and Major Cope.

  NOES.

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

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Harney, E. A.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Baker, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hayes. John Henry

  Scurr, John

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Briant, Frank

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snell, Harry

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kelly, W, T

  Stephen, Campbell

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kennedy, T.

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

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Thurtle, E.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Duncan, C.

  Lowth, T.

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Fenby, T. D.

  March, S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Windsor, Walter

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Wright, W.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Palin, John Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Groves, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 63.

  Division No. 504.]

  AYES.

  [6.12 p.m.

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Elveden, Viscount

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

  Cazalet, Captain victor A.

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

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Apsley, Lord

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Falls. Sir Charles F.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Atkinson, C.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fermoy, Lord

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Clayton, G. C.

  Ford, P. J.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips

  Gates, Percy

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gee, Captain R.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cope, Major William

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

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

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

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Blundell, F. N.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Grattar, Doyle, Sir N.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Crookshank. Col C. de W. (Berwick)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Gunston, Captain D. W

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Hall Vice Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hanbury, C.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Harney, E. A.

  Butt. Sir Alfred

  Dixey, A. C.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

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

  Merriman, F. B.

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

  Henri, Sir Sydney H.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hills, Major John Walter

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

  Smithers, Waldron

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

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Murchison, C. K.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Hopkins, J. W, W.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Hore-Belisha Leslie

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Oakley, T.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hurst, Gerald B.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Pennefather, Sir John

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)

  James, Lieut.- Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Perring, William George

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Pilcher, G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Kennedy. T.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ramsden, E.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Remer, J. R.

  Winby, Colonel L. p.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Looker, Herbert William

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Womersley W. J.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Macquisten. F. A.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steal-

  Sandon, Lord

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Savery, S. S.

  Major Hennessy and Colonel

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Stanley

  NOES.

  Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Amman, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Baker J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Scurr, John

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John B.

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy. T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Thurtle, E.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lansbury, George

  Viant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  Lee, F.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Duncan, C.

  Lowth, T.

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  March, S.

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Windsor, Walter

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)

  Palin, John Henry

  Groves, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  TITHE BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Commander EYRES MONSELL:To-morrow.
  Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister.
  Mr. CLYNES: Before the Prime Minister proceeds, may I ask for a statement, for the information of the House, as to when it is intended to resume the business which has been adjourned? May I also renew the appeal I made to the Prime Minister earlier in the day? I then, indicated our willingness to take part in the discussion on the subject of the Motion on the Order Paper with respect to Iraq, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) would in that event speak on behalf of the Opposition, but I protested that this Motion was an unprecedented use of the power of the Government in coercion of the Opposition. I want therefore to repeat, that if the Prime Minister will proceed with the Debate on an ordinary Motion for the adjournment of the House, and not press his Motion on the Paper, we shall take part in the discussion; but if we are to be compelled in the way now proposed to proceed to the Division Lobby on this question of high policy, I have to say on behalf of the Opposition that we cannot do so.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I was going at the beginning of what I have to say to answer the first question which the Leader of the Opposition has put. We do not propose to take any other business to-night after this Motion in regard to Iraq is concluded, but to resume the discussion of the Lords Amendments to-morrow at Eleven o'clock, and we shall proceed until the Lords Amendments are finished.
  With regard to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, I regret that I cannot recede from the position which I took up, and for which I gave him the reasons, at Question time. I regret profoundly the step which my right hon. Friend has thought fit to take. I regret profoundly that he feels that he cannot take part in the Debate, even if he were not to take part in a division. It will be a loss to the House as a whole when a matter of such importance is being debated that the official Opposition should, for reasons which seem good to them, decline to take part in that Debate. I regret extremely that I cannot see my way to withdraw from the Order Paper
  2074
  a Motion which has been put down in the name of the Leader of the House and which has been on the Paper since Saturday morning, especially having regard to the fact that communication was made to this House on Friday afternoon that a Motion on this subject would be put down.
  Mr. THOMAS: I want to say that the act, whatever the Government may think about it, was a deliberate act decided by the party.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was not complaining.
  Mr. THOMAS: I will ask the Prime Minister to remember this, and I would plead with him in this way. I want to speak on behalf of the Opposition because, at least, I know something about the subject. We have strong views. We believe that the Government should know the Opposition views in the negotiations with Turkey, which are all important. Our object is not only thru the Government may know our views but, at the same time, that they may save themselves from a Division. They cannot be helped by a Division. They may be injured by a Division. [HON. MEMBERS; "Why?"] Well, because the Debate will show that views may be expressed of which they can take note, but with a Division taken, it will not help them but may hamper them. We are anxious, at least, to show that in these negotiations that ought to be avoided. I would plead with my right hon. Friend to remember that the Government are not handicapped in the suggestion we have made to them. On the contrary, it will help them and help the country in the negotiations, if they accede to our request.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret very much that I cannot accede to my right hon. Friend's request. This afternoon, before he came down to the House, I explained that, having regard to the business of the Session, we were obliged by circumstances, within the knowledge of every Member of the House, to take this question so late. I decided to do an unusual thing, and that is, at the beginning of next Session to have the proposed Treaty laid before the House for the judgment of the House to be taken upon it. On that occasion it will be open to the House to have the fullest

  2075
  and freest discussion and come to a definite decision as to whether or not they will adopt it.
  Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. In reading the Orders on the Paper, when the Criminal Justice Bill was called, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury said, "To-morrow." I took it that that was a Motion by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that these Orders should be deferred till tomorrow, and I rose to try to move that they be not deferred till to-morrow. I want to ask whether that was in Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mo; there is no Motion to defer an Order. It is necessary only to name a subsequent date. I simply called for a subsequent date. No Motion is required.
  Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that the Government themselves, on the Motion of the Prime Minister, passed the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule with regard to certain questions that were down on the Order Paper, does not that show that it was the intention of the Government to pass these Orders this afternoon. Therefore when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury said "to-morrow," that must be a Motion, since nothing can be deferred or debated unless upon a Motion of this House and, consequently, that is open for discussion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It requires only a Motion to defer when a Debate is proceeding. There is no Motion required for deferring an Order to a subsequent date.
  Mr. THOMAS: May I appeal to the Prime Minister again to reconsider the Motion on the Order Paper. If the Government proceed as they have indicated, when we are called upon in February to discuss the Treaty the country will have already been committed. Is it not better prior to committing the whole nation to allow the nation to judge by the Debate, and to accede to our request, which leaves the Government with a majority, but the country free, rather than being committed in advance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to that, I would ask my right hon. Friend if he does not think that it would be just as well to appeal to his leaders to reconsider the decision to which they have come, not to take part in this Debate. I think it is a most unfortunate decision.
  2076
  I should regret profoundly that the view which I know my right hon. Friend is capable of urging with strength and with knowledge should not be put before this House. I regard it as essential, as I explained to the House, that the House to-day should give a decision on the broad general lines of the question. I repeat once more, that I regret that owing to circumstances over which we have no control we have to take this at the end of the Session; but even at the end of the Session it is of such importance that, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Government, a decision must be come to to-night.

  IRAQ.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
  "That this House approves the action taken by the representatives of His Majesty's Government at Geneva in accepting the award of the Council of the League of Nations on the Iraq boundary."
  This Motion which has been put on the Paper deals only with the approval which i ask the House to give to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies for their recent action as Geneva in accepting, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the award of the Council of the League of Nations on the question of the Iraq boundary. Their action in this matter has, however, only been a continuation of action taken by a series of successive Governments, and the approval of the House, if given, should in equity include our predecessors as well as ourselves. The undertaking to accept the award of the League, as deciding the question of the Iraq frontier, was given in the first instance by Lord Curzon when he signed the Treaty of Lausanne two years ago, and by any right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was responsible for the ratification of that Treaty in the following year. The undertaking was explicitly renewed at Geneva by Lord Parmoor in September last year on behalf of the late Government.
  That undertaking does not stand by itself as a particular policy adopted by us with reference to a particular dispute. It is only one instance of the application of a principle to which all parties have

  2077
  been committed ever since the Covenant of the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of Versailles—I mean the principle of extending the use of the League of Nations as an instrument for the peaceful settlement of international difference and strengthening, by our support, its authority for that purpose. Hon. and right hon. Members who recently were sitting opposite were prepared to give that principle a much wider application than we believe to be practicable. They were ready to enter into a Protocol by which they would have engaged this country, not only to submit all possible disputes of its own to arbitration, but also to go to war with any other country which did not fulfil a similar obligation, however remote the conflict might be from any conceivable British interests. We have been less ambitious, but we have, in the Treaty of Locarno, applied the same principle to the settlement of all possible disputes affecting a particular frontier in which we are profoundly interested. The present instance is one of an even more restricted character. It affects the settlement of one particular dispute, expressly referred to the League in a Treaty barely a year old. If we were to reject the application of that principle to so clearly defined and limited an issue, what real value would the world attach to our general professions of our desire to strengthen the machinery of the League of Nations; and if we weaken the authority of the League in so explicit a case submitted to them, how are we to rely on that authority in future to give real effect, in some wholly unforeseen crisis, to the Treaties of Locarno or any other treaties which may develop on similar lines?
  It is for these reasons that I regard this Motion as, in effect, one of general approval of the whole attitude which successive Governments have taken up, not only on the Iraq frontier question, but on even wider issues, and I venture to express the hope that it may have the unanimous support of this House. I do not, in making that suggestion, wish for a moment to suggest that this House should be committed by to-night's discussion to the actual terms of the Treaty which we will endeavour to conclude with the Iraq Government in pursuance of the award. While the power to ratify such
  2078
  a Treaty is one which, constitutionally, does not depend on the vote of this House, we have no intention of ratifying the proposed Treaty until the House at its re-assembly has had an opportunity of discussing, far more adequately than it could to-night, the actual provisions of that document. It is only the general principle of the acceptance of the award of the League that I am asking the House to confirm to-night and it will be confirmed, I trust, in such a manner as will most effectively show the genuineness of our determination to pursue the policy of sustaining the authority of the League as an instrument of world peace. It is, I know, alleged that the conditions coupled with this award are conditions which involve both the assumption for a very long period of time of unnecessary costly and dangerous commitments, and the violation of assurances and pledges given by this House with regard to the termination of our responsibilities in Iraq. Let me deal first briefly with the latter accusation. I have been charged again and again, mainly in certain organs of the Press, with having broken a definite pledge given by myself on 3rd May, 1923, that we should wash our hands for good and all of any responsibility for or interest in Iraq after August, 1928. As evidence of that pledge, they have reproduced in type of every conceivable magnitude one or two sentences out of a statement made in Bagdad by Sir Percy Cox which I read out to the House us embodying the policy of His Majesty's Government. These sentences run as follow:
  "Both parties being equally anxious that the commitments and responsibilities of His Majesty's Government in respect of Iraq should be terminated as soon as possible, it is considered that the period of the Treaty in its present form can conveniently be shortened…. It is understood … that the present Treaty shall terminate upon Iraq becoming a member of the League of Nations, and in any case not later than four years from the ratification of peace with Turkey."
  I wonder how many of those who have read these sentences, reproduced by themselves apart from their context, as a statement of our policy at that time have realised that the very next sentence of that declarati'on—which I also read out in this House—went on to say:
  "Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent a fresh agreement from being concluded

  2079
  with a view to regulate the subsequent relations between the High Contracting Parties; and negotiations for that object shall "—
  not "may"—
  "be entered into between them before the expiration of the above period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1923; cols. 1598–1599, Vol. 163.]
  In other words, the Protocol, which brings the existing Treaty to an end in 1928, definitely pledges us to endeavour, before 1928, to replace it by another Treaty for the future. There is another obligation which the Government—any British Government—has to keep in view, and that is the obligation towards our fellow-members in. the community of nations, the obligation which we undertook when we accepted a mandate, for Iraq. It is too late in the day now to go back on that and to ask ourselves whether, in the first place, we were wise to accept that mandate or not. That was done. But having undertaken the mandate, with the approval of this House, no mandatory is entitled simply to throw up his mandate and leave chaos in its place.
  The termination of a mandate, as well as its establishment, is a matter in which the League of Nations is directly interested, and with regard to which it has a right to be consulted. This was fully recognised by our successors in office, and when they, in September, 1924, submitted the Treaty with Iraq in its present shortened form to the League as a fulfilment of our mandatory obligations towards the League, they definitely undertook that if the Treaty came to an end before Iraq was admitted to the membership of the League, we would invite the Council of the League to decide what further measures would be required to give effect to Article 22 of the Covenant. That meant, and it is so interpreted in the report to the Council of the League, on which its present decision has been taken, that if Iraq was not admitted to membership of the League by August, 1928, then the British Government was pledged to the League after 1928 until such time as Iraq was considered eligible for admission to the League, to make such provision as the Council would approve of for continuing to fulfil its mandatory obligations to the League in respect of Iraq.
  2080
  There has really been no inconsistency, let alone breach of faith, in the policy pursued by successive Governments in this matter. They have all been, as we are to-day, determined that the period during which the. British taxpayer should be burdened with expenditure upon Iraq should come to an end as soon as possible. We laid down a definite date by which we intended that this expenditure and the special military liabilities bound up with it should come to an end, and we believe we can substantially fulfil our intentions in this respect, but neither the Government of which I was head in 1923, nor the Labour Government which succeeded us, contemplated that the special connection between ourselves and Iraq should or could come to an end in 1928, either in our relationships towards Iraq or in our relationship towards the League of Nations unless we were able before that date to prove that Iraq had reached a position of stability in government which would justify her admission into the League of Nations.
  That brings me to the second charge, that we are unnecessarily undertaking now costly and dangerous obligations in respect of Iraq. I think I have already made it clear that those obligations are not new but are only giving effect at a somewhat earlier date to undertakings which we have given both to Iraq and to the League of Nations in respect of our relations with that country, if by 1928 she has not entered the League of Nations; and at this; point I should like, with the permission of the House, to read them a short statement of policy which has guided and is guiding the Government in this very difficult matter. Acting on this statement of policy, the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary did their work in Geneva.
  The undertaking we have given is not for a definite 25 years, but for what I believe, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated to the Council, will be a far shorter period, namely, until such time as we can make it clear to the League of Nations that Iraq has acquired the stability which justifies its admission to membership of the League. It is not an undertaking to spend money on, or to keep troops in, Iraq, either for the maintenance of internal order or for its defence against external aggression, but

  2081
  to continue our co-operation and advice in maintaining a stable system of government.
  It may be asked what will be our responsibility for the defence of Iraq if, after the expiration of the present Treaty, that country should be attacked by any foreign Power. It is obvious that the responsibility which we should have towards Iraq, if, as a fellow member of the League of Nations, she were the victim of unprovoked aggression, would certainly not be diminished by any Treaty relationship with us which continued our mandatory position, but the League itself has a special responsibility towards a State over which it exorcises a mandatory supervision, and if the aggression in question were directed to the forcible overthrow of the boundary fixed by the Council of the League itself, the responsibility of the League, as the authority directly challenged and affronted, would obviously be the primary and dominant one. Our responsibility in any future situation must necessarily depend on the circumstances of that situation. The action which we should take and the measure and extent of any support which we might give in a particular case cannot be fixed in advance or be a. matter of prior obligation. They must be determined by the Government of the day, if ever the case arises, in the light of the then existing circumstances of world peace and the general interests of the Empire.
  I will say a word or two on that statement. The conditions which the League has laid down do not affect in any way our policy of making Iraq stand on its own feet in respect to its expenditure or the provision for its external and internal security. These are matters us between ourselves and Iraq, with which the League does not concern itself, any more than it concerns itself with the expenditure or with the military measures taken by ourselves or by any other mandatory Power in other mandated territories. The conditions are those contained in our existing obligations to the League, as covered by the present Treaty and by the assurances given last year to the Council by our predecessors. They refer in the main to certain general principles of administration which are already in force in Iraq, and all that the Council wishes to secure is that we should continue
  2082
  our co-operation and advice in maintaining a stable system of government in accordance with those principles.
  The House itself will be able to judge of the precise extent of the obligations involved in accepting the conditions of the League when it has the actual terms of the new Treaty before it, and it can then judge whether it will or will not endorse the policy of the Government in respect of that Treaty. I can say this, at any rate, that the conditions laid down by the League in no way commit us to spend money on or to keep troops in Iraq beyond the term of the present Treaty expiring in 1928. The last sentences which I read of the statement of policy answer a hypothetical question, that is, the question of a possible invasion of Iraq, and I must insist that it is a purely hypothetical question. We have been engaged in completing a Treaty of Peace, and the line we have taken is the one which, I believe, is the one best calculated to preserve permanent peace in the Middle East. Our one desire is that all the nations and States of that part of the world, not only the young Iraq nation, for which we hold a special responsibility, but also our former Turkish adversaries, should recover in peace from the ravages of the War, and under new conditions reach a higher level of prosperity than before.
  We are only too anxious that Iraq should live in relations of neighbourly amity and co-operation with Turkey. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already, at Geneva, given expression to his readiness to endeavour to find ways and means, consistent with the fulfilment of our obligations towards Iraq, of arriving at some such agreement as will build, upon the League's recognition of Iraq's just claim for the retention of her territory, the superstructure of a mutually acceptable and binding settlement, and in order to give effect without delay to that statement of the Foreign Secretary, I am inviting the Turkish Ambassador to meet me to-morrow to pursue this question. For this task, we need the support of a united country, and I would, in all seriousness, appeal to those who have criticised our policy so vehemently in public to consider weather the prospects of a peaceful and friendly settlement will be improved or damaged by an 'agitation which con-

  2083
  sistently misrepresents the policy which we are pursuing, and which is calculated outside this country to create doubt, both as to our resolution to honour our obligations and as to the sincerity of our desire for peace.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No more important or solemn declaration could be made by the head of the British Government than that to which we have just listened, for it involves not only the immediate negotiations that must be carried on with another Power, but may involve this country in obligations stretching throughout a whole generation. It is with the object of ascertaining how far those obligations carry us, and how far the Government have foreseen the methods by which they will be able to carry out their mandatory duties that I venture respectfully to ask some questions of the Government. In the first place, the Prime Minister has informed the House that these obligations are not new, that they do not date from Geneva in this month, but are inherent in the Treaty of Lausanne. I do not know how far the Treaty of Lausanne commits us to every or any decision which may be taken by the Council of the League of Nations, but it is certainly of the first importance that the Colonial Secretary, when he speaks, should make it quite dear how far he and his Government felt bound by the Treaty of Lausanne to accept the decision of the Council of the League of Nations, no matter what that decision might be, for I observe that when the right hon. Gentleman was in Geneva he took great care to make it clear that Great Britain. while prepared to carry out her mandatory responsibilities on the present lines, that is to say, for the renewal in three years' time of the Treaty with Iraq, would not commit herself to 25 years.
  That was on the 4th September. That was a very important declaration made by the Colonial Secretary, and I presume that when he made that declaration he was in no way infringing the obligations under which we were working under the Treaty of Lausanne. He was indeed declaring what would be the policy of the present Government in complete loyalty to the Treaty of Lausanne of two years ago, and indeed it appears that the League Commission on Mosul itself contemplated that the freedom of the British
  2084
  Government to arrive at its own decision in this matter was unfettered. Under the circumstances, an; we to take it that the Government view is that by the Treaty of Lausanne we put ourselves in the hands of the League of Nations and left to them the ultimate decision? I know it may be said that we can throw over the decision of the League, but, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, if we are under any obligation to accept that decision and then throw it over, we prejudice the power cf the League to deal with difficult questions in the future, and may to some extent compromise ourselves, compromise our good faith in our relations with the League. That, the Prime Minister has not cleared up. He has otherwise made a very definite speech, and on that point we should like really to understand whether the League of Nations has the right, to think for us in these matters and, secondly, if it has the right to think for us. whether we must act in accordance with its decision, whatever may be the opinion of the Government at home here or of the House of Commons to which if is answerable.
  The next question I want to ask is this: The Prime Minister has said that our obligations could be fulfilled, as I understand, by our giving advice to the Iraq Government, and possibly by giving contributions to the Iraq Exchequer, but that we are not committed to defend the Iraq frontiers any more than are any of the other signatories to the Versailles Treaty, that indeed the obligation to defend the Iraq frontiers is net one peculiar to ourselves but must be undertaken by the other member? of the League as well. May I ask if that is the east, for that, again, is a matter of the first importance? If the duty of defend in the frontiers is to be left to as. I would inquire how we are to defend them.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend wishes for an answer now, or whether is would be more convenient that all the points he raises should be replied to by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The question of responsibility is one that does require some explanation, as my right hon. Friend knows, and I think it would be much better if it were answered in full later on.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can appreciate the difficulty, for instance, of

  2085
  discussing what are our duties under the Treaty of Lausanne, and of explaining it at length, but there are some questions which can be answered now, and, if they are not answered now, I fear the rest of the discussion will be carried out without the House having the requisite information. The one question I ask now is, Are we expected under these duties to undertake the defence of the Iraq frontier alone, or is that a duty which must be performed by the whole of the members of the League of Nations? The answer to that question will naturally have a great effect on public opinion here and upon our decision as to whether or not we can support the proposals under discussion.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is touching on. It was answered briefly in the statement I read out, and it will be dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary later on. The statement of policy I made covers that point.
  Mr. RU NCIMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman can give a short answer I think probably it will affect the whole course of the Debate. I do not know whether he can answer that.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is the passage in ray statement—it applies after 1928—
  "It is obvious that the responsibility which we should have towards Iraq, if as a fellow-member of the League of Nations she were the victim of unprovoked aggression, would certainly not be diminished by any treaty relationship with us which continued our mandatory position, but the League itself has a special responsibility towards a State over which it exercises a mandatory supervision, and if the aggression in question were directed to the forcible overthrow of the boundary fixed by the Council of the League itself, the responsibility of the League as the authority directly challenged and affronted would obviously be the primary and dominant one. Our responsibility in any future situation must necessarily depend on the circumstances of that security."
  Probably my right hon. Friend remembers the remainder of the passage. I think it is quite clear.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am much obliged, but I am not sure that it does entirely clear up the point. The point that I had in mind and which was in the minds of a great many people who are not unfriendly
  2086
  either to the Government or to Iraq, and which is the point of our anxiety, is this. If the frontiers of Mosul and Iraq are violated, how are we to defend those frontiers? If the defence of the frontiers is to be by our Army or Air Force, I need hardly say that raises a whole crop of anxious questions which have not been dealt with to-day, and I think it would be very difficult, in the minds of those the remember what has happened in the past in Iraq, to avoid anxiety to restrict our obligations at present. I know it has been argued that we can exercise sufficient influence on Turkey through Constantinople to save us from the risk of military adventures or obligations in Mosul. I should like to inquire on that whether the Government have consulted their military advisers, who are much more aware of the extent to which they can, in Constantinople, exercise military or naval pressure, than are some of those who have defended this policy enthusiastically outside. Have their military advisers been consulted as to the obligations which are now being incurred in Mosul, and how far do they think it is possible for them to be carried? I do not ask for an immediate answer, but I hope the Colonial Secretary will be able to deal with this point when he comes to reply.
  When we enter into this obligation for 25 years, although it is stipulated that that period may be shortened when Iraq has a, sufficiently stable Government to enter the League of Nations, the proviso carries little or no weight in the public mind. The Iraq State has passed through many vicissitudes in its short life. It did for one or two years balance its Budget, but for the last two years it has been in a state: of financial doubt, and it is more than likely that this year, having to bear its portion, of the Ottoman Debt, and some other charges, there will be a very heavy deficit. Such, I understand, was the Report brought back by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who was sent there on a mission of official inquiry. The Iraq State is not likely, as far as one can. foresee, to be stable or strong enough to be admitted as a member of the League of Nations within this period of 25 years. We should be foolish in any case in attempting to consider this matter without realising that before that period had expired, we may find our obligations

  2087
  have to be honoured, under different circumstances, and in times which may not be altogether convenient to us.
  I do not need to remind the House how easily these troubles arise on these frontiers. There is a military incident, and some officers and men are killed. The number may be very small, but we find it necessary to take steps against those who are the offenders. The thing grows. Public opinion is excited here at home, and although the other members of the League of Nations may, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, be under an obligation, the whole obligation will in fact fall on us. Public opinion would demand it. Some of our men had been killed, our flag had been outraged and our honour offended. We should not wait for action under Article 15 of the Covenant. We should have to take immediate action.
  That is one of the risks that we have to foresee, and I need not tell the Prime Minister that in criticising this I do not follow in the footsteps of those who have been conducting an intensive campaign against himself on the subject. I am sure he will permit me to say this is a much larger and more extensive topic, and we ought to discuss it quite apart from the personal charges which have been bandied about. But there is one thought in many people's minds, though it may not have been expressed in the Press, and that is, if the risks I have described actually come to pass and we find we have to take military action in Iraq or Mosul, how can we operate 600 miles from our base without embarking on something which is a great deal more than a minor war? There are many of us who have always held that the sooner we get back to Basra the better, and we have believed that was the best way of limiting our liabilities. When operations have to be conducted 600 miles from the nearest seaport, there is the difficulty of keeping up lines of communication, at immense expense of men and treasure, and risks of disaster are increased, and a disaster in that region would be as serious to our prestige, or far more so, than if we were at the present time to say we would not undertake this prolonged obligation after 1928. That is the anxiety which is in our minds, and if the Prime Minister and his Government can soothe the public
  2088
  mind, by all means let them do it at the earliest possible moment, for I can assure him that not only among civilians but in military quarters the matter has been discussed for a very long time past, and it is of first importance that we should know exactly where we are before entering into obligations which are vague or based on theories which we cannot put into practice.
  The other point I want to put to him— and I will be very brief—is one which discloses the main line of thought in many people's minds. If we can dispose of our duties in Iraq by money contributions, by a loan of some of the beat of our advisers, by the assistance we can give personally in the bringing up of a young and inexperienced Government—if we can give our assistance in that way and by that means, why should not the Government make it clear now that this is the direction in which we are prepared to undertake the Mandate which is to be handed over to us by the League?. If that were done I for one would have much less reason to be disquieted by the step we are taking to-day, but if it is not done, and we are left still with military liability, I look with grave disquiet on the proposals which have been made, and I hope that the Government will see to it that in framing their Treaty they do everything they can to curtail the obligations into which they enter and reduce thereby the liabilities of this country.
  Captain EDEN: It is not for nothing that the countries of the Middle East were once the cradle of the human race. Many centuries before this island emerged from a state of barbarism rulers and statesmen were confronted with problems of race and religion, of pride and prejudice, in those lands which we now call Iraq. It is all the more important that, as in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, we should be able this evening to make suggestions and criticisms that shall be both constructive and helpful. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that we should bring into Debates on this none too simple topic any of the controversy which is raked in journalism outside.
  There are really two separate decisions which the House has to consider this afternoon, essentially separate, although the League of Nations has made them contingent for reasons into which we need

  2089
  not enter now. Those decisions are the fixing, in the first place, of Iraq's northern boundary and the extension, in the second place, of the maximum period of our mandatory responsibility. With regard to the first decision there can be no question, and it is. no exaggeration to say, that the fixing of a boundary somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Brussels Line was vital to Iraq. It is much more than a question of a few square miles of territory, however valuable', being transferred from one government to another. Briefly put, it means the changing of a short, easily defensible mountain boundary into a long non-strategic boundary, incapable of defence, even by an army many times larger than Iraq can ever afford. In other words, to have conceded any considerable portion of territory in the old Mosul Vilayet, which is now part of Iraq, would have made Iraq's national existence strategically a contradiction in terms. For Iraq it is a question of vital importance. For Turkey the possession of Mosul or even of the whole of the old Mosul Vilayet is not a question of vital importance. It is not even a question of importance at all. I do not believe that the Turkish Republic to-day would add anything to its strength by the possession of any section of this territory, and I believe the wiser heads among the Turkish people realise and appreciate that. The only service which it could render Turkey would be to give that Republic a weapon over Iraq, and that is a purpose which neither the League of Nations nor any other people or government are anxious to encourage.
  The second decision is that of which there has been more criticism, namely, the extension of the maximum period of our Mandate. That criticism is, I suppose, based on the assumption that had this new maximum period not been established, we should have been able to cut short our obligations in the year 1928. Our responsibilities would—I presume that is the contention—have been finished and closed. So far as I know, there is no responsible public opinion, no section of opinion in Iraq or anywhere else, that believes that Iraq had any chance of securely establishing herself by 1928. That really is the gist of the position: The fact that everything was uncertain after 1928 was a brake on Iraq's progress.
  2090
  The country needs capital, foreign initiative and development from abroad. It may even need increased population from abroad. It can get none of these things until there is political security, and— it may sound a paradox, but it is none the less true—the very extension of the maximum period of our Mandate is the best instrument we could have of the likelihood for an early curtailment of our responsibilities.
  It is the same on the financial side. More revenue is needed by the Government of Iraq. The country is being taxed to-day—as can been seen from the report of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young)—as far as a newly-established country can bear taxation. New sources of revenue will only be opened up as capital is encouraged to come to the country by the security of Government. I would suggest to the House, that though, for my part, I do not deny how very strong are the reasons against our remaining for any long period in Iraq, how urgent are the reasons for curtailing our commitments there, nearly all the reasons brought forward are reasons which would have been equally operative against our ever going to Iraq at all. I admit that the past history of our dealing in Iraq is not, perhaps, altogether fortunate. To a large extent we were forced by circumstances. We were trampled under foot by the march of events, but we are in this position, and it is the present and the future which we have to discuss, and not the past. There can be no question either, I would remind hon. and right hon. Members on those benches, of our obligation to the people of that country. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking in this House, made that point abundantly clear. In 1923 he stated that
  "The intention … was not merely to conquer Mesopotamia and hand it over to the Arabs, but to conquer Mesopotamia, found an Arab State, and uphold it by British support."
  Again, he said later:
  "The obligation to the Arabs was an obligation to found a State for them, and to uphold it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th March, 1923; cols. 2453 and 2454, Vol. 161.]
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Did he mention that many millions had been spent in dealing with the so-called rebellious instinct of those Arabs?
  Captain EDEN: I am not going to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in discussing public opinion in Iraq. I only gave what is, after all, a perfectly clear and definite pledge by the Leader of his party. I would not press it any more than that, but I would remind the House —and I do not want to over-state the argument of prestige; it is a dangerous argument, and can be easily over-stated— that although we might, perhaps, be able to leave Iraq under normal circumstances, having discharged our obligations, without any serious loss of prestige, I do say that no words, however strong, could exaggerate the harm which we should do to our reputation not only in Iraq, but throughout the East, if we were now to scuttle, like flying ours, at the sight of our own shadow. Hon. Members know that if we pursued a course like that, our name would be a jibe in the mouth of every tavern-lounger from Marakesh to Singapore. It might take centuries to recover our prestige. The East is a land of memory. I have read somewhere, though I cannot remember where, an Eastern saying somewhat to this effect: that bravery consists of ten parts, and that one part consists in running away, and the other nine consist in never coming in sight of the enemy. Excellent though that definition may be, we do not want our name in the East associated with it.
  One criticism I would respectfully address to my right hon. Friend. I am not myself enamoured of Western forms of government in Eastern lands. I have always been a little sceptical of the wisdom of trying to set up democratic institutions in Eastern countries. With us, democracy, whatever its merits or demerits may be, is at least a plant of natural growth. In the East it is a forced growth, an importation, and foreign to the soil. Consequently, it needs many years more to develop and many years more to grow to be understood by the people. We have asked a great deal of Iraq. We have asked her to do what, I believe, even a Western nation in their position could not have done, and in fairness, and in fulfilment of our obligation to the people, we must give to Iraq a full time to adapt herself to our democratic peculiarities. We have placed the country with its forelegs in one civilisation and its hind legs in another. We have extricated it from one form of
  2092
  civilisation, which is not, perhaps, very exalted, but, at least, we are surely bound to replace it with another form of civilisation which shall be; stable.
  I will only ask those hon. Members who are still critical of the Government's decision, to visualise for one instant what would happen if we were to adopt a policy of scuttle in Iraq. The State of Iraq cannot hope to stand by itself. There would be raids by neighbouring Arab tribes. Before very long the Turkish flag would fly once again over the capital of the Caliphs. All the blood which had been spilt, all the money which had been spent, would have been in vain. The country would sink back once more into a state of apathy, eventually breeding death and despair. And, then, I would ask hon. Members on those benches, what of the Christian minority? So long in our history books have we read of the efforts made by the great Liberal party n the past, the party of which hon. Members on those benches are the worthy, if exiguous, remnant? So often have we heard of the efforts they have made to secure toleration and freedom from persecution for minorities within the Turkish Empire! How many, speeches have been made in the past in that cause? How many scats have been won by the Liberal party? How many Liberal majorities life been returned to this House on a wave of popular indignation? And those minorities were not under British rule, but were within the Turkish Empire. The minorities of Iraq are Christian minorities for whom we have a direct responsibility. Hon. Members opposite know as well as I what would happen if we were so leave them to their fate. Are we to leave those minorities to the fate which must inevitably be theirs? I have always looked upon the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) as the one real Liberal in this House, he is so delightfully inconsistent. I hope most devoutly, if I may respectfully say so to him, that the shadow of Mr. Gladstone's oratory is hovering over him this evening.
  I will only say one word with reference to our relations with the Turkish Government. I have been accused in the past of being pro-Turk. I do not exactly know what that means, but if it means that I am anxious that this country should have friendly relations with Turkey, then I have no objection whatever to the

  2093
  name. I am not, and never have been, in favour of a bag-and-baggage policy. I can see no reason why Turkey should not have territory in Europe that is not operative against the British nation having territory in Asia, and I would only say this to the Government, that I hope, while rightly they stand fast by their bond with Iraq, they will at the same time—as the Prime Minister has already indicated that he will—extend the hand of friendship and conciliation to Turkey. If I might, I would respectfully suggest to him that, perhaps, it would not be amiss at this stage that we should send some diplomatic representative of really high standing nor to Constantinople but to Angora.
  I am convinced a gesture of that kind would have real effect with the Turks, and I will only say in conclusion that, as far as I am aware, there are only two forces which are now encouraging the Turkish people to adopt more foolish courses. One of those is the agents of the Bolshevik Government of Russia and the other—I have, no doubt, from different motives—is a section of our own Press.
  That is, indeed, an unholy alliance, a marriage bed upon which even the most hardened of us must blush to look, and we may well wonder how far this alliance is to go. Are we to see Bolsheviks perusing the columns of the "Daily Express," and Noble Lords bustling to Fleet Street in Russian boots? In any event, I think this House should assure our Turkish friends, should they need the assurance, which I hope they do not, that this Press in no sense represents the public opinion of this country. The hand may be the hand of Esau, but the voice is quite undoubtedly the voice of Jacob, and I would suggest that should—as I do not believe will happen—our relations with Turkey in the near future in any sense go awry, then the responsibility must rest, in a very large measure, upon those organs of the Press which have been carrying out so unscrupulous a propaganda. There are some sacrifices which cannot in honour be made even upon the altar of circulation. I trust that the Government will, as the outcome of the declaration of the Prime Minister this afternoon, extend a hand of friendship to Turkey so that we may in the years to come, as in the past, live in a
  2094
  spirit of amity, mutual respect, and goodwill with the Turkish Republic. We desire nothing else, and I believe the Turkish people desire nothing Let mischief makers, remain away. It is in that hope that I ask the House to give a unanimous approval to the Resolution of the Government.
  Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Under the Treaty of Lausanne, I understand, we are bound to accept the decision of the League of Nations, in other. words, when. the question of frontiers under that Treaty was left to friendly collaboration between the Turkish Government and ourselves, and when we failed to reach a, settlement in nine months, the matter was referred to the League of Nations. What I want to be clear in my mind on is this:1 Are we bound to the Treaty of Lausanne us signed by Lord Curzon? Now that the matter has come to the point, are we hound under this decision to defend the frontier in Iraq for 25 years, or does it lead us to the year 1928 only? If we are bound by that Treaty, we on this side of the House as well as the other will always keep our contract. The question then arises whether it was a wise and proper thing to make those contracts. If those contracts have been made, it loads us on to a discussion of whether we can carry them out. Under the present decision of the League we accept a frontier which is well known in military circles to be a bad frontier, from a military point of view. A frontier, if drawn further north, would undoubtedly have been a very much better frontier.
  Here we have the decision of the League given purely as a compromise between what we want and what the Turks want. We are given a position to hold which, in the opinion of a great many soldiers, is an indefensible one. We soldiers have got to carry out all the duties placed upon us by the Government. The country's policy is laid down by His Majesty's Government, but that policy is very seldom formulated from the point of view of the amount of force or power necessary to carry it out. Here we have a policy being laid down for more than a generation which we have to carry out without a sufficient force. How can the nation expect economy in armaments if we accept; obligations of this sort?

  2095
  It is not so very long ago that we accepted obligations under the Treaty of Locarno. I pointed out to this House then that we had not the power to implement the guarantees we have given in that contract. Here we are undertaking guarantees over a territory which may at some distant time involve us in very serious commitments, and undoubtedly the opportunity, if other commitments in other parts of the world which we have already accepted, are called up, then our enemies will take advantage of that calling up undoubtedly.
  Everyone knows that the East is ruled fey prestige. Our Indian shores and the Gulf were threatened by German submarines, and we were drawn inland during the War up to Bagdad, and again further North because we had a reverse. It will be so always. If you meet with a military reverse this country will go on until our military honour is achieved. Undoubtedly, as we have accepted this obligation 600 miles from the coast, if a disaster takes place and our officers and men are killed, we will go on and retrieve the situation. It is no good saying that you are going to refer this matter to the League of Nations, because the nation would not allow that. Those on the spot have to meet the possibilities of disaster in those regions. Ever since I have studied that problem I have found every chief of staff that I have had the privilege to talk to bitterly opposed to commitments so far removed from the salt water.
  Again and again we have had experience of what the population in Iraq is like. We have had a recent experience during the revolt in which General Haldane had such hard work to recover our position there. The Arab population in those areas is not a population like an Indian population. It cannot be governed in the same way. They are a, war-like people, people that again and again have proved that they can do us the greatest amount of mischief and give us much trouble. Therefore, it seems to me before we undertake an occupation of this sort for any long length of time, for 25 years, we should seriously consider whether we can meet the obligations of that occupation. Anyone who has followed the operations which took place in Mesopotamia during the War knows the terrible hardships which
  2096
  our officers and men had to undergo. We know perfectly well that if these operations are undertaken again we shall have similar troubles to contend against. The railways can be easily cut. We shall have to fall back again on river transport. We are right away many miles beyond where we have the usual reinforcements and succour, right in the very heart of the country which is difficult, which is very vulnerable, and which, I venture to say, no military commander would like to hold for any length of time without a considerable reinforcing force close up.
  As I understand it, the policy of the Government is in July. 1928, to hand over the protection of that country to the Government of Iraq. It is inconceivable that we should hand over the defence of the interior of that country to the Government of Iraq. If we have the responsibility for the Mandate, we must have the responsibility for law and order, and in addition we must have the responsibility for guaranteeing these frontiers. Therefore you are placing yourselves in a position in that area in which there are potential enemies and in which you may be hit hard at a very inopportune moment for yourselves. The argument that you can squeeze another point if you are pressed in that area does not hold good, because, if you take the past tradition of the Turks, you will find that demonstrations against Constantinople will not be so effective as they were in the past. Therefore you have to face that situation when you undertake these obligations.
  The Turk is notoriously a bad ruler. But a friendly Turk to us is almost a necessity. If we are to have any success at all under this mandate which we have undertaken for 25 years, or are about to undertake, we must have an agreement with the Turks. Given an agreement with the Turks we can undoubtedly do a very great deal. Without an agreement with the Turks our position is absolutely hopeless and untenable. I do beg the Government, when they approach this question of an agreement with the Turks, that they will not do, what I may call, press for more than we want. Get an agreement arrived at, an agreement by which we get a friendly Turk. In other words I would much prefer to give up a part of Mosul area if we could get a friendly Turk. I know under this decision

  2097
  of the League of Nations that we are bound now to a special line. It seems to me conceivable that that line can be amended by an agreement. Therefore you should have an arrangement with the Turks because without a friendly Turk you cannot administer and run that country with advantage.
  From what the Prime Minister has told us we are bound by the Treaty of Lausanne. The great objection is that we Are committed to a policy which is going to cost us dear, not only in men but in money, for many, many years to come. The question arises whether this country can carry out its obligation. I know that the Colonial Secretary puts his case extremely well at the League of Nations. I only hope he will be able to put his case as well with the Turkish Government, because, after all, without an agreement with the Turkish Government this actual agreement which we have arrived at at Geneva is worthless. Although I am not one who says that we should scuttle and run out of Iraq altogether, I do think that in the frontier which we have accepted, which we are guaranteeing, which we have got to defend, we should consider what our soldiers and airmen can defend. What is the force that we have available? After all, if we accept a policy we have got to pay for that policy. It is no good coming along and saying "You have to cut down your Army and your Air Force," if you have these obligations hanging over you. In other directions I see great difficulty before the Government because the economic condition of this country is such that we cannot afford the commitments which we have or potentially are pledged to.
  Therefore, in relation to these proposals which are before us to-night, though I for one will not vote against this Resolution, I do think that everyone in the House should seriously put their views to the Government and show how seriously they feel this situation, and how seriously they realise our position. After all, we soldiers and airmen do not get much support until disaster comes along, and then we are generally blamed for it. Supposing you can have arrangements made on the lines I have indicated, they should be made. Therefore, I do hope that in the negotiations to come the Government will do everything they can to get a friendly settlement with the Turks over this area.
  Major GLYN: The House has just listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), who speaks with knowledge of the military problems. Those of us who were in this House when the late Sir Henry Wilson was a Member will remember that on the Army Estimates he quoted what were the dangers to a great Empire in accepting large frontiers and being unwilling to supply the money to maintain adequate forces to defend them. To-night I think it is unnecessary to say much on this question of frontiers.
  There is, however, one point of very great importance connected with the frontier that ought to be mentioned. Had the other part of the Opposition remained in its place in the House to-night, I think that the point I have in mind would probably have formed the main subject of their speeches. Far too much has been said about oil in connection with Mosul. As far as I can see, the action of the Government in regard to Mosul and the frontier is absolutely unconnected with oil. The Socialist party will not believe that, and a certain number of Turks will not believe it. It was very unfortunate that when the negotiations were carried on for working oil—if oil indeed exists, which no one knows for certain—a company called the Turkish Petroleum Company was formed in which America and others were interested. The Turks say it-was adding insult to injury to call this company the Turkish Petroleum Company, and that they, being interested in that part of the world and close neighbours of the oil fields, should have been asked to co-operate. If it is not too late, I hope that when negotiations are in progress for a treaty with Turkey, the question of oil and of Turkish participation in it will be considered.
  Another matter to which we ought to draw particular attention is the question why the Turks should ever want to go back into Iraq. It seems to me that if the Turks go back into Iraq they will have to re-establish the Caliphat. They would inevitably be thrown back to the old ideas of the past. Yet, from the little that I have seen, it seems to me that the "New Turks" are absolutely different from the "Old Turks" or the "Young Turks." They are a collection of men who have set themselves to rebuild

  2099
  Turkey in Anatolia. They are men who, I believe, look to us with great hope to co-operate with them in developing their territory. I believe they feel that without us they will inevitably be pushed into the arms of Russia. It is a fact that Russia has made strenuous efforts to get hold of the Turks, and that the Turks have so far resisted. I do not believe that the Turks want us to leave Iraq; I believe they want us to remain there. I often feel, especially in Debates on Turkey, how much we miss the voice of that great friend of all of us and of the Turks, Aubrey Herbert, who sat for so long in this House and made so thorough a study of the East. One can almost see him under the back gallery holding on to a pillar and addressing the House as a friend of the Turks. It would be a very good thing for the Turks to know that although Aubrey Herbert has gone there are plenty of us in the House who want to believe that, just as the post-War situation has changed many nations and peoples, so the Turkish 'mentality has to some extent been changed.
  I suppose that if we carry out what may be thought to be an anti-Turkish policy from a diplomatic point of view, it will be largely due to the fact that there have been monstrous and horrible massacres of Christians, and deportations. How can we help the Christians the most? By having a hostile Turkey or by having a Turkey which will walk step by step with us? I believe that if we can join up with Turkey and prove to Turkey, by acts and words, the sincerity of our policy, she Trill see the folly of these persecutions of non-Moslem subjects. The deportations along the frontier recently were horrible. The officer who was in charge was recalled to Angora, and I believe that he had a pretty bad time at the hands of the Turkish Government. One reason why the Turks are determined to proceed upon lines different from those of the days of the Sultans is that they know that they will never had the sympathy of the Western races if this frenzy is allowed to get out of bounds. The right hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has for many years been the great defender —for which we all admire and respect him.—of the Christian minorities in that part of the world What he has done is
  2100
  as well known out there as it is here. I am convinced that if he were to go out to-morrow to Turkey and to talk to the Turks, he would see that they realise that the atrocities do harm to Turkey, and that, therefore, they are the very things which Turkey's worst enemies would wish her to do.
  I believe that Turkey wishes to live at peace with her non-Moslem subjects. She wishes to recognise that we, by occupying Iraq and developing Iraq, are building, up a great organisation on modern lines which will co-operate with Turkey in her own development. I feel convinced that if this Treaty can be carried through in the very near future, we shall build up a bulwark behind which Iraq will be developed, for the good of our trade in this country, for the good of the Arabs and fur the good of the Turks, and also for the great assistance of Persia. No word has so far been said about Persia. It might be worth while in this Debate to say one thing. The trouble in the whole of this question does not lie on the frontier. It does not lie in questions of email minorities. It lies in the great Kurdish problem. Until the Kurdish question can be settled there will always be difficulty. At present the Kurds are split up between Persia, Iraq and Turkey. Turkey has always had trouble, with the Kurds. If the Kurds are going to live a prosperous life under the administration of Iraq, it will mean that the Kurds in Turkey will be discontented and will probably rise against the Turkish Government and say, "Why cannot we be like our brothers in Iraq?" In Persia the. Kurds have certainly established a position superior to that under the Turkish régime.
  If we in Iraq can show that we can do something for the benefit of the Kurds, I believe that those benefits will spread to other sections of the Kurds, and, once the Kurdish problem is solved, there is indeed hope of peace in that particular part of the world I believe that the present is an opportunity to come to terms with the Turks—such an opportunity as we refused in 1911 under different circumstances, and which, if it had not then been refused, might have altered the War. It was because the Turks suspected us of being animated by feelings hostile to their ideas that they threw themselves under the tutelage of Germany. Let us see to it that by our

  2101
  actions now and in the near future we do not force the Turks under the tutelage of Russia. I fear that that is the danger. If we hold out the hand of friendship, as the Prime Minister has said, and if the Prime Minister himself, in consultation with the Turkish Ambassador in London, can make a beginning, I would urge one small point on the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that is that so far we have not thought it worth while to recognise the sincerity of the Turkish Government by having a permanent representative at Angora. That is an unfortunate fact. It would be a good thing to have a permanent representative of Great Britain at Angora, which is the Turkish seat of Government and is likely to remain so.
  With the conclusion of the Treaty I hope that someone, a special mission, will be sent out to Angora with full powers to treat, and that the matter will not be dealt with solely through the ordinary diplomatic channels. The chance which has now come to our country has come as so many chances come—more or loss by a fluke. I believe that if we can seize this opportunity of making a friendly Turkey, Iraq will develop without a penny cost to the British taxpayer. Once you give confidence and security to Iraq, she will develop fast and Turkey will develop fast. These will then provide a market for our goods. It will be up to us to send out experts of all kinds, not concession hunters for oil, who do much harm, but experts who will go out to help the development of the wonderful natural resources of that most interesting part of the world.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies must be satisfied with the way in which the Debate has developed so far. I am sorry to find that the benches of the Labour party are empty, because I believe that matters of such high importance as that now under discussion should be debated altogether outside the pale of party politics. I would like to say here and now that I am rather disappointed that there should be a proposal for us to continue in Iraq for a period of 25 years. I listened with close attention to the careful and concise statement of the Prime Minister. I agree with him that when the Treaty was entered into it was
  2102
  for a period of four year's, to end in 1928. It was agreed that after that there would be an interregnum. It was never suggested that it should be for such a long period as that now indicated. I remember that in a speech in July of last year the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) intimated that there was a question of remaining in Iraq for a period of, perhaps, 20 years. The hon. Gentleman who is now the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at once retorted with a most emphatic "No," from which one gathered that it was his opinion that we were not to be committed for any such period as 20 years. We have by question and answer raised this point in the House, and only last week it was indicated that the suggestion of 25 years was "romance." I do not see any romance about it.
  8.0 P.M.
  I recognise the difficulties with which the Government is faced. I would be the last to say, "Let us throw up the sponge and clear out of the whole place." I believe there were many Members of this House who, two years ago, would have said, "You must clear out of Iraq forthwith." I have never accepted that suggestion, as made by an important organ. I cannot help wondering what is the position of those hon. Members who were in such a hurry to say "Clear out," notwithstanding what our obligations may he, or are likely to be, and what they are feeling to-night. What I should like to ask my right hon. Friend is: There are certain obligations that we entered into with regard to the Treaty and the Protocol. We have undertaken military responsibilities and we have made ourselves responsible for the cost of these troops being maintained there. I should like to ask him, Is it to be a continuance of the policy, that this Government are to be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Iraq, as far as, at any rate, military operations are concerned I Or, on the other hand, after 1928, is the cost of these necessary troops and their maintenance there to be borne by the Iraq Government?
  I think it is in the Schedule that it is referred to as the "expansion," and I find in 1925 and 1926 that an expansion, apparently, of the troops, will be required. I grant that there is a suggestion that there should be a reduction

  2103
  in the 1926–27 programme. What I want to ask my right hon. Friend is. considering the enormous obligations for which we are responsible, is it necessary, if you are going to make this Treaty and you are going to enter into terms with Turkey, which I trust will be the case? I follow the remarks made by my right hon. Friend, who has just sat down. I am out for having a Turkey that is friendly disposed to us, because I think that is going to facilitate matters very much indeed. If you hope to have a Turkey which is friendly—and I have no doubt that after the careful handling, if I may be permitted to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the manner in which he has carried out what must have been a very difficult task, in conjunction with the Foreign Secretary—and if he has been successful so far, cannot he go one step further, and use his influence to get the Government to use their influence with Turkey, in order that we may be able to have them more or less, if I may use the word, "Allies" with us? You have to consider there is Turkey, there is Iraq and Persia, and if something can be done to bring them into one undertaking under your Treaty, then, I venture to say, you have gone a long way towards obviating the necessity for increasing your troops, as suggested in the Schedule, in 1925–26.
  Then, may I ask my right hon. Friend, when he is replying, to say what is the position at the present time with regard to the railways? We own them, and we have undertaken not to dispose of them, except in conjunction and in agreement with the Iraq Government. Are these railways paying? Have we received anything; is there a credit balance standing to us, or, on the other hand, have we received nothing from them? What is going to be done? It is of the utmost importance that, if we are to enter into an arrangement—and undoubtedly we shall have to enter into an arrangement; I do not want to run away from any treaties that have been entered into, because I have indicated that after the four years there would be an interregnum— with the big obligation that we have there, it is of the utmost importance that the taxpayer should have some idea of what the financial obligations are, and what they are going to be. Might I therefore press my right hon. Friend, with regard
  2104
  to the railways, to say what is the position in which they stand to-day and what is the outlook?
  We do not want to get back upon what we have expended—I think I am right in saying it is 150 millions. I am never one to adopt the principle of trying to go backwards, but I am endeavouring to look ahead and see what is going to be the position in the future. I think I am right in saying that, according to the last figures we had, it cost us 4,700,000 odd pounds. Is there likely to be a continuance of that expenditure in the future, and for what period? I am sure my right hon. Friend will readily recognise that if the taxpayer of this country is to be committed to, say, £4,000,000 per annum, if you take it with compound interest at 5 per cent.—I have not calculated the figure—it appears to me it would be something like 250 to 300 millions sterling. It is all very well to enter into these obligations and consider the cost afterwards, but I want my right hon. Friend in his reply to say what in his opinion, if he does not mind me pressing him, is going to be the financial outlook between this country and Iraq, during the next decade. I am one of those who strongly hope that, although we have had the indication of this 25 years, yet, notwithstanding, it will not be necessary. I hope the Government will not enter into any fixed bargain for a period of 25 years without considering the matter carefully, as they have done in the past. When you have entered into an obligation, and you have said: "We will review that before 1928"; in a like manner I say that surely it is not necessary at the present juncture to say you are going to commit yourself without knowing what is going to be the expenditure, because you cannot tell exactly what it is going to be. You may have hopes and anticipations, you may be able undoubtedly to form some estimate, but I venture to hope that the Government will give very careful consideration, before they commit themselves to such a very long period.
  What is the position of Iraq at the present time? Is she able to pay her way? Although we have had to pay a very considerable sum, because we have undertaken certain responsibilities, for which we have got to pay, I want to see Iraq put in a position that it is able to discharge its own obligations. Let us assist in the development of the country, because, having put our hand to the

  2105
  plough, I am not one of those who say: "Let us turn back and leave it as it is!" Let us consider what is going to be, or anticipated to be, the position under the Iraq budget during the next few years, and then what prospects we have of terminating any special obligations within a shorter period than that referred to.
  I do not believe it will be found necessary, from the speeches I have heard this evening in the House, to have any Division on this Motion at all. The people outside that sent us to this House look upon it as our duty to bring these matters clearly before the Government, because they never expected that it would have been necessary to undertake these obligations for such a long period. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise that we have, unfortunately, in our midst so much unemployment under which we have to provide, and rightly provide, for those who are not able to obtain work; but, on the other hand, the taxpayer has got to meet all these obligations, and the taxpayer naturally considers: "What is the amount that I am going to be responsible for, in obligations in countries in which we are now interested?"
  I hope my right hon. Friend, in replying, will say that, in completing any arrangements they have, he will be good enough, and I believe he will, to consider these various points. I hope that when he comes to the House next time, when we assemble next year, he will be able to say, after considering all these matters, that the Government has not found it necessary to commit themselves for such a period.
  I finish as I started, by congratulating my right hon. Friend once more on the care and precision with which he has carried out this task, and I hope that any little criticism we have made of these matters he will not take as of a factious nature, but simply that we are desirous to bring our views before him, for what they may be worth, in order that he and the Government may give them, consideration.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to say only a very few words, but I weigh those words as carefully as I can. The Prime Minister has made an announcement this evening of importance, namely, that he has invited the Turkish Ambassador to meet him to-morrow. It certainly would
  2106
  be far from my intention to say anything to embarrass him and the Turkish Ambassador in this meeting, which may be full of omen. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on the reception of his proposals in the House to-night. It will certainly be in the interests of peace, if the Turkish Government is convinced—and I think the proceedings to-night ought to convince the Turkish Government and the Turkish nation—that we stand as a united nation and a united Parliament.
  Nothing could be more prejudicial to peace, if peace be at all threatened, than the idea, propagated with mendacity and a want of scruple and an almost vitriolic fury, that a large portion of the public opinion of the country is against the policy of the Government. I do not believe it, and I think if there were to be war—and I have not and never had the idea that there was going to be war— the main responsibility would be on the heads of those who carried on propaganda of this kind so entirely hostile, so misrepresentative of the public opinion of the country and of the House of Commons. As an old journalist, I felt ashamed, as I read that these articles, so misrepresentative of the opinion of the country, were actually circulated on the spot among the Turks. What better incitement could there have been to the Turkish authorities to proceed to violent and hostile action against this country? I have heard criticism of the policy of the Government. I want to ask, What is the alternative? The policy of the Government is clear. We know exactly what it is, almost to the smallest detail. What is the alternative? It may be fortunate or unfortunate, right or wrong, that we went into Mesopotamia at all, but we are there.
  We incurred a certain responsibility, above all, we incurred responsibility to certain minorities. What is the alternative? To scuttle? I will say nothing of the prejudice to our prestige, which largely depends on transactions and policies in Mesopotamia, but what about our obligations of honour? I am careful, as I said, not to embarrass the Government, especially in view of the important negotiations between the Turkish authorities and our own Government, but I ask, if we scuttle—and that is the only logical policy in hostility to the policy of the

  2107
  Government—what will become of the Christian and other minorities in Iraq? Am I to be asked, especially by the heirs of Gladstone in these traditions, to give up people between whom and massacre we alone stand? Am I to be asked to do that in the name of Liberalism? Will anybody give a single fact in proof of the desire of any section of the people of Iraq to be put under the Government of Turkey? Is there one single section? The Arabs are against it. All the different sects of the Christians are against it. Did hon. Members in the House read that long list of telegrams of congratulation received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies this morning? Every class, every race and every creed is represented, and the unanimous voice of all these different creeds and peoples is one of almost incredible relief at the prospect of not being put back under the government of the Turks. The Jewish race are a practical race, interested in the commercial relations of every country, and interested in good government. One of the telegrams received by my right hon. Friend was from, I believe, a very representative man of the Jewish people in the district. I ask my friends of the Liberal party, is there any gospel which holds a higher place in their policy and tradition than the gospel of self-determination? In face of that I am asked to restore to the people of Iraq a Government against which all the people there protest, and which they hate. I never have heard a more ridiculous contradiction between principle and performance.
  I would have dwelt on other phases of this question, but I do not want to occupy the time of the House. The sufferings of these poor Christians I could detail to-night, not on the evidence of irresponsible people, but from reports of Commissions appointed by the League of Nations. I could harrow the feelings of the House by recapitulating those things, but I put restraint upon myself for the reasons I have already given. That I should have to contemplate the dishonour of my country in giving up these poor people who are suffering because they supported us in the War— that I should have to contemplate such an act of national dishonour is to me unthinkable, and incredible. I congratulate
  2108
  the Government and, especially, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. There is no man from whom I differ more widely in general politics, nor whom I regard as a more potentially mischievous adviser on general questions of policy, but I congratulate him on the courage, the moderation and the self-control with which he has carried out his policy in this matter.
  Captain BENN: I do not think that what we on the Liberal benches have been saying need necessarily incur the displeasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) with whom, on this occasion, I have the first difference in the course of 20 years' fellow membership of the. House of Commons. There are two very-strong points which make a great appeal to us on these benches. The one is the prestige of the League of Nations, and the other is the fate of the Christian minorities. Both these make appeals which it is difficult to resist, but I will give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman—the answer we should make in both eases. Of course it cannot come from the Treasury bench to speak about Christian minorities, because in the Treaty of Lausanne, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, the interests of the Armenians were sacrificed at every turn by our negotiators in their desire for a general settlement. But no-one is better justified than the right hon. Gentleman in raising his voice again, as he has for many years past, on behalf of these unfortunate people. As far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for others on these benches, we would willingly vote any sum of money for the removal of these people, to whom we have given pledges, to a place of safety. Any scheme of that kind would receive willing support from these benches; but we say it is not for to use our pledges to them in their obvious difficulties and distress as an argument for a scheme and commitments of which we disapprove.
  As to the prestige of the League of Nations, I fail to understand how the future of the League of Nations is dependent upon our willingness to assume any responsibility which they wish to place upon us. I can understand their saying that if they give a decision against

  2109
  us we ought to accept it; we would; but I do not understand what the Government case is. Is it that if the League were to say, "We ask you to accept the mandate for this or that territory," that honour to the League and loyalty to the League compel us to accept it? Suppose they said, "Things are disturbed in Arabia, and we understand that the King of the Hejaz will be glad if you will take a mandate in order to protect the rather amorphous territory which he controls. "Would it be thought necessary that in loyalty to the League we must accept that mandate? I do not think so, and moreover the Commission, the First Commission—I am not speaking about General Laidoner's Commission—under, I think, Count Teleki, did suggest an alternative plan, and there is not any substance in this plea that we are somehow affronting the League in taking the view we do. If we made it clear that a concession in the boundary would meet that trouble and the League would be willing to adjust its decision, we- might at the same time secure the friendship and co-operation of the Turks, which is absolutely essential to preserve peace in those parts.
  What is it exactly that we are asked to do? We fire asked to commit ourselves in; Iraq for an indefinite period and we are told it may be 25 years. I do not Suggest that in the statement he has made. on this question the Prime Minister is guilty of any breach of faith, but I would point out that almost every Government since the last Coalition Government would have been glad to get out of Iraq, and I know that Mr. Bonar Law would have been very glad to get out of it. but what prospect is there that we fill all be able to shake ourselves free in 25 years' time? We should weigh very carefully our responsibilities in Iraq before incurring any more financial obligations there.
  Since the Armistice we have spent £170,000,000 in Iraq, enough money to build 300,000 or 400,000 houses and give them away to the people. We have spent enough money there to relieve British industries from the crushing burden of heavy taxation. It has been stated that our financial commitments in Iraq have been reduced from £7,000,000 down to £4,000,000. and the Colonial Secretary-very ingeniously says of that £4,000,000 £2,000,000 is required for the Air Force
  2110
  out there which under other circumstances we should have to spend, but that is not so. Is the Government's policy going to be that we cannot reduce our present military expenditure whatever our responsibilities may be? If we do not eventually require an Air Force in Iraq surely there is £2,000,000 capable of being saved. It is not so much this £4,000,000 only, even assuming that that is to be the annual charge. We know there is to be a deficit next year. We know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) asked the House to undertake new financial obligations upon this subject, but that is not the point.
  What we have to consider is if something happens what commitments shall we be responsible before? The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir B. Hutchison) speaks with great authority upon any military situation, but I do not think it is quite fair to say that the main burden of defending Iraq will not fall on this country if anything happens because it is bound to do so. No doubt the members of the League of Nations will be ready to fulfil their obligations under the Articles of the League to the best of their ability, but I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite will deny that the main burden in the end is sure to fall upon this country. Soldiers tell us that it is impossible to defend this frontier 600 miles from the Persian Gulf. Therefore, you have the possibility of an enormous military and financial burden liable to fall on this country, and I think we should be well advised not to take any risk of that kind. We have adopted a cruiser programme costing £58,000,000. The Singapore base is estimated to cost £10,000,000, and is more likely to cost nearer £20,000,000.
  We all know what the early Estimates of the cost of the Rosyth Dockyard was, and we know how it compares with the final cost which shows that all this kind of military expenditure grows as time goes on. Consequently we are being committed to indefinite military and financial commitments. We ought to take a business like survey of the situation and ask ourselves whether by undertaking all these financial obligations we are not loading up the country with a burden which it cannot support. Iraq is not a settled part of the world at all arid the

  2111
  whole thing is in a ferment. Let us look round at the history of this place, First of all you had a rebellion in Syria and we are told that 7,000 men had been killed since the French took command. Then we had the revolt of the Druses and other Moslems the extent of which it is impossible to foretell. You have also European troubles. It is all very well to sketch out foreign policies for us to pursue, but these schemes sometimes go wrong.
  There is no one who knows more about Arabia than the Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs. He knows all about the plans made during the "War, how we backed the Hashimite family and put King Hussein on the throne. Now King Hussein has been dethroned and Ibn Saud is in his place, and we have been in conflict with him two or three times. Then we had trouble with the Wahabis and Abdulla, in Transjordania and he is receiving some support from us, and his defence depends upon our armed forces. Nobody can foretell what will be the end of it it all. I have no information except such as is derived from a study of what appears in the Press and perhaps the Under-Secretary for the Colonies may be able to tell us something on these points. The whole thing is in a ferment. It may be that in Iraq we may experience some of the trouble the French are having in Syria or like the Spaniards have had to encounter with the Riffs, or the French in Morocco. Early in the attempt to set up the Iraq State the scheme was to set up a republic, but there was a man there caused trouble and had to be deported. Then we had the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who gave oil as the reason for staying there. We have been told by outside critics that it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who gave oil as the reason for staying in Mesopotamia and he said that "Mosul is a country with great possibilities." In 1922 the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that we might look forward to the time for some return for our expenditure in these parts by the development of valuable oilfields.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Did either of those two right hon. Gentlemen express the definite statement that we were there because of oil?
  Captain BENN: I think from what I have said we are quite justified in stating at any rate that there is oil behind the Turkish claim, although in this country there are plenty of clean politicians who have kept clear of all this danger. We do know, however, that evil influences are at work in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Cairo, and in March, 1921, we were told that if we were permitted to go to Cairo we should be planted there by the forces we put behind us. Only a short time before the people whose interests we were going to defend rose against us and many thousands of pounds were spent in repressing them. In view of all these things, in view of the potential disturbances and dangerous military commitments, I am sure many people in this country would welcome a policy which would get us out of all these obligations in the Near East. We have social services in this country clamouring for funds. In regard to education we are now making little economics in a service which we wish to see extended, and this is being done on account of financial stress. We are always having regard to what we owe to the League of Nations and our loyalty to the Christian minorities. For these reasons I say without hesitation that I am opposed to the Motion which the Prime Minister has moved to-night.
  Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: I was very interested and somewhat surprised to hear the statement which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on the subject of the references made in this House by the two right hon. Gentlemen whom he quoted. I am bound to say that, in the Course of a very careful study of the references made to Iraq and our occupation, or partial occupation, of that country, I have not come across any such references. I can quite understand that remarks might have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the hon. and gallant Member's Leader on the subject of oil possibilities in Iraq, but the, as I understand it, definite statement that we were In Iraq because there was oil there, is one that I personally have not found, and I should be very grateful if the hon. and gallant Member could give me the reference to it.
  Captain BENN: I read it out. On the 25th March, 1920, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs paid:
  "I cannot understand withdrawing partly, and withdrawing from the more important and more promising part of Mesopotamia. Mosul is a country with great possibilities. It has rich oil deposits."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1920; col. 662, Vol. 127.1
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, if I may say so, even on that reference, although it goes very much further than my knowledge or views go in reference to the possibilities of oil in Mosul, or than any knowledge which exists in the world at large as to the possibilities of oil in that region of Iraq, I still think he is not justified in stating that those right hon. Gentlemen said we were in Iraq because of the oil that was there. There is no person capable of saying definitely at the present time that there is oil in Iraq. It is very likely that there is, and I very hope much that there may be, because, if there is, it will be very much to the benefit of the kingdom of Iraq and will help its finances; but I should like to say at once, as far as I am concerned, or, as far as I know almost every other Member of the House, that we are not in Iraq because of oil or anything to do with oil whatsoever.
  I think the subject we are discussing to-night really resolves itself into two heads. Firstly, whether we could get out of Iraq if we wanted to do so—whether we are able to get out because of our pledges; and, secondly, whether it is desirable that we should get out even if we could. With regard to the first point, I think it was made perfectly clear by the hon. and gallant Member's present Leader, and also by Lord Oxford, who was his Leader in past years, that we cannot in honour get out whether we want to or not. I would remind the House that perhaps the first occasion on which this matter was discussed was when the pledge was given in 1915, and in 1916 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs quoted from a document, signed by Sir Edward Grey, in which it was perfectly definitely and clearly laid down that our intention at that time was not merely to conquer Mesopotamia and hand it over to the Arabs, but to conquer it and found an
  2114
  Arab State upheld by British support. It was clearly laid down then and in subsequent speeches that we could not, until the Arabs were in a position to maintain a stable State, by themselves, get out of Iraq and stand before the world as having carried out our pledges.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went a good deal further. He told the House quite definitely why we entered into this commitment, namely, that we had entered into an agreement with the Arabs because of the very definite assistance which we got from them at the time when the arrangement was originally made, and he told us that it was not the slightest use suggesting now that we should not remain. We got that military assistance at the time, and because of it we gave certain pledges, which we must carry out. Another eminent Liberal statesman—no less than the late Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montagu—definitely referred to these pledges in 1920 as follows:
  "It will lay on them"—
  that is to say, on His Majesty's Government—
  "the responsibility for the maintenance of internal peace and external security."
  There is one other point to which, I think, reference should be made. I well remember that, something over a year ago, Lord Oxford—he was then Mr. Asquith —speaking in this House, said that in his opinion we had carried out our pledges in Iraq, but I do not think he could have been aware of that other pledge, given in 1916, to which I have just referred, when he made that statement. Again, on the 9th March, 1922, Mr. Asquith said:
  "I will never be a party to any policy which has in intention or in effect the reestablishment of Turkish rule over large bodies of Christian populations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March. 1922; col. 1558, Vol. 151.]
  That is another aspect of the matter which is sometimes forgotten. If we are to carry out our pledges in that connection, it is equally definite and clear that we cannot, at this moment at any rate, clear out of Iraq. The second point is as to whether, if we could clear out, it would be desirable that we should do so. No one in this House realises more than I do the necessity and desirability of a friendly arrangement with Turkey. I am most anxious that we should do

  2115
  nothing to offend Turkey, that we should do everything we possibly can to bring her to such a frame of mind that she will see that it is to her advantage as well as ours that we should have stable conditions in Iraq; but I venture to say that nothing would be gained, in treating with Turkey, by any indecision in our policy, and, above all, nothing would be gained in treating with Turkey if there is any doubt in Turkish minds as to our intention to stand by the pledges which over and over again we have given.
  I agree with an hon. Member who spoke on this side that it is extremely doubtful whether Turkey is at all anxious that we should clear out of Iraq. There are, as most Members of the House know, two distinct parties in Turkey at the present time. There is a Moderate party, anxious to work peacefully with us and with other nations of the world, and there is also an extremist element there, as in many other countries, probably, to some extent at any rate, under Russian influence. I think it would be a tremendous leather in the cap of the Government if we could bring about a satisfactory solution with Turkey In regard to Mosul and Iraq. But I say to them, even if it be only necessary to say it to emphasise it, that it is not to be got by any apparent policy of doubt or by putting forward any programme with any shadow of doubt as to our intention to adhere absolutely and literally to the words of the pledges we have given.
  I do not want to take up the time of the House by entering into the possibilities which lie before us in Iraq. No one who has seen a good deal of that country can doubt its wonderful possibilities—not in regard to oil; oil is a pure speculation; but in the non-speculative aspect of Iraq, which is irrigation. Even on the question of irrigation, and the wonderful agricultural developments which may come from it, I do not know that we really have very up-to-date information. I do not know, for example, whether there is anyone competent to say to what extent that wonderfully fertile soil has been affected by the deposits of salt throughout the centuries. But whether there are great possibilities in Iraq, commercial or otherwise, is not, to my mind, the point that is before the House to-night. The point is, firstly, that we cannot get out if we
  2116
  would, and, secondly, that it is not desirable that we should get out, not because of commercial possibilities, but because a secure Iraq is absolutely essential to the peace and security of the world.
  Throughout all the thousands of years that have passed, that one portion of country has been the scene of countless fights, of countless battles of all kinds. I believe that, as long as nations are in a state of desiring each other's territory, of putting unfriendly, eager and covetous eyes upon each other's territory, the area now called Iraq will always loom large in human history. If we can only get security there, if we can only make it clear, not only to Turkey but to all the nations of the world, that we want nothing for ourselves in Iraq which we are not willing to give to anyone else, but that, above all other things, we will not allow that part of the country to become again a battlefield, we shall get, not only security in the Near East, not only security in India, but security and peace to some extent in Europe. No one who has studied the history of the last great War can have the smallest doubt, to my min3, that the main object of German ambitions lay in the desire to get to the East. It has been stated, not only by many German writers before the War, but it was agreed that that was the case by great statesmen of all nations at the time of the War. That idea of pressing on to the Persian Gulf, in the hope of eventually getting world dominion, was expressed in many German writings when they said that if only Great Britain could be hit at in Egypt, if only that neck at Egypt could be cut, Great Britain's power in the East must decline.
  I think what we are all aiming at now is that these dreams of the past should be passed for ever. We want to get in Iraq a settled country, a country which we shall be able to say we have stood by, in accordance with our pledge, until it is able to stand by itself. When it is able to stand by itself it must treat with all nations on an equal basis. Above all it must be a bulwark against further ambitious dreams on the part of any European power. I have said before— and when I said it some three years ago I am afraid I was rather a voice crying in the wilderness—that this situation in Iraq has a great bearing upon our position in India, and even further East.

  2117
  It is perhaps too strong to say that politically Iraq is the real frontier of India, but I go this length and I say, especially with the condition of Europe as it is now, you are always in danger if you have, down that strip of country between the rivers, the possibility of an advance through neutral or friendly territory from any enemy in Europe,. I do not think there is any doubt that this country, which is the high road of the railway and the air of the future, is going to be of the very greatest importance. It is a country that we want at peace, and if the world is ever going to be made safe for democracy, I say quite fearlessly that it cannot be made safe unless that area of the world's surface is made clear and free from the ambitions of any Power in Europe who may feel they can extend their Empire by moving out towards the East through that country.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the political subtlety with which he has drawn this Motion. Naturally those of us who object to the Imperialist policy are put in a difficulty by being made to appear to be voting against the action of the Government in accepting the findings of the League of Nations. In spite of that, at any rate some of my party will vote against the Motion, and will do it with every conviction of which we are capable. The Prime Minister is to-morrow going to see the Turkish Ambassador. It is a very great pity he did not, see him many months ago, especially before his swashbuckling Colonial Secretary went to Geneva and made the kind of speeches he has been making. I understand the Turks will be prepared to come to an arrangement with us something on these lines. They recognise that part of the Vilayet of Mosul is necessary to the rest of the so-called province of Iraq for irrigation purposes, and the Diala area they propose to give to us in any case. I am putting these terms to the Prime Minister because I think they form a good basis for negotiations.
  They propose a militarised zone on either side of the frontier to be agreed upon. That, I think, is a very important matter. They have publicly declared that they are prepared to enter into a pact of security between Turkey, Persia, Iraq, and this country guaranteeing the independence and security, as far as they
  2118
  are concerned, of Iraq in perpetuity. They are prepared to come to terms with us about oil. I do not charge this Government with being actuated by economic considerations. I do not join with those critics who declare that they are actuated only by a desire to help certain oil companies. But at the same time I have been putting forward what I understand are terms that the Turks are prepared to discuss. If there is oil— and there are two opinions about that— they are prepared that we should exploit it, coming to a proper business-like arrangement with the people of the country, and if they are in charge of that country with themselves. If the oil areas extend into their area they are quite prepared to come to terms with us.
  With regard to the Eastern Question, I quite agree with what my right, hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has said —we all abhor the massacres that have been perpetrated, except this, that I think massacre is equally horrible, whether perpetrated against Moslems or Christians, and when the Greeks landed at Smyrna, I was one of the few Members of the House—I am glad to say some of the party opposite were with me— who protested against the, excesses committed by the Greeks then. I should like to have seen a little protest by hon. Members opposite at such acts as the bombardment of Damascus. I think that is equally horrible when committed against a Christian or a Moslem town. On this question of the Christians on either side of the frontier that must eventually be drawn, they propose an exchange of population, an exchange of Christians, and I presume they will offer us also the devil worshippers, if we want them, for Kurds and Turks who are left in the territory over which we should have a mandate. The exchange of populations is open to many abuses and, undoubtedly, entails much hardship in that part of the world, but in view of the trouble which will accrue as the result of the present Government's policy, it would be as well for us to see whether that exchange could not take place.
  I understand there will be in any case about 10,000 Christians and other non-Moslems to the North of the Brussels Line. I think we ought to agree with the Turks in this matter if we can, and negotiate peace with them, because the present

  2119
  Brussels Line from a military point of view is a bad one. It would have been better to have the line further off along the range of mountains to the North and North-West of the line. The present line is absolutely indefensible. Those are the terms we are offered, and that is what we are asked to give in exchange. That part of the vilayet of Mosul which is inhabited by a preponderant majority of Kurds and Turks, including the city of Mosul. I think it would be a very good policy if the Turkish Ambassador could be approached on those lines by the Prime Minister to-morrow.
  The policy which we have pursued so far is not only dangerous, but inept and inane. Who would have believed it if it had been said 10 years ago that the results of the policy of this Government, which I do not altogether blame, and of the policies of successive British Governments, would be to range against us at the same time two of the most ancient enemies in the world, Russia and Turkey? We have managed to quarrel with both of them, and the prospect is extremely serious. I am sorry that the Prime Minister has left the House, but perhaps what I am going to say will interest the Secretary of State for Air. There is a sort of belief in Europe—I do not think the matter has been seized very clearly in London yet—that both sides in this matter are bluffing, that the Turks are bluffing us with threats of war, and that we are bluffing them. That is a very dangerous game, when the stakes are the lives of men.
  I think the Turks are bluffing as regards immediate war, but there will always be the danger of hostilities. They will begin to build roads, and roads are cheaply made by cheap labour, but they cannot easily be destroyed from the air. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Air will direct his attention to this matter. If military roads are built we shall have the same sort of haunting fears which confronted Victorian Conservative, statesmen in the time of our fathers, when the Russians were building military roads towards the north-west frontier of India. If the Turks begin building roads, as I believe they will, down this indefensible military frontier, we shall always know when we find ourselves in difficulties in any part of the world that our potential enemies
  2120
  will realise that we shall have to bind down so many squadrons of aeroplanes and so many battalions of troops for the defence of this country, nipped like a nut-between the crackers of the Turks on one side, and of Ibn Saud, who has already wiped out one of the princes of the Shercfian House, to the South.
  I congratulate the Under Secretary for the Colonies on the tremendous success of his policy and this policy of his party in backing the Sherefian dynasty so far. It has brought us nothing but trouble and disappointment. He may remember that in 1919 he was so good as to honour me by replying to a speech of mine in which I ventured to express doubts of the then policy of making one of the Princes of the Shcrefian dynasty the King of Iraq and Khalif (Kaliph) of Islam. My statement has proved correct, and perhaps on this occasion I may be right.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member Is travelling some distance from the Motion.
  9.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not controvert your ruling. It is well known that the Wahabi have declared their intention of making an end of the Sherefian dynasty in Arabia. We have one of that dynasty. on the throne of Iraq, propped up by our bayonets. I regret very much that the pacific policy of the Prime Minister is not shared by the Colonial Secretary, or, so far as we know, the Foreign Secretary. The whole policy pursued has been one of extreme danger, and the latest manifestation— namely, that as our part of the bluff we are threatening the Turks with an alliance with Italy and an Italian descent on Smyrna, I consider to be most dangerous. If that should be attempted, if we have a British-Italian alliance against Turkey, the Russians will inarch into Bessarabia, and we shall have to take up all over again the question of peace in Europe.
  Instead of the Government getting their vote by an overwhelming majority, for reasons which I hope will be clearly understood, I hope the country will realise that the present Government is actually in a minority of votes in the country, whatever their artificial majority may be, and whatever their special majority may be to-day, owing to the circumstances that have arisen. In spite

  2121
  of that, in spite of their vote of confidence, I say that the Colonial Secretary-has committed us to this policy without the consent of Parliament, and instead of getting this vote he ought to have been impeached at the Bar of the House.
  Captain CAZALET: The very few observations which I wish to offer to the House arise out of a somewhat extended tour which I made throughout the Kingdom of Iraq and surrounding countries a few months ago. It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) envisages a situation in which Turkey and ourselves are playing a gigantic game of bluff at poker. If he deludes himself into thinking that we have only a couple of pairs in our hands, he is greatly mistaken. We have a royal straight flush. If I wanted any other reasons than those which I am going to suggest for supporting the Motion, it is that we are simply carrying out the mandate from the League of Nations. We originally accepted the mandate, and therefore it is not our business now to quibble when certain additional responsibilities have been put upon our shoulders.
  I sincerely hope that we shall be able to negotiate with the Turks, and perhaps by means of offering them a loan in the City of London on easy terms we may compensate them for the loss of dignity which they have suffered perhaps at Angora in not being able to alter the boundary of Iraq. I am certain that a loan such as I have suggested would be of far more practical use to the Turks than any alteration of the boundary or, in fact, the whole vilayet of Mosul itself. I want to make a few remarks in regard to Mosul. Apart from being the most beautiful city in the whole of the Middle East, it has one other remarkable aspect, namely, that in the neighbourhood of Mosul are to be found the only stone quarries in the whole of Iraq. If in the future, as we hope will be the case, Bagdad and all the big cities are going to advance and improve, this stone, which is known as Mosul marble, will be of great utility to the whole country.
  I am leaving out this evening the question of the strategic importance of Mosul. I think it has been definitely and very clearly laid down in the evidence given to the League of Nations, and this evening in this House, that without
  2122
  Mosul the Kingdom of Iraq cannot possibly exist. To suggest, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) did that we could retire to Basra and limit our expenditure to that area simply demonstrates that the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly appreciate the situation. We could not possibly either defend the Anglo-Persian oil fields or maintain the independent Kingdom of Iraq by doing so. Around the district of Mosul as we have heard, there are some hundred thousand Christians made up of Nestorians, Jacobites, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, and all these different sects of Christianity, strange to say, live in perfect peace and tranquillity, and further north there are the devil worshippers or the Yezidis, and we find that these people also are only too anxious to remain under the Government of Iraq with the support and assistance of the Christian mandate of Great Britain. I should like to emphasise what has been said already in regard to oil. I took a considerable amount of trouble to find out the facts of the situation when I was in Iraq. It is not absolutely accurate to say that there has been no definite finding of oil in Iraq up to date, because in one of the transferred territories, namely Kanikin, on the Persian border, wells have been found, but the place belongs to the Anglo-Persian Company and has nothing to do with the Turkish Petroleum Company, and as a matter of fact I see. in to-day's newspaper that this oil is going to be utilised for the local and domestic purposes of the Kingdom of Iraq.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member says it has nothing to do with the Turkish Petroleum Company, but am I not right in saying that the Anglo-Persian Company owns about 25 per cent. of the Turkish Petroleum Company?
  Captain CAZALET: I believe that is perfectly Correct, but the Khanikin oil wells is something totally separate from any negotiations which have been taking place with the Iraq Government in regard to oil. As regards the hon. and gallant Member's point about the oil which is supposed to exist around Mosul, I would point out that the only method of using oil for commercial purposes is to transport it across the desert by means of a

  2123
  pipe-line to the Mediterranean, and this would entail an expenditure of some £10,000,000. Therefore, in order that oil should be made an economic proposition it is obvious that it will be necessary to get a tremendous quantity of it. So far I understand no one has ascertained whether or not the oil is there in sufficient quantities, and even if it is there in large quantities, it is doubtful it it will be of the quality which is desired and necessary in order to make it a commercial proposition. I think more nonsense is talked in this House, and more insinuations are made on this point than on any other subject, namely, in regard to the Government's action being animated by the question of oil. One might imagine that oil was the only thing in Iraq, because Iraq is never mentioned in this House without the question of oil immediately arising. In the country itself, however, the question of oil is hardly ever mentioned except among a very few people indeed.
  I do not think any speaker has paid sufficient attention to the work which the British nation through its civil servants has done and is doing in Iraq. I defy anyone who visits that country not to come back a supporter of the Motion which is before the House. I think that there we are avoiding the mistakes which we made in Egypt. The ordinary procedure of Great Britain, when for one reason or another we find ourselves in an Eastern country, is on the following lines. We impose upon the people a standard of civilisation, a certain code of morals, honesty and justice, and we hold out to them the ideal of a democratic Government. All these are totally foreign and contrary to the nature of the people. The result is that we have to stay there and support this higher standard of civilisation by military force or we clear out of the country, and chaos ensues. In Iraq the Royal Air Force controls the whole country very efficiently and is as popular with the people of Iraq, as it is essential for the safety and security of their frontiers. I think I am the only Member of this House who was present at the opening of the Iraq Parliament last year. Among other things which were of interest in connection with that event, I was impressed by the total absence of any sign of British domination or interference. It was also worthy
  2124
  of note that in Iraq one saw the British constitution, almost exactly as we know it in this country, put down in writing for the first time in history and an effort made to carry it into effect.
  We have even gone so far as to show that we conform to the idea of the independence of the Iraq people both in letter and spirit, and now the Englishmen who are there no longer call themselves advisers, but assistant inspectors out of sympathy with the wishes of the Iraq people, and never do we on any occasion, except occasions of vital interest to the whole Kingdom, interfere in the local internal affairs of Iraq. It is impossible to exaggerate the work that we have done in Iraq, and I do not think that since the days of Nebuchadnezzar has this country enjoyed such peace and good government. You may wander as I did by the water of Babylon, and your peaceful meditations will only be disturbed by the whistle of the trains or the hooting of the motor cars as they speed their way across the desert from Hillah to Bagdad. One might safely say to-day that it is possible to drive mules laden with gold from Basra in the South to Mosul in the North without interference. I visited what are the third and fourth most sacred cities of the Mohammedan world, namely, Nejir and Kebala, formerly hot-beds of sedition, and where no foreigner formerly could show himself. I want there without any protection when there was no European within 50 miles, and I can assure hon. Members that one was much lees likely to be molested walking around the native bazaars there than if one were walking through Hyde Park to-day.
  Iraq is the lynch-pin of the Middle East, and unless you have peace in Iraq you will get no trade or commerce throughout the whole of that region. As regards the future, I am perfectly certain now that we are going to get a definite settlement of our position in regard to Iraq, that with perhaps increased loans and more irrigation, the possibilities are incalculable. There is one Reason why trade has not flourished more between Iraq and Persia. A mere glance at the map shows how these two countries must inevitably be linked together—in fact all the produce which we in Europe sent to Persia has almost inevitably to go through Iraq. One of the reasons why trade has

  2125
  not flourished hitherto is because the Persians did not know what was going to happen in Iraq in four years' time, and their attitude towards us might be expressed in this way. "You came to Iraq during the war, and you conquered the land by force of arms. Therefore, you have the greatest right that we know in the world."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We advanced and took the vilayet of Mosul when we had agreed to remain within our lines.
  Captain CAZALET: That does not affect my point. We went to Iraq during the War, and everybody knows we expended much in conquering that country. The Persian regards that as sufficient reason for possessing the country and taking it over ourselves. We govern it for two or three years after the War and then we suddenly announce that we are going to leave in four years time. The Persians said: "We are not going to make a commercial arrangement with a Government of a country that we think will fail if you leave it in four years' time." But to-day, as a result, on the one hand, of Persia having got a very able, energetic, and absolutely honest Shah in Riza Khan, and, on the other hand, of the settlement that, I hope, will be concluded between this country and Iraq, I believe there will be a very large increase indeed in the trade between these two countries, to the betterment of trade generally, both in this country and throughout the whole of the East.
  Therefore, I would plead with the House, to support the Motion on the following grounds: First of all, because of our promises to the Arabs under the Anglo-French Protocol in 1918; secondly, because upon it depends the whole peace and prosperity of the Middle East; thirdly, because, I think, of the Christian sects in the Kingdom of Iraq, to whom we are under an obligation not to be measured in pounds, shillings and pence; fourthly, from an Imperial point of view, because, I think, it is essential that we should have in Iraq, which lies on the main air route between England and India, a place where we can land and keep our stores and supplies; and, fifthly, for two other and, to my mind, very practical reasons. If we do not accept the decision arrived at recently at
  2126
  Geneva, it means that in a few years' time we shall have to leave Iraq, and that means that we shall then have to leave Palestine, and if we leave Palestine the whole of our policy in Egypt will have to be reconsidered. That, I think, brings up problems which are too serious even for consideration. Finally, I, personally, believe, and I am informed on good authority, that it is far cheaper for us, from the point of view of actual cash, to remain in Iraq under present arrangements than to try and withdraw. If we did so, we should have to bring up several divisions from India, and the cost which it would entail would be far in excess of anything that we are now under guarantee to spend in Iraq in one year.
  I hope the House will do nothing to impede the steady progress and prosperity of this small country, because the only alternative is that it will be handed back to the withering yoke of the Turk. Last year, at Ur of the Chaldees, in the heart of Mesopotamia, certain tablets and remains were found, which proved, I was informed, that somewhere about the year 7000 B.C. there was a government in Mesopotamia which was a model of all the virtues, and that law and order and prosperity reigned throughout the land. Since that date Iraq has seen innumerable empires rise and fall within its territories, but it is only under the Turks that it finally lost its last vestige of glory and renown. Yet to-day at Babylon, Ctesiphon, and Hadra she still retains landmarks of her ancient glory, and I believe that to-day, under the protection of the League of Nations, and with the assistance of Great Britain, she may regain, if not surpass any former period of, her prosperity. Nothing but the refusal of this House to sanction the decision recently arrived at at Geneva can prevent this.
  Captain W. SHAW: I think it was rather ill-becoming the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) when he remarked that he thought the Prime Minister ought to have consulted the Turkish Embassy long before with regard to the position in Iraq. I would like to remind him that there was such a thing as the Treaty of Sevres, whereby the old Turkish Empire was dismembered. That would have been settled if it had not been for the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-

  2127
  ber for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The Government in power after the War refused to have anything to do with or to recognise the plenipotentiaries that came over on behalf of Turkey, and, therefore, our position right away through the Greek imbroglio to the present moment is largely, if not altogether, due to that remissness on the part of the then Government. That brought us into direct conflict with those who took over the Turkish Empire, namely, the representatives of Angora. We endeavoured to come to some terms with them, and we did so finally in the Treaty of Lausanne. It will 'be within the memory of this House what very great trouble there was in connection with that matter, because it was feared that even at the twelfth hour Lord Curzon, who was then representing this country, would not be able to effect a settlement, and I believe, if my memory serves me aright, that he even ordered a train to take him back again, (because he felt that the Turks did not intend to sign any treaty with our Government. Eventually, however, they did, and by that Treaty Turkey renounced all right and title over the various States controlled under the Mandate that we had from the League of Nations. One of those Mandates was, of course, that over Iraq.
  We know that, though that Treaty was accomplished, there was one thing that was left in dispute because no settlement could be arrived at, and that was the question of the frontier between Iraq and the present Turkish Empire, namely, Angora, It was, however, settled by the Treaty of Lausanne that that question of the decision of the northern frontier of Iraq should be settled by the League of Nations. Therefore, we ourselves, with Iraq, referred that question of the boundary as against Angora to be settled by the League of Nations, and the League appointed a Neutral Boundary Commission,, which was, let us remember, of a purely advisory character. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) stated that if we refused to accept the decision of the League of Nations, he did not see how it would affect the League's credit or our own. I think it would have affected both very much, because we ourselves had referred it to the League of Nations, and when we have referred as a nation to the League of Nations anything
  2128
  of a questionable nature which cannot be decided between two opposing parties, it is certainly up to our honour that we shall accept that which the League decides for us, because we said we would accept it.
  The Neutral Boundary Commission which was appointed unfortunately matte use of an unfortunate term, that certain newspapers, especially one, got hold of, when they said that the Northern territory was Turkish territory. To the -uninitiated that presented difficulties, but we have got to remember that under international law, any territory which has belonged to a Power still remains an integral part of that Power until it has been renounced or in some otter way has been given up Therefore, that Northern part of Iraq still under international law did constitute a part of Turkey in exactly the same way that certain of the lands that belong to Germany, and which we took, still belonged to Germany under international law until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, when she publicly renounced them, and then they became ours immediately.
  I noted very carefully what the Prime Minister said with regard to our undertaking with regard to Iraq. We certainly have got to bear in mind that this country is bearing very heavy taxation and that it is of very special interest to the taxpayers of this country that we shall not commit ourselves further than we are already committed. We are already terribly handicapped, and it is most important that if the Government are to retain the confidence of the country they should not commit themselves to any further financial obligations: than those to which we are already committed. Therefore I noted particularly that the Prime Minister stated that the undertaking after 1928 is not to spend money or to leave troops in Iraq but that the situation will be governed by the League of Nations. I trust that that will prove so because in our altruistic attitude we have still got to remember that we have got the interests of the taxpayer to consider.
  Another point which we have to bear in mind are the proportions of the population of Iraq. I was interested by the Prime Minister's statement in his answer to a question about the population of Iraq. He said that the population con-

  2129
  sisted of 166,000 Arabs, 61,000 Christians, and only 38,000 Turks. I cannot see, therefore, what interest Turkey has in Iraq, because it is the Arabs who are far the largest number and who control the situation. We are under a promise, after all, that we would support the Arabs until such time as they are able to govern themselves as a separate entity.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I intervene for a few moments before the right hon. Gentleman replies to invite him to make clear one or two points of importance in this Debate, and also perhaps to make some statement on the general position of Iraq which has not; loomed very largely in the Debate so far as I have heard it. The first point of importance which arises is about our obligation under the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as I understand the sense of that Treaty, although we agreed with Turkey that if we could not come to terms regarding the boundary of Iraq in nine months we would refer the matter to the Council of the League of Nations, I cannot find that any question beyond the delimitation of the boundary itself was to be referred.
  If that is so it is difficult to understand in what way the Council of the League felt that it had any power or authority to attach any condition about the mandate to the delimitation of the frontier itself. They are two really separate propositions. Attaching a condition for the prolongation of the mandate for a considerable number of years has placed the House in considerable difficulty to-night. The delimitation of the frontier of Iraq is not a question between us and Turkey but between Iraq and Turkey. When you couple with it an obligation that may involve the British taxpayer in very considerable liability for 25 years it seems to to me pub us in a very difficult and somewhat unfair position.
  We are none of us anxious, I am sure, in any quarter of the House to do anything which would look like a repudiation of an award by the Council of the League. Nothing would be more unfortunate or more disastrous for the League than if we appealed for an award, they gave it, and then we repudiated it. If we took such a step it seems to me that the whole authority of the League ever afterwards would be infinitely diminished and our own position in all League discussions
  2130
  would be very much suspect. I will not take the responsibility of voting against the decision come to by the Government.
  If we look at it after all from the standpoint of the British taxpayer and the British people we are entitled to know— and I think my right hon. Friend will be able to satisfy them—how far this 20 years' mandate obligations arise under a treaty we have already sanctioned and how far they are new obligations. A. great deal of our Debate to-day largely turns upon the interpretation of the treaties and the decision of the Council of the League. There is another aspect about which I hope the Colonial Secretary will tell the House and the country more. That is the question of Iraq itself. Everybody is confident that this frontier on that line is a necessity for its continued existence. It seems to be assumed by many people that this vast territory whose ancient ruins show a teeming population and a high state of civilisation is incapable of being made not a liability but an asset. It is assumed that the British taxpayer is bound to go on bearing a heavy burden for a long number of years in order to enable this country to become once again self-supporting. Many people doubt whether even at any length of time you can ever restore it to its former prosperity.
  I do not profess to be an expert on that subject. I have never had an opportunity of visiting the country, although I have met a good many people who have known it all their lives and are intimately acquainted with it. It seems so far as I can gather to be in the general position of many countries once fertile, now neglected, through bad administration and bad government, fallen into a state of neglect which to a superficial observer appears hopeless. Our general experience is that with a stable Government and sufficient capital they become very valuable assets. Therefore, I do not think we should lightly throw away the opportunity in these days of giving the guidance, protection and security for development, which we alone can give in Eastern countries, to a very important part of the world which may prove to be in time to come one of the few remaining open sources for the growing of cotton, the growing of wheat, the growing of other produce which we shall want, and a

  2131
  market for our industrial goods and for our industrial population.
  Again, I do not think we can altogether ignore the fact that this country is somewhat of a key position, a direct route to the great empire of India, and a link in the great air service we Rope to see established. From that point of view, I feel that it would be useful, and, in fact, invaluable, in view of the kind of representations which have been made so often, if we could have some authoritative expression of opinion, because with British taxpayers so greatly harassed, economy is much the order of the day, and it would be interesting for us to know what real economy in money would be, effected by the withdrawal of the Air Force, which, I take it, would not be disbanded, but merely transferred somewhere else; also how long it is considered necessary, in regard to our relations with Turkey, to come to a decision, which, I was glad to hear from the Prime Minister, he was personally endeavouring to bring about. Surely, if that be successful, as we all hope, and the country, as I am told, is settling down and developing, we ought to be able to look forward to a reduction of our military forces, and a reduction which would lift a very heavy burden from ourselves.
  We cannot afford to play fast and loose with these big imperial problems. The British Empire was never brought up on a policy of running away. It may be we have one of two decisions to make—to maintain or give it up. So far as I am concerned, I will never give a vote in this House or anywhere else which would in any way jeopardise, endanger or minimise the great Empire which has done so much for the progress of order and civilisation. It is easy for people to talk about going away, but if they were to see those countries and the influences of a few British in creating order, sanitation and education, and realise the chaos that would result from their withdrawal, they would come to the conclusion that we cannot afford not to proceed with our great mission. Therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend, when he comes to speak, will address himself, or a few words at any rate, to what may be considered not only the League of Nations aspect, but that imperial aspect which, I believe, 'will still appeal to the people of this country, still appeal to all who
  2132
  feel we still have a mission to fulfil, that we must still go on until it is realised that our word, our contract, is as sacred are ever. It is at once our strength, our glory, and you might say our expense.
  I am not one of those who believe that because we are passing through heavy economic difficulties, we should be terrified about thinking of the future which must lie before the people of this country; just as little as I believed, in the business with which I am connected, that when depression came that was the time to shut up, disband my staff, disorganise my business and cease operations. Quite the contrary; it was a time for bending one's mind to enlarging one's market, to increasing one's efficiency and to going on with a view to future development. The British people, therefore, should not listen to the counsels of those who despair of the future, and who insist on saving at any cost to our national honour or future development.
  Holding these views strongly, clearly and decidedly, I am glad to think we shall, at any rate, have a unanimous decision on Mosul to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!" and "Yes!"] There may be still some who do not agree, but we shall be nearer unanimity than this House has ever been in my experience, and I hope that we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that His Majesty's Government will obtain in the field of conciliation results which are so often obtained in that direction. We ought to try, at any rate, to live at peace with Turkey. We cannot very well avoid doing so. We shall never do so by running away from them. We shall never do so by leaving the impression that, whatever happens, we at any rate will not defend anything we think proper to defend.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No one suggests running away.
  Sir A. MOND: I am merely stating what I believe to be a fact. You cannot negotiate by giving the other man the impression that he can get whatever he asks. I have no doubt that we can leave that in the hands of the Prime Minister. On the other hand, I think we ought to avoid some of our tactics in diplomacy which have caused trouble in the past, in sometimes trying perhaps to be too clever, and sometimes too overbearing. I

  2133
  think we should at least convince the Turks of our sincerity and of our strength, and I think we might come to some lasting arrangement, and on that lasting arrangement could be based a reduction of expenditure with profit and advantage to ourselves. At the same time maintaining our loyalty to the League, our pledge to the population of Iraq and the dignity of our country, we shall emerge successfully from one of the most difficult problems which has ever harassed successive Governments—and I say "successive" deliberately—causing difficulty and anxiety unless the golden opportunity is taken now in order to arrive at a solution.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The speech to which we have just listened is, I think, typical of the whole tone in which this subject has been discussed this evening. It has been thoughtful and considerate, in some instances no doubt critical, but always worthy of an Assembly not unmindful of its great Imperial responsibilities. That tone is very different, indeed, from the tone in which this question has been discussed in certain quarters outside. The Prime Minister, in his statement, made it clear that so far as our attitude in accepting the award of the League of Nations was concerned, and the conditions with which that award was coupled, it was only the attitude which every successive Government has taken up on this question since the matter of the Iraq frontier was first raised by the Turks three years ago.
  My right hon. Friend opposite has asked me to say something on the broader question of the whole position in Iraq. There, too, the policy that the present Government is pursuing is only the policy which every Government has pursued since the War. It is not we who were first confronted with the problem, the grave, anxious problem of the responsibilities which we undertook in Iraq during the War. The pledges and assurances which were given at various stages of the War have been quoted in this House on more than one occasion. Some of them have been quoted to-night. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote them, and I shall sum them up in a phrase used by Lord
  2134
  Curzon at Lausanne in January, 1933. Lord Curzon then said:
  "The British Government are under a very definite pledge, first of all to the Arab nation to whom they promised that they should not be returned to Turkish rule; secondly, that to the Arab King who' was elected by the whole country, including Mosul, and with whom we have entered into an obligation; and, thirdly, to the League of Nations, without whose consent we cannot abandon our mandate over a large portion of mandated territory."
  Those obligations may be inconvenient. So were other obligations which we incurred in the War. But we cannot afford to dishonour them. The problem which has been before us ever since the Armistice is how we should discharge those obligations honourably without at the same time imposing on the taxpayers of this country burdens wholly beyond their capacity to bear. That is a problem which is not a new one. The light hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) gave expression to his anxieties in this matter. They were shared by those members of his own party who took part in the Coalition Government, and who were confronted with the problem then. They were faced with impossible expenditure in the occupation of Iraq. Figures have been quoted freely, I know, which are intrinsically absurd. We have been told that Iraq has cost £175,000,000. That is a figure which includes the vast expenditure on demobilisation which we had to incur there just as much as we had to incur many tens of millions of the same kind of expenditure in France, Italy and other places. It also included the heavy cost, of an unfortunate rebellion. Even so, it is undoubtedly true that the administration of Iraq was imposing an altogether unduly burdensome task upon the British taxpayer.
  The Coalition Government was the first to make an attempt to grapple with the problem. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he occupied the post that I hold to-day went out to the East to see what it was that made the position in Iraq so difficult and so costly. He found out that there were two causes which affected Iraq. One was the attempt we were making to hold a vast open territory, devoid of almost all means of communication, with slow moving ground troops. The other was the fact that, contrary

  2135
  to the spirit of our pledges, we were endeavouring to impose upon Iraq a system of administration unsuited to the conditions of the country, profoundly unpopular with the people, and essentially and inherently costly. With great courage and with great insight my right hon. Friend grappled with that problem. He decided on the military side that our great forces there should be resolutely reduced, and the main burden and responsibility for the maintenance of internal and external security of the country should be laid on the new, and for that purpose, the untried weapon of the Air Force.
  He also decided that we should sweep away the system of direct administration, and substitute for it a system of free cooperation with the people of the country and the trusted members of their own Government, and with their own support and under their own free constitution, we should support and help and guide them through the medium of a Treaty of Alliance. A Treaty, from the point of view of Iraq, was that to which they were more susceptible, and in which they would take more pride, and at the same time, so far as our obligations to the League of Nations was concerned, would carry out all the essential elements of our mandatory obligation. That was the situation in 1021. In the following year that Treaty was signed between the British Government and the Government of Iraq.
  There was a change of Government. A new Government had to face a new situation. The situation at the beginning of 1923 was graver than at any time before or since. We were confronted with a Turkey flushed with victory and of internal re-organisation which to-day confront the statesmen of Angora. We were confronted with a difficult state of affairs in Iraq. In face of that situation a new Prime Minister (Mr. Bonar Law) asked his Cabinet to reconsider the whole situation from the beginning. For months we discussed the problem, asking ourselves whether it might be possible to solve it by abandoning our responsibilities in Iraq. We studied the problem. We came quite definitely to the conclusion that any immediate withdrawal from Iraq would not only be more costly but, from a military point of view, more difficult to
  2136
  achieve. It would involve the downfall of the kingdom of Iraq. It would be regarded throughout the Eastern world as a breach of faith towads Iraq, and would inflict irreparable damage on British honour and prestige throughout the East. That was the view taken by a Government which approached this problem in a sceptical spirit, for it was only too anxious to get rid of obligations which they thought irksome.
  But when they studied the problem they came to the same conclusion as their predecessors, namely, that it was not to be solved by any short cut, not by scuttling or running away, but by a resolute, manful endeavour to build up as rapidly as possible in Iraq, and by the help of the people of the country, a condition of things which would enable Iraq to stand on its own feet, and by so doing enable us to discharge our obligations and to regard our Responsibilities as fulfilled. In discussing that problem the Cabinet did consider very seriously how soon the financial and military commitments which we had undertaken in Iraq could honourably and safely be brought to an end. The Treaty which had been signed was one of 20 years, and the military and. financial agreements attached to it and extending to the same period dad stipulate expressly that Iraq should, at the earliest possible date, accept full responsibility, both for the maintenance of internal order and for the defence of Iraq from external aggression. But, on the other hand, beyond that general stipulation, no definite date within the 20 years' currency of the Treaty had been laid down for the fulfilment of these essential conditions.
  To remove the not unnatural apprehension which that created in the House of Commons at the time, the Cabinet came to the conclusion that the Treaty, whose ratification it considered could not honourably be withheld, should be supplemented by a Protocol which terminated the main provisions of the Treaty, and, more particularly, our military and financial obligations, within a much shorter period, but which at the same time, as the Prime Minister made abundantly clear earlier to-day, expressly laid down that negotiations should be entered into for the conclusion of a future Treaty embodying our permanent relations, when they should become relations of mutual assistance and help and

  2137
  no longer a purely one-sided dependence on the part of Iraq on this country. That was the attitude taken up by the former Unionist Government.
  But, as the Primes Minister pointed out this afternoon, that attitude was equally the attitude of the Labour Government that succeeded. When they had to face, not only their obligations towards Iraq, but their obligations towards the League of Nations, they gave an assurance to the League of Nations that if Iraq had not entered the League by 1928, then the Government of this country would leave it to the League to decide what further measures might be required for carrying out our mandatory responsibility. in the face of that assurance, given, not by a Government on this side, but by a Government which for the moment does not grace the Labour benches opposite, it is really difficult to understand the meaning of the Motion on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman who should be opposite:
  "That in the opinion of this House the period for which this country assumed responsibility for Iraq should not be prolonged."
  Why? Only a year ago they pledged themselves to the League of Nations that they would prolong that responsibility. I am not surprised, in view of that fact, that they prefer to avoid having to explain the discrepancy between the Motion they have put on the Paper and the Resolution which by their own record they are bound to support.
  10.0 P.M.
  A question which my right hon. Friend opposite has asked is, how is that policy of successive Governments actually working in Iraq? I had the privilege a few months ago, in company with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Air, to visit Iraq, in order that we might try to see for ourselves how that policy was working, and how the progressive reduction of expenditure which that policy contemplated was being carried out, and how, if possible, it could be accelerated.
  We found that that policy, laid down by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and carried on by successive Governments, is a policy that is working. We found that as regards defence, in spite of the enormous reduction of forces, complete peace and order prevailed from one end of that country to the other;
  2138
  that the Air Force, with a small but keen and efficient police, with an administration understood by the people, had established a state of affairs that that country had not known for a thousand years. I do not think that anyone who has been there could fail to be proud of the work which the Air Force has done in Iraq. I venture to say that that Air Force, for its keenness, for efficiency all round, for continuous flying experience, is a force the like of which does not exist in the world elsewhere. And that success has been achieved consistently with a continuous and rapid reduction of expenditure.
  May I give the House a few figures to show how progressive the reduction has been. In the year 1920–21 we were spending £32,000,000 a year in Iraq. In 1921–22 the figure was £23,000,000. In 1922–23 after the new policy had begun to take effect, the figure had been brought below £8,000,000; in the following year below £6,000,000; and in the year after that below £4,750,000. The current Estimates are a little over £4,000,000. That is expenditure in Iraq. But it is not by any means all expenditure on Iraq. The House of Commons knows perfectly well that we spend very large sums in Malta for the Navy. We do not credit those sums as the cost of Malta to the Imperial taxpayer. For the sake of effecting these reductions the present Chancellor of the Exchequer four years ago put all expenditure in Iraq upon the Middle Eastern Vote. Of the present expenditure of £4,000,000 about half is actual expenditure on Iraq, expenditure which need not recur once Iraq is capable of taking it upon its own shoulders; and the other £2,000,000 represents expenditure upon that wonderful Air weapon which is at this moment being maintained in that particular area.
  I do not think that anyone will suggest that if it were not maintained there the whole of it would disappear or simply be incorporated in our home defence. A great part of it, at any rate, would be required somewhere in those regions, and I confess that I know of no part of the Middle East where it could be maintained in such efficiency and in so central and effective a position. Be that as it may, the conviction with which the Secretary of State for Air and I came back from that visit was that, given a settlement to the frontier question, given security and

  2139
  a permanent policy, we should be able to make greater progressive reductions during the next two years, and be able to arrive, by the time laid down in the present treaty, or at any rate very nearly within that time, at a stage when Iraq no longer required financial or military support from the Imperial taxpayer, and when it could stand on its own feet and pay its own way.
  That is the military position. I may add that Iraq is perhaps a little nearer to paying its own way than is usually realised. It pays the whole cost of the Civil administration, pays for the whole of the force of 7,000 police and for a rapidly growing and improving army of 8,000 men, and within a very few years will be able to take over the whole of the ground expenditure now incurred in that country, and, I believe also, pay towards whatever air expenditure is required for the actual security of the country itself. I have given credit to the Air Force for what was done, not undeservedly. I should like to add that its success cannot be dissociated from the success of the political policy that has been followed under the guidance of men like Sir Percy Cox and Sir Henry Dobbs, who understand the people of the country, and who like the people of the country, aided by a little handful of British officials. We have built up a machinery for native self-government in that country which, I venture to say, we here, in this old country can well be proud of.
  Nothing, even in the early days of Egypt, in the time of Lord Cromer or Lord Milner, equals the fine, noble work that little body of British officials have done out there, with very little recognition, with no certainty of tenure for themselves, with a sense of duty towards the country in which they were working, and a pride in the Empire on whose behalf they held its lonely outposts. They have worked in a spirit which I believe may avoid some of the mistakes we made in Egypt in the earlier days, in a spirit which has done marvels, not only in peace and security, but in health and sanitation, and education, and which has aimed at doing it, not by the suppression of the native administration, but by a true spirit of brotherly co-operation. Nothing more interested me, than what I saw of the real whole-hearted friendship
  2140
  and co-operation between the Iraq officials in the country and the British counsellors and advisers, who worked by their side, and never lost an opportunity of giving them full chance of doing the work.
  We may be asked, is that system of government stable? The Commission set up by the League of Nations were inclined to doubt its permanency. I believe it has already made far more progress towards real stability than anyone here realises. It has the making of a true national life, patriotic, keen and yet tolerant in that, country, and you have there a people who are really anxious to make their way. I know that the financial position is still a difficulty. The burden of the Ottoman debt imposed upon Iraq is not a. small thing for a struggling little country to tackle, but I am convinced that Iraq will not only pay its way during the next few years, but will steadily shoulder, as I have already said, the burdens that we are carrying for her.
  From the economic point of view, I entirely agree with what fell from my right hon. Friend opposite. It is a country capable of immense results. After all, it once was one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world. The city of Bagdad, when. Hulagu sacked it 700 years ago, contained more people than the whole of the country contains to-day, and if Iraq is derelict, was not Egypt nearly derelict 50 years ago when we first took it in hand? Is there any prophecy about the futility of our attempts in bring about regeneration in Iraq which was not made by critics about Egypt in those days? The whole system of irrigation has been allowed to fail; great tracts of land want draining; great capital expenditure may be required before the rivers of Paradise can be harnessed and made fruitful like Father Nile: but it can be done, and nothing will bring that nearer than security, than a clear knowledge of our intentions. A very true word was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) when he said that the longer and the more definite the obligation we undertake for Iraq, the speedier will the day come when we can clear off that obligation altogether.
  There is one other economic point which I might mention in that connection,

  2141
  because it is alluded to so often by more than one hon. Member in a wholly misleading sense, and that is the part that the development of oil will play in the future prosperity of the country. I need not repeat that no interest of any sort directly concerned with oil has influenced the policy of the British Government, or of any British Government. But it is undoubtedly true that if oil should be discovered in considerable quantities, it will undoubtedly bring development and revenue to the country. The contract between the Turkish Petroleum Company and the Iraq Government is a more favourable contract to a Government than any oil contract I know of elsewhere, and if—and the matter is not yet proved —oil should be proved, then the Iraq Government may get an increase of revenue which will enable it to find the money for dealing usefully with that far more important liquid, the water of the country, the irrigation.
  Another thing we found when out there was that all development was waiting to know clearly what our intentions were. On every hand by the people of Iraq and our officials we were asked: "Is it the intention of the Government to carry out the pledges given in the Protocol, and after 1928 to remain in treaty alliance and in co-operation with Iraq or not?" The other thing for which development was waiting was the settlement of the dispute as to the frontier.
  On the question of the frontier, I should like—I trust I am not trespassing too long—to say something. When the War came to an end with the Armistice, we were a few miles out of Mosul. We had already occupied the greater part of Mosul province. In accordance with the terms of the Armistice, we occupied Mosul itself, and the rest of what was Mesopotamia up to what was the natural frontier. We advanced to the mountain range, the natural, geographical, commercial and racial frontier of Iraq. We made no attempt to advance an inch into anything which could be considered Turkish territory in any proper sense of the word. From that time on Iraq has been, within its present frontier, regarded as a unit, both by the world outside and by its own people. All the arrangements between the great Powers and before the League of Nations for the assignment and establishment of a Mandate dealt with the country
  2142
  in its present territory. The present frontiers substantially were accepted by Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres, signed in August, 1920.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not by Turkey, but by the Sultan.
  Mr. AMERY: The Government of the Sultan was then the legal Government of Turkey. I shall come later to the new revolutionary Government, which took its place, and which repudiated it; but in any case that Government accepted that frontier. Internally, Iraq has been a unit from that time. It is an economic unit, as the Commission of the League clearly showed. Its whole trade works together, and Bagdad and Mosul naturally work together on a single trade system. It took part as a single country in the election of its present monarchy, in the election of the Constituent Assembly which framed the constitution under which it lives, and in the election of the present Assembly which has declared its desire to remain in treaty relationship with us; and it has developed as a single unit on lines of progressive administration which in a few years have made it an utterly different country either from what Iraq was before the War or from what any part of the Turkish State is to-day.
  The Turkish demand which would take away from Iraq an essential and integral part of its territory, the richest of its provinces, is essentially a demand for a complete reversal of the order of things set up after the War—not only territorially, but because it entirely reverses the spirit of a settlement on national and racial lines on which the system since the War has been based. For that claim there is no justification from the point of view of defence. The present frontier is an admirable defensive frontier from the Turkish point of view, as it is from our own. There is no justification from the point of view of race. There are practically no Turks in that province. A little scattered island of Turkomans, kindred in race and language, live at the other end of the province, most remote from the frontier.
  There is no case, either, to be founded on the wishes of the inhabitants; the last-thing the people of Iraq wish is to be put back under Turkish rule. More than that, there is no legal claim for the restoration to Turkey. I want to dwell

  2143
  on that point, because it is one which has been so systematically misrepresented in some of the Press. The Commission of the League pointed out, in what I cannot conceive to be very happy legal phraseology, that till the final Treaty of Peace settled the frontiers, the original sovereignty of Turkey, in some sense, still subsisted over all the regions that had belonged to her. The Hague Court, a legal authority which I think no one in this House will query, put the thing more correctly when it said that under Article 16, of the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey had renounced all rights and claims outside the frontiers laid down in . the Treaty, and that in respect of the Iraq frontier, pending the actual fixing of the frontier, that renunciation was still, in a certain measure, in suspense.
  It will no longer remain in suspense when we have carried out the conditions which the League has coupled with its award, and from that moment all shadow of Turkish suzerainty will disappear. Whatever that shadow may be, it extends to Mosul no more than it does to Bagdad or Basra. The legal right of Iraq to Mosul is in every respect as good as its light to Bagdad. In face of these facts it is interesting to notice in the hysterical Press this morning the statement that our presence in Mosul is an offence against justice. I venture to say that that statement is an offence against truth, and an offence truly characteristic of the systematic and deliberate misrepresentation of a campaign which I confess seems to me to be only intelligible on one. motive, that of wishing to incite Turkey to war with this country.
  I think I have made it clear that the claim on the part of Turkey to reverse the system established since the War has no justification, but, however little justified it might have been, I can assure this House that the Government of this country, with its many responsibilities, would not. have been afraid of negotiating or offering a compromise with regard to that claim if we thought it would improve the relations between the two countries. But the facts are such that any concession to this unjustified claim would be impossible. The present frontier is the one easily defensible frontier in the country, and any frontier drawn back from the present
  2144
  one would be an indefensible one, and one which would involve Iraq and us in much heavier military expenditure. At the same time, to go back would deprive Iraq of some of its richest territory and best recruits, and would leave that country crippled in her resources with a much heavier task before her. Therefore, any retreat from the present frontier is one that so far from lightening the burdens of the taxpayer would increase them, and would defer for many years the period which we hope will soon come when Iraq will stand on its own. It would mean more than that. It would mean an injustice to the State of Iraq, and it would mean a great injustice to the peoples whose interests we should have to sacrifice more immediately.
  Does anyone think that the Kurds who now enjoy a certain measure of political toleration, who can appoint their own local officers and use their own language, would welcome the steam roller of the uniform levelling Turkish machine across the border? Does anyone think the Arabs of Mosul, one of the chief cities of the-Arab world, would wish to be reduced to the level of a Turkish provincial town? Again we have a responsibility, and a very definite responsibility, towards the 70,000 or 80,000 Christians in that province who live immediately up against our frontier. I think most hon. Members have read the White Paper which gives the story of the manner in which certain deportations were curried out across the frontier. It is a horrible story. I am not going to harrow the feelings of the House by repeating anything that is contained in that terrible indictment; but, after all, have we any right to expose the people whom we liberated, to whom we have given a measure of freedom, self-government and toleration that they have never known before, to a return to that state of things?
  I am not one of those who think that it is the duty of this nation to carry on a crusade in every part of the world. Terrible things have happened in many parts that we were powerless to prevent, and with which we could not have dealt except at the cost of creating worse disasters. But here are responsibilities which we have undertaken, and which we are in honour bound to carry out, and in that case I think we are entitled to let some weight rest in the scale of our

  2145
  responsibility towards a people who enjoy happiness and freedom now, but who might suffer unspeakable misery if any change were made. One thing that is certain is that if we gave up that territory these hapless people would come down to us as refugees, and we should be forced to spend vast sums in sustaining them. We have already spent millions after the War in sustaining refugees, and I do not think we wish to be faced with that burden again.
  I venture to think that the claim which is put forward that we should reverse the whole present system in Iraq is one that we are bound to resist. We might quite well have stood on the frontier and refused to enter into any discussion; but we took a different and, I believe, a better course. We showed our faith in the justice of our cause, and our desire to promote the principle of peaceful settlement, by submitting the whole of that question to the arbitrament of the League. That was the original view embodied in the Treaty of Lausanne; that was the view of the Labour Government which followed, and it was not we, but the Labour Government, who after spending a certain number of months in endeavouring to arrive at a direct settlement with Turkey, during which negotiations they steadfastly refused to make any concession which would from their point of view prejudice the safety or the well-being of Iraq—it was they who referred the matter to the League in September, 1924, and definitely announced that they pledged themselves beforehand to accept the judgment of the League. I may add that, on that occasion at any rate, the Turkish representative equally pledged his Government to obey the decision of the League. It was on the strength of that assurance that the Commission of the League was sent out. That pledge has been repudiated since—unwisely, as I think—but it still stands on record as what Turkey believed to be the situation only a year ago.
  It was on the strength of these assurances that the League sent out its Commission of three. That Commission reported very much what I laid before the House just now—that the Province of Mosul belonged naturally to Iraq, and that its people wished to remain united with it. The Commission was also profoundly impressed by what impressed myself
  2146
  and the Secretary of State for Air, namely, the wish of every section of the people of the country that British influence and guidance should remain associated with the Government of Iraq. It was for that reason that they coupled, with their recommendation that Iraq should remain intact, a stipulation that the present state of affairs, the present influence and guidance upon the course of Iraq policy, should continue for a long period of years.
  That may be an inconvenient and awkward condition to attach, but, surely, it is a great compliment to the work that England has done in Iraq. Was ever such a compliment paid to a nation before by a body of neutral visitors as the statement that the stability and prosperity of the people of that country, from the point of view of the wishes of the people themselves, were coupled with continuous help and support from a foreign Power? That recommendation faced the Government of this country with a very direct question, whether it did in fact mean to carry out the terms of the Protocol with Iraq and the declaration the last Government made at the Council of the League a year ago. Now my right hon. Friend says that was a rather irrelevant and unfair question. I am not sure. They were asked to settle the frontier in the interest of the people concerned, and they believed that interest would be best served by the present frontier and by the present political co-operation of the British in Iraq.
  When the question was put, what possible answer could there be? Let me remind the House that we had pledged ourselves both to Iraq and to the League to continue in treaty relations after the present Treaty expired. Let me also remind the House that by the whole course of our policy we are pledged to support Iraq's claim to its present territory—not this Government only but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), the late Colonial Secretary, in July of last year had it publicly announced in Bagdad and throughout Iraq that His Majesty's Government had no intention whatever of abandoning their support to the frontier claim which had been brought forward on behalf of Iraq at Constantinople. What answer could we give? We were pledged to prolong the Treaty. We were

  2147
  pledged to support the claim of Iraq. Was I, on behalf of the British Govern-to say to Iraq, "We are bound by two pledges, one to continue in treaty relationship with you after 1928, the other to defend your frontier"?
  "We are prepared to refuse to honour the first pledge in order that we may have an excuse for dishonouring the second." Or was I to go to the League of Nations and say, "The late Government pledged itself to continue mandatory relations with Iraq if necessary. We believe a certain decision which you wish to give to be the only just and fair one, but we will go back on the pledge of our predecessors in order to enable you to give a decision which we know to be unjust, which we know will be disastrous to the people concerned, which we know will wreck the future of the young State we have been building up under the auspices of the League, and which we also know will for all time make it impossible for this country to get quit of its responsibilities in Iraq either with honour or with advantage."
  That at any rate was not the answer my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet instructed me to give. I gave the answer I gave on 3rd September to the League of Nations, that we were prepared, within the maximum limit of 25 years—I made it quite clear I believed Iraq would be ready for admission to the League of Nations long before that, and indeed the period was mentioned by the League not as a probable or certain period of the termination of our responsibilities but as a maximum period. I said then that for the maximum period we were prepared to continue our co-operation in maintaining the present administrative system in that country. I gave that declaration then. It was not asked of me again on the present occasion because, instead of that, the Council of the League announced its decision, and made that obligation a condition of the award.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) asked whether we were not in fact free to reject the award. I say in one sense we are free to reject it as it was, coupled with a condition which we can reject, in which case there may be some other award which the League can give. What I do say is that any other award would be
  2148
  disastrous for Iraq and this country, and the refusal of the conditions would be going back directly upon the whole policy which every Government has pursued in this country since the War.
  May I turn to the actual obligations which the League demands? The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that those obligations are not concerned with the question of what money we spend in Iraq, or whether we spend any money there at all. It has nothing to do and interferes in no way with the fulfilment of our policy of reducing expenditure in Iraq to a minimum, and, indeed, to vanishing point in the next few years. It has nothing to do with the question of what troops we maintain in Iraq.
  That, again, is one of those questions which the League of Nations never dreams of asking of any mandatory Power in regard to any territory. These are matters of our own responsibility. When it comes to the question of the future defence of that country, that is hypothetical, as the Prime Minister pointed out. Under the terms of the Military Agreement attached to the present Treaty, we are, undoubtedly, directly bound as allies to assist in the defence of Iraq against external aggression up to August, 1928. As regards the situation afterwards, I think the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear what that situation would be. If Iraq were, a perfectly independent State, a member of the League of Nations, we should have a certain obligation to prevent its territory from being wantonly violated.
  If the League of Nations means anything, it means that all nations in the League are bound to take some action in case of unwarrantable and unprovoked aggression. Certainly that obligation would not be the less during the years in which on behalf of the rest of the League of Nations we acted as mandatories in Iraq. In that case, as the Prime Minister made clear, the obligation which we have is one in which the League of Nations would be associated with us, and associated with us in a particular sense in respect of a violation of the decision which the League of Nations has come to in regard to the boundaries. In any case, in matters of that sort one cannot deal with hypothetical questions of the defence of any country in unforeseen circumstances. We have world-wide

  2149
  interests and there are many places where we could neither say to-day that we shall spring to their aid if they are attacked, with unlimited troops, nor that we shall regard invasion of their territory as a matter of indifference-. These are matters which must depend upon the circumstances at the time.
  I believe that when, we have settled this question, when Iraq is allowed to develop itself within its natural frontiers, the frontiers of natural political equilibrium, that aspect of the problem will not present itself again. After all, I believe that what we are concerned with in this matter, and that is what the League of Nations is concerned with, is not the problem of defence against some hypothetical attack, but with certain general principles of administration which the League wishes to see preserved in any territory in which it takes specific mandatory interest.
  The questions with which the League is concerned—and I shall deal with that matter more fully when the actual Treaty comes before the House—are such questions as the continued enforcement of the Organic law, prescribing a constitutional system of government, guaranteeing freedom of conscience, freedom of worship and equality of treatment for all races; the rights of communities to their own schools: reasonable safeguards for the interests of foreigners and a number of things of that sort which are of great importance from the point of view of the League. Nearly all these are things which we can secure quite easily through the presence of British officials and for which neither great expenditure of money nor the presence of armed forces is required.
  I will only say two things more. The Government have been charged, and I have been charged in particular, in this matter with taking up an unconciliatory and uncompromising attitude. I think the House will realise after the explanation I have given that as long as Turkey claimed a great province which we believe belongs of right to Iraq there was no common ground on which compromise could start. It was only when the question of right and. principle was settled that we got a datum line from which we could start and from which we could enter upon friendly discussion. I do not think anyone can
  2150
  suggest that either the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister lost a moment in showing their readiness, from the starting point of the recognition of Iraq's right to its own territory, to negotiate with Turkey for any adjustment or arrangement, whether territorial, financial, economic or political which would make the present settlement any easier for them and which would base it upon mutual agreement and a mutual willingness to co-operate.
  I have endeavoured to summarise—I know at somewhat great length—the whole sequence of policy of every British Government towards Iraq. It has been a policy of honouring our obligations, facing our responsibilities, and of endeavouring at the same time by practical measures to build up a state of affairs in that country which would make it possible for us at the earliest possible moment to regard those obligations as discharged and fulfilled. It is a policy which has already in large measure succeeded. Our expenditure in Iraq has been enormously reduced, and will be rapidly reduced in the next few years. Economic development is proceeding, and it may be something much greater than anyone has realised.
  There is also the great political fact. Surely it is no small thing that we have created in that country a system of government progressive, and yet essentially Oriental, a system of government which is national, and yet tolerant of minorities and which appreciates the help and support we have rendered. I believe it is a wonderful experiment on which we have started in that Near Eastern part of the world, and it may well be that we may yet reap an unlocked for reward for our efforts. I believe a strong and prosperous Iraq, with a healthy, independent national life of its own but closely associated in voluntary and even affectionate union, with the British Empire, may yet be an unforeseen source of economic and political strength to this country. But, believe me, a great problem like this cannot be solved by running away from it. It must be faced with forethought, with patience, with perseverance, with conciliation, and, if need be, with courage. Stumbling steps and wavering knees will never lead us to our goal, nor is it always prudent to turn back at the roar of every lion in the path. After all, some of these lions are very much like the lions which

  2151
  affrighted Christian at the entrance of the Palace Beautiful, chained—chained to the columns of their own newspapers, and incapable of doing the slightest harm to any wayfarer who walks resolutely in the middle of the path. There are other dangers, that may be more real, but with regard to these I do not believe that a lasting peace can ever be won by surrendering to menaces the just rights of those who trust you. I believe, on the contrary, that in this matter, from first to last, the present Government and every preceding Government have given evidence both of their wholehearted and sincere desire for peace and of their determination to honour
  their obligations. We shall, I firmly believe, find our way out of our present difficulties, create a permanent and lasting peace in the Near East, and, by doing so, win our reward for carrying through and fulfilling a task which has, I know, been anxious and difficult, but which is, I believe, a great task, worthy of a great Empire.
  Question put,
  "That this House approves the action taken by the representatives of His Majesty's Government at Geneva in accepting the award of the Council of the League of Nations on the Iraq boundary."
  The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 4.

  Division No. 505.]

  AYES.

  [10.48 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

  Cope, Major William

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

  Alexander, E. E, (Leyton)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Alexander, Sir wm. (Glasgow, Cenf't)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

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

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

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

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hopkins. J. W. W.

  Apsley, Lord

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Ashmead-Bartlett. S.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

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

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

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbart

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Edmonson, Major A, J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Elveden, Viscount

  Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Falie, Sir Bertram G.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Ford, P. J.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Loder, I. de V.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ganzoni, sir John

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gates, Percy

  Lumley, L. R.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  McLean, Major A.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  McNeiil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Hanbury, C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Charters, Brigadier-General J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Christie, J. A.

  Harvey, G, (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Morris, R. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Neville, R. J.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement

  Oakley, T.

  Samuel, Samuel (W' dsworth, Putney)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C

  Sandon, Lord

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Savery, S. S.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills, Westh'y)

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple)

  Perring, William George

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Philipson, Mabel

  Sketton, A. N.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Pilcher, G.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Smithers, Waldron

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  wise, Sir Fredric

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ramsden, E.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Wood B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Remer, J. R.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

  Rye, F. Q.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Colonel Gibbs.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  NOES.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fenby, T. D.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved,
  "That this House approves the action taken By the representatives of His Majesty's Government at Geneva in accepting the award of the Council of the League of Nations on the Iraq boundary."

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1382 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the Rural district of Reigate, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1925, be approved, subject to the following modifications, namely:
  2154
  The deletion of Clause 8 of the Fifth Schedule."—[Colonel Ashley.]
  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 Souse do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute before Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  RIVERS AND STREAMS (POLLUTION).
  RIVERS AND STREAMS (POLLUTION).
  PARISH RELIEF, LANARK.
  PARISH RELIEF, LANARK.
  POLICE, GLASGOW (BONUS).
  POLICE, GLASGOW (BONUS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  FOREIGN OFFICE.
  FOREIGN OFFICE.
  OFFICE OF WORKS (DISCHARGES).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (DISCHARGES).
  TAX OFFICES.
  TAX OFFICES.
  ORDNANCE OFFICE, PIMLICO.
  ORDNANCE OFFICE, PIMLICO.
  WAR OFFICE.
  WAR OFFICE.
  RECORD OFFICE, DEPTFORD (MESSENGERS).
  RECORD OFFICE, DEPTFORD (MESSENGERS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (STAFF).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (STAFF).
  WRITING ASSISTANTS AND SHORTHAND TYPISTS.
  WRITING ASSISTANTS AND SHORTHAND TYPISTS.
  DEPARTMENTAL MARKS.
  DEPARTMENTAL MARKS.
  SALARIES AND STAFFS.
  SALARIES AND STAFFS.
  TEMPORARY WOMEN SERVANTS.
  TEMPORARY WOMEN SERVANTS.
  CLERICAL CLASSES (VACANCIES).
  CLERICAL CLASSES (VACANCIES).
  ADMIRALTY (HEADQUARTERS STAFF).
  ADMIRALTY (HEADQUARTERS STAFF).
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (STEEL HOUSE CONSTRUCTION).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (STEEL HOUSE CONSTRUCTION).
  ROSYTH AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARDS (TRANSFEREES).
  ROSYTH AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARDS (TRANSFEREES).
  EXPENDITURE.
  EXPENDITURE.
  PERSONNEL.
  PERSONNEL.
BRITISH ARMY.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS.
  HOSPITALS.
  HOSPITALS.
  PHARMACISTS AND DISPENSERS.
  PHARMACISTS AND DISPENSERS.
  DISCHARGES.
  DISCHARGES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  WOUND PENSIONS.
  WOUND PENSIONS.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (CLOTHING).
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (CLOTHING).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
EX-SERVICE OFFICERS AND MEN.
  KING'S FUND.
  KING'S FUND.
  EX-RANKER OFFICERS.
  EX-RANKER OFFICERS.
  DISABLED OFFICERS (RETIREMENT RANK).
  DISABLED OFFICERS (RETIREMENT RANK).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ESTIMATES.
  ESTIMATES.
  HOSPITALS.
  HOSPITALS.
  PERSONNEL.
  PERSONNEL.
  FOODSTUFFS (COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION).
  FOODSTUFFS (COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION).
  VESSELS.
  VESSELS.
  HYDE PARK (LIGHT REFRESHMENTS).
  HYDE PARK (LIGHT REFRESHMENTS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ANNUNCIATORS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ANNUNCIATORS).
  PRE-WAR POLICE PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR POLICE PENSIONERS.
  CANDIDATES AT LOCAL ELECTIONS (DEPOSIT).
  CANDIDATES AT LOCAL ELECTIONS (DEPOSIT).
  BUILDING OPERATIONS (ACCIDENTS).
  BUILDING OPERATIONS (ACCIDENTS).
INDIA.
  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (RETURN).
  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (RETURN).
  ARMY DEPARTMENT (SUBORDINATE OFFICERS).
  ARMY DEPARTMENT (SUBORDINATE OFFICERS).
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ADMINISTRATION, BURMA).
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ADMINISTRATION, BURMA).
  LOSS OF S.S. "SUTTON."
  LOSS OF S.S. "SUTTON."
  LANGUARD LIGHTHOUSE (EXPLOSION).
  LANGUARD LIGHTHOUSE (EXPLOSION).
  BALANCE OF TRADE.
  BALANCE OF TRADE.
  SILK DUTY.
  SILK DUTY.
MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  PETROL PUMPS.
  PETROL PUMPS.
  TAXICABS AND DRIVERS.
  TAXICABS AND DRIVERS.
  STREET ACCIDENTS (RETURNS).
  STREET ACCIDENTS (RETURNS).
  HEAVY VEHICLES.
  HEAVY VEHICLES.
EDUCATION.
  GRANTS (CIRCULAR 1371).
  GRANTS (CIRCULAR 1371).
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  NIGEEIA.
  NIGEEIA.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  UGANDA COTTON (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  UGANDA COTTON (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD-SURFACING MATERIALS (TESTS).
  ROAD-SURFACING MATERIALS (TESTS).
  DOCK ROAD SCHIME.
  DOCK ROAD SCHIME.
  ROADS CLASSIFICATION.
  ROADS CLASSIFICATION.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LUNACY.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LUNACY.
  ROAD GRANTS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  ROAD GRANTS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  FIGHTING FORCES (CO-ORDINATION).
  FIGHTING FORCES (CO-ORDINATION).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MESTON COMMITTEE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MESTON COMMITTEE).
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  STAFFORDSHIRE.
  STAFFORDSHIRE.
  HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES, LONDON.
  HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES, LONDON.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  COUNTY OF LANARK.
  COUNTY OF LANARK.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  SHIPPING PROFITS (TAXATION).
  SHIPPING PROFITS (TAXATION).
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  FIGHTING SERVICES, HOUSING. DEBT, AND MANDATES.
  FIGHTING SERVICES, HOUSING. DEBT, AND MANDATES.
  GOVERNMENT STOCKHOLDERS
  GOVERNMENT STOCKHOLDERS
  POST-WAR DEPARTMENTS.
  POST-WAR DEPARTMENTS.
  EX-ENEMY SHIPS (SALES).
  EX-ENEMY SHIPS (SALES).
  LEICESTER PKISON (Mr. J. T. MADDOCK).
  LEICESTER PKISON (Mr. J. T. MADDOCK).
  LAW OFFICERS OF THE OROWN (EMOLUMENTS).
  LAW OFFICERS OF THE OROWN (EMOLUMENTS).
  SS. "EDITH CAVELL" (CAPTAIN JOYS).
  SS. "EDITH CAVELL" (CAPTAIN JOYS).
  RUSSIA (CONFERENCE).
  RUSSIA (CONFERENCE).
  IMPORTS (RETURN).
  IMPORTS (RETURN).
POST OFFICE.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY.
  LONDON PARCELS (DELIVERIES, NORTH OF INVERNESS).
  LONDON PARCELS (DELIVERIES, NORTH OF INVERNESS).
  STOWMARKET OFFICE (MR. T. W. CASH).
  STOWMARKET OFFICE (MR. T. W. CASH).
  ABERTILLERY (POSTING FACILITIES).
  ABERTILLERY (POSTING FACILITIES).
AGRICULTURE.
  OUSE DRAINAGE ACT.
  OUSE DRAINAGE ACT.
  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  CORN ACREAGE.
  CORN ACREAGE.
  BASIC SLAG.
  BASIC SLAG.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ORDERS).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ORDERS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTURES).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTURES).
  HOUSING (STATE ASSISTANCE).
  HOUSING (STATE ASSISTANCE).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (DOCUMENTS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (DOCUMENTS).
POOR LAW.
  VAGRANCY ORDER.
  VAGRANCY ORDER.
  CASUAL WARDS.
  CASUAL WARDS.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SMALL-POX, SWITZERLAND.
  SMALL-POX, SWITZERLAND.
  DEATH-RATE
  DEATH-RATE
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments of which Notice has been given to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills—the first five pages of the Order Paper. They are a formidable number, but I think I can explain them very shortly. No doubt it would be convenient for me to take them, as I can, in four groups instead of taking all these Amendments one by one. There are really four subjects dealt with. The first deals with the application of Standing Orders to Private Bills relating to Northern Ireland—or rather a little more than that; it deals with the situation which has been brought about in our Private Bill legislation as the result of the legislation of 1920 and 1922, that is, since the setting up of the Northern Parliament and the Irish Free State. So far as the Irish Free State is concerned your Lordships' Standing Orders need take no further notice of legislation arising in that part of the Empire; but as regards Northern Ireland some sort of difficulty has occasionally arisen and may arise again. That is why the Standing Orders appear in the form in which they do, including particularly the new Standing Order 181A.
I do not think I can better illustrate the necessity for this particular Standing Order than by reminding your Lordships of a Bill that your Lordships passed dealing with Lough Swilly Railway, a railway which starts in Derry and runs out to the west coast of Donegal. The headquarters office and about 100 yards of the line of that railway are in Northern Ireland and the remainder of the railway is in the Irish Free State. When, a Session or two ago, it was necessary that Parliamentary authority should be got to certain financial proposals a great difficulty arose as to how these could be best dealt with. It is to meet a case of that kind that the new Standing Order
1646
181A is proposed. It proposes that in all simple cases the Lord Chairman should be authorised to make whatever arrangements are necessary, and in any case of difficulty, of course, the matter would go to the. Standing Orders Committee. I think that is a convenient proposal. It will enable us to deal with cases as they arise, and if experience shows that any further proposal is required it is quite easy to make the necessary proposal to the House.
The second subject dealt with is a revision of the form of estimates which is to be deposited in respect of permanent works proposed to be executed. At present the deposit, and estimate are made under Standing Order 36A and experience has shown us that the working under that Standing Order has not been satisfactory at all in practice. We propose, therefore, to substitute as an appendix to the Standing Order a much more detailed and illuminating form of estimate. This form has been settled after considerable discussion with the Ministry of Health, with representatives of local authorities and, of course, with the officials of both Houses. I understand that similar Amendments were made in another place before the August, adjournment, and it is a matter on which I think it is obviously highly desirable that both Houses should follow the same practice.
It is only right that I should here mention that three-quarters of an hour ago I received a letter from my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, who cannot be in his place to day, on behalf of the London County Council, objecting to the form of a part of this Schedule—namely, the obligation that is put upon parties of stating in the detailed estimates their estimated cost of purchases of land. The difficulty feared is that where only one piece of land has to be purchased under a Bill the promoting authority do not want to give away the price that they may have to pay. In view of future negotiations I should think myself, at first sight, that the fact that the price they thought the land was worth was disclosed at an early date would facilitate the purchase and not make it difficult. But be that as it may, I do not think it would be at all reasonable to ask your Lordships at the moment to depart from the form of estimate as I submit it to your Lordships, for it is, as I have said, the result of months of discussion by

1647
those primarily concerned. But the Standing Orders are always in your Lordships' hands and we can easily amend them if experience later shows that it is desirable we should do so.
The third heading covered by the Amendments is the revision of certain fees paid in connection with the work of your Lordships' House. Some of the fees are left unchanged and some are increased, but I can shorten matters by saying that we are again taking opportunity of getting into harmony with the practice in the House of Commons and with the practice in the Record Office. Your Lordships will understand that people requiring copies of ancient documents have a very similar procedure to go through in the Record Office as they have amongst the archives of your Lordships' House. I have been carefully through the amounts with those of more experience than I possess and I am quite satisfied that the new fees are not on an extravagant or unreasonable scale. That being so I leave them in your Lordships' hands. Lastly, the verbal Amendments in Standing Order 93A I think explain themselves. They are obviously only designed to correct mistakes. Those really being all the points covered by this very large number of Amendments I will not weary your Lordships by enlarging them, but if there is any question on any particular one that your Lordships would desire information about I will do my best to answer it. I think, however, that I have covered all the salient points. I therefore move this Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills he amended as follows:—
22. Leave out ("and in Ireland the local and road authorities shall be the district councils and the county councils respectively").
24. Leave out ("or Ireland").
26B. Leave out paragraph (1).
Leave out ("also").
29. Leave out paragraph (e).
30. Leave out ("if in Ireland at the Irish Office").
33. In paragraph (3) leave out ("or Ireland"), and leave out ("or the Irish Office as the case may be").
In paragraph (11) leave out ("or if the property is in Ireland at the Office of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland").
In paragraph (12) leave out ("England, Wales or Ireland") and insert ("England or Wales").
36A. For the words ("Expenditure for any permanent works proposed to be executed") there shall be substituted the words ("Expense of any work or purpose described in the Appendix marked (C) proposed to be carried out"), and for the words from and including ("The Estimates shall be in the following form") to and including the words ("the probable life of the works") there shall be substituted the words ("The Estimates shall be in the form set forth in the Appendix marked (C) or as near thereto as circumstances may permit, and no other Estimates shall be required from the promoters").
38. Leave out the whole Order.
57. Leave out ("or with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland if the work is intended to be done in Ireland").
60. Leave out ("or Ireland").
Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").
61. Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").
63. Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").
65. Leave out ("Edinburgh or Dublin") and insert ("or Edinburgh").
66. Leave out the whole Order.
77. Leave out ("or in Ireland").
89. Leave out ("or Ireland") where those words first occur, and leave out ("for England or Ireland as the case may be").
93A. Leave out first ("adjournment") and insert ("recess'').
Leave out ("on which the House sits after the adjournment") and insert ("after the recess on which the House sits for business other than Judicial Business'').
111. Leave out the whole Order.
114. Leave out ("[the Queen's Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland or the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court [in Ireland]") and insert ("[or the King's Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland]").
Leave out ("Scotland or Ireland") and insert ("or Scotland").
115. Leave out ("or the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court [in Ireland]").
116. Leave out ("or Dublin").
135. Leave out the whole Order.
155. Leave out the whole Order.
169. Leave out the whole Order.
170. Leave out the whole Order.
174. Leave out ("or in Ireland").
181. After this Order insert—

PART VI.

  ORDER WITH RESPECT TO BILLS RELATING TO NORTHERN IRELAND.
  "181A. Where a Bill is promoted which relates wholly or partially to Northern

  1649
  Ireland, these Orders shall apply to that Bill subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by general or special directions of the Lord Chairman, or of the Standing Orders Committee in cases where the Lord Chairman thinks fit to refer the matter to that Committee.
  "Nothing in this Order shall be taken as implying any extension of the cases in which Bills relating to Northern Ireland may properly be promoted in the British Parliament").
  191. After this Order insert—
  ("192. The Fees to be charged and taken in respect of Special Orders in the House of Lords shall be those set forth in the Table marked (B) in the Appendix.")
  In the Schedule of Fees set out in Appendix B:
  After the table of fees in respect of Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, insert the following:—

  SPECIAL ORDERS.
  In respect of any such Special Order as is referred to in paragraph (3) (ii) of Standing Order 191.
  On the laying of the Order before the House a fee of £5 is charged to the applicants for the Order.
  The same fees are charged to applicants and opponents at the Committee stage in the case of opposed Special Orders as in the case of Local Bills.
  No other fees are charged.")
  Leave out the Table of General Fees and insert the following new table:—

  GENERAL FEES.
  ("GENERAL FEES.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1.

  For every certificate signed by the Chairman of Committees

  2

  0

  0

  2.

  Inspection of a Plan or other Document

  0

  7

  6

  3.

  For copies of all Documents per folio of 72 words:—

  If 5 folios or under

  0

  3

  9

  It above 5 folios, per folio

  0

  0

  9

  The inspection fee to be charged in addition when the Document is two years old and upwards.

  4.

  Copies of Documents earlier than Geo. III, per folio

  0

  2

  0

  5.

  Copy certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments

  1

  0

  0

  If Document earlier than Geo. III certification (in addition to the above)

  0

  10

  0

  6.

  Examining Prints of Acts for Certification:—

  Per 100 folios

  0

  12

  6

  Certification

  1

  0

  0

  Inspection Fee if Act two years old or upwards

  0

  7

  6")

  After Appendix (B) insert the following new Appendix:—

  APPENDIX (C).
  Form of Estimates.

  Purpose.

  Amount.

  Purchase of land, minerals, and permanent rights

  £

  Easements for works, e.g., way-leaves for sewers, water pipes, etc.

  Laying out land (specifying purpose and nature of works)

  Buildings (stating, generally, their nature and construction)

  Boats (stating, generally, their character)

  Bridges (stating, generally, their character and type of construction

  Canals:—

  Earthworks

  Locks, etc.

  Reservoirs

  Electricity:—

  Mains—

  Main transmission lines

  Feeders and distributors

  Machinery and plant

  (In the case of generating plant specify whether steam, gas, diesel, etc.)

  *Purchase of electricity undertaking where the price has been fixed

  Ferries (specifying type):—

  (a) Vessels

  (b) Landing stages, etc.

  Furniture and moveable equipment

  Gas:—

  Generating plant

  Gas holders

  Mains—

  Cast iron

  Steel

  *Purchase of gas undertaking where the price has been fixed

  Harbours, Docks, and Piers:—

  Docks, etc. (stating, generally, character and method of construction)

  Breakwaters—

  (a) rubble mound

  (b) concrete block

  Piers—

  (a) ferro-concrete

  (b) timber

  Machinery (cranes, pumping machinery, dredgers, etc.)

  Machinery not included under other headings (stating, generally, its character)

  Omnibuses (specifying type)

  Roads and Streets:—

  New roads

  Roads or street widening

  Works, of street improvement

  Purpose.

  Amount

  £

  Sea Defence Works (stating, generally, their character and materials to be used)

  Sewage Disposal Works:—

  Tanks

  Machinery

  Sewers:—

  Brick, concrete, cast iron, glazed ware

  Concrete tubes, reinforced

  Steel pipes

  Tramways, Tramroads, and Trackless Trolley Undertakings:—

  Depôts and ear sheds

  Permanent way—

  (a) public road lines

  (b) separate track on sleepers

  Electrical equipment—

  (a) Posts and overhead wires

  (b) Cables and feeders

  (c) Generating plant

  Cars

  Waterworks:—

  Mains—

  Cast iron

  Steel

  Concrete or other material (specifying) materials

  Reservoirs—

  Impounding (with earth or masonry dams)

  Service (specifying nature of construction)

  Pumping machinery

  Filters—

  Gravity

  Pressure

  Sterilization plant

  Wells or other works

  * Purchase of water undertakings where the price has been fixed

  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly. Standing Orders to be printed as amended.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Orders No. XXI and No. XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting. I think the Motion is not unusual at this time of the Session: indeed, it is generally moved a good deal earlier.
* The Estimate should be accompanied by an Engineer's Report as to age, extent, condition, and value of the works, divided under suitable headings").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and No. XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

WEST MIDLANDS ELECTRICITY DISTRICT ORDER, 1925.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order which was presented on the 25th day of June last be approved with modifications.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question; Motion agreed to.

AUDLEY GAS ORDER, 1925.
BOLLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1925.
TAMWORTH GAS ORDER, 1925.
WORTHING GAS ORDER, 1923.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Special Orders which were presented on the 1st instant be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SIDMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1923.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order which was presented on the 1st instant be approved with modifications.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BLACKBURN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
HELENSBURGH ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
LEYLAND ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
NORTH BERWICK ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
PONTYPOOL ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925
WEST WILTS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders which were presented on the first instant be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 1st instant be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agred to.

AYLESBURY ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) SPECIAL. ORDER, 1925.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order which was presented on the first instant be approved with an addition.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 1st instant be approved with an addition.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORLEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Earl of Clarendon's Amendment to the Motion of the, Viscount Peel (moved on Tuesday, December 8), That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th day of July last be approved—namely, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "having regard to the decision of a Select Committee of this House upon the Horley and District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill (H.L.) the Special Order be not approved."
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in view of what the Lord Chairman said to your Lordships last week and also in view of the fact that the agents on behalf of the Horley Gas Company do not desire to proceed further with this matter, I do not propose to ask your Lordships to proceed to a Division. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Clarendon to withdraw his Amendment.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, before this Amendment is withdrawn I
1654
should like to call your Lordships' attention to what I think is the very unfortunate position in which this Horley and District Special Order and the competing Gas Bill have got themselves. I will not go into the merits because I know nothing of the merits. I have had no opportunity of hearing the evidence. The evidence has not been submitted to us and therefore I am not in a position to say anything with regard to the merits of these respective competing schemes.
I do observe, however, that the Gas Company came at the beginning of the Session to this House with a Bill. The Bill received a. Second Reading and went through the Committee Stage. After four days' consideration it was unanimously passed by the Committee. The Bill subsequently passed your Lordships' House and went to the other House. When it reached the other House the Bill went before a Committee of that House and, after consideration in Committee, it was defeated. No complaint can be made about that. It is not the first time that a Bill which has passed through your Lordships' House has been rejected in another place.
Now comes a difficulty. The competitors applied for an Electricity Order. In order to obtain it they had to go before the Ministry of Transport. One would have thought that the Ministry of Transport, having been informed that there were competing parties in this matter, before making an Order in favour of the applicants would at least, have inquired whether there was any competition and would have insisted upon hearing the ease for the competitors. No such proceeding, as I understand took place. The case for the competitors was never heard or presented before the Ministry of Transport. It was riot presented for this reason—that the Gas Company had got their Bill through the first House. Whether wisely or foolishly I do not know and it is not for me to say, but they took up the position j'y suis, j'y reste—I have got my Bill through the first House, and it is now for the second House to consider. The Ministry of Transport do not seem to have taken this fact sufficiently into consideration. They thereupon passed the Electricity Order, putting aside altogether the proposals which were embodied in the Bill. They passed the Order, it received the assert of another place and

1655
then came up here to receive the assent of your Lordships' House.
Let us see what the position is. We are asked now by the Ministry of Transport, who have never had a public hearing of the case or considered the views of the competing parties, to accept their Order made in favour of one party which has never been heard in this House. You have, therefore, the spectacle of this House, which has heard and approved and presumably supports the finding of its Committee, being asked to reverse its decision upon the ipse dixit of the Ministry of Transport which has never heard the competing parties. We, who have never heard them, are asked to accept the views of the Ministry. I do not believe that it was ever contemplated when the Act under which the Electricity Orders are made was passed that such a state of things as this should arise, and it seems to me the position is an unfortunate one. I should very much like to know what is to happen in the future. Are we to be treated to another spectacle of conflicting procedure, or will the Ministry of Transport he careful in the future to hear both competing parties before they pass an Order, or how is such a position to be dealt with? It is obvious that such a. position might easily arise, especially if we bear in mind the fact that we have really invited it to arise by passing the Statutory Gas Companies (Electricity Supply Powers) Act, 1925. That seems to be a special invitation to the companies situated as the Horley Gas Company is to come and ask for electricity powers.
At this time of the Session and at this period I suppose it would be too much to ask your Lordships to reject. the Order of the Ministry of Transport; but upon my word I believe the best solution of the whole difficulty would be that neither scheme should go through this Session, and that at the beginning of next Session both parties should start afresh and get a proper hearing before the tribunal of Parliament. Then everybody would be satisfied after the cases had been properly heard by a properly constituted tribunal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would allow me to say a word or two upon this very confused matter. I have no right to speak on this main question, because I have already addressed
1656
your Lordships, but it is only with a view of keeping the matter clear that I ask leave to say a word. My noble friend has raised this question again. He is aware, no doubt, that it has been under the consideration of this House already on two occasions. I am certain, I may say in the first place, that any observation which falls from him, with his immense experience, will not fall upon deaf ears, and that so far as the Ministry of Transport are concerned, a proper note will be taken of what he has said.
So far as your Lordships are concerned, I would venture to recall to the memory of noble Lords what actually occurred. When this Electricity Order was originally submitted to your Lordships' House an Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Clarendon, not as a member of the Government but as the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee to which my noble friend has just referred. That Committee considered this Bill of the Gas Company, which was afterwards rejected in another place. Discussion took place in this House and it became apparent that there was considerable doubt in the mind of noble Lords as to what the precise facts were. Several matters which my noble friend has mentioned entered into the difficulty which was in your Lordships' minds. Finally, some of us thought that the House was really not in a position to arrive at a decision as matters stood because it was not sure of the facts, in particular, in regard to the matte: which has been so pointedly urged by my noble friend—that the Gas Company had not had a proper opportunity of being heard in the inquiries, one of which was by the Ministry of Transport., in the course of the proceedings. Consequently, we finally resolved to do what I think my noble friend would entirely have agreed to had he been present. We resolved to send the Order back to the Special Orders Committee so as to have a Special Report from them as to the line it would be wise for your Lordships to take upon this matter.
The Special Orders Committee was established last year, baying in view the very sort of circumstances which have occurred, to guide your Lordships as to how you ought to proceed when an Order was submitted to you for confirmation which was rather out of the common and not according to the ordinary rules; in

1657
short, just, such a case as this. We hoped to get guidance from the Special Orders Committee and sent it back to them saying, in effect: Here is a ease on which we want particular guidance in regard to these points. One of the matters was that to which reference has been made by my noble friend, that the Gas Company had not had a proper hearing. We asked the Special Orders Committee to tell us about those things and what we ought to do. It was sent back upon my own Motion to the Committee. That Committee was a, very business-like body. There was no kind of delay. It sat two days afterwards and it was very well attended. Ten members of your Lordships' House attended the meeting of the Committee and a unanimous Report was produced, which was submitted to the House. I will not describe the Report because my noble friend the Lord Chairman is present and I am sure your Lordships would give him leave to state exactly what. the Report was. But its effect was to show that every step which the Special Orders Committee could take to secure a proper hearing for all the parties had been taken, and after all the investigations they made they decided to recommend that the House should pass the Order.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer. I have carried the history of this matter up to the point at which it passed out of my hands into the hands of my noble friend the Lord Chairman and, if I may say so, your Lordships would do well to hear what he has to say about the Special Orders Committee before any such drastic step as that which has been suggested is taken.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, before the Lord Chairman speaks may I make one or two observations? I was present on the two previous occasions when this matter came before your Lordships' House and I know the whole proceedings. A most unfavourable impression was created upon myself, and I think also upon a good many members on this side of the House. With all respect to the noble Marquess, I do not think the matter so far as future Bills are concerned has been entirely cleared up. It may be that it is right to let this Order go through, though certainly, if I had the power, I would adopt the suggestion of the noble Viscount and let the whole thing be thrashed out in Committee next year. I
1658
think that would be really a satisfactory way. What has happened is this. As stated by the noble Viscount, this House has passed and approved a Bill promoted by the Gas Company under an Act of Parliament. They passed it after a thorough investigation. That Bill is thrown out in another place, and, as Viscount Ullswater has said, that is not an unusual matter. Then we are asked, in lieu of the Bill which we investigated, to approve this Order, without knowing anything about it. The Order has never been investigated by this House at all. That is a most unsatisfactory way of doing business. It seems that after this House has taken the trouble to investigate a matter and sent it up to another place and it is thrown out there, the practice is that this House is to take what comes from the Ministry of Transport without knowing anything about it, and although it is directly contrary to what the House has voted after an investigation. I cannot imagine a more unsatisfactory way of doing business.
When this matter was before this House on the first occasion, I found it very difficult to understand the nature of the company that was promoting this Special Order at all. So far as I could make out it had little or no capital. It seemed to be a kind of private company put up for the convenience of certain people, and when the Order was before your Lordships it was referred back to the Special Orders Committee with a suggestion as to chat should be done. I understand from the statement of the Lord Chairman that they applied to the Gas Company and. asked if they wished to have a hearing.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: A further hearing.
LORD CARSON: Yes, a further hearing. The Gas Company at once said "No." And do you wonder at that? Do you wonder at their reply after they had promoted a Bill through this House and had been tossed about in this way after having gone to enormous expense? Everyone knows that they were in a financial position to carry out this matter. A Bill is passed here and it goes to the House of Commons. Then an Order is made taking the matter entirely out of their hands and without any hearing of their case by the Ministry of Transport, the company relying on the fact that they had their Bill and that it

1659
would be unnecessary for them to be heard. I think any company would be thoroughly sick of being tossed about like this and spending the shareholders' money in this manner. Looking at the facts it simply means that the Bill we investigated and understood and recommended is to be thrown out and an Order that we know nothing whatever about is to be passed.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, during the debate on this subject many noble Lords have emphasised the fact that the interests of the inhabitants of the district which is to be served must be considered first, and the noble and learned Viscount opposite congratulated the inhabitants of this district that they would be getting their supply from a bulk supply. I do not know that this is most favourable to the interests of consumers. Nobody doubts that the Gas Company have proceeded perfectly fairly. They gave due notice to the rival company, the Electricity Company, that they were introducing a Bill in this House. The Electricity Company then applied for an Order, and when the case came first before us we were told that now the Electricity Company did not propose to supply current themselves but to be a distributing company—in other words, they were to be a kind of middle man. I do not think the interests of consumers are served in this way. The Electricity Company will not distribute for nothing. The engineer who contributed half the funds (£5,000) and his co-partners who gave the other £5,000 will expect interest on their money, and this will cone out of the pockets of the consumers, an additional cost to the sum charged by the big company supplying the current.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, as I have been specially referred to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I hope I may be allowed to say one word as regards the procedure in Committee. Probably I did wrong—although I did my best to explain shortly, and I hope succinctly, what happened in the Committee—when I moved the adoption of the Report in making the speech I did, and perhaps I should have been more in order if I had reserved what I had to say until this afternoon. I at once re-echo what Viscount Ullswater and Lord Carson have said, I thought last week that the preferable course was
1660
for this matter to be heard again—I suggested a Joint Committee of the two Houses next Session—but that is one proposal that has met with no favour at all. That question was put to both parties in the Special Orders Committee—it was not the only question put by any means—and they agreed (it was the only subject on which they do agree) that they do not want any further Parliamentary inquiry. That being so I feel that we have no alternative but to accept the proposition of the Ministry of Transport, who, by the Act of 1919, were made the responsible agents of Parliament, if I may use the phrase, in these matters, and it was for that reason that I announced to your Lordships that I should not feel justified in voting against the proposal made by the Ministry of Transport that this Order should be now affirmed, subject to Amendments which I notice are on the Order Paper.
Quite rightly Viscount Ullswater asks the question, What is to happen in the future? Your Lordships realise what has happened. By the Act of 1919 these matters, instead of coming by Private Bills, were to come by Orders. And your Lordships will not forget the procedure. There must be an application in the first instance to the Electricity Commissioners. The Electricity Commissioners consider the case, they can hear it if they desire to do so, and they submit the Order to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport can affirm the Order or refuse the Order, and he can, in the course of the proceedings, hold an inquiry if he thinks fit. In this case he did invite the Gas Company to appear at his inquiry, but they refused, for reasons which have been repeated more than once in the course of these proceedings. I understand that the appeal from the Electricity Commissioners to the Minister of Transport is a real appeal, and there are people. I know, who would argue that the Minister of Transport is absolutely independent and judicial in reviewing these Orders. The ordinary man in the street like myself does not forget that they live in the same building, and do not regard it so much as proceeding from a lower court to a higher court as those concerned in the working of this system are inclined to do. I hope that experience may show in future cases that the appeal from the Electricity Commissioners to the Ministry of Transport is a real appeal

1661
and not merely a re-submission of the case from one room in an office to another room in the same office.
Having said that, I may add that one difficulty, at any rate, now goes. The Gas Company all through these proceedings have been in the position that they could not themselves go to the Electricity Commissioners to ask for the Electricity Order—though the Electricity Company could do so—and accordingly they had no remedy but to promote a Bill in Parliament. Until this year an electrical company desiring powers had to go to the Electricity Commissioners and a gas company had to go to Parliament. Consequently the two competing schemes could not go along the same road. That, difficulty has disappeared. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches referred to the Act of 1925. That Act, for the first time, makes it unnecessary for the Gas Company—though, of course, they have not lost their right—to come to Parliament direct. They can go to. the Electricity Commissioners for an Order in the same way as any other authority. I hope, therefore, that the difficulty will not recur in future cases. One does not, however, disguise from oneself that the system under this Act of 1919 is on its trial and, though I for one say quite frankly that I will do my best to further and assist it, one is bound to watch it carefully in see what inconveniences arise, so that Parliament may not often be put in the same sort of difficulty as that in which we find ourselves in this particular case.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, until this morning I thought that we had come to a decision on the lines that the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, has indicated to us, but I received this morning a somewhat impassioned circular from the Gas Company—I do not doubt that many others of your Lordships received a similar circular—setting out their case as if it were a case that we had not discussed and so far settled in the previous discussions in this House. There are two or three points which, I think, have not been quite sufficiently realised. The first is that the very object of these electricity schemes is to cut down the enormous cost to the consumer and the unnecessary overcharges which are made by reason of the matter being in the hands of small companies. This Gas Company is an illustra-
1662
tion, and it may be that the local Electricity Company would be another if it had been left uncontrolled.
For that purpose Parliament, as the results of the two Acts which your Lordships passed, the Act of 1919 and the Act of 1922, set up—I agree under the Ministry of Transport., but as a more or less scientific body—the Electricity Commissioners. They have their headquarters at Gwydyr House, Whitehall, and their Chairman is Sir John Snell, a man who, from his vast knowledge and great experience in these matters, is fitted to exercise the semi-judicial functions which he has to combine with his executive duties. His business is to work out schemes which will give the public an electrical supply at a much cheaper rate than they have to endure at the present time. His purpose is to set up what arc called bulk supply schemes by which electricity can be produced in large amounts and distributed easily. Barking, of which your Lordships have heard, is an illustration of such a producing centre.
This matter came, so far as the Order was concerned, before the Electricity Commissioners. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the Electricity Commissioners do not look into things. They look into all alternative possibilities, and doubtless they considered the Gas Company, though the Gas Company did not appear before them. Their business was to see how electricity could b provided for the public in the cheapest and the most effective fashion, and they sent up to the Ministry of Transport, their Parliamentary heads, this Order. There was a conflict between the view taken in your Lordships' House and the view taken by those who promoted this Order and, in the end, established its validity in the House of Commons. I cannot help thinking that we have looked rather away from the main and underlying feature of this whole matter. The fact that there are Electricity Commissioners whose business it is to provide electricity much more cheaply and effectively than it is provided at the present time, and that this Order had this as its purpose must not be forgotten. You cannot do these things on a small scale; you can do them only on a large scale.
This question has been brought before your Lordships in the form of a conflict.

1663
The Gas Company has promoted a Bill. I listened with attention to my noble friend Viscount Ullswater and I hoped to hear from him some suggestion, at all events, that the Gas Company would produce as cheaply or something like as cheaply as the bulk supply producers. But I have heard no word of that either from the noble Viscount or from my noble and learned friend Lord Carson. I am compelled to remain in the belief, which I have held throughout, that in passing this Order the Electricity Commissioners followed their usual very careful practice of trying to get the cheapest and most effective supply for the people for whom they have to act, and that this intention is embodied in the Order that is now before us. There was much discussion when this Order came before the House and the compromise was agreed on of sending the matter to the Special Orders Committee. The Special Orders Committee have made a recommendation, which is supported before us by the Lord Chairman, and, speaking both on the merits of the case and on its technical aspects, I cannot help feeling that the course which the Lord Chairman has advised us to take is the only wise one. For that reason I am indisposed to join in the suggestions of Lord Ullswater and Lord Carson.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that, if I had not been present during the various stages of the discussion of this matter in your Lordships' House and also at the meeting of the Special Orders Committee, I should probably have been found supporting the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches and agreeing with him that the Motion should not be accepted. But, having followed the matter from its very beginning and having been present at the meeting of the Special Orders Committee, it does seem to me that we cannot really do better than agree to the suggestion that has been made by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman. When the matter came before your Lordships the position was most unsatisfactory. The fact that the Electricity Commissioners, through the Ministry of Transport, recommended one thing and that a Committee of your Lordships' House recommended another made the position already difficult. It was further complicated by the fact that the Chairman of the Committee was the
1664
noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, and that we therefore had two noble Lords on the Government Bench opposing One another upon a matter which, if not of great importance, did not look entirely satisfactory. It was in those circumstances that the matter was referred to the Special Orders Committee.
All these matters, especially in regard to electricity, are becoming more and more difficult and complicated and we are, I think, merely fumbling and finding our way towards a more satisfactory method of procedure. I do not suppose that, after the meeting of the Special Orders Committee which took place last week, we shall have a repetition of that which happened in the House before. I think it is very unlikely that we shall again find the Electricity Commissioners at variance with a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and therefore the awkwardness of a fortnight ago is not likely to be repeated. In these circumstances I think the best thing we can do is to agree with the Lord Chairman. On the last occasion when the discussion took place in this House the Lord Chairman was supporting the Select Committee of your Lordships' House and it was then that I opposed the recommendation of the Electricity Commissioners. That position has passed away and the various combatants on that occasion are now in complete agreement. We have the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, withdrawing his opposition to the recommendation of the Minister of Transport and we have the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition and the Lord Chairman agreeing in the same course of action. Therefore I think that on the whole it is much better to agree this afternoon to follow out those various suggestions in the confident hope that this same difficult position is not likely to recur.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have to move, as an Amendment to the original Motion, to add "with modifications." These are the recommendations of the Special Orders Committee to which the Lord Chairman referred last week.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: These are the Amendments on the Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and the Motion, as amended, agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fifth Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. REASSESSMENT OF (BALANCE OF) CIVIL PAY OF CERTAIN CIVIL SERVANTS WHO SERVED WITH H.M. FORCES DURING THE GREAT WAR.
The Committee considered the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed to consider the petition of certain doorkeepers for the payment of bonus as part of their civil pay during the War, and decided, having regard to the opinion of the Sub-Committee that there is no legal claim, that no action should be taken upon the petition.
2. LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
On the recommendation of the Library Sub-Committee, the Committee sanctioned the arrangements proposed for the preservation of the Warrant for the execution of Charles I.
3. REGISTRAR OF THE CHAPEL OF ST. MARY SUB VOLTÂ.
The Lord Great Chamberlain informed the Committee that having established his authority over the Chapel of St. Mary Sub Voltâ (the Crypt Chapel), he had appointed a Registrar for the Chapel. The Committee expressed their approval of the arrangements made for the payment of fees at the existing rates and other incidental matters.
4. FURNITUPE FOR THE HOUSEKEEPER'S ROOM.
On the representation of the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Committee sanctioned the expenditure of £9 13 s. 6d. for a new carpet, etc., for the Housekeeper's room.
5. RESIGNATION AND APPOINT MENT.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the resignation of Mr. Courtenay C. H. Healey from the Parliament Office, and that Mr. Henry Montagu Burrows had been appointed as a Junior Clerk in his place, his appointment to date from November 16th, 1925.
6. RETIREMENT OF A PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER.
The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod informed the Committee that Mr. C. Chapman, a principal doorkeeper, is due to retire on the 12th of February next, and will then have given thirty-one completed years in the service of the House. His pension under the Superannuation Act, 1909, calculated on a salary of £206 15 s. per annum, will amount to £S0 2s. 4d. There will also be a Supplement under the Treasury agreement amounting at present to £41 2s. 2d. but this Supplement is subject to quarterly revision. He will also receive an additional allowance of £316 11 s. 4d. calculated on his salary. together with 75 per vent. of the current bonus.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report he now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE rose to call attention to the recent decision to reduce the dockyard at Rosyth to a care and maintenance basis; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name I feel that the. noble Earl who sits below me may have some anxiety, in that one who is associated with him in a Party which has always stood for economy and retrenchment should be so boll as to criticise and question one of the most extravagant Departments of the Government when they bring forward a scheme to effect, a real economy; but having been born in the parish of Dunfermline, and having lived a large part of my life within three miles of the Castle of Rosyth, I think your Lordships will excuse me if bring forward, even at this late stage of the Session, a matter which affects the district in which I live, particularly because I feel that some local considerations have not yet received full consideration.
Firstly, I do not feel satisfied, from the statements which have been made far on behalf of the Government, that the economy is so large, so sound, or so real, as it is asserted to be. I do not venture to criticise the decision on +be ground of policy; though it is but fair to say that even after the surrender of the German Fleet, which has been taken as the turning point at which the usefulness of Rosyth may have ceased, the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beatty, made a statement on September 13, 1919, at Dunfermline, on the occasion of his being presented with the freedom of that City. These arc tile words he used—
"The future, which affects all of us. is not quite clear. But I take leave to say that the great dockyard at Rosyth, which has been built up at a cost of much effort, at the cost of much money, which is the most efficient and up-to-date dockyard in existence, must be maintained."
I fully realise that circumstances may alter, and have altered, and that the noble and gallant Earl who now holds

1667
the responsible post of First Sea Lord is fully entitled to review an opinion even so positively expressed as that which I have quoted; but to the layman it does seem strange that, when economies are proposed, the dockyard which has been stated on the highest authority to be "the most efficient and up-to-date dockyard in existence" should be the first to be scrapped. Had the proposals of the Admiralty been more courageous and included one or more of the older and less efficient English dockyards, I should have felt less inclined to offer any criticism. It is, however, Scotland and Wales that have had to bear the brunt of the economy proposals.
I do not propose to say any more on the policy of the decision. We are told that the decision has been come to after careful consideration by His Majesty's Government. We know it has the blessing of the noble and gallant Earl, and that it has been confirmed by a large majority in another place. I would, however, ask your Lordships to consider for a few moments the proposed economy in a little more detail, to examine the soundness and reality of the economy, and particularly its effect upon the locality. In the White Paper which has been issued by the Admiralty, in explanation of the reduction, very little information is given, but I wish to point out two admissions in that Paper which are important when considering the question from a national as distinct from a departmental standpoint. The first is that the savings enumerated are purely departmental; that they take no account of possible or even certain increases in the expenditure of other departments contingent upon the closing of this clock-yard. It is true that some of them are mentioned in the White Paper, but there is no definite estimate of such offsets against the estimated savings.
May I illustrate my meaning on this head by figures? The estimated annual saving on the reduction of the two yards of Pembroke and Rosyth is stated to be £328,000. No separate allocation has been given to the individual yards, but I understand that for Rosyth the estimate is between £160,000 and £200,000. As against this let us consider what, from the standpoint of national economy, has actually happened at Rosyth since the decision was arrived at. Up to December 7 the number of claims to benefit made by
1668
ex-dockyard workers at the Dunfermline and Inverkeithing Exchanges was 315. Of these eighty-five had obtained other employment, leaving 230 still on the register. If this is the kind of proportion to which we must look forward, and the state of industry does not warrant a much more sanguine anticipation, your Lordships will realise what a very formidable offset this means to the estimated savings. Most of these men are married men with young families, and if one were to take the average figure of unemployment relief at a conservative estimate of 22 s. a week and the number of unemployed at the end of the period of reduction at 1,000—also a conservative estimate—we shall arrive at a burden on the national finance of £57,200 per annum.
Your Lordships are probably aware that the staple industry in West Fife is coal mining and in Dunfermline the manufacture of linen. The depression in the first of these industries is well known to your Lordships, and the position of the second is not much better, partly owing, no doubt, to the fact that many householders, including probably many of your Lordships, have abandoned the use of the fair linen tablecloth and now dine off hare boards. In the present state of these two industries it is impossible to look forward to any appreciable number of men discharged from the dockyard being absorbed into other work. It may be argued that this claim is not dependent upon the closing of a particular dockyard and that the discharges would have to take place in any case consequent upon the reduction of the naval programme; but I would maintain that the burden is increased in force and in extent by concentrating it in one locality, particularly when the industries of that locality are not in a position to absorb more labour.
On these grounds, therefore, I would urge the Government in the working out of their scheme of reduction to consider carefully this aspect and not to make light of the financial burden because it is placed upon another Department, or to lose sight of the moral effect of placing so many men on the unemployed list, both to themselves and to the community. Further, they should not forget the individual hardship and anxiety caused to the men and their families by this action, taken at a time of year when

1669
household expenses are necessarily higher, and when the prospects of obtaining substituted work are necessarily more meagre. May I, therefore, conclude this site of the question by urging upon the Admiralty, on practical, financial, and sympathetic lines, to adopt the motto Festina lente in the discharges?
I will ask you now to look at another aspect of the case, the effect upon the district, and particularly on the burgh of Dunfermline. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with too much detail as regards the history of Rosyth, but, in order that you may appreciate the true position, it is necessary that I should refer to one or two facts in that history. Before the establishment of the dockyard Dunfermline was a town with a population of rather less than 20,000 in habitants, situated about two and a half miles north of the Firth of Forth at its nearest point, Rosyth. When the Government decided to establish a naval base at Rosyth they also apparently decided that it was impossible to have that dockyard administered by the County Council of Fife, and it was necessary that the Rosyth dockyard should be incorporated in Dunfermline. Under pressure, therefore, of two Government Departments—the Admiralty and the. Board of Health—Dunfermline put forward a claim for extension Of boundaries to include the dockyard. After a considerable fight this extension was given effect to, and an area of roughly three and a half miles from north to south, and three miles from east to west, including half of the estuary of the River Forth ex adverso was added to the burgh of Dunfermline. Evidence was then produced that, on the analogy of Portsmouth and other dockyards, it was anticipated that in the course of a few years an addition to the population of 40,000 might h expected in the burgh of Dunfermline, and Dunfermline was urged to provide the contingent services—roads, drainage, water and light. A vast town planning scheme was embarked upon, which cost a very large amount of money, but the irony of the situation is that when the houses came to be built they were built on Admiralty ground outside the original town planning scheme.
Your Lordships will not expect me to present at this time a detailed claim on behalf of the burgh of Dunfermline, but
1670
there are three items of expenditure on the provision of trunk services which will, I think, satisfy your Lordships that the clam of the burgh of Dunfermline against the Government must be fairly substantial. In the first place it was necessary to widen the roadway from Dunfermline to Rosyth. The sum expended on this was £21,812. Secondly, the provision of water mains for the new town and dockyard cost £28,290. This must he kept distinct from the provision of the actual water, which was supplied by the county council, and for which an agreement stands and holds. Thirdly, the proportion of costs of a new sewer attributable to the establishment of the dockyard amounted to £22,130. The total of these three claims is nearly £73,000. These are outstanding capital claims, and it can be shown, in addition, that the burgh of Dunfermline is called upon to pay for the maintenance and administration of the extended area an annual sum of about £13,000 over and above what it receives by way of rates and Government contribution in lieu thereof. If this is the position when the houses are all occupied it will be enormously aggravated when, as a result of the reduction in the dockyard, a large number of the houses are rendered tenantless.
I do not propose to go into the question of housing, because the. question is so complicated by inter - departmental guarantees and agreements, but this broad fact is clear, that on the reduction contemplated by the Admiralty several hundreds of these houses will cease to be occupied by dockyard workers, and will therefore become tenantless, or will have to be let to men employed elsewhere. There are two serious obstacles to the latter alternative: first, that the proportion of large houses, that is, with four rooms and over, is too great for the general needs of the locality, and, secondly, that the rents are very much too high. Hitherto the rents charged to dockyard employees have been on the average £22, but to outside tenants the rent has been in the neighbourhood of £40, and if this rata is to continue I think your Lordships will agree that it will he impossible to make use of the houses.
So far have dealt only with actual claims which have been submitted to the Admiralty by Dunfermline for work done: but it is fair to take into account the capital slink on other public services.

1671
The education authority has spent over £100,000 on the erection and equipment of schools. The parish council has spent a very considerable sum in the provision of cemeteries; and in addition to the provision of purely public services large amounts have been spent in providing churches and halls by the different denominations. The new population at Rosyth being mainly English, a gallant effort was made by the Bishop of St. Andrews to provide a suitable church, which has been erected at a cost of over £18,000 and which it is hoped will be open for use early next month. Several other denominations have also erected permanent buildings. Two masonic lodges have been erected by the enterprise of the local Freemasons at a cost of about £6,000, and about £85,000 has been spent in tramways and electric cables. Is it just and fair that no recognition should be made by the Government for these and other similar outlays if they are rendered useless by the action of the Government? And if recognition is to be made by way of compensation, surely it must be counted against the estimated departmental saving.
Finally, I would venture to press the noble Earl who will reply for the Admiralty to say exactly what is meant by "a care and maintenance basis." If, during six years when the dockyard has been on full equipment, it has sunk from being the most efficient and up-to-date dockyard in existence to the category of being the first to be scrapped, is it conceivable that on a care and maintenance basis expenditure will be incurred adequate to keep it really efficient or up-to-date? I venture to say that under such conditions the dockyard would soon become derelict, and the payment of a staff to keep it in that condition would be extravagant. The proposal to reduce the dockyard to a care and maintenance basis seems to me to savour too much of a dog-in-the-manger policy. If the dockyard is really superfluous it would be far more practical to take a more courageous course, to cut a large part of the capital cost, and use every means to make the dockyard in its present state up-to-date with power, plant and equipment available for a commercial enterprise.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am afraid there is very little new that I can tell
1672
your Lordships which the House does not already know in view of the discussions which have taken place in the other House and having regard to what has appeared in the Press. I rather had hoped that my noble friend's leader, or possibly somone else in his Party, would have defended the action of the Government that was in power when Rosyth was established, because what it really comes to is this. If the Government which was in existence when the dockyard at Rosyth was first proposed had carried out the scheme of extension and so forth as the Admiralty wished it to be done, Rosyth at this moment would not be merely a small dockyard—efficient and up-to-date as far as it goes—but would be a dockyard comparable with any others we have in the United Kingdom. Had that been the case I think there is little doubt that one of the other dockyards would have had to be reduced rather than Rosyth.
The whole difficulty with regard to Rosyth is this. There are only three dry docks there, and a comparatively small basin, and those docks are only capable of taking very big ships. They will take the smaller ships, but that is a wasteful method, and if the dockyard were to be made capable of undertaking the work which is at present being done elsewhere it would require not only very great extension in regard to shops and docks, but an increase of the basin, an increase of cranes, and also a considerable increase in machinery. That would not have been the case in regard to any of the three big southern dockyards. Further, it would almost inevitably have entailed the provision of barracks, of hospitals, a gunnery school, and so on. As your Lordships will readily see, that would have run into a very heavy capital expenditure, and I think the House will not hesitate to say that in the present condition of our national finances such a proposal would be quite impossible.
The noble Earl opposite, if he will allow me to say so, did not show a very great knowledge of the Admiralty; otherwise he certainly would not have criticised it as one of the most expensive of Government Departments. He seemed to imply that the saving on Rosyth was only going to take effect in one particular year,

1673
and that if the Government met in full all the various claims which have been put forward on behalf of Rosyth, Dunfermline, and Inverkeithing, then there would practically be no economies whatever. Obviously it would be very improper for me to say what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to claims which, so far as I am aware, have not been as yet definitely drawn up, and certainly have not yet been presented, but I would point out that the saving in the reduction of Rosyth to a care and maintenance basis will, we believe, mean an economy of over £236,000 a year. If the claims are paid in full, it would probably only postpone for perhaps a slightly longer period the time when that economy will come into operation. For the first two years, owing to expenses in moving men from the northern dockyards to the southern, and for other reasons of the same kind, the saving is, of course, comparatively small, but as time goes on the full economy comes into operation.
I must also challenge the noble Earl upon another matter. He made what I might almost call an attack on the Government by saying that Scotland and Wales have to suffer, whereas England escapes scot free. I can assure him that when the full economies that we are now proposing at the Admiralty are brought into operation he will have no cause to think that Scotland has been unfairly dealt with as compared with England.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: May I interrupt the noble Earl to make a personal explanation? I think I said that Scotland was bearing the brunt of the proposals. That is the case whatever happens.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid it will not be even the brunt when the full economies come into operation. As regards the expenditure in other directions, my noble friend himself said that if men were not thrown out of employment at Rosyth it would probably mean that other men would be unemployed elsewhere and therefore from the Admiralty point of view, and from the Government point of view, it naturally made very little difference financially whether the men are discharged in one place rather than in another. I unfortunately have only too much reason to know that when economies, are brought into operation it inevitably means that men are thrown out of em-
1674
ployment. I have full opportunities of realising, as Chairman of the Whitley Council at the Admiralty, the distress that that causes, And I am in touch with trades union representatives at the dockyards.
I think any noble Lord who has had to do with cutting down in the Government service or elsewhere knows what a hateful task it is, and how much one sympathises with the inevitable distress that is caused when cutting down takes place. If it is to be contended that a Government is never to cut down because it entails increasing unemployment, then it is good-bye to all economy in any Government Department. The hope that the Government hold to strongly—and I believe that all Parties hold to it strongly—is that if we can only reduce the State expenditure and taxation, we shall thereby help private employers and trade in the country generally and reduce the total volume of unemployment.
The noble Lord asked what was meant by "care and maintenance," and he drew a comparison between the statement made by my noble friend the First Sea Lord a few years ago and what is said of Rosyth to-day. I have already touched on the point, but I might make it a little clearer. There is no question whatever that Rosyth is very up-to-date and efficient so far as it goes. It is only a question of the size of the dockyard which makes it impossible to continue it. It is rather difficult to explain briefly to your Lordships, but there are very many trades engaged in a dockyard and it is difficult to keep the balance of labour correct; sinless you have a series of ships coming in one after the other. When a ship comes in or is being repaired there are, probably, rivetters and platers at work on the hull. When that work is done electrical fitters and others come in to do their work, and there is a whole series of men of different trades coming in to restore the ship to a condition in which she can again put to sea. Unless you are prepared to discharge those men and therefore, lave in-and-out labour you require another ship to come in, so that as soon as the men have finished work on one ship there is work on another to which they can go.
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that if there are only three docks in a dock

1675
yard it is impossible to keep your men fully employed all the year round and they have either to sit still and do nothing on full pay or to be discharged. In that way you get casual labour which, I think every one of your Lordships will agree, is something which should he avoided if possible. Therefore there tan be no question of Rosyth being out of date when, in fact, it was and still is efficient.
What is proposed under "care and maintenance" is simply that enough men will be kept there to keep the machinery in order and the buildings weatherproof and to enable the dockyard to be re-opened at short notice if and when it is required. My noble friend suggests that it should be scrapped altogether. If we could be certain that we should never have another war I should entirely agree with him; but if, unfortunately, another war were to take place we should want every one of our dockyards to undertake the work of keeping the Fleet in order. For that reason it would be necessary to re-open Rosyth and also Pembroke. With the reduced Fleet we have now there are too many dockyards and too many men employed in those dockyards. Therefore, for the ordinary peace-time work of keeping the Fleet in condition, it is necessary to reduce the number of yards and the number of men employed there. That is the sole reason why we have been enabled to reduce the dockyards.
If it is suggested that we should not close dockyards at all, that does not mean that we have merely to find the pay of the men whom it is proposed now to discharge, but to find work for them to do. That means that you have to pay more money and to keep ships in commission which it is now proposed should be scrapped. It means also that you have to undertake repairs of ships which are becoming obsolete. In other words, it means the spending of a good deal of money without making the Fleet any more efficient by doing so. For all those reasons I hope your Lordships will agree that the Board of Admiralty have been wise and economical in proposing the reduction of these two yards, and will support the Government in the very unpleasant task of having to throw men out of employment and causing distress by measures of economy such as this.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SETTLED LAND ACT.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had given notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the effect of Section 1, subsection (1) (v) of the Settled Land Act, 1925, on persons who have purchased land subject to a rentcharge for life, and who now find that their titles will be complicated after the 1st January, 1926, by the creation of a settlement; whether they are aware that this will involve consequential formalities and expenses on these purchasers, and whether the Government proposes to introduce immediately legislation to allay the anxiety and confusion which has arisen thereunder.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that this Question is a very technical one and could be more clearly explained by a lawyer than by a layman like myself. The position is as follows. Where, prior to January 1, 1926, land has been sold subject to a rentcharge for life or other family charge and such charge is still subsisting on January 1, 1926, it would appear that as from that (lay the land will, by virtue of Section 1, subsection (1) (v) and Section 2 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, be settled land, the subject of a compound settlement of which there will be no trustees for the purposes of the Act. If so the purchaser will cease to be an absolute owner subject to a charge and will become a person having the powers of a tenant for life under the compound settlement. He will not be able to deal with his property until the necessary vesting deed has been executed, which cannot be done until trustees of the compound settlement have been appointed. This will involve an application to the Court. Moreover, on a resale by the purchaser the purchase money will not be payable to him, but to the trustees of the compound settlement, who will not be able to part with it so long as the charge subsists, even though the original vendor has given an amply sufficient indemnity against it. A release by the person entitled to the charge will not be practicable in every case and it is not clear that a release executed after December 31, 1925, will he effective to remove the objection and in any case such a purchaser will be put to inconvenience and expense.
I therefore ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to introduce

1677
an amending Act immediately to remedy the position in which such purchasers will find themselves. What is really necessary is a short Bill saying that paragraph (v) of subsection (1) of Section 1 shall not apply to conveyances completed before December 31, 1925.
It was only quite lately brought to my notice that this subsection of Section 1 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, which comes into force on January 1, 1926, is causing anxiety and confusion among past purchasers and those who are negotiating the purchase of land and houses. I am told that solicitors are receiving thousands of letters each day and some of their staffs are not large enough to deal with those letters on this question. These letters often come from past purchasers who are not their clients, and as the vendor is the client I wonder who is to pay the cost of the replies. Many purchasers are quite poor people and they will be put to great inconvenience and expense unless the Act is altered. One estate may have sold thousands of plots of land to different purchasers, all of whom are affected by this question. If these difficulties can he put right by means of documents then, with all respect. I would ask who is to pay for them?
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the Question that my noble friend has put is a difficult one even for lawyers to deal with: but so far as I have followed my noble friend, he has undoubtedly pointed to what I think is a very serious defect in the new law which comes into, operation on January 1 next. The object of this legislation, as I understood, was to simplify and cheapen the transfer of land. From what my noble friend has said it would appear that in the cases to which he has referred the result would be, greatly to complicate the transfer and to add very considerably to its expense. I trust, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will cause an investigation to be made as soon as possible into the cases raised to-day, and that if it is found necessary, as I think it will be, to introduce legislation, they will introduce whatever legislation is necessary. New legislation always leads to some difficulties, but in this case it leads not only to difficulties but to an additional cost in the transfer of land which we are all most wishful to avoid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, in answering the Question of the noble Lord I should like to point, out that the position to which he has called attention arises under an Act passed in the year 1922. The provisions of the present Act simply consolidate and repeat the provisions of the Act of 1922. It is perhaps rather strange that nobody during the last there and a half years has thought it necessary to call attention to this matter and that the point is raised only a little more than a week before the Act comes into operation. I think the position has been quite accurately stated by the noble Lord, and it is this: In the case of some estates the life tenant has sold parts of the land to purchasers. The estate was subject to some rentcharge which had priority over the estate of the vendor and in order to avoid getting a release or appointing trustees of the settlement (which might generally have been done at little cost), the vendor has sold to the purchaser subject to the annuity and has himself given an indemnity against the annuity. That is not very good conveyancing, but it saves a certain amount of trouble and expense, and I have no doubt that a good many sales have taken place on these terms.
Now, the position is this. The purchaser holds, as between himself and the annuitant, subject to the rentcharge, and I believe it is true that under the recent Act incorporating the provisions of the Act of 1922 technically a settlement will be created—that is to say, if nothing is done before January 1, 1926. But it is quite easy to get rid of the difficulty if those who are concerned will only take the necessary steps. All that is needed is that, there shall be before January 1, a short deed poll executed by the annuitant releasing all the plots sold subject to his annuity from the charge. The annuitant is in nearly all these cases amply secured on other property comprised in the settlement. He will run no real risk. If he does the life tenant is entitled under the Acts to give him a substituted security on other land.
All this is a matter of arrangement. It would not require more than a single deed of a page or so, and solicitors who are wide awake will get it executed before January 1 next. I have heard today of a large estate in which this has been done, and there has been no difficulty about it. It is impossible for

1679
the Government to pass legislation on this matter this Session, and therefore if nothing is done the Act must take effect.. Even so, I do not think that much trouble Will ensue in any case, and if it does we arc quite willing to consider the matter and see whether by legislation or in some other way a remedy can be found. I add one observation. It could hardly have been expected that in this complicated series of Statutes no flaws should be found to exist, and I fully expect that before much time has elapsed we may have to ask Parliament to pass an amending Bill dealing; with small points like this. I hope I have said enough to demonstrate to the noble Lord and to the House that the point raised to-day can be met if those concerned will only act as others have acted, and endeavour to obtain a release. If they will do that, I do not think they will have any further trouble.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to add to the reassurance which the Lord Chancellor has given to the House. Those who raise this point appear to forget that this Statute, which contains Section 1, subsection (1) (v), is one of a series of Statutes which originated in 1912, and since that day have been under the close consideration of the most eminent body of conveyancers in the country. The purpose of the Acts is to clear titles and make land easy of transfer. It will in the end be much easier to transfer land than it is to-day. I have not even the amount of apprehension which the Lord Chancellor has. By appointing trustees of the settlement the vendor of land with a rent-charge of this description imposed upon it can get rid of the encumbrances very quickly and very cheaply. I hope great use will be made of this machinery for cleansing titles, and I should regret very much if we even suggested doing anything which went back on the principle, which is to make land as between vendor and purchaser as saleable as are stocks and securities. That is the purpose of the Acts. Of course some explanation is required in the sections of the Statutes which bring, this change about. But the changes are not difficult to understand, and for my part I think the advantages which the new system confers enormously outweigh any mere technical difficulties such as that to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the Council meeting at Geneva, and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have indicated to the noble Viscount who is going to reply to my Question that I want to call attention to two specific matters. So much is now being done at each meeting of the Council of the League of Nations that it really is impossible on one occasion even briefly to consider all the points which may arise. The two matters to which I have given him notice that it is my intention to call his attention are the questions of Mosul and disarmament, and I have also given him an indication of the class of points that I am likely to raise, so that he may be fortified in giving the reply of the Government.
The first, question that I want to deal with is that of Mosul. This is a question of extreme immediate importance. There is a suggestion that we may come under an obligation that will be in operation for a period of twenty-five years regarding the frontier between Iraq and Turkey. We have to recollect in this matter—and I shall have to call your Lordships' attention to one or two phrases in the Covenant of the League of Nations—that Great Britain is not acting on her own behalf or for her own advantage, but as a Mandatory, as a representative of the League of Nations under Article 22 of the Covenant. Her first duty as a Mandatory is to provide as far as possible for the good government, security and peace of the people who are placed under her charge—in this case the people of Iraq, who live to the south of the frontier line which is now being laid down as the proper boundary between Iraq and Turkey, by the Council of the League.
The first point that I wish to make is this. I do not think that this good government and security can be attained in a district of this character unless there is good will and friendliness between this country and Turkey. I shall have to call attention later to the Report of General Laidoner, who has shown quite conclusively that some of the evils of which he specially complains have taken place north of the line, and therefore in the territory which will be left within the sovereignty of Turkey. I shall have to

1681
come back to this point a little later and a little more in detail, but it appears to me that no protection can be given to the people called the Nestorian or Assyrian Christians that can really be effective unless Turkey and Great Britain can co-operate together in a kindly and friendly spirit.
The second point to which I wish to call attention in connection with Mosul is that, as I understand the suggestion contained in the decision of the Council, which I gather that we have intimated our willingness to accept, the settlement., whatever it may be, may and probably will endure for a period of twenty-five years. I think that this is altogether too long. I think it is a mistake which is likely to lead to endless trouble in the future to lay clown such conditions upon such a frontier and in such E. region as that of the boundary between Iraq and Turkey, and to attempt to foresee even what is likely to be practicable for so long a time as twenty-five years. No one knows how conditions may have been changed within that period. No one knows how, twenty-five years hence, we may regard obligations of this character and, more particularly, no one, I think, will be able to say that such an obligation, undertaken for such a length of time, can be foretold to be of advantage to the Iraq people. That, as I have said before, is the main consideration and point of view from which this question ought to be approached.
When this matter first came forward at Geneva, I occupied the position of British Delegate to the Council and it fell to my lot to recommend to the Council the Mandate which is now in operation. It was accepted unanimously in September, 1924, after considerable discussion. The only objections came from Persia and those objections were arranged to the satisfaction of the Council of the League. Everyone was agreed at that time as to the proper terms of the Mandate that ought to be accepted as regards the Iraq people. I should like particularly to call attention to one matter upon which I had to insist in bringing the Mandate before the League of Nations. I had to insist that we should come under the obligation of this Mandate for four years only. The Mandate was provisional and was to endure only for that period, and
1682
it was suggested that at the end of that time Iraq might be in a position to ask for entry into the League as one of the constituent countries. The further provision was indicated that, if that condition had not arisen when the four years' Mandate came to an end, the matter would have to be reconsidered and thought out again under the new conditions which might then have arisen In other words, not only was no such term as twenty-five years laid down but there was a special provision that the Mandate was not to be in force for a longer period than four years, and that after four years, if it was to be reinforced or re-enacted, it was at the same time to be reconsidered.
I should like to say one or two words in order to emphasise what I have said as to the position of Great Britain as a Mandatory in this district. What are the conditions of a Mandate under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations? In the first place, it was laid down in terms that a Mandatory Power was not to act on its own behalf but as a trustee for the League of Nations; in other words, it was not to use the position of a. Mandatory in order to push forward its own Imperialistic or other views, whatever they may be. In the second place, its duty is—and it is very important that this should be remembered in connection with the relationship between Lillie country and Mosul—provisionally to render administrative advice and assistance to the mandated territory until such time as it can stand alone. I would call your Lordships' special attention to the word "provisionally." Your Lordships will see hat the duty is to render administrative assistance, and mandated countries are not, therefore, to be regarded as if they were in the position of being under the sovereignty of the Mandatory.
A word is used in a subsequent part of the Article which, I think, adequately explains the position. The word is "tutelage," the idea being that during a period of tutelage the mandatory authority will educate and assist in the administrative development of the mandated country, until it is able to take an independent position of its own. Then, annually, a Report, is to be made to the League of Nations, and there is a special—what we should call a statutory—Commission, to which all these Reports

1683
are referred. Lastly, perhaps I might call your attention to these words, because they indicate the whole spirit in which these Mandates ought to be considered: The Mandatory is asked to apply the principle "that the well-being and development of such (mandated) peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied" in the necessary instrument. That is our position. It is not for us, as Mandatories, to consider what advantage we can get out of our position. It is our duty as Mandatories to consider how we can perform the duty placed upon us, and the responsibility which we have under- taken of educating, provisionally, by administrative development, a backward people, in order that ultimately they may take their place under conditions of full independence.
That position, I think, is emphasised in this case by the Report which was made by General Laidoner which was lately laid before the Council of the League at Geneva. He dealt with four matters. In the first place he pointed out that this was a wild region where there were constant tribal wars, where everyone went about armed and the different tribal or village chiefs were in a condition of almost constant warfare. He said that those conditions would probably be more or less continuous, and he threw no blame for them upon either Turkey or Great Britain. He then referred to the question of the occupation of certain villages by Turkish military posts and patrols, and also to the allegation that flights had been made over the frontier line by British aircraft. Neither of those matters did he consider of importance. He said that at present the frontier line was undefined and not. marked out, and that instances of that kind might he expected but the fourth point to which he called attention was a point of extreme importance in his view.
That was the deportation of Christians from points north of the proposed line to the south of the proposed line, within the territory to be adjudicated to Iraq. The history of those deportations is very terrible to read. No one doubts the horrors to which General Laidoner refers. They are further emphasised by the report of his own staff, who personally investigated the condition of these
1684
deported Christians, and I may take it—I am sure I should not make any other statement—that it is of extreme importance to our national honour, and the responsibilities that we have undertaken, that we should do all in our power to prevent such horrors from being enacted in the future. But then comes the question, How is that to be done? After all, those Christians, who I see were denounced as "traitorous brigands" from the Turkish point of view, cannot be immediately under our jurisdiction and sovereignty. They are outside the line which from the end of this year, or whatever the date may be, would be the frontier line between Iraq and Turkey.
How can we deal with a difficulty of this kind? I said at the outset, and I want to emphasise it again, that it can only be dealt with satisfactorily by friendly arrangement between Great Britain and Turkey. The alternative is really to consign these Christians on the north side of the line to Turkish horrors, probably aggravated because they are regarded as a traitorous element in the Turkish Republic. I do not know what the noble Viscount will say on this point. but I urge the Government, in the strongest terms, not to allow language to be used which is likely to excite extra friction and trouble, but, on the contrary, to encourage in every possible way a friendly settlement of this real difficulty. which cannot be settled unless there is a friendly arrangement between the two Powers. The next point, which I think your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said, is with regard to the condition of this frontier district. It may become, unless there is a friendly feeling between Turkey and England, a real danger-spot in the future—a danger-spot not only locally, but a danger-spot from which difficulties may spread over a very-wide area, and even ultimately lead to an outbreak of war, involving many countries in the East and West.
I do not, myself, of course, believe for a moment that that is likely to take place at once—I am not suggesting that—but we have to look forward to the future, and in doing that is there any way in which the conditions of this frontier line can be satisfactorily settled, unless there is friendly relationship between Great Britain and Turkey? Of course, it is our

1685
interest in a matter of this kind to be friendly. I deprecate very much some of the statements that I have heard, some of them, I think, attributed to the Colonial Secretary, in which he suggests that the giving way, even on a friendly line, of Great Britain might affect what is called the prestige of this country as regards her position in the East. I do not believe that for a moment. This was a matter originally undertaken by us as Mandatories. It is a matter which has passed out of our hands into the authority of the League of Nat ions, it is a question as to which matters of difference have now been adjudicated upon by the Council of the League of Nations, and I suggest that it is only worthy of our position as a great Power to show that we appreciate and understand the difficulties of Turkey as well as our own difficulties, with a view to bringing about satisfactory adjustments between the two countries.
If we do not, what will the result be? We shall not be able to push forward the people of Iraq into being a self-governing community, because they could never become that with severe friction on the Turkish frontier. We ourselves would be put to a long period of cost, because if there was really friction on this frontier line I do not, and cannot, believe it would not be a heavy source of expenditure to us in future years. Lastly, should war ensue by any mischance in this central district of Asia, I think it would be a great calamity to this country, to Iraq, and to Turkey, and it might spread over wide areas in other countries.
There is one other consideration which I would like to urge before I leave the question of Mosul. The difficulty in connection with Mosul did not arise at Geneva. So far as Geneva is concerned, it was settled in September, 1924, under the conditions which I have mentioned. The difficulty arose from a clause of the Treaty of Lausanne, under which a most difficult question was put off in order that, if possible, it might he determined by the Council of the League. When this question was first considered at Geneva I happened to be the Delegate for Great Britain, and I had to argue on behalf of Great Britain that this question had been sent from Lausanne to Geneva and afterwards to Brussels, not for the purpose, of consideration, but for the purpose of decision. As your Lordships are
1686
aware, that attitude has now been confirmed by the decision of the International Court.
At the same time, I want to make another aspect of the matter quite clear. The Turkish representative at that time at Geneva and afterwards at Brussels was Fethi Bey. I had very frank and friendly relationships with Fethi Bey. He always said that in his view the matter might be settled, and settled in an amicable way. It has not been altogether understood, I think, that: he did argue that from the Turkish point of view the reference under Article 13 of the Covenant was for the purposes of investigation and inquiry, and not for the purpose of settlement. In that respect he was held to be wrong, but I do not think it is out of place to say that that argument was held by him. It was an argument for which, undoubtedly, something was to be said, although in the long run it has been held by the decision of the International Court at The Hague to be wrong. Your Lordships know what the decision is. The decision is to accept as the frontier line what was practically the line laid down at Brussels, after careful inquiry, by that great statesman in the international world of almost unequalled authority, the late M. Branting, who was then Prime Minister of Sweden. But the decision has new been given, and that decision must be obeyed.
But what was never referred to the Council, or any other body, was the question of the length of time for which the mandatory settlement was to be maintained. The period of twenty-five years was first mentioned in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry which, on a suggestion made by me on behalf of Great Britain, was appointed to go out and examine the conditions on the spot. One can see quite clearly why this period of time alters the position from the Turkish point of view as against the previous period of time, which was limited to four years, and which would have come to an end in September, 1928. I think it is radically unsound from every point of view to acquiesce, until a far more friendly settlement has been made, and until the conditions are far more clearly ascertained, to a mandatory responsibility for twenty-five years—a responsibility which is likely, in my opinion, to endure for that period. I sincerely hope that it

1687
is not too late for this portion at any late of the Mosul settlement to be reconsidered, and I believe that the reconsideration of this point would have a great effect in producing friendly relations with the new Turkish Republic.
Before leaving this matter, I should like to refer to the speech the Foreign Secretary made when the decision was given at Geneva. He indicated his desire to approach Turkey in the most friendly spirit, and invited the Turks in a very friendly way to make such communications and suggestions as they thought might bring about a real settlement. So far I am entirely in accord with the attitude that Sir Austen Chamberlain adopted on that occasion. I hope that such a friendly arrangement can be made. It is the only way of dealing with the duties and responsibilities of a Mandatory in this country, and I hope that, if necessary, in making this arrangement there will be no stiff adherence to this prolonged period of twenty-five years. At the same time the Colonial Secretary made a statement which appeared to me to be of a much less friendly character, but I presume that the negotiations with Turkey will be in the hands of the Foreign Minister, and if he can carry out the indications of policy which he made at that time I, for one, would support him to the utmost of my power.
The other matter which I want to raise is disarmament. It is not necessary to come to an immediate determination on that question, as it is on the question of Mosul. But I want to impress again on the noble Viscount opposite a view with which I know he is sympathetic, namely, that it is quite impossible, if we are to fulfil the obligations which we have undertaken as signatories of the Covenant of the League, or which we undertook before the signature of the Treaty of Versailles with the Germans, to allow the conditions of unilateral disarmament in Europe to continue. It was never intended that there should be a prolonged period of unilateral disarmament; on the contrary, it was intended that the disarmament of Germany should be as an example for the reduction of armaments in other countries. So long as you have one disarmed country among armed neighbours I can see no security or certainty of permanent peace.
The Treaty of Locarno referred to disarmament, but I do not think any one can say that it carried the matter farther than it had gone before. But this year at Geneva a Resolution was adopted by the Assembly—the noble Viscount will tell me if I understand it aright—that a Committee or Sub-Committee should be appointed to consider the conditions under which projects of disarmament might be brought forward. Some appointments, perhaps all, have been made to that Sub-Committee. But what I want to ask the noble Viscount is whether any of the real difficulties have been met and solved by the appointment of that Sub-Committee. It was rumoured that the old discussions which had arisen between France and England on this subject were being raised again, I think by Paul-Boncour and others, on behalf of France. I thought they had been settled in the Fifth Assembly in 1924. But is there any prospect of this Sub-Committee really bringing about a practical scheme of disarmament in the near future? On this point I ask for information from the noble Viscount. Formally—I suppose it gives me a right of reply if necessary—I ask for Papers in my Motion. I ask for that Resolution to be put, although I certainly shall not press it if I get a satisfactory answer upon the points I have raised from the noble Viscount opposite.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I say a word on this subject? I am one of those who some time ago—in August or September—signed a memorial deprecating the then decision, so far as it had gone, that this country should hold a Mandate for twenty-five years. At that time those with whom I associate were very anxious, if possible, to come to an arrangement with Turkey on friendly lines. My noble friend opposite has very carefully gone into the whole scope of what a Mandate is, and also the position of a Mandatory Power under the League of Nations. He also referred to the Foreign Minister's welcome statement to the effect that now a decision has been arrived at by the League of Nations a friendly understanding might be come to with Turkey for a settlement of this very vexed boundary question. I think that is a feature that is extremely satisfactory, and I hope that now we may be able to make an arrangement with

1689
Turkey on friendly lines. The Turkish Government itself is confronted with great difficulties. We know that there are extremists in Turkey, backed by the Russian Soviet, who want to embroil Turkey in a quarrel with us, or, for the matter of that, with any other country. Therefore, if we can show that we are sympathetic to the more reasonable Turkish section, I think that will give good promise for the future.
The other point that I feel very strongly about is that we should become a Mandatory Power for from twelve to twenty-five years. I think the noble Lord termed it a tutelage, but even a tutelage for twenty-five years means that you will take very deep root, and that it will be very difficult to sever the connection at the end of that period of twenty-five years. It would almost inevitably mean that you would have to carry on for a further period. I was talking privately to someone who is fully entitled to give his views on this subject—an Arab—and, while he fully favoured the prolongation of the period of four years, which Lord Parmoor has referred to as the original agreement, he strongly dissented from the view that it was either necessary or desirable for this country to carry on as the Mandatory Power for a period of twenty-five years. He suggested that there should be only such a prolongation us would enable the Iraq Government to Ian their administration on a firm basis. I trust, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will do nothing to plant an administrative system upon the country which would entail this country staying there after a period of from live to ten years. The Government should do everything it can to set the Government of Iraq on an independent basis If peace is then preserved in that quarter of the world, we shall not have to continue in the country for this period of twenty-five years, but, having set up a Government there on a firm and independent basis, shall feel ourselves quite free to withdraw.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, before I deal with the main question that the noble Lord has raised, the question of Mosul, I should like to say a word on the question of disarmament, to which he referred at the end of his speech He is quite
1690
right in saying that that is not an urgent matter in this sense, that we are still at a preparatory stage in dealing with disarmament. What happened at the Assembly was this. The Council were asked to appoint a Committee, the name of which was not given but which has now been called the Preparatory Committee for a Conference an Disarmament, which should investigate all the many technical questions. The noble and learned Lord will, I am sure, agree with me that very great and difficult questions are involved in any scheme of disarmament, and that the Committee should, in fact, explore the basis of a future Conference on disarmament. I think your Lordships will agree with me that that was a very necessary and essential step to be taken before any Conference on the subject could be summoned with any hope of reaching a successful and fruitful issue. And that is what we were doing at Geneva the other day.
The Council, acting as a Committee—that is to say, the same State—Members of the Council, bat represented in some cases by different persons—drew up in the first place a scheme for the procedure and composition of such a preparatory Committee. It is to consist of the representatives of some eighteen or nineteen States, one representative from each, and is to have two Standing Committees, one a Military Standing Committee, which will be the existing Permanent Advisory Committee on Military Affairs, and the other an Economic Committee, which will be formed out of the other technical organisations of the League. It is hoped that this Committee, which is to meet for the first time on February 15, will be able to set on foot a searching examination into the whole basis of disarmament. It was thought that it was impossible to deal with one part of the subject without dealing with the whole of it, but this is, as your Lordships will understand, not the drawing up of a scheme of disarmament, but merely investigating the possibilities of disarmament, and dealing with the technical aspects of it.
We were also charged to draw up a programme of investigation. When your Lordships come to read that programme I think you will agree with me that if it errs at all it errs on the side of being rather too comprehensive. It is evident,

1691
as your Lordships will easily understand, that it was very difficult to reject any subject of inquiry that was at all plausible if any members of the Committee desired to have that subject investigated. I do not think it makes a very great deal of difference. The substance of the inquiry will always have to be under what conditions and in what way is disarmament or reduction of armaments possible, and I do not know that the number of questions, or their exact statement, makes a very great deal of difference to the subject to be inquired into.
The noble Lord suggested that there were still differences of opinion between the British and the French representatives on the Committee and the Council in this respect. I do not think that is so. It is true that, as is set out in the Proceedings of the Committee which the noble and learned Lord will no doubt have an opportunity of reading, there was a discussion—as there must be, otherwise it would be useless to meet—as to the exact subjects which we were to investigate. The French representatives, and not only those, but others, were very anxious that in investigating the amount of armaments that theoretically one State might have as compared with another State, we must take into consideration the guarantees of security which that. State has whether by Treaty, by geographical circumstances or by anything else. I do not think any one could fairly object to that. But the way it was stated gave us at first some anxiety, I admit, as to whether it was proposed to embark upon an inquiry which did not seem to us to have any great bearing on disarmament itself. On the terms as finally settled, however, I do not think there is any reason to object to it as an element of the inquiry.
The noble Lord asked me what I thought of the prospects of success of the disarmament cause. I have never concealed from myself the enormous difficulties that lie in the way of any general scheme of disarmament. They are prodigious. There is the great difficulty of even finding a means of comparing one land armament with another, and when you come to set up a scale of armaments, allowing so much for this nation and so much for that, you are evidently faced with enormous difficulties. But I am bound to say that in my judgment they are none of them insuperable. The
1692
whole question, and there is nothing else in it, is this: How determined are the peoples of Europe, because it is substantially a European question, to bring about disarmament? If I may say so without being misunderstood, it is not even a question of Governments; it is a question of the peoples themselves. If they are really in earnest, if they really desire disarmament, then I am satisfied that there are no technical difficulties, great as they are, which cannot be overcome. On the other hand, if they are really indifferent, if they are not going really to press for disarmament, if they are not going to insist that it shall be done, then I admit that the difficulties are so great that the prospects of success become materially less bright. I do not think there was any other question ea disarmament which the noble and learned Lord asked me. If there is any, of course I shall be very glad to do my best to answer it.
Coming now to Mosul, I do not gather that the noble and learned Lord thinks that we ought to reject the decision of the Council of the League. Indeed, when I reflect on the immense care that has been shown by the League in arriving at that decision I think it would be an impossible policy to press upon the Government that we should reject it. May I remind your Lordships of the immense care that has been taken? In the first place, acting, as we have been reminded to-night. on the suggestion of the representative of the British Government, a highly qualified Commission, certainly in no way unfavourable to or prejudiced against the Turks or the Turkish cause, was sent to the place. That Commission consisted of three gentlemen, a Swede, a Hungarian and a Belgian, of considerable eminence in their own countries. They made a most searching investigation. They produced a most elaborate and comprehensive Report. Indeed, if I were to criticise it at all, I should say it was so elaborate and so comprehensive that it was easy for those who were either pressed for time or not very impartially disposed to lose sight of the final and essential recommendations which that Commission made.
When the Commission came back the matter was examined by the Council. The Council appointed three of its own members to examine it. No one has

1693
accused the members of that. Sub-Committee, so far as I know, of anything but the most extreme desire to arrive at the truth of the case. They investigated it. They heard the representatives of Turkey and the representatives of this country. They sat for some time in September, and it then appeared that there was a doubt raised by the representatives of the Turks as to what was really the function of the Council in the matter. Thereupon, they referred that question to the International Court for the most authoritative International legal advice that could be given. The delay of three months had the additional advantage that all the Governments could be consulted as Governments upon the questions that were being raised before the Council. The Court has now given an advisory opinion that the Council's duty was to give a decision on this matter and not merely to make a recommendation. When that was received the Council, following its universal practice, adopted that advice. It could not have done anything else, I think. After hearing, the Turks at considerable length against adopting it, there was no hesitation on the Council in adopting it. Then they again considered the matter and considered it with the greatest elaboration and care, and very rightly, because it was evidently a decision of a serious character which involved serious obligations on the countries whose representatives took part in it.
The decision of the Council was, as the noble and learned Lord has said, to uphold as the boundary—subject, of course, to delimitation—the broad line laid down at the suggestion of Mr. Branting at the Council to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. But they have attached this observation to it, that it shall not be definitive until the present Mandatories have entered into a fresh treaty with the Iraq Government providing that the Mandate shall be extended to such a period, not exceeding twenty-five years, as shall elapse before the Mandated country is able to stand by itself.
I do not think that, is a very surprising suggestion from the Council if you have in view the terms of Article 22 to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, because this is said in the case with which we have to deal:—
1694
"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised"
that is where "provisionally" comes in—
"subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
All that the Council have really done is to say that, acting on the advice of their Commission which investigated the matter on the spot, we must understand that the. Mandatory is going to give such advice and assistance as is necessary because we are of opinion that at present the provisionally independent nation of Iraq is not able to stand alone.
It is true that the maximum period is fixed at twenty-five years, but, as I shall have occasion to point out in a moment or two, that does not at all mean that twenty-five years is to be the limit of our mandatory duties.
LORD PARMOOR: It is a possible limit.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is the possible limit; it is the outside limit. When that decision was announced the Colonial Secretary, my right hon. friend Mr. Amery, who has really conducted this case with the greatest skill and discretion, as I am sure everybody will admit when they read what he actually said and not what he is reported to have said, which is not always the same thing, stated that he hoped to submit at an early date a new Treaty whose execution will give final effect to the decision of the Council. He also stated that he accepted the decision of the Council and would loyally conform to it. I do not find anything of a hostile or uncompromising character in what the Colonial Secretary said on that occasion as the noble and learned Lord appeared to intimate. That is what happened; that is the position.
The undertaking we have given is not for definite twenty-five years, but for what I believe, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated to the Council, will be a far shorter period—namely, until such time as we can make it clear to the League of Nations that Iraq had acquired a stability which justifies its admission to membership of the. League. These are almost the very words which my noble friend desires we should use:

1695
that we should only require to be there until Iraq had acquired a stability necessary for her to stand alone. The test that has been adopted at Geneva is one of stability which justifies its admission to membership of the League.
It is not an undertaking to spend money or keep troops in Iraq either for the maintenance of internal order or for its defence against external aggression, but to continue our co-operation and advice in maintaining a stable system of government. It may be asked what will be our responsibility for the defence of Iraq if, after the expiration of the present Treaty, that country should be attacked by any foreign Power. It is obvious that the responsibility which we should have towards Iraq, if as a fellow Member of the League of Nations she were the victim of unprovoked aggression, would certainly not be diminished by any Treaty relationship with us which continued our mandatory position.
But the League itself has a special responsibility towards a State over which it exercises a mandatory supervision, and if the aggression in question were directed to the forcible overthrow of a boundary fixed by the Council of the League itself, the responsibility of the League as the authority directly challenged a affronted, would obviously be the primary and dominant one. Our responsibility in any future situation must necessarily depend on the circumstances of the situation. The action which we should take and the method and extent of any support which we might give in a particular case cannot be fixed in advance or be a matter of prior obligation. They must be determined by the Government of the day if ever the case arises, in the light of the then existing circumstances and the general interests of world peace and of the Empire.
That is the account which the Government gives of the position which now exists. I am not quite sure what the noble and learned Lord really recommends as the policy of the Government. I know there have been very strong criticisms passed upon the action of the Government, notably by a noble Lord who I am glad to see opposite, Lord Beaverbrook, and by another noble Lord who is not present, Lord Rothermere, They have taken a very strong line indeed in hostility and opposition to the policy
1696
of the Government. I expect it is my fault, but I am not quite sure what policy either of these noble Lords recommends, but if I have been able to follow their views rightly, and the views of other critics, they may be divided into two schools. One wishes us to withdraw from either the whole or part of Mesopotamia immediately, or as soon as we can; immediately, if possible. Some wish the whole of Mesopotamia to be abandoned in this way. Others wish for the vilayet of Mosul to be abandoned, while others again prefer that some northern fraction of Mosul should be abandoned.
I must remind your Lordships of the position which we hold with reference to this territory. We cannot deal with it as if it were a res integra. At the Peace Conference, rightly or wrongly, we asked for a Mandate, and shortly after the Paris Conference a Mandate for Mesopotamia was allotted to us. At that time we were, in fact, administering exactly the same territory as we are now administering. As your Lordships are aware the first attempts at making peace were abortive, but at the Lausanne Conference we insisted on our position as Mandatory in Mesopotamia, and particularly with reference to this Vilayet of Mosul. As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, provisions were put in with reference to the fixation of the boundaries of Mesopotamia, but that we should remain in Mesopotamia was part of our declared policy, and before the League itself we have on very many occasions asserted—the noble and learned Lord himself was one of the people who did it—our desire to have the boundaries fixed and to remain as the Mandatory of the League in Mesopotamia. It is therefore true to say that the Coalition Government, the Government of Mr. Bonar Law, the first Government of Mr. Baldwin, the Labour Government, and the second Government of Mr. Baldwin, have all of them insisted that we should occupy the position of Mandatory in Mesopotamia and accept the obligations which were thrown upon us.
LORD PARMOOR: The position when I was at Geneva as the representative of the Labour Government was that we had accepted the Mandate and the only question was in what form to make it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: And also what were to be the boundaries.

1697
There was no suggestion before the League that you desired to abandon the Mandate. You could have said to the League that you desired to abandon the Mandate, but there was no suggestion of that kind.
LORD PARMOOR: The only suggestion which could possibly have been raised was the form of it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Oh, no. There is no limit to the questions which any Member of the League may raise before the Council of the League. But what are the actual changes, looking at it as an international matter, which would justify a change of policy on the part of the Government? There has been a certain amount of Turkish pressure, and I am not saying a word which could embitter or envenom any controversy we may have with the Government of Turkey. But no doubt there has been pressure.
In addition, we have had the Report of General Laidoner. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord's estimate of the importance of that Report. It is not a question of what is going on in the district from which these unhappy refugees came. That, I agree, is beyond our competence to deal with. It is a question of what may happen if we abandon our trust over the district which we at present administer. The noble Lord referred to certain passages in General Laidoner's Report in which he spoke of the disturbed condition of the district from which these refugees came. I had the advantage of considerable conversation with General Laidoner after he had made his Report, and he was equally strong in praise of the striking difference in the districts over which we exercised a mandatory influence. He reported in the strongest terms that conditions are absolutely stable and peaceful. I remember that he gave me an illustration in the fact that even the highest officials could walk about without any armed guard or police to look after them—a condition of affairs which, he said, was not always to be found even in the more civilised States.
In dealing with the policy of abandonment, if I may so term it, we must recognise and face the fact that, if we go out, we shall inevitably be considered to be going out in obedience to pressure from Turkey and we shall run a grave risk of
1698
seeing, when we have gone out, an emigration which the General himself put at tens of thousands—60,000 or 90,000 persons was his estimate of the population that would not be content to remain in the district. That is a very serious state of things to contemplate. And that is not the only thing. The Council's Commission, presided over by the Swedish gentleman, M. de Wirsen, who went out to investigate, reported that the present frontier, the Brussels line, was a perfectly good frontier from the point of view of defence, if defence became necessary, and that, whenever you went back, you would have a frontier that gradually got worse the further back you went, because the slope goes down and becomes more and more deficient in natural obstacles. Accordingly, if you went back, you would have a worse country, that is a more expensive country to defend, if defence became necessary. You would also have less resources, because it happens that normally the territories to the north are some of the richest in production in the whole territory of Iraq. So far, therefore, as we should remain responsible for the defence of Iraq, our position would be more expensive with less resources with which to meet it.
Then we should have to face the refugee problem that might come upon us—that, according to this very competent judge, would come upon us. I do not know whether it is realised how small a proportion of the population of the Vilayet of Mosul is Turkish. The proportion is about five per cent. The majority of the population are Kurdish, and next to them come Arabs—both, it is true, Mussulmans, but not specially acceptable to the strong Nationalist Turkish sentiment which prevails in Turkey at the present moment. Then come the Christians—there are, if I remember rightly, some 60,000 of them—then the Turks, who number, I think, some 40,000, and then smaller bodies of Yesidis, Jews and others. I do not, of course, know how many of those would become refugees, but I cannot reject the strong possibility that a large proportion of them would be refugees under conditions of the greatest horror, if some of the scenes were repeated that have occurred already. I am sure that no one-can have read the Report of General Laidoner's assistants without feeling how terrible has been the lot of the refugees

1699
there described. As I have said, we should have less resources and greater demands upon us in meeting whatever responsibility lay upon us with reference to these matters.
I do not want to put the thing too high, but I cannot help feeling that a policy of abandonment of that kind would, in the existing circumstances and after everything that has occurred, be a serious blow to our reputation and one that would have a repercussion in other countries far removed from Mesopotamia. Finally—I do not want to put the thing in a sentimental or excessive statement—it does seem to me a policy which I should have the greatest difficulty in supporting, if we are to desert those who have, at our invitation and at our instigation, declared themselves our friends and, per se, declared themselves as the possible enemies of any of those who might come after us. I do think that a Government that deserts its friends, the subjects who have trusted us, is committing one of the very worst crimes which a Government can possibly commit.
That is the policy of abandonment. But there is, in terms at any rate, quite a different policy that is sometimes recommended. It is a minor policy, and I am not quite sure whether it is the policy which the noble Lord recommends. I refer to the policy of refusing to undertake to make a Treaty to give the pledge that the Council asks for.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You think we ought to do that? That is a Serious suggestion. The noble Lord has said with great truth that, when we accepted the duty of Mandatory over this territory—whether this was right or wrong I express no opinion—we accepted the duty of tutelage of the populations in the district.
LORD PARMOOR: For four years.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: When we accepted it we accepted it generally. We afterwards asked the leave of the Council to make a Treaty in which we said that we would accept it for four years certainly, and that then we should consider what further extension became necessary. That is what we said, as your Lordships will sec if you
1700
will look at the last Article of the Treaty that we made with Turkey. I do not think that, in view of that decision, we should be acting in accordance with the spirit of the Covenant or of the undertaking into which we entered if we said to the Council, when they asked us if we were prepared to go on with this Mandate until these people are able to stand by themselves, that we decline to give any pledge on the subject. I confess that I think, on the noble Lord's own principles of considering the interests of the population and the respect that we owe to the League, that this would have been a very serious step to take.
Consider what would have been the consequences if we had done that. So far as I can see there would have been one of three. It might be that the result would have been a transfer of a portion of this Province, or the whole of it, to the Turkish Government. It seems to me that a transfer in those circumstances and in consequence of our refusal to accept the suggestion of the Council, would have been very much the same thing as abandonment of the Province itself and would have produced all the evil consequences to which I have ventured to call your attention as the result of abandonment. Speaking merely as a speculation, I think it is more probable that you would have had no decision. Some Members of the Council would have thought that even so it was better to leave the line as drawn and to leave it without further decision, whereas others would have said that they were not prepared to do that unless they knew what line we were going to take as Mandatories. The result of that would have been no decision.
From the noble Lord's point of view, and I very much sympathise with him, from the point of view of reaching a decision with the Turks, I think nothing would- have been worse than leaving the matter undecided on a point on which the two Governments took totally different views. The great obstacle to a decision has been that each Government has taken an entirely different view of its international position in the matter. Possibly there might have been an award of the same kind as was given and in that case, no doubt, we should have come in without the express obligation to stay there, to discharge the duties of a

1701
Mandatory—because that is all we have undertaken—until the Arab Government can stand by itself. I think that in that case the decision would not have been substantially different from what it is now. It is true that we should have been there without express obligations beyond the four years, but all the obligations to which I have referred—the difficulty of abandonment, the difficulty of leaving your task half done—would have existed just as they do at the present time.
I wish to say, speaking for myself, that to my mind the obligations that rest upon us in this matter are obligations arising far more from our actions than anything that we have said. I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that we ought never to have gone to Mesopotamia. That, however, is past history and we cannot discuss it now. I do not propose to dc so. We went there and we established a government over the whole of this territory. We set up an admirable Administration. We have gradually trained the people to take into their own hands their own fate and we are anxious that that training should go on as rapidly and as completely as possible. It has already made marvellous progress. As the necessary result of these conferences we have induced a number of people to declare themselves as our friends and supporters.
We have undertaken this duty and that is the real difficulty, if it be a difficulty, in which we are placed. It is not the question so much of this phrase or that, phrase in the Mandate. It is a question of what you do, and that is the great principle which I venture to press upon your Lordships as true in all questions of foreign policy and in a great many other questions, possibly. You must be careful in instituting a policy, in beginning it, because it is the consequences of what you do that really binds your action in the future. You cannot, by any ingenious form of words, get out of the general broad proposition that if you have undertaken a duty and induced people to rely upon you to carry it through, you cannot throw that duty aside in the middle and leave those people to shift for themselves. Perhaps it is because I was trained as an English lawyer in the doctrine of
1702
assumpsit, with which my noble and learned friend is well acquainted, that I feel so strongly that it is the fundamental principle of justice which underlies so much of the foreign policy of this country.
When I come to what we ought to do I find myself very nearly, if not altogether, in agreement with the noble Lord. I agree most fully that nothing could be more desirable than that we should arrive at an agreement with the Turkish Government. I think we ought to do so if we possibly can. I do not know that I can put it more strongly than it was put by the Foreign Secretary in the passage at the enc of the White Paper. After the decision had been given, the Foreign Secretary said—
"The British Government have no wish to take up a rigid or uncompromising attitude towards Turkey. If they have pressed for a decision by the Council, it is only because they believed that until the Council had pronounced upon the question submitted to it by the Treaty of Lausanne, it was impossible to find a common basis on which to found the discussion of an agreement with the Turkish Government. The British Government most earnestly desire to live on terms of peace and amity with the Turkish Government. The Council having given its decision, His Majesty's Government will gladly lend itself to conversation with the Government of the Republic of Turkey in order to see whether, while taking due account of the Council's decision, it may not be possible to render the relations between our two countries easier and safer. With this object in view the British Government is ready to take into consideration any proposal made by the Turkish Government which is compatible with their duty as Mandatory to protect the interests of the people of Iraq"
I think that is the right policy. I believe that the decision of the Council will not in any way interfere with that policy being carried out but, on the contrary, will form a basis which will remove much disputatious matter which might otherwise have hindered agreement being arrived at.
That is part of the policy of the Government. We are anxious to arrive at an agreement with Turkey. The other part is also that which my noble friend pressed upon us—namely, that we are anxious to use all our powers to enable the people of Iraq and the Government of Iraq to stand by themselves as early as possible, and to be in a position to apply for membership of the League of Nations. We shall do

1703
everything we can to forward that desirable consummation at the earliest possible moment, and I shall be bitterly disappointed if Iraq does not reach that position of responsibility long before the twenty-five years have elapsed. For myself, I see no reason why it should not have reached that position in a very much shorter period of time.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the answer he has given on both the points which I raised. On the disarmament point I only desire to say this, that presumed comprehensiveness in one sense leads to impracticability, if not impossibility, and that is what I fear from the form of comprehensiveness to which the noble Viscount referred. At the same time I will corroborate his view that technical difficulties are really only obstacles so long as there is not an earnest desire on the part of various peoples to carry out a reduction of armaments, and that so soon as a general desire of that kind is really entertained, these technical objections are likely to disappear.
The more important point I want to say a few words about is what the noble Viscount said with regard to Mosul. I do not think that he at any rate fully understood the point I made, and I want to make it quite clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding. Of course I agree with him that the decision of the Council as an arbitral body must be implemented by the action of the British Government. There is no question between us on that point. But the particular matter to which I called attention—namely, the period of twenty-five years—was not submitted to the arbitral decision and is not dealt with as part of the arbitral decision. The arbitral decision was given as to the direction of the frontier line and that was the only matter which, under the Treaty of Lausanne, was referred to the decision of the Council of the League. The British Government is invited to submit a new treaty for twenty-five years.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: They go on to say that their award will not be definitive until that has been done.
LORD PARMOOR: That is a condition which in my view cannot be attached to the award as an arbitral decision. The
1704
arbitral decision is the decision of the frontier line; the invitation to accept a Mandate of twenty-five years is an invitation only. I do not want, however, to bandy technical points with the noble Viscount. I do think that a new Mandate of twenty-five years is a most serious matter. I agree with him that you cannot accept a Mandate of this kind without creating responsibilities towards the mandated country and under the conditions prevailing in Iraq, if you remain there for twenty-five years you will find that obligations and responsibilities are undertaken that will make it practically impossible for you with national honour to leave Iraq at all. Does the noble Viscount really think that, if we accept this period of twenty-five years as a maximum, there is the remotest chance of Great Britain's resigning the Mandate in a shorter period?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly. I thought I had said in the plainest possible language that it is twenty-five years, or the period within which Iraq shall be in a position to apply for membership in the League of Nations, which we have said we will forward to the utmost of our power. It is quite true that, if Iraq were to remain in exactly the same position as she is in now, and we were to remain in exactly the same position as we are in now, we should evidently be no further advanced at the end of twenty-five years, but our policy is to avoid that happening, by enabling Iraq to stand by herself, and by coming to a friendly arrangement with Turkey, which will render the burdensome nature of our position, such as it is, either nonexistent or very much less.
LORD PARMOOR: That is a matter upon which is is possible to have differences of opinion, but it is not the point which I am stressing. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. What I say is that the longer you stay under the conditions of a Mandatory responsible for the administrative Government of Iraq, the stronger will almost certainly be the argument that you cannot leave Iraq, because, in proportion to the length of time that you maintain your administrative position, will be the growth of fresh responsibilities which national honour will compel us to undertake. That is the whole point. The people of Iraq were given notice in the original Mandate that we would only he responsible for four

1705
years. Well, apparently we differ upon that. I say it is perfectly clear to any one who reads the original Mandate that we were only to be responsible for four years, and that if, at the end of the four years, Iraq was not sufficiently grown up to be a Member of the League of Nations, then the matter was to be reconsidered. I attach the very greatest importance to the limitation introduced in the original Mandate. If the noble Viscount is right, there ought to be no period now inserted at all. You ought merely to wait until, with the passage of time, Iraq is in a position to stand by itself. No other consideration arises except that—certainly no consideration of time. Immediately you introduce a period such as twenty-five years you come under an obligation which at the end of that time will imply an almost permanent obligation. That has been the history of other places—not under Mandates, because the history of Mandates is a new principle.
You can approach a Mandate from two points of view. One is with the idea of getting rid of it by educating the mandated people as quickly as possible, the other is to take the point of view of saying: "We do not want to leave. We are here promoting interests which we cannot abandon, having regard to our ideas of national honour." That is the wrong way of looking at the position of a mandated territory. And it is for that reason that I think it is a fatal mistake, in dealing with such a vital issue, to come under any obligation which can be construed, and which I think will be construed, as making us responsible for Iraq for at least a period of twenty-five years.
The noble Viscount, I think, hardly realises the nature of the obligation which we are undertaking for this long time. Suppose we cannot come to a friendly arrangement with Turkey—which the noble Viscount knows, perhaps better than I do, is not an easy matter: What is to be the result? How long are we to remain under an obligation if Turkey does not adopt a friendly attitude? What will be the cost of military, naval, and air expenditure? I quite agree that, when you put yourselves into a position of that kind, you cannot leave the people towards whom you have undertaken responsibilities without fulfilling those responsibilities as a matter of national honour and national prestige. I am not
1706
at all reassured by what the noble Viscount has said, and I believe that there is a strong feeling in all Parties in this country—we know it prevails in the Conservative Party—that no such obligation, of practically a permanent kind, ought to be undertaken, at least until the feeling of the country has been ascertained.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) (NO. 2) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill under the Parliament Act, 1911.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

COASTGUARD BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill lie now considered. These Amendments are the re-insertion by the Commons of the provisions which were struck out of the Bill when it was passed through this House on the ground of privilege.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments he now considered.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I now beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I most respectfully hope that

1707
your Lordships will not think me an infernal bore rising at this time on the last day before the adjournment to say a few words on this Bill. I promise your Lordships that they will be very few, but I really cannot help myself. Something has to be said, and I have been asked by my leader in this House, Earl Beauchamp, and by the Commander-in-Chief of the Liberal Party or what is left of it, Lord Oxford and Asquith, to express what our feelings are in regard to the Bill that your Lordships are now asked to read a third time.
I wonder if your Lordships know what this Bill means. Last week it was pitchforked in amongst a lot of other Bills that were all tied together like a sheaf of corn, and it was proposed to put this Bill through all its stages on the same day with the others. That was a little bit strong even in this House. The only excuse that could have been made for it would have been that it was a Money Bill. We have been informed by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that this is not a Money Bill, but it is an agreed Bill. I think most people will agree with me when I say that of all the bad Bills that have passed through this House this is the worst.
What is this Bill, which is called the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment Bill? It is a measure to permit payment for the loss incurred by the Land Settlement Act of 1919. What did that Act of Parliament do? It placed 14,000 ex-soldiers on the land. That Act was brought in by Mr. Lloyd George's Coalition Government in 1919, and was a most praiseworthy one in its object, but the result was that it cost the country £17,000,000. Fourteen thousand ex-soldiers were put on the land at a cost of £17,000,000. That works out at a cost of £1,100 each. That, I think your Lordships will admit, is a most wonderful performance. How was this feat accomplished? It was done by suspending the Small Holdings Act of 1908. May I be permitted to say one word about that Act because I had a little to do with it? During three and a half years I happened to know something of the way in which it was carried out. Under that Act the Liberal Government put 5,000 men on the land and secured about 180,000 acres. That would be the equivalent of a piece of land a mile wide and about 200 miles
1708
long, that is to say, like a piece of road a mile wide running from London to York. We did that, and the transaction did not cost the county one single shilling, because the rents that the men paid covered all the expenses, including a sinking fund to repay all the money in a certain time. And ninety-five per cent. of the men who were put on the land at that time, under that Act, are on the land now, and are all doing well.
I think I may fairly ask the House to contrast the "Liberal Land Policy Bill,'' as I may call it, with the Bill that we are now asked to read a third time. Not only has this frightfully extravagant thing, which costs the country £17,000,000, impoverished the country, but the ex-Service men's rents under it were so high in comparison with those paid under the Small Holdings Act of 1908 that the Ministry insisted on all the pre-War rents being raised, so that justice should be done and that all should suffer alike. That is a bald statement of what has happened, and I challenge contradiction of it. I have made a statement of exactly what this Bill is, and what we are asked to do this afternoon is to continue it. I am not in the habit of speaking for other people, but I cannot honestly believe that the House will sanction the continuance of this awful extravagance.
But what are we to do? We are asked to read this Bill a third time. It is now twenty minutes to seven o'clock and the red benches of your Lordships' House show that there is a rather attenuated attendance; in fact, we are rapidly approaching that mysterious triumvirate which the law of England certifies as constituting the House of Lords, a congregation or a mob. What course am I to pursue in the protest that I am making for the whole Liberal Party? If I challenged a Division what good would it be? You must have thirty Peers present for a Division to be taken and there are only sixteen or seventeen Peers left in the House. All I can do to-night is to thank your Lordships for having allowed me to make this protest in the name of the Party to which I belong and to express the determination of the Liberal Party, in connection with any land question that may be brought before us, to resist to the uttermost any such extravagance as that

1709
which I have tried to describe this evening to your Lordships. I suppose that my noble friend will say that the Bill is to be read a third time. I am in his hands. I have made my protest, and that is all I can do.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, my noble friend has just told us that he is making a protest against this Bill in the name of the Party to which ha belongs. I am bound to say that if he is doing so he is not receiving that enthusiastic and vociferous support from the Liberal Benches which in such circumstances one would naturally expect. But what troubles me so much about the observations of the noble Marquess is that he told us that he is asked by his nominal Leader to protest against, the continuance of this Bill; by which I imagine he means the scheme embodied in the original Act of 1919. I want to make it perfectly clear to your Lordships that is exactly what this Bill is not intended to do. This Bill is intended to wind up once and for all the scheme which was provided for in the Act of 1919 and, therefore, so far from asking the House to object to the Bill, if your Lordships agree with the noble Marquess, and indeed with myself, you will do your best to pass this Bill into law as soon as possible, its object being to wind up that scheme and incidentally to wind up the finance in connection with the scheme.
Let me say that my noble friend, if be will allow me to call him so, is, in effect, a pioneer in this country of small holdings, at any rate of statutory small holdings, and he has managed to convince, I will not say his; own Party because apparently he has not, but the other two Parties, how very desirable it is to continue, develop and extend the scheme which he initiated in the year 1908. The only opposition there seems likely to be to this salutary extension of small holdings, in which we are all very much interested, appears likely to come from the right hon. gentleman who up to this evening I always imagined dictated to the Liberal Party their land policy.
I want to acknowledge seriously the debt which this country and the rural community owe to the noble Marquess in the matter of small holdings. He has an unrivalled knowledge of this particular
1710
subject and he was undoubtedly responsible for the initial effort made in 1908 But this Bill, as I ventured to explain in the absence of the noble Marquess last Thursday, when moving the Second Reading, comes to this House as an agreed Bill as between the County Councils Association and the Borough Councils and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury. It also comes here as a Bill that is agreed to by the House of Commons and which passed without criticism in another place. The only Liberal who expressed an opinion on the Money Resolution which initiated this Bill in another place was Mr. Fenby.
Mr. Fenby is not only a very authoritative Liberal but he is Chairman of the East Riding; Small Holdings Committee. What was it he said? He started by congratulating the Minister of Agriculture and his advisers on this Bill, and he went on to say:—
"The county councils, or some of them, are anxious to make a move forward with regard to settling men upon the land as I smallholders"—
that is to say, other than ex-Service men—
"and unless this settlement is arrived at before the House rises for Christmas it will be almost impossible to carry out the settlement for April next between the county councils and the Ministry. What I am anxious about, as a member of a county authority, is that this settlement should be effected as early as possible, so that, a forward movement may be made in regard to small holdings in vetting more men upon the land."
That is the only expression put forward' on behalf of the Liberal Party in another place when the Money Resolution in connection with this Bill came before it.
Now what are the objections which the noble Marquess has made, not to this Bill but to the original scheme initiated by a Government of which a most distinguished Liberal was the head in 1919? His objection was that whereas his own measure of 1908 was so successful that there was no monetary loss resulting from it (which I quite admit), and that no more than 5 per cent. of the men that were settled thereunder have not made good (which again I admit), under this particular scheme which was for the benefit of ex-Service men, and ex-Service men only, something like £17,000,000 have been expended on which we anticipate that something like £8,000,000 will, in fact,

1711
have been lost—we admit that. Under this particular scheme not 14,000 small holdings but 16,000 small holdings have been constituted at a cost not of £17,000,000 but of £16,000,000, and the result of the arithmetical calculation that the noble Marquess made is very substantially modified; in fact, each small holder has been settled at a cost of less than £1,000, instead of considerably more.
What is the difference in the percentage of men who have not made good? As I pointed out just now, the noble Marquess is proud, and justifiably proud, of the fact that not more than 5 per cent. have failed under his scheme. But no more than ten to twelve per cent. have failed under this scheme under most abnormal conditions. What are those conditions? in the first place, suitable land had to be obtained at an appreciably higher value than the cost of such land in pre-War times. The buildings and equipment were very much more costly, probably at least 80 per cent. more costly than they were in the years to which the noble Marquess referred. The rate of interest on capital loans was very much higher. At the time when the noble Marquess's scheme came into most effective operation the value of money—that is, the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loans Board—was no more than 3½ per cent., whereas, the average that has been charged during this post-War period has been 6¼ per cent., and the greater part of the land was acquired with money upon which county councils have had to pay 6½ per cent. That was in the years between 1920 and 1922.
Then the noble Marquess must realise that the men who came and occupied the original small holdings were the cream of the working class population in the rural districts, skilled workers. The bulk of these men are ex-Service men, many of them with very limited agricultural experience and many of them partially disabled and unable to throw the amount of energy into the work which the ordinary small holder is able to do. Lastly, but by no means least, we have unfortunately had bad seasons, with relatively low prices during the period when these men were getting established on their small holdings.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything else except this. The
1712
noble Marquess, when the principal Act was under discussion in this House, in 1919, raised by anticipation the same protest, and Lord Ernle, who was then Minister of Agriculture in what I may call the Lloyd George Government, himself anticipated that there would be a loss of some millions on the scheme. He realised that in the eventual balancing of accounts money would have to be found from the Exchequer in order to avoid county councils suffering a loss. He was not far out in his anticipation as to what the loss would be. He suggested 40 per cent. As a matter of fact we anticipate a loss, at the most, of 50 per cent., under much more difficult conditions and much more onerous rates of interest than Lord Ernle was able to anticipate. I suppose I must not take it seriously that the noble Marquess proposes to divide against the Bill. Assuming he were to do so, let me remind him what would happen. The valuation of the small holding estates would be carried out on the lines of Section 27 of the original Act, and the ratepayers in the counties would have to find the difference in rates between 3½ per cent. and 6 per cent. in order to balance the small holdings account. I cannot believe that the noble Marquess desires anything like that. In fact, it is the last suggestion that would come with any grace from the great pioneer of the small holdings movement in this country. The surprise to most of us is that the loss on this ex-Service small holdings scheme has not been far more serious that it has turned out to be.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before the House adjourns I have to inform your Lordships that some slight departure is proposed from the arrangements made as to to-morrow's meeting of the House. The discussion in another

1713
place on your Lordships' Amendments to certain Bills has not been concluded. It has taken longer than was expected, and the discussion has now been adjourned. It will not be resumed until to-morrow morning. That being so your Lordships will not meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow, as arranged, but at three o'clock in the afternoon. After consideration of any matters which may arise a Royal Commission will sit here to give assent to certain Bills, and afterwards there will be the Prorogation.
[From Minutes of December 18.]

EARL OF BANDON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that in the Peerage of Ireland
1714
Percy Ronald Gardiner, Earl of Bandon, has established his succession to the Earldom of Bandon, and his right to vote at any elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.