Sitting of 18 June 1925

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 26th June.

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

    ADMINISTRATION (COST).
    Mr. J. GUESTasked the Minister of Pensions what is the total cost of administration, and what is the average cost per pensioner, omitting any estimate for the wives and children of pensioners in receipt of disability pensions, and the children of widows in receipt of widows' pensions?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): If I understand the hon. Member's question aright, he desires information as to the annual cost of administering pensions for each family unit, and not for each beneficiary?
    Mr. GUEST: Yes.
    Major TRYON: On this basis the cost of administration (excluding medical services) is, for the year 1926, estimated to amount to £2,104,100, or £l 16s. per unit,
    770
    or about 8d. in the £ of the Ministry's expenditure.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the desirability of making provision for the issue of modified pensions to the widows of men who die as the result of their invalidating disability in cases where the marriage took place after the man's discharge?
    Major TRYON: The liability of the State in respect of death resulting from war service has always been defined by the Royal Pension Warrants as limited to the man's family obligations as existing at the date of the contraction on service of the fatal disability. I could not therefore agree to the hon. and gallant Member's proposal.
    Colonel DAY: As this is rather exceptional and these widows experience very great hardship, could not the Minister see some way to meet them in the matter?
    Major TRYON: I am not prepared to recommend an alteration of the rules which have been invariable under successive Parliaments and under all Governments.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not at his disposal a voluntary fund out of which grants may be made in cases of exceptional hardship?
    Major TRYON: There are certain voluntary funds, but they are, of course, governed by the rules applying to the trust on which they are based.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the hardship to a man who has served in the Army and been disabled, and is condemned to perpetual celibacy, could not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision of past Governments?
    Major TRYON: I am not prepared to recommend any alteration of a policy which has been accepted as correct by successive Governments.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. F. Edwards, widow of the late Corporal Walter Edwards, No. 72,162, Labour

    771
    Corps, has been granted a pension from 1st August, 1924, although her husband died on 6th April, 1924, and that the reason given is that no application was made until 1st August, 1924; whether he is aware that the delay was due entirely to the applicant's ignorance of her rights; and whether, in view of the fact that the applicant had to maintain herself and her two children during the period April to August, he will take steps to secure that her pension will date back to 6th April, 1924?
    Major TRYON: Pension in this case was paid in accordance with the long established practice of the Ministry (which applies to claims both in respect of death and of disablement) as from the date when the claim was made. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the fullest publicity is given by the Ministry to the machinery available for making of claims of all kinds upon the Department.

    HIGHLAND LIGHT INFANTRY
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Walter Teague Grahame, private, No. 2486, Highland Light Infantry, applied for an increase of pension on 7th September, 1920, under The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, and that this claim was rejected on the grounds that Mr. Grahame resided in Canada; whether he is aware that the application was made under the direction of the Canadian pension authorities, and that Mr. Grahame, had he been correctly advised, should have applied for an increase under the Royal Warrant of 1st November, 1920; that such an increase was actually granted from 1st August, 1924, the date of the subsequent application under that Warrant, but that an increase was refused for the period 1st April, 1919, to 1st August, 1924; and whether, in view of the initial error in application, due in no way to the fault of Mr. Grahame, he will take steps to secure increased pension for the whole period since 1st April, 1919, under the Royal Warrant?
    Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It was open to Mr. Grahame to apply at any time after the subsequent issue of the
    772
    Former Wars Warrants for consideration of his case, but no such application was made until the 1st August, 1924. The award of increased pension made in this case was made in accordance with the provisions of the Former Wars Warrants as from the date of application. It is not considered that there are any grounds for a departure from the provisions of the Warrant.
    Mr. BAKER: Is this not a case in which the Minister can exercise a discretion, where a man has not obtained the full rights to which he is entitled, seeing that he was wrongly advised by the pension authorities?
    Major TRYON: I do not see that there are circumstances in this case to suggest that I could deal with it differently from other similar cases.

    SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Winston, of 21, Russell Town Avenue, Redfield, Bristol, enlisted in the Somerset Light Infantry in August, 1914, and was passed A 1; that as a result of rigorous training he developed valvular disease of the heart and was discharged from his regiment in January, 1915, but subsequently undertook Home service with the Royal Army Medical Corps; that Mr. Winston was awarded a pension in 1919 for valvular disease of the heart, officially stated to have been caused by military service; that the pension was stopped in January, 1923; that Mr. Winston is now only able to undertake very light employment, and that he is subject to frequent heart attacks; and whether, seeing that Mr. Winston tries to keep at work because he has to support a wife and four children, whilst he is really unfit, he will take steps to reconsider this case?
    Major TRYON: The decision of the Ministry in this case was that the malady from which Mr. Winston suffered was not attributable to war service, though it was temporarily worsened by it, and this decision was confirmed on appeal by the Independent Appeal Tribunal. No fresh evidence has, I fear, been submitted which would justify the adoption of the course suggested By the hon. Member.
    Mr. BAKER: If the man's condition was worsened by war service, surely his present serious health condition is a matter for the Ministry?
    Major TRYON: This man was not passed Al, as is stated in the question. There was no such classification at the time. The original service was for a short time at home and the final decision rests by law, not with the Ministry, but with the appeal tribunal, which decided against him.

  LICENSED PREMISES (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT).
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position tot state the constitution of the Committee of Inquiry into the Carlisle system and the conditions under which it will be conducted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last to a question by the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division (Mr. Rhys Davies).

  BRITISH WOMEN (ALIEN MARRIAGES).
  Major HARVEYasked the Home Secretary if he has received any communications from the Dominions on the subject of the nationality of British women who marry aliens?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member, no doubt, refers to the Resolution which he moved on the 18th February last, and I am informed that no communication has yet been received from any of the self-governing Dominions directly referring to that Resolution.
  Major HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Resolution in similar terms to the one which I have moved has been, or is being, moved in the Federal Parliament of Australia?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not aware of that. That will probably mean that we will get some information very shortly from Australia.
  Captain SHAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring in legislation in regard to Englishwomen who marry foreigners, because, in the case of an Englishwoman who marries an American, she has no nationality at all. Will the Home Secretary entertain the idea of some legislation that will move that defect?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the House knows, I have been trying to get general agreement on the subject of nationality, and we are in communication with the Dominions. Until we hear from them, I think it would be wrong to bring a Bill into this House dealing with a subject which we desire to deal with throughout the whole Empire.
  Captain SHAW: Is it not a great wrong that an Englishwoman should have no nationality?
  Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to ascertain the opinion of the Dominions otherwise than by circulating to them the printed proceedings of this House?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; a despatch was sent to the Dominions some time ago. I must confess that I cannot remember the terms. I will consider whether a further despatch might be sent.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.

    DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary whether the diplomatic privileges afforded motor-cars belonging to the various foreign embassies and legations relieve them from the necessity of complying with the ordinary police traffic Regulations?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that, in accordance with international law and custom, immunity from civil and criminal process is accorded to the persons entitled to diplomatic privileges. Such persons are expected to conform with the general traffic Regulations, and if in any instance these Regulations are not observed representations are made through the Foreign Office to the embassy or legation concerned.

    MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Regulations exist which render medical doctors liable to prosecution if they leave a motor-car unattended in the street; and whether he proposes to issue a Regulation exempting them when these circumstances arise in the course of their professional duties?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Medical practitioners are not exempt from the ordinary law as to driving offences, and I understand that the Minister of Transport does not think it practicable to make exceptions to the existing law or Regulations in favour of any particular class of persons. The police, of course, exercise discretion in regard to prosecuting for obstruction when it is caused by a doctor's attendance on a patient.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that practitioners who are visiting sick patients have been summoned, and that it is only owing to the good sense of the magistrate—even after the constable had explained the case—that they were saved from a conviction? Will the right hon. Gentleman not make some Regulation which will enable a medical practitioner to have the particular privilege when visiting sick people of leaving his car unattended?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think it is desirable to make such a regulation. I have said that the police act with discretion. Quite conceivably it might happen that someone was ill in Bond Street and a medical practitioner might block the whole place for a couple of hours.
    Mr. MACLEAN: It would be a very big car then!

    COACH ACCIDENT, GRASSINGTON.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the accident to a motor coach which took place near Grassington on 10th June, and which resulted in the death of seven persons and serious injury to many others; whether he is aware that the accident took place at some distance from medical aid; and whether, in view of similar accidents which are constantly occurring to motor coaches, motor omni-
    776
    buses, and chars-a-banc, he will take steps to see that these vehicles are compelled to carry a first-aid outfit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I have been asked to reply. My attention has been drawn to the very serious and regrettable accident to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not expect to have complete details until the coroner's inquest has taken place. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the Departmental Committee have already considered the matter, and are not satisfied that the circumstances warrant the making of a special Regulation requiring the provision of a first-aid equipment on all public service vehicles.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these accidents are getting more and more frequent and, with the speed at which these chars-a-banc travel, there is much more likelihood of accidents occurring in future, with very serious loss of life, which might be avoided by the use of first-aid outfits?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

    OMNIBUS ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
    Mr. R. MORRISON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the two serious omnibus accidents which took place in Kingsland Road and Commercial Road yesterday, resulting in one omnibus being overturned and another nearly overturned, and in the death of one passenger and injuries to many others, and in view of the alarm which these accidents have caused to the public whether he proposes to hold an inquiry into the circumstances?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I caused inquiries to be made at once into the circumstances of both of the unfortunate accidents to which the hon. Member refers, and am awaiting more detailed reports before deciding what action to take. As the hon. Member is aware, the powers of inquiry conferred upon the Minister of Transport under the London Traffic Act are limited to cases where either the character of the road, or a defect in the vehicle, appears to Rave been a contributory cause of the accident.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries into the construction of the vehicles in order to satisfy the public that some of these omnibuses are not easily overbalanced?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Until we have come to a conclusion as to whether the accident was due to an error of judgment or a technical defect it would be impossible to say whether there shall be an inquiry on the technical side.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman been drawn to the feeling of alarm which has been created in consequence of the fact that in hot weather the lower deck is empty and the top deck is full and that that makes the design unsound?

  STREET ACCIDENTS (AMBULANCE REGULATIONS).
  Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a person meeting with an accident in the streets of London, however serious his condition may be, is compelled to await the arrival of an official ambulance before he can be removed; and will he examine these Regulations, with a view to the betterment of these conditions?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know of no such Regulation. The instructions to the police are to give the sufferer the first consideration, and if an ambulance is not readily available to employ a cab or other vehicle if the patient's condition appears to justify it. It must, however, be borne in mind that it is dangerous to move cases of many common types of injury in any vehicle but an ambulance.
  Colonel DAY: Is the Home Secretary aware that the police will not allow people who have been injured in the streets to be taken to hospital in a private motor car, and they have to wait until the ambulance comes along?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I was not aware of that. I have said in the answer to the question that the police are authorised to take such steps as are desirable. If the hon. Gentleman will give me an instance where it was desirable to remove a patient quickly, and a refusal was given, I will look into it.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the police are always ready to take advantage of the offer of a private motor car in cases of the sort?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought so. It is news to me, the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, that the police refused the offer of a private car.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Manor Place, South-wark, a fortnight ago, a boy was rather seriously injured and he was not allowed to be taken?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question down.

  CHARITABLE ORGANISATIONS.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce legislation to compel all societies or organisations which solicit subscriptions for charitable objects to be registered, and to publish an annual balance sheet properly audited and certified by chartered accountants?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have recently appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into this question. I will await their Report before coming to any decision as to legislation.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent case of a charity the income was £84,000, of which only £10,000 was available for the charity. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is necessary that the Committee should report at the very earliest moment?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A Committee has been appointed, a very representative and important Committee. They are going into the whole of the matter, and I do not think it is desirable to legislate until they have reported.
  Mr. BECKETT: In view of the suggestion in the Press and generally about a very lengthy list of salaries paid in many of these cases, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is important to urge the Committee to hurry up?

  THAMES POLICE COURT.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that applicants for maintenance at the Thames Police Court are crowded into a narrow passage into which the men's lavatory opens; whether he is aware that the only suggested alternative is that of basement rooms under the police section building, approached by a narrow twisting staircase very difficult for women with babies in their arms; and whether he will make full inquiry with a view to providing more suitable premises?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am well aware of the difficulties of accommodation at this Court, and it is not easy to find a satisfactory solution. Further inquiry is being made. Perhaps later the hon. Member will put down another question.

  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (SCHOOL TRAINING).
  Brigadier-General WARNERasked the President of the Board of Education whether arrangements could be made through county councils for boys between the ages of 13 and 14 in agricultural districts to undergo an elementary training in repairs to agricultural machinery under village blacksmiths or other persons having suitable establishments?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my. right hon. Friend on 21st May last to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd), and to Circular 1365, copies of both of which I am sending to him.

  RATING OF MACHINERY (EXEMPTION).
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he will submit figures showing the approximate immediate effect on the local rates of the chief industrial towns in England and Wales as the result of the exemption of machinery from rates as proposed in the Rating and Valuation Bill now in Committee?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rating of
  780
  Machinery reported that it was difficult to put forward an estimate of the ratio of value of relieved machinery and the total rateable value of an area, as figures are not as a rule available as to separate values placed upon land, buildings and machinery. On the basis of figures supplied by the National Conference of Assessment Committees for a selected number of places, however, they estimated that if the proposals of the Bill of 1923 were carried into effect the average increase in rates over the whole country might amount to 6d. in the £, and that in a few large towns it might reach to as much as 1s. 6d. The proposals in the Rating and Valuation Bill differ somewhat from those of the 1923 Bill, but the difference is not great, and I do not think they would materially alter the Committee's estimate. At the same time it must be remembered that the relief to industry must affect unemployment beneficially, thus reducing the charge upon the rates which has been a principal cause of their increase in the large towns referred to in the question.
  Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several towns have taken out figures, and that these show a considerably greater increase on the rates than he suggests? Would he have those figures investigated?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that, but, of course, those figures are very largely a matter of opinion at the present time, and I do not know whether any of them have taken into account the considerations which I mentioned in the last part of my answer.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in West Ham the borough treasurer has stated that, if the Bill is passed into law, it will mean an addition of at least 6d. to the rate in West Ham, and the rates are now 24s. and some odd coppers in the £?
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole matter has been carefully investigated in Sheffield, with the result that it is estimated that there will be an increase of 2s. in the £ in the rates?

  CASUAL WARD TASKS.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether before the

  781
  making of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, the Department had received from the council of the Women's Local Government Society a communication, dated 4th February, 1924, asking him to omit the oakum picking for women from the new order about to be made; whether the Department had received communications from any, and, if so, what hoards of guardians, vagrancy committees, or other public bodies to the same effect; whether any communications had been received from any, and, if so, what, boards, committees, or bodies such as aforesaid, asking or suggesting that it should be retained or increased; and whether, before making such order, he consulted the medical women or his staff as to whether oakum picking was a suitable task for women who were destitute wayfarers?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Similar communications were received from the Union and Rural District Clerks' Association, the National Association of Masters and Matrons, the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, and the National Council of Women of Great Britain and Ireland. No communications were received of the kind mentioned in the third part of the question, but a draft of the Order was shown to a number of associations, who made no suggestion for the abolition of the task. In the preparation of the Order full consideration was, of course, given to the medical aspects of the matter by my expert advisers, though I cannot say that women medical inspectors were specially consulted.
  Captain GEEasked the Minister of Health whether he will amend the Casual Pauper (Relief) Order, 1925, No. 291, by declaring that oakum picking and stone-pounding be no longer prescribed or permitted tasks; and will he also withdraw the task of stone-breaking by amount and replace it by six hours' stone-breaking for casuals detained for an entire day and not more than two hours' for those detained for one night only?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the first part of his question, to the reply given to a question put by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on Thursday last. With regard to the
  782
  stone-breaking task, the Order allows the guardians a fairly wide discretion as to the amount of stone to be broken, and further provides specifically that a casual shall be excused from the whole or any part of a task if it shall appear that the task is not suited to his age, strength or capacity. It does not appear to me to be necessary to make any further modification.
  Captain GEE: Is the letter the right hon. Gentleman issued the other day going to be embodied in the present regulations, so that workhouse masters will have some authority behind them for the abolition of oakum picking beyond the promise given in this House?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think it is necessary to embody it in an Order. Workhouse masters will receive the letter, and I have no reason to suppose that they will not carry it out.
  Captain GEE: They have not done it yet.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between oakum picking and stone-pounding, both of which are degrading in character?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not agree that they are degrading in character. I was of opinion that there were certain associations connected with the task of oakum picking which did render it, in the eyes of many people, akin to the tasks imposed upon criminals and felons, and it was for that reason that I abolished it.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that oakum picking was abolished in prisons because it was a degrading task?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already abolished it I do not see what complaint the hon. Member has.
  Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the number of unions which had power to use stone-pounding at the time when the official survey of 1923–24 was made was about 70 and the number of those which actually used it was about 12; whether departmental sanction to stone-pounding has been given; and, if so, in what unions since the official survey?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, no further applications were received from boards of guardians for the approval of such a task.

  BIRTH CONTROL.
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health if he will make arrangements to give Parliament an opportunity of directing that maternity centres provided at the cost of public funds shall be free to give information on birth control to such married women as may desire it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any question as to the possibility of arrangements being made for the discussion of this question on the Floor of the House should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  HOUSING.

    AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Health how many parishes in the 598 rural districts are agricultural parishes within the meaning of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, Section 2 (2); and what proportion is this number to the total number of parishes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the information in the complete form asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available, and could only be obtained by the expenditure of considerable time and labour. The matter has, however, been investigated for a number of counties of representative type, and the results show an average of 80 per cent. of the rural parishes in those counties to be agricultural parishes within the definition quoted.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many parishes have taken advantage of the 1924 Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will put down the question, I will get the information.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the early introduction of legislation to amend the
    784
    Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, in order that the definition of an agricultural parish under Section 2 (2) of that Act may be altered and enable more parishes to take advantage of that Act for the provision of houses at rents which the people can afford to pay, in view of the fact that in one rural district council area in a typical agricultural part of the country out of the 33 parishes in the district only five are agricultural within the meaning of the Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Clause defining agricultural parishes was debated at considerable length during the passage of the 1924 Housing Bill, and Amendments were made which had the effect of considerably widening the scope of the Clause as originally drafted. I am afraid that it will not be possible to promote further legislation on this subject.

    BRICKS AND TILES (IMPORTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Health the value of bricks, roofing and drainage tiles, imported into this country from Europe during the last six months?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. During the six months ended May, 1925, the imports of bricks, of brick earth or clay, amounted to £166,000 in value; and those of tiles (including quarries, roofing tiles and street paving tiles, but excluding glazed wall and hearth tiles), amounted to £173,000 in value. Figures distinguishing the imports from Europe during this period are not available, but it may be assumed that the great bulk of the imports were consigned from Europe.
    Mr. HARRIS: Has there been a request to put this industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Order?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not sure, but had there been I should not be able to inform my hon. Friend.

  INSECT PESTS.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that many parts of the country are now infested

  785
  with mosquitoes and other flies, the bites of which often have very serious and occasionally fatal consequences; and whether his Department is taking any steps to deal with the situation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. This subject has received expert study in my Department for some years, the results of which are put at the disposal of local authorities and individual enquirers, and are to be published shortly in collaboration with the entomologists of the British Museum (Natural History). I may add that it has been shown that the destruction of mosquitoes and the prevention of bites by these insects cannot be secured by the adoption of any single or simple formula. Any useful action must depend upon the identification of the species of mosquito prevalent in the area, and the adoption of measures appropriate to the natural history of that species.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether local authorities are taking specific measures to deal with large open areas of water where these insects are believed to breed?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put clown a question, I will try to get the information.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain species of mosquitoes are to be found in this House?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. LUKE THOMPSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the hardships resulting to applicants for old age pensions by reason of their being required to pay the full fee for a copy of their certificate of birth or marriage and also in respect to a search for the same; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to provide for the issue of such certificates to, and the searching of records for, applicants for old age pensions free of cost or, in the alternative, at a nominal charge?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements have, for a number of years, been in force whereby searches are made gratui-
  786
  tously by the General Register Office in the birth registers at Somerset House upon reference from the pensions officer, and particulars supplied to him in verification of the date of birth of applicants for old age pensions. Applicants are not themselves required to produce a birth certificate in support of a claim, and it does not appear that there is any necessity for provision such as is suggested in the question, which would, in any event, require legislation.

  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information to show that France and Italy have entered into an understanding to act jointly and not severally in their negotiations with Britain and America on the subject of their debts?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to an article under the signature of M. Poincarè in a Sunday newspaper the week before last, in which he stated that it would be incumbent on the French Government to act in association with the Italian Government?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I am not able always to read all articles by eminent foreign statesmen in newspapers.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: May I further ask whether M. Poincarè made it clear in the article that M. Briand—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he has not read it.

  FOREIGN MATCHES.
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that certain alien importers of foreign matches are paying duty on 45 sticks to the box; that such boxes are subsequently being retailed to the public at the same price as British matches which contain a uniform 50 sticks to the box; and whether he is prepared to take any action to protect the public?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that importers of foreign matches are acting in the manner suggested, but I would point out that under Section 3 (4) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, boxes of imported matches must bear, on each box, a statement as to the minimum number of matches contained therein, or the average contents of the boxes, in any particular consignment. A prospective purchaser is by this means afforded information as to the actual number of matches in any box of imported matches purchased by him.
  Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these matches do not strike?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a matter of which the consumer must be the judge, according to his experience.

  STATIONERY OFFICE (PAPER AND BOARDS TENDERS).
  Sir VANSITTART BOWATERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way to give instructions that His Majesty's Stationery Office, in issuing specifications for the supply of paper and boards, shall specify that these must be of British make, having in view the serious shortage of orders for these goods which has been experienced for a considerable time since the War, and, as a consequence, the unemployment which results therefrom?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): Orders for the supply of paper to His Majesty's Stationery Office are placed with British mills only and the necessity for specifying that the paper made in those mills should be British-made does not arise. With regard to boards (cardboards, straw-boards and millboards) tenderers are required to state whether the supply will be of home, Colonial or foreign make, and the origin is taken into account in considering tenders.
  Sir V. BOWATER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign boards are used to the detriment of British manufacturers, and also to the detriment of the employés?
  Mr. GUINNESS: A very considerable number of orders have been given for these goods.
  Sir V. BOWATER: Are they compelled to use British raw material.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I must have notice of that question.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the numbers of his staff throughout the country for the years 1913, 1919, and 1924, and state what numbers have been added with respect to further duties passed along to his administration in respect of further social legislation; and will he state which Acts of social reform have caused such increases and the numbers concerned with each such Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The answer to this question is necessarily long, and I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The staff of the Ministry of Labour numbered 22,925 on 1st April, 1919, and 13,327 on 1st April, 1924. So far as can (at present) be ascertained, the Board of Trade employed a staff of about 4,150 in 1913 on the branches of work subsequently transferred to the Ministry of Labour on its creation by the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916. The increased staff in 1919 was necessitated principally by temporary work arising from the demobilisation of the Forces and the discharge of munition workers, including the scheme of out-of-work donation, and by the training scheme for disabled ex-service men and other schemes of a similar nature. The bulk of the staff in 1924 were engaged in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance scheme, out of which practically the whole of the salaries of the staff so engaged was paid. As my hon. Friend is aware, this scheme was greatly extended in 1920, and there has for the past five years been a very high level of unemployment, necessitating a corresponding staff to deal with claims for unemployment benefit. In other respects also, including various items of work arising from the War, there have been increases in the work of the Department, but that arising from Unemployment Insurance is by far the largest.

    TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS.
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Civil Service Commissioners intend arranging for a further examination in order to afford women clerks, at present temporarily employed, the opportunity of establishment?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir. I see no sufficient reason for adding to the liberal opportunities of establishment already afforded to these temporary women clerks.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  Captain BENNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can grant a Return showing a complete list of all articles subject to Customs Duty, together with the rate of duty in each case?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I am forwarding to the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the current issue of the Customs and Excise Tariff, which will, I think, give him the information he desires.
  Captain BENN: As that list will be out of date, can he say how many there are at the present time?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that I have not counted them.

  POLLUTION OF RIVERS (PROSECUTIONS).
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of prosecutions for the pollution of rivers undertaken by fishery districts in England and Wales in 1924; the cost of these prosecutions; and the amount of fines imposed?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): No prosecutions for the pollution of rivers were undertaken by fishery boards in England and Wales in 1924.
  Mr. EVERARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the fact that so many fishermen are affected, that further steps should be taken to prevent the pollution of these rivers?
  Mr. WOOD: I should be glad to take any steps I could in regard to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, and if the hon. Member has any steps in mind, perhaps he will communicate with me.

  FOOD COUNCIL.
  Mr. JOHN GUESTasked the Prime Minister (1) what will be the constitution of the Food Council; whether it is proposed that the chairman shall be a paid official; and how many members will be nominated to the council?
  (2) whether the proposed Food Council will include representatives of producers, distributors, and consumers; and whether nominations for membership will be invited from each party in the House, or whether he proposes to appoint the members of the Food Council exclusively from Members of the Conservative party?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply, and will answer this question and the next together. The composition of the Food Council is at present under consideration. I will make an announcement when the arrangements are complete.
  Mr. GUEST: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the great interest that is being taken in this matter and the desire to have a statement at the earliest opportunity? I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has seen the statement made in the "Sunday Times" on this point?
  Mr. MACLEAN: Can the Minister of Agriculture state whether he has taken steps to secure the representation upon the Food Council of working women who understand this question, and who know, by actual experience, what a small wage can buy?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, that matter has been taken into consideration.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the Council have any powers which are not already possessed by the Board of Trade?

  CABINET MINISTERS.

    NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINICKasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay down a rule that no member of the Government shall engage in paid journalism?
    Captain T. J. O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister whether, with the view of enabling the Crown to command the

    791
    whole-time services of Ministers in fact as well as in appearance, he will take steps to ensure that no Minister of the Crown during his tenure of office shall engage in the pursuit of any other occupation for private profit or gain?
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has decided that no Minister of the Crown during his tenure of office shall contribute to the newspaper Press articles upon matters of public policy for which payment is made; and, if so, from what date the decision is to take effect?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have discussed this matter very fully with Lord Birkenhead. He is under a contract to complete certain historical articles in monthly magazines to the completion of which I think no objection can, in the circumstances, be taken. My Noble Friend has most readily fallen in with my desire that he should make no further contributions to journalism. The rule, therefore, may hereafter be taken to be established that Ministers during their period of office will observe this same practice.

    DIRECTORSHIPS.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he has imposed any rules upon Members of the Government that they shall not engage, by directorships or any other way, in outside employment while holding their offices?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; the observance of the traditional practice in this respect makes the imposition of rules unnecessary.

  FOOD COMBINES.
  Mr. J. BECKETTasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to take steps to secure legal authority to punish any individual, director of trusts, combines, or syndicates, who are keeping up the price of any staple food by restricting supply?
  Sir B. CHADWICK:I have been asked to reply. I think it would be unwise to adopt a suggestion of this kind without clear proof of its necessity and its practicability.
  Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Report issued upon this subject?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Gentleman must know that there are no practical suggestions whatever in his question which have not already been under the careful consideration of the Government.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the number of convictions for illegal trawling within the territorial waters of Great Britain and Iceland, respectively, during the last six months?
  Mr. WOOD: One British skipper was convicted during the past six months for illegal trawling within Icelandic territorial waters, the conviction referring to an offence committed in 1923. No foreign fishermen have been convicted during that period for illegal trawling within British territorial waters, but there have been two convictions of French fishermen for setting lobster pots in British territorial waters.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILE CENTRES.
    WILFRID SUGDENasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the numbers of unemployed persons between the ages of 14 and 18, and state how many of the Employment Exchanges are instituting educational programmes to deal with the same; what arrangements for technical instruction in day continuation classes obtain in industrial areas; and will he state the number of towns and cities so operating?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: May I ask my hon. Friend to represent to the Minister of Labour that he will closer collaborate with the Minister of Education, in order to see that a speeding-up process should obtain between the technical authorities and the Board, in order that these youths should be provided with a proper opportunity of preserving their trade training and general morale?
    Mr. BETTERTON: On 1st June, there were 62,300 boys. I will certainly represent that to my right hon. Friend, but I may say that he is already in close collaboration with the Minister of Education.
    The reply is as follows:
    On 1st June there was 62,300 boys and girls registered for employment at Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in Great Britain. As regards "educational programmes," I assume that the hon. Member has in mind juvenile unemployment centres operated by local education authorities, of which, on 29th May, 122 in 40 towns were open, four in four towns were approved but not open, and eight in eight towns were under consideration by the local education authorities concerned.
    As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education that there are part-time day continuation schools or classes in London in 15 county boroughs and in 25 large or small towns in county areas. The majority of these schools and classes outside Greater London are for young persons who are actually in employment, and, except in such special cases as day classes for trade apprentices, the instruction tends to be general rather than technical. In London, where the day continuation schools are largely attended by young persons who have not been employed, some attempts are being made to give a preliminary training in connection with the employment desired by the young persons.
    As regards Scotland, I am informed that day continuation classes are held in two of the large burghs and seven of the towns in county areas, in addition to a number of isolated classes in single subjects conducted in various parts of the country. These are, in general, for persons in employment and are chiefly of a technical or commercial nature, but it is, of course, open to unemployed persons to attend them.

    MIDDLESBROUGH (RELIEF SCHEMES).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is considering any schemes of relief work which can be put in hand before the winter to relieve the long-continued unemployment in the Middlesbrough and Tees Side area
    794
    which is steadily growing worse; and whether he can make any statement on the position?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Schemes of work for the relief of persons unemployed are put in hand by local authorities, with financial assistance from the Government. As stated in the answer given to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough yesterday, my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to make a statement on the general position. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the schemes promoted by the Middlesbrough Council for the relief of unemployment, in aid of which grants have been made from the Road Fund and by the Unemployment Grants Committee.
    Miss WILKINSON: Has the hon. Gentleman recently received a further communication with regard to the Tees Dock Scheme, and is it not a fact that that work can only be done by Government assistance?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I must ask the hon. Member to give me notice of that question.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are 260,000 people more out of employment this week than there were last year at this time; and is he prepared to have a conversation with the Prime Minister to see if there is any possibility of making a wholesale reduction in that number in various parts of the country?
    Mr. T. THOMSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Middlesbrough Road Authority have decided that they cannot put any more schemes in hand unless they have increased financial assistance, and will he give careful consideration to this question?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware of that, but I hope that their decision on that question is not final.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that the dock accommodation on the East Coast is already more-than is necessary to meet the requirements?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question.
    Following is the list referred to:

    Schemes assisted from Road Fund.

    Estimated Cost.

    Grant.

    £

    £

    1. New road construction

    …

    …

    …

    …

    21,580

    10,790

    Martin Road to Ormsby Road

    …

    …

    …

    …

    70,115

    35,057

    *2. North Ormsby Road—Widening

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,168

    2,084

    3. Newport Road

    …

    …

    …

    …

    16,416

    8,208

    4. Middlesbrough—Saltburn Road

    …

    …

    …

    …

    28,799

    14,399

    5. Middlesbrough—Redcar Road. Section from Normanby Road to Middlesbrough County Borough Boundary.

    33,582

    16,791

    6. West Auckland Road—Widening

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,990

    1,495

    7. Oxbridge Avenue—Extension

    …

    …

    …

    …

    12,781

    6,390

    * All in progress except No. 2.

    SCHEMES ASSISTED BY THE UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE (WINTER 1924–1925).

    Work.

    Cost in respect of which grant was allowed.

    Rate of grant.

    £

    Reconstructing carriageway, Cannon Street and Denmark Street.

    7,550

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of 10 years.

    Conversion of privies

    5,198

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of 15 years.

    Laying tramway, Newport Road

    14,947

    50% of the interest charges for a period of 15 years.

    Laying sewers, Cannon Street, New-port Road, etc.

    92,000

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of 15 years.

    Reconstructing carriageways of 19 streets.

    42,013

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of half the term of the loan or 15 years whichever is the less.

    Laying sewers, Thornfield and Harrow Roads.

    1,564

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of 15 years.

    Laying tramway, North Ormsby Road.

    4,588

    50% of the interest charges for a period of 15 years.

    Widening Linthorpe Crescent

    3,410

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of 10 years (works)—15 years (land).

    Constructing tennis court, bowling green, putting green, etc.

    2 310

    50% of the interest charges for a period of 15 years.

    Paddling pool, Albert Park

    1,570

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of 10 years.

    Improving corner of park, Vale Road.

    950

    75% of the interest and sinking fund charges for a period of half the term of the loan or 15 years whichever is the less.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (COST).
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the costs per person, during the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, of placing in employment applicants by the Employment Exchanges of the country; and the numbers of both men and women and youths of both sexes so placed during the period mentioned, the costs to include all the establishment charges, buildings, etc., of the Employment Exchanges, allowing and stating the
    796
    percentage costs of such allowance of other duties which they perform?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am afraid that it is not practicable to allocate administrative cost to one item in administration in this manner. The numbers of vacancies filled during the financial years 1922–23, 1923–24, 1924–25 were 678,999, 932,844 and 1,073,250 respectively. The total cost of the Employment Exchange service during the same periods, including all establishment charges, buildings, etc., of Employ-

    797
    ment Exchanges, and cost of all services rendered by other Government Departments, was £4,853,492, £4,155,238 and £4,498,343; but about 95 per cent. of this cost was allocated as the cost of administering unemployment insurance and charged against the Unemployment Fund, leaving sums of £168,004, £137,067 and £170,990 not so allocated, and representing all services of the Exchanges other than administration of unemployment insurance.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: May I ask my hon. Friend if he will institute further suggestive inquiries to improve the mechanism of the Employment Exchanges which have not progressed in regard to the work they are supposed to do, viz., first to place men and women in employment for the last 10 years; and secondly, will he also—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of an elaborate question of that kind.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any additional sum is obtainable from the Reparation Commission that can be distributed as compensation among those civilians who suffered from air raids or other war damage?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is there not a. sum left over beyond the amount already distributed?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Not from the Reparation Commission. We have advanced a far larger sum than we shall receive for many years to come.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the fact that the sum advanced was only part of that which was to be used, and that the general impression made when that statement was issued was that a still larger sum would eventually be available for distribution?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know what impression may have been caused in certain quarters, but certainly there is no foundation for it as far the British taxpayer is concerned.

  POST OFFICES (METROPOLITAN STATUS).
  Sir ROBERT LYNNasked the Postmaster General the names of post offices that have Metropolitan status?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The only head post office outside London at which the pay of the post office staff is provided for out of the Vote for Metropolitan Establishments is Edinburgh.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BILLETING PAYMENTS, ANDOVER.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received from the manœuvre area, near Andover, representations from the military authorities as to the inadequate payments made to innkeepers in the district for the billeting of troops; and whether it is intended to revise the existing rates, in order that persons providing billets may be secured against loss?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have received no representations from the military authorities regarding the payments for billeting. The present rates, which have only recently been sanctioned by Parliament, are considered fair and adequate, and I have furnished my hon. and gallant Friend with full particulars as to how the rates are arrived at. They will come forward for review, as usual, in connection with next year's Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, when full consideration will be given to any representations that may be received on the question of their adequacy.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is it not the fact that these prices were based on wholesale purchases, and that small innkeepers are unable to purchase wholesale?
    Sir L. WORTHNGTON-EVANS: That is not the only thing upon which they are based. I have given my hon. and gallant Friend full particulars of the basis.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Does it not involve them in a great loss?

    EX-RANKER OFFICERS (CHELSEA HOSPITAL).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War whether Army

    799
    pensioned ranker officers would be entitled to claim admission to the Royal Hospital at Chelsea under the rules governing admission to that institution; and, if so, whether they would be allowed to retain their rank, with suitable provision for their treatment as officers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Army pensioned ranker officers are eligible, equally with other Army pensioners, for admission to Chelsea Hospital. Like other temporary officers, they retain their rank after ceasing to hold their temporary commissions, but this does not alter their Army status, which is that of pensioned warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men. If admitted to Chelsea Hospital, which is not an institution for the reception of officers, they would be in the same position as other pensioners.

  PEOPOSED SECUEITY PACT.
  Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will undertake not to commit Britain to any liability to enter upon hostilities in Europe without first securing the general concurrence of the Dominions to the terms of that liability?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): As explained by the Prime Minister in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on 15th June, the Dominion Governments have been kept in the closest touch with the position up to the present time, and the same course will be followed as the negotiations proceed. I do not think, however, that so broad a question of general principle as that involved in the hon. and gallant Member's question can best be dealt with by way of question and answer.
  Mr. HURD: Are communications still in progress with the Dominions, and in particular with Canada, in this matter?
  Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. If my hon. Friend will read my answer afterwards, he will see that I have stated that that is so.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: If the closest touch is being kept with Canada, how was it that the right hon. Gentleman was
  800
  not aware that the Prime Minister of Canada stated that he did not concur in any of these obligations?
  Mr. AMERY: No official statement was sent with reference to the answer given in the Canadian House of Commons.

  CHINA.

    BRITISH MILLS, SHANGHAI (CHILD LABOUR).
    Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that children under 10 years old work in British-owned mills in Shanghai; what action His Majesty's Government have taken; what action they propose to take; and will Papers be laid?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been informed that in certain British mills there are regulations prohibiting the employment of boys under 10 and girls under 12. I have no other specific information, but steps are being taken to obtain full particulars. For some time past His Majesty's Government have exerted pressure to secure the adoption of the recommendations of the Child Labour Commission by the Shanghai Municipal Council. Papers dealing fully with industrial conditions in Shanghai and in China generally will be laid as soon as possible℄it is hoped in the course of next week.
    Mr. LOOKER: Will the hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Russell) to the letter which appeared in the "Times" of yesterday from Mr. Mackay, the late chairman of the Shanghai Municipal Council, in which he described the conditions under which children accompany their mothers?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement published by the International Labour Office at Geneva, that contractors are sent round the villages to bring in these child labourers into the mills in Shanghai, and that the children are working for no wages at all?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of that fact. This present Question deals with British-owned mills, and I am fully

    801
    assured that, so far as British-owned mills in the Shanghai international area are concerned, those responsible for them are very anxious to have regulations passed prohibiting the employment of boys under 10 and girls under 12. Papers will probably be laid next week which will give the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), and the whole House, full information about this subject.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If the proprietors of these mills, and the British Government, are so anxious to get these cruel malpractices stopped, will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that a quorum did not turn up to enforce these regulations?
    Mr. SAMUEL: So far as possible, the British representatives on the Council, I am given to understand, did turn up, and they were most anxious in the fullest sense, without any reservation, to give effect to these proposed regulations. This was before 30th May. On the second occasion when the matter came up for confirmation, these recent unhappy and terrible circumstances prevented people, presumably for fear of their lives, from attending the meeting. Otherwise I have every reason to believe that the necessary regulation would have been passed.
    Mr. MACKINDER: If the Minister is making investigations as to the control of the best managed British mills, will he also make investigations as to the conditions in the best managed Chinese-owned mills?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Outside the international district, it is utterly impossible for the British Government or the British community to interfere.
    Mr. J. HUDSON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must not have too many supplementary questions.

    CUSTOMS CONFERENCE.
    Sir J. NALL (for Mr. WADDINGTON)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the convocation of the Customs Conference at Shanghai has been long delayed on account of the failure by France to secure acceptance of her basis of settlement of the payment of her share of the Boxer indemnity this country acquiesced in such delay without protest; and whether, in view of the damage to British commercial
    802
    interests by such delay, which are far greater than those of any other Power, His Majesty's Government will expedite the calling of the suggested conference and will, if necessary, take independent action to that end?
    Mr. SAMUEL: His Majesty's Government, who cannot admit that there has been any occasion for protest, have consistently done all in their power to remove the many difficulties in the way of the assembling of the Tariff Conference, including the difficulty mentioned in the first part of the question. What particular steps to expedite the conference may be necessary or desirable in the immediate future cannot be forecast, but the possibility that delay is detrimental to British commercial interests has always been fully appreciated, and the problem continues to receive careful consideration from that point of view.
    Mr. LOOKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will take care to ensure that the British representative appointed to this conference is a person of outstanding position and ability likely to command confidence among the British community and the Chinese community?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has already borne that consideration carefully in mind.

  WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
  Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the persons or firms to whom permission was given in 1924 for the export of any war material, including machine guns; the destination of material; and the grounds upon which the request was assented to?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: In the course of a year a very large number of licences are issued for the export of arms and ammunition, but the great majority of these are for single revolvers and very small quantities of sporting arms and ammunition. To extract particulars of the licences issued for the more important classes of war material, and the grounds upon which each licence was granted, would involve very great labour, and would not necessarily show the actual exports of such material. If, however, the hon. and

  803
  gallant Member will specify the classes of war material in respect of which he desires information, I shall be happy to have a return prepared showing the quantities exported and the principal countries of destination.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: While I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give a complete list, I did specify particularly machine guns in the question, and I would ask him whether permission was given to export a large number of machine guns to Russia?

  RUSSIA (CHIATURA MANGANESE MINES).
  Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information which he can impart to the House with reference to an agreement having been signed between the Russian Government and the Harriman Combine of America regarding the working of the Chiatura manganese mines?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have no information as to the signature of this agreement other than that which has appeared in the Press.
  Mr. RILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that agreement will involve a sum of about £20,000,000 in the next few years, and is not that a matter of importance as regards this country?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have no information on that.

  ROUND-GERMANY FLIGHT (BRITISH ENGINES).
  Captain BENNasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any particulars as to what British engines were employed in the recent round-Germany flight; and what success they achieved?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, aircraft in which the following British engines were installed, namely, the A.B.O. Scorpion, the Blackburne Tom-Tit and the Douglas Flat Twin, were entered for Class A (engines not exceeding 40 h.p.), and the Bristol Lucifer for Class C (engines from 80 h.p. to 120 h.p.). As
  804
  regards the second part, the aircraft in which the Blackburne Tom-Tit was installed completed 820 miles and obtained fifth place in Class A, and that in which the Bristol Lucifer was installed obtained twelfth place in Class C, the full course for the latter competition being 3,307 miles, and the placing of the aircraft which completed it being assigned according to engine formula.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Baker.
  Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the next two questions appear to deal only with individual cases and raise no question of principle. Is it not contrary to the custom of the House to ask such questions orally?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have frequently stated that there is no absolute rule on the matter, but it is desirable, as far as possible, that individual cases should be put as un starred questions.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Where an individual case has been before a Minister and has been turned, down, and there seems to be a grievance in the turning down of the case, is it not clear that the question, should be raised in order to get justice to the citizen outside?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am not attempting to sit in judgment on the matter. I am only asking that, where possible, unstarred questions should be asked about individual cases.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MEDICAL REFEREES).
  Mr. J. BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to a letter from a medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which appeared in the "Morning Post "of 5th June, 1925; whether officers who are paid by the Ministry are allowed to express, in the public Press, opinions contrary to the Acts which they are administering; and whether medical referees are governed by the ordinary rules governing the Civil Service, which prohibit officials from communicating to the Press on matters connected with their employment?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen the letter. Medical referees are not civil servants but private practitioners paid by fees for their services in connection with applications for compensation. No rules have been laid down as to communications by them to the Press on subjects connected with the Acts, but I am sure that the referees generally appreciate the responsibility in this matter entailed by their special position.
  Mr. BAKER: Is it desirable to retain this gentleman on the list?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should think so. I see no reason why he should not be retained.
  Mr. BAKERalso asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a reserved judgment by his Honour Judge Ruegg, K.C., at Stoke County Court, on Wednesday, 3rd June, regarding the powers under the Workmen's Compensation Act of a medical referee; whether, seeing that it has been decided that a medical referee under the Act has authority to decide not only whether or no the man is suffering from the disability, but also whether or no he is fit for employment, he will consider the desirability of taking such action as may be necessary to limit the powers of the medical referee merely to deciding the question of the disability from which a man is suffering; and whether he will consider granting compensation to Frederick Burndred, who was, at the time of his examination by the certifying surgeon, suffering from miner's nystagmus and is thereby disabled from obtaining employment?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This case was one under the industrial diseases Section of the Act of 1906, and by that Section the question whether a worker is disabled by an industrial disease from earning full wages at his ordinary work has to be determined by the certifying surgeon in the first instance, and, on appeal, by the medical referee. The suggestion in the question would involve a complete change in the present system, which has been in force for nearly 20 years, and has on the whole worked well, and would apparently leave the question whether or not the worker was disabled by his disease to be fought out in the Courts. I do not consider such a change is either necessary or desirable.
  806
  In reply to the last part of the question, I have no power under the Act to grant compensation. This can only be done by the Courts.

  MILK DEALERS (ILLNESS NOTIFICATION).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from certain local authorities urging legislation to effect greater precautions against the possible spread of disease in connection with milk distribution; whether he is aware that it is the considered judgment of the medical advisers of the Bethnal Green Metropolitan Borough Council that a recent outbreak of typhoid fever in that area was due to a specific human source and milk-borne, whether he will make it obligatory that all principals and employés in dairy businesses should give notice to the local medical officer of health on the occasion of any illness affecting them and abstain from duty; and will he arrange for a systematic medical inspection of all persons connected with the production and distribution of liquid milk?
  Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation early in the next Session making it compulsory for dairymen, cow-keepers, and milkvendors to give immediate notice to the local authority of illness of any kind occurring among the principals or employés connected with the production, handling, and distribution of milk, with the object of preventing the spread of infectious disease?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The suggestions contained in the third and fourth parts of the question will be considered in connection with the Milk and Dairies Orders to be made under the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, when that Act comes into operation.

  TOBACCO RETAILERS' LICENCES.
  Major NALL (for Major KINDERSLEY)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue derived from the sale of licences to retail tobacco for each of the years 1914, 1920, and 1924,

  807
  respectively; and how much of each of these sums was contributed by those conducting trades as tobacconists only and how much by those carrying on trades in which the retailing of tobacco forms only a part?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The total revenue for Great Britain from tobacco retailers' licences in the three years in question was as follows:

  £

  In 1913–14

  93,627

  In 1919–20

  87,141

  In 1923–24

  107,441

  The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is any licence required for a machine which sells tobacco after ordinary hours?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ARMOURED CARS AND MACHINE GUNS).
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN(for Marquess of HARTINGTON) asked the Secretary of State for War when it will be possible to equip Territorial armoured-car companies with efficient and up-to-date cars and machine guns?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The machine guns in possession of the Territorial armoured car companies are up-to-date weapons of their kind. I regret that I cannot at present say when it will be possible to set free Rolls-Royce armoured cars for use by the Territorial Army. Exhaustive trials with new designs are necessary before any programme of replacement can be undertaken.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CADETSHIPS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to offer the same facilities for naval cadetships as are now granted to boys in the mercantile training ships "Conway" and "Worcester" to the boys in the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich, and other sons of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Boys leave the Royal Hospital School at the age of 15½ approximately. Naval cadets entered under the special scheme from the "Conway" and "Worcester" will in future be eligible only if between the ages of 16 years and eight months and 17 years. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that I informed him on the 13th May, that it is undesirable for cadets to enter Dartmouth except at the normal age. The special arrangements for the entry of "Conway" and "Worcester" boys were approved on account of the specialist nautical training received in those establishments. The arrangements cannot be extended to boys who have not been so trained.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First lord of the Admiralty whether he will make it known to the Navy that in the event of there being any boys in the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich, or sons of warrant officers, petty officers, and men not in the Royal Hospital School, but who possess the requisite educational and other qualifications for entry as naval cadets and are within the age limits for entry into Dartmouth, facilities will be granted to enable them to attend the necessary interview and examinations?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The authorities at the Royal Hospital School are already aware that any boys in the school who appear to possess the requisite educational and other qualifications for entry as naval cadets may be granted facilities to enable them to attend the necessary interview and examinations. As regards boys not in the Royal Hospital School who are desirous of entry as naval cadets, the only action required is for them to send in an application to the Admiralty. They will then be called before the committee in due course.

    LUNATICS (DISABILITY PENSION).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the wife of a naval rating who was invalided with tuberculosis attributable to service and granted service and disability pensions under the provisions of A. M. O. 13 of 1922 would receive part of her husband's pension whilst he was undergoing treatment at a sanatorium provided under the National Health Insurance Act, he will say why the

    809
    wife of a naval lunatic rating whose disability is attributable to service does not receive the same treatment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The special treatment afforded in cases of tuberculosis is provided under the scheme of National Health Insurance, but as regards lunatics, the pensions are disposed of under the Lunacy Acts and the Naval Regulations, and the institution having charge of the pensioner has first claim on the pension.

  FEREIT CAMP, TULLOCH (ILLNESS).
  Mr. MACLEAN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that between 5th and 10th June 50 men were taken ill with acute diarrhœa at Ferrit Camp, Tulloch, Lochaber; whether he is aware that two telephone messages were sent from Ferrit Camp to the base camp at Fort William for transmission to the men's panel doctor who lives at Fort William, whether he is aware that these messages were not delivered; whether he is aware that the men had to telegraph on 12th June to their doctor asking him to come at once, and whether he car state what steps he is prepared to take to have a proper system of communication between the construction camp and Fort William, as the men evidently cannot rely on their messages being delivered when the company's telephone is used and a state of emergency arises?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am at present in receipt of weekly reports on the camps in question. The latest report for week ending 12th June, mentions that an outbreak of diarrhœa took place during the week, possibly owing to one consignment of fish having suffered in transit during the recent hot weather. Six men were off work for periods of short duration, and a certain number of ambulant cases were also reported. I have no information with regard to the last part of the question, but am making inquiries and will communicate further with the hon. Member. I may add that there is now a medical officer in residence on the works who makes a daily visit to all camps.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the doctor who was on the works is the company's doctor and that the doctor they telephoned for or telegraphed for was
  810
  the men's own panel doctor? Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the men's panel doctor is not to be allowed to visit them when the men ask for him?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no question of the men's doctor not being allowed to visit them. My information is that he has not visited the camp for something like a week. I am making inquiries.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the men's doctor was telephoned for over the company's telephone, but that the message was not given to him?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that I have no knowledge on the matter. I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is only fair to the men's doctor that I should pursue the matter further. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the doctor had not visited them for a week. Was it not the case that two telephone messages were sent through the company's telephone system, but were not delivered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put down any further questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister tell us what will be the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday the Finance Bill, Report stage.
Wednesday: Supply; Foreign Office Vote.
Thursday: Finance Bill, Third Reading, and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the Prime Minister in a position to state when the papers in regard to the pact will be in the hands of hon. Members, and whether the papers will include the original proposal made by the German Government to the Allies?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer the last part of the question first. I believe that is so. I am glad to say that all the relevant papers will be published in the White Paper, which will be available in the Vote Office this evening.
Colonel GRETTON: In regard to the business down for to-day, may I ask the Prime Minister how long he proposes to keep the House to-night in view of the fact that we have had three consecutive late sittings this week.
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the House will not need to sit beyond its normal period to-day.
Colonel GRETTON: Is it intended to keep the House late if hon. Members desire reasonable discussion upon the Bills which are on the Order Paper to be taken to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: The first four Orders on the Paper printed in italics.
Colonel GRETTON: The Prime Minister has not answered my question. I desire to ask whether it is intended to keep the House late if there is a desire for reasonable discussion on the four Orders?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think for this reason the House will require to sit late.
Sir J. NALL: One of the Orders down for to-morrow is the Public Health Bill which amends the Public Health Act. That Bill, as amended, has not been printed and is not available in the Vote Office. As it involves matters of controversy on questions of public importance, ought it to be proceeded with tomorrow in view of the fact that the amended Bill is not yet available?
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no rule on the matter, but I think it is understood that a reprinted Bill should be in the hands of Members before the Bill is taken on the Report stage. It may be that the Bill will be in the hands of Members, but, of course, I do not know.
Ordered,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Westminster City Council (General Powers) Bill, without Amendment.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
Leicester Corporation Bill.
Tyne Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Royal Exchange Assurance to create and issue debentures or debenture stock; to amend the fundamental laws of the corporation; and for other purposes." [Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Mansfield to execute street improvements; to make further provision in regard to the water, gas, and electricity undertakings of the corporation and for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; to consolidate the rates of the borough; and for other purposes." [Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board to construct further waterworks; to confirm existing works; and for other purposes." [Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill intituled, An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Newbury District Water Company, Limited, to the Newbury Corporation; to authorise the corporation to supply water in and in the neighbourhood of their borough; to make further provision with regard to the improvement of the borough and the consolidation of rates; and for other purposes." [Newbury Corporation Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of West Ham to acquire lands; to confer upon them powers with reference to their tramway and electricity undertakings: and for other purposes." [West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords],
Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords],
Newbury Corporation Bill [Lords],
West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BATH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the following Bills): Ministers of Religion (Removal of Disqualifications) Bill, Improvement of Land Act (1899) Amendment Bill, Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Bill, and Advertisements Regulation Bill [Lords].
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Ministers of Religion (Removal of Disqualifications) Bill): Mr. Barr, Major Birchall, Mr. Broad, Mr. Duff Cooper, Major Crawfurd, Captain Eden, Mr. William Greenwood, Mr. Godfrey Locker -Lampson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nail, and Mr. Waddington.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Improvement of Land Act (1899) Amendment Bill): Colonel Sir George Court-hope, Major Crawfurd, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Shepperson, Mr. Edward Wood, and Major Yerburgh.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following ten Members to
  814
  Standing Committee C (in respect of the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Bill and the Advertisements Regulation Bill [Lords]: Mr. Ernest Alexander, Captain Bowyer, Sir William Bull, Sir Burton Chadwick, Sir Martin Conway, Major Crawfurd, Colonel Day, Mr. Ford, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, and Mr. Oliver.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TITHE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I am sure that I will command the assent of those who have studied this question of tithes when I say that there is no more difficult and complex question to which the House could be invited to address its attention, and I think that in one respect the question of tithes occupies a rather peculiar position among the rather wide range of problems on which from time to time it is the duty of this House to form and pass judgment. In our day-today work we are invited for the most part to deal with matters which follow from what may be called the natural evolution of civic society, and which, both in their character and in the mental background from which they spring, would have been largely unintelligible to our predecessors of five, six or seven centuries ago. But tithe is very different, and the distance that the modern mind has moved away from the mediaeval acceptance of a compulsory tithe contribution for religious purposes is the measure of how deeply the roots of the matter lie embedded in the past.
  I will just add this further preliminary observation of a general nature. The acceptance by the community of such definite religious obligations follows naturally enough from the assumption of uniformity in religious belief and practice. As long as the civil and spiritual order were merely regarded as twin expressions of a single human society, titheing the land was held to be not only elementary Christianity but also—and to our ancestors the distinction scarcely existed—good citizenship as well, and it follows that while land was the principal, if not almost the sole, source of wealth, it was naturally upon land that this obligation was imposed, and it has been subject to this obligation that from time to time the land in question has passed from hand to hand through all its
  832
  successive ownerships. Those days have passed away, and it is in this very different atmosphere of the twentieth century that the House is called upon to consider those matters which are a direct legacy of the practice and ideas of an earlier age.
  Before I come to the Bill may I remind hon. Members in a sentence or two of what have been the principal features in tithe legislation? I will just give the landmarks. Up to 1836 tithes were still collected, in theory if not in practice, in kind. That is to say, by taking a tenth of the titheable produce, though in fact in most cases a composition sum was arrived at and paid in satisfaction in place of the contribution in kind. But for various reasons that was not a very satisfactory arrangement. Indeed, I think that the main advantage of the old custom of collecting in kind was to endow the countryside with the old tithe barns that may still be seen in many parts of the country, and add to its picturesque features.
  In 1836 it was decided that all tithes, with some trifling exceptions, should be commuted for a money payment equivalent to the average value of the tithes. But then, as now, there was much discussion as to whether a gold price or a commodity price was the better basis on which to effect the change. Ultimately it was decided that the better course was to commute the tithe for a sum which would be arrived at by the ascertainment of the money value from time to time of a certain number of bushels of wheat, barley and oats. I will not detail the machinery by which that was done, beyond saying that it was desired to produce on these figures a £100 commuted tithe rent charge, and in the calculations from which and by which that figure was arrived at the price of oats is by far the most material factor. In each succeeding year after that the average price of corn for seven years was taken, and the value of the tithe rent charge was calculated on those averages.
  The anticipation of those who were responsible for that legislation was that the rise and fall of tithe rent charge would pretty accurately follow the rise and fall in the cost of living, and on the whole it has done so. A seven years' average works very slowly and it would not be difficult to point to cases in the

  833
  past in which there has been a 50 per cent. drop in the prices of a single year which has been responsible for an immediate change in the value of the tithe rent charge of little more than 1 per cent., but on the whole the arrangement worked very well until the War came with its abnormal prices and its abnormal cost of living. It worked fairly well in spite of the fact that, as a great many hon. Members will remember, when tithe rent charge fell, as it did in 1900, to something like £66 it was very difficult to persuade the incumbent in those days that the £66 represented as much to him as did the £100 par commodity value.
  Then came the War, when corn prices, even though controlled, rose to such an extent that, on the 1836 basis, tithe rent charge would have risen in 1922 to the figure of £172 for every £100 tithe rent charge, and the House ought not to forget that the Church was the first to accept the view that though, theoretically, the cost of living might have risen proportionately the Church was not justified in taking advantage of her full rights under existing legislation.
  4.0 P.M.
  It should be remembered to the honour of the Church that, in the days when there was a good deal of taking advantage of war prices and conditions going on, she deliberately withstood that temptation, if temptation it were, and came forward with an invitation to arrive at a fair basis of measurement by which that might be avoided. It was accordingly at the instance of the Church that in 1918 tithe was stabilised for seven years at the figure at which it now stands, at £109 3s. 11d., and that, of course, meant a very considerable sacrifice to tithe owners. That sacrifice has been estimated, and I think rightly estimated, at a sum of not less than £4,000,000 and that after allowing for the concessions which they obtained later in regard to rates. The only compensation that was given for this in 1918—and it represents but a very small proportion of what the Church then gave up—was an extension of the period of seven years average to a period of 15 years' average in order that, when stabilisation ceased, the favourable effect from the point of view of the Church of the high war prices, although spread over 15 years, should be brought in for a few years to influence the price in justice to the tithe owner.
  834
  When the Church accepted that heavy sacrifice, it was not realised that corn prices were not the only things that were rising. At the moment Parliament was restricting tithe, the devaluation of money consequent upon the War was responsible for causing the rates to soar. Incumbents therefore found that their restricted incomes from tithe rentcharge were being largely reduced by unprecedented demands for rates. The result was that they were granted by Parliament in 1920 the measure of relief represented by the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act of that year, which gave relief especially to those in occupation of poorer benefices and also to the ecclesiastical corporations, or in other words, the Cathedral establishments. But that relief was limited to the period during which the tithe rentcharge was stabilised, that is to say, up to the end of this year; and it is only fair in that connection to add that in acquiescing in that measure of partial relief from rates the Church never abandoned what had been her claim throughout, that in equity she should be exempted totally from rates.
  I have asked the House to allow me to remind hon. Members of those landmarks in order to bring the position up to date. Those two Measures, the Tithe Act of 1918 and the Act affecting rates of 1920, were responsible for establishing a stable condition in tithe for a fixed period. We are now getting to the end of that period, and it is very important that the House should clearly apprehend what would be the position in default of any legislation. The first result would be that tithe next year would rise to something like, I think, 131, with an estimated rise to 137 in 1930, the rise to 131 next year being approximately a rise of 20 per cent. Without any sure prospect of a compensating rise in corn prices, that could hardly fail to be a very dislocating element in what we may hope to be the more stable poise of agricultural economics at the present time. On the other hand, while the tithe owner would gain on the swings he would lose on the roundabouts, in that his original liability for rates would be revived. The Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge Bates Act of 1920 would disappear. There is another more general consideration to which I would like to direct hon.

  835
  Members' minds. Tithe is a legal obligation on laud in no way differing from any other charge, and, as I have said, the charge which it imposes has no doubt for generations past been discounted in the value of the land when it has passed from hand to hand.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!
  Mr. WOOD: I am very glad to have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's assent to what I have hitherto regarded as a very elementary proposition. All of us are aware that human reason is not always strong enough to control human feeling, and, although such cases may be and I think are comparatively rare, it is idle to close our eyes to the fact that one effect of the break-up of large estates has been to multiply the possibilities of friction between the incumbent and the parishioners from whom he has to collect the income to which he is by law entitled. Therefore, I do not know that there is any field in which the whole House, irrespective of party, would be more anxious to avoid occasion for controversy than in that kind of area where the spiritual and the secular spheres overlap; and, for all those reasons, I think there will be a wide measure of agreement among men of all parties that it is on general grounds desirable to bring to an end the direct relationship between the incumbent as tithe owner and the owner of land as tithepayer, and at the same time, in doing that, to stabilise these sharply fluctuating payments on the basis of what may be arrived at as their fair perpetuity equivalent. The real difficulty in handling this matter is to arrive at a fair perpetuity equivalent. That is the problem with which the Minister of Agriculture has had to deal for the purposes of redemption ever since 1920, and the figure has been fixed for redemption since 1922 at £104. Before arriving at that decision those responsible for the Ministry at that day obtained the advice of a Committee consisting of Sir Charles Longmore, Sir Henry Rew, and the late Mr. Le Fanu, the Treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did any of those three gentlemen represent the Treasury?
  Mr. WOOD: No, they did not represent the Treasury. There was no occasion
  836
  for them to represent the Treasury. They were not dealing with Treasury money. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to finish this part of my argument, he will see that there was no public money involved. That Committee heard a great deal of evidence—it was, of course, of a conflicting nature, inasmuch as it was bound to be largely of a speculative character—as to the probable trend of corn prices. That evidence has been considered by my Department, who have also taken into consideration the more recent fluctuations in prices, and, on their advice, I had come to the conclusion in my own mind that the figure should be not less than £104 and not more than £106, or thereabouts. Before deciding on the figure I decided to consult Sir Charles Long-more again. He was the only Member of the original committee whom I could consult, because Sir Henry Rew had identified himself with the Tithepayers' Union and was therefore not in a position to dissociate himself from that side of the question, and Mr. Le Fanu, as I have said, was dead. It really is of vital importance to read the reply Sir Charles Longmore wrote to me:
  "DEAR MR. WOOD,
  I feel bound to accede to the request contained in your letter of the 16th instant as to the stabilisation of tithe rentcharge, but you will no doubt appreciate that a forecast of corn prices over the long period which must be taken into consideration in dealing with the value of tithe rentcharge is not a matter on which unanimity of opinion can reasonably be expected.
  When I sat in 1920–1–2–3 as Chairman of the Committee appointed by your predecessors to advise them as to the figure to be adopted for redemption under the Tithe Act, 1918, I had the privilege of hearing the views of many persons whose opinions on this subject carry considerable weight, but those views were rather widely divergent. I have since then brought up to date my knowledge of the actual Gazette prices of wheat, barley and oats, and amongst other recent pronouncements on this subject. I have carefully considered Mr. J. M. Keynes' memorandum prepared for the use of the colleges in which he elaborates his views as to the future prices of cereals and commodities in general.
  On the whole material before me, I have come to the conclusion that the fair figure to adopt for stabilisation of the rentcharge, which would otherwise be dependent on the 15-year average of corn prices, is the sum of £105.
  Yours sincerely,
  CHARLES LONGMORE."
  I know of no one—
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Is that in perpetuity?
  Mr. WOOD: That was the perpetuity value of the varying figure arrived at from the corn prices. I know of no one more competent to form a judgment on this very difficult problem, a judgment both valuable in itself and wholly unbiased and impartial, and therefore I have placed the figure of £105 in the Bill. The next point to which I had to address my attention was as to the degree to which a general and compulsory extinguishment of tithe rentcharge should be required. I have said enough, I hope, to indicate the general grounds upon which the extinguishment of clerical tithe rentcharge, even at a comparatively remote date, is desirable, but of course the House will appreciate that extinguishment involves an additional payment by the tithepayer in the way of sinking fund, and I had to consider what he can reasonably be asked to pay in addition to the £105. I came to the conclusion that it would not be unreasonable to invite him to pay another £4 10s. by way of sinking fund, which would bring his payment up to £109 10s., as against £109 3s. 11d. which he pays at present. This sum, if accumulated at the current available rates, which have been taken to range from £4¼ at present to £3¼ in the rather remote future, will suffice in 85 years to produce the net income that will cease when the tithe rentcharge is extinguished.
  It is, therefore, proposed that £109 10s. shall be paid for all clerical tithe rent-charge, and that at the expiration, of 85 years the tithe rentcharge will automatically cease to exist. In the case of ecclesiastical corporations' tithe rent-charge, the net income will be rather smaller than in the case of clerical tithe rentcharge, and the period will be slightly reduced to 81½ years. During the currency of these periods the tithe rentcharge will continue to be deducted in the assessment of the land charged, and consequently no increased rates during that period will fall upon the land. The accumulation of the £4 10s. obviously necessitates the introduction of some central authority to be the collecting and accumulating body, and Queen Anne's Bounty seemed to be the appropriate body. It is, therefore, proposed that Queen Anne's Bounty shall collect and administer the whole annual
  838
  payments, including the payments on account of sinking fund.
  I have no doubt that some incumbents, who are fortunately placed as regards the collection of their own tithe, will urge that such an arrangement will involve them in unnecessary expense. To them I would say two things: first, that it would be inconvenient to the point of impossibility to have two collections, one of tithe rentcharge proper by the incumbent and one of the sinking fund portion by someone else. In the second place, in a general scheme such as is here proposed, it is necessary to balance the cases where collection is easy against cases where collection by the incumbent is difficult and sometimes invidious. I, therefore, hope that the Church will accept the principle of central collection, and will consider whether the wide powers of Queen Anne's Bounty will not meet the difficulties arising from its application to special cases. I do not believe that the expense of collection will seriously reduce the incumbent's income, and I hope that the Church will realise that some small sacrifice is worth making in order to achieve the severance between the tithe payer and the tithe owner, which the scheme proposes.
  With regard to the lay tithe rentcharge, I have formed the view that the general feeling of tithe owners was that any scheme which under existing circumstances the Government were likely to propose, was not very likely to be one which would benefit them, and the tithe payers seemed to be luke-warm as regards a general compulsory redemption of such tithe rentcharge. The Bill, therefore, contains no scheme for the compulsory general redemption of lay tithe rent-charge. It does effect a certain alteration, but not one of first-rate importance in the case of lay tithe rentcharge, and one which, I hope, will be of some value to the lay tithe owners.
  Queen Anne's Bounty, therefore, will become the owners of the whole clerical tithe rentcharge under the Bill, and will get £109 10s. for every £100 nominal. The next question is as to the disposal of that £109 10s. That brings me to the question of the rates to be paid, and perhaps I may say a word about the general rate position. Incumbents strongly urge that the practice under which they have been rated on their tithe rentcharge is illegal and inequitable. I

  839
  do not profess to be able with any assurance to appraise the strict legal merits of their claim. The matter reaches back to the Act of Queen Elizabeth, and I think it must now be accepted that the long-established practice, and a certain amount of recognition of the practice in later Acts, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the incumbents to establish their claim to exemption in the Courts. The contention that the practice is inequitable has always seemed to me to stand on much stronger ground, and has been frequently recognised by authorities on various sides of political thought.
  The whole problem of the liability of this tithe rentcharge to rating was very fully considered by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, who in 1898 recommended that partial relief should be given without stating exactly the amount of the relief. I shall not weary the House with their recommendations, because they are available to anyone who is interested. The result was the relief to the extent of half-rates that was given by the Act of 1899. But this has never been accepted by the Church as a final settlement. Further temporary relief was also given by the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge Rates Act of 1920. That gave total exemption from rates in the case of poorer benefices, and proportionate relief in other cases, but—this is a very important point—laid the whole obligation of making up the deficiency thus caused in rates on the general body of ratepayers in the parish concerned.
  The Government have very carefully considered this question and have come to the conclusion that an equitable settlement of this very controversial matter is that the rateable obligation to tithe rent-charge should be put at £5 out of every £109 10s. received. Let me give the effect of that. In respect of tithe attached to benefices, substantially the same sum will be paid towards rates as is paid now, but if this stood alone, the general body of ratepayers would continue to be liable, as they are to-day, for the extra burden imposed by the Act of 1920. That extra burden is very far from negligible. Although I voted and spoke in favour of that Act when it was passing through this House, as did many of my hon. Friends, I rather doubt whether the Parliament of
  840
  1920 fully realised the implications of its action. The effect of that 1920 Act has been an addition to the rates in some parishes of between 2s. and 3s. in the £.
  The Government accordingly take the view that, while it is not prepared to accede to the Church's claim for total exemption from rating, it is reasonable not to exact a higher payment for rates from the incumbent than he has been paying, but that it is not just to lay this charge upon the ratepayers. Accordingly the Exchequer will make itself responsible for that burden, which since 1920 has rested upon the shoulders of the general ratepayers in the country. Let me sum up what I have said on that head. The distribution of the £109 10s. will be this: £4 1ds. to the sinking fund, £5 to a fund for defraying rates on these tithe rentcharges, and £100, less cost of collection, to the incumbent.
  Sir ROBERT SANDERS: Can my right hon. Friend say what will be the amount paid by the Exchequer?
  Mr. WOOD: It is about £270,000, but I will come to that later. The case of the ecclesiastical corporations who have enjoyed a lesser measure of relief under the Act of 1920 has also been considered. On their £100 tithe rentcharge they have been paying about £16 in rates. That we propose to continue. On behalf of ecclesiastical corporations Queen Anne's Bounty will pay into the fund for defraying rates a sum of £16 instead of the £5, in respect of every £109 10s. received for clerical tithe rentcharge. The lay tithe rentcharge is merely stabilised. There is no sinking fund in the case of lay tithe rentcharge. The whole of the rates will be defrayed by payment by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who will, as regards half rates, continue to deduct the amount which is at present paid from the Local Taxation Account under the 1899 Act, and will find the balance of the other half, less the contributions of £5 and £16, out of the Consolidated Fund. It is estimated that these payments, thus thrown on the Exchequer to prevent an additional burden being thrown on the ratepayers, will be between £250,000 and £300,000 a year.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that a Treasury estimate?
  Mr. WOOD: Yes, and the right hon. Gentleman may assume that it is pretty accurate, because very full materials are available for the formation of a judgment. I sum up by saying this. The Bill aims, while seeking to frame a permanent and final settlement, at doing this in terms which are just to tithe-payers and tithe-owners alike, and, as far as may be, to do it on the lines of the existing status quo. Under the Bill the tithe-payer will pay for a definite period of years the same sum within a few shillings that he pays to-day, and he will know that the alternative to legislation from his point of view is the 130, or the 131 next year. The ecclesiastical tithe-owner will secure a stable income. He does not gain anything. Indeed, many of them will say that they lose. But he secures a stable income, and he will be relieved of personal responsibility for collection. After the tithe-owners have made what is practically their existing contribution to rates to Queen Anne's Bounty, they will enjoy the balance rate free—free from the contested rate obligation. Therefore, only to the ordinary ratepayer is the status quo varied, and that to his advantage, in that he is relieved by the Exchequer of the extra burden that was thrown upon him in 1920, and he incurs no new burden in consequence of what, in my judgment, is a fair recognition of the Church's equitable claim in respect of rating.
  I am well aware in a matter of this kind that it is, by the very nature of things, impossible that a Bill of this nature should win general approbation. When the various parties who have been negotiating have failed to reach agreement it would be unduly sanguine to suppose that any Government would immediately and automatically succeed. I am told on the one hand that the Bill exacts a vastly too heavy payment from the tithe-payers and inflicts great injustice on the owner-occupier or owner of land who is called upon to pay such a high figure. On the other hand I am told with equal vehemence that we are imposing grave sacrifices upon tithe-owners—upon incumbents and poor parsons. I notice yet a third line of criticism adumbrated in the Amendments appearing on the Paper to-day in the names of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first Amendment which is in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme
  842
  (Colonel Wedgwood) suggests, as might be expected from his association with it, that the principal object of the Bill is to increase the value of agricultural property. I do not at all quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman for putting down that Amendment, I should be disappointed if he did not give us in this House what I am sure is a re-echo of the most eloquent speeches which he frequently makes outside. I have come to regard this argument as not the least interesting item in the stock-in-trade with which he perpetually delights us.
  I venture to ask him, before he moves his Amendment, if he will explain to us how it is suggested that, in fact, what he anticipates is to be done. The only demand made upon the general taxpayer is that he should relieve the general ratepayer of a burden which is comparatively small in relation to the whole scheme, a burden which Parliament, I think, never intended to lay upon him. The rateable liability of both tithe-owner and tithe-payer, as such, remains unaffected. The beneficed clergyman receives exactly what is estimated to be the fair actuarial equivalent of that to which he is legally entitled; the tithe-payer over a period of years relieves his land from the statutory charge at present resting upon it, by a compulsory contribution for 85 years of his own money. I confess I do not easily see how the value of agricultural land is increased at the expense of the general taxpayer. I am the more interested to see the relation which that Amendment bears to an Amendment which is adumbrated by the friends of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who sit behind him. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says the Church is defrauded for the benefit of the landowners and the hon. and learned Gentleman beside him (Sir H. Slesser), I take it, accedes to that view, but hon. Members behind say that the Church is being provided with more benefits from the taxpayers. They must make up their minds before we get very far with this Bill whether they think the Church is being robbed or is being benefited.
  At present they rather suggest to me what is perhaps the position of some of our number who are not here to-day, having gone to another engagement in the neighbourhood—where being unable to make up their minds which of two or three

  843
  horses they will back, decide unwisely, as I think, to back the three equally. That may not lead to heavy losses, but it does not make for extensive gains, and I commend to hon. Gentlemen opposite the suggestion that they should make quite clear on which leg they mean to stand in this matter. For myself let me frankly state that in the battlefield of politics as distinct from the battlefield of war, it is not always a sign of unsound dispositions to find yourself the centre of some cross firing, in which the attacks from one flank may sometimes tend to discount the danger of attacks from the other. Indeed I am rather encouraged by the fact that I shall, no doubt, be the target of varying attacks—perhaps from some hon. Gentleman behind me as well as from other hon. Gentlemen in other parts of the House—because it leads me to suppose that, on the whole, the solution which I suggest to the House is as near fairness and equity as can reasonably be found.
  On behalf of the Government I can only say that, confronted with a problem of quite exceptional difficulty, I have sought to reconcile these conflicting interests on a basis that each side could consider reasonable, and if from one side or the other it can be shown that we have failed to hold the scales evenly, I shall welcome the co-operation of hon. Members, in whatever part of the House they sit, in attempting to evolve a settlement which is equitable as between all the interests concerned. In my efforts to find a solution I have been profoundly impressed by what I think is the new temper which prevails between the different parties, as has been shown during the unofficial conversations which have taken place between the interests concerned in the last 18 months. Those who could speak with authority for tithe-payers have been very ready to recognise the real sacrifice we are demanding from the present generation of incumbents, many of whom are well advanced in years, many of whom have given long and unstinted service for a very meagre material reward, and who had been looking forward to a substantial accretion to their tithe income in 1926. On the other hand, those who might claim to speak for the tithe-owners have not failed, I think, to recognise that some sacrifice of their immediate interests was inevitable
  844
  if due regard was to be had to the general level of agricultural prosperity and to the wider and more permanent interests of the spiritual society whose servants they are. That is the temper that exists to-day between those directly concerned with the receiving and paying of tithes, and I have no doubt that will also be the temper with which this House will discuss the proposals which I now recommend to hon. Members for Second Reading.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "while anxious to stabilise tithe at a reasonable figure, this House declines to proceed with a measure which adds to the price of agricultural land at the expense of beneficed clergymen and the general taxpayer."
  The right hon. Gentleman who so lucidly introduced this Bill said, quite frankly, that the question was one of great complexity and the House will agree—at least those hon. Members who have studied the Bill in detail will agree—as to the complexity of the Bill itself. This question, however, does involve economic problems of great complexity. There is to-day, not merely a struggle between the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer, between the landlord and the parson, as to how much each shall get out of the rental value of the land but there is also the question of the interest of the State in that land, in the shape of rates and the proportion of the rental value taken by local authorities in that form. If this were merely a question between the parson and the landlord whether the landlord should pay more or whether the parson should obtain less, it would be a simple question for such a Committee as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors set up to arrive at some equitable solution of the problem. But we have also to consider the interest of the State. I think hon. Members on this side of the House often forget that the interests in the land are not solely those of the landlord. The State is, economically, a large owner of land value in this country.
  There are, in fact, three owners of land, the landlord, the tithe-owner and the State. The tithe-owner and the State are in the position of preference shareholders without voting power, without any control over the management of the

  845
  land. Indeed, they might be better described as participating preference shareholders, because as the value of land goes up so does the return from the rates and so does the share of the parson in tithes—or so it has done up to now. I have tried to find out in what proportion these shares are held to-day, and it may interest the House if I give them the figures as far as they can be obtained. The rent of agricultural land in England, excluding Scotland and Ireland, not merely the land, but the farmhouses as well—in fact, the new agricultural value of land which has sprung into being and which will play such an important part in the future—seems to work out at about £40,000,000 a year. That is the rent from agricultural land. The tithe-owners—the parsons—for clerical tithes get £2,000,000 a year and the lay tithes amount to about £1,000,000 a year. There you have £40,000,000 a year for the landlord and £3,000,000 a year for the semi-landlord, the preference shareholder, while the State, in rates and in Income Tax under Schedule A, is the owner of a prior charge on the land to the tune of £28,000,000. So the State is, to-day, a very considerable part-owner of the land of the country.
  For the last three centuries there has been a constant effort on the part of the landowner, the man who has the directing of the property, to shift the hereditary burden carried by the land on to the body of the general taxpayers. It is well known that it began in the reign of Charles II, when the burden was commuted into a perpetual land tax, and it has been going on with increasing frequency. The taxes were shifted off very largely, and would have been more so if it had not been for Sir William Harcourt's Budget of 1894, and, of course, the enormous rise in the amount of Income Tax under Schedule A, but latterly the struggle has been one in connection with the rates. In 1896 half the rates on agricultural land were shifted off the landlord and on to the general body of taxpayers. That is to say, there was a general movement to relieve that particular interest of one of the hereditary burdens incident upon the land, at the cost of the general taxpayer. That has gone on since with accelerated speed, and we reduced it two years ago, I think, to one quarter. At the same time, the other
  846
  shareholder in the land, the parson, also, I think it was in 1899, got his burden lifted off and transferred to the ordinary body of taxpayers, which was another hereditary burden moved on to the general taxpayer.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of that as a great act of justice, and indeed, in the latter part of his speech, he rather reproved us for complaining of a further shifting of what he estimates as being a quarter of a million from the other shareholders on to the back of the public. That gift, I think, was £150,000 a year, if I remember aright. That, I think, was the cost to the taxpayer of the halving of the parson's tithe. [An HON. MEMBER: "Double that!"] At that time I think it was £150,000 a year, but in any case the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the whole of the Liberal party at that time protested with the utmost vigour against that gift to the parsons, on the ground that it was unfair to relieve a particular interest at the expense of the general body of taxpayers, and what I want particularly to call the attention of the House to is the remark made at that time by Lord George Hamilton. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman may remember it. It was quoted, I think, on every Liberal platform over and over again as a clear indication of what this Measure meant. Lord George Hamilton is reported to have said:
  "Why do you complain of this gift to the parsons? We were quite right to help our friends."
  I am afraid that that is a thoroughly bad Tory principle. It is not fair to the general body of taxpayers to use your majority, whether you be a Liberal majority or whether you be a Conservative majority, to help your friends at the expense of the general body of taxpayers, and I do not think anyone to-day would care to contest the general principle that Parliament and the Government are not entitled to give presents to any particular body or vested interest at the expense of the community. The right hon. Gentleman talks of this gift of £250,000, as it is now, or £150,000, as it was in 1899, as being a mere trifle, but we must remember that these gifts are not to be measured by the mere annual amount of the contribution. We must take at least 20 years' purchase of that contribution as a reflection of the true benefit given to the owners of real estate by the reduction of the

  847
  annual charge. In fact, 20 times a quarter of a million amounts to £5,000,000, which is taken from the public and transferred to those who own real estate.
  I have said that for the last 50 years we have seen a continual series of these efforts on the part of the landed interests to shift their hereditary burdens on to the taxpayer. This is merely the latest illustration of the practice, but two nights ago we had exactly the same thing, another effort to shake themselves free and put themselves in a privileged position, and I think it is high time that any Opposition in this House tried to call a halt to this habit. Every economist knows that it is increasing the burden on the producers to the advantage of the non-producers. Every economist, from Harold Cox down to the wildest Socialist, will tell you that this is unjust and unfair, but there is much more than that in this opposition. It is not merely a question of whether the public is being robbed for the benefit of a limited class, it is a question of whether, in this solution that you have come to, one party to the bargain is getting a fair deal. I think, myself, that the parsons are coming off extremely badly by this arrangement.
  The right hon. Gentleman complained that we were not united, but I think we are united in this sense, that there, is a great deal to be said for the Church in this Bill. It is to the advantage of the Church that the horrible business of a parson having to go round and collect his tithe personally from the various tithe owners should come to an end. It is all for the dignity as well as for the good repute of the Church that that system should be done away with and that the collection should be done in the form of the straightforward tax of the Queen Anne's Bounty. It is to the advantage of the Church, perhaps, that the richer parsons in the future should really get a substantial advantage, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is the small parsons who are going to be hit by this change. Under the Act of 1920 the parson whose income was less than £300 a year escaped having to pay rates altogether, and the man whose income was between £300 and £600 had his rates reduced from one half
  848
  to one quarter, I think; that is to say, wherever the benefice was of this value the rates were reduced, independent of whether a man had a private income. But the man whose benefice was worth more than £500 a year still continued to pay the half rates to which he got it reduced in 1899.
  Under this scheme they are all to be on the same footing. If this Bill goes through, all the parsons will get the £100, less the cost of collection, but there will be no longer any preference for the small parson. There may be something to be said financially for the incumbent with a living of £1,000 a year, because, taking a long view, if he is a. young man of twenty-five, it is possible, though I do not say it is probable, that the tithe may again fall, and that he is making a good bargain, but I think it improbable that the small man is, because many of these parsons are so poor that they cannot employ an agent to collect their tithe, and they have to do it themselves, and under this scheme they have compulsorily to employ an agent. It may be only 2½ per cent., but it means a lot to a very poor man, and I think this scheme, forced upon that class of parson, does require some criticism, apart altogether from the wider aspect of whether we are justified in trying to square this struggle between the parson and the landlord by a subvention from Treasury funds.
  In regard to the figure, I think that is where the parsons are most unjustly hit. If we do not pass this Bill—and I sincerely hope we shall not pass it—tithes will rise to £131. Who will be injured? Solely the landlord class. I am not saying whether it is wise or wrong, but do let us get away from the idea that it is anybody else who is going to be hit. I am a landlord, and it is coming on me, not on my tenant farmer. It is simply a question of whether the parson is to suffer or whether the landlord is to suffer, and I cannot understand why we should pass a special Act of Parliament to relieve landlords at the expense of parsons. The argument in favour of it is that parsons do not know their own business best, and that in 50 years' time the value of tithe will have fallen from the £109 3s. 11d. at which it stands to-day to £70, and they will be much worse off, but the cost of living will have fallen at the same time, if it does fall.

  849
  Is there, however, any sort of evidence that we are going to have that colossal reduction in the price of food, in the cost of living, that is apparently estimated by the people who imagine this figure? I do not see any signs of a fall in the cost of living.
  The figure I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman is what would be the actual figure of tithe at present prices. Suppose the present prices were a 15 years' average, what would that figure be? I am told it would be something like £105. There is no reason for thinking that the price of oats and wheat will fall any more than there is for thinking it will rise next year. If the public generally were as certain that the price of wheat and oats was going to fall as is the man who devised this figure, what fortunes they might make on the Stock Exchange dealing in futures! You cannot tell whether the price is going up or whether the price is going down, and you are inventing a fall, and on that you are basing an argument to deprive parsons in this country of what they are legitimately entitled to next year. The right hon. Gentleman brings forward his Bill really because he thinks it is intolerable that there should be a 20 per cent. increase in this charge on the agricultural landlords of this country. I do not think it is intolerable at all. It does not matter one halfpenny to the producer whether the landlord gets it or whether the parson gets it, and, if it comes to that, if he says: "Well, if we do not pass this Bill now, not only will tithe rise to £130, but the poor parsons who have been getting these reductions and who have been able to escape rates altogether will find their benefit at an end," we will extend that. We are quite prepared, on this side, to grant that extension, but do not let the right hon. Gentleman use that as an argument for the necessity of passing this Bill in the interests of the poor parsons.
  There are other suggestions. If the right hon. Gentleman must stabilise tithe for all time, let him bring in a Bill, an agreed Bill, in which both the interests will be definitely consulted, a Bill agreeable not only to the big dignitaries of the Church, but to those representing the small men, who, I say, are going to suffer under this Bill. Let him bring in an agreed Bill of that sort, which does not
  850
  come upon the taxpayers of the country, and then there will be no sort of opposition to it. However complicated the Bill he introduces, he will find that it goes through without trouble. I do not think a Bill like this, which is contrary to all the principles that true economists have professed in the past, which does go out of its way unfairly to penalise one party to the bargain, which cloaks its schemes under the plausible plea that agriculture will be hit if tithes go up, should be hurried through the House, but should be very carefully considered before it becomes a statute binding upon all parties.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT FISHER: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has performed an unenviable task with great eloquence and lucidity. I say his task was unenviable, because I cannot imagine a Measure more controversial in itself, more technical in its details, or more difficult to present in a clear and attractive form to this House than a Measure dealing with this subject of tithes. We have already been apprised of one line of objection which may be taken against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us that this is a Bill for the benefit of the landlords, and he has intimated that the interests of the parson are being sacrificed to the interests of the land-owning class. If I may venture to offer my own opinion, it is that the parsons do not come off at all badly under the Measure of my right hon. Friend, though it is perfectly true that they would come off a good deal better if he were not so generous to the land-owning class. But I do not myself propose to cover the broader aspects of this Measure. I rise to speak on behalf of a group of corporations, blameless, meritorious corporations, who, under the operation of the lethal instrument, which has been wrapped up in so much silken and seductive eloquence by my right hon. Friend, will suffer a severe diminution of their resources. I speak for the charitable corporations, for a group of bodies, of which some of the principal colleges of Oxford and Cambridge may be taken as typical—Trinity College, Cambridge; King's College, Cambridge; my right hon. Friend's college at Oxford, Christ Church; New College, Magdalen College, Eton College, Christ's

  851
  Hospital, Holy Cross, Winchester, and many other foundations of the same kind. These corporations, which render, as I think everyone in this House will realise, very conspicuous service to the Commonwealth, suddenly find themselves threatened with a very serious loss of revenue, under the operation of this Bill, if it passes in its present form.
  To take the case of Oxford alone, the universities and the colleges of Oxford find themselves threatened with an annual loss amounting to £3,150 gross, or £2,200 net. They find themselves threatened with a loss in the redemption value amounting to £35,508, and, if I may speak of the college with which I am most particularly connected, that is menaced with the immediate conversion of a favourable into an unfavourable balance. It, therefore, will not surprise the House if in Oxford and Cambridge—and the feeling is reflected among other charitable corporations—a very considerable measure of anxiety exists with reference to the Tithe Bill of my right hon. Friend. And when I speak of this gross loss of £3,150 and this net loss of £2,200 to Oxford, I am comparing an income which these institutions now enjoy with the income which they will receive if my right hon. Friend's Tithe Bill passes in its present form. But, of course, that comparison does not exhaust the equities of the case, because the rate fixed in 1918 was, as we all know, an artificial figure, fixed at a point far lower than that at which tithe would have been valued had the value been calculated upon the average value of the three principal cereals, and it is common knowledge that if the Government were to do nothing but leave the tithe upon the terms, granted in the Act of 1918, to come into operation in 1926, the value of tithe would not be £109, as it was fixed in the Act of 1918, nor would it be £105, as it is proposed to fix it under the Bill of my right hon. Friend, but it would be £131 or £132, and would rise to a higher figure in the following years.
  That is a very great disparity. The disparity between the sums which my right hon. Friend is offering these charitable corporations, and the sum which they would be entitled to receive, if they were allowed to enjoy the benefits promised them in the Act of 1918, would amount, in the case of Oxford alone, to a gross
  852
  annual sum of about £15,000. Again, it will be readily appreciated by Members in all quarters of the House, that the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges do not contemplate this very heavy loss with equanimity. I hope it is quite unnecessary for me to enlarge on the services, both educational and eleemosynary, which are performed by the charitable corporations for which I speak. As far as Oxford and Cambridge are concerned, they have recently been looked into by a Royal Commission most carefully, and the only gravamen which that Commission could bring against the two ancient Universities was that the tutors worked too hard and were underpaid. Indeed, the Commission was so deeply impressed by the financial needs of those Universities that they recommended that they should receive an annual sum of Parliamentary money of £110,000, and the Chairman of the Commission, in alluding to the Commission's Report, reminded the House that this sum was a minimum sum. The two Universities so far have only received £85,000 each. I do not complain of that. I think it is desirable that the sum of £110,000 should be gradually worked up to, but I do submit, in all seriousness, that it is grotesque finance for the State, on the one hand, to subsidise the ancient Universities, and, on the other hand, to withdraw some of their existing property under the operation of the Tithe Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has alluded to the figure of £105 which has been taken in this Bill. I quite appreciate the very great difficulty which confronted my right hon. Friend in his effort to arrive at an equitable figure. I am sure he has done his best to do so, but he was confronted, of course, with conflicting interests, and there is one great difficulty which besets any Minister who desires to arrive at an equitable figure for the stabilisation of the tithe rentcharge. However modest and unassuming the Minister may be—and we know my right hon. Friend is modest and unassuming—he is bound to clothe himself in the august raiment of a prophet. The sum of £105 is based upon a prophecy as to the level of corn prices in the next few decades. I venture to think my right hon. Friend's prophecy, in spite of the letter which he has read

  853
  to the House from the distinguished expert whom he has consulted, is quite fantastic. It may be thought by some hon. Members that this is an extravagant thing to say. They may remind me that, as George Eliot said, "Of all forms of error, prophecy is the most gratuitous." They may say that one guess is quite as good as another. In this case, one guess is not as good as another, and for this reason. My right hon. Friend's figure of £105 assumes a very considerable and a very abrupt fall in corn prices. It assumes that corn prices will fall 20 per cent. in the next five years, will reach their pre-War level at the end of eight years and will be maintained at the pre-War level ever afterwards. I say with confidence that that is a fantastic prognostication, and I say it for the reason that, assuming such a fate, or any fate resembling it, were to overtake corn prices, then the Government would be forced to do something to remedy the situation.
  No British Government faced with responsibilities as to debt and so forth, with which succeeding British Governments are likely to be faced, could contemplate with equanimity such a fall—so rapid, so extensive—in corn prices, so great an appreciation in the value of money, so great an aggravation in the burden of debt, without taking immediate steps to correct the disastrous tendency. Consequently, I am quite confident in saying that my right hon. Friend's prognostication will be found to be a castle built on the sands. I do not think that any Committee composed of competent economists accustomed to study, in a broad way, the course of economic phenomena and the interaction of economic and political forces, would come to the conclusion that there would be in the next decade so great a fall in the price of our three leading cereals. Yet that is what my right hon. Friend's figure asks us to assume.
  I cannot, for this reason, profess to feel myself satisfied with the figure of 105 which stands in the Bill. I know that my right hon. Friend has had great difficulties with the various interests; I assume that he has reached this figure as a compromise between many conflicting forces, and that he may, therefore, find it difficult to accept an alternative. So
  854
  far, however, as the corporations for which I speak are concerned, we are not principally affected by the gross figure: we are affected by the net figure. We note that the right hon. Gentleman is stablising tithes but that he is not stabilising rates. He could meet the particular grievance of the charitable corporations without altering his figures by one of two courses. He could either grant them a reduction of one-third of the rate or stabilise the rate by paying from the Treasury any rate charge exceeding 20 per cent. of the tithe. By either of these methods he could, at any rate, shelter Oxford and Cambridge and the other charitable corporations from the considerable loss to which they are now exposed. I earnestly trust that when this Bill goes into Committee my right hon. Friend will not adopt an adamant attitude, but will exhibit a willingness to make some concessions to bodies which have never done this or any other Government any harm, and are not conscious of any particular peccadillo which deserves to be expiated by the severe penalties put upon them by the Bill. I have already detained the House too long, but I venture to make one last observation. If the right hon. Gentleman finds himself unable to accept either of these expedients I have suggested, I trust that he will, at any rate, consent to consult an impartial body of economists as to the figure to be adopted in the stabilisation of the tithe charge.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) who has just spoken might have taken just a little slightly different view on the question of the fluctuations of the tithe had he given more consideration to the law of averages. Looking back into the past we have seen tithe up to 112 and down to 66. I should like to have heard the right hon. Gentleman's views as to how those concerned were likely to fare when tithe stood at 66. In the period between 1836 and 1914 the variations have been so great, and the drop has been so severe, that though I feel that in the next 25 years we are not going to see any substantial change or reduction from the present price of tithe, I can visualise in the future a possible return to pre-war prices and pre-war values of tithe rent-

  855
  charge. A more serious objection to the Bill was raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) when he stated that the taxpayer has been called upon to expend £270,000 a year—as he put it £5,000,000 in all—to subsidise one of these parties. He should have said to subsidise rates which were formerly paid by the Church. He was inaccurate to that extent in his description of the Bill, and he also forgets the debt the State owes to these two bodies in turn.
  During the War—or I should begin earlier—the basis on which tithe was fixed really was that being payable in kind the amount of tithe receivable should vary with the commodity prices. In other words, that it should vary with the cost of living. Various commutation Acts endeavoured to carry that out. So it was that we got so low a price of tithe as 66, owing to the low price of corn and the low price of commodities. Even then it did not fully approximate to the cost of living. During the War everything the occupier of land produced was controlled. The Church volunteered to accept a reduction, but the State, by controlling the pricey saved itself very many millions of pounds and purchased all the corn grown, thus saving the taxpayers' pockets. The difference between the controlled prices of 72s. or 75s. per quarter and the higher prices that might have been got for wheat, which went up to 110 and 120 shillings, would have gone into the farmers' pockets, and their proportion to the Church as tithe owners. The net result was that during the War many millions of money was saved to the State. Even on the argument addressed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if there is some repayment to make to the rate from which the clergy were exempted, more particularly the poorer clergy, it is a mere fleabite compared with the benefit the taxpayers received during the War.
  I support the present Bill, but giving the best judgment I can I am satisfied that the Church is being paid too much and that the landlord or occupier is paying too much. I quite agree that no compromise has been arrived at, but I am certain the Minister has tried to
  856
  arrive at a figure that would approximate to the demands of the tithepayers and the tithe receivers. I do think that the public interest is such that we ought to get rid, and get rid once for all, of this irksome matter of tithe which is constantly arising and causing differences and disputes in all parts of the country. My objection to this Bill, perhaps the principal one, is that it does not include the whole of the tithes and leaves out of the Bill the tithe that is possessed by the colleges and the lay impropriators. While we are doing this thing it would be very much better to clear off the whole of the tithe of the country. I sincerely hope that in Committee it may be found possible to do it.
  So far as the terms proposed by the Bill are concerned, obviously it is right that the tithe payer should pay the £4 10s. out of the £109 10s., and I do not think the House need trouble itself about that, because if the tithe payer is going to redeem and get rid of his obligations he is getting the best terms on the credit of the State. This smaller amount of £4 10s. is to be allowed to accumulate and at the end of 85 years is to be used as a redemption fund. We, therefore, do wrong if we decide that it is inadvisable or unnecessary to require the tithe payer to pay this redemption of tithe, and get rid of it once and for all. As the House will be aware, the present Act of Parliament relating to the stabilisation of tithe comes to an end this year. I think hon. Members will probably agree that it is very desirable that we should now deal with the matter once for all. If that is so, the main question is whether 105 is a fair price. There you get back to the law of averages which I have described. The Minister has told us how he has arrived at the figure. Nobody can say that the figure is accurate. But under the law of averages it is a reasonable figure, and the one objection which I have to it is this, not that you are stabilising—although that comes in—but that we are fixing, and fixing for no less a period than 85 years the payment of 105 by the landowner. I feel this rather strongly, and I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his forecast of prices. I can picture to myself, and quite reasonably, I think, that in 30 or 40 years' time we may quite possibly find the value of the £ what it was prior to the War, and I

  857
  can foresee that such a reduction will cause immense unrest among all tithe-payers of that day, and there will be a demand to reopen the question, which would be a very awkward thing if it should happen. In view of these apprehensions I would urge the Minister to see whether he cannot improve his Bill by giving a premium for redemption at any time by the present tithepayers. Make it worth their while to redeem, so that we may get rid of tithe.
  There is only one other point to which I would like to call the attention of the House. The parties who represented the Church, on the one hand, and the tithe-payers, on the other, got very near to an arrangement in their negotiations. I believe the arrangement was something like this: that there was to be a payment of £109 for 60 years. The present payment is £109 10s. for 85 years. I believe the second arrangement is rather better for the landowners than they have thought it is. Under the old terms that they were offered—on which there was agreement, or almost agreement—tithe would have been bought outright, would have been divorced from the land, and the landowner would at once have ceased to get a reduction for his tithe in his assessment under Schedule A for Income Tax purposes, or, if he were the occupier of the land, a reduction for tithe in respect of rates. By the system adopted in the Bill, the tithe is transferred to Queen Anne's Bounty and is kept alive for 85 years. The practical effect of that, so far as the landowner is concerned, is that the amount of tithe he pays will be a deduction from his Income Tax, and a deduction from his rates if he is the occupier of the land.
  To make this clear, I will give the House a concrete example. Assume a farm let for £100 a year, on which there is a tithe of £10 a year. The assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A would be £100, less the statutory deductions allowable and lees the £10 for the tithe payable on it. That would reduce the assessment to something less than £90. The value of that reduction of £10 in assessment, with the Income Tax at 4s. in the £, will be £2 a year, and that the tithepayer will be entitled to have for the next 85 years; whereas, if the old terms of paying £109 for 60 years had been accepted, he would have had
  858
  no power to make that deduction. The rateable value of the land to-day is the rental value, less the tithe. Under this proposal, the occupier of the land will be able for 85 years to deduct the tithe in arriving at the rateable value, and, although the rateable value, owing to concessions in the rating of agricultural land, has been reduced to 25 per cent. of the annual value, the deduction, in the illustration I have given, would be at least 2s. in the £, and on £10 that would amount to another £1. Therefore, the landowner will have a saving of £3 a year for 85 years, and I am perfectly convinced that he is in a better position financially under these terms than he has realised. For these reasons, and I am speaking not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Conservative Agricultural Committee, consisting of a very large number of Members of this House, we have decided to support the Bill, not because we like it, and not because we do not think it is possible, although I see great difficulties in doing it, to arrive at some different figures in Committee, but because in the public interest it is desirable to get rid of tithe.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: The hon. and learned Member (Sir H. Cautley), who has just spoken, has laid a good deal of emphasis on the position of the Church and on the tithepayer, and it seems to me the position of the taxpayer and ratepayer is being very largely forgotten. The whole question of tithe is causing and has caused a great deal of anxiety. A considerable part of the population of the country have felt they were subject to a very considerable injustice. It would be well to go back to the origin of tithe and to remind ourselves, as Blackstone said in his Commentaries, that
  "At the first establishment of the parochial clergy the tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division, one for the use of the bishop, one for maintaining the fabric of the church, a third for the poor, and a fourth to provide for the incumbent."
  Subsequently bishops were otherwise endowed. Then the tithes were divided into three parts. Now the poor are entirely left out, and I think there can be no settlement of the tithe question which does not recognise the way they have been left out in the legislation which has been passed from time to time. In introducing the Bill, the Minister said there was a

  859
  claim that in equity tithes ought to be entirely exempted from rates. When he said that, I think he must have forgotten what is stated in the Act of 1836, where it is provided that
  "Whenever the said tithes shall have been demised or compounded for on the principle of the rent or composition being paid free from all such rates, charges, assessments, or any part thereof, the said commissioners or assistant commissioners shall have regard to that circumstance and shall make such an addition on account thereof as shall be an equivalent."
  And it was further enacted that
  "The tithe rentcharge shall be subject to all Parliamentary, parochial and county and other rates, charges and assessments in like manner as the tithes commuted for such rentcharge have heretofore been subject."
  It was made perfectly clear in the Act of 1836 that the rates were included, and that it was intended that in future they should be paid, and not be an additional burden upon the ratepayers or the taxpayers. In 1889, Lord Justice Bowen, in a ease before him, said this:
  "Tithes were rateable under the Statute of Elizabeth, and it had become well-established law that the parson was to be treated for the purpose of rating as the occupier of the tithes."
  It seems to me that the position which was arrived at in 1836 has been very largely departed from, and a claim is being made now that, in equity, there should be a complete reversal of what took place in 1836. If, after 90 years, this is to be reversed, there is no justification why, at some time in the future, a further reversal should not take place. Lord John Russell, in introducing the Bill in 1836, said:
  "It would be more satisfactory to the several parishes and counties if under the new arrangement the clergy were rendered liable to rates, by which means they would have a common interest with their neighbours in diminishing their amount."
  I cannot think that, taking the clergy as a whole, they can regard it as satisfactory that they should be placed in this different position from everyone else in the parish. They occupy a difficult and undesirable position in having to collect these tithes, a position in which, I think, they ought not to be placed, and when we remember what took place in 1920, and the effect of that in so far as the rating of the parishes was concerned, we cannot be surprised at there being very strong feeling, not only on the part of the collectors themselves,
  860
  but on the part of the ratepayers; because the effect of the change in 1920 was in no sense to make things any easier for the poor, but rather to increase their difficulties. We find that in a part of the Walsingham Union in Norfolk it meant an increase of 3s. 8d. in the £, and in one of the parishes in Essex, and another in Suffolk, it meant an increase of 2s. 7d. in the £, and in another parish in Essex of 2s. 5d. In a number of cases overseers felt it necessary to put on the demand note some explanation why there was so considerable an increase in the rates. Immediately there was an outcry, because it was made clear that it was in consequence of the Act of 1920, with the result that the Ministry of Health of that day wrote to the overseers telling them that such a statement was not to be made on any future demand note.
  The increase in the rates undoubtedly caused a feeling of considerable injustice and annoyance, and nothing we now propose will remove that feeling; the only difference now being that instead of it being a matter of rates alone it concerns also the contributions to the National Exchequer. While the ratepayer may gain the taxpayer does not join in that gain. The effect of the Act of 1920 was very considerably to increase the demand upon the National Exchequer, and it is estimated that the new demand is going to amount to not less than £800,000 a year from the Exchequer. While that is being done we are giving no real relief to the poor who need it most, and this is really perpetuating a very undesirable injustice. I want to recognise in the fullest possible way that there are many parishes where the parson is living upon far less than he ought to be having, and that is not at all creditable to any church.
  I do not, however, think that anyone in these days thinks it is desirable that a stipend should be supplemented by the nation rather than by those who have called him to his great and high calling and to the extremely important position which he occupies. It is an extremely distasteful thing that the people of this nation, many of whom do not take the view that the parson holds with regard to religious matters, should be called upon to contribute in that way. On the other hand, we have in so many of these cases the position of the poor Nonconformist parson or local preacher who, out of the

  861
  slenderness of his means, is called upon to contribute to something in which he does not believe. It does seem to me that, whatever is done when this Bill becomes law, we are simply perpetuating an injustice which it ought to be our object to endeavour to remove.
  Captain HENDERSON: It is with considerable diffidence that I venture to intervene in a Debate in this House for the first time on a subject of such a complex nature. I do so because the matter under discussion is one of deep interest to all persons connected with agriculture. One of the main objects of this Bill is eventually to afford very considerable relief to agriculture generally throughout the country. It has been mentioned by one right hon. Gentleman that the present incidence of tithe can only be described as extremely clumsy and cumbrous, and a source of very great irritation, and when this Bill comes into full fruition, we shall have one of the greatest sources of friction removed. I would like to remind the House that this Bill is the result of the labours of two Committees which sat for a considerable time and represented all the interests involved, including the farmers, the landowners, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and they put forward certain unanimous recommendations. The first recommendation was that they generally recognised the desire to end tithes. The second unanimous recommendation was that this should be done by a compulsory scheme on an annuity and redemption sinking fund basis.
  There is another point which I also hope will be embodied in this Bill. The Committees recommended that all tithes less than 20s. per year in amount should be redeemed outright. As the House is aware, the tithe is connected with the land, and in many urban parishes it has become so sub-divided that it is now very small. There are some parishes in the country to-day with livings of about £200, and they are collected in sums less than Is. in amount, and there are a great many tithes as low as 5d. and 9d. and other small sums. It was one of the recommendations put forward by these two Committees that all these small amounts should be redeemed in one payment, a plan which would be convenient both to the tithepayer and the titheowner.
  862
  Another recommendation was that when the tithes were allocated to any central authority, like the Queen Anne's Bounty, they should be placed on an ordnance map basis, and I think that would be an immense convenience. Many of these tithes are shown on very old maps, and they are not accurately described, and to have the whole of these charges once and for all definitely placed on an ordnance map would be extremely convenient in the future to anyone who had the administration of the fund and to those who have to pay the annuities.
  For the rest, I think we must bear in mind what we have heard from various speakers. The Government have been forced into the position of having to arbitrate in this matter, and I think the more we hear of this Debate the more we are confirmed in the opinion that in the difficult role of arbitrator the Government have acted very equitably and very well. We had both the tithepayer complaining that he was going to pay too much, and we had the titheowner saying he was gong to receive too little, but I think there is every probability that the Government actuaries have now arrived at a fairly just figure. If the Government would carry out the two minor recommendations to which I have referred, it would be a great convenience to the Queen Anne's Bounty, to the small tithepayer, and to the small titheowner.
  Sir R. SANDERS: I am very glad that it falls to me to have the honour of congratulating the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Henderson) who has just sat down upon having made a maiden speech which has conveyed much useful and helpful suggestion with regard to a subject which I know he has studied deeply, and I am sure his services will be of considerable use to his party. I think everyone recognises that this is a subject which has got to be dealt with, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the fact that he has taken the bolder and more difficult course of dealing with this question on a permanent basis, instead of taking what would have been the easier but less courageous course of bringing in some makeshift arrangement stabilising the existing state of things for a little longer.
  The reason this whole question of tithe is so difficult and complicated is that

  863
  it has been dealt with in a makeshift and piecemeal manner by one Government after another. It has always been a troublesome question and knotty points have arisen, and whatever Government has tackled them has only just tried to tide over the present. This is the first time since 1836 that it has been dealt with on anything like a permanent or statesmanlike basis. I notice that under this Bill the duty of collecting the tithes has been removed from the hands of the incumbent of the parish. That was always a most invidious task to put upon a man whose duties are of a totally different nature. It is quite true it may be a less disagreeable thing than it was in the old days before the Commutation Act of 1836. There are many notorious stories told in regard to what happened in those days. In one case, which is the most remarkable I have read, the incumbent had claimed tithe on turkeys and also on the partridges which were said to be reared on land which came within his parish, and the decision, with regard to both those species of birds, was that tithe was not to be exacted upon them because they were ferœ naturæ.
  The tithe has been commuted, and the incumbent does not now deal with such knotty questions as that, but he is still put in the invidious position with regard to his parishioners that he is the person who exacts the tithe from them.
  6.0 P.M.
  As to the actual terms of this Bill, there will no doubt be a certain amount of contention as to how far they carry out the recommendations of the Committees that dealt with the subject. Those Committees very nearly reached agreement, and each side seems to think that the terms obtained are a little less favourable than they expected. When each side thinks that, it is fair evidence that the compromise and balance arrived at are not very far out, and that justice has been done to both sides. The actual terms will, no doubt, be argued in Committee, but the subject is such a very intricate one that I think my right hon. Friend need not expect such a difficult time in Committee as the importance of the subject might otherwise justify. I am hoping that he will be able to get the Bill through Committee without any very great difficulty, and I think the course of this Debate, and, on the whole, the
  864
  general good will that has been shown towards the Bill, justifies my hope in that direction.
  No doubt this subject of a grant-in-aid of rates will meet with a certain amount of opposition such as is foreshadowed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) who moved the rejection of the Bill, and who always does move the rejection of any Measure by which anything is done in relief of rates to anyone. I would remind the House, however, that it is neither the tithe payer nor the tithe owner who gets the benefit of this Government grant in relief of rates; it is the other members of the parish in which the incumbent is relieved of his rates, on whom, since the Act of 1920, the burden of those rates has been falling. An hon. Member who spoke just now referred to the burden that would fall on the Exchequer for this reason as one of £800,000, and a similar figure occurs in a reasoned Amendment which has been put on the Paper. I do not know where that figure came from. It was particularly because it appeared on the Paper, and because, no doubt, it will be advertised in the Press of the country, that I ventured to ask my right hon. Friend what the exact figure was, and he gave it as somewhere between £250,000 and £300,000. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear no more of this entirely fictitious figure of £800,000, which only exists in the imagination of some hon. Members opposite.
  A good many of us have received telegrams protesting against the terms of the agreement in this Bill. I would remind those who send us these telegrams, and those on both sides of the House who object to the terms of the Bill, that, if nothing be done, tithe, at the end of this year, will go up automatically to over £130, and that, if those people, on whichever side they are, who object to the Bill, say that it would be better not to deal with the subject at all, then they have to face the fact that automatically tithe will rise to that figure. My own belief is that, if that were to happen in six months' time, we should have such an outcry, both by the clery, who would find it very difficult to get their tithe, and by the tithepayers, who would find it even more difficult to pay it, that Parliament would be compelled to do in a hurry

  865
  what I now hope it will do with a fair amount of leisure, and will do well.
  Sir BEDDOE REES: In opposing the Bill, I should like to say at the outset that it is not because I am not in sympathy with the ministers of the Church of England, but there is another point of view which has not so far been emphasised this afternoon, at any rate, from my particular angle. A deputation was received by the Minister of Agriculture recently, and he gave them a promise which I hardly think is carried out in the Bill. That deputation laid before him the point of view of the Free Churches and other societies that are not included in the Church of England, and, as we understood, it was promised then that, when this question was before the House, it would be upon a Bill that would be more or less a compromise upon the two extreme points of view. All that I can see has happened is that an attempt has been made to reconcile the difference between the tithepayer and the tithe owner, but I think there has been left out of account entirely that large volume of opinion which disagrees with any further endowment for State religion; and I think there will be an outcry against this further endowment which the Minister tells us amounts to £250,000 a year.
  That must be added to a sum of £415,000 which the State is now contributing as the result of the 1899 Act. The ratepayer, for the last five years, has been paying £250,000, and that is to be transferred to the taxpayer; but the taxpayer has already been paying, under the 1899 Act, a sum of £415,000. At least, that is what it was in 1922; I have not the figures for 1923 and 1924. I think I can help the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir E. Sanders). The £800,000 is, I agree, a wrong figure, but the figure is made up by the addition of the £415,000 paid as a result of the 1899 Act and this £250,000, which is the amount that it was thought was being paid by the ratepayer as the result of the 1920 Act. That, I think, is how the figure was made up.
  I take up the point of view that tithes have always paid rates. Ever since the Commutation Act of 1836 it has been understood that they were assessable for local rating. The Commissioners that
  866
  were appointed as a result of the Act of 1836 reported to Parliament at various times, and in 1838 various returns were presented to Parliament showing the sums which had been added to the rentcharge as an equivalent of rates and taxes under the Commutation Act of 1836; and ever since then it has always been considered that tithes were subject to rates, and they paid them right down to 1899. Then, as the result of agitation, an allowance was made of 50 per cent. of the rates levied, and that was paid out of the National Exchequer. That has been growing in volume from some figure, which, I am told, was £150,000, and it is now somewhere in the neighbourhood of £400,000 a year. That is a charge upon the National Exchequer. Then came the Act of 1920.
  The Act of 1899 was a temporary Measure. It was never intended that it should be permanent, and, in fact, many statements made in the House are on record to the effect that it was merely a temporary Measure. It is still, however, on the Statute Book. Coming down to 1920, the Act of that year, also, was never intended to be a permanent Measure; it was to expire at the end of this year, and it went through the House because it was a temporary Measure at an abnormal time. Those in the country who disagree with State endowment allowed it to pass without very much opposition because it was a temporary Measure, but now it is going to be made permanent, and you are going to ask, not the ratepayer, but the taxpayer, to pay the sum of £250,000 a year in perpetuity. Surely, one has a right to say that that is a further endowment of State religion.
  Captain SHAW: It is for 85 years.
  Sir B. REES: I do not know whether the Sinking Fund will cover the amount that is going to be paid from the National Exchequer in relief of rates; we have not had that point stated; but, if you calculate it, it is a very handsome sum. If £132 were paid for every £100 of rent-charge, and the State would not be called upon to pay anything by way of rates and taxes, I should be more satisfied than with putting the value at £109 10s. I am quite agreeable if the two parties, the payer and the owner, come to an agreement; what I object to, and the point of view of my friends, is that we certainly

  867
  see no necessity, in these days, for adding further to State endowments. I should like to know what would happen if one of the Nonconformist bodies came to this House with an appeal that the State should pay the rates and taxes on the houses in which their ministers live? This is quite the same; it would be quite as exceptional. I say that if you are going to help one denomination, although it may be State established, you must also take into account the effect that that is going to have upon other religious bodies that are not helped in any way at all. I hope, therefore, that there may be some opportunity of amending this, as I consider it, rather serious position. You are going to raise the old controversy of State establishment of religion, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it is a point of view that we must treat seriosuly. It is a point of view that will be canvassed very largely between now and the Third Reading of this Bill, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see what can be done to remove entirely the charge that will be made that it will be a charge upon the ratepayers to endow religion.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to call the attention of the Government to two classes of people who certainly will be very seriously affected by this Bill. The first, the lay tithe owner, including the charitable tithe owner, has been dealt with in detail by my right Eon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), and I do not wish to add anything to his very clear, complete, cogent and convincing speech on the matter. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend pointed out the enormous loss which this Bill will cause to these charitable institutions. He told us that there would be an annual loss of £3,000 a year in the case of Oxford alone, and that will be the case, not only with Oxford and Cambridge, but with all the various charitable institutions that own tithe throughout the country. That is a very serious loss, and I hope the Government will see their way to deal with it between now and the Report stage of this Bill. Everything, however, has been so strongly put by my right hon. Friend that it would only be waste of time to try to add arguments on that point.
  The second class that will be very seriously injured by this Bill is the clergy.
  868
  The clergymen who at the present time are receiving incomes of under £300 a year, and have been led to hope for better things when the Act of 1918 came to an end, will, under this Bill, suffer a very considerable loss. At the present time they are getting £109 a. year. Under this Bill they start by getting nominally £100 a year. From that various deductions will be made. It may seem a comparatively small sum to make a fuss about, but to these men small sums are very big sums. I get letters from these men—I should not like to say how many—about this Bill. We are doing by it, intentionally or unintentionally, a very grave injustice to that portion of the clergy who are less able to defend themselves than any other. We talk about agreements. They are not the men who attend meetings or make their voices heard.
  From the £100 a year has to be deducted the cost of collection. In future, it is to be carried out by Queen Anne's Bounty. At what expense? How many officials are to be appointed to collect the tithe and deal with it in different parts of the country? I asked a question the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman told me frankly he had not the slightest idea, and he had mo estimate to give at all. Therefore, you will have the most expensive possible way of collecting the tithe. Imagine a small tithe in the fen country or some place a long distance from a station. It is collected now either by the clergyman himself, or else he can pay a small percentage to a local agent who knows the place. Can Queen Anne's Bounty, acting from London, possibly collect as cheaply as that, leaving alone the different charges which a big Department necessarily makes, and every penny of which has to be deducted before the money comes into the hands of the clergy? Not only that, but Queen Anne's Bounty are to deduct Income Tax from the clergyman's tithe before it is sent to him. I cannot understand the reason. I know the difficulty of getting back Income Tax in respect of investments. These are matters which these men feel very deeply indeed.
  I am afraid I am a lawyer, and, if a person enters into a contract, I still believe there is something in carrying it out. In 99 cases out of 100 people bought their land at some time or another subject to tithe. They paid a less sum for

  869
  it, because it was subject to this mortgage. The mortgage was not a fixed sum but a fluctuating sum. Was it such a foolish form of mortgage that our ancestors started in this way? Instead of paying 5 per cent. in perpetuity, you had to pay a certain percentage varying according to the price of cereals during the past seven or 15 years. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Cecil Wilson), said, "I wonder what the colleges could have done when it was down to 66." The answer is clear. The colleges paid less for their bread, their barley, and their corn. That is the reason why they could pay perfectly well when it was down to 66, and that is the reason why they require more when the price of the commodity is up to 132. You have this sliding scale. When these commodities are expensive probably the thing is expensive. In 1918 we looked on this as a temporary measure. In 1920 it was pointed out that the tithe would go up to 132.
  I am not interested myself as a tithe-owner or a tithe-payer. I am only interested to the extent of an enormous amount of correspondence from people who are disappointed with this Bill. Are the Government going to get absolute peace from it? Is it to be the end of the tithe question? Let us look at it. Hon. Members opposite object to paying this £250,000 a year as the price of peace. We hear also that the landed interest is to be contented, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) has referred to a circular which has been freely sent round the House from the Farmers' Union in which they state that
  "the Tithe Bill at 105 does not contain the elements of an equitable and permanent settlement and if enacted tithepayers will at once have to commence an agitation for repeal."
  Is that the peace for which we are praying? I do not blame the Government. I know the difficult position they have been put into. It is not a trouble of their own making. But is it necessary? It seems somewhat hard that every single class for whom they are trying to do their best is distinctly dissatisfied with the Bill. It is a very hard thing, because I realise the trouble that has been put into this matter. Committees have met and attempted to come to an agreement, but so far they have not come to an agreement. You are
  870
  not satisfying anyone, and you are doing a grave injustice to the bodies of people I have mentioned before. Would it not be well to let economic laws act properly? There is something after all to be said for carrying out a contract. There is something also to be said for the danger of trying to interfere between various conflicting interests such as we have at present. I hope I have not made too hostile a criticism of the Government. I simply want to put before them what people are putting before me, and I hope they will think twice before they carry the Bill in its present form.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I have listened to this Debate with considerable bewilderment, caused by the fact that I have learnt, since I have been a Member of the House, that the party opposite have prided themselves upon the doctrine of sanctity of contracts. We have been told over and over again that the rights of private property must not be impaired even when they conflicted with the public interest. When we consider the matter, we must be quite clear that if there be one class of private property which is more certainly private property than another it is the parson's right to his tithe. From the earliest times, and certainly since the time of the tithe commutation, the right of the parson to receive his tithe out of the land has been laid down in the Law Courts in one case after another as an absolute right of ownership of property, just as sacred, just as clear, as the right to a dividend from a company or any other right which accrues from the possession of property. Therefore, I ask the House to start from this position, that before the Act of 1918, the parson had an absolute right to his tithe, which was enforceable by process of law, and that the amount of that tithe was fixed by Statute under the Commutation Acts. That is the position, and no one at the time would have gainsaid it, and, whether the price was 70, 80, 90 or 120, it was the parson's price, and if it is said, as it sometimes is—and I am not quarrelling necessarily with the statement—that if shares appreciate in value the owner of the shares is entitled to the benefit, surely it is equally true that if the tithe appreciates in value the parson is entitled to the benefit.
  Then we come along to the year 1918. It is true that at that time, owing to the exceptional conditions of the War and

  871
  to the control of food prices, a temporary Measure was passed which fixed the tithe at a certain price—far too low a price from the point of view of the Church. They were entitled, as I think the right hon. Gentleman admitted, if they had not made a considerable sacrifice, to far more than they were receiving, but they did not make the sacrifice in perpetuity. They made it in the exigencies of the War, and you have no more right to call upon them now to continue to make the sacrifice—not to the State but merely to the landowner—than any other class of the community. I hope no one will assume that this is a case of the contending claims of the private individual and the State. This is a question simply and solely as to whether the landlord, on the one hand, or the person owning the property in the tithe, or the parson, on the other, shall possess the property. We have had one speech after another from hon. Members opposite in favour of the proposition that it is a very bad thing, as between one private individual and another, to favour one against the other when the other has a proprietary right. Whatever view we may have of the claims of society against individuals, we, none of us, wish to favour one class against another when the other has a proprietary right.
  Here all the rights are with the parson, and I have been so bewildered because I have heard over and over again in this Debate this sort of remark. An agreement was made, or an agreement is to be made. Both parties must make some sacrifice. The parson must give up something and the landowner must give up something. The landowner has nothing whatever to give up in the matter. The land is charged with an obligation, just as much as if it were a mortgage or any other legal charge. It is one of the oldest obligations recognised by the law—recognised by the common law, by the canon law and by the statute law an absolute, certain, firm charge, and to talk of the landowner making negotiations with the parson is as if one were to talk of a burglar making negotiations with the householders. The one owns the property and the other does not. I hope the House will be quite clear on that point. We do not flinch from the proposition that at present, apart from the Act of
  872
  1918, which was merely intended to be a temporary Measure and a sacrifice on the part of the Church, the parson is as much entitled to be paid at the rate of 130 or 131 as anyone else is entitled to be paid in consols or dividends or rents or any other kind of property. Therefore, I am bewildered when I see how the general doctrine of property is mutilated and distorted in this Bill. Therefore we oppose the Bill.
  I do not propose to deal with its details because we consider the whole Bill is bad. It is true that if a really representative body, representing not only the wealthier clergy but really substantially the poor clergy, were to come forward and make an agreement, of their own voluntary act, with the landowners, no one could have any objection, but we object to imposing a law which will take away about a third I think—a very considerable sum at any rate—of the amount which the priest is now entitled to by law. That is the position. It is true that there is offered the inducement of this relief of rates out of taxation, but, so far as the general principle is concerned, we will do nothing to relieve the landowner of the obligation which he has in law, or would have apart from this Bill after the expiration of the 1918 Act, to pay that which is due to the parson out of the tithe.
  If this Bill, contrary to our wish, is to receive a Second Reading, I would say that the machinery of Queen Anne's Bounty has not been sufficiently considered in connection with the payment of all these moneys. If you are going to pay all the priests and all the calls out of these tithes from a central fund, you are embarking upon an enormous and difficult undertaking. Scattered parishes throughout the country require a great deal of difficult investigation, and the Queen Anne's Bounty, Which is a small corporation, existing solely for the purpose of implementing the insufficient stipends of curates and the like, is a body which never was intended to perform this difficult national function, and I believe it will break down if it is attempted to be used for this purpose. We have heard a great deal in certain quarters of the dangers of bureaucracy. I think a large new bureau will have to be constructed for the. purpose of administering these moneys. Of that I am satisfied. Queen Anne's Bounty was never intended, and is in-

  873
  competent to perform this function. I have looked in vain throughout this Bill, in Clause 10, which deals with the powers of management of Queen Anne's Bounty, for any recognition of, at any rate, the machinery to bring to each parson his proper tithe from the central fund.
  What we plead for is, that the 1918 Act be allowed to lapse and that, for the moment, at any rate until the parties of their own volition come to an agreement—it is admitted that no real agreement has been come to between the parties, and that this is going to be imposed upon them by Statute, and that neither side is really satisfied—the priest is entitled to his property as much as anybody else. If the majority of this House by passing this Bill take away this large amount of the income of parsons to which they are now entitled as their property, I hope that never again shall we hear from the other side anything about the inalienable rights of contract and private property. I shall be tempted, unless I am ruled out of order, when next some hon. Member on the other side speaks about the rights of private property, to shout out "Tithe!" and then sit down.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. and learned Member (Sir H. Slesser) who has just sat down complains that the Government is endeavouring to take away from the parson some property or income to which he is entitled by his existing contracts. That was repeating in rather more legal language a statement made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who moved the Amendment, when he said that this Bill was a Bill for robbing parsons. He also said that it was a Bill for robbing landowners. I will deal with that later. We are not dealing with this question for the first time. We have succeeded to the position which was created an 1918, when the amount of tithe was stabilised.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Temporarily.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, temporarily. It was stabilised because during the War by Act of Parliament the price of corn was stabilised, to the enormous advantage of the taxpayers. Ever since then, that temporary position has been considered by those most closely
  874
  interested, and many attempts have been made at coming to an agreement for the future. These conferences have resulted in a large measure of agreement, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will find as this Bill goes through Committee that it does contain an agreement which the landowners and the clergy, the tithe owners, will be willing to support. What we are doing is altering the tithe which was payable in a corn currency into what we believe to be a more stable currency, a gold currency, which is the currency of the country. The fluctuation of the corn prices in the past has been, not in war time, from 86, and if they had been allowed to rise during the War and had not been stabilised, as in 1918, they would have risen to 172. That fluctuation is not good either for the landowner, the tithepayer, or the tithe-owner. The whole attempt here is not to tear up the contracts, not to do something unfair between two classes of people, but to express in a more steady currency a liability which exists, and to translate into modern terms a very ancient property.
  There is no suggestion that we are endeavouring to rob the parson of anything to which he is entitled. The right hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher) pointed out that there was a loss to the lay titheowner; I could not follow his figures. No doubt, when the Bill is in Committee, we shall have further opportunity of considering the figures. In the case of an individual parson who would benefit by tithes being allowed to run up to, say, 130, and who would therefore enjoy a high rate for a few years, it is possible for such a tithe-owner to suffer in his own individual case under this Bill; but it is not possible for a corporation, with a perpetual life, to suffer if, in fact, 105 is a correct translation of the fluctuating curve of prices. My right hon. Friend may say that my figure is wrong.
  Mr. FISHER: I do say so.
  Sir L, WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand that argument. I am not trying to shirk it. I can only say that the figure has been arrived at on the best advice that is open to the Government. If he says it is wrong, then as a corporation he is in a special position of

  875
  advantage over someone who may run the risk of a drop in the future, but may in the immediate present enjoy a high rate. I will take a further point which was made by the right hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. He said that the public had been robbed for the benefit of a. limited class. He said that £5,000,000 were being taken from the public for the benefit of the landowner. He arrived at his figure of £5,000,000 by rather ingeniously multiplying by 20 times the £250,000 a year which is being transferred from a charge upon the rates to a charge upon taxes. He analysed that, and found this £5,000,000 was coming from, as far as I could see, nowhere, because the mere transfer from rates to taxes of £250,000 is supposed to make a present of £5,000,000 to the landowners.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman will put it the other way he will see it more clearly. Suppose you were to take from the landowner £250,000 of tithe every year for the benefit of the general taxpayer, would not the right hon. Gentleman then be the first to get up and say that it was not merely taking £250,000 a year, but reducing the value of their property by £5,000,000?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is in this dilemma, that he cannot show that the same people are gaining the so-called benefit from the transfer of rates to taxes. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer this question, if he can. Can he say that it is fairer to leave this charge upon the rates than to put it upon the taxes? The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Cecil Wilson) gave us some examples of the effect in particular parishes in Suffolk and Essex. It threw a very undue and uneven burden upon certain parishes. Surely it is better that there should be a relief—
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: To the landlord.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, not to the landlord, but to the ratepayers, who may or may not be the particular owner who has had to pay the tithe—a relief to the ratepayer of that very uneven burden, and that it should be spread over the taxpayers. To say that the transfer to the taxpayer is a gift to
  876
  the landowner seems to me an entire misrepresentation of the position. There is a charge on the taxpayer, but, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), the taxpayer during the War, by the stabilisation of the corn prices which necessitated the limitation of the rise in tithe, benefited to an extent infinitely greater than anything that can be said now about the transfer from rates to taxes.
  Let me deal with the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). He said that the poor parson whose benefice was under £300 a year at present pays no rates upon his tithe, and that the poor parson was certainly losing by the proposal in this Bill. I agree with him that, however small the sum may be, whether it be only £2 or £3 a year in any individual case, having regard to the extreme poverty—it is nothing else but poverty—arising from the low incomes of many of the clergy, even a few pounds have to be taken into serious account by this House. We have tried to do that. In Clause 4 (a) there is a provision which will benefit such cases.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: In the first five years £4 10s. will mot be deducted, but he has to make it up afterwards.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The provision enables the redemption to be postponed, so that a relief of £4 10s. can be applied for every £100 of income. That is a considerable sum when we are comparing it with a small sum.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Only for five years.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I agree that it is only for five years, but, at any rate, an attempt has been made there to meet the case of the poorer livings. We have another proposal in Clause 11, which enables Queen Anne's Bounty to prepare a scheme to apportion the cost of the collection of the tithe rent-charge and to make a differentiation that will relieve some of the expense on the poorer benefices. Those two provisions will, I hope, at least reduce the difference between what the poorer parson would have got under the present temporary provisions and the permanent provisions of this Bill. The exemption from rates at the present moment depends

  877
  upon the temporary Act which expires at the end of this year.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Under the temporary Act he gets £109 10s.; under this Act he will get less than £100. If this Bill were not passed, he might get something like £114.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He would then have to pay half the rates. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the question of whether the £105 is right or wrong depends on the view which you take of the future course of prices. If you take one year, the figures' of my hon. Friend are correct, but unless we are to go on from hand to mouth making temporary patchings of an extremely difficult problem, we have to take a view of the future, and it is because we want to make a permanent settlement of a question which has been tinkered with from time to time, and which ought to be put on a permanent footing, that this Bill has been introduced. I hope that this House will give it a Second Reading. It does provide what I believe to be a real benefit both to the titheowner and the tithepayer, a stabilisation of value and a permanency in price, so that they may know what they are respectively to pay, and to receive. It also provides for a complete redemption of the tithe in a period of 85 years in a way which I believe is fair as between the titheowner and the tithepayer, and, moreover, it provides for the collection of the tithe in future without putting on the clergy the distasteful and often undignified duty of collecting small sums of tithe from members of their congregation.
  Mr. BARR: I desire to thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced this subject. He seemed to discern a great cleavage on these benches that, while some were objecting to the benefits which this Bill would bestow on the landowner, others were dwelling on the advantage which would be gained by the parson. He used an illustration of certain men going to the races and, because they were not very sure, backing no fewer than three horses. I need not assure him that I do not back horses at all, and that I am not here this afternoon to back either the landowners or the clergymen in this regard, either the tithe-payers or the titheowners; but I do wish to emphasise first, on this question of
  878
  rates that in Blackstone, who is not only a great authority but an authority who is very friendly to the Church, we find the reason why the payment of rates was associated with the tithe from the very beginning.
  It is because one of the objects of the tithe was the support of the poor, and therefore, he says, it was thought in the Parliament of 1601 that at least the tithe receiver should be made liable for the rates to that extent, and particularly for the poor rate. In 1836, in connection with the commutation, it was not only definitely laid down that the titheowner or tithe receiver should be under the obligation to pay rates, but the whole rentcharge was definitely fixed with this in view. Not only so, but we find returns to this effect made to Parliament for several years after that date. I may, for example, take the case of Sible Hedingham. The net amount of the tithe was £960 6s. 3d., and the rates paid by the landowner £542 1s. 2d. The aggregate of the two was £1,502, and, accordingly, the rentcharge was fixed at £1,500. A return was given of the various sums that had been added to the tithe in respect of rates after 1836, so as to make up the full land charge, and the amount was no less than £244,000 per annum. The clergyman received tithe under this condition, and now he is being relieved of this obligation. I admit that what was done in 1918 in fixing the charge at 109, and in other regards, was, if not on the initiative, certainly with the agreement of the clergymen of the Church of England, and I would like to read words used by the Archbishop of Canterbury to show that he was well satisfied with the conditions. He said:
  "This Bill, as drawn, makes every endeavour to be studiously fair both to the tithepayer and the tithe owner, and will be found to be an advantage both to owners of tithe' and to tithepayers. It was wisely and well-drawn on the whole, and would confer a benefit on both the parties for whom it was intended."
  In regard to the 1920 Act reference has been made to the burden put on the ratepayers, and various figures have been given. I think that we should bear in mind, in addition to the figures which have been stated in connection both with the Exchequer and from parish rates, there is also the fact that this Bill in the matter of relief of rates, so far as the

  879
  clergymen are concerned, goes beyond the 1920 Act. It not only takes in those who are under £300 or those between £300 and £500, but it is generally shifting the onus of rates from the clergymen. In regard to this shifting of the burden, whether to the ratepayer or to the Exchequer, we have often contended that tithe itself is a burden on the whole community. Mr. McCulloch, the political economist, says:
  "Tithes are a burden which falls equally on every individual in the Kingdom, on the poorest beggar as well as on the richest lord, in proportion to their respective consumption of the articles from which tithe is levied."
  Now you are shifting it largely from the ratepayer on to the taxpayer. That does not alter the fact that the whole community in this regard does support one particular Church. In connection with this Bill, privilege, whether in the case of landowners or of the established clergy, grows by what it feeds on, and ever new privileges are being claimed. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench spoke of the claim that there was on the part of the clergy as an absolute claim in this regard. We recognise the claim which there is by law, but we do not recognise any claim in equity. Various speakers have spoken as if these were private property. From all sides of politics you can quote numerous authorities to the opposite effect. Lord Melbourne said:
  "The tithes and landed property in the hands of clergymen did not belong to them but were a portion of the national property."
  The Eight Hon. W. H. Smith, Conservative Leader of this House in 1890, said:
  "While I regard tithe as national property I Ho not regard it as fit that the owner or occupier of the land should appropriate it to himself."
  So that while we recognise the law we do not recognise the equity. Take the case of the Nonconformist minister. He does not receive any payment of tithe, and it would never be proposed in this House that he should be relieved of his rates in any shape or form. I do not know any argument by which you can give it and continue it in the one case, and not justify it in the other. There may be certain different doctrines and certain forms of government, but you would find, if you put forward a claim of that
  880
  kind, that you would have numbers of denominations able to show that their claim is as strong and as scriptural as that which is put forward from any other source. In this respect I wish to thank the Minister for his statement as to uniformity of religion, and as to its being out of date to have any compulsory impost of this kind nowadays in matters of religion.
  I think that it must be admitted that greater security is given to the clergy under this Bill and a better understanding.
  You had the Church Rate, and you know what trouble it caused in this country. Then in 1891 it was put on to the shoulders of the landowner, and we had the words used by Lord John Russell in 1836 "that the landowner was most likely to pay it with the least reluctance to the clergy." Now we are shifting it from the ratepayer to the taxpayer—to the Consolidated Fund. I wish to say a further word in regard to the subject of redemption. I do not think the House understands the bearing of the redemption under this Bill. It will make it much more difficult at any time in the future to attempt the disendowment of the Church. It takes the national funds away from all public control. I grant that it does not go so far as the Church Bill for Scotland in this regard, because the funds are still recognised as being held in trust for the incumbent. But that is the objective of the Church generally, and in "The Guardian", of the Church of England, we have this put forward. I might quote from the statement in "The Guardian" of the 1st June, 1923:
  "If the Church of Scotland can without loss of its patrimony obtain from Parliament, as it will, complete and unfettered possession of its endowments, why not the Church of England also?"
  Sir W. LANE - MITCHELL: Hear, hear!
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BARR: My hon. Friend cheers, and I agree with him in this regard, that, if it be right to do it in the Church of Scotland, it is equally right, and we have set a precedent, for the Church of England. But I hold it to be wrong in either case, because it is an appropriation of a national sum, as I hold it to be, a capitalised sum in this case of not less,

  881
  in the aggregate, than £100,000,000. It is a new entrenchment of the Establishment; and I appeal to all who stand for civil justice and for spiritual freedom and religious equality to join in making opposition to the Second Reading.
  Mr. LAMB: I quite realise that there is a desire that this discussion should not be protracted. I promise I will not take very long. I am not one of those people who are in the fortunate position, or perhaps unfortunate in this case, of being a titheowner. Neither am I a tithepayer. So I am quite independent personally on this matter. But I am a Churchman and, as a Churchman, I am particularly desirous that there should be a settlement of this question. I believe the friction in the past, on the question of tithes has been, and I am afraid in the future will be. very much to the detriment of the Church, and it would be much better if we could eliminate it. If we are to obtain a settlement, that settlement must have some chance of permanency if it is to be satisfactory. The basis of the present Bill is not one which is going to give any hope of permanency of settlement. For that reason, I am not in agreement with this Bill. I do not for one moment question the morality or the legality of the tithe, It is a charge upon land, a just charge, and one which should be recognised. I am not going to follow the line some speakers have taken and raise any question about the right of property in tithes. I do question the equity of fixing the tithe at the present time on the old basis. I believe that has a bearing upon this question. Under modern conditions, I do not think the fixing of the value of the tithe upon corn prices is as just as we might expect. I know it is one which has been recognised since the inception, but I do not think under present conditions it is a fair way of arriving at it.
  The first reason I will give is this. The price of corn to-day is not fixed by the cost of production in this country, that is to say, the ability of the land in this country to pay, but it is fixed very largely by the price of corn in other countries. That is a new element which has crept in since the inception of tithes. That has brought us to this point, that the cost of production of corn to-day is very much nearer the price at which it is being sold. In some cases, we contend there is no profit. The margin between
  882
  the cost of production and the selling price is very much less than in the old days. Those are a few considerations which should be thought of when we are trying to fix a value of the tithe. The right hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that this was a question where large sums were to be paid to large landowners, and I believe he used the words, "It was a gift to the landlord." I do not agree with that statement. While I believe that possibly the bulk of the money is paid to the landlord, I believe that the present conditions, and conditions which I think will be continued and accentuated, mean that the bulk of the payers are not large landowners but are men in small circumstances, many of whom have had to buy their own farms. The number of payers is very much in the hands of the smaller men.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is the landowner and not the land user who pays the money.
  Mr. LAMB: The man who bought his farm.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: And works it.
  Mr. LAMB: It is not only the landowner but the land user who is responsible for cultivating the land he bought. He is very much worse oft than the old landlord.
  Mr. VARLEY: May we not take it that the Farmers' Union are land users, and how does the hon. Gentleman square what he now says with the nature of their telegram?
  Mr. LAMB: I did not catch the first part of the question.
  Mr. VARLEY: May we assume you are speaking for them and giving reasons for their motives?
  Mr. LAMB: I said I was speaking for myself, but, if the hon. Member asks me the question, I believe I am speaking on behalf of the Farmers' Union also, but I have not received the telegram to which he refers. Perhaps they thought it unnecessary. Under the Bill, we know that the payment is to be £109 10s., minus £4 10s. redemption fee, for 85 years. Five pounds goes towards the rates, so that it will leave £100 as the basis for the tithe receiver. Without the Bill his position would be this: He would probably have a right to

  883
  get about £130—£129 first and then £130—as the value. In addition to that, he would have the difficulty of collecting the tithes. That, I do feel, is a question which has not been emphasised sufficiently this afternoon. The difficulty which there will be in collecting this tithe in future will be felt very greatly. They are prepared to make great sacrifices for the purpose of getting rid of the ordeal of having to make the collection.
  As to the position of the tithepayer, he is to be very much worse off under this Bill, because under the Bill he has one course, and that is he must remain on £109 10s. for 85 years. At the end of the year he will have two alternatives. He can pay the £129 or the £130 and get the relief of the reduction in his rates, and the relief of Schedule A for having paid the higher sum of £130. He would also get the proportion of the relief in rates on the part to be paid by the incumbent. In the second alternative he could redeem, if he so wished, on quite as good circumstances and conditions as he could under this Bill. I am informed he will be able to redeem at £105, and, if he waited for two years, having paid the £130, he would get the advantage of the relief of rates at the higher rate of £130.
  By this I think I have proved that the tithepayer will be worse off under a Bill than if he was left alone. That means he is not an anxious buyer. There is a difference between an anxious buyer and an anxious seller, and that should have some effect on the fixing of the value of the commodity over which the transaction is being made. It is quite true, and this cannot be denied, that even years ago when the tithe was down as low as £66 if a tithepayer wished to redeem he could not redeem at £66, but had to redeem at £100. That shows that even titheowners recognise that there is a difference between a willing seller and a willing buyer. I believe that if the value of the tithes were accepted and fixed by the clergy and by the titheowner at £100 instead of £105, as now, it would be possible so to arrange the Bill that redemption could take place in 65 years, and I believe that on those terms a settlement could be arrived at. I cannot support the Bill in its present state, because I do not believe under its present conditions it is a settlement. If the suggestion I have made
  884
  were adopted, a settlement would be arrived at very much to the benefit of the tithepayer and receiver and to the benefit of the Church.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: As one who is interested in the history of the tithe, there is one word I want to say. All through history those who have commuted services for definite sums have come out very badly in the end, as, for instance, when the King commuted his Death Duties on knights' fees, when the tenths and the twentieths were commuted to definite sums, and when the copyholders settled with the Lord of the Manor. With regard to the Universities, at the present moment I can only say I consider it is absolutely certain that in some future year those of us who have consented to receiving whatever the sum of money would be, whether £105, £109 or £112, will not be blessed by the managers of our institutions who come after us for commuting something which has reference to the value of the proportion of anything for a definite sum of money. The sum of money always grows less and the sum which represents a proportion has grown more. I know the Government is anxious to do its best, but I have the gravest doubt whether from the point of view of the Colleges this is a good bargain.
  Captain SHAW: I would like to say a word on behalf of the landowners. After all, the landowner has to bear very heavy burdens, and not only does he have to bear them, but we have people in this House who wish to put extra burdens on him. They cry out and say, "Let the land produce more; let us help the agriculturist." I do not think that they help the agriculturist by the taxes and burdens now put on him. Not only does the landowner have to bear the usual burden of taxation, but also the land tax, and now the tithe. We are a nation governed by history, and we like to go back to history. I would remind the House that, after all is said and done, these tithes came to the incumbents as a gift in the first instance. That is the fact, no. matter how far you go back in history. Tithes were a gift to the Church in the first instance. They received only canonical sanction, and it was not until the Edict of Edgar, in A.D. 960, that what had hitherto claimed only commercial sanction now claimed

  885
  legal sanction. To show how, as time went on, the parson who received the tithes stretched out his hand to get more and more, we find that in 1305 A.D. Incumbents claiming tithes on fisheries, rivers, ponds, trees, cattle, etc. These claims were often carried into the courts, and were the cause of endless friction between the parson and his parishioners. That was not a very good thing from a religious pont of view. I have been approached on this matter by a good many parsons, who urge that the parson should not be rated on his tithe. Why should not the parson, be rated on his tithe? Under the Act of 1601, the occupier was rated upon the value of his occupation but the parson was omitted. Now with all due deference to Sir Trustram Eve I venture to point out that as the parson more often lived apart from the land from which he drew his tithes, it was impossible under this Act to term him an occupier. We cannot however get away from the fact that tithe is a charge dependent on the value of the output of the land, and as such the parson is and always has been rightly rated on the income so received. My right hon. Friend
  the Member for Leeds accuses us on these benches of inconsistency, because we are depriving the parson of his just rights, but on the other hand he has been excused from paying his just debts.
  We now come to the lay impropriator and with regard to him I should like to have the assurance of the Government that they intend to treat him on the same basis as the incumbent. The right hon. Member for the English University (Mr. H. Fisher) made a wonderful forecast as to the future price of corn for years ahead. I would advise him to go to Chicago, where he would be able to make his fortune in the Wheat Pit in a very short time. Lastly I should like to see the whole of the Tithe question settled, for ever by compulsory redemption for only in that way do I believe we shall get rid of what is a source of great irritation and interference with agriculture itself.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 120.

  Division No. 191.]

  AYES.

  [7.23 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Christie, J. A.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Atkinson, C.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Hammersiey, S. S.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry

  Balniel, Lord

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cope, Major William

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Bennett, A. J.

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Berry, Sir George

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Hilton, Cecil

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Blundell, F. N.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Boothby. R. J. G.

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

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Bowyar, Capt. G. E. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Brass, Captain w.

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Drewe, C.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Elvedon, Viscount

  Iliffe Sir Edward M.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Burman, J. B.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Cassels, J. D.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Gates, Percy

  King Captain Henry Douglas

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Gee, Captain R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Loder, J. de V.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Looker, Herbert William

  Perring, William George

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lord, Walter Greaves

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Lougher, L.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Preston, William

  Tasker, Major B. Inigo

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Radford, E. A.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Ramsden, E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Macintyre, I.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  McLean, Major A.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Tinne, J. A.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Rye, F. G.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wells, S. R.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Moles, Thomas

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Neville, R. J.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Womersley, W. J.

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

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

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

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Oakley, T.

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

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Strickland, Sir G.

  Captain Douglas Hacking.

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Salter. Dr. Alfred

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sexton, James

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smillie, Robert

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury George

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, E.

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lowth, T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Varley, Frank B.

  Connolly, M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Viant, S. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  Mackinder, W.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Warne, G. H.

  Duckworth, John

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

  Duncan, C.

  March, S.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dunnico, H.

  Maxton, James

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  England, Colonel A.

  Mitchell, E Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Morris, R. H.

  Westwood. J.

  Forrest, W.

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Murnin, H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gillett, George M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gosling, Harry

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Groves, T.

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

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

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

  Hayes.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS BILL) [Lords].
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS BILL) [Lords].

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Orders in Council to be laid before Parliament.)
  Any Order in Council made under the provisions of this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new Order. If the Session of Parliament ends before such twenty days as aforesaid have expired the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next Session as if it had not "previously been paid.—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  There is no desire to be specially controversial in regard to this Bill, but we think the proposed New Clause is a reasonable one which the President of the Board of Trade might accept. The Bill will confer very wide powers. It will enable the President of the Board of Trade to exercise discretionary powers with regard to the issue of Orders in Council, varying—perhaps in some cases very considerably—the provisions of the existing Merchant Shipping Acts. This House has always been jealous in regard to giving powers of that kind. All we ask is that the provisions of the Orders in Council to be made under the Bill should be laid before each House of Parliament for 20 days in order that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon changes which may be of vital importance made at the discretion of the Minister, and may have the opportunity, if necessary, of making alterations. The Amendment expressly provides that in the event of such a course being adopted it is not to interfere with the validity of any action taken by the Minister prior to the action of Parliament. There is always the fear in the minds of the workers in the various branches of a great employment like the Mercantile Marine that, if powers of such
  890
  a wide character are invested in the Minister, they, as organised workers, may suffer. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is in regard to this Bill a substantial feeling among one group of workers that their conditions may be prejudiced ultimately by the operation of these powers.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister) indicated dissent.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I myself, when I was at the Board of Trade last year, received a deputation from one group of workers and I believe he has since received a deputation from the same group. I am not here to argue whether or not their fears are well-grounded, but I am here to argue that in view of the tendency—the justifiable tendency, perhaps—of workers who are organised in this way to be apprehensive as to the results of vesting such powers in the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman would be well-advised to meet the situation by accepting the Clause. He will probably say that it is contrary to the practice which has been adopted previously in regard to the Merchant Shipping Acts and ordinances relating to merchant shipping, but never before in the history of the Merchant Shipping Acts have such wide discretionary powers been conferred in a Bill of this character. For these reasons I trust he will see his way to accept the new Clause.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in whose names this New Clause stands on the Paper are under a misapprehension as to the exact position. The Mover said the Bill was giving the Board of Trade very wide powers such as they had never possessed before, but that is not really the case. As a matter of fact, this Bill is only necessary as a matter of precaution, because we were advised that it was uncertain whether we had powers to make certain arrangements with regard to wireless telegraphy on ships. There was no doubt that we had those powers in respect of every other Regulation which is made over the whole field of merchant shipping. We have the powers laid down in terms with regard to all these other matters, and with regard to what are the most vital and important

  891
  matters, such as the load-line, life-saving appliances and so forth. All we do by this Bill is to give the same powers with regard to wireless telegraphy. The hon. Member said we could make changes of vital importance. He will forgive me if I say that he has misconceived the purpose of the Bill. It gives me no power to vary in any way regulations which are made under the Merchant Shipping Acts for the control of British ships. The power to make such regulations is governed entirely by our domestic legislation—by the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Wireless Telegraphy Act—and if I wanted to alter the regulations with regard to wireless telegraphy or anything else laid down, under either the Merchant Shipping Acts or the Wireless Telegraphy Act, I should have to come to the House for express power to do so. This Bill gives me no power to make regulations for our own ships. It gives me with regard to wireless telegraphy a power which exists already with regard to everything else, namely, that where there are equivalent provisions in force in regard to ships of a foreign country under their own law, then I can enter into an arrangement, and I think I explained on a previous occasion the importance of being able to make such arrangement.
  The hon. Member suggests that we ought to alter the procedure. On the question of principle I think it would be unwise in respect of one particular thing to alter the general practice laid down by the Merchant Shipping Acts as regards the making of Regulations and Orders. If we are to consider such a thing, it should be considered in relation to the whole of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I do not think the hon. Member wanted to change the practice when he was at the Board of Trade, and I think he was right, because the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts give to the public and the interests affected the fullest possible opportunity, in the most direct way, of considering these matters. By the combination of the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Rules Publication Act, the fullest notice has to be given of a draft Order. If an Order is made it has to be published in the "Gazette," and it has to be laid for 40 days during which time any body which is interested may take exception to it, and, of course,
  892
  that exception has to be taken into consideration. In practice, of course, one would not make an Order without full consideration, and if objections were made, of course these would be gone into, and in the ordinary course, if negotiations are still going on, the Order has always been suspended. But, in fact, Parliament has a right. Supposing—which is a very remote supposition—that under either this provision or the general provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, the President of the Board of Trade for the time being were seeking to go ahead with an Order to which objection had been taken, and which was subject to negotiation, then my hon. Friend opposite could raise it as a matter of urgency on a Motion for the Adjournment. That right exists in the recognised procedure to-day. I think it is the proper course to carry out, with regard to these particular Orders in Council—which are merely an amplification of necessary powers—the same procedure as has always been carried out with regard to all Orders under the Merchant Shipping Acts.
  Mr. WEBB: I think the right hon. Gentleman has put this matter very largely in its proper proportions. The proposed new Clause is not really of first-class importance, and I do not think the question of the right of Parliament to deal with a President of the Board of Trade for the time being, in the circumstances indicated, need be discussed upon it, because that is a constitutional matter. I quite agree that, with regard to rules made under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the procedure under the Rules Publication Act is quite sufficient for all practical purposes, but there are two points on which I was not quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. This Bill is not confined in its operations to wireless telegraphy, as might be inferred from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It gives the Board of Trade power, by Order in Council, to exempt foreign ships within British waters from every kind of provision under the Merchant Shipping Act, provided that there are equivalent provisions under the law of the country to which the ship belongs. It seems to me possible that this power might in future be used in substitution for some of the powers that already exist and are exercised by the rules under the Merchant Shipping Acts. I want to know

  893
  whether there is anything in that point. These powers already exist in regard to nearly everything else except wireless telegraphy, and they are exercised by rule. This Bill would authorise powers of exemption to be exercised by Order in Council. I should like to know whether every Order in Council which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make under this Measure, if it is enacted, has to be published under the Rules Publication Act?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has.
  Mr. WEBB: I think we may say that if publication has to take place under that Act it will to a very large extent remove the ground for this new Clause.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As my right hon. Friend will see from Clause 3, we would make these Orders subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1923, and the Act of 1894 embodies the provisions of the Rules Publication Act and, therefore, I have, in respect of this, to carry out all the provisions of the Rules Publication Act.
  Mr. WEBB: I understand that will apply to Orders in Council?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.
  Mr. WEBB: Then I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance.
  Mr. J. JONES: There are others besides those who think they know all about this subject who have something to say upon it. What guarantee have we that the conditions of labour on foreign ships in British waters are going to be equivalent to the conditions which we impose on our own ships? We all know you can legislate and you can legalise sweating. Foreign ships coming into this country's waters employ men under worse conditions than we allow. What about the wireless telegraph service? Some of us know that some of the young men who have been trained in London in wireless schools have been working all the hours that God sends, and then go for an hour or two to bed, and come back again with earphones round their heads. What protection have they got? It is all very well to
  894
  say you have met the interests involved. I suppose that means the sailors, and the firemen, and the men who do the stoking in the hold of the ship, but what about the young men who think they have a career in front of them? What protection have they got? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he is giving them any protection whatever?
  If a foreign ship comes into this country's waters, a ship on which they work all the hours they like, are our people going to be put on the same footing, and are our British ships going to be allowed to become sweating dens? Some of us who work and live in constituencies close to the waterside know the kind of conditions that are being imposed on some of these young men, some of them very educated young men, in order to give them a start in life and an opportunity to find themselves working long hours for little pay. They are always called upon whenever there is trouble or danger at sea. They have to be there at their job then, and I would like to know what protection they will get under this scheme.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On a point of Order. I think it is entirely out of order, and beyond the very limited scope of this Bill, to embark on a discussion as to general labour conditions, either in this country or on foreign ships. This is limited to giving the Board of Trade power to accept as equivalent, by Order in Council, certain safety regulations and so on made by foreign countries if there is reciprocity.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have examined the Bill, and I cannot see where in the Bill, and much less on this Amendment, the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) can make this appeal. This is an Amendment dealing solely with the laying of rules before the House, and the hon. Member must wait for another occasion.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of what has passed, I beg leave to withdraw my Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords.].
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords.].

  CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GOSLING:
  In page 5, line 3, leave out from the word "register" to the end of the Clause.
  Mr. GOSLING: I understand that an effort is going to be made for the purpose of meeting the point I wish to raise. I am not quite sure why the words that I wish to have taken out were ever put in. The Bill that was introduced last year complied with the Convention without these words being inserted. Anyway, I now understand that the omission of the words "or pilotage," which is to be moved on behalf of the Government, will bring the Bill within the terms of the Convention. Otherwise, it goes too far. If the omission of the words "or pilotage" will limit the jurisdiction of the port, I shall feel much safer than I should have done with the words left in. But my real object was all the time to protect the young people under 18, because I am not quite sure whether the Board of Trade realises that, taking two classes of vessels of exactly the same type, one will go on a Continental trip and do it in a week, and be under the Convention, but the other vessel, that works in and out of the ports in exactly the same way, the crew getting ashore no more frequently than on the first vessel, comes out of the Convention. The words that I proposed to leave out would have made that perfectly sure, but if I understand the real meaning of the Government's Amendment is to cover that point, I am content, and do not propose to move my Amendment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out the words "or pilotage."
  I need not describe the Bill, as the House knows already what it contains, but the point before us is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for White-
  896
  chapel (Mr. Gosling). In the first place, we must give effect to the Convention, and neither more nor less than the Convention. Then we have to define, for the purposes of the Clause, the expression "vessel engaged in maritime navigation." There are a very large number of craft which in no circumstances could be described as engaged in maritime navigation, and these are such craft as are enumerated in Clause 5. At the same time, some of these craft go out to sea occasionally, and my right hon. Friend feels that Clause 5, amended as he desires, will draw a clear and workable distinction between those classes of ships to which the Convention is meant and those to which it is not meant to apply, namely, ships which occasionally find themselves at sea and ships which spend the whole of their time within the limits of the ports. Underlying the Convention is the intention to give protection to certain young people who are taken away from home on foreign voyages. That intention is made perfectly clear under Article 4 of the Convention, which provides that if, in urgent cases, a young person is embarked on a ship without it being possible for him to have been medically examined, he must undergo a medical examination at the first port of call, and Clause 5 emphasises this intention when it describes a ship as "any sea-going ship or boat." It is obvious, therefore, that this Amendment will carry out the letter and the spirit of the Convention.
  Sir LESLIE SCOTT: The object of the Clause in the Bill as it stands was to exclude from the scope of the Bill vessels which it was not intended to bring within the scope of the International Convention, namely, vessels which for practical purposes did not navigate the high seas. That that was the scope of the Convention appears clearly in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, which provide what is to be done on voyages and what is to be done at the first port of call. The dock authorities of the country were very much concerned with the form in which the Bill appeared last year, and they raised the question of whether or not the dock authorities' vessels were to be excluded. I think the Clause, almost in its present form, was agreed last year, but on account of the Dissolution the Bill never reached

  897
  a stage when the question became practical. At any rate, when the Bill was introduced this year, the Clause was not in the Bill, and there was nothing to meet the position of the dock authorities. In another place, where the Bill was introduced, the Clause was absent, although it had been understood, as between the dock authorities and the Board of Trade, that the Bill would contain something of the sort. I am not suggesting that the dock authorities are complaining of any breach of faith, but merely that they expected the Clause. The matter was raised in another place, and this Clause was introduced, on behalf of the Government, at the Third Reading stage of the Bill in another place, in order to meet the views of the dock authorities.
  I want to say a word in regard to the words "or pilotage," which it is proposed to omit. I recognise that there are certain pilotage districts which are very wide, and that if they were included you might inadvertently include sea-going voyages within this exempting Clause, and, therefore, exclude them from the scope of the Convention when it was not intended to do so. The difficulty is a purely practical point, and it is this. Dock authorities have vessels which are not really of a seagoing type at all, vessels such as dredgers, mud-hoppers and various vessels of a harbour type, which have to go in a seaward direction, very often a mile or two, or a few miles only, just beyond the reach of the harbour area. The omission of these words "or pilotage" would bring these vessels into the scope of the Bill and the Convention, when it is not intended, under the arrangement made, that they should be. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It may be that hon. Members opposite do not agree, but I repeat that the object of the Clause was to allow that type of vessel to stand outside the Convention, for this simple reason: The boys employed on these vessels live at home.
  Mr. GOSLING: No.
  Sir L. SCOTT: Yes, they do. A great many of them are in their home port, anyhow, and it is not quite the service that was intended to be covered by the Convention. The question is whether some words cannot be devised, on the omission of these two words "or pilotage," which will allow these vessels to go a mile or two beyond the harbour limit,
  898
  which they do at present, without, so to speak, losing the benefit of the Clause put in to exclude them from the Convention. I am not prepared at this stage, in this House, to suggest words which will do it. The matter has only been brought up today. It was only to-day that notice was given of the intention to omit these words, and it has not been found possible to consider what words would serve to add the mile or two extra ambit within which these vessels can go. I mention it now in the hope that the matter may be considered between now and the time when the Amendment will have to be considered in another place, in order that the matter may be dealt with there.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope the House will agree to the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved. There has been a good deal of difficulty over this, not because there is great disagreement as to what all parties want to do, but because it is extraordinarily difficult to frame, in legal language, what will exactly give effect to the intention of the Convention and of all parties in this House. The position really is this: The Convention speaks about "maritime navigation," a term of art entirely unknown, I believe, to British mercantile law. As I understand it, that means a vessel going to sea upon a sea voyage. What you are called upon to deal with is not the character of the vessel, but what it is doing, and it seems to me the Convention intended to cover any vessel engaged in maritime navigation, whatever that may be. It is quite true that this Bill, as originally introduced, gave no such exemption, and if it had been left like that, it would not have been necessary to define what navigation meant. These words were put in in another place. It is also quite true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that a previous Government had accepted words of a somewhat similar kind. Then when the Bill came to a Committee of this House, the point was raised. After a great deal of discussion, we came to the conclusion that the most reasonable words we could devise would be to take the harbour area, within which the vessels naturally carry on their avocation, and to omit the words "or pilotage," which, admittedly, are too wide. It has been the subject of a great deal of discussion between everyone concerned, and while no drafting is perfect,

  899
  I think the Amendment I propose is the most suitable.
  Mr. WEBB: I am glad to find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, not that I consider the Amendment he is proposing does everything I should like to see done, but I really think it does make the Bill, so far as terms will allow, conform to the Convention. I want to say a word in reference to something which fell from the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) with regard to the ownership of these vessels. If it were sought by the dock and harbour authorities of this country to exempt all the vessels they own for harbour purposes, it would have been an absolute departure from the Convention. I say that any proposal to exempt vessels from the Convention because they are owned by dock and harbour authorities for dock and harbour purposes would be contrary to the Convention.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I made no suggestion on those lines.
  Mr. WEBB: I only say that if there were any desire on the part of these authorities to exempt vessels merely because of the purpose for which they are normally used, it would be a breach of the Convention. The mere fact that they are used purely for the harbour authorities would not warrant exemption, because they might be occasionally employed in what is strictly maritime navigation. If any attempt be made at a subsequent stage to give exemption to vessels in this respect, it will be a breach of the Convention. The whole success, as my hon. and learned Friend has often pointed out, of these international conventions, depends upon their being strictly observed and ratified by each country concerned, and we in this country take a very strict view of our obligations. We have insisted upon making the law strictly conform to the terms of the Convention, and it is extremely important that we should not give any encouragement to any nation, which might be less strict or conscientious in the matter, to make greater departures from the Convention. That being so, if we were to exempt from this Statute any vessels whatever, in so far as they are engaged in maritime navigation, we should be
  900
  setting a dangerous example to other nations. The First Schedule says:
  "For the purpose of this Convention the term 'vessel' includes all ships and boats, of any nature whatsoever, engaged in maritime navigation, whether publicly or privately owner; it excludes ships of war."
  You cannot have wider terms, and you cannot exempt tugs which are normally employed within the limits of the port, but which occasionally go beyond those limits. Any attempt to widen the exemption would have the worst possible effect on the ratification of subsequent international conventions, and I do hope there will be no misunderstanding on the point.
  Amendment agreed to.

ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(For protection of statutory undertakers.)
  (1) If, in the exercise of any of the powers of this Act, any damage is done to any main pipe, cable, wire, or apparatus (in this Section referred to as "apparatus ") of any local authority, company, body, or person authorised by any special Act, or any Order confirmed by or having the effect of an Act, to lay or place any apparatus in or under any street (in this Section referred to as "statutory undertakers") the party exercising such powers shall make good all such damage, and shall make full compensation to the statutory undertakers for any loss, damage, costs, or expenses which they may sustain by reason of any interference with such apparatus, or the access thereto, or with the private service pipes or electric lines of any person supplied by such statutory undertakers with water, gas, or electricity sustained in consequence of such injury by the owner of the injured apparatus.
  (2) If, in connection with or in consequence of any experiment or trial conducted or proposed to be conducted under Section three of this Act, it should appear to any statutory undertakers that the conducting of such experiment or trial has endangered or would endanger any apparatus of such undertakers or interfere with the access thereto or impede the supply of water, gas, or electricity, such undertakers may give notice to the party conducting or proposing to conduct the experiment or trial (in this Section referred to as "the operators") to alter the position of such apparatus in such manner as may be considered necessary, and any difference as to the necessity of any such alteration or the manner of carrying

  901
  out the alteration shall be settled by arbitration under this Section, and all alterations to he made under this Section shall be made by and at the expense of the operators with as little detriment and inconvenience to the statutory undertakers to whom such apparatus belongs or to the inhabitants of the district as the circumstances will admit and under the superintendence of the engineer of such undertakers if he thinks fit to attend after receiving not less than three days' notice for that purpose, which notice the operators are hereby required to give.
  (3) Not lees than fourteen days before commencing any alteration of the position of any apparatus the operators shall give to the statutory undertakers to whom such apparatus belongs notice in writing of their intention to commence such alteration, and if within fourteen days after the receipt of such notice the statutory undertakers shall give notice in writing to the operators of their intention themselves to execute such alteration it shall be lawful for the statutory undertakers instead of the operators to execute such alteration, and the reasonable cost incurred by them in so doing shall on demand be repaid to the statutory undertakers by the operators. Provided that the statutory undertakers shall, on receipt of notice from the operators, proceed with due diligence to execute such alteration.
  (4) If any difference arises between the operators and any statutory undertakers in relation to anything to he done or not to be done or any money to be paid under this Section, such difference shall be determined by arbitration under and according to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1880, by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade on the application of either of the parties in difference, after notice thereof in writing to the other of them."—[Mr. Clarry.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. CLARRY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I formally move this Clause. It is felt that statutory undertakings are not adequately protected unless some specific Clause be put into this Bill.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I thank my hon. Friend for not having gone into details. As he said, this Clause is intended for the protection of statutory undertakings, in case, when making experiments on the road, we should do some damage. I have been advised by the Ministry that, should we do any damage to these roads, we should be liable under the ordinary common law. My hon.
  902
  Friend has been advised by counsel that that is not so. We have not yet been able to get to the bottom of the subject, as the opinion of counsel on the point only reached the Department yesterday morning. If my hon. Friend will withdraw the Clause now, and it is found that he is right, we will see that a Clause giving similar power is put in in another place.
  Mr. CLARRY: I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Acquisition of land to be given in exchange for common land, etc.)
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out from the word "Where," to the word "in," in line 28, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "under Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, a new road is constructed, or an advance is made in respect of the construction or improvement of a road, and land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, is under any enactment acquired, or proposed to be acquired, for the purposes of such construction or improvement, if any land is required for the purpose of being given."
  This Amendment is to alter a Clause inserted in Committee regarding common land. The Clause gives power to acquire land which is given in exchange for a part of a common that is taken over for a road, but in its present form is limited to the case where the land for the road has been acquired compulsorily. The Amendment is to enable the exchange to be made, and land acquired for this purpose where the land for the road has been obtained by agreement or under some Act other than the Development Act. It is not proposed that the land to be given in exchange shall be acquired compulsorily unless an order to that effect is made by the Development Commissioners.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Restrictions as to fences at dangerous corners.)
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from the word "restrictions" to the first word "any" in line 40, and to insert

  903
  instead thereof the words "with respect to."
  This is the first of a series of Amendments which are intended to give effect to a pledge given by the Minister when the Bill was in Committee. It will be remembered that there was an Amendment proposed upstairs and adopted, providing for the removal or alteration, and the prevention of the erection of walls, fences, etc., at road corners, and the same hon. Member who proposed this Clause had a very similar Clause down restricting building operations at dangerous corners. The Minister at the time gave an undertaking that he would endeavour to incorporate these things in the same Clause, and it is in doing that that we have had to put down so many Amendments to this Clause as it stands. We have had to put two other things into the Clause to provide some protection to the interests of local authorities interested in building, but who are not the highway authority. A typical instance is the main road where the highway authority is the county council, but the district councils are interested in the question of building.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 3, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and insert instead thereof:

  "(a) directing the owner or occupier of the land to alter the height or character of any wall (not being part of a permanent building), fence, or hedge thereon so as to cause it to conform with any requirements specified in the notice; or

  (b) restraining the owner and occupier of the land, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notice, from permitting any building, wall fence, or hedge to be erected or planted on the land.

  Provided that—

  (i) there shall be annexed to any notice served under this Section a plan showing the land to which the notice relates; and

  (ii) a notice restraining the erection of any building upon land shall not be served by the Minister or any county council or other highway authority except with the consent of the local authority for the district in which the land is situated; and

  904

  (iii) the owner or occupier of any land shall not be restrained by a notice served under this Section from executing or permitting the reconstruction or repair in such manner as not to create any new obstruction to the view of persons using the highways adjacent to the land of any building which was upon the land before the service of the notice;

  (iv) if in connection with a notice served under this Section any question arises whether a wall is part of a permanent building the question shall be determined by arbitration.

  (2) Any restrictions imposed by a notice served under this Section shall come into force upon the service of the notice and shall remain in force until the notice is withdrawn by the Minister, county council, or other highway authority by whom it was served, and any such restrictions shall, while in force, be binding upon any successor in title to the owner or occupier of the land to which they relate unless he proves that when he became the owner or occupier of the land he had, after making due inquiries, no reasonable cause to suspect that any such restrictions were in force."
  In page 3, line 12, after the word "notice," insert the words "or objects to restriction imposed thereby."
  In page 3, line 16, at the end, insert the words
  "and upon any such arbitration the award may direct that the notice shall have effect with or without any modifications, or that it shall be withdrawn."
  In page 3, line 31, leave out from the word "shall" to "and" in line 36, and insert instead thereof the words
  "without prejudice to any other proceedings which may be taken against him, be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and any person so convicted shall within such time as the Court may allow do all such things as may be necessary to conform to the requirements or restrictions imposed by the notice."
  In page 4, line 2, after the word "expenses," insert the word "reasonably."
  In page 4, line 4, leave out from the word "of" to the word "be" in line 6, and insert instead thereof the words
  "any requirement of a notice served under this Section, or any person who proves that the value of his interest in any land has been reduced by restrictions relating to the land imposed by any such notice shall, if he makes a claim within six months after the service of the notice."
  In page 4, line 22, leave out the words "wall, fence, or hedge upon."
  In page 4, line 33, leave out from the word "or" to the word "by" in line 34, and insert instead thereof the words
  "if that cannot be found."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out the word "or" and to insert instead thereof the word "and."
  Mr. J. JONES: Will this make the occupier responsible for payment? Who is responsible if the landlord does not pay?
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: It is a small Amendment that is not likely to have the effect suggested by the hon. Member. It is only a question of serving the notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 39, leave out the word "or", and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.]
  In page 5, line 21, leave out from the word "any" to the word "any" in line 4.
  In page 5, leave out lines 7 to 12, inclusive.
  In page 5, line 18, at the end insert a new Sub-section:
  "(13) Nothing in this Section shall apply with respect to any wall belonging to a railway company or to the owners, trustees, or conservators acting under powers conferred by Parliament of any canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour where the wall forms part of or is necessary for the maintenance of their railway, canal, inland navigation. dock, or harbour."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]
  Mr. CLARRY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, at the end to insert the words:
  "Nothing in this Section shall apply to any wall belonging to a railway company and forming part of or necessary for the maintenance of their railway."
  Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Power to conduct experiments.)
  Amendment made: In page 5, line 29, leave out from the word "highway" to
  906
  the word "and" in line 31, and insert instead thereof,
  "except with the consent of the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]

  CLAUSE 7.—Interpretation, short title and extent.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 6, line 4, at the end, insert the words,
  "and the expressions 'common,' open space, 'and' allotment 'have the meanings respectively assigned to them by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909."
  In page 6, line 5, leave out Subsection (2), and insert instead thereof:
  "(2) In the application of this Act to Scotland—

  (a) the expression 'highway authority' shall mean a county council or a district committee in a county divided into districts or a town council charged with the management and maintenance of the highways in the burgh;

  (b) the expression 'Judge of the County Court' shall mean sheriff;

  (c) Sub-section (3) of Section one shall not apply as regards any highway authority, but the powers conferred by that Section shall not be exercised by. any county council, district committee, or town council in any land forming part of a highway unless the county council, district committee, or the town council of the county, district, or burgh in which such highway is situated is charged with the management and maintenance thereof;

  (d) paragraph (ii) of the proviso to Section four shall not apply, but a notice restraining the erection of any building on land situated within a burgh the town council of which is not charged with the management and maintenance of the highways therein shall not be served without the consent of such town council."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]

CHINA.

  MR. CHAMBEELAIN'S STATEMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Honsell.]
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Labour party have pressed for time for the discussion, of the situation in China, and the Government have very readily acquiesced in

  907
  giving this opportunity. Our object in asking for this opportunity at once is that the question of China is much too grave a one to be mixed up with other Foreign Office questions, such as the Pact, which is going to be discussed next week, and that the country will be glad to have some sort of statement at once from the Government. Another thing which has weighed with us, perhaps more than anything else, is that we feel there ought to be some discussion of the origins of the trouble in China before any condition arises which makes discussion of the subject in relative calmness impossible. I hope it is clear that my object is not to attack the Government; in fact, I would like to say that in one respect, I believe, there will be agreement throughout the House. The situation in China is very alarming and grave, and a position has arisen in which the lives of foreigners, especially the lives of English and Japanese, are liable to be in considerable danger. In all quarters of the House, I think, there is agreement that it is the elementary duty of Government to take measures to protect the lives of our fellow citizens, and in so far as they take the necessary precautions they will have the necessary support from all quarters of the House.
  But in a situation of this sort this House has other duties. It is very seldom there is any single or simple explanation for portentious events in this world, and it is important that we should have our minds clear as to why these things have been happening in China. In our view, and I think it is really incontrovertible, the immediate cause of the calamity at Shanghai in China has been an industrial cause. Earlier in the year there was very serious industrial trouble in Shanghai. What I shall quote are simply facts out of various Chinese papers. In the beginning of the year, in February, there was a very serious labour dispute, 29,000 Chinese labourers and Japanese mill hands in Shanghai being on strike. The reasons were as follow:
  "It is understood that the chief cause or the strike is a demand on the part of the men for higher wages, and also in consequence of alleged ill-treatment."
  Following is a description of the ill-treatment:
  "A few days before the strike a girl worker, 12 years old, in one of the Japanese
  908
  mills, was struck and seriously injured by a Japanese foreman when found asleep after a 12 hours' night shift. Her sister, 18 years old, on seeing this, argued with the foreman. The latter slapped her in the face. Consequently both night and day workers, who sympathised with the helpless and ill-treated girl, joined in a protest and were discharged from the mill."
  The strike of the 29,000 was a consequence of that. The strike very soon came to an end. The workers were defeated.
  Now I want the House to realise what the strike was about. What are the industrial conditions in Shanghai? Friends of mine who will very likely speak later on may go into this in greater detail, and I shall give only one or two quotations from the Report of the Child Labour Commission of last year, in order to give the House an idea of the kind of conditions against which these strikes are taking place. This Child Labour Commission had on it two merchants, one principal lady factory inspector, an industrial secretary of the world's W.Y.C.A., and, I think, three managers of mills. They may fairly be taken to be representative of what is best in the British community. I only just read a sample or two from their Report in order that the House may understand the situation—
  "The average monthly earnings of a workman of the coolie class are not greater than fifteen dollars, while in some instances, such as ricsha coolies, they may be as low as eight. One witness stated that an adult female feather sorter did not receive more than ten cents for a day's work."
  I come now to what is the most miserable and disastrous picture which this Report gives, and that is as to the condition of the children:
  "Generally, speaking, the child begins to work in the mill or factory as soon as it is of any economic value to the employer. The Commission has visited a number of mills and similar places of employment, both during the day and at night, and has seen very many children at work who could not have been more than six years of age. The hours of work are generally twelve, with not more than one hour off for a meal. The children frequently have to stand the whole time they are at work. In many industries day and night work is the rule, there being two shifts of twelve hours each. … The Commission heard evidence to the effect that in some instances contractors obtain young children from the country districts, paying the parents two dollars a month for the services of each child. By employing such children in the mills and factories, the contractor is able to make a profit of four dollars a month on each child. Those children are frequently most miserably

  909
  housed and fed. They receive no money, and their conditions of life are practically those of slavery."
  There are pages of that kind of thing available, and the House can make itself better informed. All I want to point out is that those are the conditions of labour in Shanghai, and that it was essentially a protest against those conditions of labour that led to the strikes that have been going on during the year. I do not want to lay any great stress on the fact that when the proposals of this Commission were brought up before the Municipal Council of Shanghai it happened that there was not a quorum and that nothing was done. I am sorry nothing was done. Under the circumstances, it was a pity that that occurred at that moment. But what is wrong is that those conditons should exist at all, and what we insist on is that those conditions are a disgrace to any community for which our people are at this moment largely responsible. What followed? There was fresh industrial conflict. The strike in the earlier part of the year, as I pointed out, had failed. Then came about on 15th May the new Government. I will continue the quotation:
  "Since the last two weeks the Japanese cotton mills continue to expel trade union leaders. This aroused indignation and uneasiness among the workers. After the rejection of a demand to call back two of the expelled leaders, and to release five of the imprisoned workers, the workers of the twelfth mill declared a strike on the morning of the 15th instant.
  With the fear that the strike might spread, the Japanese managers suddenly closed the other four mills, that is the fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth, and locked out all the workers numbering more than 20.000. In the same afternoon about 300 workers gathered together before the fifth mill and demanded an explanation from the manager."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but would he mind belling me from what document he is reading?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am reading from Chinese papers, which give an account of the situation prior to the fatal events. The quotation proceeds:
  "They shouted and cried out without response. At six o'clock p.m. the doors suddenly opened and bullets were fired from within and 13 of them were wounded,
  910
  seven very seriously. One by the name of Ku Chen Hun died immediately afterwards."
  This is the event which gave rise to the demonstrations which ended so fatally in front of the police station, and it was a protest against this which led the demonstrators to go to through the streets of Shanghai. The Government admit that the demonstrators were unarmed, and there is no pretence that they had any means of seriously injuring anybody. There is no evidence that they did injure anybody. Evidence has been given by American missionaries that the crowd was fired upon without any provocation by the crowd at all, and there is a universal belief throughout China amongst the Chinese that these shootings were absolutely unnecessary. In the first instance, six were killed on the first day, and subsequently 21 were killed and 65 wounded, and I think until yesterday no policeman was injured at all. That does not seem to be a very dangerous mob.
  This it is that has created all this trouble throughout the country? This it is that is making it necessary, as I dare say it is necessary, to land bluejackets and rush up troops. This it is that may eventually lead to war and slaughter in China. It is an industrial dispute arising out of conditions which all of us regard here as monstrous, it is an industrial dispute which has been dealt with in a way in which it could not have been dealt with in either Scotland or England. Had there been an unarmed crowd of strikers, with nothing more to fight with in their hands than pamphlets in Glasgow or Newcastle, and they had been fired on, even this powerful Government would have been shaken. There is no one to shake in Shanghai. Who rules Shanghai? Who is the controlling authority? Not a modern democratic set of rulers, because there is no popular system of government in Shanghai.
  Sir THOMAS BOWATER: Nor in China. [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must ask hon. Members on both sides to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed without interruption.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: In Shanghai there are nearly 800,000 Chinese and 21,000 foreigners. The foreigners choose the rulers, and the municipality which rules

  911
  consists of six Englishmen, one Japanese, and two Americans.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One of whom is Chairman.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: They are chosen by the foreign ratepayers. Here you have an enormous industrial community ruled without any representation whatever of the working part of that community. It seems to me that our first duty, after securing the lives of our fellow citizens, is without regard at all to what the nationality of the people responsible may be, to bring home the responsibility for this tragedy. We owe it to China, we owe it to the world, and we owe it to ourselves. It is no more an obligation of British patriotism to justify a proceeding of this sort which would be impossible in our own land than it is historically an obligation of British patriotism to justify Peterloo which is impossible now.
  We do not think that the whole of this question is an industrial question. I know it has its political aspect, but how is it that this position has arisen at all? How is it that foreign police have shot down Chinamen? How is it that there are no native Courts to deal with the trouble in the mills? How comes it that, at this moment, this most kindly and pacific of peoples, the Chinese—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—does anyone deny what I have just said, unfortunately are frantic with hatred of us. The root difficulty is the extra-territorial privileges of the Powers. It is an amazing system. China is practically an occupied territory where you have great towns, and 49 of them, amongst which are the greatest, are largely controlled by foreigners, and in these settlements there is no Chinese representation. The Government is controlled by the traders, and by European and Japanese landowners, and how do the Chinese naturally look upon this system? They feel that they are governed by their economic exploiters—and foreigners at that. What peace would there be in Britain? Would anti-foreign riots be rare in Britain if Southampton, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Hull, were all controlled by foreigners? Would you be surprised at anti-foreign riots? I may have spoken strongly, but in anything I have said I am not attacking the Government. I ask them what
  912
  they are going to do. This situation is not unrealised by the Great Powers. Indeed, I think the Great Powers have a bad conscience about it. I should like to quote from the Resolutions at the Washington Conference. They are rather long Resolutions, but I think I must quote a portion of the Fourth Resolution, which runs as follows:
  "These several powers "—
  that is, the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal—
  "have agreed to give every assistance towards the attainment by the Chinese Government of its expressed desire to reform its judicial system and to bring it into accord with that of Western nations, and they declare that they are also prepared to relinquish their extra-territorial rights when satisfied that the state of the Chinese laws, the arrangements for their administration, and other considerations warrant them in so doing …
  That the Governments of the Powers above-named shall establish a Commission … to inquire into the present practice of extra-territorial jurisdiction in China, and into the laws and judicial system and the methods of judicial administration in China, with a view to reporting to the Governments of the Governments of the several Powers above named their findings of fact in. regard to these matters and their recommendations as to such means as they may find suitable to improve the existing conditions of administration of justice in China, and to assist and further the efforts of the Chinese Government to effect such legislation and judicial reforms as would warrant the several Powers in relinquishing, either progressively or otherwise, their respective rights of extra-territoriality."
  And there was a further resolution on behalf of the Chinese Government as follows:
  "China expresses its satisfaction with the sympathetic disposition of the Powers hereinbefore named in regard to the aspiration of the Chinese Government to secure the abolition of extra-territoriality in China."
  That is to say, the Powers realise that the system of extra-territoriality is at any rate eventually doomed. As far as I know, nothing has been done. I am not complaining of this or any past Government, but am simply saying that I think nothing has been done. I should like to make this definite suggestion, which I know finds approval among the great mass of those who sit behind me on this side of the House. There is, I think, to be a conference about Chinese tariffs. I

  913
  would ask whether it can be extended to the wider and more essential question of extra-territoriality, and whether, if it be so extended, Britain can take the lead in proposing measures to bring to a conclusion the system of extra-territoriality. Where does British interest lie? How are our people any better off by the exploitation of cheap Chinese labour under the system which at present exists? Where is our interest in that? It is not a British interest, but the interest of a few British shareholders in getting bigger dividends than they would if they invested at home. But there is a British interest in Lancashire cotton mills—a natural British interest—and outside those Lancashire cotton mills adult workers are unemployed in Great Britain, because small children are overworked till they drop asleep in Shanghai and elsewhere in China. After the fierce light which these events have thrown upon our share in the occupation of China, I think that this is the question which the workers in Great Britain will continue to ask: "How long are we going on using our armed forces in the last resort for backing up exploitation of this kind, which does no good either to Britain or to China?"
  But the matter is more serious than that. If we go on as at present, it will be a case of using more force, and not less. It seems to me that at this moment we are at the usual cross-roads. Either we have to move towards the redress of grievances and towards justice, or we have to move towards more repression; we can never stand still. Is repression, however unwillingly indulged in in the first instance, going to succeed in China? Can force indefinitely prolong such a system as I have described, which is so utterly incompatible with national development and self-respect in China? Is it not as well to face facts here, now and at once? After all, we are all pretty well aware that European predominance in Asia is declining. The day of co-operation has got to begin between ourselves and the Asiatics, and it cannot begin too soon. If not, what is the other road? The Chinaman may be very patient, and he may be a very bad organiser, but even now the situation is dangerous—dangerous not necessarily at once from the point of view of violence, but probably ultimately so unless an understanding can be come to.
  914
  Already, however, the Chinese are organising an economic boycott. That can be done by people without arms in their hands. Where will our traders be, where will our trade be, if that is to reach considerable proportions? Even if we use force now, we are not going to be able to use it ultimately with success. What is happening in China now? Why is there all this fighting in China? It is largely because these very Treaty Ports have been emporiums through which the surplus war stock of Europe has been poured into China, keeping China boiling in civil war, but also teaching the Chinese to fight. The future is a very grim one if we are going to go down in that course, and I would ask the Government, not critical of anything they have done, whether they cannot go down the course, not merely of kindly phrases to the Chinese people, but of really giving the Chinese people what can alone satisfy them, namely, control of their own land, making it clear to them that they are eventually going to have that from the great Powers.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope in a debate on foreign affairs one domestic reflection may be permitted. I am a little puzzled to decide why it is that the ex-President of the Board of Education is always chosen by the party opposite to open their debates on foreign affairs. I cannot help thinking that if they were opened by the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs or by the late Minister of Foreign Affairs—
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am going to follow you.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not complaining that the right hon. Gentleman chose to follow me rather than precede me.
  Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the President of the Board of Education was put up to speak on a Board of Trade matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may resume the sentence in which I was interrupted, I cannot help thinking that if these Debates were opened by the late Under-Secretary, or by the late Prime Minister, they would be handled with a deeper knowledge of all that is involved, and

  915
  perhaps with a greater discretion. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to make it plain that he did not criticise anything that the Government had yet done, and that he was seeking information only as to what the policy of the Government was in the future. It is not, therefore, of any criticism of His Majesty's Government that I have to complain, or indeed any such criticism that I have to answer. But I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman's view of the situation was too much a surface view, and that anyone who really knows the history of China and the facts of the situation will see that you must go far deeper than the right hon. Gentleman did before you can get a true appreciation of that which is happening in China at the moment.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: You will have to go back to the Opium War.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And even before. Let me say at this point, as a preliminary observation, to prevent any misapprehension, that neither His Majesty's present, nor any British Government past or to come, will encourage evil conditions in factories in China or will fail to do its best to raise the level of industrial conditions in China wherever their influence may be made to prevail. I say that now in order that in the survey which I would undertake, I may not be thought to underrate for a moment the evils existent in the industrial system in China, though I must not be taken as accepting every statement which the right hon. Gentleman read from Chinese papers—what papers I do not know—or even his statement as regards the employment of child labour as being the whole of the truth, or a fair statement. We all know that the conditions of labour are not what we would wish them to be, and no British Government, this or any other, would be lacking in its duty or lacking in the will to exercise its influence to improve it. May I read one despatch which will appear in the White Paper that has been promised? It is dated from the Foreign Office, 10th June, and is addressed to Consul-General Barton at Shanghai:
  "Sir, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to inform you that he has received Mr. Pratt's despatch of 30th ult. reporting his efforts to further the intro-
  916
  duction by the Shanghai Municipal Council of Legislation on the lines of the recommendations contained in Part III of the Report of their Child Labour Commission. Mr. Chamberlain, who appreciates the active part taken in the matter by yourself, and in your absence by Mr. Pratt, approves the action reported in the above-mentioned despatch, and desires to be kept fully and promptly informed of all developments. In particular, he wishes to learn what steps can be taken if the deadlock resulting from the absence of a quorum continues."
  The House, therefore, I hope will take as common ground that we desire to secure better conditions and to remove abuses, and that whatever British Government is in power, its efforts will be directed to these ends.
  Having said so much, I would beg the House to look at the large aspects of this problem. If you do not see the occurrences of the last few days in proper perspective, you will never reach just conclusions or see wherein lies the real remedy for present discontent. All of us will remember, and all of us will gratefully acknowledge the support which China rendered to the Allies during the War, and the part she took with us in the common struggle. After the War there met at Washington that Conference to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. There were represented all the great Powers having interests in China, and they met with a single-hearted desire to help China in the difficulties she had to face. I beg the House to consider what those difficulties were. The work, from our point of view, before us was part of the great work of reconstruction which confronted every country, belligerent or non-belligerent, after the upheaval of the War. But in China the circumstances were peculiarly difficult. It is difficult to our imagination to picture the vastness of China, the vastness of her copulation and the diversity which exists between province and province. China is not a country in the European sense or is not best pictured as a country in the European sense. China is almost a Continent—a congeries of nations not wholly amalgamated, with many deep differences dividing its different parts. In includes nearly one-fifth of the human race. The political mind of China from the earliest ages has been static and intensely traditional. It drew its strength from its love, respect and leverence for its ancestors and for the old traditions. Its institutions, from the Throne downwards, were

  917
  centralised and autocratic. These institutions—
  Mr. J. JONES: Have that set to music.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg hon. Members opposite not to add to the difficulties of the Foreign Secretary when he is dealing with questions of this sort.
  Mr. JONES: Do not read essays to us.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to listen to the right hon. Gentleman. I must ask the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) not to interrupt a statement which I believe the whole House wishes to hear.
  Mr. JONES: I apologise if I have done anything wrong, but I have read all this over 40 years ago, in my school days, and I think we ought to get something batter than a lesson or an essay on China.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These institutions were awakening even before the War. In 1911, after the split between the North and South of China, the old empire disappeared and a rudimentary form of republican government was established. From that time onwards the efforts of the advanced party in China have been to make this rudimentary form of republican government a reality. The task was one of incomparable difficulty. Owing to the unwieldy size of China, the looseness of the attachment of one province to another, the ingrained traditionalism, the semi-independence of the great provincial governors, or satraps, who administer local government in large parts of the territory, it was a task which, even under the best of circumstances, must have tried the statesmanship, the patriotism and the political sense of any country. And it was complicated by the disturbing effect of the impact of Western ideas on an ancient Eastern civilisation, where they fermented like new wine in old bottles. To all these complications you had to add the growth of standing armies and military forces which had come to escape altogether the control of the Central Government; and the conflicting forces often involved China in civil war.
  Is it surprising in these circumstances that China is passing through a period of trouble? Is it surprising that in the short time that has elapsed, all these
  918
  troubles have not been resolved? It was in circumstances of this kind that the Washington Conference met. It met, with a genuine desire to help China over the difficulties with which she was confronted, and with a genuine desire to prevent the rivalries of western nations from interfering with Chinese progress or prejudicing her national development and life. It is sometimes said that the results were negligible. I venture to differ from that opinion, if it is held by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it nothing that that Conference was made the basis of peace in the Pacific? Is it nothing that that Conference resulted in an engagement among the great Western Powers and Japan—I used the phrase "Western Powers," and I hasten to say all the great Powers interested in China, and none is more interested in it than Japan—not to encroach upon Chinese sovereignty?
  Is it nothing that the Conference resulted in an undertaking to consider the reform of the Customs, with a view to providing China with a greater revenue for the purposes of Chinese development? Is it nothing that it resulted, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, in an undertaking to investigate the working of the extra-territorial system? I think that was a real advance. At any rate, it was a real guarantee that the foreign powers mainly concerned in China would not endeavour to exploit China for their individual interests, but would together seek to help China in her own development. I frankly admit that we have not gathered all the fruits which we had hoped. [Laughter, and an HON. MEMBER: "Nor has China!"] If China has not gathered it, of course, we have not gathered it. Our interest—
  Mr. B. SMITH: Our people have gathered it, and left her poor.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Our interest is in the peaceful development of an orderly China and in nothing else. I admit that we have not gathered the fruits for which we hoped, and you can seek for the reason for that, not where the hon. Member would find it, in the double dose of original sin which afflicts all his countrymen except himself, but in the complexity of the situation with which we have to deal, in the transitional character of Chinese development at this moment, and in the internal conditions which have

  919
  hampered and prevented the full development of the hopes and reforms which were contemplated in Washington. It is difficult to build on quicksand. It is difficult to construct where everything is in a state of flux and transition, and it is immensely difficult when the country which you are trying to help, and in which this work of construction and regeneration must be done, is in a state of transition from the oldest Empire and monarchy of the world to a modern democratic republic.
  At Washington I think, perhaps, the representative of the assembled nations took a too rosy view of what was possible. They hoped that once European rivalries, and the attempts of European nations to exploit China, were finished the domestic recovery of China would be smooth and rapid, that her people would be united and peaceful, and that her recovery would be quick and the work of reconstruction not very long delayed. We have been disappointed. Indeed I think that China, instead of moving forward during the last year or two, has moved backward. New armies have sprung into existence. China has been the prey of civil war. The organs of effective Government, whether central or local, have degenerated, and it is difficult to find any authority in China to-day with which you can deal as a representative body of the Chinese Republic or in whose power to carry out any undertaking to enforce their own authority in any part of China you can have any faith.
  In these circumstances, the great Powers interested have been able to do little but to watch the situation, refraining from interfering where interference would be misrepresented and might cause prejudice, and waiting for the moment when, in combined action, they could help China to a more peaceful and a more prosperous future. Yet if the attitude of the great Powers interested in China has been mostly negative, I think that it may well be argued that even this inaction has been salutary, and has been the best service they could render to China at this time. Take an example much criticised, and, if hon. Members opposite will permit me to say so, much misunderstood. Take the Consortium of the banks. Every faction holding power in China at any moment would have been ready
  920
  to pledge the resources of China to obtain money for their own purposes. The Consortium has prevented the rivalry of these foreign Powers interested in China in seeking loans, and in thus dissipating the resources of China. The Consortium itself has done no business. It has gained nothing for itself, but it has prevented a great deal of undesirable business from being done, and it has thus by its negative action conserved the resources of China for the moment where they can be used for an effective resuscitation and restoration of the Chinese Republic.
  The hopes which Washington had of securing the early restoration of stability in China having failed, and trouble of a very grave and critical kind having followed, the right hon. Gentleman asks the Government what they are going to do. He asks that question in the midst of an agitation which threatens the lives of British subjects and of foreigners in China. We ourselves have immense interests in China, interests which are as important to China as they are to us. Trade—successful trade—is mutual. Our interest in China is a trading interest, and every pound of profit that a British merchant has made has found its equivalent in value to the Chinese. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In those circumstances, when some British lives have been lost—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many Chinese?"]—when the lives of all members of the foreign community, it may be, in some cases are in danger, the first answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question—and an answer which I am glad to say he himself foresaw and accepted in the speech which he made—is that, in common with the other Powers interested, we shall protect the lives and properties of British subjects in China, and we shall hold the Chinese Government responsible for all the injury and damage wantonly inflicted either on British subjects or on British property.
  On that there can be no weakening, no hesitation, no doubt. It is a fundamental duty of every British Government and it is obvious that any British Government must discharge it. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a remedy. That is a necessity of the outrages which have taken place, but it is not a remedy for the situation. But when the right hon. Gentleman treats the whole

  921
  question as if we could trace it no further back than to a strike in a Japanese factory, he must permit me to say that really he has only scratched the surface of the trouble. It goes much deeper than that. The seeds of the trouble are in the discomfort—I might use a stronger word—and in the discontent of the Chinese people. They are a practical, hardworking, laborious, industrious people. But what has been their position during recent years? There has been no security for life or property. Armies or armed bands or simple brigands have interfered with their crops, and with their trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "And with their lives."] Yes, and with their lives. The country has been ravaged by marching armies, marching bands and civil war. There has been no incentive to produce, and the springs of credit are drying up.
  In those circumstances of general uneasiness and widespread suffering and widespread insecurity, it is easy to stir up trouble, and it is the interests of many to divert attention from the domestic causes which really create this poverty and misery, and to impute to foreign interference all the consequences of their own wrong doing. It is the interests of some people—or at least they think it is to their interest—to foment trouble and to take advantage of discontent wherever it exists to cause, if possible, revolution. Alongside of this there has been in China, as elsewhere, perhaps before the War, undoubtedly greatly stimulated by all that took place in the War, a great growth of a real national spirit. If it can form a united China on civilised principles, strong in its own strength, able to secure order within its borders, and to do justice to the foreigner within its gates, then no one will wish it more success than His Majesty's present Government. At present there is not that union. There is not that unified force in Government. There is a general unrest, a general trouble which is used by some of those who create it and by others, to inflame Chinese opinion against all the strangers within their gates.
  That is what has happened. A strike took place in a Japanese factory. I do not stand here to defend the conditions in factories. I said so before. I repeat it now. If that strike had been confined, or if the movement had been confined to a movement for the amelioration of factory conditions, the despatch which I
  922
  read in my opening observations would have lent the movement all the support that they could command, but bad factory conditions, however bad they may be, are no excuse for the advance of a murderous mob crying, "Kill the foreigner."
  An HON. MEMBER: After you had killed them.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, before.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This debate was arranged on the initiative of hon. Members on my left. I presume that they wished to hear the statement by the Foreign Secretary, and I ask them to listen.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These conditions do not justify the advance of a murderous mob, crying "Kill the foreigner!" upon the police station in which there were large stocks of arms. It was not until, according to the information I have at present, the police station was in danger, with all the arms that it contained, that the order was given to fire. If that be the case, then I say that the order given to fire saved bloodshed instead of causing it. Let me say at once that His Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned—and remember in these matters it is an international body which is acting in Shanghai; as it is an international body, the Diplomatic Corps, which is acting in Pekin; and that they are acting with more knowledge than any of us have here at the present time under circumstances of responsibility of which no one here can relieve them. Let us give them the credit which we would ask for ourselves for moderation, for humanity, and for a desire to bring a peaceful issue out of those disastrous troubles. It was in these circumstances, I believe, that the firing took place, but we are all agreed that into the circumstances there should be the fullest and frankest inquiry, and in the meantime accepting that, I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to pass judgment in advance of receiving the evidence.
  In the second place, we are anxious at the earliest moment to enter upon a full investigation of the best way of improving the relations between China and the Powers in the spirit of the Washington Conference. In our opinion the approaching Tariff Conference which is to meet China in accordance with the

  923
  Customs Agreement signed at Washington will give an opportunity for such investigation. We are, therefore, anxious that the Conference should meet with the least possible delay, and we propose to consult the other Powers concerned as to the most practicable way of expediting its meeting.
  Here I must observe that such a disposition on the part of His Majesty's Government, and of the other Powers concerned, may be helped or hindered or even rendered impossible, according as the attitude of the Chinese authorities, central and local, may be an attitude of goodwill and conciliation, or of the reverse. In so far as the Chinese Government and the local authorities of China fail to show their good faith by repressing this agitation—and, mind you, there are parts of China where a word from the Governor has prevented all this agitation—in so far as the Chinese Government and the local authorities fail to show their good faith by stopping agitation, strikes, and boycotts, steps to hasten the meeting of the Conference become more difficult. I trust, therefore, that not only among the Great Powers a spirit of conciliation and of helpfulness will be found but that among the Chinese also we shall be met by a similar spirit of conciliation and good will, and that by so working together we may help to pilot China through her difficult transitional period and may establish her government on firm foundations of equity and justice to the foreigner, of independence and liberty at home, and that upon that basis we and they together may build our common prosperity to the advantage of the world.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The speech we have just heard is the justification of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) for raising this subject to-night. He has produced a very timely and very helpful declaration, and it has served an exceedingly useful purpose at a very critical moment. It is always very difficult to discuss foreign affairs in public in the House of Commons, especially when a critical situation has arisen. If the facts are not stated, the discussion is of no use. On the other hand, if the facts are truly and frankly stated, mischief may ensue. That is one of the difficulties of discussing foreign affairs. But I am very glad
  924
  that my right hon. Friend has raised this question in time, before very much mischief has ensued, for he has enabled the Government to make a declaration which, in two or three respects, I consider very satisfactory.
  May I restate the three points which I understand have emerged from the statement of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with regard to the policy of the Government? First of all, I am assuming that life and property are to be protected under any conditions. That is one of the elementary duties of a Government. Therefore, I am not mentioning that, because it is accepted by all parties in this House, and I put it first, of course. Secondly, the Government propose, a really searching investigation into the origin of these disturbances in Shanghai, not shirking in the least the question1 raised by my right hon. Friend with regard to industrial conditions. The third thing is that there is to be a bona-fide conference of all the Powers interested in China and of the Chinese authorities, with a view to improving the relations between the foreign Powers interested in China and China itself.
  I would have liked to hear from the Foreign Secretary who were to be represented at that conference, because in the very interesting statement he has made with regard to the conditions in China he has revealed one dominant fact, namely, that there is no voice that can speak on behalf of the whole of China. China is not merely a series of different races, but there are separate provinces, governed very largely by autocrats, and instead of having one great central power with considerable authority, as was the case 20 or 30 years ago—not the same authority as any European authority, but still considerable authority over the various provinces—there does not seem to be any one there' now. The Government at Pekin do not seem to exercise any real authority over any of the other provinces. There is the Manchurian War Lord, who is dominant in his own district. If he agrees with Pekin, that is all right, but unless his agreement enables Pekin to work with Manchuria, Pekin has no real authority. The same remark applies to the southern Provinces, and I am told with regard to the province in the far west of China that

  925
  there is really no control at all except the control of the individual Governor.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a very interesting statement with regard to the position historically, and I think he was right, if I may say so, to have put the whole case in that way before the House. But the statement was incomplete. The right hon. Gentleman rather slurred over the responsibility of the foreign Powers for the position in China. I am all for being firm, but we must also be fair. We cannot altogether assume that the responsibility is the responsibility of the Chinese themselves. We have helped to break up the authority of the centre in China. I am not going back to the days of the opium wars, but undoubtedly they did weaken the centre. What weakened it even more was the method we pursued in connection with the Boxer Indemnity, one of the most cruel and savage and rapacious incidents in the whole history of the foreign Powers. There is no use in concealing that fact. What happened then was that the Boxer Indemnity absorbed to a very large extent the revenues which were at the command of the central authority. By means of those revenues the centre had a control over the provinces. They were able to assist the provinces. The richer provinces, which were controlled from the centre, contributed revenue, which was used very largely in order to strengthen the control over the provinces. That revenue was very largely absorbed in order to pay the interest and sinking fund upon the indemnities which were raised at that moment. There is no doubt that that has been a very serious factor in weakening the authority at the centre over the other provinces.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he proposes to take—if he is not in a position to tell me now, I do not press the question, but if he can tell me, I would like an answer—to see that the people who really represent China will be at this proposed conference, that not merely will there be present nominal representatives from Pekin, but that those great and powerful forces which between them govern China will all be represented at the conference, and will be able to present their case. That, I think, is vital to any settlement that may be made. The next point I want to make
  926
  is that I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to take isolated action in the matter, and that he is going to insist upon the co-operation of the Powers. The real danger is that this agitation in China will become, not an anti-foreign agitation, but an anti-British agitation. That may suit other Powers; it does not suit us. We ought to insist upon the other Powers taking their part in the whole transaction. There is a very strong anti-British feeling at the present moment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene in order to emphasise his statement? I think it is of vital importance that in this matter we should act in conjunction with the other great Powers which are interested in China. I felt that, if not from the first day I entered office, at any rate from the first day that I gave a moment's attention to this subject, and that has been my policy throughout.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad to hear that, because, after all, there is no use denying that the Chinese have got grievances, as the right hon. Gentleman very frankly admitted. I also agree with him that the source of the discontent is not merely industrial. There is no doubt the industrial conditions there are terrible. They are abominable. I agree there is no adjective you can use that would adequately describe some of the industrial conditions, but the industrial conditions are not at the bottom of this trouble. I agree that this is largely a nationalist and patriotic movement. It is, if I may put it by comparison with what has taken place in other nations, more Sinn Fein than Bolshevist.
  Mr. J. JONES: The Ireland of the East.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Irish Nationalist upheaval had not very much relation to the economic conditions, but had reference rather to a protest against the government of one's country being usurped by an alien, and there is a basis for that feeling. My right hon. Friend has referred to the municipality of Shanghai and has given figures with regard to the number of Chinese there and the very small foreign colony. There is not a single Chinese representative on the municipality. What is still worse, it is not merely that the majority of the popu-

  927
  lation are Chinese, but I am told that the richest ratepayers in Shanghai are Chinese. So I am told on very good authority. It is monstrous, apart altogether from the question of democracy or whether the majority of a population ought to govern a city, that the people who are contributing largely—some of them the largest contributors to the rates—should have no voice of any sort or kind in the control of the city. That is indefensible, whatever your ideas may be regarding democratic government either here or in China. It is therefore vital that we should make it clear that we mean to have fair play for Chinese nationality. It is a very old civilisation and a very great civilisation; it is very much older than ours. In some respects it is inferior, especially in military equipment. In others it is undoubtedly superior, and therefore we cannot treat this vast population so graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman as if it were a barbarous race on its road towards civilisation. That is not the case. What makes it still more difficult for us is that the alliance which we entered into with Japan upon perfectly equal terms has made a very great impression throughout the whole of the East, and when we are taking 49 Chinese cities and giving them no share in the government of those cities, whilst at the same time we are entering into an alliance with another race just across the water upon perfectly equal terms, you are bound to get all this agitation in China.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "we." I presume he means all the Powers external to China? I beg him not to use language which may be misunderstood.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I am speaking of "we" as part of the great external Powers. Here is another factor, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, which has been introduced in recent years. There is no doubt at all that the use which America has made of the Boxer indemnity is partly responsible. Although it was a beneficent one, no doubt initiated with the best intentions, it has had a disastrous effect in some respects in China. They have educated thousands of young Chinese in purely
  928
  Western ideas and given them a first rate American education. They have sent them back to China, where there is nothing for them to do which is adequate to the education which they have got. The result is they are not merely discontented themselves but they are becoming the leaders of discontent throughout the whole of China. That is one of the most serious facts in China, and I am only putting this point in order to urge very great caution so that we should not repeat the mistakes of the Opium War and the almost worse mistake of the Boxer repression. We must not merely repress but redress as well, and I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary has taken that line in the very powerful and clear statement he has made. He has by no means treated it as if the end of the matter were the use of force in order to punish people who riot. He regards it as a very much bigger question. He means to deal with the Chinese as a great friendly people.
  There is this great difference between the situation now and the situation in the Boxer days. Then you had all the Powers united, though with all humility, they might have made a much wiser job of it, but at any rate they were together. I do not know whether France has her difficulties. She has entanglements at the present moment, but I have no doubt she will come in, but Russia, which was in with the Powers then, is now hostile. Russia, which took a very great part then in this repression work with the rest of the Powers, is now putting the whole of her influence, the whole of her authority, and very possibly a good part of her equipment, on the side of one of the most difficult forces there is to deal with in China. There is this difference also. You then had to deal with disorganised mobs. The most striking part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was the statement that for the first time you have great armies in China—not armies equipped with antiquated weapons as they were in those days, and badly organised, but really formidable, well-drilled, well-equipped and rather well - led forces. Some-body who knew China told me that taking the forces in the aggregate you probably have a million armed men in China. That is quite a new thing, and you are dealing with the population

  929
  which is pacifist—which is opposed to war. I have been watching the accounts of these great battles in China, and there is nothing more striking than to see how when these forces come against each other, a few shells are fired, you think a great battle is going to take place, and it ends in a parley. [Interruption.] I do not say they are not brave. On the contrary, they are about the bravest race under the sun. There is not a race under the sun so fearless in the face of death as the Chinese. They will face even cruel death and torture. It is not that. It is undoubtedly the effect of the Buddhist religion which denounces war. But there is a Christian general there now. He has the energy, the initiative and the ideas of the West, and he is enforcing his Christian principles with great power and vigour. There is no doubt at all the Buddhist generals have a great reluctance to shed blood, but our Christian brother has not shown any of that reluctance, and no doubt he is a very formidable factor. Therefore, we are dealing with a situation where co-operation is more vital than ever. We do not want to get entangled in an isolated movement in China.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary emphasising the importance of that. We have great trade interests there, and, although as a rule these boycotts break down, still you do not want to make Great Britain more unpopular, or to concentrate the whole of the unpopularity, the whole of the national sentiment, the whole of the patriotic feeling of China against us. Make them feel that they are dealing with the whole world, and that the world is prepared to act in the spirit of the declaration which the Foreign Secretary has made, a declaration which means that the lives of the nationals of the various Powers will be protected, but that grievances will be redressed, that there will be an investigation, and, above all, that there will be an attempt to act with China, to make China friendly, and to bring her into the comradeship of nations, instead of repeating the follies of the past.
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the origin of these settlements in Shanghai, and for what reason the Chinese merchants and
  930
  coolies have occupied these settlements? Is it for their own security, or what?
  Mr. LOOKER: Anyone who has lived for many years in China, as I have had the honour and privilege of doing, would never have recognised, in the picture which the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, the Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Trevelyan) painted of the conditions existing: there to-day, anything which was in any sense similar to any conditions he had ever known. Not only was it not similar to any conditions I have ever known, but it was undoubtedly dissimilar to any conditions we are ever likely to know, and I could not help thinking, during the greater part of his address, of that old proverb that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He laid great stress on the fact that in Shanghai there is no popular basis on which the large Chinese community can vote. I think I can usefully inform the House of the conditions under which foreigners are allowed to live and exist and own property on the coast of China. I think the right hon. Gentleman forgot that Shanghai is a foreign settlement, and I think he forgot, if indeed he ever knew, that no foreigners are allowed to own land in China, and that when it became necessary to allow them to live in the vicinity of China, for the purpose of conducting that trade which China herself is only too anxious to conduct with them, it became necessary that she should create certain areas of land on which the foreigners could live and could own property. Those areas of land exist up and down the coasts of China and up the rivers, and they are known as coast ports and foreign settlements. They are under the entire jurisdiction of the foreign Powers who reside there, and they are under the jurisdiction of the regulations which are imposed by the representatives of the various nationalities living there, and unless they were under that unfettered jurisdiction it would be impossible for us who have to go out to China with our wives and children to be there in peace.
  10.0 P.M.
  I quite agree, and I think every sensible man who has been in China agrees, that it is desirable to have some Chinese representation upon the official bodies which, govern the lives of these foreign settlements. In Hongkong,

  931
  where exactly similar conditions prevail, and which is a British Colony, there are Chinese representatives appointed or nominated by the Government and the Chinese community, but it is impossible for them to be elected. There is, in all these foreign settlements, a vast shifting Chinese population, which comes and goes between the settlements and the mainland, and it would be impossible by any system you could devise to give these shifting Chinese elements any method by which they could vote for their representatives upon the international councils, and if they did you would at once undermine the security upon which all foreigners and their families live in those settlements.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not possible on these governing bodies that Chinese representatives might be co-opted, in the absence of a democratic system?
  Mr. LOOKER: That is the exact point which I have been endeavouring to make, if the hon. Member would do me the compliment of studying a little more carefully the remarks I am making. I think, myself, that the Shanghai Municipal Council, which contains many friends of mine, would be wise if it instituted at once some system under which Chinese representatives, representing the native Chinese in the foreign settlement, were nominated or co-opted to serve on that body with the other nationalities. The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate referred, I must confess considerably to my astonishment, and I think probably to the astonishment of every one who has any knowledge of China, to 49 Chinese cities under foreign domination, or supervision or authority, where no Chinese representation existed. Ever since he stated that number, I have been racking my brains with sums of addition to find out how he can possibly have reached that number of 49. There are foreign settlements up the Yangtse River and up the West River, there is one at Canton, and there are five or six along the coast, but, unless I am very gravely mistaken, the number does not come anywhere near the total of 49, and I should say that the places in China where foreign settlements exist and foreign jurisdiction is exercised do not exceed something like 15, or perhaps 20.
  932
  I will now deal with the question of extra-territoriality. I think the right hon. Gentleman forgot that, scattered throughout the length and breadth of China, are numerous families of his countrymen who are living in various conditions and sometimes in isolated places, where they may be at any time at the mercy of any uprising which takes place, and if he suggests for a moment that the rights, liberties, privileges and protection of these countrymen and women of his should rest solely upon native Chinese authorities, I can only say that he is striking a more severe blow at their lives and their security than any other blow he could possibly strike. The right hon. Gentleman made some comments on the fact that the mob whose attack on the police station led to the outbreak of this trouble was unarmed, and, in the sense that it did not possess guns, rifles or revolvers, I have no doubt it was unarmed, but if the right hon. Gentleman had ever faced an unarmed Chinese mob of that description, as once it has been my bad fortune to do, he would know that the prospects of serious trouble are very, very grave indeed, and if he has read the reports in the papers in the last few days, he will have seen that a similar unarmed mob made a very serious attack upon another station up the Yangtse, which similarly necessitated shots being fired to defend the lives of all those who were in the police station or in the settlement in which the attack took place.
  The causes of this present trouble in China do not arise, in my opinion, and in the opinion, I think, of any authority on China in this country, in the industrial conditions in the foreign mills or in the Chinese mills. As regards the foreign mills in Shanghai, the industrial conditions there are undoubtedly superior to anything prevailing in the native mills which exist throughout the length and breadth of China. I, personally, have been over various mills in Shanghai, and the remark which was made by one of the great authorities on China regarding the conditions of life in those mills, I can vouch for in my experience. Women and children come out of those mills happy and laughing, and they work there under conditions of which they are only too glad to take advantage. There has recently arrived in this country a gentleman who belongs to an honourable race beyond the

  933
  Tweed, in other words, he is a Scotsman, and he has just retired from the position of chairman of the municipal council in Shanghai. He is undoubtedly acquainted with all the conditions prevailing in these mills, and he has publicly stated that, to begin with, there are no men employed in the mills, because the men will not go there, but are employed in other capacities. It is chiefly the women who are employed, and they take their children there because they cannot leave them at home, and something must be done with them. They are only too glad to give them the opportunity of earning a little money if they can to help their parents, and also they are only too glad to see that their children are there under their own eyes, instead of being left at home, where they would not know what would happen to them.
  We have heard, too, this afternoon that the British mill-owners, and, I think, the foreign mill-owners, in Shanghai take whatever steps they can to prevent children, even under those conditions, from being brought into the mills too young. But it is a very difficult thing to ascertain the exact age of a Chinese child, and consequently the mill-owners have had to adopt the device of putting up a board outside the mills, and admitting no children whose heads do not touch the board. That is the only way they can impose some serious test as to the age of the children. I would remind the House that these mills have been in China and Shanghai for very many years, and if the awful conditions existed in them which we have been led to suspect from statements made in this country, there would have been a serious and genuine outcry, both European and Chinese, long ago against those conditions which are supposed to be such a blot on our civilisation.
  What the conditions are in the native Chinese mills outside the Settlement I cannot say, but I would remind the House that China is a very different country from this. Her idea of the conditions under which people should work may be very different from ours, but I believe the Chinese view is that if women insist on bringing their children into the mills at any age, they have no right to say they shall not do so. Who are they to deprive the parents from being accompanied by the children? The conditions in China
  934
  industrially have prevailed for hundreds of years, and the Chinese consider, rightly or wrongly, that they are matters in respect of which they ought not to be dictated to from outside, and I do not consider that it should be our province to attempt to do more than suggest to China where those conditions might be remedied, and not attempt in any way to impose conditions, however much we might believe in them, which she herself might not welcome or desire.
  I suppose that I myself may be taken as a fair sample of the ordinary Englishman who lives in China. Is it possible that we, who have lived out there many years, and countrymen of yours who are living out there now, would tolerate for a moment in any enterprise in which they are engaged, any conditions of labour, and particularly of child labour, like those we have heard so luridly described from the opposite Front Benches? I say to my hon. Friends opposite, not only is it not true, but that they know it is not type, and that they do not believe it. They know their countrymen, when they go out there bearing the white man's burden, as they do, largely for the benefit of the workmen of this country by the business they create, are not going to stand for any conditions for which they would not stand themselves, and I regard it as a slur on every white man who has ever been, or is, in China, that it should be suggested for a moment they are more callous or less humane than people at home. I can assure the House we do not change our feelings for humanity when we go abroad, and I can assure the House that the record of British intercourse with China is, as far as this aspect goes, a very honourable record. It is a record of suffering relieved, of disease cured, of the living conditions of the Chinese improved wherever we have come in contact with them, and you may go throughout the length and breadth of China, in the far interior or along the coast, and you will see hospitals, missionary stations, philanthropic institutions of all descriptions, and of all foreign nationalities, engaged in ministering to the ills, and relieving the diseases, of the Chinese, and there is no one more grateful than the Chinese people themselves.
  Nor does the root of the present trouble lie in the weakness of the present Chinese Government. No doubt the

  935
  Government could stop these demonstrations which are taking place if they chose to do so, and it could repress, if it desired, and if it had the power, those who are responsible for fomenting trouble, but the fact that it has not entirely done so is merely one feature in this question. The root cause of the discontent which exists in China to-day must be sought for in the natural and increasing desire of the Chinese nation, and particularly of its younger generation, to achieve a future for China free from foreign tutelage and leading strings, to see a strong, united, and independent China, taking her place, as she is potentially qualified to do, amongst the civilised countries of the world. That is a desire with which we ought not only to sympathise, but to encourage and to assist to the utmost of our power. I have already said that I think it would be wise for the Shanghai Municipal Council to co-opt Chinese members to sit on that body. I think it would also be wise if the British and foreign merchants throughout China recognised the spirit and determination of the Chinese people for a greater share in direct commercial intercourse with foreign countries.
  They are, in my judgment, bound to recognise that or else they will find that that intercourse takes place, perhaps, without them. I think that we as a nation do undoubtedly recognise this growing spirit in China. I think I may say without hesitation that as a nation we all welcome it. We should like to see it increased. We should like to see China progressive and powerful and in a position, as she can be, to handle her affairs with the confidence, not only of her own subject, but of the foreigner as well. When that day comes, there will be no one and no country which will congratulate her more sincerely than will Great Britain.
  To get back, however, to the actual situation in China, there are one or two things which, I think, it is very desirable that His Majesty's Government should do. They will, I have no doubt, first make it unmistakeably clear that we are determined to protect the lives and ensure the safety of the many British subjects in China, and, while recognising China's aspirations and her difficulties, will not
  936
  allow British lives and interests to be disregarded, and will not hesitate to take the firm and drastic measures that may be necessary, perhaps unfortunately, to achieve this end. It will also be necessary for the Government to let China know that while they are determined to take firm measures—if it becomes necessary—for the protection of our interests, that the Government is also determined to treat China with fairness and sincerity, and to mete out equitably and fairly the treatment upon which our contact with the native races with which we are connected is firmly based.
  There are two golden rules which it is essential should be observed by any nationality which comes in contact with Oriental races. Those two principles are fairness and firmness. So long as they are observed you will find you will have no difficulty with any race or any country you are brought into relations with, for it implies some sort of control and authority on your part. I think, too, that the Government should make it clear that they consider that it is the duty of the Chinese Government and the Chinese authorities to co-operate in putting down the existing agitation against the foreigner in China which, if steps are not taken firmly to check, may develop into a condition of affairs1 which everyone concerned may extremely and profoundly regret. I do not hesitate to say that any representations of the description which the Government may make to China will have the overwhelming support of the great mass of the peaceful subjects of China herself.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I really feel, after the speeches which have been delivered, that it is almost unnecessary to add anything to the Debate. The few brief hours that we have been able to devote to this subject to-night have been justified. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) will have the consolation that he has been able to elicit from the Foreign Secretary a very important statement regarding Government policy at a moment when, I think, most of us feel such a statement ought to have been made. At the same time, instead of some of the pessimistic prophecies that were made yesterday and the day before, when questions were being put about the, condition of China, that the House, instead

  937
  of showing a common mind on essentials would show a divided mind on essentials—instead of that pessimistic prophecy being fulfilled, I think the Debate has revealed a common purpose amid certain diversities in points of view, diversities in points of view which, instead of weakening, have strengthened the policy of this country. What we have found to-day is this. The position in China is not merely a police affair, it is not a riot, it is not a temporary disturbance, it is not a work of mere mischief-makers. If the House takes that view, I think the House is taking an exceedingly shallow and an exceedingly unwise view of the Chinese problem. Nor is it altogether and exclusively an industrial question. I think that is too narrow a view. I have never been in China, I admit, but since a very long time, when that most interesting, I think, perhaps, one of the most interesting of all the studies in Chinese civilisation, and naturally made by a Frenchman, M. Simon's book on China, appeared, I have followed, so far as a remotely situated man can follow, the general events in China. What impresses itself upon one more than anything else at the present moment is this, that China is now beginning a very critical process of transformation.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. MacDONALD: There never has been a country, there never has been a civilisation, that has begun a critical process of transformation that has not started, unfortunately, through disturbance and chaos, and there never has been a country that has helped that transforming country into health and sanity and order that has failed to see that at the moment when a firm hand should be put upon the developing country to prevent it from going to extremes and excesses, that firm hand must always be accompanied by a very generous and a very forgiving understanding.
  It is that combination upon which I shall touch briefly at the present moment. What has happened? Education on Western lines has been actively going on for a generation or more in China. That is one of the great contributions that the missionaries and the other educationists have been making to Chinese civilisation; but alongside of that has been going on an extraordinary and, to a very consider-
  938
  able extent, unnatural development of Chinese industry. I am sorry that I do not share 5 per cent. of the complacent views regarding industry in China that the hon. Member for South-Eastern Essex (Mr. Looker) expressed. Miss Anderson, who was one of the ablest factory inspectors we ever had, examined these things in China on the spot with a trained mind and intelligence, and acting with others, both British and Chinese, they have examined these matters and produced a report, and that report was not written by people like my right hon. Friend, who does not claim to have been in China. It was written by experts, by people associated with the Young Women's Christian Association, by people associated with various industrial welfare associations, not French, Russians or Chinese, but as good Scotsmen and Britishers as either my hon. Friend or myself. They produced a report, compared with which the hon. Member's speech was mere shallow gloss.
  The Foreign Secretary has just told us in his speech that he does associate himself with that report. I understand the despatch which he read is going to be published in a day or two, and that despatch declares that His Majesty's Government fully associate themselves with the British representative on the Shanghai Municipal Council. I understand that is the gentleman who did his best to secure a quorum, so that the Shanghai Municipal Council should of its own free will and in its own fullness of heart, put into operation the report which I have referred to, that is the report made by Miss Anderson and her colleagues. You have these extraordinarily dangerous conditions existing where there has been these industrial developments. There has been sweating of the very worst kind; the hours of labour have been disgracefully long and the wages are correspondingly disgracefully short. You have women working long hours and children working at six years of age, and you have a national university, for instance, at Pekin, you have this education movement, this movement of higher Western combined with higher Eastern culture, which is an explosive element; and you have all these circumstances, combined in recent industrial struggles, strikes, lock-outs, punishments, and so on, uniting the intelligentsia of China with the sweated working classes

  939
  of China. The result is what you had in Shanghai the other day, spreading to Hankow and so on.
  That is the situation which we have to face; but it is this extraordinary, characteristic complication of culture and spirituality on the one hand, and materialism and industry on the other, that we behold working in China, creating the great problem which this nation will, if it be wise, do its best to solve. I am very glad there is going to be a thorough inquiry into the whole case and I am very glad that there is to be co-operation. The very first question I put about this matter, two days ago, indicated that co-operation is necessary amongst the Powers. I hope we shall have in this respect, as in others, a very clear British policy—not merely an acquiescent policy, but a policy which will show China in the most emphatic way our desire to co-operate with her, our desire to encourage her, our desire to help her in every way that we can discover and that she herself can suggest.
  There is one more thing that I should like to say. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) talk about the necessity of getting a Chinese representative. I am sure the Foreign Secretary would congratulate himself most heartily if he could find that representative, if he could lay his finger upon him, and if he could get the conditions in China which would enable any single man, or any group of co-operating men, to act as representatives under those conditions. It is one of the great difficulties. It does not matter who sits at the Foreign Office, it is one of the tremendous difficulties that he will have to face—this difficulty in China. But do not let us for a moment claim that we are going to help China until we have changed the industrial conditions of China that have spread so largely from the industrial ports, where Western capitalism has taken a root and is doing so much damage at the present time to the physique and the moral of the Chinese people. I hope the result of the Debate has been to make it more plain than ever that this country is not going to join merely in any movement for coercing China, in any movement for merely punishing China: but that this country sees the problem of
  940
  China in its larger world relations, and that that is the problem we are going to keep steadily before our eyes.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the House will permit me to intervene for a few moments to say what it is hardly necessary to say—that, of course, I recognise the anxiety of the House to have a discussion on this subject, but that I would also desire to recognise the spirit of concord and general agreement which has prevailed in the discussion; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) have appealed to the Government—
  Mr. THURTLE: We have only heard the Front Bench.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope I may assume that they represent their colleagues. Whatever may be said about the facts and events in Shanghai, I would beg my countrymen to remember that the mills owned by our countrymen in Shanghai stand in the first flight—and when I say that they stand in the first flight, I express the facts moderately—and that these mills have adopted a resolution complying with the regulations limiting the employment of child labour.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: When?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot give the exact date, but before the month of April this year, at any rate. I am confident that we can count upon the help of our countrymen there to improve the conditions of labour. There is one other thing I want to say. It is really an echo of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite near the conclusion of his speech, and a commentary on what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs earlier. If the efforts of the Powers to help China are to have any success or fruition, we need the help of China itself, and one of the greatest difficulties with which we are confronted is the disappearance of any authority which can really speak in the name of all China or can secure the execution of its decrees or its orders in China. There is nothing I should more desire than to find, as the right hon. Gentleman said,

  941
  a person or a group of persons who can speak in the name of a united China. When China co-operates with those who wish to help her by healing her own wounds, by ceasing civil war and by constituting a firm Government, I am sure that the relations of China with the rest of the world will rapidly improve and that she will be in a fair way to realise her aspirations.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: With reference to the statement the Foreign Secretary has just made, that the British controlled factories at Shanghai give a lead to all the other factories in China, it will be within the recollection of the House that a somewhat similar statement was made on the 15th of this month by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. But we can find no evidence whatever for that. I have here the "International Labour Review," published by the International Labour Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "MOSCOW!"] Moscow is not represented at all. If the hon. Member had the slightest knowledge of the subject he would never have made a silly interruption of that kind. I want to quote what appears in this magazine for December, 1924, regarding this alleged superiority on the part of the British-controlled mills in Shanghai. On page 1025 we read of the problem of how the new Regulations are to be enforced in China, dealing with child labour, and then this comment regarding Shanghai:
  "The Commission recommends that in the event of amended regulations being strictly enforced by the Chinese authorities in Kiangsu and Chekiang, the Council should seek power to enforce them within the limits of the foreign settlement of Shanghai."
  In other words, not until the Chinese authorities outside enforce these amended regulations shall the municipal authority in the foreign settlement at Shanghai be asked to apply these civilised conditions.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The British mills agreed to take steps to bring these regulations into force. It is obvious that the British controlled mills are very few. They are a minority of the whole number. The British mills have, in fact, got in advance of the recommendation the hon. Member is reading.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I am quoting from an official document.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is quoting from it, but I beg him to read it again, and he will then see that though he is quoting it, he is misunderstanding it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I am within the recollection of the House. I have already read it. The statement is definitely made that in the event of these amending regulations being strictly enforced by the Chinese authorities in certain parts of China, which are specified, the Council, that is, the Shanghai Council should seek powers to enforce them within the limits of the foreign settlement at Shanghai—then, and not till then.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is not reading the report when he says "then, and not till then." Whether or not the Regulation had been adopted in the Chinese factories, the British factories had agreed to adopt them.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: If the Foreign Secretary states, as a matter of fact, that in April of this year these Regulations were adopted at the foreign settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "The British mills!"]—without waiting for the Chinese authorities to enforce them outside, then, of course, I accept his statement. I cease to be surprised at anything I learn in this House, but I must confess to considerable amusement at the speech made by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker). He said that the condition of the child labour in these mills was a fortunate one. I am not sure whether he said that the children were happy, but I think he said that they laughed and that they were prosperous, and looked well. If that were true, if in these Shanghai mills the children looked so well, and if they were so happy, why should the Shanghai Municipal Council appoint a committee to inquire into the conditions in these mills, and bring in recommendations, and why should these comments appear on page 1017?
  "Fainting in hot weather is not uncommon."
  Colonel APPLIN: It is not uncommon here.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: You never worked there.
  Colonel APPLIN: I have been there.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I am trying to save them from you and your kind. The report proceeds:
  "The children are earning from 20 to 25 silver cents a day. In the main, they present a pitiable sight. Their physical condition is poor. Their faces are devoid of any expression of happiness or well-being. They appear to be miserable, both physically and mentally."
  Mr. LOOKER: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that when I referred to my own observations of what I saw in the mills at Shanghai, I was referring to the British mills. I did not visit the Chinese mills. May I also inform him that the time of my visit was the hottest period in Shanghai, and that my statement that the women and children looked happy when they were there, and going in and out of the mills, is a statement based on my own personal observations, which the hon. Member may think fit to challenge or not, exactly as he pleases.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I say that the Commission appointed by the Shanghai Municipal Council to inquire into the facts issued this report, and I have not been aware until to-night that its conclusions have been challenged, or that its facts have been denied in so far, at any rate, as the British mills are concerned.
  Mr. LOOKER: Is the hon. Member aware that the great majority of mills within the area of the foreign settlement in Shanghai are purely Chinese concerns?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: They are under the control, under the domination, under the flag that you support.
  Mr. LOOKER: No, it is an international settlement.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: We have been informed repeatedly that the Chinese have no rights of control in this foreign settlement, and we are told in this House that they ought to have no rights. This Shanghai area is controlled by an international group in which the Chinese have no share. My hon. Friend said that, for his part, he was prepared to have some Chinese nominated to the council, but up to now they have had no power, and the wrongs and tragedies in these mills cannot be blamed on the Chinese, but must be blamed on the authorities who are in control in Shanghai. And now as to these happy, prosperous children. Contractors are sent out to scour the
  944
  villages for them, and are paid for them. This report says, on page 1016:
  "These children are most miserably housed and fed. They receive no money and their conditions of life are practically those of slavery."
  This is not taken from Chinese newspapers. Moscow has nothing to do with it. We are responsible for it, as long as we refuse to allow the Chinese to govern themselves and their country in their own way. No one on this side would wish to say a word that would imperil the lives of any British subjects or any foreigners in China—far from it. But equally we will do nothing and say nothing to imperil the lives of any Chinaman in China. Our nationals go out there to exploit the Chinese people. Certain British capitalists have invested sums of money, reported to amount to £26,000,000, there. They do not go there for fun, nor for their health, nor for the scenery. They go out there for profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should they not?"] I listened to the Foreign Secretary to-night talking about restoration, reconstruction, regeneration and resurrection and all the rest of it as to what we were doing in China, and I thought of this £26,000,000 British capital going out there because these capitalists cannot get cheap labour here, and because they can exploit the poor Chinese labourer in a way in which they cannot exploit the British labourer.
  When the process goes further and the produce of these cheap labour mills begins to go into India and to prevent the produce of Lancashire factories going into India, as it did in times past, I think of the Lancashire factory worker walking the streets idle because his market has been taken away from him by the cheap sweated labour of China exploited fey British capital. Then when the process goes one step further the Government comes to this House and asks the Lancashire factory worker and the workers of this country to pay their share in taxation to finance a British Navy to go away to the Far East to protect the exploiters in their exploitation and further to degrade the Lancashire factory worker. That is a fact. We all know that foreign loans have been floated in this country by Messrs. Vickers. Why should Vickers, the armament factory owners, float a Chinese loan? They float a

  945
  Chinese loan—and the hon. Member who knows about Shanghai will probably be able to supply details which we do not possess—for exploiting the people. Where do the Christian general and others get their munitions? They get them supplied by British credit, some of it supported by the League of Nations. We supply those people with munitions of war. We keep them on fighting one another because only as we divide can we rule; keep them at one of our throats, and as they are kept at one another's throats, so certain cotton syndicates in this country can make a long run at 27 per cent. on watered capital. We are not content to allow the Chinese people to be exploited, and as a result of that exploitation our own nationals to be degraded, our unemployed to extend in numbers, and we ourselves to be additionally taxed in order to find munitions of war to protect these exploiters in their exploitation.
  While we think that every possible step ought to be taken to safeguard the lives of our nationals there, while we think every possible step should be taken to get our nationals down to the coast if they are in the danger zone, we are not prepared to pay one penny more to keep this exploitation system going in the Far East. We should clear out and leave the Chinese to run their own factories and their own business, trade with us in the ordinary way by exchange of goods, and, by doing so, we shall add to the strength, the might, and the power of the British people. We will give the Chinese fuller right to develop themselves industrially and economically and every other way. [An HON. MEMBER: "You cannot."] We will try it. We will give them a chance to develop themselves. We will increase the chances of peace, and we will never again have a situation such as we have heard of in this House to-night, where British subjects are risking their lives in a foreign city, in perils we do not know of, and financiers, living at a safe distance, exploit both the Chinese and the British at the same time.
  Sir ARTHUR CHURCHMAN: As one who has a little knowledge of China, having had business relations there, perhaps I might be allowed to make a few remarks. The hon. Member who has just sat down certainly surprised me very much when he seemed to suppose that the
  946
  encouragement of civil war in any country was a help to those foreign nations who wanted good business. I can assure him that one of the first things which is required if we want to do business with a country is that there should be peaceful conditions in that country. Something has been said to-night about the causes of this trouble It has been pretty clearly proved that the causes of the trouble in China to-day go back a very long way. I am inclined to think that they certainly go back to the year 1904, if not to an earlier date. I wonder whether Members of this House realise that until 1904 no Eastern nation had won a decisive victory over a European nation since the Greeks defeated the Persians in the battle of Marathon. The effect of an Eastern nation, which up to then had been looked upon by the Chinese as an inferior race, practically conquering, or at any rate bringing to a successful issue a war against, a nation like Russia, which had been looked upon as the most powerful nation by the Chinese, must have been very great on the Chinese idea of the prestige of European nations.
  With regard to the conditions in Chinese factories, I can speak with some knowledge. I have been into a number of factories in China, and although China is essentially in the first instance a great agricultural nation, it has always been to a large extent also a manufacturing nation. We must not forget that long before there was any attempt to exploit China by any European traders, there was a great trade in silk with China, and in many other things produced in that country in factories by the Chinese—small factories very often and nearly always dirty and ill-managed. I have visited Chinese silk factories and I can assure hon. Members that the conditions are in the main absolutely abominable. But those are Chinese factories. I have been in the Shanghai factories which are run by British companies, and I have seen conditions which would compare most favourably with the conditions in any factories in this country. I can certainly support what an hon. Friend said just now about child labour in the British factories in Shanghai. There is a very strong desire that there should be no child labour employed in British factories, and in those with which I have had something to do or have visited there is no child labour

  947
  in that sense. I can remember the Board under which people had to pass as an indication that they were of a certain age. I can remember one factory which was so well conducted, and the manager, an Englishman, was so well thought of by the Chinese people in the neighbourhood, that they would bring to him their disputes about land ownership and all sorts of things outside the factory management, because of their confidence in his justness and sense of fair play. I believe that wherever the British people go they take with them justice and honest dealing. While the conditions of affairs in China causes, naturally, the greatest alarm, we must remember that the British influence in China has always been great.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

COMMUNISTS.

  HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Mr. BATEY: I desire to utilise the short time available for the purpose of directing the attention of the House to a speech delivered last Saturday by the Home Secretary at Chatsworth. The part of the speech to which I take exception is this. The Home Secretary said:
  "Who was trying to prevent peace at the present time between the coal owners and the miners?"
  He answered that question by saying:
  "The Socialists and Communists."
  I am taking it for granted that this report is correct. I have seen, up to the present, no contradiction of it.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): May I now intervene on that point?
  Mr. BATEY: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to deny the accuracy of the report, he had better do so now.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not going to deny the report, I am only going to say that the "Sunday Times" is the only paper which reports the word "Socialism." If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading the whole speech—which I have read myself, though I do not always read my own speeches—he will find that there was a long attack on the National Minority movement and Communism. I am not going to say I did not use the word "Socialism," but I can only find it in one paper. With regard to Communism, and the National Minority movement, I am fully prepared to meet the hon. Member.
  Mr. BATEY: I first read the speech last Sunday in the "Sunday Times," but when I got the North Country papers on Monday I found the same statement, and not only the word "Communists," but "Socialists" appeared in the North Country papers, which circulate among the miners in the County of Durham.
  I would like to ask the Home Secretary to give us the grounds for that statement. He says he is not sure that he did not use the word Socialists, but whether he did or did not, I am going to bracket the two words, Socialists and Communists, together and ask him to give us the grounds why he made the statement that either Socialists or Communists are trying to prevent peace at the present time between the coalowners and the miners. I know he may say that Mr. Cook, the Secretary of the Miners' Federation, delivers speeches that he does not like, but the Home Secretary cannot rise to-night and give any proof that even Mr. Cook is trying to prevent peace between the coal-owners and the miners. As a matter of fact, he is engaged in very delicate negotiations with the coalowners, and there is no man, in my opinion, who is striving. harder to keep the peace than is Mr. Cook. The Home Secretary cannot read into that answer any one particular person. It meant more than one, and I think he should tell us, and be frank with us, of any Socialists or any Communists—there is one in front of me who never hesitates to say he is a Communist—either inside this House or outside, who are trying to prevent peace at the present time between the coalowners and the miners.
  One has to remember this—and it is perhaps this recollection that makes us so anxious to deal with remarks like

  949
  these—that this speech of the Home Secretary was delivered at a political meeting, where there would be the regular adherents of the Conservative party, wealthy men and wealthy women. In fact, the whole of the audience at Chatsworth would be wealthy men and wealthy women, and I want to say this, that, having heard that statement of the Home Secretary, they would say at once that the statement was true. They heard what the Home Secretary said, and whatever other people might say, they would think that the statement of the Home Secretary was true, because the Home Secretary made it. My experience has taught me that there is nothing that can compare with the colossal ignorance of the wealthy classes of this country on industrial questions, and, knowing that, we are extremely anxious that no prominent member of the Government shall go to a political meeting and make a statement that we believe to be so untrue.
  I think the Home Secretary ought to have remembered when he was dealing with the question of miners and coal-owners, that the present National Agreement ends at the end of June, when either the coalowners or the miners can give a month's notice to terminate that Agreement, and he ought to have remembered that just at the present time it is in the balance as to whether or not that Agreement will be renewed. That fact ought to have prevented the right hon. Gentleman from butting in and interfering in such a delicate question. If there is an industry in this country at the present time that needs peace, it is the coal industry. There is not an industry suffering like the coal industry at the present time, and there is no industry that ought to be helped more by Members either on this side or the other side. I would, therefore, ask the Home Secretary to-night to prove his statement, or else be frank and withdraw it. I say there is not an atom of truth in it.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for having given me the opportunity of amplifying the statement I made the other day at Chatsworth. I think I know an audience well enough to be able to say that in that audience there were a large number of working-class people, trade unionists among them. When I
  950
  mentioned the names of several leaders of the Labour party, with, if I may say so, approval with regard to their conduct in the matter, such names as those of the right hon. Members for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald), Platting (Mr. Clynes) and Derby (Mr. Thomas), their names were received with cheers. The whole speech was to support leaders of the Labour party to come to a settlement on labour questions, and against the Red propaganda emanating from Moscow in conjunction with the National Minority Movement in this country. That was the object of the speech.
  The hon. Member has asked me for evidence. Let me state exactly the position. The Red International Labour Unions passed a Resolution at the third World's Congress of the Red International in July, 1924, as follows:
  "The opposition in the British labour movement is led by adherents of the Red International of Labour Union. In certain regions (South Wales) our adherents are in the majority."
  I am quoting from documents which I am bound to take as representing the views of the National Minority Movement.
  "The work of the opposition is closely connected with the Communist party."
  A conference was held at Battersea Town Hall of the British Minority Movement and the Red International and Labour Union on 23rd August, 1924, and at that conference one of the main resolutions passed was in favour of forming one Revolutionary Trade Union International, and they said the International Minority Movement shall elect delegates to attend the conference of the Red International at Moscow. The National Minority Movement was then constituted. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW many were there?"] There were 267 of them there, and at the last conference this year there were 590. Men are named who carry a certain amount of weight, I will not say in the trade union world, but in the Communist world, at all events—the President of the Executive Committee, Mr. Tom Mann, the General Secretary, Mr. Harold Pollitt, and others to whom I will refer in a minute. The declared objects, further on, of this Minority Movement were against the present tendency towards false social peace and class collaboration, and the delusion of a peaceful transition from capitalism to Socialism. I said at Chatsworth quite de-

  951
  finitely, that if the Socialists can by argument or by a majority vote get a majority for their theories, they were perfectly entitled to do so. I said that openly and I say it again here. If by a majority of votes in this country they can transfer from a Capitalist to a Socialist system, they are perfectly entitled to do it. What I said they were not entitled to do was to do it by revolutionary methods. That body has maintained the closest relation with the International Labour Movement. The Miners' Minority Movement is a section of the National Minority Movement, the names of whose leaders I have just given, and these are their aims:
  "To carry on a wide agitation for the principles of the revolutionary class struggle and to work against the present tendency towards a false social peace and class collaboration and the delusion of a peaceful transition from Capitalism to Socialism."
  That is one of the quotations which I used there. I have no objection, if you can do it, to a peaceful transition from Capitalism to Socialism, but that is not the idea of the Miners' Minority Movement.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Would you mind telling us what connection the gentlemen whose names you read out have with the miners' members who are conducting the negotiations at the present time? That is the information which we want.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. I say that there are men in this country connected with Moscow who are deliberately trying to prevent the hon. Member himself carrying out the negotiations successfully.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: And I say that you are more dangerous in this connection than are the men at Moscow.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was hoping that the hon. Member would allow me to answer the questions that have been put to me by one of his colleagues.
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is what we are asking you to do.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The "Mine Worker" especially represents this particular movement. The hon. Gentleman may have nothing to do with it, but the paper is there pouring this out week by week, as it has been for months past, and doing its utmost to prevent friendship between the miner and the mineowner.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: The "Sunday Times" is owned by a South Wales coal-owner, and I have nothing to do with it.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On 21st February the "Mine Worker" wrote:
  "The demand for the 'Altogether' struggle is growing in all parts of the country. That is all to the good. But in war time is everything. Necessity knows no law and no sentimental attachment to the old leaders "—
  That is the leaders of the Labour party—
  "must be allowed to stand in the way."
  The "Mine Worker," in relation to the Conference at Blackpool in May, suggested that all the miners could do was to accept the decision, and resolve to carve a way out of the terrible situation for themselves.
  Mr. LAWSON: What has all this nonsense got to do with the matter?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The paper said that the great issue for the miners going to the conference must be nationalisation; and that means without compensation. [Interruption.] I am beginning to think that there are some Members of this House who might be quite willing to give me the necessary quotations from their own speeches. After the Blackpool Conference the "Mine Worker" dealt with the shortcomings and difficulties of the conference and of the decisions, and said it was black in a real sense and was the herald of "a rotten compromise and peaceful surrender." [Interruption.] That is not my statement. It is the statement of a paper that is issued by the National Minority Movement, and we are told now apparently that the National Minority Movement is friendly to a peaceful settlement between employer and employed.
  The gentlemen to whom I referred just now are Mr. Arthur Horner and Mr. Nat. Watkins, who are the heads of the miners' minority movement and who speak for them. [Interruption.] Whether they are large or small is not the point. The point is, I say I was justified in saying there were men in this country, and newspapers in this country, who were doing all they possibly could to prevent compromise between the employers and the employed in the mining industry. These two men issued a manifesto in the Blackpool Conference of 30th May.
  Mr. J. JONES: Are there only two?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are the leaders of the particular union, and they signed the manifesto on behalf of the union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not the union."] Well, the minority movement. They complain of
  "A policy of procrastination and postponement. A defeatist policy,"
  and declare the situation to be one
  "demanding immediate action."
  The manifesto calls for an active fighting policy, and says that the only party to gain by further delay will be the owners. Then there is the new conference which is to be held.
  This extract is from a much more important paper than the "Mine Worker"; it is from the "Workers' Weekly" of 4th June. This is what it says about the June conference, that is to take place, and has been taking place, this month, between the mineowners and the miners. The "Workers' Weekly," which has at least a substantial circulation throughout the country, says:
  "The June conference must prepare to mobilise the whole power of the working class, so that if the various sectional demands that have been made by the workers are refused the organisations can be prepared to carry out mass strike action."
  There is another paper besides the "Workers' Weekly." But before I deal with that I want to refer to another copy of the "Workers' Weekly," in February this year, calling upon the unions to organise a stoppage of work in support of their respective demands, and to give each other a guarantee to remain out on strike until the demands have all been conceded, and to bring pressure to bear upon their officials in favour of a Committee of Action.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify his speech, and not give us all these extracts?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These are the justifications I said that there was a body of Communist opinion which was definitely doing its best to prevent peace in the labour world.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir Robert Home) is going about the country making statements without knowledge, having nothing to do with the negotiations, making statements which are intended to
  954
  prejudice the public against any settlement being arrived at. Why do not the Government deal with the men on their own side? I can give the House any number of names. [Interruption.] You are evidently amongst them.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It really is not any use the hon. Member being angry. I am challenged, and I am giving the information which I think and hope the country will believe to-morrow is ample justification for the statement I have made, and which I shall make again—that there is a distinct effort being made by the extreme Communist party here, in touch with the Communist party in Moscow, to prevent peace in the labour world.
  Mr. LUNN: I am not at all angry with the right hon. Gentleman, but is it right that one in the position of Home Secretary should, instead of trying to foster peace, endeavour to defend a movement of this kind by such quotations as we have been listening to to-night? After the speech of the Prime Minister, asking that there should be peace in our time, and considering the delicacy of this question at the present moment, would he not have been better employed in encouraging some sort of peaceful settlement, than in trying to foster the position which he has been endeavouring to do? [Interruption.]
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has appealed to me, and I think it is perfectly justifiable for hon. Members to ask me to justify my speech, and I was prepared to come down and do so. I do, however, ask hon. Members to read the whole of that speech, because it has an appeal for peace in the labour world. I have a very great objection to the efforts of the Communist party in this country, and I think I am quite entitled to hold that view. I made an appeal to the trade unions not to be led aside by the Communist element.
  Mr. LUNN: We are not.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know you are not, but there is a large number likely to be influenced by speeches of that kind.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I point out that only a few days ago the London Trades Council decided to affiliate with the Minority Movement, and that the

  955
  Home Secretary is quite right in saying that the Minority Movement is gaining great importance in the trade union world? [Interruption.]
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I need give much more justification of my speech. I trust that the miners will abide by the wishes and leading of the senior members of the Labour party and will disregard what the hon. Member has just said. I should like to say, in conclusion, that I did appeal to them to back up those leaders of the Labour party whom I mentioned by name in my speech, and I appealed to the trade unions. I appeal now to the trade unions of this country to stand by their tried leaders. They and I hold different views on
  956
  political questions, but I met, the other day, the leaders of the Trade Union Congress at the Home Office, where we were for nearly two hours discussing together in amity and friendship various matters of a non-political character, and on many points we were able to arrive at conclusions which I hope were satisfactory. My appeal is to the Labour party to abide by the leadership of their well-tried leaders, and not to be influenced by people like the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) and others who are directly controlled by the Minority Movement.
  It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MATERNITY MORTALITY.
  MATERNITY MORTALITY.
  CANCER AND TUBERCULOSIS.
  CANCER AND TUBERCULOSIS.
  PUBLIC EDUCATION IN HEALTH.
  PUBLIC EDUCATION IN HEALTH.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION (RETURNS).
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION (RETURNS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  HOUSING (ASBESTOS TILES AND CONCRETE).
  HOUSING (ASBESTOS TILES AND CONCRETE).
  TANGIER.
  TANGIER.
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (AEROPLANES).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (AEROPLANES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  MALTA (SHORE RIG).
  MALTA (SHORE RIG).
  EMIGRATION AGENTS.
  EMIGRATION AGENTS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PARENT'S PENSIONS.
  PARENT'S PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. CLUTTERBUCK).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. CLUTTERBUCK).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (E. GOREING).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (E. GOREING).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. HOGAN).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. HOGAN).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  INSPECTOR OF TAXES, BRIGHTON.
  INSPECTOR OF TAXES, BRIGHTON.
  ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS.
  TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS.
  ENLISTMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION (RE-INSTATEMENT).
  ENLISTMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION (RE-INSTATEMENT).
INDIA.
  PRISONERS (RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS).
  PRISONERS (RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS).
  RIFFI (MEDICAL RELIEF).
  RIFFI (MEDICAL RELIEF).
EDUCATION.
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
  WHITWORTH FOUNDATION.
  WHITWORTH FOUNDATION.
  KING'S COLLEGE.
  KING'S COLLEGE.
  PROPOSED SECURITY PACT.
  PROPOSED SECURITY PACT.
  PARLIAMENT ACT.
  PARLIAMENT ACT.
  OFFICIAL RECEIVERS, LINCOLNSHIRE (CLERKS' PENSIONS).
  OFFICIAL RECEIVERS, LINCOLNSHIRE (CLERKS' PENSIONS).
FINANCE BILL.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  SILK DUTY.
  SILK DUTY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON ORE (IMPORTS).
  IRON ORE (IMPORTS).
  MALTING BARLEY (IMPORTS).
  MALTING BARLEY (IMPORTS).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  BRITISH ARMY (BARRACK WARDENS).
  BRITISH ARMY (BARRACK WARDENS).
  CHARITIES (SALARIED COLLECTORS).
  CHARITIES (SALARIED COLLECTORS).
  POLICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES (COMMITTEE).
  POLICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES (COMMITTEE).
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER.
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to establish a national library in Scotland on the foundation of the library gifted for that purpose by the Faculty of Advocates, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow Corporation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION (TRANSPORT, ETC.) BILL.
Read 2a.
KILMARNOCK GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment of 49 & 50 vict. c.27.s.5 with respect to the custody and maintenance of infants.
(3) No such order, whether for custody or maintenance, shall be enforceable and no liability thereunder shall accrue while the mother resides with the father, and any such order shall cease to have effect if for a period of three months after it is made the mother of the infant continues to reside with the father.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "six months" for "three months. "The noble Lord said: The clause as it stands provides that when an order, either for custody or maintenance, has been made, it shall not be enforceable while the mother continues to reside with the father, and shall cease to have effect if, for a period of three months after it is made, the mother continues to reside with the father. My Amendment is to substitute six months for three months. This is very earnestly desired by people who have gone into these matters very carefully, and they consider that six months will be much more advantageous for both parties. It will give the father a longer opportunity in which to show any amendment he may make in his conduct, and also, perhaps, to alter any unreasonable attitude that he may have adopted. It will also give the mother an opportunity of trying to remain with the father and keeping the family together, rather than at once, within the short period of three months, having to leave her home and, possibly, take the children with her. As I say, those who have studied the homes of the poor feel that, particularly in the family interest, this Amendment would be of advantage.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it his duty to press this Amendment. It is connected with the provision, a novel provision, con-

661
tained in this Bill which permits an order for custody of children and for maintenance to be made while the father and mother are still living together in one house. The Bill, which was framed in this way after considerable discussion last year and I think somewhat by way of compromise between two opposing views, provides than an order so made while the parents are living together shall drop unless they actually separate within three months after the order is made. My noble friend desires to substitute six months for three. I venture to suggest to him and to those who agree with him that that would not be a wise course to take.
Of course, if these orders are going to be obtained simply by way of threat to the father—something to be kept hanging over his head for a time, to be hung up so to speak, over the mantelpiece in the house until he mends his ways—a long period might be desirable. But I think the intention of the House was that those orders should only be applied for when there was a real desire to have custody—custody under a separate roof and maintenance connected with the custody—and that they should not he applied for simply as a threat. The purpose of the clause, from that point of view, is that a wife shall not be bound to leave her home until she knows that she will have that custody and the means for keeping the children after they have left the house with her. If that is the real intention of the Bill, I think that three months is quite enough. The intention to leave has been formed before the order has been obtained, and three months is ample time in which to carry out that intention. I entirely recognise the benevolent purpose of the noble Lord, but I hope that he will think on the whole that he need not insist upon this Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: In view of the Lord Chancellor's statement of the matter, I do not think I can press the Amendment, although a good many people do not agree with the view that it would be best to have such a short period.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Consents required to marriage of infants.
9.—(1) The consent required to the marriage of an infant, in the case of a marriage
662
intended to be solemnized or contracted on the issue of any certificate by a superintendent registrar whether by licence or without licence, shall be that of the persons or person mentioned in the Schedule to this Act:
Provided that—

(a) if the superintendent registrar is satisfied that the consent of any person whose consent is so required cannot be obtained by reason of absence or inaccessibility or by reason of his being under any disability, the necessity for the consent of that person shall be dispensed with, it there is any other person whose consent is also required; and if the consent of no other person is required, the Registrar-General may dispense with the necessity of obtaining any consent, or the court may, on application being made, consent to the marriage, and the consent of the court so given shall have the same effect as if it had been given by the person whose consent cannot be so obtained;

(b) if any person whose consent is required refuses his consent, the court may, on application being made, consent to the marriage, and the consent of the court so given shall have the same effect as if it had been given by the person whose consent is so refused.

LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to marriages intended to be solemnized on the issue of a licence by an ecclesiastical authority having power to issue such a licence, with the substitution of references to that authority for references to the superintendent registrar, and with the substitution of a reference to the Vicar-General of the Archbishop of the Province for the reference to the Registrar-General."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is one to which I referred on the Second Reading. It touches no controversial matter and is facultative as far as it goes. The clause, which deals with the consent of parents to marriage, contemplates the intervention of the superintendent registrar in case of civil marriage and contemplates marriage by banns, but as it is drawn it does not contemplate the other form of ecclesiastical marriage, marriage by licence. A body of Chancellors of dioceses called my attention to this as an old Chancellor of a diocese and I drafted an Amendment, which has been recast by the advisers of

663
the Government and which, I understand, in the form in which it now stands will be accepted by His Majesty's Government. I hope it will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that this Amendment does fill a lacuna

SCHEDULE.
Consents required to the Marriage of an Infant

11. WHERE THE INFANT IS ILLEGITIMATE

Circumtances.

Person whose consent is required.

If the mother of the infant is alive

The mother, or if she has by order of the court been deprived of the custody of the infant the person to whom the custody of the infant has been committed by order of the court.

If the mother of the infant is dead

The guardian appointed by the mother

LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved to omit Part II of the Schedule. The noble Lord said: Part II of the Schedule provides that it shall be necessary for the mother of an illegitimate infant to give her consent to its marriage. By the law, so far as I can ascertain it, the mother of an illegitimate child is not the legal guardian of the child and no one's consent is required to its marriage. Therefore this Bill, which by the Preamble professes merely to put the sexes on an equality, proposes by this Part of the Schedule to confer upon women a right which has never been possessed either by men or by women. So much for the legal side of the question. As regards its social side, it often happens that the charge of illegitimate children is undertaken either by the father or by some charitable organisation, and in those cases it does seem to me to be undesirable that the mother should be recognised as the legal guardian.
Amendment moved—
Schedule, page 8, leave out lines 38 to 47.—(Lord Raglan.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope that the Government will not assent to this Amendment. The very purpose of the Bill is that where the mother, although a mother of an illegitimate child, is a proper person to look after the child, she shall be given the duty of looking after it. If she is not fit to look after it, then there is provision for the custody being
664
in the Bill and I am indebted to my noble and learned friend for calling attention to the matter. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
taken away and handed over to a guardian. It is clear that the person who is most likely to look after the welfare of the infant is the mother, if the mother is fit to do it, or the guardian if she is not fit to do it. But to strike that out seems to me to be going back on what is, in substance, the principle of the Bill. We are here dealing with the interests of children primarily. Somebody has to look after them. We are saying that the mother of an illegitimate child may, in the circumstances, be the best person to look after the child. She may not; in that case the Bill makes provision for somebody to take her place, but one or other should surely be the person to give the assent which is in question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree with the view taken by the noble and learned Viscount. The purpose of this part of the Schedule is not to give new rights to the mother, but to give new protection to the children. It is true that as things stand to-day the illegitimate child is not protected in this way—that is, by its being necessary to procure the consent of its mother to its marriage—and the result has been that illegitimate children, not having that protection, have from time to time been victimised. I have made inquiries and I have been told that from Departmental experience it appears to be the fact that young and illegitimate girls especially

665
need protection in this respect. That being so, I hope that the Bill will be adhered to and that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendments of principal Act as to grounds on which orders may be made.
1.—(1) An application by a married woman for an order or orders under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act. 1895, as amended by any subsequent enactment (which Act as so amended is hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) on the ground of cruelty or neglect by her husband, may be made notwithstanding that the cruelty or neglect complained of has not caused her to leave and live separately and apart from him, and accordingly the words "and shall by such cruelty or neglect have caused her to leave and live separately and apart from him "in Section four of that Act are hereby repealed.
(2) Amongst the grounds on which a married woman may apply for an order or orders under the principal Act there shall be included the following grounds—

(a) that her husband has been guilty of persistent cruelty to her children;

(b) that her husband has compelled her to submit herself to prostitution.

Where the husband has, in the opinion of the court, been guilty of such conduct as was likely to result and has resulted in her submitting herself to prostitution, he shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be deemed to have compelled her so to submit herself.
(3) Amongst the grounds on which a married man may apply for an order or orders under the principal Act there shall be included the ground that his wife has been guilty of persistent cruelty to his children.
(4) No order made under the principal Act shill ho enforceable and no liability shall accrue under any such order whilst the
666
married woman with respect to whom the order was made resides with her husband.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after paragraph (b) in subsection (2), to insert the following new paragraph:— "(c) That her husband has committed adultery." The noble Earl said: I have an Amendment on page 1, line 24, to insert a new paragraph and a consequential Amendment in the similar paragraph applying to women. I do not know, but I think some of your Lordships will learn with some surprise, as I certainly did, that although these judicial separations can be granted for all sorts of minor reasons. they cannot be granted for adultery. I do not know what is supposed to be the reason of that, unless it is thought that that particular offence can only be triable by the High Court, Yet it clearly cannot be because it is regarded as a less grave offence than habitual drunkenness or cruelty; but there must be, I take it, some historical reason of that kind.
I see that the noble lord who is President of the Divorce Court is in his place and I hope that he will not say that an issue of this sort cannot be tried by the magistrates. This issue is, in fact, tried, and has to be tried, by the magistrates when it is raised as a defence in connection with other portions of this Bill. Magistrates are already called upon to try this particular issue. It is true, of course, that this Bill is not primarily a Matrimonial Bill. It is primarily a Bill intended for the protection of the spouses and the children, although incidentally it deals with a new matrimonial offence, which it creates. On what logical ground you should give a judicial separation to the parties for a great many less serious offences and should deny it for the offence of adultery, I confess I am quite unable to understand. It may be that the husband of a working woman has a mistress living, we will say, a few doors off, and it may be that he spends a. large part of his earnings upon her and yet is riot an habitual drunkard and, as he does not bring her into his house, he is not guilty legally of cruelty to his wife. None the less he is putting the wife in an impossible position and the only remedy she has at present is to go to the High Court for either a judicial separation or, if she likes, a complete divorce.
I should have thought that those of your Lordships who were opposed to divorce would really prefer this provision, which gives her a minor, and I think an unsatisfactory, remedy of separation in cases of this sort. But I really cannot see, and I shall be glad to learn from the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill or from any other noble Lord, what ground there is for excluding this matter from the cognisance of the magistrate. I have already suggested that it is not beyond his competence and that he tries the issue now. If you allow these judicial separations to be granted as, unfortunately, they are granted with great freedom to the number of many thousands every year by the magistrates, you must include this cause among the others. It seems most unreasonable to exclude that and to require the expensive and cumbersome procedure of the High Court—a procedure so expensive and cumbersome that, in effect, it is not open to the poor—to be followed under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after "prostitution" insert the following new paragraph:—("(c) That her husband has committed adultery").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl has raised a point which I am sure he feels to be one which might give rise to considerable controversy. As he very frankly said, this is not a Bill intended to deal with divorce or with matrimonial offences in the ordinary sense, or with the Marriage Laws, or to make any fundamental change in the jurisdiction of the various Courts. It is the fact that until now the power to grant either divorce or judicial separation on the ground of adultery has been exercisable only by the High Court. Until recently those orders could only be made in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court sitting in London. Recently power has been given to the Judges of Assize in certain towns to deal with claims for divorce or judicial separation, and facilities have been given for permitting certain formal steps to be taken out of London. It still remains true that the power to grant a judicial separation on the ground of adultery is the function of the High Court.
The proposal here is to give the justices of petty sessions the right to investigate
668
the serious charge of adultery, an investigation which often requires very detailed and experienced inquiry, to enable justices to make that inquiry and to grant a separation on that ground. That is a new thing and a course which, I think, should not be adopted without a great deal of thought. It is true that in connection with some of the provisions of this Bill and the existing Act justices must enquire whether adultery has been committed—in this sense, that they may have to consider whether adultery is a ground for the discharge of an order which they have made. But as the law now stands they have no right to entertain a claim for separation on that serious ground, and I do not think your Lordships' House or Parliament would be disposed to give them that right. There is no doubt whatever that if this Amendment were introduced into the Bill as passed in another place it would give rise to serious controversy and might interfere with the fortunes of the Bill. I am sure that is not what the noble Earl desires, and upon the whole I venture to recommend the House not to introduce such a serious change into the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have been in two minds about this point, but on the whole I am disposed to agree with the noble and learned Viscount opposite. It is true that Parliament has decided to make the adultery of the husband a ground for the dissolution of the marriage. That is divorce, and that is one thing. But that is not the thing with which we are dealing. When a divorce takes place it takes place on the footing that what has been done is a repudiation of the whole marriage, and the whole marriage is brought to an end. In this Bill we are dealing with a very different class of case. We are dealing with cases in which the wife finds that the behaviour of the husband is so intolerable that what she desires is to get a separation order or some provision which will make her life a reasonable one.
I should entirely agree with my noble friend behind me (Earl Russell) that if a man keeps another woman a few doors off, or in some very prominent place, that would be a very grave matter which would deserve serious consideration, but he does not limit his Amendment to that; he does not give the magistrates any dis-

669
cretion. The wife is entitled to proceed even if there is the smallest aberration from the Seventh Commandment on the part of the husband. It may be the most casual thing, and what I am afraid of is that if you insert this provision into a Bill which is put together for the purpose of giving some protection for the home, you are opening the door for a great many cases set up by the wife who is dissatisfied or ill-tempered and who may take advantage of some small casual aberration, which has not practically made much difference to the home, for the purpose of going to the magistrates and saying: "I am entitled as a right to have a judicial separation from my husband."
She is entitled to something if he has repudiated the marriage by adultery. She is entitled to divorce, no doubt. Divorce is a more costly thing to get than a separation of this kind, but divorce is the remedy that is adapted to the case, and I am by no means satisfied that a separation order of this kind would be adapted to the case. Therefore, I am inclined to doubt very much whether it is wise to put into a Bill, the purpose of which is only to afford a partial remedy, a case which is really one for the larger remedy and not one for the minor provision.
LORD MERRIVALE: I agree absolutely with what has just been said by the noble and learned Viscount opposite. The function of that branch of the law which is dealt with by this Bill is to protect women in their homes, to protect the home, to give the wife remedies for what really are of the nature of police offences: and the law as it is administered by the magistrate—administered, as the noble Earl has said, with very numerous applications every year—has, in a broad way, that effect and also, I think, it does not tend at the present time, at any rate it does not generally or seriously tend, to the breaking up of the homes. But there is at the present time, and it becomes more marked as certain tendencies develop, a disposition on the part of spouses of a certain class to find offences, or at any rate to allege offences, in order to break up the home and to obtain maintenance without discharge of the marital obligations.
My first fear about the proposal of the noble Earl is that that very mischievous
670
and anti-social tendency would be directly encouraged by his proposal. The kind of evidence upon which adultery is suspected and upon which it is sometimes proved is, of course, of the most various description. The magistrates would be embarked on an inquiry which in contested cases would be an exceedingly difficult class of inquiry and would be embarked upon it on these conditions—that any finding of adultery which they might make would not be conclusive and that it would be open to the spouse against whom adultery had been found to go at once to the High Court. He could go under the Poor Persons Rules and have the case tried out, very possibly with the result of setting aside such an order as the noble Earl seeks.
The noble Earl, I think, has not given due effect to that part of this clause which enables a married woman to apply to justices for an order such as he proposes and to give her the right to apply for it while she is still living in the matrimonial home with the husband. Just fancy, if your Lordships will, a state of things in which a woman who is living in her husband's home goes to magistrates to make a charge of adultery with more or less of foundation for it, with the project, apparently, of continuing to live in his home but to discharge no duties, and to be given a magisterial order for maintenance! There is an element of burlesque in it. I know the noble Earl sincerely desires to benefit that class of the population to which his intended remedial measure is directed, but I really think that this proposal, quite apart from the question of whether you should tinker with the Divorce Law in little, casual ways of this kind, would, on the whole, have principally mischievous effects.
EARL RUSSELL: I was going to say that I was unable to follow the logic of the two noble and learned Lords who spoke first, and I fear that I must now say the logic of all three noble and learned Lords who have spoken. To take, first, the last point made by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, he says there is an element of burlesque in applying for this remedy while the wife is living with her husband in the case of simple adultery. If that is so, look at paragraph (b). There is surely still more an element of burlesque

671
in continuing to live with the husband when he has compelled her to submit herself to prostitution, which is one of the grounds for separation put forward by her. Of course, I am naturally impressed by the weight of opinion, but I cannot honestly follow the logic.
You have here this issue already triable by justices. Your Lordships will notice that under Clause 2, the justices are able to discharge an order if the Woman has committed an act of adultery. They therefore have to try that issue as it is, so that it cannot be said they are unable to try these things. I confess I did not follow the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he suggested that some different kind, or at least I thought he suggested some different kind, of proof was required in a negative case of that sort than in a positive case of applying for a separation. The proof must, of course, be proof in either case, and proper proof.
LORD MERRIVALE: I do not know if I might tell the noble Earl, as a matter of personal experience, how it operates. Very often there are clear cases where a married woman has obtained an order for maintenance, and has been guilty of adultery, and there is no question about it, and it is obvious to everybody that the order ought to be set aside. It can be set aside by justices, and that is the mode in which the present power of adjudication. operates, but immediately a question arises where there is a serious conflict the question finds its way into the High Court, and the issue of adultery, where there is a grave question between the parties, so far as my experience goes is by one process or another inevitably decided in the High Court.
EARL RUSSELL: But I think I am right, subject to correction by the noble and learned Lord opposite, in saying that in all these cases you can have an appeal to the High Court on these issues so far as they involve the question of matrimonial offence or judicial separation. I was going on to say, apart from the capacity of the justices, that you have also here an offence which, in nine cases out of ten, is perfectly simple and straightforward and easy to prove. So far as I can understand the argument used, it was that these very frivolous cases might be less likely to be brought.
672
I think there is something to be said for that, because if it were to cost a person a matter of £10 £15, or whatever it costs to go to Assizes, instead of the few shillings that it costs to go to the magistrates, that circumstance would have some effect. But I do not follow the logical reason for exclusion. It is clear, however, that the weight of legal opinion, including that of the noble and learned Viscount on the Front Bench opposite, is against me, and, therefore, I feel that there is nothing left for me but to withdraw this Amendment, and also the next one which is consequential.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, at the end of subsection (4):—" And any such order shall cease to have effect if for a period of six months after it is made the married woman continues to reside with her husband. "The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment in order to make the same principle apply to this Bill as to the Bill which your Lordships have just passed through Committee, but in view of what the Lord Chancellor said on the question of six months and three months, I ask leave to amend my Amendment and make the period three months instead of six months.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("And any such order shall cease to have effect if for a period of three months after it is made the married woman continues to reside with her husband.").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had intended to move an Amendment of this kind myself with a period of three months in it. Unfortunately, the form of the Amendment did not reach me in time to put it down for to-day, and it, therefore, does not appear on the Paper. However, I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment in, the form which the noble Lord has adopted, but I should like to add this, that I am not quite sure that I shall not have to ask the House on Report to alter the exact place in which this provision is found. I will consider that between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to move, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 5 of principal Act.
".To the provisions which may be made by an Order or Orders under Section five of the principal Act shall be added:
(f) A provision declaring the person in whose favour the order is made to be the tenant of the premises where both husband and wife have heretofore resided:
Provided:—

(1) That no such provision shall be made without the consent of the landlord notified in writing to the court;

(2) That nothing herein contained shall affect the landlord's right upon any lawful ground to recover possession of his premises from the person declared by the court to be his tenant:

(g) A provision that the property of the husband or wife in the furniture (being furniture in the home in which the husband and wife have cohabited), or such part thereof as may be ordered, may be transferred to and vested in the other spouse and that all the rights of the husband or wife thereafter to such furniture or part thereof shall cease and determine."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is, perhaps, a little complicated. Before moving it I think I ought to say that I do not wish it to be supposed that I like this Bill itself at all. On genera! principles I am opposed to any extension of judicial separations. I regard them as inflicting a great evil and danger on the community, and in all these cases I am in favour of complete divorce. But the principle has been accepted for a good many years and this is merely one of a series of measures which give magistrates jurisdiction. This Bill also does a very curious thing, which has been referred to already. It enables a judicial separation to be obtained by a spouse who continues to reside with the other spouse. It is a curious thing for a wife to be living with her husband with what is really a pistol in her pocket, Which she can pull out at any time during a period of three or six months, or whatever the time might be; and I should have thought that such a condition of things was not likely to conduce to domestic harmony. But I am told that the reasons for this Bill are so strong that this Government, and successive Governments, have thought it desirable to make some provision of this sort. If such a provision is to be made it is well that it should be as complete as possible.
The excuse, of course, for this legislation is the extreme difficulty of the position of a wife who has to put herself in the streets before she can make her application. She has to make herself homeless, and if she wishes to take her children with her, she has to make them homeless, too. This Bill is intended to get over that difficulty. But when the order has been granted and is about to become effective, further difficulties will arise of exactly the same character, as to where one or other of the spouses is to reside. The two spouses have occupied one house and they are going to be separated. Clearly only one of these spouses can continue to occupy the house. The Amendment I am moving provides that the magistrates shall have power to say which spouse is to be the tenant of the house. It seems a strong thing to give magistrates power of dealing with questions relating to the tenure of land, but these would be weekly tenancies, and the order is only to be made with the consent in writing of the landlord. Therefore, the landlord, necessarily, will be in favour of the course that is taken.
You have two people here, and one, the husband, is guilty, say, of habitual drunkenness. The landlord has his way of getting rid of the husband by giving him notice, getting him out of the house, not an easy process in these days, and not by any means necessarily effective. Then, after the lapse of the necessary weeks and months, he could reinstate the wife as the tenant. Is it not reasonable that you should give an opportunity to the magistrates to say which is to occupy the home, provided the landlord agrees? It simply means shortening the period for an ejeetment order. The magistrate has the facts before him. He knows which party has the greater merits. The landlord also has the facts before him, and if he agrees as to which party he prefers to take as his weekly tenant it is reasonable to give the magistrate this power. They may make an order, but they are not hound to make an order.
The Amendment; says—
"A provision declaring the person in whose favour the order is made to be the tenant of the premises where both husband and wife have heretofore resided:
Provided:—

(1) That no such provision shall be made without the consent of the landlord notified in writing to the Court;

675

(2) That nothing herein contained shall affect the landlord's right upon any lawful ground to recover possession of his premises from the person declared by the court to be his tenant."

The landlord's rights are not infringed in any way. He has this second protection in proviso (2). This is a practical question and one which arises in the lives of the poor. I cannot see that you are doing much harm by giving magistrates power to decide which shall be the tenant instead of leaving it for the landlord to turn out his tenant by a long and legal process. Let me add that, in order to safeguard an Amendment by Lord Askwith, I am only moving my Amendment down to the end of proviso (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 5 of principal Act.
(". To the provisions which may be made by an Order or Orders under Section five of the principal Act shall be added:
(f) A provision declaring the person in whose favour the order is made to be the tenant of the premises where both husband and wife have heretofore resided:—
Provided:—

(1) That no such provision shall be made without the consent of the landlord notified in writing to the court;

(2) That nothing herein contained shall affect the landlord's right upon any lawful ground to recover possession of his premises from the person declared by the court to be his tenant:—(Earl Russell.)

LORD MERRIVALE: I have very grave doubts whether it is wise to interfere with the general law of property upon the notional view of its giving assistance to married people who cannot get on together. The cases in which these questions arise under the class of Acts of Parliament under consideration here range over a very large area of the population. They arise very often between people of substantial means. You may have business premises, or workshops, or property of one sort and another, changed in title by an arrangement between a complaining spouse and the landlord of the premises, quite regardless of the common law rights of the other party. You get the rights of property of a man or woman varied because of a matrimonial quarrel on the supposition that they will find
676
difficulty in obtaining some other accommodation. In eleven cases out of twelve, in forty-nine cases out of fifty, before people resort to the magistrates they cease to be living together, and I think it would be a mistaken thing to put such a power in the hands of the justices and occupy them with questions which go far outside any of the police considerations which are properly involved in this class of legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The proposal is that, where a case Is made for an order for separation and maintenance, the wife shall be able not only to obtain such an order, and with it, of course, an allowance of a substantial amount, but also, if the justices think fit, to turn her husband out of the house where he lives and compel him to go where he can, thus disposing of his property in the tenancy, with the consent of the landlord, in favour of his complaining wife. That sort of power for magistrates to transfer property from one person to another at their absolute discretion is quite new and, I think, very undesirable. You would have the case of a husband turned out and then, perhaps, they would agree that the order should he rescinded, and he would have to be put in again. But really the whole thing is needless, because the Act gives power to the magistrates to order an allowance to be made to the wife up to 40 s. a week, which is no doubt estimated on the basis that it will be enough to enable the wife to find lodgings elsewhere and, with the help of that weekly sum and an additional allowance of 10 s. a week for each child, to maintain herself and the children whom she takes with her. I think it would be monstrous to add to the Bill a power for the court to turn a man out of the house to which he is legally entitled and to transfer his tenancy to his wife.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 5 of principal Act.
". To the provisions which may be made by an Order or Orders under Section five of the principal Act shall he added:
(f) A provision that the property of the husband or wife in the furniture

677
(being furniture in the home in which the husband and wife have cohabited) or such part thereof as may be ordered shall be transferred to and vested in the other spouse and that all the rights of the husband and wife thereafter to such furniture or part thereof shall cease and determine."
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, will dangle the rights of property before me with regard to this particular clause. I think I can understand that a man should not be put out of his house, but I think the question of furniture and its distribution rests upon a different principle. I may point out that the proposal in the Amendment is optional. It leaves it to the magistrates to decide to whom the property should belong. It adds a provision—
"that the property of the husband or wife in the furniture (being furniture in the home in which the husband and wife have cohabited) or such part thereof as may be ordered shall be transferred to and vested in the other spouse and that all the rights of the husband and wife thereafter to such furniture or part thereof shall cease and determine."
In addition to the powers being optional, it was well said in another place that this is a Bill to establish the economic position of woman.
Most of the people to whom the Bill will apply are people of small means of livelihood, and their furniture has either been purchased before marriage jointly, nobody perhaps knowing to whom the property belongs, or it has been in course of being paid for under a hire purchase system, largely by the savings of the wife. Hire purchase and bills of sale would, of course, be taken notice of by the magistrate in deciding the matter. I would further point out that this is done continually every day in court by agreement of one side or the other to go to the court missionary for a decision in a matter, or by the magistrates' suggestion that somebody should settle to whom the property belongs.
A woman being turned out or leaving with her children is put in a very difficult position if she has only this meagre allowance, with which she has no opportunity of buying furniture, when possibly a. considerable portion of that furniture may justly be hers, even including the
678
bed on which her children might sleep. The man, being angry, no doubt, at the woman leaving him, and with the keen interest in keeping as much as he can that so frequently characterises an angry man, would perhaps cling to the property without allowing her to have any. In order to avoid red tape and that a fair division of the income or property of the two parties may be settled at one and the same step, I suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment is reasonable, since it does not imply any new principle and does not and cannot affect the rights of property in any adverse way, n view of the fact that it is optional for the magistrates to decide how the furniture shall be divided.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL Or ARRAN: I venture to rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. I know that, technically, in nearly all working class houses the furniture belongs to the husband, but I think that in reality, if the case is further examined, the wife really has just as great a moral claim. Probably in most cases the money which has either gone to purchase this furniture or to pay the instalments which the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, mentioned has been provided by the husband, but in reality, when one comes to look fairly at the subject, the money has been just as much earned by the wife of the working man. I yield to no one in my admiration of the hard work which the working man does, but there is someone who works a. great deal harder than the working man and that is the working woman, the wife of the working man, because, to paraphrase the poem of the Poet Laureate, her work begins God knows when and her work is never through, and if it were not for the part which she takes in the domestic side of her establishment I do not think that the working man would be able to earn the money which has gone, to buy the property. I hope that the noble Lord will press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Before the noble and learned Viscount answers, I would ask him to give us some information about the effect of this proposed Amendment. The transfer from one person to another of movable property

679
which remains in the apparent possession of the persons concerned is one of those things with which the law has concerned itself, and with which Parliament has concerned itself, in the most stringent fashion. We have already struck at hills of sale and prevented them from being effective unless they are registered, and we have also made a great deal of bankruptcy law by Statute dealing with furniture in the apparent order and disposition of the persons concerned. We have put, in other words, every obstacle we can in the way of deviation from the principle that apparent possession carries the property in the case of movable goods, such as furniture and so on.
But now a new mode of transfer is, perhaps to be introduced by a magistrate's order. I wonder what shopkeepers will say who sell furniture on the terms of part payment, and I wonder how it will affect all those transactions which are involved generally in the furnishing of very humble properties, and a variety of other transactions which will be affected by this arrangement. What I am anxious to make sure of is that this has been considered before we adopt the principle, because, if not, I feel pretty certain that an Amendment which will no doubt do good, but very little good, will do a very large amount of evil by way of the confusion which it will introduce. I would ask the Lord Chancellor if he can give the Committee some information upon this subject which will enable us to come with clear minds and good consciences to a decision.
LORD MERRIVALE: When my noble friend the Lord Chancellor answers the noble and learned Viscount opposite, I would ask him at the same time to say whether he has became aware of any urgent necessity for legislation of this kind with regard to property in furniture. The noble Lord said that in the normal course, if the question arises before the magistrates, the magistrates refer the parties in dispute to the court missionary, and they come, if they can, to some rational settlement. It they cannot come to a settlement, and because they cannot come to a settlement, is it conceivable that you should alter the whole law of property with regard to furniture in order to deal with possibly in infinitesimal class of cases? I suppose there are some cases of which my noble
680
friend has heard, but I have never heard of a case where practical difficulty has arisen.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I am quite unable to discuss the legal bearings of this Amendment, but I can answer the question which has been raised by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down I can assure him, from my own practical experience in a very large working-class district, that the kind of difficulty which this Amendment is intended to meet does arise in actual practice, not on very rare occasions—I hardly like to say frequently, but by no means rarely. I can think of cases where a separation order ought to have been applied for, where I used my influence in the strongest way to induce the woman, for her own safety, to apply for a separation order, and I can remember receiving the answer: "If I apply for a separation order, if I go out of this house, I do not merely lose my home but I lose the furniture." In the minds of working people this is a very serious consideration, and it does stand, at any rate occasionally, tin the way of their applying for a separation order, which certainly would be a real advantage to the woman.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in dealing with this Amendment I should like to enter a protest against the assumption of the noble Lord who moved it that the purpose of this Bill is to establish the economic position of women. Really that is not the purpose of this Bill. If we were going to do that we should have to consider all kinds of questions. The only purpose of the Bill is to simplify and fortify the law under which magistrates may make orders for separation in matrimonial quarrels, and for the maintenance of the wife. Secondly, I want to make it clear that if any part of the property in the house belongs to the wife she can take it away without any special order. The only purpose of the proposal is that the bench shall have power to "transfer" (I think that is the word) furniture belonging to the husband to his wife—to transfer his property to her, so that, if she pleases, she may take it away and leave her husband with an empty house.
I quite see that the position of a wife to whom her husband has behaved badly, and whom he has compelled to apply for

681
an order of separation, does arouse sympathy, and I quite feel the force of what the right rev. Prelate has just said, but still we ought to keep level heads in a matter of this kind, and see what the policy of Parliament hitherto has been. It has been to allow an order to be made for separation, and fur a weekly allowance sufficient to maintain the wife in furnished rooms, with her children, until she finds some other home. If the husband's furniture is to be given to her, what is going to happen? Ex hypothesi she has no house to which to take it. Nothing of that kind is provided for. The magistrate is empowered to transfer to her either the whole of the husband's furniture or part of it, and how is he to do that without seeing the furniture and considering who shall be entitled to the bed, and who shall have the chairs, and making some kind of arbitrary division between the two?
Then there is the point mentioned by the noble Viscount. Much of this furniture is either hired, or subject to a bill of sale. The person from whom the furniture is hired depends upon the husband's capacity for earning money for the instalments of the purchase money, and if, before the instalments have all been paid, the furniture is handed over to the wife, who has no means, necessarily the security is gone, and I do not know what the position would be of the seller of the furniture. He depends upon the husband for payment, and if the furniture goes his substantial security goes with it. As to what would be the legal effect of an order of this kind upon the ownership of the furniture, I think the noble and learned Viscount opposite is quite as competent to say as I am. If he finds it difficult to explain, I find the same difficulty.
I wish to say one other thing. I am bound to say that I think these orders for separation, if too freely given, are apt to do some harm, and I say that with the support of passages in the Report of Lord Gorell's Commission with which most of us are familiar. I think it is to be hoped that in most of these cases the wife will, after a time, be able to go back to her husband. If you are going to strip and break up the home, and allow the wife to take away, and probably sell, the furniture, you remove any chance of an early reconciliation and resumption of cohabitation,
682
which is, I think, the end to which one has to look. I think it is a pity to turn to these new experiments. I think it is better to adhere to the law which has been administered for a long time, with such amendments as are already contained in the Bill, and I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will not press his proposal in this Amendment, for I think it would really cause more trouble, and give rise to more controversy, than it is worth.
EARL RUSSELL: There is clearly, I venture to think, a much stronger case for this Amendment than for some of the others. It does not, to begin with, interfere with the sacred law of real property, which has exercised the mind of noble Lords opposite.
LORD MERRIVALE: Personal property.
EARL RUSSELL: Personal property, yes. It may not be drawn up with those precautions and provisoes which may be necessary, but it is perfectly easy on a future occasion to exclude furniture on which there is a bill of sale, and which has not been fully paid for. I think, however, that your Lordships have not all appreciated what are the practical facts and difficulties. It is the fact that the furniture in a small working-class dwelling stands nominally in the name of the husband, and probably is his legal property, and it has very often been bought with the help of contributions by the wife before marriage, and you cannot say so easily: "This is her bed," or "This is her table, because she bought it," but she may have contributed £15 to the husband's £30 for the purchase of the furniture, and she really has herself paid for part of it. There ought, perhaps, to be words in this Amendment, which are not there now, saying that the magistrate should make the division on some equitable principle. I rather agree that, as The Amendment stands, there is no arrangement for that, but the magistrate is to exercise his discretion, which he is very well able to do.
When I adumbrated these Amendments on Second Reading I said that some of them rather did put the magistrate in the position of a cadi sitting under a tree, and doing rough-and-ready justice, but I have had the opportunity since

683
then of discussing this particular Amendment with a learned Stipendiary who sits in a poor part of London, and he tells me that he would find no difficulty in administering an Amendment of this sort. In fact, extra-legally he does do something of the sort very frequently through the court missionary, and, when there is a sort of half claim by the wife, the court missionary makes some arrangement between the parties which saves trouble. That is very desirable, but it cannot be enforced where you have a cantankerous husband. If it is equitable, however, surely it is desirable to do it legally, and the only question is whether it is practicable.
Your Lordships have probably received, in common with the rest of us, a defence of these proposals, and I see that, on this particular proposal, there is a paragraph which says:—
"We have consulted with many magistrates and police court clerks in this matter, and find that they are of opinion that the proposal is both practicable and desirable."
I can only claim personally to have consulted one, who happens to be a personal friend of mine. But I think the proposal really is practicable. It might be well to limit it to small amounts, if your Lordships would like, under £50 or £60. But what is your alternative? Your alternative, if there is an equitable claim, is a county court action, a very expensive and troublesome proceeding. Cannot the House depend on the magistrate to exercise this paternal jurisdiction quite reasonably?
The proposal is novel, I agree, but this Bill is somewhat novel. It has some peculiar provisions, which run contrary to the general ideas of the law, as it has been administered hitherto. If we are going to pass it, I think we may as well do all we can to make it workable, and I think this is one of the things that will help a great deal. Really, what you are going to do is to give legal sanction to what is the practice in the best police courts now, and is carried out sometimes unofficially by the court missionary. If the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment presses it to a Division I shall be very glad to vote with him. I sincerely hope that he will, because I do not think, without more reason than we have heard
684
against it, that we ought to be told that it cannot be done. Reasonable safeguards, if you like, could be put in at a later stage, but the principle seems sound, and I hope your Lordships will assent to it, remembering that we are not dealing with homes, as we understand them, but with collections of furniture, worth altogether £40 or £50, some of which does equitably belong to the other spouse.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the whole discussion, and I must say that the arguments brought against this Amendment do not convince me at all. The opponents of the Amendment do not seem to understand the lives of the poor, because so many of their illustrations seem to me to be drawn from a different class of life. Take this question of the furniture on hire or under a bill of sale. Where there is such furniture surely it can be left to the intelligence of the magistrate to make a reasonable division, and to take that into account. I hope that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will press it to a Division, and if he does I shall vote with him. If the actual language used requires improvement an Amendment can be made on Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl made a new proposal altogether. His remarks were directed to this view, that where the property belonged partly to the husband and partly to the wife the justices shall have the power to determine that question in a summary way. That, of course, is a wholly different thing, because he would determine it according to rights and equities. It is quite right that he should have the authority to do that, and if either the noble Lord who moved the Amendment or the noble Earl will, on the Report stage, propose a clause to that effect I will give it my very careful consideration. But this is something quite different. It is a transference of property from A. to B. on the ground that there is a case for a separation between two married people who cannot get on. I hope that the House will not establish a precedent by passing a provision of this kind. I will only add this with regard to the statement that some magistrates have approved of the clause:

685
of course, the Government have been in consultation with magistrates of great experience, and their view is that the clause is neither desirable nor workable.
EARL RUSSELL: I hesitate, very much to accept the offer of the noble and learned Viscount to bring up a new clause on Report. I would very much rather
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2:
Amendment of s. 7 of principal Act.
2. Section seven of the principal Act (which provides, amongst other things, that if a married woman, upon whose application an order has been made under that Act, shall commit an act of adultery, such order shall upon proof thereof be discharged) shall hare effect as though at the end thereof the following provisoes were inserted:—
"Provided that the court may, if the court think fit—

"(a) refuse to discharge the order if, in the opinion of the court, such act of adultery as aforesaid was conduced to by the failure of the husband to make such payments as in the opinion of the court he was able to make under the order; and

"(b) in the event of the order being discharged, make a new order that the legal custody of the children of the marriage shall continue to be committed to the wife, and that the husband shall pay to the wife or to any officer of the court or third person on her behalf, a weekly sum not exceeding ten shillings for the maintenance of each such child. In making such an order the court shall have regard primarily to the interests of the children."

Provided further that if any married woman upon whose application an order shall have been made under this Act or the principal Act, or either of them, shall voluntarily resume cohabitation with her husband, such order shall be deemed to be discharged
have this clause put in now, and let the Lord Chancellor put in the necessary safeguards; we should be quite willing to accept them.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Morris, L.

De La Warr, E.

Olivier, L.

Eldon, E.

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore. L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Strachie, L.

Emmott, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gorell, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Danesfort, L.

Haldane, V.

Lawrence, L.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Merrivale, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Raglan, L.

Clarendon. E. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Plymouth, E.

from the date of such cohabitation and the last sentence of section seven of the principal Act so far as it relates to proof of resumption of cohabitation is hereby repealed. A discharge of such an order shall not operate so as to confer any right in the husband to recover any moneys paid or purporting to be paid under such order either before or after such discharge.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out of paragraph (a) "such payments as in the opinion of the court he was able," and to insert "any payments which he was required." The noble Earl said: The first proviso to Clause 2 of the Bill says:—
"Provided that the court may, if the court think fit refuse to discharge the order if, in the opinion of the court, such act of adultery as aforesaid was conduced to by the failure of the husband to make such payments as in the opinion of the court he was able to make under the order.…"
My Amendment is to leave out from "to make" to "able" and to insert "any payments which he was required." Your Lordships will notice that as the Bill now stands the husband's payments need not be the payments which the court ordered him to make. He need only make such payments as, in the opinion of the court, he was able to make. The suggestion is that the adultery might be conduced to equally well by the failure to receive the money which was ordered to be paid as by the husband's failure to provide money because, in the opinion of the

687
court, he was not then able to do so. Presumably, when the order was made they considered he was able to do so and it is thought right that he should not be excused unless he has, in fact, made the payments which he was required to make. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 21 and 22, leave out from ("make") in line 21 to ("to") in line 22, and insert ("Any payments which he was required").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of the clause is that if a married woman who has obtained an order for a separation afterwards commits adultery while she is separated from her husband the order may be discharged. That is the existing Act. It is proposed by the Bill that the court may refuse to discharge the order in the case of adultery if, in the opinion of the court, the adultery was conduced to by the failure of the husband to make such payments as, in the opinion of the court, he was able to make under the order. In other words, if the husband is able to pay a separation allowance and refuses to do so and that is held by the court to conduce to the wife's act of adultery, then the order need not be discharged.
What the noble Earl proposes is something altogether different. It is that if the husband cannot make the payments, if he has no means out of which to make the payments for maintenance, then he is deemed, by his mere inability to pay, to have conduced to his wife's adultery. Anything more unjust or unfair I cannot possibly conceive. A man may be out of work, he may be a cripple, he may be sick, and he may be unable to make the payments required by the court; and because of that he is to be deemed to have conduced to his wife's adultery, the order need not be rescinded, his wife may continue in adultery receiving what her husband can pay, enforcing the order against him whenever she can, and he has no further remedy at all. Such a proposal is conducive to adultery, and I think it is most undesirable to make this change in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (b), to substitute "twenty shillings" for "ten shillings." The noble Lord said: I understand that my noble friend Earl Russell wishes me to move this Amendment, which has the object of substituting 20s. for 108. so as to bring the figure to the same as that which occurs in the Affiliation Act. I understand that my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie moved that alteration to that Act and that your Lordships' House agreed to it. The increased sum would allow of a reasonable maintenance for a child, and I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the law as it exists a husband is entitled to have the order discharged if the wife commits adultery, on the ground, I suppose, that the husband is not to be required to maintain his wife who is living in adultery. The Bill does not alter that principle, but it takes note of the fact that in some cases it may be in the interests of the children that they should remain with their mother. Accordingly, the Bill provides that when an order is discharged on the ground of her misconduct the justices may let the children continue in her care, and order an allowance to be paid to her, not for her maintenance, but for the children's maintenance. The allowance so provided is the same allowance which is provided in the ordinary separation and maintenance order. It is 10s. a week towards the maintenance of the child, and, on the assumption which the Bill makes that the wife in these conditions will be maintaining herself or will be otherwise maintained, the order for 10s. a week is held to be a sufficient sum. The noble Lord proposes to raise that to 20s. a week.
I am not sure whether he realises what that means. It would mean, in many cases, that, notwithstanding the adultery, the wife is getting just the same allowance as she had under the original order. Take the maximum figure. Originally she was getting 40 s. a week. She may have had four children, for whom she was getting another 40 s. a week. That makes a total of £4. Under this provision she will, notwithstanding

689
her misconduct, be getting exactly the same sum, £4 a week. In some cases she might get more under this provision than she would get under the original order, and so be rewarded for her misconduct. I really think this proposal requires further consideration, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD ASKWITH: In view of the statement of the noble and learned Viscount, I do not propose to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:—
Power to order interim, payments where application respecting maintenance of married woman adjourned.
(".Where, on the hearing by justices of an application for an order of maintenance against the husband of a woman the justices have adjourned the case, they may order and direct that the husband do pay to an officer of the court or to a third person a weekly sum for the maintenance of the wife and any child or children in the custody of the wife until the hearing be continued, and so from time to time until the final determination of the case, and in the event of failure to make payment it is hereby declared that any sum due be recoverable as a civil debt by the court making such order.")
The noble Lord said: I have put this and the following Amendments on the Paper at the request of the county solicitor to the court of Quarter Sessions for the West Riding of Yorkshire. This matter was considered fully by the court of Quarter Sessions for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and as a result these proposals were unanimously adopted and sent to me by the county solicitor to bring before your Lordships. I am sure, therefore, they will receive due consideration at the hands of your Lordships. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, referring to another Amendment, suggested that separation orders were freely given. The object of my Amendment is to enable the justices, in cases where they think it ought to be done, to grant interim payments to the wife in a case where it is considered desirable there should be an adjournment. In the absence of this power they might be reluctant to adjourn cases because, in the meantime, there might be a grave
690
hardship upon the wife in being deprived of any allowance whatsoever. If they had this power to make an order provisionally, giving an allowance to the wife during the period of the adjournment, there would, no doubt, be many cases in which it would be desirable to exercise the power.
There are many cases in which it may be advisable not to come to a judicial decision at once. For example, there may be many cases in which, if an adjournment were made, the parties might come to a reconciliation. There are many districts in which the justices sit only at intervals of a fortnight, and if there is no business to do, the interval may very often extend to a month. In many of these cases, therefore, there would be a full fortnight, or it might be four weeks during which, if there was an adjournment, the wife would be getting nothing at all. Your Lordships will agree that it is very often desirable that these hasty applications made by a wife in a fit of temper or something of that kind should not be dealt with at once, but should be adjourned to give the parties an opportunity of thinking over the matter, and, if possible, of becoming reconciled. This provision would assist the justices in deciding to make an adjournment, and I understand that the justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire are anxious that they should have this power. I would point out to your Lordships that it is only a discretionary power.
In the absence of this power the wife would, during the adjournment period, be under a hardship. Moreover, if the husband had to pay maintenance in the interim it might have a good effect upon him. When he saw that an order had been made upon him, and that it was probable it would be enforced at the end of the adjournment if he did not come to a reconciliation, he might be more inclined to be reconciled; at any rate, it would very likely be an inducement to come to some arrangement. I am very glad to do this at the request of the justices of Yorkshire, because not long ago those of us who voted against Peeresses sitting in this House were told that we behaved badly in the matter of the interests of women. Of course, that statement was entirely wrong. I regret

691
that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who introduced the Bill to give seats in this House to Peeresses in their own rights, is not here to-day, as I should claim his support for my Amendment. No doubt he is more amusingly engaged elsewhere. In this particular instance we are supporting the interests of women. We are anxious to do what we can to see that justice is done to women, to see that they have proper treatment, and that no injustice or harm is done to them owing to the fact that they are not directly represented in this House.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD MERRIVALE: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies to what has been said by the noble Lord in moving the Amendment, I should like to say in his hearing that I think there is a good basis of sound sense under this proposal. It is a practical proposal. Justices have difficult cases before them, and very often are perplexed as to how they should meet the difficulty. At the present time, if they adjourn a case, although they may put pressure upon the husband if he is the alleged defaulter (as he usually is) to induce him to consent to some payment ad interim during the adjournment, they cannot make an order to that effect. A great many cases arise, I am sure, in which that power could be usefully exercised, and I do not think it would be abused. The noble Lord has, at the close of the Amendment, a provision as to enforcement of payments. I am inclined to think that that is a little cumbrous. It would be better, if there is an order, that it should be enforced in the manner in which payments under the Bill generally are directed to be enforced. With regard to the main proposal I think it very possible that it may require some safeguard in cases where, under cover of providing for an interim condition of things, the ultimate decision of the claim of the party alleging a grievance is postponed for an indefinite time. I think it would be desirable to insert a period to which the postponement of the operation of the interim order should be limited. Subject to that I must say I think there is good sense in the proposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I am rather attracted by this proposal,
692
but I would like to have an opportunity of consulting my right hon. friend who is responsible for this Bill in another place before saying that I will accept the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, and perhaps put it down again on the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime perhaps he would consider the points which have just been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale, and also consider this. It does occur to Me that this power should not be exercised where there is a short adjournment, say for a week or something of that kind, because you only complicate matters. Possibly it might be limited to cases where there is an adjournment for more than a week, but I do not at all put that forward as my final opinion. I would like the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, to consider that point with the others before the Report stage, and I would ask the House to deal with the matter then.
LORD STRACHIE: I should prefer to put this Amendment in now in order that it might be amended on the Report stage in the direction suggested by the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord behind him, but if the Lord Chancellor prefers not to do that, and is prepared to undertake to bring up a clause on Report, drafted on the lines he has suggested, I shall be quite satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will, of course, undertake to do that unless some objection is brought to my notice by the Department concerned. In that case I will communicate with the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Agreement as to maintenance of illegitimate child to be recorded.
".Where an agreement in writing has been entered into whereby any sum is payable by the putative father of an illegitimate child by weekly or other instalments for the maintenance of a child, a memorandum thereof may be sent by the parties thereto or one of them to the clerk to the justices who shall, on being satisfied as to its genuineness, record such memorandum in a special register, and thereupon the memorandum shall for all purposes be enforceable as if an affiliation order had been made by the justices:
Provided that no such memorandum shall he recorded before seven days after the

693
despatch by the clerk to the justices of notice to the parties interested:

(i) Where it appears to the clerk to the justices on any information which he considers sufficient, that an agreement as to the redemption of a weekly payment under an affiliation order by payment of a lump sum, ought not to be registered by reason of the inadequacy of such sum, he may refuse to record the memorandum of the agreement sent to him for registration, and refer the matter to the justices who shall make such order (including an order as to any sum already paid under the agreement) as under the circumstances they may think just;

(ii) An agreement as to redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum if not registered in accordance with this Act shall not, nor shall the payment of the sum payable under the agreement, exempt the person by whom the weekly payment is payable from liability to continue to make that weekly payment, nor shall the payment of the sum payable under the agreement exempt the person by whom the said sum is payable from liability to pay the same unless he proves that the failure to register was not due to any neglect or default or his part;

(iii) The payment of a sum in pursuance of any agreement whereof a memorandum has been registered may be enforced by the justices in the same manner as an order of affiliation may be enforced; and the justices shall have the like power of varying any such payments as they have in relation to an affiliation order."

The noble Lord said: I may be told that this is outside the scope of the Bill because it deals with unmarried mothers and that the Bill only deals with married women. But if it is outside the scope of the Bill it is quite easy for us to amend the title, as we have often done. The main object of the new clause is to give the same protection to unmarried women as to married women. Very often agreements are made between the mother of an illegitimate child and the putative father which are not enforceable in a court of summary jurisdiction. They can only be enforced in the county court, which is a cumbrous kind of machinery and rather more expensive. It might be said that the mother of an illegitimate child should apply for an affiliation order, but the reason she does not do so is obvious. Women do not like the torture
694
and disgrace of having to appear before a court of summary jurisdiction and, therefore, they enter into these agreements with the putative father. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of these women, who, I think, should be protected in these matters as far as possible.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This is asking your Lordships to go very far outside the scope of the present Bill and to deal with matters which have no connection with it. This is not a Bastardy Bill. It is a Separation and Maintenance Bill, and to attempt to bring into it matters relating to bastardy, which is always a subject that causes great controversy, is, I suggest, to go beyond the very indulgent practice which this House has adopted in a few other cases. I really do not feel in a position to criticise this new clause on its merits. It requires a great deal of careful consideration in relation to the Bastardy Acts, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD STRACHIE: After what the Lord Chancellor has said, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to say one word in regard to next Monday. An undertaking was given that the House should, as from Monday next, meet on Mondays after the Whitsuntide recess, but there being no business down for that day it is not proposed to call the House together. The principle, however, still remains, that we shall still sit on Mondays whenever there is any business to do.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think the course suggested by the noble Earl is right. We shall have to sit on Mondays as a rule, but as there is no business for next Monday I quite agree with the course he suggests.
[From Minutes of June 17.]

MONEYLENDERS BILL. [H.L.] MONEYLENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit.
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL. COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Committees to meet on Tuesday next.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Committed.
House adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Land Drainage (Black Sluice) Provisional Order.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7).

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9).

And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6).

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STATUTORY GAS COMPANIES (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWERS) BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(Lord Raglan.)