Sitting of 3 March 1925

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

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Glasgow Boundaries Bill (Sub stituted Bill).
  Paisley Burgh Extension Bill (Substituted Bill).
  PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second
  Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill. Slough Trading Company Bill.
  Bills committed.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of February, the Standing Orders which are. applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Imperial Institute Bill.
Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Mr. HANNON askedthe President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount due to British investors in respect of pre-War bonds of or guaranteed by the Russian Government, including interest in arrear; and what steps are being taken to enforce claims registered with the Russian Claims Department in respect of these obligations?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The capital amount of the pre-War bonds of, or guaranteed by, the Russian Government in respect of which claims have been lodged with the Russian Claims Department is about 26 million pounds in stering, and six million roubles in that currency. I cannot say what is the amount due on these bonds up to the present, under the terms of the original loan con. tracts. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 18th February by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Brightside.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DENMARK (BRITISH TRADE).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that our imports from Denmark last year were greater than those from any other European country except. France, whereas our exports to Denmark were less than a third of our imports from that country; and whether he has received any reports as to the reason why we fail to find a better market in a country of which we are such an excellent customer?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the large sum which is represented by our imports from Denmark, imports which consist almost exclusively of food products of animal origin. The imports into Denmark from all sources include considerable amounts of foodstuffs, fodder material and industrial raw materials which we are not in a posi-

    203
    tion to supply from our own production. I do not think that a special inquiry is necessary.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if any estimate has been made of the trade which passed in 1913 between what is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and what is now the Irish Free State; and, if so, if he can state the estimated figures for 1913 and the actual figures for 1924?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that it has not been found possible to make such an estimate as that indicated in the question.

    STEEL BARS (EXPORTS).
    Mr. DENNISONasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of steel bars of all kinds, other than rails and constructional material, exported in 1913 and 1924?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The exports of steel sheet bars and tinplate bars of United Kingdom manufacture registered during 1924 amounted to 1,229 tons. No exports of such bars were registered in the year 1913. Other descriptions of steel bars are not separately distinguished for the purposes of the trade returns but are included under the heading" Bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections—all other sorts."

    FOREIGN ORES.
    Mr. DENNISONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply the figures relating to the total amount of foreign ores imported for the purpose of making iron and steel during the past five years, respectively; and the amount of native ores used for the same purpose, specifying, if possible, the grades and quantities of ores?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer contains a number of figures, perhaps the hon. Member will agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following statement gives the information desired so far as particulars are available:

    Year

    Total Imports of Ore into the United Kingdon

    Iron Ore produced in the United Kingdom Iron the and retained for consumption. (Production less exports.)

    1920

    6,499,551

    12,675,575

    1921

    1,887,642

    3,468,950

    1922

    3,472,645

    6,831,847

    1923

    5,860,477

    10,872,082

    1924

    5,920,755

    11,050,000

    Prior to 1st April, 1923, the foregoing particulars relate to Great Britain and Ireland. From that date they relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.
    The figures take no account of the relatively small quantity of "purple ore" (residue of cupreous iron pyrites) imported or produced during the years specified.
    According to information collected by the Mines Department, the grading of home-produced iron ores in 1924 was approximately as follows:

    Kind of Ore.

    Tons.

    Average percentage Iron in the clean raw Mineral.

    Percent

    West Coast Hematite (non-phosphoric).

    1,051,000

    53

    Jurassic Ironstones (Cleveland, Frodingham and Midlands).

    9,407,000

    27

    Coal Measure Ironstones (Block band and Clay-Ironstones).

    501,000

    29

    Other Occurrences of Ironstone (Hematite, Brown Ore, etc.).

    93,000

    49

    Total

    11,052,000

    30

    Similar particulars respecting the various grades of imported ores are not available. It is, however, known that they are mainly hematite containing over 50 per cent. of metal.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis was the supplemental grant for reparation claims calculated; whether

    205
    the amount of the grant bore any relation to the amount claimed; and, if so, what?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer to the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government during the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment on 21st March last (col. 894 of the OFFICIAL REPORT). As to the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answers of 24th ultimo to the hon. Member for Southampton, copies of which I am sending him.
    Mr. THOMSON: In so far as the amount granted bore no relation to the justice of the claim, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not possible to supplement the amount now that the amount of the claims are known
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the hon. Member knows, that is a matter for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this matter I am only the paymaster of such sums as are provided by this House. Perhaps the hon. Member will address a question on this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the lines suggested?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman's view still the same as it was on the Supplementary Estimates?
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: As the right hon. Gentleman is the only Minister acquainted with the facts, is it not his duty, if he think well, to make representations to the Treasury?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. Several lien. Members rose
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. This is becoming a Debate.
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade how many claims for compensation have been lodged against Germany in the case of the masters, officers and crews of British ships which were seized in German ports before the official declaration of war; how
    206
    many of these claims have been settled; and what has been the nature of the settlements arrived at?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a long one, and I propose, if my hon. Friend will permit me, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. PETO: Why should not the answer be a very short one, namely, that only one such seaman has received any compensation at all?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; that would be quite an untrue answer.
    Following is the answer:
    Nine hundred and forty-seven of the masters, officers and crews of British vessels detained in Germany at the outbreak of war lodged claims with the Reparation Claims Department, practically all of which have been admitted against the £5,000,000. These claims were assessed at a total of £297,230, and payments have been made after scaling down in accordance with the First Report of the Royal Commission.
    In addition, 128 of such persons lodged belated claims practically all of which have been admitted against the £300,000. Those claims have been assessed at a total of £31,988 and, after scaling down in accordance with the First Report of the Royal Commission, the proper grants out of the £300,000 have been or will be paid to such claimants.
    Eight hundred and sixty-seven claims have also been lodged with the Clearing Office under Clause 4 of the Annex to Section IV of Part X of the Treaty of Versailles, by officers and men of 81 separate ships which were detained in German ports before the outbreak of the War. Two eases have been finally decided in favour of the claimants and two rejected. The basis of the favourable decisions was that the claimants were entitled to compensation for damage arising directly out of acts committed by the German authorities before the declaration of war, and, in the arbitrator's view, the measure of such damage was the loss of special wages and extra grants which the claimants would have received if they had been able to return to England and had remained in the employ of the respective steamship companies during the War. In four

    207
    other cases the question of principle has been decided in favour of the claimants, but the assessment of the compensation has been reserved for future decision. It has been arranged that in the particular case of loss of personal effects, any damage which would give rise to a claim under Article 297 shall in future be assessed by the arbitrator and not the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPWRECKED SEAMEN (WAGES).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Bill dealing with wages to shipwrecked seamen will be introduced; and whether it will deal with the point that shipwrecked seamen shall be paid their wages from the time of shipment until they reach a port in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill, which has passed Second Reading in another place, provides that shipwrecked seamen shall be entitled to wages, while unemployed, for a maximum period of two months.

    ATLANTIC SHIPPING RATES.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now received a copy of the Report upon Atlantic shipping rates, prepared at the instance of the Canadian Government, and which, inter alia, alleges discrimination by the Atlantic Shipping Conference of Shipowners against British ports in certain cases; if he is aware that the freight for settlers' effects from London to Montreal is 55s. per ton of 40 cubic feet, whereas the freight for settlers' effects from Antwerp to Montreal is only 355. per ton; and what action he is prepared to take to prevent freight rates being artificially raised?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen a copy of the Report to which the hon. Member refers, and I understand that the whole question of freight rates to Canada will shortly be investigated by a special Parliamentary Committee in Canada. I have not been able to find any confirmation of the difference in rates referred to in the question.
    Mr. DALTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that His Majesty's Government will co-operate with the Canadian Government in promoting inter-Imperial trade and in breaking the power of this combine?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is always the intention of the Government to develop inter-Imperial trade, but I should deprecate statements which are not susceptible of proof.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the information contained in the Report which has been quoted from the claim is made that the British Government should institute an inquiry in this country as to their charges or otherwise?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already informed the Canadian Government that if an investigation is desired before the Imperial Shipping Committee we should be only too glad to facilitate such an inquiry in every way in our power.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on page 25 of the Report, which I hold in my hand, there is detailed evidence of discrimination against British exporters to say nothing of Canadian exporters, and, under these circumstances will the right hon. Gentleman institute inquiries on his own behalf into these allegations?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member put a question to me and I made inquiries, and I stated in my answer that, as a result of the inquiries I have been able to make, I cannot find any confirmation of the statement that there are such discriminating rates on this side. [HON. MEMI3ERS: "Oh, Oh:"] Perhaps hon. Members will give me credit for having made inquiries and for having given, quite honestly, the information I have been able to obtain.

    HEALTH AND DISEASES.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to prepare and supply statistics regarding health, as apart from mortality, in the mercantile marine service; whether there is a medical officer in his office and a special department dealing with problems of health and diseases in the service; whether the classification of

    209
    diseases causing death issued by the Board of Trade can be brought into line with the more scientific classification adopted in the Royal Navy, and further information given regarding the population concerned, so that death rates may be calculated?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Questions relating to the health and diseases of merchant seamen are dealt with by the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade in consultation with the Ministry of Health. The Mercantile Marine Department has a staff of qualified medical officers. The question of modifying the classification of diseases in the statistics of the deaths of seamen issued by the Board of Trade is under consideration. As regards the preparation of statistics relating to the health, as apart from mortality, of merchant seamen, if the hon. Member will indicate more precisely the kind of statistics he has in mind, I will consider whether anything can be done.
    Mr. SMITH: I will undertake to send the right hon. Gentleman a list of what I want.
    Mr. SMITHfurther asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the transfer from the Board of Trade to the Minister of Health of all questions affecting the health of seamen?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The change which the hon. Member suggests would require legislation, and I do not think it is necessary or desirable. The Board of Trade is in close touch with the Ministry of Health on all matters affecting the health of seamen.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible for any analytically-minded person to get out the details as to the origin of and the diseases suffered by British seamen? Is he aware that in the Navy they have already done this to the satisfaction of the Navy, and will he agree to adopt the same system in regard to merchant seamen?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That side of the question put by the hon. Member had not been brought to my attention.

    MERCHAND SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government propose to introduce this Session any legislation amending the Merchant Shipping Acts?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill, which has passed Second Reading in another place, will amend the Merchant Shipping Acts in several particulars, in accordance with three International Labour Conventions. Further, a Bill will shortly be introduced to enable compliance with the wireless and other safety requirements imposed by foreign Governments on merchant shipping to be recognised by this country, on condition of reciprocity, as a compliance with the British requirements, where there is substantial equivalence.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Does not the right lion. Gentleman think that a sufficient time has now elapsed since the passing of the existing Act to warrant the introduction of legislation consolidating the law and bringing in some amendments in order to improve the service?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Consolidation is one thing, and it may be that it might be a good thing if there is Parliamentary time for it. With regard to amendments, I should very much hesitate to commit the Government at all, because this country is already far in advance of most other countries in the Regulations it imposes, and to impose new Regulations not imposed by other countries would only result in creating unemployment.

    RIVER SEVERN (BARRAGE SCHEME).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing necessity for cheap and widespread electrical power he will now consider the appointment of the special technical commission of inquiry recommended by the Water Power Resources Committee to inquire into the practicability of the River Severn barrage scheme?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The preliminary stages of the inquiry recommended by the Water Power Resources

    211
    Committee are at present being proceeded with. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 24th February by the Minister of Transport to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Colonel Woodcock), a copy of which I am forwarding to him.
    Mr. THOMSON: Are we to understand that the Government are doing all they can to expedite this inquiry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly. I am anxious that the result of the inquiry now being conducted shall be available as soon as possible.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the expense to go on for what is a futile proposition?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think we had better wait and see the result of the inquiry, before we say that it is futile.

  TRANSPORT.

    PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
    Mr. SCURRasked the President of the Hoard of Trade whether he has received any representations from municipal authorities in London and Greater London asking for increased representation for local authorities on the Port of London Authority; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action on the matter
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Various suggestions for the amendment of the constitution of the authority have been made from time to time, but it is not my present intention either to introduce legislation to amend the constitution prescribed by the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, or to press the authority to introduce such legislation themselves.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary for Scotland what expenditure of public money is to be devoted to the construction of a highway for the purpose of transporting the inhabitants of Glasgow
    212
    to Edinburgh and vice versa; and is he aware that most of this money has been derived from English motorists?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. The cost of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road, as at present estimated, is £2,115,000. On the basis of this estimate, the grant from the Road Fund will amount to approximately £1,532,500. With regard to the last part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the Road Fund being a national fund, its administration must be judged in that light without regard to geographical divisions.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make application for the English contributions to be returned to his office, in view of the recent protests by Clydeside Members against Englishmen taking any part in Scottish affairs?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by far the largest amount of money is provided by London, and is he aware that his Department has consistently refused to give grants for London road improvements? Will he consider that matter? Can I have an answer.?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is more suitabe for Debate than at Question Time.

    RAILWAYS (PAYMENTS UNDER AGREEMENTS).
    Mr. POTTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the annual subsidies contributed to railways of the United Kingdom for each of the years 1914 to 1924, inclusive?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I am not aware what the hon. Member may have in mind when he uses the term "subsidies," but the net cost of the railway agreements, under which the railways were guaranteed their net receipts (as defined) for the year 1913 during the. period of possession, may be estimated at between £155,000,000 and £160,000,000. These figures allow for the conveyance of all Government traffic at appropriate rates, and also include the lump sum payments authorised by the Railways Act and the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921, which cannot be apportioned to particular years.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the value of the services rendered to the State by the railway companies during that period?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That must be a matter of opinion.

    LANDSLIDE (SALCOMBE-KINGSBRIDGE ROAD).
    Captain MOREINGasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, consequent upon a landslide on the Salcombe-Kingsbridge road, the motor-omnibus serving the latter town has to descend a steep hill backwards; and what steps he will take to have the road put in a proper state of repair?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that, owing to the weakness of a retaining wall, the Salcombe Urban District Council found it necessary last January to close, temporarily, to heavy traffic, a short length of road near the Marine Hotel, forming part of an omnibus route. This temporary stoppage involves a turning and backing movement on the part of the omnibuses until such time as the council can undertake the strengthening of the retaining wall—a matter which is now under their consideration.

    ROADS UPKEEP (COST).
    Mr. DEANasked the Minister of Transport the total cost of the upkeep of roads in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, the amount borne by local authorities, and by the Road Fund in each case?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that I cannot give art answer to my hon. Friend exactly in the form in which he desires it. The most recent information available is contained in an answer which I gave on 19th December to the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division (Major Glyn), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. DEANasked the Minister of Transport the total cost of the upkeep of roads in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, during the year 1913; and the amount borne by the local authorities and by the Road Fund in each case?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total expenditure on the construction, maintenance, improvement and cleansing of roads and bridges (excluding current expenditure charged to loans) for the year 1913–14 was as follows:

    £

    England and Wales

    17,490,457

    Scotland

    1,413,383

    The payments under grants made from the Road Improvement Fund, which was established under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, during the same year were as follows:

    £

    England and Wales

    544,608

    Scotland

    64,742

    The Road Fund was established on the 1st January, 1921, under the Roads Act of the previous year, and it took over as from that date the assets and liabilities of the earlier Road Improvement Fund.

    HAY AND STRAW MARKET, ALDGATE.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the great inconvenience to traffic at High Street, Aldgate, due to the existence of a hay-and-straw street market and a tramway dead-end; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has frequently been drawn to this matter, and I have referred it to the London Traffic Advisory Committee for consideration and report. I understand that the Committee have already made a personal visit, but I would remind the hon. Member that legislation would be required to abolish this street market.

    OMNIBUSES, LONDON (TRAFFIC SCHEDULES).
    Mr. MORRISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Metropolitan and Southern Omnibus Companies, two subsidiary companies of the London Traffic Combine, are operating their present services without having submitted schedules as required by the London Traffic Act; and whether 'proceedings will be instituted against these companies for non-compliance with the Act?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have made inquiry, and a would seem that any breach of the law that may have been committed is a purely technical one for which there could be no question of taking proceedings. The matter has now been put right.
    Mr. MORRISON: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that mistakes of this character are creating a widespread feeling among the smaller omnibus owners that the Traffic Act is being administered with a bias in favour of the combine.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What happened fn this case was that there was first deposited a schedule covering these two companies' routes, and it was afterwards omitted to amend the schedule. It was purely a technical error and was immediately put right.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very onerous demands that are made upon the small omnibus owners in connection with these schedules; that 50 copies of a schedule, properly filled in, are required from a man who has been driving his own omnibus all day, and will he remember that the small man has no clerical assistance?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be quite a new question, and should be put down.
    Mr. MORRISONasked the Minister of Transport whether new scheduled routes for omnibuses, approved under the London Traffic Act since 1st January, are to be withdrawn, notwithstanding the fact that they are not adding traffic to the congested areas?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Under an Order and Provisional Regulations made in pursuance of Section 7 of the London Traffic Act certain streets in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District have been declared to be "restricted streets" and the numbers of omnibuses which may ply for hire on the streets have been limited to the numbers which might have been so plying on 1st January in accordance with the deposited schedules then in force. Any schedules which may have been deposited with the Commissioner of Police since the 1st January will require to be amended where such schedules would involve any additions to the numbers of omnibuses on any of the "restricted streets."

    RURAL ROADS.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the heavy rates now paid by agriculturists for the upkeep of rural roads and of the large increase of the Road Funds, he will consider a grant from these funds to all rural district councils for their unclassified roads in addition to the grants already paid for classified roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: During the past two years sums amounting to no less than £3,750,000 have been specially allocated from the Road Fund for the improvement of important roads in rural areas, and I have under consideration the allocation of a further sum for the next financial year. These grants are additional to the ordinary maintenance and improvement grants to Class I and Class II roads. My hon. and gallant Friend will see, therefore, that generous assistance is being rendered to meet the special difficulties of local highway administration in many rural areas. At the same time, having regard to the limitations of the Fund, and to the many other urgent claims upon it, I am unable to hold out any hope of grants being made generally to all rural highway authorities in respect of unclassified roads.

    RIVER TYNE.
    Mr. RUSSELLasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to make a statement on the attitude of the Government towards the proposed scheme for the construction of a permanent river crossing near the mouth of the River Tyne; and whether, in the event of the project receiving the support of his Department, and having regard to the great need for improved facilities of communication between North and South Shields, he will expedite the preliminary arrangements by every means at his disposal, so that employment may be provided for men out of work in that area?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware that any definite scheme of this nature has been formulated, but if the local authorities concerned have any feasible proposals to submit, I shall be glad to consider them.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade

    217
    whether, in view of the injury done to the Scottish in-shore fishermen by the depredations of illegal trawlers, he will put into operation Section 469 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which gives his Department power to suspend or cancel the certificate of any master who has been convicted of any offence?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade will give any assistance they can in finding an effective remedy for illegal trawling, but they doubt whether the power to cancel or suspend certificates was intended for cases of this kind, and they do not think that the duplication of penalties by administrative action would be a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem.

    ARCOS, LIMITED.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Messrs. Arcos, Limited, Soviet House, 49, Moorgate Street, London, E.C., is a British firm, registered in accordance with British laws?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The company referred to is incorporated as a limited company under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1917. All the directors are Russians, and the information given on the company's file at Somerset House indicates that the bulk of the shares are held by Russians.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply a list of industries which have applied for safeguarding since the inception of the Act?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 19th February to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain BENN: How is it possible to answer a question in this House by reference to an earlier answer when it asks for information to-day?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information contained in the previous answer was complete, both at the time it was given and at the present time.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that, mean that the clerks allow the same question to go through twice without being answered
    Mr. SPEAKER: Some hon. Members are so pertinacious that it is not always possible to stop them.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Trade what provision will be made by the Board of Trade Committee, under the safeguarding scheme, for receiving evidence from importers., merchants and others, whose interests may be materially affected by the action which may be taken on the reports of such Committees?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 17th February to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer given on the 17th February contradicted the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Debate on this question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. The answer on the 17th February represented the information and the decision which I had arrived at on the 17th February and that is a decision to which I now adhere.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Member entitled, in a question, to refer to something that was said in Debate?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I see no reason to interfere. It is a form of elucidation.
    Mr. SMITHfurther asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of a number of applications being received from industries for safeguarding on the grounds of competition alleged to arise from depreciation of currency in a given country acting so as to create an export bounty, the decision as to whether that depreciation so operates or not is to be arrived at by each committee separately?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question whether the depreciation of currency has given rise to exceptional competition must necessarily depend in part upon the facts of each particular case, and, consequently, must be examined in the light of those facts by the committee concerned.
    Mr. SMITH: Will any steps be taken to see that all the committees will arrive at the same conclusion on the same question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; the committees will be left to make their own reports. As I think the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished economist, knows, the effect of a bounty may be very different in different industries, varying with the amount that they have to buy abroad.
    Mr. SMITHalso asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the standard recognised by the Board of Trade in deciding what is and what is not profitable manufacture under the safeguarding of industries proposals?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member will see from the White Paper that the question of the prices at which goods in respect of which a complaint is made can be profitably manufactured in this country is one upon which the committee of inquiry will be instructed to report in each case.
    Mr. SMITH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman laying down any uniform standard as to what profitable manufacture is, for the guidance of the different committees:?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sin I should have thought that all reasonable men would be able to understand the difference between profit and loss,
    Mr. SMITH: lf that be so, would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the rate of profit?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I think the discretion which is left to the committee is a very practical one. They have to find two things—in the first place. whether the industry is efficiently undertaken in this country, and, secondly, whether it is able to manufacture goods at a profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "What profit?"] That is what they were invited to do under the previous Act, and I think it is a very practical matter to leave to them.

    ARMS (EXPORT TO ARABIA).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any permits were issued during the years 1923
    220
    and 1924 for the export of arms to Arabia; and, if so, what firms were given the permits?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Numerous licences were issued during the period in question, mainly in respect of smoothbore shot-guns and ammunition therefor, as well as single revolvers and pistols taken by individuals. If the hon. Member desires I will have a list prepared of the licences issued in respect of arms other than those I have mentioned. I may add that, in pursuance of the provisions of the Arms Traffic Convention relating to prohibited areas, war material is only allowed to be exported to Governments in those areas which are in a position to give the guarantees required by the Convention.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that we have been arming both Ibn Saud and King Hussein, and that these two enemies are fighting with munitions supplied to both of them by us?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the right lion. Gentleman say on whose authority English machine guns were sent to Soviet Russia?

    ENEMY DEBTS CLEARING OFFICE.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now possible for the enemy debts clearing office to liquidate the accepted Anglo-German claims of all the smaller claimants (say, under £200), and so to effect an immediate and considerable reduction of staff'?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the ease of claims against Germany, the clearing office already pays in full admitted claims in respect of pre-War debts and proceeds of liquidation of British property in Germany, and, on awards of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in respect of compensation, it has paid up to £50 in full, together with a dividend of 15s. in the £on any further amount awarded. The payment of a further dividend is in contemplation, and I think that this course will be more expeditious and practicable than the hon. Member's proposal. In the cases of Austria and Hungary, dividends of 11s. and 3s. 6d. in the £, respectively, have been paid on all admitted claims and awards.

    221
    Further dividends will 'be paid as and when funds permit, but it would not be possible to make any further distribution in these two cases at the moment. All claims against Bulgaria have been paid in full.

    SLOUGH DEPOT.
    Major GLYNasked the President of the Board of Trade for how much it was agreed by the Disposal Board and the Ministry of Munitions to sell the Slough depot and its buildings and contents; how much of this money has been paid to date; and what arrangements have been made for subsequent payments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to answer this question. The position remains as stated in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) on the 14th April last.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Have we any security for those payments that have not been made'?
    Sir J. NALL: Do the Government intend the buyers to go on disposing of the property until they pay something on account?
    Mr. GUINNESS: A great deal has been received. I think it was stated in the last answer that more than £5,500,000 had been received. The matter is merely held up by an adjustment of accounts, the reason of which is rather difficult to explain by question and answer.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for War, of the 5,260 recruits obtained for the Army Supplementary Reserve up to the 7th February, the number drawn from each trade specified in the pamphlet on the Supplementary Reserve issued with Army Council Instruction 591, of 1924?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): These particulars are not available at the War
    222
    Office, and I do not think that the information would be of sufficient value to justify the labour involved in collecting it from the Record Offices where it is kept.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Considering that special efforts were made to raise this Supplementary Corps from technically trained workmen, is it not due to this House to know whether technically trained men in different trades are being recruited or not?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The House does know the number of recruits. What I am saying is that it does not seem to me to be worth the labour to ascertain in which category each man is.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: May we not know if there are sufficient numbers from each trade or not?
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has approached trade union groups, as he did groups of employers, to enlist their sympathy and assistance in encouraging recruiting for the Army Supplementary Reserve; and, if so, how many and which trade unions were they?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am in negotiation with the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport and General Workers' Union with a view to securing their sympathy and support.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Secretary of State for War on what date did the late Secretary of State for War give an assurance that the men recruited for Army Supplementary Reserve would not be used in civil disputes, and on what date did the War Office receive a request from the National Union of Railwaymen to repeat this assurance; and what was the reason given by them for this request?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The only assurance given by my predecessor in this matter that I am aware of is that contained in Army Orders 284 and 285 of August, 1924, and Army Order 343 of September, 1924, to the effect that the liability of the Supplementary Reserve to be called out in aid of the civil power will not be enforced. I am now in communication with the National Union of Railwaymen.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: May we know what the contention raised by the National Union of Railwaymen is which necessitates this second application?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Obviously I cannot do that in answer to a question, but the hon. Member will have an opportunity when the Army Estimates are down of further pursuing the matter if he so desires.

    NITROGEN FIXATION.
    Mr. JOHN BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for War the personnel of the Commission sent to Oppau to inquire into German methods of fixing nitrogen from the air; whether the State bore all or any part of the expenses; and whether any members of the Commission are still in State employ?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think it desirable to publish the names of the members of this mission. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative, so far as I am aware.
    Mr. BECKETT: Are the members of the State Commission now employed by Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That I do not know.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member asks me a question on that, I will consider what answer I will give to it.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the information that was obtained by the gentlemen who returned to this country being held secret by the Government, or being used and handed out to private firms?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, it is not being held secret by the Government. There is a further question on the Paper, the answer to which will answer the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Report received from the Commission sent to Oppau to inquire into German methods of fixing nitrogen is still in the hands of the
    224
    War Office; and whether any private firms or individuals have had access to it or have a copy of the whole or any portion of it?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, under the agreement for the sale of the Government factory at Billingham the purchasers acquired the right to have placed at their disposal any information in the possession of the Government bearing upon the manufactures intended to be carried on in the factory, which would include the information regarding the fixation of nitrogen.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I understand from that that the Minister assures the House that in his personal knowledge the Report is in the hands of the Foreign Office?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have seen a copy of it this morning at the War Office.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that the Government are at the expense of investigating a process for extracting nitrogen from the air, and instead of making it, they hand it over to private enterprise?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, the information was sold with the factory to the purchasers of the factory, who made use of the information.
    Mr. BECKETT: Where was the copy the right hon. Gentleman saw supplied from?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is the Report of a Commission or Committee sent out for the purpose.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: What is the name of the individual or firm who purchased the property, and now possess this secret which the Government took so much trouble to get?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

    MEAT RATIONS.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for War the different quantities of meat issued as rations to the Army for the years 1913, 1923 and 1924, giving the amounts of foreign,

    225
    Colonial and British, respectively; and when the next tenders are called for in what proportions does he intend to make the purchases of Army meat?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The approximate quantities of fresh and frozen meat issued to the Regular Army at, home during the three years referred to were, respectively, 14,800, 10,600 and 12,500 tons. Complete information as to the sources of supply is not available, but immediately before the War fresh meat was issued on three days a week, while since the War supplies have been practically all frozen, mainly, and latterly exclusively, of Dominion origin. As regards the last part of the question, it is not possible to state anything definite pending the receipt of tenders.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider the great assistance he may give to the British farmer by accepting tenders for more British meat than at present, and will he not endeavour to purchase more Colonial meat instead of foreign in future?
    Captain KING: I have already stated that latterly it has been exclusively of Dominion origin. Tenders for fresh meat are received each year, and considered.

    BOYS (RECRUITING).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the military authorities are approaching boards of guardians with a view to securing lads between 14 and 15 years of age for military service; whether he will state the conditions of service these lads are called upon to perform; and under what regulation the officers of his Department have power to recruit lads of these ages?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 8th July last to a similar question addressed to my predecessor by the hon. Member for the Blaydon Division of Durham.

    OFFICERS (SERVICE WITH TERRITORIAL ARMY).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the difficulty in which
    226
    regular officers seconded for service with the Territorial Army are placed in finding residential accommodation while doing duty with Territorial units, he will consider the provision of official residences which could be rented by these officers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of official residences being provided for regular officers serving with the Territorial Army. Their difficulties are appreciated but in some respects they are better off than other regular officers as they have greater fixity of tenure and are quartered for the most part in places where houses are more easily obtainable than at purely military stations.

    CROSS COUNTRY MOTOR TRIALS.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of instituting trials for cross-country motor vehicles similar to those recently held in Dorsetshire, but based upon cost per ton mile of goods carried without damage to the surface travelled over, having regard to the fact that the Army would probably be largely dependent in time of war on commercial sources of supply of such vehicles?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member will write to me or see me personally and explain more fully what he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider what assistance the War Office can give towards instituting such a trial.

    GRAVESEND DRILL HALL.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will make further inquiries in connection with the letting of the Gravesend drill hall for a party reunion of the Constitutional Association; whether he is aware that political speeches were delivered and that all profits from the bar were handed over to the committee of the Constitutional Association; that the use of the hall for a fair to be run by the local Labour party was refused; and whether he will give instructions that, in the letting of the drill hall, all parties shall be accorded similar treatment?
    Captain KING: I have had further inquiries made concerning the use of the drill ha/1 on the occasion in question, and they confirm the information which I gave

    227
    the hon. Member in answer to his question on the 17th ultimo. The drill hall was let to the Gravesend Constitutional Association for social purposes, and no political speeches were delivered. The profits from the bar were not handed over to the committee of the Constitutional Association, and they will he included in the general expenses account and utilised for the purposes of the Territorial Army. I am informed that the use of the hall for similar purposes has not been refused to the local Labour party. Two applications from the local Labour party have been granted within the last 12 months. There are standing instructions that in the letting of drill halls equal consideration is to be given to all parties.

  SCOTLAND.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary for Scotland if it is his intention to continue to allow Scottish prisons to be used for North of Ireland prisoners; and what is the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by an outside authority over such prisoners?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 26th February to a question by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. As regards the last part of the question, the Government of Northern Ireland are responsible for determining all questions regarding remission of the sentences which these prisoners are serving.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that until this incident took place of Northern Ireland prisoners being kept in Scottish prisons the whole question of the remission of sentences or the release of prisoners was entirely in the hands of the

    All the persons referred to in the Question are at present in Peterhead Prison The following Table gives the details for which the hon. Member inquires.

    Name.

    Offence.

    Length of Sentence.

    Earliest date for liberation on licence.

    Felix Byrne

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    7 years' P.S.;

    6th October 1927

    Walter Cullen

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    7 years' P.S.

    6th October 1927

    Secretary for Scotland, and is this not giving away a principle so far as the release of prisoners in Scottish prisons is concerned?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, there have been previous cases where prisoners have been transferred.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is there no possible way in which the hon. Gentleman can influence the Government of Northern Ireland to show some clemency towards these men?
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the following persons are imprisoned in Peterhead Prison: Felix Bryne, Walter Cullen, James Curran, Thomas Conway, James Davis, P. Falls, John Flood, Charles Gellin, John Griffin, Frank Humphry, Patrick Johnson, John Kearney, Joseph Lee, Pat Leonard, P. McAlleer, John McGuire, Thomas McGuire, Thomas MoShea, James Monaghan, Pat Murray, Charles Reynolds, Jos. Reynolds, Fras. O'Reilly, James O'Reilly, William O'Reilly, Bernard Sweeney, John Simpson, and Thomas Trainer if so, if he will state the offences for which they have been sentenced; the length of sentence; how long a period in each case the prisoners yet have to serve; and what is the present state of health of each prisoner?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply involves a tabular statement of some length, I propose, with the hob. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel DAY: Does Scotland pay for the keep of these men, or the Government of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question dawn.
    The reply is as follows:

    Name.

    Offence.

    Length of Sentence.

    Earliest date for liberation on licence.

    James Curran

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    14th December, 1925.

    Thomas Conway

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    14th December, 1925.

    James Davis

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    14th December, 1925.

    Patrick Falls

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    14th December, 1925.

    Sean Flood

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    10 years' P.S.

    28th October, 1929.

    Charles Gillen

    …

    Larceny with violence and felonious possession of fire arms

    5 years' P.S.

    18th April, 1926.

    John Griffen

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    10 years' P.S.

    12th September, 1929.

    Frank Hampsey

    …

    Larceny with violence and felonious possession of fire arms

    5 years' P.S.

    18th April, 1926.

    Patrick Johnston

    …

    Murder

    15 years' P.S.

    3rd March, 1933.

    John Kiernan

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    12th December, 1925.

    Joseph Lee

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    7 years' P.S.

    13th June, 1927.

    Patrick Leonard

    …

    Murder

    P.S. for Life (death sentence commuted).

    Patrick McAleer

    …

    Larceny with violence and felonious possession of fire arms

    5 years' P.S.

    18th April, 1926.

    John Maguire

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    8 years' P.S.

    13th March, 1928.

    Thomas Maquire

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    14th December, 1925.

    Thomas McShea

    …

    Murder

    15 years' P.S. (death sentence commited).

    3rd March, 1933.

    James Monaghan

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    7 years' P.S.

    3rd June, 1927.

    Patrick Murray

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    6 years' P.S.

    2nd September, 1926.

    Charles Reynolds

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    8 years' P.S.

    13th March, 1928.

    Joseph Reynolds

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    8 years' P.S.

    13th March, 1928.

    Frank Reilly

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    8 years' P.S.

    13th March, 1928.

    James Reilly

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    7 years' P.S.

    13th March, 1928.

    William Reilly

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    5 years' P.S.

    12th December, 1925.

    Bernard Sweeny

    …

    Felonious possession of firearms, etc.

    8 years' P.S.

    13th March, 1928.

    John Simpson

    …

    Possession of explosive substances

    5 years' P.S.

    25th January, 1926.

    Thomas Trainor

    …

    Possession of explosive substances

    4 years' P.S.

    17th July, 1925.

    Present state of Health.—The health of all these prisoners is reported to be satisfactory or to be the same as on admission, except in the case of Thomas Trainor. Trainor's health is reported to be not so good as on admission, due to tuberculosis contracted before admission to Peterhead.
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Secretary for Scotland by what authority and under whose orders political prisoners sentenced in Northern Ireland are imprisoned in Peterhead Gaol?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The authority for the detention in Peterhead Prison of prisoners sentenced in Northern Ireland is contained in the Penal Servitude Acts. These prisoners have been received in Peterhead Prison on the instructions of the Secretary for Scotland in pursuance of an agreement with the Government of Northern Ireland. No prisoners are classified as "political."
    Mr. SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that as Northern Ireland is now under a separate jurisdiction—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Partly."]—by the Act of 1920, he has any legal power to make any such arrangement?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. Under the Penal Servitude Act.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the terms of the agreement between himself and the Northern Ireland Government, and will he circulate the terms of the agreement?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The agreement is that we look after the prisoners and that they are subject to Scottish rules as long as they are in Scottish prisons.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can we have a copy of the terms?
    Mr. MAXTON: I want to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker. We have tried for over two years to get this question effectively heard in this House, and the matter has been steadily pushed aside by Cabinet Ministers of one party or another. Is there any effective means inside the constitution of this country by which we can raise this grievance, and get a. proper attitude taken towards it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: As far as any action of the Secretary for Scotland is concerned, he is open to be questioned on Thursday of this week or on Monday of next week.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Questions have been put to the Table as to the circumstances relating to the Government of Northern Ireland and His Majesty's Government, and they have been refused at
    232
    the Table on the ground that, as Northern Ireland is practically a self-governing Colony, nobody in this House has anything to do with it, and no one in this House can answer any question relating to it. [Hons. MEMBERS "Speech!"] Hold your tongues. I will not sit down for any of you—Gentlemen of England.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has heard me say many times that, where the duty of maintaining law and order has been transferred to another Government. it is not open to this House to discuss or criticise their action. What I have said is that any action which comes within the province of the Secretary for Scotland can be dealt with on Thursday next and on Monday next.

    LOCHBOISBALE PIER.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland what steps he has taken during the past week to have Lochboisdale pier reopened?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have nothing to add to my previous replies to questions on this subject.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: What has the right hon. Gentleman done during last week?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The answer was nothing.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Arising out of that answer—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Nothing can arise out of nothing.

    WESTERN ISLES.
    The following Question. stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir H. BRITTAIN:
    43. To ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the population of the Western Isles; and what amount of public money has been expended by way of relief during the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, respectively.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: I beg to postpone this question.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: On this question, am I in order in calling attention to the fact that the people of the Western Isles—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question has not been asked.

    CYPRUS GOVERNMENT. LIEUT.-COL. C. TOMPKINS.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Prime Minister if he has recently received a petition from, or had his attention drawn to the case of Lieut.-Colonel A. C. Tompkins, a lately-retired Cyprus Government official; if he is aware that this officer is destitute and without any pension, after having served for more than 42 years under the War Office and seconded service overseas under the Foreign Office and Colonial Office; and whether ho will inquire into this case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The case of Lieut.-Colonel A. C. Tompkins has been brought to my notice, but the appointments held by this officer did not carry any title to pension.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it not possible by introducing legislation to link up the period of service under the Crown in such a way as to meet cases of this kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I do not think it would be practicable in cases like this, but if the hon. and gallant Member would like to put any further point to me, I should be glad to see him.

    SLAVERY CONDITIONS.
    Dr. SHIELSasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have refused to give information to the League of Nations of a, kind which other Governments have given, regarding alleged slavery conditions in certain areas for which Britain is responsible
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that His Majesty's Government have ever withheld information asked for by the League of Nations regarding alleged slavery conditions in areas for which Britain is responsible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman be equally definite as regards slavery conditions existing in countries not under our control, but as to which the Foreign Office has information?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will put down a question on the point.

    FRANCHISE (AGE LIMIT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what proposals the Government intend to make to the proposed franchise conference, particularly with reference to the age at which the vote is to be granted 7
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be 'n a position to give the Government views as to the correct age for women?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I am not able to make an announcement at present.
    Captain BENN: May I repeat. my unanswered question. When the Prime Minister made his pledge at the Election, what age did he mean by "equal age"?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that arises out of this Question.

    AIRSHIP DEVELOPMENT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to place the new airship service in any way under the control of the Admiralty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No change has been made in the Air Ministry'.; responsibility for airship development.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to make a change?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not that I am aware of.

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to increased security and greater economy, he is prepared to consider the co-ordination of the defence forces of the country under a Ministry of Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the co-ordination of the Services was exhaustively inquired into in 192:3 by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence under the Chairmanship

    235
    of Lord Salisbury, and the Report was presented to Parliament (Cmd. 2029). That Report has been put into operation, and it is not considered desirable to reopen the question.

    PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT, 1924.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action, if any, he proposes to take to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answers, may I call attention to the fact that this question has been put twice, and has been twice answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that information. This will be the last time.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As stated by me in reply to similar questions on the 18th December last and 10th February, considerable concessions were made to pensioners by the Act of last year, and the Government are not prepared to introduce further legislation to amend the Pensions (Increase) Acts.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer convicts the Secretary of State for War of having made a terminological inexactitude to this House on the 19th May of last year?
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of members of the Conservative party are pledged to this, and can he say what course he proposes to take?

    REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND AND WALES).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the contribution to the revenue and the cost of services to the Exchequer of Scotland and Wales, respectively, for the financial year 1923-24?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as Scotland is concerned, I will refer the hon. Member
    236
    to the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor on the 4th August, 1924, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Aberdeen, of which I am sending him a copy. I regret that separate figures are not available for Wales.

    INCOME TAX COLLECTORS.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to secure that in future the office of collector of Income Tax in any locality should not be held by any person who is also secretary to the Chamber of Trade of that locality?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not at present, upon the information which has been laid before me, disposed to think that action in this direction is called for.

    COINAGE (DESIGN).
    Sir C. OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a Standing Committee appointed to act in an advisory capacity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the artistic side of the currency of this realm, has now existed for several years, and that no single change has yet been made in the aspect of the currency of this realm since their appointment, he intends to alter the present set of reverse types introduced in 1911; and will he take measures to secure an Order in Council for that purpose?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any general desire to change the existing coinage designs, but when the advisory committee have any definite changes in design to suggest I am quite ready to consider them.
    Sir C. OMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard anybody express any appreciation of the style of the present coin?

    OTTOMAN GUARANTEE LOAN, 1855.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount that Britain and France, respectively, have to pay in interest on the Ottoman Guarantee Loan of 1855?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The interest on the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 amounts to £153,712 a year. The interest is guaranteed jointly and severally by the British and French Governments. If the Egyptian Government were to continue to default on the payments hitherto made by it towards the interest on the loan, and if the resulting deficit were shared equally between the British and French Governments (as would naturally be the case), each Government would be called upon to pay approximately £30,500 a year during the continuance of the default.
    Sir F. WISE: Is the annual amount received from the Cyprus Government, £92,800, included in that amount?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I think that it is.
    Sir F. WISE: Do I understand that the French participate in the amount which we receive from the Cyprus Government'?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The:hon. Member must not involve me in a tangle of a complicated character as to the proportion of the share which would probably fall due as between France and England—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Britain I"]—France and Great Britain. I would like to be guided by the advice of my experts.

    GALATA BRIDGE TOLLS.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information to the effect that the municipality of Constantinople has again seized the revenues from the Galata bridge tolls, which form the security for the Constantinople loan of 1909?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): According to a report from His Majesty's representative at Constantinople, the bridge tolls were last seized on the 3rd July and have been withheld ever since.

    CONVEYANCES (STAMP DUTY).
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was
    238
    the amount of revenue derived from Stamp Duty on the conveyance of real property of a value exceeding £500 and not exceeding £750 in the financial year 1923–24; and what proportion of this duty was in respect of the conveyance of house property?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that this information is not available. The net receipt of Stamp Duty in the financial year 1923–24 from conveyances of land and houses was £3,023,535, of which £2,738,350 was in respect of property exceeding £500 in value.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: In view of the fact that workmen's dwellings have increased so much in price, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the amount of the Stamp Duty on the conveyances?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, I will look into that.

    STATE LOANS AND GUARANTEES.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the sum total of the credits granted by the State to private enterprise, either through the Trade Facilities Acts or otherwise, in the years 1922–23, 1923–24, 1924–25 to date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As the reply contains a number of detailed figures, I would propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL EEPORT. The only grants of credit of which I am aware were such of the loans made by the Public Works Loan Board, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and similar Departments, which might be held to fall under the description, credits to private enterprises. Under the Trade Facilities Acts and the Exports Credits Scheme loans or credits raised by private enterprise are guaranteed by the State, and I am giving the right lion. Gentleman particulars of these also, though they are not, properly speaking, grants of credit.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Shall we have that in time for the debate?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is being circulated immediately.
    Following is the reply:
    I am not aware of any credits granted to private enterprise by the State in these years except
    (a) certain advances by the Public Works Loan Board under Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, namely:

    £

    1923–24

    223,218

    1924–25 (to date)

    1,625,916

    (b) certain loans by the Public Works Loan Board for housing purposes to public utility societies, companies whose profits are limited by regulation, and private individuals.

    £

    1922–23

    532,158

    1923–24

    632,687

    1924–25 (to date)

    632,719

    The sums included in respect of loans to private individuals are negligible.
    (c) various minor advances by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Development Commissioners under different Acts for a great variety of schemes, such as loans to smallholders, agricultural co-operative and credit societies, sheep clubs, fishermen for the purchase of nets or motor engines, etc., etc. Figures could only be given with great difficulty.
    If the right hon. Member's question is intended also to apply to sums which were raised by private enterprise under Government guarantee, the particulars are as follows:
    i. Under Trade Facilities Acts (as already reported to Parliament):

    £

    1922–23

    7,270,500

    1923–24

    18,382,000

    1924–25 (to date)

    13,304,666

    ii. Under Exports Credits Scheme:

    £

    1922–23

    2,063,599

    1923–24

    4,557,865

    1924–25 (to date)

    5,431,898

    These figures include renewals, i.e.., a bill for £100,000 renewed twice, appears for £300,000. Figures excluding renewals could not be given without great trouble, but the total new business for the three years is estimated at a little over £5,000,000.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Sir GEOFFREY BUTLERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, how many appointments to the junior grade of the administrative class of the Civil Service were made under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, and from the 1921 open competition, respectively, during the year ended 31st March, 1922; how many of the persons, if any, appointed under Clause 7 were ex-service men; and how many of these appointments were made while the open competition was actually in progress or within six weeks of its close?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No appointments to the junior grade of the administrative class were made from outside the service under Clause 7 during the year ended 31st March, 1922. Six promotions of existing civil servants of whom two were ex-service men were authorised under the Clause in that year, and one appointment was made from the 1921 open competition, the successful candidate being a non-service man. I have no information as to the dates from which the six promotions took effect but the Departmental recommendations were put forward to the Treasury between the 16th March, 1921, and the 29th June, 1921, i.e., before the open competition commenced.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WAGES.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary for Mines the standard wages payable to the various grades of workmen employed both above and below ground in the various mining districts in Great Britain?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): To answer this question would mean giving a list of many hundreds of figures which are not in my possession, which would be most laborious to collect, and which would not by themselves convey any useful information, since, as the hon. Member knows, standard wages are not the same as the wages actually paid, and the relation between the two varies. If there is any simpler way in which I can meet the object of his question, I shall be happy to do what I can.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Would it be possible, if I put a question to the Secretary for Mines, to give a reply stating the lowest wages paid to adults of the different districts and the wages paid to those who are working on the face?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: If a question be put down, I will try to answer it as well as I can.

    HOUSEHOLD COAL.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give to the House the latest analysis of the items of cost in respect of household coal submitted by the coal merchants to his Department?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: As the reply involves a statistical statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman content to accept the ex parte statements of the coal merchants as the basis of his action in this matter?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir.
    Following is the reply:
    The analysis in question, which relates to the average distribution costs of four of the largest London merchants in the year ended the 31st March, 1924, is as follows:

    s.

    d.

    Loaders' wages

    1

    10·79

    Carmen's wages

    2

    6·55

    Cartage expenses

    2

    4·15

    Sacks

    2·86

    Siding rent, weighbridge charges, wharf rent, demurrage, etc

    3·13

    Loss on smalls and deficiencies Clerical salaries, including managers

    2

    3·16

    Establishment charges, including stationery, telephones, rents, postages, light, water, travelling, advertising, bad debts, discounts and allowances, National Health and other insurances

    1

    4·83

    11

    8·47

    The figures do not include any charge for interest on capital, remuneration of partners, directors or managing directors, Income Tax or Corporation Profits Tax.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes to proceed with a scheme prepared by his predecessor to enable local authorities to trade in domestic coal; and, if not, whether he has an alternative plan to reduce coal prices
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney on the 17th February.

    PITS CLOSED.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes to introduce legislation to compel a mine owner to notify to the Mines Department before closing down his pit?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir; I have no intention of proposing legislation on this subject at present.
    Major ROPNERasked the Secretary for Mines the number and names of the collieries in this country which have closed down since 1st January, 1924; and the number of men who have thereby been thrown out of work?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: Four hundred and fifteen coal mines normally employing 68,400 wage-earners have been closed since 1st January, 1924, and not reopened. Nearly half of these were small pits employing less than 20 persons. During the same period 143 mines at present employing 12,000 wage-earners have been opened or reopened. I am having a list prepared of the mines that, have been closed, and I will send it to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

    FUEL RESEARCH.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines what proportion of the 130,000 granted by the late Government to the Fuel Research Board has been expended, and to what purpose?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the question relates to work falling within the province of the Scientific and Industrial Research Department, I have been asked to reply. The £30.000 referred to

    243
    was intended as an ultimate expenditure on problems connected with the survey of the coal seams. Progress is being made with the work as rapidly as possible. The rate of expenditure must depend largely on the co-operation of the various coalfields. The expenditure under existing local committees has been materially increased, negotiations for the establishment of committees in other coalfields are actively in progress, and plans have been approved at the Fuel Research Station for new plant costing, approximately, £15,000.

    MINE WORKERS.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary for Mines (1) what is the number of mine-workers, apart from piece-workers, now employed and the number employed in 1913;
    (2) what number of mine-workers actually working at the face are now employed and the number employed in 1913?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: I regret that I have no statistics that would enable me to state how many workers at the face or day-wagemen were employed in the coal mining industry in 1913 or are employed now. It has been roughly estimated that these classes form respectively about 33 per cent, and about 60 per cent. of the total number of wage-earners, which is at present about 1,140,000.

    POST OFFICE (INVESTIGATION BRANCH).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General whether a member of the staff may be accompanied by a friend when being interrogated by officers of the Investigation Branch; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of such an arrangement being made in the future?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. After full consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the admission of a third party to these interviews would be of no assistance to an innocent person, while it would seriously hamper the purpose of the inquiry in the case of a guilty one. I understand it is not, as a rule,
    244
    allowed by the police in similar circumstances.
    Mr. AMMON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention called to the fact that within Lie past few weeks Sir Ernest Wild, Recorder of the City of London, Mr. Justice Greer, sitting at the Glamorgan Assizes, and the Presiding Judge at Lancaster Assizes, condemned the attitude and methods of the Post Office Investigation Department, and would not this proposal go a long way to prevent these criticisms? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that the man brought before the Glamorgan Assizes was discharged, and that if a third party had been there, the ordeal he went through would have been prevented?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have had my attention called to the observations to which the hon. Member alludes, and I do not accept his description of them. I would point out that the only alternative to the procedure of inquiry by the Department is the procedure of inquiry by the police, and I do not think that alternative would be welcomed by the Post Office staff.
    Mr. AMMON: As the right hon. Gentleman says he does not accept what I have put to him, is he aware that Sir Ernest Wild, the Recorder, has declared that if he has any more of these cases, he will demand that the chiefs of the Post Office should he brought before him, and he will deal with them

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I at this stage ask a question in relation to the business of the House? How far is it proposed to go with the Orders on the Paper?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to be able to get the first five Orders on the Paper.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  TRADE UNIONS (RETURNS).
  Mr. GREENE: I beg to give notice that on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the annual returns rendered by Trade Unions and registered societies, and move a Resolution.
  FOREIGN IMPORTS.
  Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: I beg to give notice that on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the importation of foreign manufactured goods, and move. a Resolution.
  POOR LAW.
  Mr. GROVES: I beg to give notice that on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the question of the abolition of the Poor Law, and move a Resolution.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  Mr. CLAYTON: I beg to give notice that on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the Telephone Service, and move a Resolution.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SAVINGS AND HOUSING BANKS).
  Mr. SCURR: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks; and for other purposes in connection therewith."
  When the Government is not doing its obvious duty, it becomes the province of the private Member to supplement what it is doing, and I am putting forward this Bill to-day because, in so far as municipal savings banks are concerned, we have a most excellent model from the city of Birmingham, and I think it is only right and just that the advantages of it may be able to be extended to every other municipality that desires to avail itself of the power. In this Measure there is no compulsion on any municipality to do this particular work, but unless, like Birmingham, they are able to promote an omnibus Bill in this House, and have on their side a very powerful influence, as the Birmingham Corporation had, and be able to get that Bill through quietly, without much notice being taken of these particular Clauses, there is not much opportunity for any other municipality to get this particular power. So far as the Birmingham bank is concerned, it has, since its inception five years ago, handled a sum, according to the last report, in December, of no less than £14,000,000. The transactions are transactions which concern small people, and certainly I think there ought to be advantages given for small people, so
  246
  that they may be able to invest their savings with that security which they know can be given to them by a municipality.
  In Birmingham, the transactions have amounted to £2,700,000, there are 160,000 depositors, and at their credit to-day is no less a sum than £5,000,000. It is really remarkable that, since the establishment of this bank, it has got 28 branches, whereas the Glasgow Trustees Savings Bank, one of the greatest trustee savings banks in the country, established as far back as 1836, has only 18 branches, and it finds itself hampered by reason of Government Regulations. The manager of the Birmingham Municipal Bank has stated that, if this system were only extended to other municipalities, these trustee banks might also have the same powers as the Birmingham Bank, which would be to the advantage of everyone. Further, in regard to housing, the Birmingham Municipal Bank has been of great advantage to the citizens of Birmingham in providing them with money for the purpose of building their houses. I find that there are no fewer than 765 people who borrowed last year from the Birmingham Bank, and no less a sum than £189,147 was advanced to them, at the low rate of 5 per cent. interest, with only a 10s. valuation fee. lion. Members opposite pride themselves on the fact that they would like to see every person able to buy his or her own house, and I hope, therefore, they are going to support this Measure, which will enable local authorities to do this very piece of work.
  I think it is rather absurd that, if any Member of the public were to manufacture and supply half-crowns, although in those coins there might he a great deal more silver than the Government put into their half-crowns, he would certainly be arrested for coinage and sentenced to some term of imprisonment, but credit, which is really the money of our national life, and goes through all our great transactions, is allowed all the time to be in private hands, instead of being, where it ought to be, in the hands of the State and the municipalities. We cannot discuss, at this stage, the question of the national credit and of nationalising the whole of the banks, but where, in a good, sound;. Tory borough like Birmingham, they have carried out a municipal ad-

  247
  ministration of this kind, I feel sure the House will give a unanimous First Reading to this Measure, so that other boroughs may be able to follow suit.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has put his case, if T may say so with respect, very skilfully, but I think it would be a misfortune if leave were given the hon. Member to bring in his Bill, on the assumption that his proposals are unobjectionable and non-contentious. On the contrary, I think there are very grave objections to the scheme which he Las outlined to the House. His scheme, if carried through, would not only add to the already very large burdens on the shoulders of the local authorities, but would also constitute a direct invitation to local authorities to compete, and, if possible, to compete successfully, with those extraordinarily valuable voluntary agencies which are already carrying on this precise work through the length and breadth of the country. There may be many faults due to individualism, but, if there is one fine characteristic in the present individualist system in England, it lies in the wonderful work which the voluntary building societies and voluntary savings banks and penny banks are carrying out in the country, and particularly in the North of England. I have spent most of my life in the North of England, and I think that any hon. Member who represents a North of England constituency will realise the tremendous service which these voluntary societies have been carrying out for over a century past. They have carried into practice the principle that Heaven helps those who help themselves, and that work has been wonderfully well done.
  Look at the building societies. There are over 1,000 building societies whose members are drawn almost entirely from the working classes. They practise in the building societies a splendid system of thrift which enables them to become
  the owners of their own houses. Then you have savings banks, penny banks, all over the North of England, and also the Post Office Savings Bank, with something like 12,000,000 deposit accounts, nearly all belonging to people of very moderate means indeed. Nobody who knows the social conditions of industrial England will say for a moment that that work is not admirably well done. You have security for your deposits and your savings, and you have encouragement of thrift. Moreover, there is no profiteering, for the profits of the building societies and of the penny banks do not go to the rich capitalist at all. They are distributed among the members of the societies, over 90 per cent. of whom can be fairly described as themselves members of the working classes.
  If that be so, what gain is derived by trying to introduce an external element to compete against these societies? The facilities are there, and this is one case, at all events, where individualism is above reproach. Nothing can be said against the existing system, and what advantage can anybody suggest will accrue from imposing yet one more obligation, in addition to the enormous number of obligations and burdens already resting on the shoulders of the local authorities? Let them get rid of their own pressing problems to-day, such as their housing commitments, and let them deal adequately and successfully with the thousand and one duties which at the present time confront them. I say there is no ease made out whatever for adding to these burdens a new obligation which is already met successfully by voluntary societies, with the good-will of all classes throughout industrial England.
  Question put,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith."
  The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 204.

  Fenby, T. D.

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

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Gillett, George M.

  Macklnder, W.

  Stamford, T. W.

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

  Mac Laren, Andrew

  Stephen, Campbell

  Greenall, T.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro. W.)

  Groves, T.

  Montague, Frederick

  Thurtle, E.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydyll)

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hardle, George D.

  Murnin, H.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Naylor, T. E.

  Valley, Frank B.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wallhead, Richa*d C.

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Oliver, George Harold

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Hayes, John Henry

  Palin, John Henry

  Warne, G. H.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

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

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Potts, John S.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Hudson, I. H. Huddersfield

  Radford, E. A.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Westwood, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly).

  Salter, Dr. Alfrerd

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Kennedy, T.

  Sexton, James

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Stile's, Dr. Drummond

  Wright, W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Sltch, Charles H.

  Lowth, T.

  Smillie, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lunn, William

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  Mr. Scurr and Mr. William

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Adamson.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Tacker, Major R. Inlgo

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Savery, S. S.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Wood, Rt. H on. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

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

  Waddington, R.

  Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalybdge & Hyde)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wells, S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple.

  Mr. Gerald Hurst and Mr. Clarry.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERO-DROME EXTENSION) BILL.
  "to authorise the President of the Air Council to stop up a portion of a road known as Plough Lane, in the urban district of Beddington and Wallington, in the county of Surrey, and, in lieu thereof, to widen an existing road and to construct a new road within the said district and to acquire such land and carry out such works as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir SAMUEL HOARE; supported by Sir Philip Sassoon; to he read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee, appointed to consider of all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room Tomorrow, at Eleven o'Clock.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTES.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and
  252
  Maintenance) Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Harney, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Rawlinson.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Wignall; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Scurr.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, and the Agricultural Returns Bill): Mr. Jacob; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Balniel.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Mr. Sandeman Allen, Colonel Applin, Lord Ansley, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Mr. John Baker, Mr. Bethel, Sir Robert Bird, Captain Brass, Mr. Briant, Sir Charles Cayzer, Sir Arthur Churchman, Mr. Connolly, Major Courtauld, Sir Thomas Davies, Mr. Dean, Colonel England, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Everard, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Forrest, Sir John Ganzoni, Captain Garro-Jones, Captain Gee, Mr. Greenall, Mr. Greene, Mr. Harland, Mr. Hayday, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Kelly, Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Looker, Captain Macmillan, Captain Moreing, Mrs. Philipson, Sir John Power, Sir Frederick Rice, Sir

  253
  Frank Sanderson, Mr. Savery, Captain Walter Shaw, Dr. Shiels; Rear-Admiral Sueter, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Wells, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. Herbert Williams.
  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 Performing Animals (No. 2) Bill and the Protection of Birds Bill): Captain Bowyer, Sir Harry Brittain, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Sir Martin Conway, Sir Walter de Frece, Mr. Duncan, Mr. George Hirst, Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, and Sir Douglas Newton.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee C as the Committee on which Government Bills shall riot have precedence.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the folowing Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill): Lord Balniel, Mr. Bethel], Mr. Campbell, Major Crawfurd, Captain Howard, the Lord Advocate, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. West Russell, Mr. Simms, Major Steel, Captain Wallace, Miss Wilkinson, and Mr. Windsor.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.

    Order for Second Reading read.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that it will not be necessary for me to make any great demand upon the patience of the House. It is a Bill which has been the unfortunate victim of delay after delay, due to no want of merits of its own, but to political vicissitudes in this country in which it has played no part itself. The decision, under circumstances which I will tell the House in a moment or two, to use the balance of the Boxer Indemnity in China for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended was arrived at in the latter part of 1922. It was not at first quite certain whether legislation would be required in order to carry out the purpose in view, but, on investigation, it appeared that it was necessary to bring in a Bill in this House, and that was done during the Session of 1923. But it had not gone very far—in fact, I believe, it had only been introduced into this House—when the General Election of that year occurred, and, of course, the Bill thereupon died a natural death. Then, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power, they re-introduced the Bill, I think without alteration, and it was read a Second time in this House on 26th May last year. It then went to a Standing Committee upstairs and passed through the Committee stage. Therefore, it was within a very moderate distance of becoming law, especially as there was no strong opposition in any quarter, when again its fortunes were destroyed, this time by the General Election of last Autumn.
    The Bill which I am now asking the House to read a Second time is word for word identical with the Bill as it emerged from Committee in the last Parliament. I want to say why it is necessary to carry this Bill at all and why these proposals have been made. I think I can tell the House that in a very few words. I need not go back to the Boxer
    282
    Rebellion and the imposition of an indemnity shared among all the great European Power and Japan and America at that time. When the Great War occurred the whole situation was very much altered, because China, instead of 'being an enemy to be punished or chastised, became an ally in the War. Therefore, it was quite natural that she should have been regarded in a very different light from that in which she had been regarded before. The War had further effects than changing the view which some of us held about China. To begin with, Germany and Austria were naturally eliminated, because their right to a share in the indemnity was forfeited in so far as they were defeated by the Allies, of which China, was one. Then the payments which had been made to Russia ceased. France, Japan, and the United States of America all intimated their readiness to deal with this new state of affairs by changing the objects for which this money was exacted. Naturally, we wanted not merely not to be behindhand, but really to take the lead in a move of this sort. Therefore, there was something like a consensus of (opinion among the Powers who had been exacting this indemnity either to remit it altogether, or, as we preferred, thinking it the wiser course, to apply it to objects which might be for the benefit of China as well as of this country.
    When the Bill was under discussion in the House in the last Parliament and it was in charge of my hon. Friend and predecessor in my present office (Mr. Ponsonby), there was only one point, so far as I recollect, upon which there could be said to have been anything like real contention. The principle of the Bill, I think, has been accepted by all parties. The fact that it was originally introduced by a Conservative Government, was re-introduced in identical terms by a Labour Government, has now been re-introduced by another Conservative Government, and, so far as I recollect, has never met with any opposition, at any rate in principle, from any Member of the Liberal party, would seem to indicate that it is, in principle at all events, an agreed Measure. The one point upon which there was some contention was in regard to the statement of the objects to which the money is to be devoted, and I observe that an Amendment has been put down in the names of

    283
    three hon. Gentlemen opposite, who express their wish to throw out the Bill on Second Reading for the reason that there are not sufficient guarantees that the money will be devoted primarily to educational purposes. They therefore are apparently moving the rejection of this Bill on Second Reading. I do not think, however, that hon. Members who are prepared to take that course quite appreciate what the effect would be if they were successful in preventing this Bill being read a Second time. Certainly the object would not be as they allege for their opposition—to secure that this money should be devoted to educational objects. The only effect would be that there could be no alteration made at all in the existing destination of the money which would, under the Finance Act of 1906 or thereabouts, be retained, and it would be a denial on the part of this country of what, I think, we may call a generous or at all events a liberal movement to devote this money, instead of using it for our own purpose, for educational, cultural, or any other benevolent purposes for the benefit of China as well as of this country. That is what the effect would be if they are successful in securing the rejection of the Second Reading.
    I venture, therefore, to appeal to those hon. Members to reserve their criticism on that point until the Bill comes into Committee, when—I quite admit—it would be very reasonable and legitimate subject for discussion. It appears to me to be somewhat—I will not say inconsistent—but at all events significant that this particular proposal to reject the Bill for the reason given should come from the benches opposite when I remember what happened on a former occasion. As the Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend opposite there was very much less provision than now for securing that the, money should be devoted to educational purposes: As the Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend, or the Government to which he belonged, it was simply for such purposes as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might determine. There was nothing said about education one way or another. If there is any credit for having amended the Bill and made it a little more precise in that direction, I can claim that credit myself, because when the Bill was in Committee I moved an
    284
    Amendment, the object of which was to specify a little more clearly that the purposes for which the money was intended were "educational or similar purposes," and, although my hon. Friend did not accept the terms of the Amendment which I proposed, he did accept the principle of it and put in the words which now appear in the Bill and which I suggest to the House are amply sufficient for the purpose that hon. Members opposite have in view,
    "shall, subject to the provisions of this Section be applied to such educational or other purposes which are in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs beneficial to the mutual interests of His Majesty and of the Republic of China."
    I was also successful when the Bill was in Committee in getting a Statutory Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of State as to the objects to which this money should be devoted. As a further safeguard—because some of us feel that to give absolute and complete discretion to a single official, even though he be so exalted an official as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is placing too large a responsibility upon one pair of shoulders—and in order to get a wise schedule of objects for which this money might be used, it was better that there should be an Advisory Committee. My hon. Friend consequently accepted that proposal, and the Bill as it now stands was amended in these particulars: firstly having a Statutory Advisory Committee in the Bill and, secondly, that the object there should be described as "educational or other purposes."
    The whole of the discussion, I imagine, so far as this point is concerned, will centre around those few words "or other purposes." I know there are some hon. Members who prefer that the project should be tied down rigidly to educational purposes in China. I myself was rather inclined to take that opinion at one time but I am not sure at all that I was right. After all, in a matter of this concern it seems to me to be very desirable to have a certain amount of latitude. There may be medical purposes which would be extremely beneficial to China, either started or endowed—as the case may be—and other things of that sort, which might not strictly come within the terms of the word "educational," if the word appeared in the Statute without any elasticity. The interpretation of "educa-

    285
    tional or other purposes" really, to my mind, means that the object must be something in the nature of educational, or, at all events, it must be something which is not absolutely divergent from the main idea. Therefore I do earnestly hope that the words which are in the Bill as it now stands may be retained. Whether that be so or not, I suggest that the point is one which ought obviously to be discussed in Committee, and that it is no justification, whatever the opinion may be that is taken on that point, for refusing to give a Second Reading to the Bill and thereby throwing back the whole question, in view of the years in which it has been held out to those interested in China, that the Government was about to take this step. For the reasons I have described it has been unfortunately delayed all this time until, I think, some suspicion has been raised in the East as to the bona fides and sincerity of the Government. The fact that the Bill was thrown out because of one General Election and that the same thing happened the next year, is rather difficult perhaps to get people in the East quite to appreciate, or why the Bill has not been put forward for a long time. I do not think that the hon. Members, because they differ from the terms of the Bill in one particular point of the sort mentioned, have any justification for refusing leave to carry out this policy. Therefore, in the hope that it will not be thought necessary to prolong discussion at the present stage and that hon. Members will allow the Bill to be read a Second time, I have great pleasure in moving.
    Mr. PONSONBY: My right hon. Friend has explained to the House the very peculiar circumstances in which this Bill, which really is an agreed Bill, has so far been prevented from reaching the Statute Book. In 1923 it was drafted by the Conservative Government of that day, introduced, and we took it over in embryonic form, and it was passed through Second Reading, and Committee stage. It was, as the right hon. Gentleman has just explained, only the General Election which prevented it going to Third Reading. It is again introduced by the Government substantially—I quite agree with my right hon. Friend—the same Bill. The present Government certainly had the opportunity of carrying this Bill through in a very few days without a
    286
    murmur and placing it on the Statute Book in the first few weeks of the Session, It was unfortunate they did not take that opportunity, because nobody can say that there was the smallest disagreement as to the principle on which this Bill is founded.
    Let me draw the attention of the House to what has occurred, to a matter to which my right hon. Friend has not referred, and which, as a matter of fact, has altered very much our view as to the motive underlying this Measure. In bringing this Bill before the House last year the Committee formed became a Statutory Committee, and we approached certain gentlemen and asked them to serve on that Committee. I acknowledge that I said on more than one occasion that the words "educational or other purposes" might well be left in the Bill, in view of the fact that our choice was of such a character that we could rely upon those who served on the Committee seeing that the educational purposes were carried out and the objects of the Bill furthered as we wished them to be.
    In making our choice we wanted men of academic distinction. We wanted men who could be relied upon to see that the educational purposes would be carried out. We also wanted men who knew China, and were sympathetic to the Chinese. Our choice, therefore, fell on Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson. My right hon. Friend who was at that. time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs approached these two gentlemen and invited them to sit on the Committee and they accepted the invitation. These two men were thought to fill all qualifications necessary. I do not want to ask the House to accept my opinion in regard to their qualifications on this point. But I would ask the House to accept the opinion of Dr. T'sai, who is Chancellor of the National University at Pekin, and ex-Minister of Education in China. Writing from the Chinese Legation in Brussels in January, he says:
    "Men like Mr. Russell and Mr. Dickinson would be especially welcomed on the Committee, and, as I remember, when the suggestion of inviting Mr. Russell and Mr. Dickinson to the prospective Committee by the late British Government reached China, there was an enthusiastic approval all over the country. Mr. Russell spent one year, 1921, in China, mostly lecturing as a pro-

    287
    fessor in Peking University. He enjoyed a rare experience, and his addresses and lectures were astonishingly and highly appreciated. His publications and Mr. Dickinson's book on Eastern civilisation are, in China, universally esteemed and partly translated into the Chinese language. That Mr. Russell and Mr. Dickinson would be cordially welcomed by the Chinese people, especially in the capacity of advisers about their education is obvious."
    That shows without any doubt that the choice made by my right hon. Friend was a good one. Surely it is a very unusual thing for a Government to take the trouble to reverse a decision with regard to appointments to a Committee as one of their first acts on coming into office, knowing that it would draw a good deal of attention to the question. By the reversal of the decision of their predecessors and by dismissing these two gentlemen from the Committee, they have acted in a way which was personally offensive to the individuals in question and a public disparagement of the choice of the Labour party, and I daresay it was intended to be that. It was a form of discourtesy which was unusual and unnecessary, and it has left the impression that the educational purposes to which we attach so much importance are to be subordinated to commercial interests, on behalf of which there is no lack of pressure, as I know from conducting the business last year. Again, however, I do not want the House to accept my opinion on this point. I will again refer to that prominent Chinese gentleman who was Chancellor of the University of Pekin. He says:
    "Personally I regard it, and undoubtedly all of our educationalists would regard it. as the initiative and indicative of changing the proposal to devote the indemnity to real educational purposes, beneficial to the mutual interest of the two countries, and thereby of lessening the original generous motive of the British nation in rendering a valuable service to the Chinese."
    When my right hon. Friend talks of a growing scepticism as to the country's bon fides, I agree, but it is not the question of delay, it is the reversal of the decision that we came to that has created suspicion, and, to my mind, has spoiled the purely disinterested motive which existed in the Bill as it was introduced and with the Committee that we had appointed behind it. There can be no question that we desired this money to be spent for
    288
    educational purposes, and there can be no doubt now, after the quotation I have given to the House, and the opinions that many Members may have seen elsewhere, that there is a suspicion as to whether this is the main object which the present Government have in view. Why should they have dismissed these two gentlemen in this peremptory way from the Committee? It is because of that that my hon. Friends behind me desire to make a protest by moving a reasoned rejection of this Bill. Their action will not be misinterpreted in any way in China, because we showed last year what our intentions were. We have shown clearly our bon fides in the matter. If they move this Amendment and if there is a Division on it, there will be no misunderstanding with regard to the motives of the Labour Government and the attitude of the Labour opposition. It will be noted merely as a protest against this unprecedented action on the part of His Majesty's Government and as a demand that this money is to be spent primarily on educational purposes.
    Mr. STUART: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down I should like to ask him if he intends the House to take it for granted that the Chinese gentleman to whom he has referred represents the whole of public opinion in China.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I can hardly think the opinion of the Chancellor of the Pekin University and ex-Minister of Education can be disregarded lightly, and I should say that it was very representative of a very large body of opinion in China.
    Captain BRASS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has complained because the Government have altered, or are proposing to alter, the Committee which is to be set up under this Bill. He has already admitted that that Committee was a packed Committee, and that it was going to use this money, which the Bill says is to be used for educational and other purposes, entirely for educational purposes and not for any other purposes at all. I see no reason why this money, which is money which has been actually expended by the taxpayers of this country, should be spent entirely for educational purposes. The Bill intends this money to be spent upon something which is to be mutually beneficial to this

    289
    country and to China. We are trying to follow the example of the United States of America in our generosity and magnanimity, but every now and then we seem to forget that the people of this country are over taxed at the present time, and that this £400,000 a year which is coming in might be used for other purposes than educating 'Chinese in China. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend how many of the 436,000,000 Chinese he is thinking of educating with £400,000 a year; what type of Chinaman he proposes to educate; and in what way he is going to educate them? Personally I think there would be a good deal of backing in China for this money to 'be expended in a different way—a way which would be more beneficial to the Chinese than trying to educate some of the more educated Chinese people. If we could use this money to develop some of the railways, roads and canals in China we should do far better than educating Chinese. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Naturally there are jeers from hon. Members opposite. Possibly they are not aware of the size of China. China measures 4,000,000 square miles, and in China they have only 7,000 miles of railway serving 436,000,000 people. They have famines in China very often because they are not able to get food from one place to another, and some of the Chinese very often die of starvation.
    I think the Chinese would be more grateful to us if we spent some of this money, which is really our money, he it remembered, in trying to develop the lines of communication in China than in trying to educate some of the more educated Chinese. If we did that we should be able, not only to help the Chinese but to help ourselves in this country, at a time when we have a large number of unemployed. If the £400,000 a year were capitalised in China we could raise a loan. the Chinese could raise a loan of some £8,000,000 in China, which would be very valuable to extend railways over there. I feel quite certain we should do a great deal more for the Chinese if we did that than we can do by allocating the money entirely to education. I am not going to oppose the Second' Reading of the Bill, because I feel that any Amendment on those lines should be put down in Committee, but I think we should consider carefully what we are going to do with this money, remembering
    290
    that we are very much over-taxed in this country. I am not suggesting that we should keep the money, although I dare' say a lot of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would agree that it would be far better to use the money, which is really our money, for the Exchequer in the ordinary way. I think my right hon. Friend would be well-advised to consider very carefully how this money should be spent, and see whether the Bill could not be put back into the form in which it originally was, instead of indicating that the money is to be spent absolutely and entirely for educational purposes.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "This House, not being satisfied that there are adequate guarantees for the money to be administered by the committee under the China Indemnity (Application) Bill being devoted primarily to educational purposes, declines to give a Second leading to the Bill."
    The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) has shown that in the minds of some Members there is a definite intention, if the opportunity presents itself, to spend this money not at all upon education, but upon such purposes as the laying down of railways, and so on. Had that statement not been made so emphatically, I should have had to spend some little time to try to show that that really is the intention of a considerable number of influential people in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I suggest to hon. Members who put that question to me that they ought to ask their leaders on the Front Bench why it is that year after year until 1945, £400,000—I do not describe it as our money; it is not our money—
    Captain BRASS: It is our money.
    Mr. HUDSON: It is money collected from the Chinese people.
    Captain BRASS: It is our money.
    Mr. HUDSON: It is money that is collected under an international agreement, it is true; but in consideration of the fact, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has reminded us. that the Chinese took a certain part during the War as our Allies, it has been agreed that henceforth that money shall not be collected from the Chinese for our sole

    291
    use—it is Chinese money. In any case, the question I am putting to hon. Members is: Why continue to allow China to spend £400,000 on her own purposes, or on purposes that partly meet her needs, when, as the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe reminds us, there is so much that might be done in this country—so many unemployed, and so many constructive pieces of work to be carried through 7 That is not a question for the hon. and gallant Member opposite to put to this side: it is a matter for him to take up with his own Front Bench.
    I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe, and those who agree with him, that the real reason why this year the Conservative Front Bench and last year the Labour Front Bench decided to use this money for purposes that would be beneficial to China, even though they might be beneficial to us as well, was because it is now realised on all sides of the House—at any rate, in the responsible quarters of the House—that China has become an adult nation, that China must be treated as an equal, that if there are to be adequate opportunities for Britain (thinking of its own interest in the future) to enter into effective arrangements that are going to help China and help ourselves, they can only come on the basis of treating China as an equal with ourselves. If we were not prepared to admit that, the findings of the Washington Conference with regard to China encourage people in that country to-day to look upon themselves in a vastly different light from that in which, I am afraid, some hon. Members opposite look upon China. The fact, too, that, with regard to this indemnity, America has treated them in a comparatively generous way, compels us to alter our attitude. For some years past the Americans have foregone the money that otherwise would have been paid to them under the terms of the indemnity. I agree that the Americans, having spent so wisely on educational effort, some of the results have gone for the benefits of American trade. It has been said that students trained in China with the help of money that the Americans have foregone have ultimately gone across to America, continued their training there still with the help of the same money, and have finally gone back
    292
    to China as commercial emissaries of American industry. But America has gone a great deal further than that. She has set up a Committee consisting of 15 persons, 10 of whom are Chinese, five of whom are American. Those five Americans are exceedingly distinguished men in the world of education. One of them is Professor Dewey, and another is Dr. P. Monroe, both of whom can be depended upon to look upon the problem of education not merely from the mercantile point of view, but in its widest humanitarian aspect.
    That is what America has done. She is willing that such money as she formerly had control of should be spent under the advice of a Committee largely Chinese and for the rest consisting of distinguished intellectual leaders in American opinion. Curiously enough Russia, which was referred to by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, seems to have been able to set us an example in this matter. It has been decided by Russia that a Committee shall be set up to supervise the expenditure of the money over which formerly that country had control, the Committee to consist of three persons, two of whom are to be Chinese and the third a Russian. I know it may be said that a regulation is laid down that tilt: decisions of that Committee shall be unanimous before action can be taken, but I do not know that that very much differentiates the Russian procedure from the procedure suggested in this Measure. After all, our Committee, with its ten representatives, is only an Advisory Committee, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs acting as a single individual has the final right of veto, as the single Russian representative might have on a similar Committee. That is the position regarding the development that has been made in the ideas both of this country and of other countries.
    I come now to trace the opposite tendencies, the proposal backed up this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe, that the money should be spent for commercial ends. We are told that the 6,000 miles of railway in China now are not sufficient. How many more miles of railway can you construct if you spend the whole of this money? Two thousand miles at the most. The £400,000 a year capitalised would make, not £8,000,000 as is suggested, but possi-

    293
    bly £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, and that would provide 2,000 miles of railway. That being the position, you cannot pretend that by a proposal of that kind you are going to do something which will bring benefit to all the homes of the 400,000,000 people in China. What hon. Members are thinking about, I suggest, is the benefit that can be obtained by a comparatively small class, and I am afraid that that class is not in China but is to be found wholly in this country.
    There was an interesting statement made recently by a distinguished Chinese military leader, Marshal Tuan Chi-jui, who said that it might be possible to use the money for the purposes of education and it might be possible indeed to develop village schools, but that in order to get the village schools it would be necessary to get railways completed and to provide the means of people getting into the schools. There is the practical point of view expressed by Marshal Wu-pei-fu last year, who also suggested that the money should be used for railway purposes. But I see from other Chinese opinions that what has happened in this regard has been this: the Chinese military leaders have in the past obtained grants for the making of railways. They have run the railways in as economical a way as possible, disregarding all margins of safety, having accidents on the railways, with rolling stock and tracks inefficient, and making out of the grants they have received sufficient in profits to pay their soldiers, and. through their paid soldiers to continue that anarchy which hon. Members opposite so often profess to despise. The granting of money for railways, in fact, instead of helping China on to its feet., if the grant be made in connection with some of the military leaders of China, may actually make the present confusion worse confounded.
    There is not only that difficulty which we have to face regarding expenditure of this kind. Unfortunately for us, the Chinese have a different idea of our commercial expenditure than, perhaps, we have. Hon. Members think with great pride of what we have done in China, but the Chinese have known all along what the Commission of the Shanghai Municipal Council reported not very long ago regarding some of our commercial undertakings in China. I see that upon that Commission one of the representa-
    294
    tives was Dame Adelaide Anderson, who is suggested as one of the representatives of the Committee which is to be engaged in supervising the expenditure provided for under this Bill. The Commission brought to light such facts that it was necessary for them to recommend that child labour under 10 years of age in factories be abolished. More than that, it stated that if that provision were carried out, 50,000 children in Shanghai would be affected. They discovered that children of five years were engaged in brushing silk and that children of the same age were employed in match factories, working for the equivalent of a penny per day or less. Our commercial relations with China, then, have not been of the happiest. It is because we to-day suspect that this Committee is likely to use the money, not for educational purposes, but for railways in backing up other commercial enterprises, that we feel we cannot accept the Measure in its present. form; at any rate, we cannot accept it unless some undertaking be given that the Committee which supervise the process is a very much more satisfactory Committee than that at present outlined.
    Let me indicate what will be the nature of the Committee, as far as one can see from the reports in the Press and in other quarters. The Committee is to consist of 10 persons. It has already been announced in the House of Commons that the place of Mr. Bertrand Russell or of Mr. Lowes Dickinson will be taken by Professor Soothill, of Oxford. We have no criticism to make of Professor Soothill, who is a very distinguished scholar. He has given very earnest service on the mission field of China, ultimately becoming, I believe, the Chancellor of a University. But Professor Soothill's work has been mainly in connection with what might be called missionary education. Unfortunately the Chinese do not look upon missionary education in quite the same way as we look upon it. Indeed, I saw in a statement made by Mr. 'Leung Koo, who is the Oriental Travelling Secretary of the Students' Christian Movement, in a speech in Manchester shortly before Christmas the following:
    "There has been some talk of missionary educational institutions in China applying for the Fund when it is returned to China. Chinese opinion is wholly against that. We

    295
    hope the mission will not apply for the money."
    I do not believe that if Professor Soot-hill were left to his own devices he would desire the money to be used entirely for missionary purposes. But clearly there is a suspicion in China that by displacing Mr. Bertrand Russell and electing Professor Soothill you are going to have the money spent in a way that will not altogether meet with the approval of the Chinese people. If that be the case, you are failing in the main purpose that you have set before yourselves in foregoing this £400,000 a year that would otherwise have been available if this Measure had not been passed. I see that Professor Giles, another distinguished Chinese scholar, of Cambridge University—I suppose we can regard him as the natural opponent, as far as the Universities are concerned, of Professor Soothill£made the statement recently, in a discussion with Chinese students at Cambridge, that he was entirely opposed to the spending of the money for what might be described as Christian purposes. Professor Giles probably felt the necessity of saying that because of the action that the Government has taken. I believe that unless you can get back on to the Committee men of intellectual eminence who are free from particular interests in the way that Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson were, you cannot expect to succeed with the Chinese in the main purposes that you are pursuing.
    5.0 P.M.
    May I draw the attention of the House to the general complexion of the Committee as it now stands? I understand that there are three official representatives from the public Departments. But one of them, Sir John Jordan, strictly speaking, is no longer a public representative; he is as much concerned with private interests as other directors of private companies whose names I discover on that Committee. I see that Sir John Jordan is a director of a Chinese-Indian company, and naturally he will look at the problem from the point of view of the company of which he is a director. Sir John Jordan, not very long after the Conservative Government came into power, found it to be within his duty to make a speech violently praising the Conservative Government and drawing attention to the fact that the
    296
    Russians had humiliated themselves, had brought themselves down to the level of the Chinese, and were nothing more than equal with the Chinese in the Russo-Chinese-Treaty that was recently signed. How, then, can the Chinese 5.00 P.M. themselves, when they hear of Sir John Jordan making speeches of that kind, expect him to look at the problem from their point of view, and try to guarantee effective education from the Chinese point of view '? I see there is also included in the Committee Sir Charles Stewart Addis, and, looking at his record, I discover that he is a director of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a director of the British Indian Steam Navigation Company, a director of the Eastern Telegraph Company, a director of the British and Chinese Corporation, a director of the Chinese Central Railways, and chairman of the London committee of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. Do you imagine the Chinese, reading the qualifications of these gentlemen, are going to put the same estimate upon their capacity to deal with China as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have done? Our criticism is that, though you propose to spend £400,000 mainly upon education in China, the Committee you have set up is entirely incapable of giving an unprejudiced view regarding Chinese education, and until there can be included upon it men of eminence, impartial men, in the sense that Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson are. I do not believe you can expect any effective results from the giving up of this very large sum of money.
    Mr. DALTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. LOOKER: I should like, at the outset of the remarks I have to make, to say a few words in reference to what has just fallen from the opposite benches with regard to Sir John Jordan and Sir Charles Addis, and to assure my hon. Friends opposite that Sir John Jordan has a long and an honourable record in China, that he represented His Majesty most faithfully and ably in China for many years, that he enjoys the confidence of the Chinese and the British alike, and that there is no man in this country who desires more to further China's interest and aid her aims, than Sir John Jordan. As regards Sir Charles Addis, he is well

    297
    known as having a long connection with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, which has had nothing but China's interests at heart ever since it was started. He has been one of the greatest friends that China has ever had in that connection. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Front Bench may laugh, but I can assure them they are laughing at something they do not know, and the Chinese themselves, if they were asked to select two gentlemen, who, by their experience and connection with China, were more fitted than any others to advise the Government as to how this money could be best applied, would select those two names before any others.
    The purposes of this Bill, important as they are on the face of them, namely, by a natural, friendly and generous act to China to give proof of our good-will and our friendship to her and of our desire to promote her welfare and development, present to all those who have a personal experience of China, or who have long business connections with her, and who have some knowledge of her needs, of her history, of the aims which she has in front of her, and of the historic connection of this country with her, a deeper and greater significance still. Our friendship with China is no new thing. It is of long standing, and well-tried, and we could take no better step to convince her of our desire to do what we can to encourage her on the road she is now pursuing than by the step we have taken regarding the application of the moneys as provided for in this Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated, in opening, that. the chief reason, as I understood him, why this money was being applied to these purposes, was because of China entering into the War on our side. I can only say that I think all those people who have lived any length of time in China, and who know and respect her and have an affection for her, as everyone has who has lived many years in the Far East, would have liked it better if it had been put on the ground of old friendship and of our desire to promote those aims of China which she is so ardently hoping to achieve, and not merely on the ground of some reward, because she did not fight against us in the struggle that finished the other day.
    298
    I should like, if I may, to congratulate the Government on the wisdom and the foresight which have led them to put in this Bill words of such width as regards the purposes to which this money may he applied. First and foremost comes education. Now education is a very valuable thing, and it is generally recognised, both throughout China and in this country, that it is very desirable to give assistance to China in this direction, but I would point out to the House that there is already a, tremendous amount of financial assistance being afforded to education in China already. There are scattered up and down the length and breadth of China universities, colleges, and educational establishments of all descriptions. They are turning out every day a greater and greater number of students, well equipped, owing to lectures by experts from foreign countries in all those branches of modern commerce and modern science which China desires to encourage in her own country. There are every day students going from China to foreign countries, to Japan, to America, to the Continent, and to this country, to complete their courses and they are returning every day to China in greater and greater numbers. There is in Hong Kong a university, which was set up with the aid of British munificence, which has the finest staff of expert professors which you could possibly get, which has an increasing number of students going to it from all parts of China, the Straits Settlements and the neighbouring islands, and which is putting at the disposal of China as a whole a university course which is now as fine as she could possibly get anywhere else.
    But education for a growing country is not everything, and it is a great question at the moment as to whether China is not getting, possibly, more educational facilities than at the moment she can readily absorb, and I think it is common knowledge that many of these students who have been abroad, and completed their education and training, on their return to China find there is no useful avenue in which they can employ and make use of the knowledge they have gained, because China in many respects is not yet in a sufficient state of development to enable them to do it. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that it may be a wise thing, while you are educating, and help-

    299
    ing to educate, China, to take also such other means as you can to enable China, to reap the benefit of this education which her sons have got. I, personally, am not in favour of any definite object being immediately laid down other than education to which this money can be applied. But what do we see? China is roadless for all practical purposes. Her communications are choked; her conservancy is neglected. She is subject to famine and pestilence with all its consequences. If, therefore, by means of a little wise expenditure in these directions, you can help to develop, you can help to aid that demand which is so insistently raised on her part for modern, western methods, manufactures and products, you will assist in giving the opportunity to those students you have educated of putting what they have learnt to some good use.
    I would respectfully suggest to the Government that when this Committee, which will be set up to consider the application of these moneys, has that question under its consideration, it should not be in any hurry at the moment to apply them in any particular way, for this simple reason. China at present is in a state of chaos, and you have no guarantee, if you spend the moneys at the moment, and under the present conditions, that the fruits of your expenditure will be permanent. There are many avenues, perhaps, in which the money might usefully be spent, but it is impossible to tell, in the existing state of affairs, that within two or three years, owing to further fighting, the acts of disbanded soldiers, or unpaid soldiers, or bandits, the whole of the fruits of what you are spending may riot entirely be wiped out, and I submit it will be very desirable to go very slowly and cautiously in any respect in which you are applying these further moneys. I would suggest to the Government that they should not be too eager to spend or apply these moneys to any purpose other than education until they are assured they will have permanent results. After all, why close the door to any other good suggestions which may be made as to how this money can be usefully applied in benefiting China and benefiting this country? Suggestions are sure to arise. Why limit yourselves now to one particular thing, when you may very much regret in a few years you had not liberty to spend it elsewhere? I appreciate very
    300
    much, if I may say so, the very human reasons which have led hon. Members on the opposite benches in the circumstances to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope, nevertheless, it will not deter them from giving this Bill a Second Reading, and enabling it to be passed into law, and so convince China not only of our friendship, but also of our bone fides that we really mean, and are anxious to do, what we have said we will do, to apply this money in some way which will be beneficial to her as much as possible at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: There are several things which one would like to say, but I think most of them can be more conveniently reserved for the Committee stage. I can only view with astonishment the attitude which has been taken up by the Opposition on this question, because here we are dealing with a Bill which is, word for word, the same as it emerged from Committee last year. In the Bill we read that the indemnity money is to be devoted to educational and other purposes mutually beneficial to His Majesty and the Republic of China. We have an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the words "or other purposes" do imply that the other purposes will be of an educational character, or of a similar character, as, for instance, medical education and medical research, which I hope will be included in "other purposes." Having the assurance that part of the money will be devoted to educational purposes, I am surprised to find that the Opposition is prepared to deny a Second Beading to this Bill just because two Members of a Committee which they appointed very irregularly last year have not been re-appointed, although the Bill which would have made that Committee statutory was not passed.
    Mr. PONSONBY: There is no irregularity in asking Members to serve on a Committee, and getting their acceptance. That is the usual course we have to pursue in those cases.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: At any rate the appointment of the two gentlemen in question was not confirmed by the present Government, and, instead of one of these gentlemen, Professor Soothill was appointed, and it is now contended that the educational element in the Committee is hopelessly

    301
    weak. I would like to see that Committee considerably altered. The object of the Bill is for the mutual benefit of this country and China, and therefore it seems to me to be a corollary that there should be full weight given on that Committee to Chinese opinion and feeling. I should also like to see more guidance given to the Committee by this House. With regard to "educational and other purposes," we see already what a large difference of opinion there may be in the interpretation of the word "other." I should like to amend the Bill to insert the words, "medical, or other similar purposes," and I shall probably move an Amendment to that effect.
    There is a principle involved; it is for Parliament to give guidance to the Committee in this matter, and if guidance is not given the result will be considerable further delay. Already delay has caused an unfortunate impression in China. The remarks which have been made in reference to devoting some of this money to railways has deepened a suspicion in China, as one knows from letters received from men on the spot, that the intention of this country is to use this money merely to serve English commercial interests, which we know is not the intention. Two of my hon. Friends have spoken about applying this money to railways, but in these matters is it not as well to know the opinion of people on the spot, and more particularly the business people on the spot? I have here the British Chambers of Commerce Journal of China and Hong Kong for December, and there is in it a leading article on the Boxer indemnity. It says:
    " Nor do we think that the British commercial community in China as a whole, were its opinion consulted, would be inclined to recede from the Resolutions in favour of using the indemnity for educational purposes passed at successive annual conferences."
    Then it gives the argument as stated in the same journal as far back as December, 1921, as follows:
    "(a) That in the modernisation of China the part played by the British in education has been far smaller than their other activities in this country:
    (b) That as a result of this British influence has been unduly narrowed to the spheres of commerce and finance:
    (c) That this narrowing is a bad thing both for Great Britain and for China; for Great Britain, because it minimises the just rewards to which the work of her sons in
    302
    this country entitles her; for China, because British education has certain qualities which are not to be found in any other. The fact that amongst the just rewards alluded to are commercial opportunities is the least important consideration. The issue is a much bigger out. than commercial opportunity. The issue is the all-round part which Britain, not only as the leading power in the East, but as the centre of a vast Empire built up on traditions of government from which every free country in the world has borrowed, ought to play in this country which is daily re-acting to foreign ideas and examples."
    Mr. LOOKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the, present moment the British Chambers of Commerce and the China Association are writing home and strongly supporting the wording of the present Bill?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: That does not preclude the words "and other being interpreted as" educational. "I should like to add that Anglo-Chinese firms have backed their opinion by contributing £50,000 for these purposes I know that some hon. Members are sceptical as to the value of education in China, but may I remind them that China is an ancient country with an ancient civilisation and a traditional reverence for education, and, although the percentage of educated Chinese in comparison with the great population of China is extremely small, yet the weight of their opinion and influence is out of all proportion to their numbers. I will give one example from an article written in the November number of the "Empire Review," which no doubt a good many hon. Members have seen, by Dr. R. P. Scott, a member of the Chinese Committee of the Foreign Office who has studied this question on the spot. He says:
    "In the Boxer rising of 1900 there was a barbarous massacre of British missionaries and their wives and families, and in expiation the Chinese Government offered half a million taels."
    That is about £80,000, but the missionaries, under the leadership of Dr. Timothy Richard, realising that the crime was due to ignorance, refused to accept the blood money, and suggested, instead, that a university should be founded with that money, and it was founded. There were admitted to that university, not ordinary students, but those who had taken their Chinese degrees, and the university worked

    303
    under Dr. Richard for 10 years. In 1911 the Revolution put an end to its activities, but the effect remains, in that Shansi, which was once the most backward Province in China, is now the "model Province." We are told that there are 436,000,000 people in China, and we are asked how are you going to apply this money for educational purposes. Since 1911 China has been recasting her educational system. We might help her by establishing an efficient inspectorate. We might support the secondary schools in China which are under British control. We might give additional help to the Hong Kong University which is badly needed.
    Above all things, one of the most necessary things we might do would be to found a club and hostel for Chinese students in this city. We do not realise how much we lose in national prestige by the w ay in which the students of foreign countries are treated here. If there is no centre for them at which to meet, they often get into wrong hands, and they go home and say that the English are as bad as their own people, the result being that we lose prestige. If we had a large club in London, it would be a centre for the Chinese students where they could meet quite voluntarily, and there would he a fostered feeling of friendship, the effects of which would be very great on their return to their own country. One other suggestion is that some of this money might be spent to encourage medical research and medical education. That view is very strongly supported by a letter from Bishop Norris, and I will quote one passage from his letter. He contrasts the attitude of young China and old China in this matter, and he adds that
    "Young China and the old China are at one in believing that this money should be applied to education."
    He adds his own support of that, but is would all depend upon the lines upon which the help to education is offered. He says that if you wish to get immediate definite results, keep the expenditure of the money as completely as possible under English control; but if you want great results and you wish to take a long and a broad view, even at the cost of some waste in expenditure, you should limit English control as far as possible. I
    304
    have been hoping that this Bill might pass with the unanimous blessing of all parties, and I believe that money employed in the direction I have indicated would do much to encourage friendship between this country and China and would also do something to promote world peace and world progress.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am very much in agreement with a good deal that the previous speaker has said with regard to this Bill. For my own part I have no great objection to the principle of this Measure, and personally I hope that the result of this Bill when it is put into operation will-be the development of much more harmonious relations between ourselves and the people of China. There are, however, one or two things which I think need to be said in connection with this discussion, and there are one or two questions that I should like to ask the Under-Secretary, which I hope he will take particular care to answer. Before I come to them, I should like to make one or two general remarks upon the subject-matter of this Bill. I think it will be agreed that the whole world is just now beginning to turn its attention towards the East. Eastern affairs are beginning to occupy the attention of diplomatists and politicians of all schools of thought, and the fact that Eastern questions are occupying so large a proportion of our interest and time must necessarily add importance to this present discussion. Anyhow, I think we cannot dissociate entirely from this discussion a consideration of its relation to the international situation in the East at some future date.
    The question, therefore, arises as to what our attitude is going to be towards the people of China generally, and I am rising in support of this Bill because I want to urge that we should accord to the Chinese as judicious a treatment as possible in regard to this problem of the indemnity. After all, Britain cannot but secure much good from the exercise of as full and complete a measure of goodwill towards the Chinese people as is possible. For my part, I say frankly to the House that I should have been very glad if we could have wiped out this indemnity many years ago, but it was not the case, and, consequently, I agree that, in the absence of allowing the Chinese people

    305
    complete forgiveness of their debt, this, perhaps, may be the second best way of dealing with it.
    The proposition, as I understand it, is that this money shall be utilised in the direction of some form of educational work in China. It is not, I think, the unanimous opinion of Members of the House that education should have the first claim. The point has been put forward by one or two previous speakers that railways and transport have a prior claim over the claims of education; but I think most Members will agree that educational effort is, after all, the most likely to provide lasting benefit for the people of China. But, in regard to this educational effort, I should like to emphasise the necessity of taking good care that such educational effort, shall be embarked upon with China rather than for China; that is to say, we ought to strive, as far as we can, to secure as complete a measure of Chinese co-operation in this matter as possible, rather than dictating such proposals to her. If I may say so, I should have liked in that matter to see—and in this I agree with the previous speaker—a larger measure of representation given to the Chinese upon this committee of ten.
    The question for us arises, what sort of contribution shall Western civilisation make to this problem for and on behalf of the Chinese people? This proposal is our contribution, I take it. This is our suggestion—that we should remit to the Chinese the unpaid proportion of the indemnity, so that the money shall be spent upon some form of educational experiment and operation. In that matter I am bound to say I cannot agree with one of the previous speakers, who argued pretty strongly that this was our money. For my part, I cannot quite see where the generosity comes in, for, after all, the debt is one that was incurred in 1900, but since then—largely, let it be remembered, under very strong pressure from representatives of England and America—China came into the late War and gave a certain measure of service; and, in return for that service, we very generously told China," In return for your service, we will allow you to be forgiven the debt which you owe to the other fellow." So far as we ourselves are concerned, we seem to be sticking to our share of the bond.
    306
    The difficulty, therefore, arises, as I think the Under-Secretary indicated, that a measure of uncertainty has been created in the minds of the Chinese people as to what our attitude is going to be, and is likely to be, having regard to the action of leading nations like America, Japan, and, indeed, Russia. I feel that this is an excellent gesture, but, in making this gesture, I think we ought to make quite sure that we are proceeding upon right lines. There is, I gather, no inconsiderable amount of educational provision in China at this moment. They have a large number—I suppose, compared with the extent of China, it may be small, comparatively speaking, but still there is a substantial number—of educational institutions, primary schools, secondary schools, and, indeed, universities, in various parts of China; but the trouble, as I gather, is that all these educational efforts in China are largely disjointed. There is no coordination amongst them; there is no common standard of efficiency; there is no common degree that is taken in the universities. In fact, there is no sort of authority to co-ordinate the efforts of these various institutions throughout the country.
    Mr. LOOKER: May I just explain that in most of the universities in China the, whole of their curriculum is directed to getting a recognised degree from America or from this country, and that that is the object at which they are aiming?
    Mr. JONES: I think that is true, but the point I was making was that all these universities are operating in a large degree independently of each other, and I should imagine that, if this money is to be devoted to educational purposes, it ought to be directed as far as possible to the co-ordination of educational effort throughout China. In doing that, however, I should like to urge that no attempt be made, as I gather is somewhat suggested this afternoon, to give the education a sort of bias in favour of this nation or of that. There is a great danger, it seems to me, that any such attempt may result in denationalising education in China. Those of us who have watched the experiment in a greater or less degree of educating students from Egypt or India in this country, will appreciate that that experiment has not been entirely un-

    307
    attended with great difficulties subsequently in the countries to which those students belong, and I should be extremely sorry if we created a sort of feeling amongst educated Chinese people that we are trying to give a sort of English education, as against and as a rival to American education or Japanese education. Education ought not to be divided in that way; it ought not to be denationalised; it is universal in character, and the whole purpose of our efforts should, it seems to me, be to develop the cultural side of the characteristics of the Chinese, and to give them a feeling that we are really working, not in the interests of British commerce or British trade, but primarily in the interests of Chinese development itself.
    If I may, I should like to make one further point. I believe there is a feeling abroad, and, indeed, a movement abroad, in favour of spending some of this money upon the establishment of, say, a university in. Pekin or elsewhere. For my part, I trust that this Committee, when it is established, will not allow itself to be side-tracked into such a movement as that, but that it will see, as far as possible, that this money shall be disbursed fairly universally and generally throughout the country, in so far, of course, as that is possible. The point., however, that I want to raise with the right hon. Gentleman is this: My hon. Friend, the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, intimated to the House the reason why he felt. that the conditions had somewhat changed since last year. I think it is agreed that in general terms the Bill of this year is in strict accord with the Bill of last year, and that we are still in general agreement with the purpose of the scheme. But the point which my hon. Friend put was this: Last year a Committee was appointed by the late Government, and two members of that Committee have been. shall I say, asked to resign.
    Mr. McNEILL: No.
    Mr. JONES: Have been removed, then.
    Mr. McNEILL: They were not re-invited.
    Mr. JONES: Do I understand that, with the passing of the late Government, the Committee ipso facto came to an end?
    Mr. McNEILL: Of course.
    Mr. JONES: Then may I ask if, when the Committee came to an end, the new members were re-invited with the old members at the same time?
    Mr. McNEILL:indicated assent.
    Mr. JONES: Then I should like to put this to the Under-Secretary. On the 17th December questions were asked in this House in regard to this very matter, and my hon., Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asked this question:
    "What is the reason for cancelling the invitation sent to Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson asking them to serve on the Committee to be set up under the China indemnity Bill?"
    And the reply of the Secretary of State was as follows:
    "Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reason is that on reconsideration it was found that the composition of the Committee—the numbers of which it is important to keep small—was not sufficiently representative, and, in particular, that it included no member with practical experience of educational organisation in China."
    Then my hon. Friend asked a further question:
    "Considering that these gentlemen were both very well qualified for the post which had been offered them, was this decision really only because of their association with the Labour patty?"
    And the answer was:
    "I am not anxious to discuss the qualifications of these gentlemen unless the hon. Gentleman forces me to do so. I have given a sufficient reason, in my opinion, for alter-in, the composition of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1924; col. 962, Vol. 179.]
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he really think that that question is fairly closed by a reply such as that? After all, these two gentlemen are very distinguished people, people who hold very high positions, and are held in high esteem in certain universities of this country. I believe one of them was for years before the War a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. I believe he still lectures at Cambridge University. As I understand it, this gentleman is being trusted, and is deemed to be good enough to lecture to English students, but is not deemed to be good enough to advise upon the education of Chinese students.
    In fairness to these people, and to the late Government, as well as to the House of Commons, it is, I think, entirely just

    309
    and proper that we should ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to give us in much more clear and precise terms an answer to the specific question as to whether it was political reasons which led to the exclusion of these gentlemen from this Committee. After all, we are not urging that their successors on this Committee are not men of high academic distinction. They doubtless are, but the appointment of the two people I have named was hailed with great delight by, I will not say all, but same sections of public opinion, and academic opinion, in China. Now these people have been removed and the inevitable consequence has been, rightly or wrongly, that the impression has been created that they have been removed because they might be person in-gratte to the present Government on account of their political opinions, and the deduction therefore is made, rightly or wrongly, that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind this proposal and that the money is not primarily to be spent for educational purposes. Therefore it is in order to get the matter made perfectly clear by a distinct announcement from the right hon. Gentleman that I ask him to state a little more fully the reason why these two gentlemen have been removed from the Committee. With that proviso and with that reservation I wish this scheme every good luck. I believe if you encourage educational institutions in China you will have a new set of young leaders for the China of the future, and that after all is the greatest desideratum in connection with a country such as this, that it shall be able to evolve its own leaders and not depend upon leaders from outside. They will have the necessary initiative, they will have a certain independence of mind, they will be disciplined in the institutions of a free country and they will be able to appreciate something of the meaning of corporate responsibility, and I trust that this experiment when it is made will be attended with the fullest possible measure of success which I am sure the whole House desires for it.
    Mr. McNEILL: The direct challenge the hon. Member has made to me is one which I think it is necessary for me to take up, and I am not only ready to answer his challenge but, considering what he has told me, I am very glad to have the opportunity of doing so. I have
    310
    not the slightest hesitation in giving a most categorical denial at once to" the suggestion that any alteration which has been made in regard to the personnel of this Committee- was due in the smallest degree to any consideration of the political opinions of the persons involved. It had nothing whatever to do with it. As that particular point has been touched upon by more than one hon. Member opposite I ought to tell the House exactly how this occurred and they will see that, instead of being apparently a sinister conspiracy from a political point of view, it was an extremely simple and sincere desire on the part of the present Government not only to have a good Committee, which I am quite willing to admit had been provided by our predecessors, but a superlatively good one. I am not going to say a word against the two gentlemen whom we did not invite. All I say is that we were fortunate enough to get gentlemen whom we thought better for this particular purpose in hand. I do not think hon. Members opposite are quite accurate. or justified in speaking of the removal of these two gentlemen. I think the appointment, or at all events the making public of the names of the Committee by the late Government was rather premature. It is frequently done in such cases to appoint a Committee and to make known the names to Parliament on the Third Beading of a Bill, but I think certainly it is just as common to say on these occasions that it would be premature to appoint a Committee or to announce their names until the Bill is through Parliament.
    At all events, what happened was this. With the General Election, the end of a Session and of Parliament, this Bill, which had only gone through Committee, of course, came to an end. It no longer existed. The Committee which had been set up, prematurely as I suggest, which depended upon the passing of the Act, ipso facto fell to the ground along with the death of the Bill, and when we decided to re-introduce the Bill, of course we were perfectly free to nominate and invite an entirely new Committee. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not have had the smallest ground for complaint, and I think myself probably they would have complained less if we had not invited any one of the gentlemen they invited.
    We were under no obligation. We knew

    311
    the names they had suggested, and we went through the list to see if we thought they had got the best possible Committee together. We did, in fact, endorse their judgment to the extent of inviting nine of the gentlemen they had invited, scrutinising in those cases, too, whether the qualifications which had commended them to our predecessors equally commended them to us. For instance, so far from there being anything political in the question, I might retort to the hon. Gentleman and ask was it for political reasons that they nominated those two gentlemen. I do not suggest that it was, but it is really quite as plausible to suggest that they had been nominated because they were supporters of the Labour party as to suggest that we did not re-invite them because they were not. As a matter of fact, I am certain their political opinions had nothing to do with it either in one case or the other. But what did we find? We were extremely anxious to have one special representative of education, and education in China, and we found for this purpose our predecessors had nominated Mr. Bertrand Russell.
    Mr. Bertrand Russell, of course, has a most, brilliant intellect. He is a man of most brilliant parts who would do honour to a great many appointments, but the whole question was were his brilliant gifts exactly what was wanted for this particular job, and were they the best we could net. The late Under-Secretary laid stress on the fact that Mr. Russell had been a year in China delivering lectures. I agree that if we had not been able to find anyone better that would have been a, qualification, but we think we have found someone with much greater qualifications. I entirely accept the principles laid down by my predecessor. He wanted a man who was an educationist with a knowledge of China and he wanted him to be sympathetic to China, and I think there were some other similar qualifications which the hon. Gentleman laid down. I accept all that. All I say is that, with all his gifts, Mr. Russell did not possess them. We have substituted instead of a brilliant philosopher who has spent a year in China—whether he knows a word of Chinese or not I do not know I very much doubt whether Mr. Dickinson does and I very much doubt whether Mr. Russell does—
    312
    we have secured the services of a gentleman who has spent 20 years in administering education in China. We have secured the services of a professor of Chinese at the University of Oxford, a man who was himself President of one of the most successful universities in China, which has sprung up from the indemnity given to the missionaries at the time of the Boxer Rebellion when the missionaries refused to accept blood money and handed the money over to found a university. That is the only connection, as far as I know, that can be alleged between this university and missionary activity. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) objected that this gentleman was not, perhaps, the best possible- because he was a missionary educationist. He is quite mistaken. This gentleman went to China originally as a missionary, but he. has been connected with the general administration for 20 years of almost the most successful of the Chinese universities, thoroughly knowing the language and the people, one of the best authorities and writers upon Confucius and Confucianism and consequently one who, we may well say, has not only a knowledge of China but is sympathetic to China and the Chinese.
    6.0 P.m.
    That is the whole reason why we did not invite Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Dickinson, because we thought, going through the list, we had succeeded in getting someone who had still greater qualifications for the post. That is the whole story, and the idea that there was anything political in our minds never occurred to us for a moment. It came quite as a surprise to the Foreign Secretary when this suggestion was made. We again endeavoured, as far as we could, to show that we had no such feeling in mind by one after another inviting two distinguished members of the party opposite to go on this Committee. We were unfortunate in not being able to secure their services, but, at all events, I hope I have said enough to show, in answer to the hon. Gentlemen's challenge, that nothing was further from our thoughts than to let political or party feeling come into the matter at all. We claim that we have got the best possible Committee together for advising the Secretary of State in this very important matter. I think the

    313
    importance of it has been shown in the course of the Debate. I do not want to deal with the other point, as to what the object should be for which the money is to be used, because that is a matter which can be much better discussed in Committee. We cannot alter the words of the Clause now on the Floor of the House. There will be plenty of time to discuss that point when we get upstairs. I am very largely in agreement with what was said by two hon. Members opposite. I do not want to see this grant commercialised. I want to see it given, in the main, to education, or similar objects, but I do not want to be tied down to a strict definition. I think there ought to be a certain amount of latitude allowed to the Advisory Committee. With this explanation, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will believe in the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who entirely repudiates any desire either to disparage the two gentlemen referred to, or to deal in any way disrespectfully with the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for their original invitation. Nothing was further from our thoughts. Our only desire has been to get the best Committee. I hope that the House will now give us a Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I have no intention of resisting the Second Reading of the Bill. I accept the statement made by my right hon. Friend regarding what. I think is a rather unfortunate incident. The right hon. Gentleman, complained that somehow or other the nomination of certain members of the Committee appeared in the Press before the Bill had got a Third Reading in this House. At any rate, I understood my right hon. Friend to object to the names of those who were appointed appearing in the Press and becoming known before the Bill which created the Advisory Committee had received a Third Reading in this House.
    Mr. McNEILL: If I said that, it was not what I intended to say. I think I said that it was rather premature to announce the names; that the fact of the Committee having been appointed before the Bill became law was premature in that sense, and that it was not fair to take exception to our action in not accepting
    314
    all the names which appeared on that previous list.
    Mr. MacDONALD: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is quite impossible to wait until a Bill like this has had its Third Reading, or approaches its Third Reading stage, before the selected members of the Committee are approached and asked whether they will act upon it. We took the usual procedure. I admit, after my right hon. Friend's explanation, that the Foreign Office did not mean to do what I confess I thought they had meant. and that was, first of all, that the Foreign Office had. dismissed these two gentlemen from the Committee. They did not simply fail to reappoint them. I have seen the letters, and if the letters were intended to convey in the proper way that their appointment was not to be continued, they were unfortunately worded, because the effect was to say that their services were not required.
    The second point was this. I confess that when I was considering the appointment of the Committee I was pressed very hardly to make it a commercial Committee. I was pressed again and again, and I did not dismiss the idea straight away; I went very carefully into it. One hon. Member has suggested that the money should be spent on railways. There is a great deal to be said for that idea, but when you go into the details you find that you cannot do it. You find the difficulties. Supposing you capitalised your income and created a capital of £8,000,000 to be spent upon railway development in China. I doubt whether at the present time, and. I am afraid for some time to come, there would be a Foreign Secretary who would care to face the load of troubles and complexities and negotiations that would have to precede and follow the floating of a. company with a programme such as that contemplated in the suggestion made by my hon. Friend opposite. It is quite impracticable. On its merits, I thought that it was far better that. it should be spent on education.
    There is a psychological effect which we must consider, as well as the direct commercial effect. There is no doubt that America has gained very much in her status in the mind of the Chinese on account of the way she has handled her part of the Boxer indemnity. My right hon. Friend did not make quite clear to the House that he removed two educa-

    315
    tionists from the Committee and put only one educationist on, and that the second appointment instead of being that of an educationist was that of a business man. If the House would be good enough to scrutinise the Committee that I appointed, they would find that, as a matter of fact, business was rather excessively represented upon that Committee. I expected that objection would be taken to the Committee I appointed, on the ground that there were too many business men upon it. I did it with my eyes open because I wished to get the confidence of that section. I was perfectly certain that the case that could be put up was so strong that I could trust it almost to any Committee. Therefore I made the appointments that I did, but my right hon. Friend has tilted the balance so much that I am afraid I have not that confidence now. There is only one distinct educationist upon the Committee—of course, there are others interested in education—and the rest can hardly claim that distinction, unless the right hon. Gentleman claims it for Dame Adelaide Anderson.
    I would be the very last person to depreciate the admirable educational work that the Professor of Chinese at Oxford University has done for China; but the problem that I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to face, the problem that I tried to face, and the problem that this country must face if it is going to encourage western education in eastern countries—we have had our experience in India, and it is not a happy experience—is how we can bring the spirit that has grown up through western historical conditions and western educational conditions into contact with the east without denationalising the east, and creating a sort of intellectual breed of men and women who belong to no country, to no clime, to no constitution, to no racial psychology, and to no past.
    I confess that when I sought for an educationist to advise the Secretary of State. the sort of man I would have liked to have to advise me if I had been doomed to remain longer in office, so that I should have had to take action under this Bill, would have been the type of man I will endeavour to describe. Without depreciating in the least the qualities of the faithful education servant who has spent
    316
    many years in China, I preferred a fresh mind, and I believe I was right. Hon. Members know perfectly well that when you land in a strange country, which is perfectly new to you, you, somehow or other, if you are made in that way—I suppose it is a gift of God rather than anything else—begin to take up the atmosphere of the country, and whilst you cannot describe the forest from the point of view of the trees, nevertheless, if you are the right type of person, you can describe the forest as a whole far better than people who have been living there for years in that country and who have become blind to the general lie of the land, although they have become tremendously learned in all the details of the configuration of the country.
    A wise Secretary of State who wished to get the best advice for the expenditure of this money on education, knowing the great problem that eastern education possesses for the western mind, and having on the one hand the choice of a trained mind who knows all the details by years of experience in the country, becoming blind to certain things and enlightened on others, and, on the other hand, wide, open cultured minds, representative of western intelligence and culture, men who had been in China, had studied Chinese conditions and had given proof of their capacity of understanding by their writings, would choose the latter rather than the former. I am not going to praise either of the two gentlemen who have been rejected, but I will say this, that hon. Members who have spent, I hope, delightful hours in reading Mr. Lowes Dickinson's book on Eastern Civilisation, and his still more delightful book, "The Letters of John Chinaman," will not dispute that here is a man with a fine western culture, the beautiful production of the best of our English Universities, who has the capacity to go out and put himself under totally new conditions, with totally new surroundings, and at once to assimilate them, to pass them through his own mind and his own culture, and to produce an appreciation of them which is essential if education conducted by westerners is to be successful under oriental conditions.
    That was why I, quite deliberately, made the selection that I did, but I accept unreservedly what my right hon. Friend has said on the matter and, as far

    317
    as I am concerned, I am willing that should be closed. I felt that I ought to explain to the House why I made the selection of these two gentlemen. It was not because they were politicians. I was not interested in politics as such when I appointed educational advisers to China. My only desire was to get the very best men. There was a method in the selection, and I am profoundly convinced that before we successfully face the problems of oriental education, some method such as that which I tried to employ will have to be employed by those who are responsible in this country.
    Question," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

    TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
    Considered in Committee. [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.)
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert the words
    " provided that such loans shall not be guaranteed in future unless the guarantee is qualified by such conditions as shall ensure the participation by the public in the value et the assets created."
    The object of this Amendment, which stands in the name of the right Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and myself, is to call attention to the large principle which is at stake in this Trade Fa3ilities legislation. That is, as to whether this House should continue longer to give substantial guarantees based on public credit in this country, without having some definite part in the assets which we help to create. The matter has been discussed at such great length in the last Debate that I need not do more now. than summarise the present position. On previous occasions we have asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to
    318
    grant some kind of inquiry in order to find out whether there should be any change in the practice as regards, at all events, future guarantees, and as regards the policy as a whole, and we should not have put this Amendment on the Order Paper if the Financial Secretary had been able to meet us to any extent, but, in the course of yesterday's Debate, he made it clear that he was not prepared to do anything along the lines of an inquiry, and we then gave notice that we should test the principle by the Amendment which I now move.
    This legislation is now four or five years old. It was described in its initial stages as a temporary proposal. I think that we were able to show yesterday that for all practical purposes, seeing that some of the guarantees are for a period of 15 years, it must be regarded as a permanent proposition. Accordingly, we are compelled to ask the Government what they propose to do by way of getting some return in respect of the guarantees which we give based on the credit of this country. The scheme has been extended on various occasions. It was extended by our proposals in the summer of 1924. The Financial Secretary now proposes a further extension, which brings the contingent liability upon the taxpayers up to £70,000,000, and hon. Members in different parts of the House suggest that in order to find a remedy for unemployment it may be necessary further to extend trade facilities in time to come.
    During the time we were in office, one right hon. Member, who spoke for the Liberal section of the Opposition at that time, suggested that, at once, we should raise the aggregate guarantee to £100,000,000, and there was a certain amount of support for that proposal. But whatever view we take of the aggregate sum, it must be perfectly plain that the House cannot go on indefinitely in this connection giving a guarantee, with a certain effect upon our credit, without coming to a very clear conclusion as to the public right in the assets created. I said in this connection the other clay that unfortunately from that point this does not stand alone. We have a contingent liability, say, of £26,000,000 under the export credits scheme, and we are giving, not by way of guarantee but in actual grants, £5,000.000 for colonial developments under the arrangement of last

    319
    year. There is a proposal to give another £1,000,000 a year in direct subsidies to schemes of colonial production, and, in short, one could go on almost indefinitely setting out case after case in which we are using either the actual money of the taxpayers of this country, or at least their guarantee for very considerable sums, and we have nothing to show as regards a share or right of the kind which is now suggested.
    The reply which the Financial Secretary offers in the difficult, but I always think the greatest, office which he holds, is that we get a return in the amount of employment, which we anticipate or stimulate. Surely, that is not quite an adequate reply in this connection, because we have been able to show that perhaps a great deal of this work would have gone on apart from trade facilities, and that probably we have helped certain people who did not strictly require help, by enabling them to raise their money in the open market on slightly easier terms. In other words, in those cases the subsidy or the benefit of the reduced rate which they had to pay, to say nothing of the value of the guarantee, can be readily measured. It is a very plain gift at the expense of one body of taxpayers of Great Britain.
    In opposition to our proposal that there should be a public right in the assets created by these guarantees the Financial Secretary may say that, in such conditions, these people will not avail themselves of the guarantees, under the Trade Facilities Act, that they will hesitate to come forward, and that the scheme will not assist the cure of unemployment. In reply to that contention, may I refer to the very practical value of the guarantee which, beyond all doubt, turns some of these investments into trustee securities, and undoubtedly gives them the benefit, it may he to the extent of 1 per cent. or even more of a reduced rate of interest. in the open market. This, we feel, is a matter of considerable value, but, apart from that altogether, and certainly quite apart from any economic controversy which divides us as to the public ownership and private enterprise. I am certain that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that it is a very dangerous thing to go on giving this guarantee
    320
    without coming to some conclusion regarding our right in the capital assets created thereby.
    We cannot dissociate that argument from the circumstances in which we meet to-day, with a, burden of nearly £8,000,000,000 debt, and all sections of taxpayers bearing a heavy burden, and the danger of showing a preference to certain classes of private enterprise at the expense of their brethren when the former are in many cases in a better position than the very people who have to stand by a guarantee of this kind. To test that principle, this Amendment has been put on the Paper. We do not commit ourselves to details. We cannot do that, because it is a very difficult thing, hut we do submit that the issue should be discussed, and we do regard it as so important that, if the Financial Secretary unfortunately finds it impossible to meet us, we shall he compelled to press this to division in the Lobby.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is moving this Amendment as a demonstration, and as a test of the opinion of the Committee in the direction of widening the scope of the Trade Facilities machinery, and we on this side are bound to resist it because we believe that it would not be in the public interest to extend the scope of this Bill, and to strain machinery which is efficient for its purpose by using it for some wider ends which were not in view when it was originally instituted. The Debate which we had yesterday covered this particular point in great detail, and I do not want to inflict on hon. Members a long speech on the same subject. We cannot foretell how long the Trade Facilities machinery will remain necessary. He would be a very bold man who would foretell the future course of unemployment in this country. but we can fairly point to the decision of the Labour Government last year in renewing the Trade Facilities Acts in exactly the same way as we are doing on this occasion, and leaving the machinery of Trade Facilities untouched, and contenting themselves with the temporary extension of an emergency machinery.
    Our answer to the suggestion that the public should take some participation in any concern that gets the benefit of the

    321
    Trade Facilities money is that the public interest is already adequately secured. The public are to-day guarantors to ensure anticipation of work, which, without this guarantee, would not be put in the hands for some time to come. If we insist on a share of the profits of such work, the advantage offered by the Treasury in giving a guarantee would be lessened, and the incentive to anticipate this work would necessarily be reduced in proportion. In the more speculative class of guarantees, steps are already taken to see that the public gets its share of any large return. We get back part of the stake in the returns earned by the enterprise beyond a certain figure. That class of case is a comparatively small one, because three-fifths of the guarantees which are given are not suitable to the kind of Measure which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Under the existing guarantees, which have been issued or promised, of £55,000,000, some £22,000,000 are on account of public utility undertakings, whose dividends are directly or indirectly controlled by Parliament, and Parliament sees that the public does get the benefit, of an increase in prosperity beyond a certain level. Over one-fifth—some £12,000,000—of the guarantees have been for shipping enterprises, and in that. case unfortunately we have very little prospect of considerable dividends being earned on the ordinary shares in present conditions. Apart from the general objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, there is a real danger in the State acquiring an interest in particular industrial undertakings. In the Debate yesterday it was suggested that it would be very undesirable if, owing to the Trade Facilities guarantee, the State were encouraged to send business, behind the scenes, to a particular company or undertaking. If, for instance, we were to give a guarantee to enable a boot factory to invest in fresh plant, it would be very unfair to competing concerns in the boot industry if contracts from the War Office or other Government Departments were diverted to the company in which the Government had a share or interest at the expense of other companies which had not. this advantage. On the broadest ground of principle we on this side of the House object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, as we see
    322
    in it an attempt to initiate the public ownership of industries. We do not believe that the State can or should run these industries. We believe that, except in times of emergency, the less the State has to do with controlling the supply of credit to one industry at the expense. of the rest the better, and we certainly can- not accept the suggestion that we ought to have an inquiry to see how, under the guise of the Trade Facilities Act, we can introduce the thin end of the wedge of Socialism.
    Mr. STEPHEN: In spite of the statement just. made by the Financial Secretary, I appeal to him to reconsider his decision. I support the Amendment, because I think there are certain facts which the Committee should take into consideration. It is admitted that this legislation was promoted as emergency legislation to deal with the specific problem of unemployment. When that specific emergency arose, the ordinary industry of the country had got into a position in which it was not able to afford work for the large numbers of people who were unemployed. The industry of the country was quite unfit to provide for the necessities of the people, and this scheme was devised in order that this special period, this time of unemployment, should be tided over. The Financial Secretary said that he would be a bold individual who would prophesy when we are going to get away from the existence of a large measure of unemployment in the country. All the indications are that we are going to be faced, for a good many years to come, with the spectacle of a vast number of the citizens of this country being unable to find employment. Therefore, we have to reconsider this legislation, with a realisation of the fact that these people are a permanent burden upon the community unless we devise ways and means of bringing them into industry again. We have to take account of this scheme as, practically, a permanent feature in the legislation of our country. If we are to go on as at present for another three or four years or for the term of office of the present Government., giving them the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that they are going to last for four years, there is one conclusion we can draw and that is that we shall have unemployment on practically as large a scale as at present

    323
    if not on a larger scale, while they retain office. Consequently we must go on with this legislation, and if we are going to apply credit belonging to the whole community to private enterprise, it is scarcely fair that the burden should be placed upon the general public without that public having some share in the assets created by this social credit. If any hon. Member here were approached by a friend who asked for £20,000 to set up a business, and if that business were set going and an asset created as a result of the £20,000, the lender would expect to get some return for it. He would not give the money for nothing, but we continue to give away the public credit, while the public obtain nothing in return.
    It is suggested that we gain as a community because certain people find employment, but that is not enough for the sums of money that are being guaranteed and for those contingent liabilities which have become a source of alarm to some hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) again and again has said that we cannot go on in this way without considering whether we are not jeopardising the whole of our credit. If that be so, surely the community is entitled to something more than it is getting at the present time from this legislation. The Minister might meet us in this connection. We have asked him for a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Act, and he has suggested that we cannot have that inquiry. I put it to him again that if the community has to face these ever-increasing contingent liabilities, we are entitled to ask him to consider the setting-up of some committee to see that the interests of the general body of taxpayers are taken into account. I have here a list of the various schemes that have been helped by this legislation, and one can see that ever so much wealth is being created at the public expense. I am quite willing to admit that private enterprise is doing something in the way of directing operations and utilising this public credit., but assets are being brought into being very largely as a result of this public credit, and yet the public have given that credit for nothing. There are not many of my constituents who will get anything out of this scheme. There are not many of the working-class people el this country who will get anything material out of it., but I believe the people
    324
    of the country are entitled to a share in that on which public credit is being expended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) the other day said that the effect of this legislation, which he had a part in initiating, was to confer a public benefit on private individuals, and the Amendment is the very modest proposal that when these public benefits are being conferred on private individuals, the public should share in the assets in return for the credit which has made those assets possible. I hope the Minister will meet us to some extent at least on this proposal. It is not good enough to say merely, "We cannot do this; it is the thin end of the wedge of public ownership." If it is the thin end of the wedge, it was put in when this legislation was initiated, and we cannot afford to go on spending public credit while the people are getting nothing in return.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I presume the right hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment intends to press it to a Division, and, as one who proposes to support him in it, I shall perhaps be allowed to make a few observations. I am under the disadvantage of not having heard the whole of the Debate, but I was interested in the speech made yesterday by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on this matter and the proposal to introduce a system of mixed companies—a term which will not be unfamiliar to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in connection with these concerns which. we are bolstering up or assisting by public credit. Whatever the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replies, I shall still vote for this Amendment, and I shall do what I can to persuade my hon. Friends also to support it. Last year, on the 14th April or thereabouts. £15,000,000 was added to the available credit by the Government of which he was so distinguished an ornament. What safeguard was taken to see that the wealth created by that extra credit accrued to the public'? There was plenty of time. The late Government had been in office for some months at that time, and why did they not make this provision? It would be much more difficult for their successors to take it out again. I asked this question of my right hon. and gallant Friend yesterday, but I got no

    325
    reply, and I would like to invite him to explain why, when the Conservative party are entrenched in this House in overwhelming numbers and in an impregnable position, and we can do nothing but bring moral pressure to bear on them, he chooses this moment to make this valuable suggestion? Is it because it did not occur to him when he was overburdened with the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? [An HON. MEMBER: "What are they"] I understand that he rasies the rents for the Crown as a land taxer, that he appoints magistrates as an anarchist, that he—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This does not seem very relevant to the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will tell my hon. Friend in private what the other duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy are, and how well fitted my right hon. and gallant Friend was to fulfil them. My right hon. and gallant Friend is a man of very great courage, and I invite him to enlighten me as to why this matter is brought forward now, under these distressing and oppressing circumstances, when there is very little chance of exciting either the consciences or the fears of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to support any such just Measure as is contained in the Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am delighted to be called upon in this way to answer for the sins of the late Government. But, as I know very well that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will vote for us in the Lobby whether or not I answer, I do not see that I need accede to his request. I am sure that he and his Friends will come into the Lobby with us on this or on any other subject, and we really need not pursue this question much further than to ask why, when he could have made that speech last April, he did not do so. Why did he not then press on the Government of the day, whatever Government it might he, the absolutely, fundamentally sound principles of which he only heard yesterday for the first time, and which he now brings forward in this House? We are all human, not merely Governments, but even back-benchers, and when we do awake to our responsibilities,
    326
    then all good men respond, to whatever party they may belong.
    I listened to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury more in sorrow than with surprise. It seems to me that he seta a thoroughly bad example to his colleagues on that bench. There could have been nothing clearer than the case stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who has a way of putting things pretty clearly and pretty shortly, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, showing that he had absolutely no sort of reply to our arguments, got up and deliberately misrepresented the whole tenor of that speech, which everybody had heard only two minutes before. You should wait longer before you start that sort of game. We were accused, for instance, of widening the scope of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that neither my right hon. Friend nor any of us wishes to widen the scope of the Bill. We should be only too. glad if this Measure and the reason for it could be banished into the limbo of forgotten things to-morrow, and all that. we are asking is, not that you should widen the scope of the Bill, but that you should choose business, commonsense methods, instead of applying to it, apparently, the wisdom of the ostrich, putting your head in the sand and saying: We passed the Measure in 1921, and we dare not touch the Ark of the Covenant in 1925, for fear of widening the scope of the Measure, for fear of something far more serious, namely, introducing public interest in private firms.
    Good Heavens! That sounds like Bolshevism all at once. Shade of Dizzy ! Who bought the Suez Canal shares? Who was it started a British industry called "British Dyes," with British Government capital? Who was it started beet sugar? This is Bolshevism! Sound business applied to your modern administration and legislation may he called by any name you like, hut it is still sound business, and all that we are asking in this Amendment is that we should be business men. I appeal from Philip drunk—no, I appeal from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the back benches of the Conservative party. Just see what we are doing, and I ask you whether, as honest men, you ought not to vote with us in the

    327
    Lobby to-night. Here you have a Government Department lending British credit at 4½ per cent., so that those firms which are lucky enough to persuade the Committee of three that they should be selected, among all other applicants, for the benefits of this Government credit, are able, alone of their competitors, to get money at 41 per cent., millions of money, £2,000,000 in the case of one firm. They are able to get this enormous subsidy of cheap money.
    My right hon. Friend said they might have got ½ per cent. or even 1 per cent. more, but if you look down the list of the companies that have been helped, you will find that many of them could not have got it at under 8 per cent. You are giving these people an enormous cash subsidy, and the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and says: Yes, but we arc getting advantages in return. Do not let us forget that we are anticipating expenditure, and getting work done now that would not be done otherwise for six months. Quite so. The object of the Bill is to get that advantage, but if you can get another advantage at the same time, why not get both? What is to prevent you, as a business man, if you have a company prepared to pay 6 per cent. for a Government guarantee, taking it? Why should you put the British Government in a worse position than your predecessors did when they invested in Suez Canal shares, for instance 7 Why deliberately deprive the British taxpayer of a rate of interest that he is able to get, and entitled to get, without forfeiting one single advantage obtainable under this Act?
    I ask the Committee to observe that of the £70,000,000, so far only £40,000,000 have been guaranteed, and there arc £30,000,000 still to give. If you vote against the Amendment to-night, you vote that when the British Government give the credit of this £30,000,000 they shall merely be entitled to take 4½ per cent., and not the maximum they can get. Say it. is only 1 per cent. That, on £30,000.000, is £300,000 a year. which is not to he sneezed at, even in these days when we talk in millions, and if you can get that without sacrificing a single advantage, why on earth should you not do so? I will give the Committee a particular example. Take the case of the
    328
    Athens electric power station. There is a company borrowing £2,000,000 of our money, and I do not think it is even a British company—a company which is taking £2,000,000 on a British credit.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: It is on a sterling basis.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but it is not a British company; that is to say, the directors and the shareholders are not British, and they are getting this £2,000,000 of credit. But it does not matter whether or not it is a British company, whether it is British or Greek, they could no more borrow that £2,000,000 at 4½ per cent. without British credit than they could fly. It is doubtful whether they could raise the money anywhere in the world without this Act. I am not complaining of the loan. I think it is an excellent thing, but I say that that company would have been prepared to pay, not 41 per cent., but 7 per cent. for that money, and, if so, why on earth should we not get the advantage of it? They would have ordered British machinery, and they would have had everything manufactured here in Great Britain. The whole of the £2,000,000 would have been spent here probably, and we should have got a better rate of interest and a share in the assets. I do not particularly tie myself down to any method, but I dare say they would he prepared to allot to us in ordinary shares the equivalent of the value of our credit and the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would be a terrible thing if the British Government were interested in some company, that they might place contracts with that company and so act unjustly towards other competitors, does not apply in the case of the Athens company, or the Polish company or the Lithuanian Government. Those three cases, altogether borrowing nearly £6,000,000 under this Act, were every one of them prepared to pay a higher rate of interest than you are getting from them, and every single one of those cases has happened since our Government left office. We could have made a handsome thing out of it, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite turned it down without an argument, or a thought, or any consideration whatever, on the ground that it, is a Socialistic stunt.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Why did not the right hon. and gallant Member

    329
    urge all this upon the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who is sitting next to him, when he was in power last year?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The cases I am bringing forward, where the biggest possible profit might have been made, have occurred since the present Government, came into power, and even if we made a mistake a year ago, all the more reason for sensible men doing the right thing when they see what is the right thing. It is only the pig-headed, obstinate people who adhere to wrong-headed courses, and one of the weaknesses of statesmen is that they think they must go on persisting in being wrong, after they see a thing is wrong, for fear somebody on the Back Benches might twit them with having changed their mind. It does not alter the strength of my case, whatever the last Government did or did not do. The strength of my case is that you should apply business principles to business questions, and get the best bargain for your country under the circumstances. But you are tying your hands by preventing the Committee of three getting these terms, and all that we ask in this Amendment is to allow your Committee to get the best possible terms for the country, in order that we might not give British credit without getting the best possible terms for the British public, and that we might not create for private persons assets in which we do not have t share when they are created.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. CLYNES: I think the Committee is entitled to a more ample answer to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Graham) who moved this Amendment than we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the representative of the Treasury. I want to submit to my right hon. Friend that the main ground of the argument was adequately stated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Camlachie Division (Mr. Stephen) who drew attention to the probability of the permanence of this kind of legislation. It appears to us to have passed the stage of a temporary expedient. We last year made certain additions to the volume of the guarantees provided by the State. We were not the majority Government; we could not introduce new principles with any hope or expectation of embodying them in legislation. But this is a Govern-
    330
    ment with a great majority behind it, faced with a prospect which did not confront us, and I assert deliberately that the first duty of a Government is to preserve, to pursue, to seek, the interests of the State. Not a Party interest, not a class-view interest, but the interest of the State is the immediate duty of the Government. We want, in the words of the Amendment, to ensure the participation by the public in the value of the assets created. Created by whom? Created how'? By public credit. And is it not the most reasonable thing in the world—call it the thin edge of the wedge if you like of Socialism—that assets created by State credit should in part be enjoyed by the State, and that some kind of acknowledgment or some portion of the profit or assets so created should accrue to the Government that provides the means for creating those assets?
    There have been in this discussion somewhat confusing terms used. Very much misunderstanding is shown by the public outside these walls. Some have thought that loans were provided by the Government; others that grants were made by the Government. There is; of course, in this regard neither grants nor loans. What is done is that the great background of State credit is used in order to enable persons who otherwise could not raise money to raise that money. Our view now is that the State is entitled to some share of the assets created by the enormous credit that it is able to employ. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the principle of this Amendment is not even new. The State already does possess in many parts of the world property because of its application of the principle. Indeed, it may be that the principle has been applied by previous Conservative Governments. Is it to be said—if not inside these walls by hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, certainly outside these walls—that this is a more reactionary Government than any previous Conservative Government we have had? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be afraid of the thin edge of the wedge, and to stand up and do his duty by the State and get for the State the benefit to which it is entitled.
    Mr. J. BAKER: I think the House is entitled to be told something more than we have had. Under the circumstances obtaining at the present time, in all

    331
    probability the bank rate will be raised on Thursday next. That, I suggest, ought to have the serious consideration of those controlling trade facilities grants. It certainly will have a serious effect on the industry of this country. Whilst we are considering the question of the rasing of our bank rate, we ought to be also considering the effect of that bank rate on employment in this country. It is not sufficient to be willing to grant cheap loans to induce employment, if at the same time we are pursuing a financial policy that is going to negative the one that we are trying to pursue under the Trade Facilities Act. Personally, I think this type of legislation is good, but it is too late in the day to say that this Amendment is introducing the thin edge of the wedge. We ought to recognise the fact that this Trade Facilities legislation is simply drawing private enterprise out of the mud. Private enterprise has failed in this country. The country itself has had to come to the rescue, and we ought to recognise that. Probably it would not be a proper thing for a Government to go hawking loans around the country to see whether they could get 5½ or 6½ or 7½ per cent., but is it the proper thing to grant a loan to one group of people and not give the same facility to another group? I was told, for instance, the other day, that there is an iron and steel works in this country trying to remodel itself. It gets so far with its reorganisation, and then it is held up for the want of further capital and cannot get it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a speech which should be made on the Second Reading. It is not appropriate to the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. BAKER: I am sorry if I am out of Order. It was not my intention deliberately to be out of Order, because I want to see this thing dealt with. I am not talking against time, or anything like that. Here is a suggestion that seems to me to be definitely unfair. We have granted a loan to a company at 4½ per cent., and that company issues a second debenture at 7½ per cent. Yet we are told that this Government, which is virtually giving, say, a 3 per cent. assistance, to that company, is not entitled to share in that advantage, because of some fear of some ultimate theory with
    332
    which the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not agree. The public, or the taxpayers rather, ought to get some advantage. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said the public got a share, because they were able to invest in the company getting the loan, and then they got their share. But surely only a very small section of the community is able to invest money in that way. So far as I am concerned, I have always believed that you had to have money before you could invest it. That rules out the immense majority of the people of this country. There is a further thing that the Government might take into consideration in this Act. There is another section of the community that cannot get any advantage so far as investing is concerned, but is employed in some cases by these firms. Some steps should be taken to safeguard the interest of the work-people of these firms who get the advantage of the Trade Facilities Act.
    Mr. HARDIE: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will deal with the question of new industries; and, further, will he answer this question? Will he say whether the £to be provided as credit is to have a ratio of £1 against £1 of watered capital, or against LI of actual stock?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not think there is anybody in this House who will not have a certain amount of sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendment. If we are going to look on this Trade Facilities Act purely as a business proposition, as to whether it would pay the Government or the nation to invest certain money in the industries of this country, then in my opinion the sooner the Trade Facilities Act is dispensed with the better. That is not the position as I understand it. The Trade Facilities Act is purely and simply a question of providing a guarantee to enable certain work to be done which would provide employment, and which would provide that employment earlier than would otherwise be the case. If we are going to consider the question of the factories or industries which are going to be guaranteed in this way merely as business propositions, then a wide field of a totally new character enters into the question. We are up against a factor of this kind: Is Class A the right kind of thing for the nation to invest in? Will we get a bigger profit in

    333
    investing in Class B? There is no end to that kind of thing if we once begin. The principle underlying this Amendment opens up a completely new field, which is utterly apart from the whole idea on which the Trade Facilities Act was originally started. I should deprecate very much the passing of this Amendment, not because I do not like to see the nation getting a good return on its investment—everybody would like to see that, looking at it from the point of view of an investment—but looking at it from the point of view of providing employment, it seems to me the whole principle underlying this Amendment is wrong.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am concerned, I shall vote in favour of the Amendment. I could not accept the interpretation which has been put by the last speaker upon this Act. It is true that the initiation of the Act was for the object of relieving unemployment and the only justification given by the Government for it is that it does relieve un-employment. In some other directions, as I endeavoured to point out to the House yesterday, it creates unemployment. That is not the point. From the point of view of the beneficiaries there is

    [Dvision No.27.]

    AYES

    17.15 p.m

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sexton, James

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

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shlels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Hudson J. H. Huddersfield

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sltch, Charles H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barnes, A.

    Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Barr, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Kennedy, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

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

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlestwo. W.)

    Clowes, S.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Mackinder, W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Compton, Joseph

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Vlant, S. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maxton, James

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

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Duncan, C.

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

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin; H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T, D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood, J

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wignall, James

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C,

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wright, W.

    Hardle, George D.

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Runciman, Rt, Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Warne.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scurr, John

    an actual grant of a distinct advantage by the State in that the money that they are able to obtain from the money market at a good rate gives them an advantage which may be measured in some cases at one, and in some at two, and in some cases at more than three per cent. That advantage is given to some concerns and not to others. It is given very often to concerns which have not been successful in war competition. They have not been able to hold their own. I can see no justification for resisting this Amendment. I must confess that when I examined the Amendment closely I did not altogether approve of its wording, but it is the general principle which lies behind it that seems to me is right. As justification for resisting this Amendment, what it amounts to is that the Government does not believe that the public purse should participate in the benefits which they themselves create under this Act. I do not agree with that, and I shall have to go into the Lobby against it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 26.]

    AYES.

    [4.0 p.m.

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

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leithi)

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Broad, F. A.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bromley, J.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, AbertIllery)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Dennison, R.

    Barnes, A.

    Compton, Joseph

    Duncan, C.

    Barr, J.

    Connolly, M.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Cove, W. G.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)

    NOES

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Forrest, W.

    Neville, R. J.

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gee, Captain R.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balniel, Lord

    Goff, Sir Park

    Owen, Major G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Pete, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

    Philipson, Mabel

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Bethell, A.

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

    Pownall, Lieut.- Colonel Assheton

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Raine, W.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Harland, A.

    Ramsden, E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Reid, D. O. (County Down)

    Brass, Captain W.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Remnant, Sir James

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Herel)rS)

    Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Ropner, Motor L.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

    Rye, F. G.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Salmon, Major I

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Savery, S. S.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne,C.)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Cllife, Sir Edward M.

    Smith.Carington, Neville W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Colfox Major Wm. Phillips

    Jacob, A. E.

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Cope, Major William

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cooper. J. B.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Tasker, Major R. inigo

    Crook, C. W.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Templeton, W. P.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.) Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Loder. J. de V.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Looker. Herbert William

    Waddington, R.

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Lougher, L.

    Warrender, Slr Victor

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

    Waterhouse. Captain Charles

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Wells, S. R.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Maclntyre, Ian

    Williams, Corn, C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    McLean, Major A.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Drewe, C.

    Macmillan. Captain H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Duckworth, John

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Makins. Brigadier-General E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ellis, R. G.

    Margesson. Captain D.

    Womersley. W. J.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    England, Colonel A.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    M itchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley. (Woolwich, W.).

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Falls, Sir Charles F.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Murchison, C. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ford, P. J.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Colonel Gibbs.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert the words
    " The additional five million pounds to be used exclusively for such capital undertakings as arc not able without such guarantees to secure the loans applied for."
    I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees) has been called out of the House, and therefore I am moving this Amendment in place of him. I hope the House will excuse me from making a speech which I have not had the opportunity to prepare before hand. I can understand that from the beginning of the working of this Act certain of the wealthier countries have been able to get guarantees in order to start work at the earliest possible moment; but we have had some years' experience of the working of this Act, and I submit to the Committee that it is time we tied down the Government to supporting only concerns which, although they may be perfectly sound, would not otherwise be able to get a loan to carry out their undertaking. I am going to give one or two examples of concerns that are not only well known in this country, but all over the world—great, wealthy, well-established corporations who surely to goodness ought to be able to get the money they require in the usual way, and who during the last few years have been assisted not only by the last Government but by the previous two Governments. Let me read out a, list of the names. Powell-Duffryn Colliery Company, which is one of the soundest concerns in the whole world. has gone to the Government and got facilities under this Act. Surely it was never the intention of Parliament that a company like that should be aided! There is Messrs. Harland and Wolff—he name a household word every-where. They have been able to get a Governmvnt guarantee in this way. There is the Anchor Line, the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, the Union Castle Line, well-known shipping companies whose securities might be termed gilt-edged, who have come and claimed assistance under this scheme. Where the Government is permitted to give these guarantees to an unlimited amount, it means that these great corporations are getting large sums, and that there is then very much less for other and smaller concerns.
    338
    I submit to the Committee, for example, that when the Londonderry Collieries had obtained facilities under this Act, there was not one additional man given employment. If this Act had not been in existence the firm could have gone to the money market, or to the banks, or to the public in the ordinary way and have got the money they wanted. There is a tremendous amount of money lying in the bank waiting for profitable investment to-day. Get some well-secured foreign loan, like the Greek Refugee Loan, and the thing is subscribed many times over. I am told that the banks are almost glutted with amounts of £1,000 or £2,000 waiting for investment. Therefore, I say, that it is unnecessary for these great concerns, with a splendidly re-established credit, to come to the Government for any guarantee, or to work out of the ordinary in order to get financed. For the reasons I have given, and many others which, if my hon. Friend had been here he would have put before the Committee very much better than I have done, I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The principle embodied in the Amendment is already observed by the Committee as a matter of general practice. Therefore, it would be both unnecessary and unwise to include it in terms in the Statute. At the present time the Committee satisfy themselves that, failing the guarantee, the applicant would not find it possible to carry out the new undertaking as a commercial proposition, and it is the invariable practice of the Committee to turn down applications in which the companies could, and on reasonably industrial terms, would, carry out the undertaking on their own credit. The Amendment as it is framed would actually be a retrograde step from the present position. Whereas the Committee applies this principle in all cases, and has invariably done so, this Amendment would limit the restriction to the extra £5,000,000 of guarantees to be given over and above the £65,000,000 authorised last year, and of which £10,000,000 are still not allocated. So if we accepted this Amendment the position would be that for £10,000,000 of guarantees the Committee would be absolved from following that salutary principle which they have always observed, and this

    339
    embargo would apply only to one-third of the resources which are to be made available.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Take this as an instruction.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It may be a drafting point, but I must bring it to the notice of the Committee. I think it would be very inadvisable, even if the Amendment were redrafted, to put it into the Bill, because the Committee might well be hampered by a statutory embargo of this kind. After all, it must be a matter of opinion whether or not an undertaking can raise money for a particular proposal on its own credit. We have had suggestions this afternoon that this Committee of business men have failed effectually to carry out their own rules. If these rules were embodied in an Act of Parliament, these three gentlemen would find themselves in a most unenviable position Generally speaking, they have been very free from any serious criticism. It has been recognised that they have fulfilled their difficult task with great judgment and great ability, but we have been told this afternoon that in the opinion of hon. Members opposite their judgment in certain respects has been deficient. We were told during the discussion on the last Amendment that they could have struck better bargains, could have got better financial terms, which, by their neglect, were lost to the country; and on this Amendment we have been told on the authority of the hon. and gallant Member who moved that in his opinion many of the guarantees were given to undertakings which quite easily could have raised credit without State assistance.
    I think the committee would probably be very unwilling to carry on their responsibilities if they were tied down by Statute in that way, and if it were open to people to take them to Court, perhaps, on what can only be a matter of opinion, a matter which they decide on their best judgment, with the best advice given to them, and with the advantage of their great commercial experience. In these matters, it is very undesirable to interfere more than we need with the judgment of this committee, and knowing, as I do, the way these gentlemen carry out their work, and the trouble they take to inquire into all
    340
    the proposals which are brought to them on their merits, I am certain it would be quite impossible to drive them into any particulars course of action.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I have been looking carefully at this Amendment, and I cannot understand what it means, because I have heard many discussions in this House calling attention to cases in which the committee have made advances where the security, in the minds of some hon. Members, has not been quite as good as it should be. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) gave a list of names of firms as to whose stability there is no question which had secured guarantees. Does he recognise the fact that if you are to get an increase of business you have got to borrow your money as cheaply as you can in order to compete with other undertakings in other countries? What is the meaning of these words in the Amendment? The Amendment says that the money is to be used exclusively for undertakings which are not able "without such guarantee to secure the loans asked for." What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by this? Those who know anything of this expert committee will not deny that they have carried out their work in an exceedingly able manner, and have made the most careful inquiries, and now an Amendment is brought forward which says: "Oh, but you must not give your money to good undertakings, where there is security; you are only to advance this £5,000,000 to such concerns as cannot get their money without guarantee from the Government." I think my hon. and gallant Friend had not considered the Amendment when he got up to speak about it, and that he must be wishing now that he had not moved it at all. If it means anything at all, it means that you are to advance money to concerns which are not able to go into the city and get money on reasonable terms, which is one of the most remarkable proposals ever brought before this House, especially after some of the criticisms which have been hurled at the committee. Any committee, I do not care how good or how expert they are, are likely to make mistakes sometimes, and I would rather they did make mistakes occasionally, for otherwise they would be sitting waiting for the most gilt-edged proposals to come

    341
    forward. I cannot think that anyone who considers the wording of this Amendment can say it is one which commends itself to him, and if it is pressed to a Division I cannot believe anyone with any conception of what its meaning is can possibly support it. I hope we shall not waste much more time on it.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This Amendment illustrates the difficulty in which the Government is bound to be placed so long as the Trade Facilities Act is administered on its present principles. On the one hand, an excellent committee of three, who do their work as well as any three men in the country could do it, are told that they must not run risks. The Treasury is constantly reminding them that they must amply secure the advances, or the guarantees, or whatever you like to call them, which come under the Act, and they take very careful steps, by the mortgaging of properties, and by personal guarantees, joint and several guarantees, and the like, to make sure that they do not lose money. Then there is this Amendment from my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and those who think with him, desiring that there should be no granting of loans to concerns which are able to borrow money elsewhere in the open market. In the dilemma in which the committee is placed, of having to decide, on the one hand, whether they are going to advance money to concerns which are not good enough for the money market to advance money to, and, on the other hand, whether they are to secure the State against loss, what are they to do?
    The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the Treasury has told us that this Amendment embodies the rule which they have always followed. I was surprised to hear him say that. If he will reflect for a moment or two on what the Amendment actually says, as interpreted by my hon. and gallant Friend who takes to himself its authorship, or, at any rate, its advocacy, or if he takes it in plain English, as it is on the Order Paper, I feel he will think twice before he says the committee of three have followed this rule in the past. We know from the instances which have been quoted in the House, and the long list which has already appeared in the Press,
    342
    that, it would be quite impossible for the Committee of three to say that concerns like the Seaham Harbour Authority, one of the colliery companies named, the shipping company—or the larger shipping companies anyhow—which have been mentioned, all of which are very well known concerns with first-class credit—I think it would be unfair to say of them that they have not been able to borrow outside, and yet the right hon. Gentleman tells us that this Amendment embodies the rule which was followed by the Committee of three.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The right hon. Gentleman talks as if I had been speaking of the firm. Well, if I was talking in terms. of firms I certainly created a wrong impression. What I meant to say was that the Committee would take the whole new venture on its merits, whoever might be the proposer, whether it be a firm or company which is being floated for the purpose, or a great and established industrial undertaking like the Seaham Harbour Authority. They do not look at it from the point of view of the credit of that firm as a whole, but of the offer which the firm would make if it went to the market on the undertaking which is brought before the Committee and not on the credit of the firm as a whole.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That further explanation will, I hope, relieve the Committee of the aspersion, or the indirect aspersion which would naturally Have been thrown upon them in the carrying out of their instructions. If they had followed out the exact meaning of this Amendment they could not have fulfilled the Treasury requirement that they should not jeopardise the security on which the guarantee was given. The truth is that interpretation put on the action of the Committee in our earlier discussions, and on an earlier Amendment, is nearer the truth than the explanation we have received now. Those instructions are that they should advance money to such concerns as will undertake the provision of work in advance of their programme, and as I looked through the questionnaire, to-day and yesterday, I could see nothing in it which would fulfil the requirements asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in the Amendment which is now before the Committee.

    343
    I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Guinness) would consider it necessary to make this an instruction to the Committee. For my part I think it would be as well that he should revise the whole of his instructions to the Committee, but if this did find a place in them it would be inconsistent with the instructions already given. It only shows how dangerous the whole administration of this Act can become, and how difficult it is to provide for all the conditions which are required by this House, the Treasury and the borrowers. My hon. Friends have succeeded in ventilating this subject. They have received a new interpretation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, under which the Committee will make advances in the future, and I can only express the hope that in the announcement of those terms we shall find that the extension of the borrowing powers of these concerns will not he unduly fostered under the Trades Facilities Act, and that we shall find the national security in no degree weakened.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: After what my right hon. Friend has said, I do not wish to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
    "(3) A policy committee shall be set up which will be responsible to the Treasury for the consideration of national requirements and the promotion of suitable schemes in this connection."
    On the Financial Resolution I tried to persuade the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to anticipate my wishes in this matter by himself inserting some amendment of this sort in his new draft of the Bill. He has not seen fit to do that, assuming, I suppose, that this Bill is of such a temporary nature, being for one year only, that it is not desirable to add to the machinery of the Act in any way. But it has now been renewed on three occasions. It was in the beginning a temporary Measure to deal with unemployment, but the fact that long credits have been given and that there is no sign of any diminution of the number of unemployed, would lead one to conclude that for many years to come we shall be re-enacting this particular legislation, and it seems to me that it is now
    344
    possible to make some improvements in the Act other than merely the improvement of adding a little more to the credits given. I believe that the Financial Secretary made out the case quite strongly against. myself and others who suggested that the present Advisory Committee should have some say in policy and should be influenced by political considerations. I think the case is very well established that these men, who, I understand, are very capable in their own particular line, namely, the granting of credit, should be limited to the consideration whether each particular proposition brought before them is a sound proposition commercially, and is such that the nation may fitly put its credit behind them. But there is undoubtedly a case made out, if this Act is to perform its function in relieving unemployment, for some general consideration being given by someone to the wider national requirement.
    When the Bill passes out of our hands as a temporary Measure we cease to have any interest in it and have very little control over it. The whole manipulation of the matter goes into the hands of the three members of the Advisory Committee. While, theoretically, the Treasury retains control over them, in practice the three members of the Advisory Committee are above control and criticism. It has been brought out in the Debate, both on the Financial Resolution and on the Second Reading of the Bill, that there are hundreds of schemes which would be well worth going ahead with from the national point of view and which would have a very large effect in reducing unemployment. But there is no one to stimulate the initiation of these schemes. One hon. Member on the Liberal Benches made a very able speech on the Second Reading of the Financial Resolution, and cited three or four schemes which could be put into operation in India if the backing of this Bill were put behind the people there for the raising of the necessary capital—schemes for bridge building, railway and tram line laying, all schemes which would have an immense effect in easing the burdens of unemployment in the locality which I represent in this House. Yet there is no one on the Government Bench, there is nobody inside the machinery of this Bill, who has any right to go and examine those schemes or to get into touch with the persons who would

    345
    be responsible locally for setting the schemes going, or to see whether the proposition can be pushed forward. Again, I think it is desirable that someone should be made responsible not merely for looking around to see schemes that they may initiate and stimulate, but to see what effect the guarantees that are being given at present in particular industries will have on the question of unemployment, not merely this month or next month, but two or three years hence.
    On every occasion that this question has come before. the House in the last two years I have pressed very strongly for special consideration to be given to shipbuilding schemes. During the two years that I have been here I imagine that shipbuilding has secured a bigger proportion of the guarantee than any other individual industry. I am anxious that the shipbuilding industry should be made as active and as successful as possible. I am not anxious that shipbuilding prosperity at the present moment should be created in an artificial way, which would in the long run destroy our shipbuilding industry altogether. I am not anxious that we should palliate unemployment in shipbuilding districts just now at the expense of creating later on a complete collapse and widespread unemployment. Therefore, I think it is the duty of the Government to have some responsible person who would survey the whole shipbuilding industry of the country, the shipping needs of the world, the productive capacity of our existing shipbuilding yards, so that now we may take the necessary steps which will be good for the industry in the present and in the near and distant future. I do not want to see arising in my area the position that has arisen with reference to housing, simply because no national foresight was exercised. We have to-day in the West of Scotland (which is not dissimilar from other industrial centres in this respect) a great shortage of houses. In pre-War days, by foresight, by planning ahead, by definite national and Governmental responsibility, that great shortage need not have assumed the terrible proportions that it has assumed. We could have had a reasonable amount of decent housing in existence in the West of Scotland. But not only did we allow the housing to fall into disrepair and not to keep up to the requirements of the community, but we allowed our men who were skilled and trained in the house-building
    346
    line to emigrate, and the stagnant state of the trade prevented new apprentices coming into it, so that to-day we are faced with a great shortage of houses—an emergency on which we have to take Governmental action and which we have to face now with a shortage of men, of material and of organisation.
    I can see exactly the same thing developing in the shipbuilding industry if no foresight is exercised. There is no member of the Cabinet who is responsible for exercising such foresight with reference to shipbuilding or any other industry. The Prime Minister proposes under his Safeguarding of Industries legislation to set up Committees which will deal with certain industries that want to be safeguarded, that is, certain industries that are subject to a certain type. competition. But he has not got just now in his whole Front Bench of Ministers and Under-Secretaries, and he has not got in the corporate capacity of his Government, any individual or group responsible for taking a long view of the essential industries of this country, such as shipbuilding. I believe that within a few years we shall find that there is a world demand for shipping. It is a question of one's confidence in the future, but I personally have complete confidence that the world is not coming to an end because a Conservative Government has got into power. It is a big danger but it will riot come to that. I am convinced that in future there will be a great demand for ships, that the world's carrying trade will increase, that the consuming power of the peoples of the world will increase and that with the increase of that consuming power the demand for ships to go across the seas will be immediately increased. With that will come a demand for more ships.
    I move this Amendment in the hope. that when the demand comes for more ships, first of all Great Britain, by having exercised foresight through a Committee such as I am proposing, will have a mercantile marine which is cleared of all its obsoletes and all its obsolescents. I think you can legitimately do that with your mercantile marine, although privately owned, just as you do it as a routine thing with your Navy. There are sailing to-day too many merchant ships which arc a disgrace to the British fag and are a danger to the lives and

    347
    limbs of the men employed on them. and of the passengers who travel by them. I wish that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not look at me in such a pathetic way, and then glance at the clock. It would be far better to consider that this is a point of substance to which it is worth while giving a little time, and to recognise that we cannot get through this Order to-day. Perhaps he is not aware how pathetic he looks. It has quite disturbed the train of my thoughts to think that I am harrowing the soul of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman by keeping unduly long before the House a Measure which I know is a very great favourite of his. I do not want to deprive him of his friends any longer than is absolutely necessary. I think that this Policy Committee could see that we had a mercantile marine which was absolutely the finest thing in the world, and shipbuilding plants and skilled men standing ready round about the various shipbuilding centres eager to build ships for any part of the world that demanded them.
    I put it that under the present Advisory Committee, with no real Cabinet or Ministerial responsibility for initiation or control or direction of the general effects of this scheme, we have schemes corning up before the Advisory Committee haphazard from any particular business firm which thinks that by getting money at a lower rate through the State guarantee they can make a commercially profitable venture on the building of a ship. There is no national view, no long view, and I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should not oppose my suggestion. It gives him a very wide latitude as to the nature of the Committee that he may set up. The Advisory Committee cannot deal either with the initiation of schemes or with their co-ordination so as to fit them in with national necessities. They are limited to mere decisions as to whether a particular proposition is absolutely sound. But something else in this direction is urgently required. I hope that the Financial Secretary will accept. the Amendment, himself giving consideration to exactly the form that the Committee shall take and the type of individuals who will constitute it.
    8.0. P.M.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the hon. Member is, I think, that the exist-
    348
    ing Committee carries out all the functions which he has suggested in his speech as being desirable. They do carefully examine what will be the effect of any good scheme on our industrial position, and they do take steps to see that they encourage useful schemes, and avoid giving assistance to schemes which are designed to increase what I may call luxury production. For instance, they scan very carefully any scheme which involves building, so as not to divert—
    Mr. MAXTON: They scan schemes after they have come up. They have no power to initiate or stimulate the coming forward of schemes. They have nothing to do with that, as I understand it.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think the hon. Member may not be aware of the efforts the Committee make to stimulate schemes. The Committee have taken great trouble, for instance, to get harbour schemes brought forward. They have had discussions with representatives of the shipping industry, and they have discussed on what basis such schemes might be launched. But., unfortunately, their efforts so far have proved unavailing. The Committee at the present time, I think, do all the work which a policy committee of the kind suggested by the hon. Member could possibly carry out.
    Mr. HARDIE: What about new industries?
    Mr. GUINNESS: New industries are given a full and sympathetic hearing by this Committee. I do not believe that a committee of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, which would have, apparently, many functions to carry out, could do this work any better than the gentlemen who now perform it. There has been really no criticism of the way in which this present Committee do their work, and the only suggestion is that they have not produced a sufficient diversity of schemes. They do take steps to show to all possible applicants a readiness to hear their needs, and the conditions under which they will recommend a guarantee. The hon. Member mentioned the case of India, and suggested that financial assistance might be given there. I would remind him there is a special committee to deal with schemes of financial assistance for Imperial development, and that committee

    349
    has got expert advice. The India Office has a representative on it, and the Colonial Office has a representative on it. They are in close touch with openings in the British Dominions beyond the seas, and that committee is empowered, as the hon. Member probably knows, to give three-fourths of the interest up to five years on any loan raised for Imperial development.
    No new committee is going to get us out of the position that policy must be decided by the Government of the day. The hon. Member mentioned shipping. It happens that during the short period in which the present Government have been in office, the question of policy with regard to British shipping has been before the. Government. I do not believe that any committee could have given more. expert advice on that subject than was available to the Government through the Board of Trade Shipping Department. The subject was carefully thought out between the Treasury and the Board of Trade, and the organisation which, as the hon. Member knows, exists to deal with unemployment schemes, was closely interested in the decision to which the Government might come. No new committee is going to take away the ultimate. responsibility of the Government. The proposed new committee would keep in touch with the Government through a Department, and I do not think you would really get any new advantage by setting up an additional committee, which would merely be an unnecessary cog in the. machine which already exists.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: If he will forgive me for saying so, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has curiously misunderstood the purport of the Amendment, and the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. He referred to the fact that the committee has already powers to do a great deal that has been suggested. He used the word "stimulate," I suggest there is a considerable difference between stimulating and promoting, and I understand that the difference in principle between what the committee is doing now, and what this Amendment foreshadows, is that this committee should have the power to initiate and to promote certain national schemes on their own undertaking, and without waiting until they were brought to their notice either by local authorities or by private
    350
    companies. I submit that if this Bill which we are now considering is really to touch the question of unemployment, which, in certain districts, is, unfortunately, getting worse, and which is really hanging like a dark cloud over certain sections of the country, it is essential that something more should be done by this Measure than merely the lending of money to those who are prepared to extend or carry out existing schemes.
    The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to shipbuilding, and there is no doubt that that industry is in an almost appalling condition. Members have referred to the returns of the Ministry of Labour for last month, from which it is seen that in certain districts, for instance, the North-East coast, 43 per cent. of the industry are out of work, and that has been going on for three or four years. Whatever the remedy may be—I do not suggest for a moment that it would necessarily follow on the lines suggested by the Mover of the Amendment—but whatever the remedy may be, it is essential that something should be done, and surely it is a national responsibility that works of the character of national utility might very well be established under such a committee as is here foreshadowed, and in that way deal in a practical manner with this appalling problem. I submit that it is all the more necessary that you should do something of this sort to-day, because hon. Members will have noticed the extraordinary thing that in budgeting for the forthcoming year there is less provision made for relief schemes for dealing with unemployment generally than last year. I do not know if that is because the Government consider local authorities will not be able to spend so much, but whether that is so or not, it is all the more incumbent upon the Government and this House to recognise our national responsibility, and we should be prepared to do all in our power to initiate work for the unemployed.
    There is such work as land reclamation, the development of our water power, and the development of our electricity, and a large number of other schemes which local authorities themselves cannot undertake, because they do not receive any direct advantage from those larger schemes. They cannot combine together to form joint authorities for the initiation and promotion of these schemes, and it

    351
    therefore rests with the national authority to take a large vision, a, wide outlook of the future, in order to make this provision which is so essential. On this question of unemployment the short view has been taken for the last five years. All Governments have been responsible. Each Government in turn has brought in temporary measures—mere palliatives—to relieve the immediate necessities, and, at the end of four or five years, we find we are in a worse position than we were when we started to deal with this question. Therefore it is essential that the Government should take a broad and long view of the national responsibilities, and should accept this Amendment and establish a Committee which will be charged with the responsibility, on national lines, of dealing with this tragic question of unemployment. By doing that they will deal with the question much more thoroughly and much more effectively than by the lending of £15,000,00 or £20,000,000 to existing companies and existing authorities. Therefore I do appeal to the Government that they should give a sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, because the powers which the Committee have at present, or, at any rate, the work they are now doing, does not in any way touch the principle underlying this Amendment, which is. after all, national responsibility for the initiation of large schemes, which shall use the national credit of the country in order to provide work for those who so badly need it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I want to join in the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made it appear that the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bridgeton is unnecessary, that the Advisory Committee which at present exists have been examining these schemes, and, to use his own words, the present Advisory Committee do consider policy, and they do consider the effect of schemes which are submitted to them. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that that is not sufficient.
    Mr. GUINNESS rose—
    Mr. MACLEAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to move the Closure.
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, I would not dream of suggesting the Closure. I am only going to appeal to the hon. Member. He will get an opportunity on the next stage of the Bill.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I would like to accede to the request, but at the next stage we do not have the same opportunity as on the Committee stage. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a Debate on the stage following the Committee stage is much more restricted, and, consequently, I am sorry I cannot accede to his request. This is the first time I have spoken on this particular question this Session, and I hope I shall be able to produce something of substance to contribute to the Debate.
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

    SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA (GREAT BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE.)
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I beg to move
    "That this House strongly condemns the revolutionary propaganda which is being carried on in Great Britain and the Empire by Communists and others and will support the Government in any action necessary to suppress it."
    In rising to address the House for the first time, I am singularly fortunate in being able to bring forward a Motion which I feel sure will meet with the support of all three parties in the House. During the brief period of my membership I have heard many reproaches flung at us by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think they do not always fully understand the excellence of our motives. But no one has so far suggested that we would do other than condemn revolutionary propaganda, and I am sure that I can count on the support of the whole of the Conservative party. When we turn to the two Back Benches below the Gangway opposite, where the cream of the cream of the Liberal party sit, the very careful and the very splendid selection from 339 candidates, we do not perhaps find quite such a perfect colour scheme as we might

    353
    have expected under the circumstances; in fact, there is one rather glaring patch of red, but I feel sure that the Liberal party will also condemn revolutionary propaganda.
    When I turn to the official opposition, there surely I must be on safe ground, for did they not by bell, by book and by candle, exorcise, expurgate and excommunicate Communism and all its works? That was only last October. 1 wish it had been done. rather earlier, because such a Resolution coming just before a General Election gave the impression of window dressing, and at best it turned out to be but a death-bed repentance. Here is their opportunity, and here is their chance to prove the sincerity of their Resolution, and I hope that the Labour party will support the Motion which I ant bringing forward. Hon. Members may ask if there is so much unanimity in supporting this Resolution why I trouble to bring it forward. I move it because I know, and we all know, the frailty of human nature. Last August did not right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches start the prosecution of a Communist, and I think it will be within the recollection of the House that within a week they dropped that prosecution? Does not that show that although the spirit may be strong the flesh is lamentably, deplorably weak? I will give another instance. Last November the British Trade Union Congress sent a mission to Russia. It was one of those flights of doves sent out periodically from our Socialist ark to fly over that distracted, desolate, ruined country in the vain hope that they might be able to return bearing a green leaf. They proudly announced this time that they had found a leaf, but from the report just published I regret to find that the leaf they brought back from Russia turned out to be a very prickly leaf, and probably came from a common or garden thistle.
    Three members of this mission were Labour candidates at the last election, and so we must take it that on 29th October they cannot have had any trace of Communism about them, and yet within a few days, whether because of revolutionary propaganda which they read in the train, or whether because of the hospitality which their Russian hosts lavished upon them with stolen money,
    354
    much of it from British citizens, this mission within a few days of their arrival were proclaiming their desire to introduce similar changes into Great Britain to those they found in Russia, and they were describing Soviet Russia as "the first bright jewel in the world's working-class crown," instead of, as we know it to be, the longest nail in the coffin of international Socialism. This was written by the former Socialist Member for Coventry (Mr. Purcell), arid I should like to give a quotation to show the inconsistency of this comrade. He said at Hull in September last:
    "International anti-war days must be used in every village, town, and city to create positive detestation and hatred of war. … Our duty is to proclaim that we dare to refuse to associate with war movements and war preparations."
    And yet in Moscow in I November this same Mr. Purcell attended a review of the Red Cavalry held especially in honour of the British Trade Union Delegation. He addressed the troops, and he told them that already they had "struck terror into the hearts of the British bourgeoisie as the champions of labour," and he called for three cheers for the Tied Army. The pacifist Mr. Purcell, of Hull, had become a red-hot militarist at Moscow. It is thus that evil communications corrupt good manners; but we must protect such mercurial gentlemen from bad influences. We in this House are the watchdogs of the Constitution, and it is our duty to hip right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the shepherds, to' keep the wolves from the flock behind them. Wolves broke in rather badly once. or twice last summer. Certain hon. Members seem to be particularly susceptible to subversive propaganda, with the result that they make inflammatory speeches and do a great deal of harm, which, I feel sure, in their more reflective moments, they must regret. I do not want to weary the House with many quotations, and, as there is a salmon in the pool, we will not waste time on the trout. Ipsos custodes, quis custodiet? which, being interpreted, is, "What doctor can cure the late Minister of Health?" I will read a few extracts from recent speeches by the right hon. Gentleman. On the 21st December, at Glasgow, he said:
    "The Russian Revolution was the greatest event in the history of the working-class world. However unpopular it may be,

    355
    however much vituperation it may get for me in the Press, I make the public statement that, if any attempt is made by the Government of Britain to launch us into a war with Russia, I, for one, am prepared to spend not only my time but my life appealing to the working class of this country, not merely to refuse to join in the attack on Russia but to utilise the opportunity of a war with Russia for an attack on British capitalism with a view to securing its overthrow in this country."
    In other words, the Russians may do what they please to any unfortunate Englishman who may fall into their clutches; they may stir up revolution and massacre in India; and they may rest assured that, if we move a finger against them, the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) will be working for Russia and against his own country. Let me remind him that without our export trade this nation would starve. Our export trade can only be secured by British citizens who are prepared to travel abroad to invest their money and energy abroad to secure orders for the rest of us in this country. Unless we are prepared to protect our citizens in Russia or any other country where they may go, our foreign trade will cease, and with that will come starvation and misery to this country. Let me resume my quotations from the right hon. Gentleman. On the 19th November, in London, he said:
    "He was not sure that he was not more revolutionary t-day than three years ago, for all his experiences bad convinced him that. if we din not quickly overthrow the capitalist order of society, it would overthrow us. What might not be practicable to us might be practicable to a more intelligent people, and in endeavouring to get men and women converted to his point of view he was hastening the day when revolution would be a practical policy."
    Again, on the 6th December, in London, he said:
    "Until the working class learns that it is engaged in a class war, we shall make no progress. None of us sympathise with the class war any more than we sympathise with rotten weather, but nothing is to he gained by putting our heads in the sand and pretending that the class war does not exist."
    And at Liverpool, on the 21st November:
    " Maxton and I come to Liverpool with one object, to add five or six thousand to the number of rebels in this City."
    The right hon. Gentleman is a highly educated man and a Privy Councillor,
    356
    who has experienced the responsibilities of office. He knows the meaning of words. But what effect is the refrain of strife, warfare, and revolution likely to have upon a less educated audience? What effect is it likely to have on people in distress among his audience? He sows the wind; who is going to reap the whirlwind? Not he, but the poor misguided people who are thus led into revolt against law arid order. We do not see him with a revolutionary red cap on the side of his head, advancing with a stone in his hand to lead the mob against the police. No, the right hon. Gentleman's class in class warfare is first-class. He leaves his audience in a state of wild frenzy and excitement at Glasgow or Liverpool, and goes peacefully and quietly off to his first-class carriage to be conveyed back to London at the expense of the nation. There is precedent for that. Did not the Germans send Lenin and Trotsky carriage paid into Russia? The next morning Mr. Hyde remains in Glasgow; it is Dr. Jekyll who comes down to the House and beams at us so benignly through his gold-rimmed spectacles. There is revolution brought up to date! There are riot and civil war with all the comforts of a home and no possible risks to the leader. So much for the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health. But if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? If revolutionary propaganda has had this effect upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who, I must again remind the House, were guaranteed by their party on the 29th October to be entirely free from all traces of Communism, what effect is it likely to have on the masses of this country? What effect will it have on the unemployed, or on those who are really in want, and who will clutch at any straw that is offered to them by a right honourable Privy Councillor? I will now turn to written propaganda. As soon as I knew that I should be able to introduce this Resolution, I went straight off to headquarters to get the latest information—to the Communist headquarters, I mean, of course. I found a fine shop, beautifully equipped, and filled with masses of literature, largely written by foreigners. I stayed there some time, and I was throughout the only customer. I gather that the sale of literature is not paying for that expensive establishment, or even

    357
    for its own printing, but we have definite proof of this, for the late Home Secretary said in this House on the 19th June last, that the Government was in possession of information showing lab the Communist organisations in this country are in receipt of money grants from foreign revolutionary societies, and this has been confirmed at various tunes by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has declared that Russian money has been subsidising British Communists. I bought these specimens of their literature—2s. 7d. worth; at least, I paid 2s. 7d., but I certainly do not think it was worth it. There is a little book here entitled, "Lenin and Britain: his message to the British Workers." It is written, or rather compiled, by a Mr. A. Lep-eshinsky, and it talks glibly of revolution throughout. It is particularly severe on right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. It says:
    " The Henderson, Clynes, MacDonalds and Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary, but in the interests of the revolution the revolutionaries of the working class must give these gentlemen certain Parliamentary support."
    I wonder whether that is the reason why the late Minister of Health accepted Office? It goes on on another page:—
    " The majority, in the event of Henderson's and Snowden's victory over Lloyd George and Churchill, will, after a short tine, be disappointed in its leaders, and will come over to Communism."
    Then I suppose the late Minister of Health will be in sole possession of that bench.
    We all know and we all deplore the hateful habit of the cuckoo. He lays his egg in a poor little robin's nest, and as the young cuckoo grows he pushes the little robins out of the nest. It would be in the nature of a calamity if sonic cuckoo were to push those dear little robins with their bright red breasts out of their snug little nest on the Front opposition Bench. There are several on that Front Bench whom we all respect and admire—men who are not afraid to speak out the truth, men who do not play to the gallery, men who are prepared to talk about duties as well as about rights. They strive for unity and not for dissension, because they know it is only thus that they can secure prosperity for their country. They are very different to those who shed crocodile tears over distress in the country and yet seek to intensify it
    358
    by strife so as to prepare the ground for a revolution in which the dictator may take the place of the demagogue. Here is a "Manual of Party Training of the Communist Party," price 6d.—
    " Our task towards the State is to expose its real nature, to undermine its authority and ultimately to destroy it."
    " The task of the party in the trade unions is to unify and co-ordinate their activities and turn them into instruments of revolutionary struggle and to transform them into organisations to enforce the dictatorship of the Proletariat."
    The general refrain of all these papers is hatred, class warfare and revolution. They openly proclaim their intention of capturing the trade unions by means of what they call the minority movement. They attempt to spread discontent and mutiny among the forces of the Crown and they do all they can to instil hatred, rebellion and blasphemy among the children of the country. It is our duty to prevent our people and their children, and still more the uneducated masses of a country like India from: being destroyed by the poison of this sedition. I do not propose to deal with India, because my hon. Friend who is seconding the Motion has had a lifelong experience of India and is better qualified to speak about it.
    The Communist is like an incendiary, who goes through the pine woods or on the moors in March, after a hard winter, before the sap has had time to rise, and drops a lighted match. Fire sweeps the whole country, but the incendiary gets away. It is the people who pay. ft is the people who lose their belongings, their homes and often their lives. We are only just emerging from the hard winter of the war. There is much inevitable and deplorable distress, but instead of trying to help, as any decent-minded person would, the revolutionary propagandist is fighting against the return of prosperity, because with it he knows that he loses his chance of revolution. He is like one of those beggars one meets in the East who rub open their sores every day so as to excite the sympathy and the alms of the passer by. Only our modern Communist is more scientific in his method. It is other people's sores that lie rubs. He is healthy and prosperous himself. It is peace we need, not war; unity, not discord. The country declared finally and decisively at the last Election that it will not tolerate revolutionary doctrine, and

    359
    will not be dictated to by foreign Communists. We look to the Government to take all possible steps to stamp out revolutionary propaganda in any and every form, and I appeal with confidence to the House to rise above party considerations and work together as a band of brothers to promote the unity, the peace and the prosperity of the country.
    Sir FRANK NELSON: I beg to second the Resolution.
    I also have to ask for that indulgence which the House accords to a Member addressing it for the first time. My hon. Friend has dealt most ably and humorously with the evils of subversive propaganda in Great Britain. I desire to place before the House some few aspects of the evils of subversive propaganda in the Empire, and more especially in India, where I have lived and worked for a good many years, more recently in a position which enables me to claim some knowledge of my subject. There are two kinds of propaganda, roughly speaking. which are prevalent in the Empire. On the one hand, we have the Communist type of propaganda, which has for its object the overthrow and the complete destruction of British rule in India, and, on the other side, we have a more localised species, which also has for its object the overthrow of British rule in the Empire, but in order to place in its stead self-government by the indigenous inhabitants of that country. We have both of these in India, and I think the latter might well be described as propaganda subversive of British ideals in India. by which I mean that our aim and object in the life's work we have done in India. is to introduce into that country ideals which have hitherto been foreign to it, and which, I believe, are being gradually absorbed. I do not need to describe in a great many words the whole aim and object of the Communist outlook in their avowed object of destroying the British Empire, but I think I can best describe it in the words of one of their own speakers who spoke in Moscow on the occasion of the fifth Congress of the Communist Internationale last July. He said:
    "Is it possible to destroy the might of the entire capitalist system of Great Britain without bringing into motion its Colonial population? Will not British Imperialism,
    360
    which has such enormous human and material resources in the Colonies, offer a successful resistance to the workers of Great Britain if the latter do not deprive them of these human reserves?"
    In very concise language that statement describes the whole aim and object of Communist propaganda. The Communist works in India to destroy British rule both there and in the Colonies. The Communist web extends over India, Africa, Australia, Canada, Palestine and so on, and their methods in most of these countries are much the same. Their methods increase most heavily that heritage of responsibility which rests upon the shoulders of those who endeavour to govern the British Empire.
    The key-note of the whole of the British policy with regard to its Protectorates and Dominions is to lead and to guide them, eventually, to responsible self-government. I do not need to tell the House that that difficult road, difficult under any con ditions, is made ever so much more difficult by this dangerous propaganda, the miasma of which is spreading weekly and monthly throughout the Indian Empire The responsibility of those who govern the Indian Empire is a very heavy one. Not only are they responsible for the lives and the property of all who live there, irrespective of race and creed, but it is also their duty to endeavour to further and advance by all the means in their power the prosperity and welfare of the indigenous population of that country. But the ultimate responsibility-for preserving the safety and well-being of the British Empire, and for devising and sanctioning such methods as may he necessary to stem revolutionary propaganda, rests upon the British Parliament. We have so far protected, and I do not think anyone will deny it, the Indian masses from injustice from their own superiors. Anyone who takes the trouble to look into the various Acts affecting India will find a silent and unimpeachable witness of that.
    Where we have failed, if we have failed at all, has been in our inability to protect the Indian peasant from the poisonous campaign of misrepresentation and lies which have surrounded him for the last few years, propagated on the one hand by the Communist agent, and on the other hand put in front of him for his education by a certain type of Indian politician. I wish to stress the last few

    361
    words, "a certain type of Indian politician." I have lived a great many years in India, and I have many friends among the Indian politicians, and I wish it to be very clearly understood that I do not include all Indian politicians in the expression "certain type." I have many good friends among the Indian politicians, and I hope that I shall retain them.
    Of recent years, the responsibilities of those who have had to govern the Indian Empire have been so great that they are almost impossible to realise by anyone who has not had an opportunity of acquiring first-hand knowledge. Revolutionary organisations, and there are many, have been constantly active in their propaganda and in their endeavour to gain new recruits and, worst of all, in infecting the student class. Some of the incentive towards this propaganda comes from Europe, and some of the money by which this revolutionary work is carried out also comes from Europe. Only last year, as must be well known to the House, four Indians were found guilty and convicted, on appeal, by the High Court. of conspiracy to overthrow by force British rule in India. During the course of that case a mass of literature was seized. I think I shall not be wearying the House if I read one extract from a pamphlet which I have chosen at random from the documents which were seized. The House will then understand the type of propaganda that is used to foment revolution in India, and is translated in all sorts of ways all over the country. The extract says:
    "The first step towards the real freedom of the Indian people is the overthrow of foreign domination. Mass action thus begun will develop into organised agrarian strikes, with food riots, the plunder of foreign stocks, and assaults upon large estates, with the idea of confiscation. Reactionary pacifism must be repudiated. Peasant revolts should spread like wildfire from one end of the country to the other."
    That pamphlet was written by a gentleman purporting to be called D. M. Roy, a man not unknown to certain hon. Members of this House. He lived in Berlin, and for all I know he may still do so, with occasional visits to Moscow, and from the comparative safety of those two cities, he fomented this revolution in India, with the result that four of his paid agents have been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. Here is a type
    362
    of agitator who, from comparative safety in Europe, foments this kind of agitation, which leads to riot and bloodshed and to what we read of in the English Press under the heading of "Further unrest in India."
    India is very fruitful ground for this type of propaganda to flourish. The next census, I think, will probably show that the number of India's inhabitants will be 330,000,000. The area is two million square miles, and something like 150 languages and dialects are spoken. Probably 70 per cent. of the population is of the illiterate type of agricultural labourer—easy to bribe, easy to lead, and easy to mislead. Practically since 1908 a revolutionary conspiracy has existed in Bengal. Murders and dacoitics, both of Indians and Europeans, have been frequent, and much of the ammunition which has been captured has been proved to be of foreign manufacture. Literally, a positive reign of terror has existed in Bengal. I do not propose to weary the House by enumerating, one by one, deplorable outrages, but I will content myself by saying that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), who has spent long years in India, and myself, could give details of outrage after outrage of this particular type.
    I want to pass to the measures which have been necessary, and may still be necessary, to suppress this type of outrage. I do not need to emphasise in this House the dangers and hardships which nowadays are the lot of the average civil servant and of the average police officer, and other officers of the public service in India. Literally and absolutely, of recent years, many of them have had to carry their lives in their hands. It was only last year that an Englishman was shot dead in one of the main thoroughfares of Calcutta, in broad daylight. Another Englishman survived a fusillade, fortunately misdirected. Both these outrages took place because these men bore some slight resemblance to the Commissioner of Police of Calcutta, a very gallant gentleman, who for the last three or four years has had his life threatened periodically. The ammunition used in the murder of the first-named Englishman, Mr. Day, was proved to be of foreign manufacture, and the motives of the murderer were publicly praised by a leading Indian politician, one S. R. Das, and this gentleman in turn

    363
    was subsequently alluded to by the then Secretary of State for India, Lord Olivier, as being of a saintliness of character second only to that of Mr. Gandhi. I ask hon. Members above the Gangway to believe that I am not resuscitating this unhappy incident from any desire to make a party point. I should have done so whether or not it had been spoken by a member of the party to which I have the honour and privilege to belong. But I do ask them to believe that nobody who was not in India at the time that that unhappy speech was made, can realise in any way the deplorable effect which it had upon British rule.
    I wish to touch, if I may, just for a moment, upon the immediate reasons which led to what is known as the Bengal Ordinance. The immediate reasons which led to the Government of Bengal asking for extraordinary powers were four. These were two murders, three attempted murders, the discovery of a bomb factory, and the publication of a now notorious Bengal leaflet. This leaflet openly announced a campaign of unrestricted murder of police officers, and condemned to death in no unmeasured terms anyone who was found assisting the Government in putting down this type of revolution. I mention those reasons why special powers were asked for by the Bengal Government in order to bring before the House something of the atmosphere which then existed in India. The House will forgive me if I read just a three-line extract from the leading article of an Indian newspaper at the time. This leading article said:
    "Violence and terrorism are the sappers and miners of the constitutional advance to self-government."
    9.0 P.M.
    Those of us who have the interests of India wholly at heart, those of us who sincerely desire to see her take her place among the self-governing nations of the world, realise and deplore the hindrance to her progress that this kind of revolutionary propaganda causes. Upon Parliament rests the heavy responsibility of determining the time and measure in which each progressive advance towards responsible self-government for India shall take place. But in my view a far heavier trust lies upon Parliament. That is to see that this progress shall not be retarded by a comparative handful of
    364
    revolutionaries, who have in no sense the interests of India at heart and in no sense represent the millions of people who live in that country, and whose sole aim and object is to foment revolution, riot, and bloodshed for their own ulterior ends. The main duty of the Viceroy and Governors of the Provinces of India are to administer the Government of India Act of 1919 which was passed into law by this Parliament. And I consider that our duty in this respect is to see that the powers given to the Viceroy and the Governors under this Act to suppress revolution should not in any way be curtailed but if necessary increased, so that the millions of people whom this Act is designed to benefit shall be allowed to continue their progress unimpaired towards the goal, which we all want to see them reach, of full, free responsible self-government under a Dominion Parliament.
    I can assure the House that no greater disservice can be done to India to-day than by throwing once again into the melting pot the future of 330,000,000 people by granting them self-government before they are ready for it. If I may be accused of any desire to be pedantic perhaps hon. Members, especially those above the Gangway, will believe me when I tell them after my 20 years odd time in India there is no short cut to self-government. The long way round has to be chosen. It is perhaps imperfectly realised in this country how every word uttered in this Parliament is telegraphed out and is seized hold of by every kind and type and condition of Indian. So many phrases have fallen from hon. Members in this House which have been misunderstood in that great country that great harm has been done.
    I have sat in the Legislative Council, at the time the Governor of Bombay was the right hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir George Lloyd), and we have been working in a broad-minded responsible manner for the gold of India when some telegram has come out, perhaps misreported, but certainly misunderstood, which completely altered the whole atmosphere of that particular debate. Hon. Members above the Gangway may disagree with my politics and with what I have said, but I will plead with them to take every possible care in their speeches not to condone in any way

    365
    violence of method in India with the object of gaining any particular end. In conclusion, may I remind the House of what one of the staunchest friends of the British in India, the late General Sir Pertab Singh, said in this connection. When self-government was first mooted he expressed the opinion that within six weeks of the English leaving India there would not. be left a rupee in Bombay or a virgin in Bengal.
    Mr. SCURR: I beg to move to leave out from the word "House", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "recognising that the ordinary process of Law is sufficient to deal with acts of violence, declines to assent to any proposals which would prevent any subject of the British Crown in any part of the Empire from advocating any political or economic change; declares that freedom of speech is the inalienable right of every British subject; and holds that the rapid and sympathetic redress of grievances is the method whereby violence in deed and propaganda is rendered useless"
    I wish in the first place to congratulate the Mover arid also the Seconder of this Resolution on the very admirable maiden speeches which they have made and to express the hope that we shall be able to welcome them later on in other Debates. But in saying that I also must confess that I have been listening in vain to find out the reason for the proposing of this Resolution. I expected that the hon. Member who moved the Resolution was going to make some fresh announcement and to explain that there were some awful secret conspiracies going on not only in India but in the heart of the British Empire, and that he would tell us that we should probably he murdered in our beds. Instead of that he amused us by chaffing the ex-Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley), and he gave us several extracts from his speech. I hope that he will continue that study of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that if he does that the time will come when he will not be the Conservative Member for Frome, but will be sitting on these benches.
    I feel that the Amendment really puts the actual position as it should appeal to those of us who are concerned with constitutional development in this country and in every part of the British Empire. When we come to deal with questions of revolutionary propaganda and Com-
    366
    munism, I am always interested to hear the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and I generally find when they talk about Communism that they know very little about it. The people who are prepared to face the Communists, to argue with the Communists and to convince the Communists of the fallacy of those portions of their doctrine which we believe to be wrong, are the members of the party which sits on these 'benches. We are not afraid, in our party meetings or in any part of the country, to argue this question with persons who profess the Communist faith. I think one of the most priceless possessions of this country is that there is absolute freedom of speech not only in this country but in every part of the Empire which owes allegiance to the British Crown, and that everyone has the right to advocate any political or economic change, no matter how absurd it may appear to some people.
    The record of the development. of this House is not a record of peaceful develop ment. It is not even a record of development brought about only by the natural-born people of this country. The very foundations of Parliament, lying as they do in the days of Simon de. Montfort, may be said to have been created very largely by revolutionary propaganda. Yet to-day we do not condemn Simon de Montfort; we glory in the fact that he made a stand against the tyranny of kings, in order that there might be created this body which we now honour with the name of the Mother of Parliaments. I have, on many occasions; performed the pleasant duty of conducting around this House parties of children from our elementary and other schools, and it has always given me the greatest pleasure to point out to them the picture on our walls of the Five Members. We are all proud of the fact that the Parliament of that time had the courage to stand up to a King who wanted to override the decisions of the people. So far as that Parliament was concerned, it was, in the eyes of Charles I, practically a Communist Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One has to judge every form of political and economic advance, in the spirit of the time in which it takes place. What was advocated by the Parliamentarians in the time of Charles I was, for that period, just as advanced, just as revolutionary, just as far ahead of the

    367
    time, as present-day Communist propaganda seems to be far ahead of the time in which we live. All through the history of this country there have been periods of violence and periods of what, people in authority regarded as subversive propaganda, and yet the time has come when we have erected memorials to the subversive propagandists.
    I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson) in his exceedingly interesting speech with regard to India, because I think there Will be further opportunities for dealing with that subject in Debate, but I quite recognise that his desire, like my own, is to give to that country as speedily as possible self-government within the Empire. If you have subversive propaganda and violence in India the way to deal with it is, not by repression, but by a rapid and sympathetic examination of the grievances which cause it. You never have any propaganda of this kind unless there is a grievance. For example, we never had any propaganda against Russia by hon. Members opposite until they had a grievance against Russia. I have a distinct recollection of a time when, under a particular form of government in Russia, people were imprisoned, executed and exiled, and when protests were made to this country, hon. Members of the party opposite said: "This is not our business, but the business of the Russian people." Not only so, but the British Government of the day entered into alliances and understandings with the then Russian Government and negotiated with them in regard to the division of Persia, in regard to Afghanistan and in regard to other matters which they considered essential.
    To-day we are told that the Soviet Government executes, imprisons and exiles people, which is exactly what the Tsarist Government did, but the reason why hon. Members opposite are so much concerned is because they and their friends have lost money and property as a result of the Russian revolution. It is because they have a grievance against Russia that they are so keen on denunciations of Soviet and Communist propaganda. Had the Soviet Government not confiscated the property of certain English nationals, we should not have heard anything at all from hon. Members
    368
    opposite regarding Russia. We have to remember that the Indian people, like the working-class people of this country and in other parts of the British Empire, have grievances. So far as this country is concerned, and so far as other parts of the British Empire over which we have control are concerned, those who sit on these benches are determined to use the whole of the constitutional machinery of this country in order that we may bring about a revolution. I hope hon. Members opposite will not be afraid when I use the term "revolution." From the words which I heard this evening I gather that some of them regard revolution as merely insurrection and riot. It is nothing of the kind. Riots and insurrections are absolutely useless because, after all the violence has happened, you may have a worse condition than that which existed before.
    The revolution for which we stand is a revolution in the minds of people, a revolution by which we shall have, not only a change of attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite and their friends throughout the country, but such a change of mind that the relations between people will be totally different from what they are to-day, a revolution which will mean that, instead of a system of society carried on in order that the few may be able to make profit at the expense of the many, we may be able to use the whole forces of nature for the benefit of the people as a whole. That is the revolution for which the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health stands, for which I stand, and for which the Members in this part of the House stand. If you tell us that that is subversive propaganda, then we are prepared to carry on that subversive propaganda in season and out of season; but I appeal to hon. Members to stand by the traditions of their country and not to be scared because a few men here and there may be able to utter wild utterances and say things which are absolutely foolish, and are recognised as foolish. That is not the way in which to deal with these things. Let us examine seriously all the grievances from which the people suffer, and see if we cannot solve some of these difficulties instead of holding unreal Debates of this character about Communist and subversive propaganda all over the world.

    369
    Let us rather see if we cannot unite our brains in order to make our country and the Empire committed to our charge a place worth living in for all. Let us make it impossible for an hon. Member to rise in his place, like the hon. Member for Stroud has risen to-night, to tell us that 70 per cent. of the agricultural population of India are illiterate, and that after over 100 years of British government. That is a most, disgraceful thing to have to be said in this House, and it is the more disgraceful when we know that it is true. Yet we are responsible for the administration of India, and what is the good of talking about subversive propaganda? Let us get down to educating these people, and then we need not be afraid of subversive propaganda at all, for they will be able to appreciate what is right and what is wrong. It is because I believe that freedom of speech is the inalienable right, not only of every citizen in this country, but of every subject of the British Crown throughout the Empire, because I believe that it is in accordance with British traditions, because I am opposed to any repressive measures being used, because I regard any expression of any opinion, no matter how extreme it may be, no matter how absurd it may be, as desirable, in order that it may get a vent, it is because I regard that as the greatest safety valve that it is possible to have, that I move this Amendment. Let people give expression to themselves, let us be able to argue with one another, and as a result of that argument, we shall be able to find what is right, and true, and just, and for these reasons, and because they are in accordance with the traditions of Great Britain, I move my Amendment.
    Mr. THURTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not propose to take much of the time of the House, because I believe certain of my hon. Friends are desirous of taking part in the Debate, but I should like, if I may, to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Motion on the very effective speeches which they have made this evening. It is rather presumptuous of me, probably, bat I say that quite sincerely, and I would like now to address myself to this really extraordinary Motion which has been put down for discussion. As a democrat, and as one who believes in constitutional government, I cannot understand how any Member of this
    370
    ancient House of Commons should come along with the suggestion that the right of free speech and free opinion should be curtailed. I made. it my business a short time ago to go into the Library here, and I read there a magnificent plea for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion by John Milton. It was addressed to this House of Commons, and I think it would do those hon. Members of the party opposite who are thinking of restricting that great, inalienable right of our people to read that great work, to get back to fundamentals, and to realise that there is a tremendous tradition in this country in regard to the right of free speech and the right of expressing any opinion which may be sincerely held.
    I want to ask the Mover and Seconder of the Motion what they mean by subversive and revolutionary propaganda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) said very rightly, the Labour Party stands for a social revolution. It does not mean by that that it stands for violence in order to achieve that revolution, but we see a state of society existing which produces enormous wealth at one end of it and appalling poverty at the other end of it, and we do not believe that this extraordinary gulf can be bridged within the limits of the present system of society. Therefore, we say, the whole system of society has to be changed, and in order to effect that change you have to have what to all intents and purposes is a social revolution. We go out on to the platforms of the country, and we preach the need and the urgency for that social revolution. I want to ask the hon. Members who are supporting this Motion whether they are going to deny us the right to go out and preach that kind of propaganda.
    Then we come to subversive propaganda. What is meant by that? Every time a Member of this House ventures, very legitimately, to draw a contrast between the extraordinary luxury and profusion which exist in Mayfair and the squalor and misery and poverty which exist in the East End of London, he is doing something which is really subversive, so far as the present system of society is concerned, because he is engendering discontent with the present system. Every time I take the opportunity, as I do very freqently, of denouncing the empty pomp and the flunkeyism which

    371
    is attached to the Court in connection with this country, every time I do that, very legitimately, in accordance with my rights as a free Englishman, I am doing something which, presumably, is subversive of the monarchy in this country. Am I going to be prevented from doing that kind of thing? When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) gets up in this House and speaks on the tour of the Prince of Wales, which is going to cost a large sum of money, and points out what tremendous poverty and suffering there are existing on Clydebank, drawing the moral that. if there is that amount of money to spare in this country, it might very well and more properly be spent upon Clydebank rather than on this Royal tour, every time he does that, and gets tremendous support from the country in doing it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I understand he has already received nearly 1,000 congratulatory letters because of the stand he has taken on that subject—every time he does that, he is doing something which, presumably, hon. Members opposite would call subversive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I make hon. Members opposite a present of those cheers.
    I was going to say also that when I, in performing my duties as a Member of Parliament, go down to my constituency, as I did last night, and draw the attention of the poor people I see there to the appalling difference there is in their housing conditions and their general conditions of life as compared with the conditions of the people in the West End of London, and when I also draw their attention to the great gulf there is between the treatment which their poor children receive and the, treatment which the children of the rich receive in feeding, in clothing, in health, in medical care, and in every way whatever, then, of course, I am stirring up discontent, and I am guilty of subversive propaganda. I can only say that if that be subversive propaganda, I am very proud of it. The more those who believe as I believe are able to stir up discontent in the hearts and minds of the people of this country, the more we can make them realise that they have a right to a much better life and that they ought to demand that better life, the greater good we are doing for the country as a. whole. The whole idea of this Motion is to stifle
    372
    truth. I think this House ought to be prepared to say that it is not afraid of truth, whatever the truth may be. If it is not afraid of truth, then it ought to be prepared to allow absolute freedom of expression, freedom, so far as publications are concerned, and in every form of propaganda. The House is not prepared to do that, and I want to say that the result of denying that right and the result of oppression is to bring about the very violence that hon. Members opposite profess to abhor.
    I am going to take the opportunity, as my hon. Friend has referred to India, of saying a word or two about India. We know very well, as he has pointed out, that India has been subjected quite recently to very harsh measures of oppression. People have been arrested and fined without any proper trial, and they are likely to be confined for a considerable time without any trial. That kind of thing is the worst way of dealing with any discontent, or demand for freedom, which may be existing in India. The hon. Member referred to certain outrages—one or two murders, various threats of murder—and he cited those things as a justification for imposing some new and extraordinary measure upon India. I ask the House to remember that even in this country we have had outrages. We have had murders and threats of murder. It is only two or three years ago that a distinguished and gallant British officer was shot down in Sloane Square, and about that time there were other acts of violence taking place, and there were many threats of violence. But in spite of this situation this House never thought it necessary to introduce measures such as those which have been introduced in India. The ordinary resources of the criminal law were sufficient to maintain good order in this country. I submit that even in India, if the Government had relied upon the ordinary resources of the criminal law, there would have been quite sufficient to deal with the situation. Only yesterday the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India, in reply to a question about certain books, said that these books were not to be allowed to go into India, because, presumably, it was not safe to allow them to go there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I wonder if the hon. Members who cheer know these books? I know nearly all of them, and so far as my judgment goes they

    373
    are perfectly innocuous books. They are certainly not books which would have harmful effects upon intelligent people. My hon. Friend says that the people who might read these books are not intelligent. As a matter of fact the only people who would be likely to read books of this sort are people of a very high intelligence and considerable education. After all, what an insult it is to the educated Indian people. They have an older culture than we have, and yet you say to the educated people of that race, "These books are fit for us to read, but they are not fit for you to read." It is a deliberate insult to their intelligence, and that kind of attitude of mind is the very thing which produces the wrong kind of atmosphere and causes the troubles which every Member of this House says he wishes to avoid.
    I say that in this matter we ought to be prepared to trust the good sense of the people. I am not standing up here defending the Communist Party of Great Britain. I have been attacked by the Communist Party of Great Britain. That has been my privilege in the past. I have no doubt I shall enjoy the same privilege in the future. Quite apart from the Communist Party of Great Britain, I do feel that we ought to stand for freedom of speech, and in all these matters we ought to be prepared to trust to the good sense of the British people. If the Fascist organisation likes to propagate certain doctrines, do not let us attempt to suppress them, but let us trust to the good sense of the British people to reject these doctrines. If the Communist Party of Great Britain likes to propagate ridiculous doctrines, let us give them plenty of scope—
    Mr. J. JONES: And rope!
    Mr. THURTLE: Let us give them enough rope to hang themselves, and let us trust to the good sense of the British people to see the errors and the fallacies of their doctrines. If we do that, we shall be on very much safer ground than by attempting any kind of oppression. I believe the real reason why hon. Members are seared by this talk of revolutionary propaganda is because they realise there is so much truth on which it is based. If the conditions of the people in this country were not so appalling, then it would not be possible for us to go and
    374
    talk to them and get back, as we do at all our meetings, a wonderful response, a wonderful spirit of revolt. If you would house the people properly, if you would feed them properly and clothe them properly, if you would give their children a fair chance, and if you would take the million unemployed off the scrap heap, put them to useful work, and pay them good wages—if you would do these things, then you need never have any fear at all of what you call subversive propaganda. That is really why I believe hon. Members opposite are disturbed about this subversive propaganda. They realise that the conditions of the country are so appalling, and that people are becoming so desperate that when people come along and tell them there is a means of getting out of their deplorable state, they listen to it eagerly. If hon. Members are really seriously concerned about this matter, what they had better do straight away is to assist us in remedying at the very earliest possible moment these tremendous evils from which the people are suffering. 1 want to conclude by saying that my gospel in regard to this matter is the same as that of John Milton, to whom I have already referred—
    'Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely, according to conscience, above all liberties,"
    That is the liberty which we want for everyone in this country.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I associate myself with those very generous and frank congratulations which have been given to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. I think the very amusing speech to which we listened will have been received nowhere more appreciatively than—shall I say?—upon the Front Opposition Bench. I know that many hon. Members of this House will feel, as I do, the appropriateness of the benign smile which we have seen and experienced on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health. I also want to say, having had considerable experience in India, how much I appreciate the references made to the difficulties in India made lay my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson). The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) complained that the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution had given no reasons for bringing it before the House. He

    375
    proceeded to show, by his Amendment, that there was no particular reason for this Resolution, because of the necessity and the advisability of every person in this country having the power of free speech and the free expression of opinion. With that there will be no disagreement. But may I suggest to the hon. Member that if there was—I do not agree with him—nothing in the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder who supported the proposition, there was almost nothing in his speech which dealt with the subject of this proposition at all! I do not here refer to his references to India, I do not think the hon. Member would for one moment accept, or believe, that in his opinion the ordinary discussion and the ordinary right of free speech have anything to do with the sort of propaganda which is referred to in this Motion. Every hon. Member of this House knows there is no country in the world where free speech is so enjoyed as it is in this country. It is only necessary to take in the simplest walk on Sunday evening in Hyde Park to find how wide are the limits allowed to anyone who does not actually preach actual revolution. If, however, the idea of the hon. Member is that the free speech and the propaganda that should he permitted is the kind of thing we find recently circulated in this country, then I am afraid that he and T differ very much as to what is safe and possible for any Government or any people to allow in their midst. For instance, T find in the "Communist Review," only issued last month, the following:
    "It is thus with great pride and sincerity that we in Great Britain go forward to the task of winning the majority of the working classes to the standard of Lenin and dealing with our bourgeoisie in the same manner as the Russian Bolshevists did with theirs in 1917."
    That surely is a very different thing from the kind of free speech to that which those hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken would have us believe they would give their approval? Again, only here to-day I find J. R. Campbell!—whose name is not unknown to this House—he is very much more careful nowadays—publishing something which may not particularly appeal to the hon. Member for Mile End, because I and everybody else realises the pride he has in this ancient House of Commons.
    376
    The hon. Member will, therefore, appreciate this:
    "It is the profound conviction of the Communist patty that the workers cannot tags over this ready-made machine (Parliament) and run it for Socialist purposes. They will … have to smash it …"
    I think that is perfectly clear. I want to make it perfectly clear, for there can be no doubt in my mind, and I want hon. Members to realise that the objects set out by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution are totally different from those which my hon. Friend who has just sat down, the Member for Mile End, defended so nobly—the rights of free speech. If it is bad enough, as it is, to carry on a campaign of this kind among the labouring population or among uneducated people, it surely is a very different thing when you begin to sow the seeds of this kind of propaganda, with the evils that develop from it, in the minds of children. Only the other day I found that in the "Bulletin," published under the auspice of the Communist party, children are advised to carry out a real school revolution. That may not appear to be a very serious matter. I am bound to say that I helped to carry out a good many school revolutions, as, I have no doubt, have other hon. Members. But that is not the proposed kind of revolution contemplated by the writer of this article. I do not want to go into details, except to say that the whole school are to rise on the slightest sign of discipline being enforced.
    I am bound to say that I have great sympathy with that, although I cannot give my approval to the idea underlying it. To be serious for a moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—again the "Young Comrade," of December, 1924, which is not very long ago, says:
    "The teachers tell us"—
    I want hon. Members to listen to this, as it shows exactly what is going on in the schools—
    'The teachers tell us that the Union Jack stands for freedom wherever it flies. Lies! The British Empire means murder, robbery, and profits, slavery and oppression for millions of people."
    I do not think there is any right hon. or hon. Gentleman in this House who will for one moment support opinions of that kind, or give even the most qualified approval to propaganda which can result in this kind of thing being taught to

    377
    children. It is this kind of propaganda, I take it, that is in the mind of the Mover and the Seconder of this Resolution. It is not with the slightest desire to interfere with free speech, or to prevent any person expressing ideas as to how much better we will be in a few hundred years if we live in this country under a benign president, when everyone will be equal—that equality which is the aim and the dream of the Socialist since the world began. As if we ever could be equal in that sense! [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Ask any of the mothers of those children to whom these things are addressed. Ask the mother of, say, a couple of poor children born in the same house, brought up in the same neighbourhood, in the same environment, and so on. The one will be clever and the other a duffer. You cannot get away from it. They never will be equal. But all I wanted, in reading these extracts, to make clear to the House is this: There is no intention whatever, in putting this Resolution before the House, as I understand it, of suggesting that fret: speech would be interfered with in any way, but there is every intention of showing that the House will be behind the Government—this or any other—which will say that beyond a certain point it is impossible to go, and that active revolution must not be preached, especially to uneducated, ignorant or childish minds.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: That is a commentary on the seven and a half millions who voted for your side.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am afraid I cannot answer, because I did not catch the statement very clearly. The point I want to make is that I am certain no person desires that this kind of propaganda addressed to children should be allowed to go on. That is the basis of the trouble we are having. I would now say a word or two in connection with what has been said regarding India. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) will forgive me if I do not quote him quite accurately; I shall do so as closely as I can. He said that in India it was a question of a few murderers.
    Mr. THURTLE: A statement was made by an hon. Member below the Gangway that there were one or two murders, and other murders were contemplated.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I rather gather that in his opinion there were only occasional murders, and that the ordinary law ought to suffice. It is a very natural point of view for anyone who has not very carefully studied what happened in Bengal, and I am not suggesting that he has not, because I do not know. But in this House Members on all sides, I am sure, will desire to support those who, under great difficulties, are carrying on the work on the spot, and those people have clearly laid down, in the Bengal Government itself, that the ordinary law in India was not sufficient to deal with these outbreaks. That possibly answers the point the hon. Member made. I am not sufficient of an expert to say whether that view is right or wrong, hut at any rate it was the convinced opinion on the spot that a special Ordinance was necessary, and that Ordinance, as the House knows, has been passed.
    Mr. THURTLE: The Legislative Assembly have refused to pass it.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am aware of what the Legislative Assembly have done, but, unfortunately, the Legislative Assembly in India are not yet exactly in a position in which you can say that they always act in the best interests of India. I am perfectly certain that in the course of time we shall he able to say it, hut we have not arrived at that point yet. The hon. Member referred to the fact that 70 per cent. of the people of India are illiterate. I would remind him that it is not only in India that people are illiterate. There are other countries nearer home which have even a larger percentage of people illiterate—not that I mean to defend the fact. that there are 70 per cent. illiterate; but if he has any idea of educating the that of India, he ought to understand what it would mean to educate a population such as that of India. I dare say it will not be in our lifetime that there will he any material change in that figure, in spite of all we can do and a great deal that is being done.
    What is the object of allowing this kind of propaganda to go on? What possible good can it do to anybody? Is it not bound to do an immense amount of harm? We have in India, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said. a grossly uneducated and illiterate and

    379
    very easily preyed upon population, a population who are so easily swayed that a speaker can gather round him in any village a huge number of people and change their ideas almost in a moment. He can put arguments which would have no effect whatever on people in this. country, and yet produce a tremendous change in the opinions of those people, and rouse them to a dangerous pitch of enthusiasm or the contrary. What is the object of allowing it to go on? I do not believe anyone in this House will disagree when I say of India that we do not intend to get out and we do intend to govern. We intend to lead India in the way laid down by the Act of 1919, and by the Message which His Majesty gave to this House before that Act was passed. The plan, the outlook, for India is perfectly clear; there is a clear path straight ahead; and propaganda of this kind can do no possible good, and it can do and does immense harm. I hope the House will view this Motion not as an attempt, under any circumstances, to interfere with free speech. I think it was unfortunate that the hon. Member made reference to the speech on the Prince of Wales' tour made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I think that was unfortunate. I think that throughout the country, whatever that thousand letters may have said, that speech is looked upon as one which would have been better not made.
    Mr. J. JONES: How do you know?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: However one may appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Member who made it, I do not think it is a speech of which in after-years he will be proud. What is the use of making a speech against anyone who cannot answer? And if he could answer, what a wonderful answer he had got. He could Very well have said, "instead of telling me to go down and look at the Glasgow slums, why do not you and your colleagues in the House put the Glasgow slums in order and leave me to do my job." He had a good answer if he could give it. I want the House to realise that the object of this Motion is aimed at propaganda, particularly amongst children, which is going on in this country, and other parts of the Empire where the people are as it
    380
    were as children, and the immense harm it can do, and towards strengthening the hands of the Government to deal with it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to associate myself with the very sincere congratulations that were tendered to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion on their wonderfully successful maiden speeches. I am sure all felt intense satisfaction that the freedom of speech which they would like to destroy had not been removed from this House before we listened to their remarkable orations. The hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset (Mr. Geoffrey Peto) was good enough to quote rather extensively from speeches of mine, and seemed to have a more intimate knowledge of those speeches than I can boast of myself. I am delighted that he reads those speeches, and I hope it is from a deep study of them that he is able to quote. and not as the result of the activities of some secretary who, perhaps, has been compelled to produce them by subverting propaganda.
    One thing that always strikes me as rather amusing is that when a Member on this side of the House, speaking inside or outside the House, refers to the conditions of life under which the class who make up the majority of his constituents dwell, as a result of the operations of the political and economic system which Members on the other side of the House support, that description of the class struggle is referred to as a preaching of class war. The hon. Member, in quoting one of my speeches was good enough to quote a passage in which I stated that we deplore the class war as we deplore the rotten weather. He interprets my deploring the class war as being responsible for the class war, though he is kind enough not to carry the argument so far as to blame me for the weather. I submit that it is not very flattering to the working-class manhood of the country that a mild, conservative constitutionalist like myself should be labelled as one of the country's extremists. I think it would be more creditable if the horrible conditions of life to which millions of our people are subjected were felt and expressed in a much more extreme manner than I in my comparatively comfortable circumstances can hope to express them. I wondered as I listened to the speeches, and do as I frequently listen

    381
    to similar speeches, what would be the effect in this country if right hon. and hon. Members opposite were compelled to submit for 24 hours, with no hope of social salvation, to the conditions under which millions of our working-class population have to exist.
    Suppose that to-morrow morning I were able, as a result of my economic power, to awaken the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) in his bed at six o'clock, and to cover him with the oily and filthy rags which are euphemistically described as the clothing of a miner, and compel him to go down a mine and to endure for even the statutory seven hours the ordinary normal experience of a British miner. I am inclined to think that there would be an addition to his vocabulary, that he would not address me in the tones in which he has addressed this House, but would be inclined to use to me expressions that would be unparliamentary if I addressed them to him. Supposing I carried it even further, and told him at the close of his seven hours that, instead of expecting to be raised to the Peerage in recognition of his valuable services to the nation, he had to go home to perhaps a single-apartment house, where he had not even the ordinary facilities to enable him to remove the grime from his body, and that he had to accept there the very coarsest of food in meagre quantity; that not only had he to suffer that, but that his wife day by day was worried by the thought of whether she would be able to maintain even this meagre quantity of miserable food; and if he did all that with a knowledge that it was probably to be permanent, and that the lot which my economic power imposed on him was the lot that I had in store for his children—do you think that his references to the social conditions of this country would maintain that humorous vein with which he delighted his audience this evening?
    10.0 P.M.
    I venture to say that if hon. Members were subject to that condition of things for 24 hours they would not preach revolution merely: they would practice revolution. I admire them in my belief that they would do it. They would give you such a demonstration of the possibilities of revolution as would inspire the human race during all the years of human history. I cannot help feeling that when
    382
    they expect the working classes not to revolt it is because they think that somehow the working classes of this country are a different brand of humanity from themselves. I believe that if the question was put to them directly, as a matter of courtesy and out of regard for their training they would say, "Oh dear no, we do not believe that. We admit that you are just as capable as we, speaking generally, but in so far as you are as capable as we, then you rise to the surface, and the miseries of the majority are the result of their incapacity." I want to assure the House that the working classes of this country, to their credit, no longer believe that hon. Members opposite represent a superior class, They are intelligent enough to admit that experience and opportunity have made the members of the ruling class, the owning class, and the rich class more capable and have given them a greater amount of knowledge. But the important fact to bear in mind is that they now know that they have been deprived of these things. They know it now for the first time. The greatest grievance that they have against the class which keeps them in subjection to-day, is that they are deprived of the opportunities of developing to the highest. and giving their fellow human beings of their best.
    We have heard a good deal in the course of the discussion about the horrors of inciting people to bloodshed. I regard it as simply cant and humbug to have lectures like that from the other side of the House. I ask hon. Members opposite, how do you people come to have any justification for telling us that we ought not to preach, if we did preach, a policy of bloodshed? Do you not believe in bloodshed? Is there a man sitting on the other side of the House who during the late War refrained from advocating bloodshed as a means of settling human affairs? Because you could not impress the people of Europe with your views as to how Europe should be run, you were prepared to advocate, not the shedding of one person's blood, but you were prepared to advocate and succeeded in encouraging the shedding of the blood of millions of people. You chaff us with having preached revolution, and then retiring to our first-class compartments to get clear of the trouble. Surely that is not an

    383
    attitude of which we have a monopoly. Surely there are people on the other side o;: the House who owe their very existence to the successful manner in which they acted during the five terrible years of war. The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution talked about the shooting of an Englishman in Calcutta in broad daylight, but if the shooting of the people at Amritsar did not shock the hon. Member, it is sheer humbug to assure this House that his flesh crept at a single murder in Calcutta.
    It is only those who stand for the settlement of human affairs without bloodshed who are justified in pleading for a settlement without resort to violence. [Interruption.] Those who have advocated the shooting of upper-class and middle-class Germans have no right, no reason, as I have already said, for objecting to the practice of bloodshed as a policy. We have a right to deny to the Communists the right to shoot people with whom they are in disagreement, but you have no right to object. If you are entitled to claim the right of shooting rich Germans, whose removal you think would help you, then they have the right to advise the working classes to shed the blood of those who stand in the way of their prosperity. You cannot have one ethical standard for yourself and preach another ethical standard for the people you want to keep in subjection. You have no more right to moral privileges than you have to your financial and economic privileges. But I think the most offensive thing of all that is suggested in this Motion to-night is this: You have, as I have said, got millions of our people down in the gutter, and, having got them there, you want to make it illegal for them to squeal.
    I submit that the real propagandists of revolution—of a bloody revolution—are represented on the Government Benches of this House. Revolutions are not made by speeches; revolutions are made by conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you do to meet them?"] There would be no use in my appealing to the party opposite to rise and revolt, and risk their skins in attempting to overthrow the existing order of society. It would be sheer nonsense for me to appeal to the party opposite, because they have no grievance in the existing order of
    384
    things. It is only to people who have a grievance that propaganda can be successfully directed. The people who are making revolutions to-day are the people who stand in the way of our social and political system being adapted to the changes that have taken place in our industrial system. In every part of the House to-day you arc lamenting the existence of unemployment, you are lamenting the fact that you cannot get an adequate outlet for the goods that the workers produce.
    The same condition of things exists in every industrial country of the world. We have more coal than we can dispose of, more ships than we require. The people in other countries are in the same position, I admit, with the exception of Russia at the moment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not go there?" and Interruption.] You went there when you could make profits. I say the people of every industrial country in the world are baffled with the abundance of goods for which they cannot find a market. America cannot get rid of its goods. The same is true of France and Italy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You in Britain, at any rate, are embarrassed with the riches that the workers have produced, and while we have mountains of these goods, the product of labour all round us, the workers are deprived of the opportunity of producing similar goods; their labour is no longer necessary, they have been so successful in production. Their labour not being necessary to the same extent, their wages are reduced, and their purchasing power is reduced. We have a shortage of houses due to the breakdown of your system, and one fears that you will carry on the same policy in regard to other industries until the whole social system comes crumbling down in exactly the same manner, because the very best propaganda towards revolution is to tell those people who have produced all this wealth, and who are only too willing to produce more, if you allow them, that notwithstanding the existence of that wealth in superabundance, you expect them to starve quietly in the midst of plenty.
    I would have no hope in the future of the human race; I would have no faith in my fellow-countrymen if I thought they were capable of enduring a position like that. We on this side hope, and pray,

    385
    and work to adjust our social system while there is time to do so constitutionally. 1 am not, however, going to shelter myself by saying that I think our social system will be reformed in time to enable us to escape without violence, but that violence will he at your door. I tell you that if I were enduring those conditions, or if I felt to-morrow that by exercising a little violence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I could emancipate the millions of my fellow-countrymen from perpetual poverty, I should feel, in taking that course, that I was more justified than you were justified in the course you took in 1914.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Naturally a humble Under-Secretary like myself feels a certain amount of trepidation in replying to a speech from such a fine Parliamentarian as the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I think the House will agree that in some respects be has made my task a very easy one. In the first place, he has misunderstood the object and purport of the Resolution which has been moved, and, in the second place, by introducing into his speech so many subjects entirely extraneous from the Resolution under discussion, and particularly the closing words of his speech, he has disclosed so nicely what his real political ambitions are in the future. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to disclose his real hand. Those of us who know him—and among his political opponents there are those who have the greatest admiration for his qualities—know perfectly well that he is always refreshingly frank, but. he has never been more so than in his closing remarks to-night.
    I should now like to pay my tribute to the speeches made by the hon. Member who proposed this Resolution and my hon. Friend who seconded it, because I think they contributed two most notable maiden speeches, and they also threw a valuable light on certain events which do certainly require discussion in this House. I will now come to the main theme with which we are concerned to-night, namely, the revolutionary propaganda, which is !being carried on in Great Britain and the Empire by Communists. I should like to commence by saying that this subversive propaganda
    386
    from without is no new feature in this country. There is usually some inflamed spot on the world's surface which acts as a germ-breeding area for the infectious spread of revolutionary ideas in Europe and in Asia. We had that condition of things in revolutionary France at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. We have seen it recently and we still see it to-day in Russia.
    I hope that no one, or at any rate few, in this House, will dissent from the proposition that I am about to lay down as regards the attitude of this country towards such movements. In the early days of such revolutionary movements the sincerity and enthusiasm of those who are overturning a tyrannical or outworn system of government evoke in this country a generous appreciation of their efforts. I think that that was certainly the case during the early days of the French Revolution, and it was the case in the early days of the Russian Revolution. But gradually as cold and calculating cruelty takes the place of fine, if impracticable, ideals, what I may call the common-sense morality of the British people rejects the particular theory that has arisen, leaving only to support it in this country either the impossible fanatic or the criminally-minded person who believes in murder and physical violence for their own sake. There is another feature of such movements as they affect public opinion here, and it is worth noting. It is that, whenever the final stage to which I have just. referred is reached, then what I may call the pacifist revolutionary, he who believes in the overthrow of the existing basis of society, but who generally rejects force, he who holds that idea is placed in a pathetically impossible position. He is glad to see the achievement, but he detests the menus of achievement. He has a conscientious objection to violence; certainly in some cases he lacks the physical courage to use an automatic pistol or a bomb even if he wanted to. He is, therefore, in this position, that he has to admit that what he is in favour of, what he has always advocated. has been obtained by methods which must he abhorrent to him and to every other decent-minded person. That is certainly the position of a great many in this country who, quite genuinely—and I have

    387
    heard it in this House—believed, in the early days, in the Russian Revolution. To-day they are, beyond doubt, thoroughly sickened at what they have seen of it.
    I pass from that to ask the House to consider for a moment what is the duty, not. only of this Government, but of any Government, in protecting the country-over which they rule against the kind of subversive propaganda and action that has been referred to by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion to-night and at this point I should like to make some reference to the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), because it is at this point that I see so profound a misunderstanding on the benches opposite. not only as to the meaning of this particular Resolution, but as to what is the clear duty, not only of this, but of every other Government—a duty which I would venture to say was, with some exceptions, carried out by the late Government, as it has been carried out by every other Government. Against what is it their duty to protect the country over which they rule in this connection? I would lay down a proposition from which I should have thought that no one would dissent. It is against complete changes of the existing order of society being achieved by other than constitutional means. I said just now that I thought no one would dissent from that, but I am really a little doubtful, after some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston; but it seems to me to be a proposition which at any rate the great majority of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House, and of people outside, would support.
    The hon. Member for Mile End and the hon. 'Member for Shore-ditch never discussed that aspect of the question at all. The hon. Member for Mile End drew a resemblance between the Communists and Cromwell. He said that what the Communists advocated to-day was very little different, if you had regard to the difference in the attitude of public opinion generally, from what Cromwell advocated in the 17th century. I should have thought, if the hon.
    388
    Member really believes there is a resemblance between that and the great policy which was advocated in the 17th century by Cromwell, it would be enough to make the statue of that gentleman come down from its pedestal and threaten the hon. Member with personal violence. The hon. Member for Shoreditch made a. speech which was interesting as illustrating the attitude which those on the benches opposite take towards this Motion, an attitude of suspicion which some hon. Members opposite entertain about all the operations of law and order. He saw in the Motion, and in the attitude of mind which produced it, a real menace to free speech. It was quite obvious, listening to him, that he was entirely sincere. He spoke almost with trepidation and asked whether, if the- Motion was to be put into practical effect, and the Government were to accept the views of the Mover and Seconder, it would be the case that if he drew a comparison between the appalling conditions of Shoreditch and the conditions in the West End, he would be guilty of subversive propaganda and liable to prosecution. Let me assure him there is nothing whatever to prevent him continuing, as I have no doubt he has often done in the past, drawing a comparison between the misery in Shoreditch, and the wealth of Mayfair, Belgravia, Golders Green, or any other district of the West End that he likes. The Resolution has no reference whatever to political discussion of that. kind or to comparisons of that kind.
    The hon. Member went on to say this was an attack on free speech. I should like to say a word on this subject of free speech, a term which I have heard S.) often misused in this House. In the opinion of some hon. Members free speech means liberty to advocate the breaking of the law by violence. I would say, speaking generally. and I challenge anyone on those benches to deny it, that there is no country in the world which, either historically or to-day, has been more tolerant in the matter of free speech than this country or this House in which we sit to-night. haters option.] Believe me, it is not a question of this Government or that. There has been a policy of continuity, and the continuous policy which has prevailed in this country for years and years, Tight back for two or three centuries, has been to allow the

    389
    average Englishman and woman a freedom in the matter of speech which is very rare in any other country. It is right that these matters should be known, because a foreigner hearing or reading the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch would suppose that there was really some drag put. upon free speech in this country. There is no country where, for example, criticism of the existing Government, or even of the existing Constitution, is more freely allowed than in this country. There arc very few countries with a constitutional monarchy such as we have where the advocacy of Republicanism in a theoretical way is tolerated as it is in this country.
    Sometimes in this House, sometimes out of it, there are those who have advocated Republicanism. I have by me an extract from a newspaper which I understand is largely supported by hon. Members opposite called "Forward," published in Glasgow, which boldly advocates Republicanism. Is that putting a ban on free speech? Can hon. Gentlemen opposite point to any country in which such articles would be allowed, except this country, and under the continuity of policy which has been followed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under the Kaiser!"] One hon. Member says that it would have been allowed under the Kaiser. I would ask him whether he thinks that the words which I am going to quote, and of which, I understand, an hon. Member opposite knows something, because he is connected with the paper in question, would have been allowed under the Kaiser in the old days. This article says:
    "Kings, queens and princes at the present time are perfectly useless to the people. They act as a rallying point for militarism, and in this regard they are useful to capitalism which finds it as necessary to maintain the military aristocracy as its feudal predecessor did. But that is all a King is. In one country … the jingo element dominates him; in this country he does what an alleged democratic Government tells him to do. He of himself is nowt and a Prince is a trifle less."
    If any hon. Member opposite supposes that a statement of that kind would have been allowed in Germany before the War, he cannot have been a very profound student. of history. It is exceedingly fortunate for him—
    Mr. MAXTON: Even our own "Daily Mail" said worse than that about the Kaiser.
    Earl WINTERTON: There is this great difference—
    Mr. MAXTON: It is the same principle.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member cannot be really serious in that statement. I do not wish to pursue that matter further, except to make this observation, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite entitled to hold that view if they wish to do so, and to write an article which, to judge from the mixture of approval and mirth with which the quotation was received by hon. Members on the benches opposite, is one that some of them rather take to their hearts. If they ever suppose that they will get a majority and sit on this side of the House so long as they hold those views, they are vastly mistaken.
    We have heard a good deal to-night about propaganda. We could wish no better propaganda for our cause, in 99 out of 100 divisions in England, than such an article for which, apparently, an hon. Member opposite is largely responsible. Yet, so tolerant is British public opinion that, although 99 per cent. of it is opposed to the views which are put forward in this article, which I have quoted from the newspaper "Forward," they allow these things to be done which, under the law of most other countries, would be regarded as propaganda against the State. Therefore, I say that when the hon. Member for Shoreditch claimed that there has been or was going to be an attack upon free speech in this country he is really over-anxious. There is no risk of that happening.
    What this and every other country has to consider is the action to be taken against those who would overthrow by violent means resulting in widespread bloodshed and misery, the existing order. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Carson?" and "Order!"] I was struck by what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. He used a most extraordinary argument, and I trust that he will not consider me discourteous if I say that I hope that it will be quoted widely in the Press and on the platform, for it will do no small amount of harm to his party and be no small benefit to ours. He said with obvious sincerity, speaking of my hon. Friends. "What right have you to speak of

    391
    bloodshed, you who shot or tried to shoot Germans during the War?" Is it the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no distinction to be drawn between bloodshed incurred in a righteous war between one people and another, and bloodshed caused by revolutionary propaganda? If that is really the view of the right hon. Gentleman he is as much an advocate of revolution as anybody could be outside this House.
    But having said that, he went on to use a most extraordinary argument. One of my hon. Friends had referred to the murder of a policeman in Bengal. The right hon. Gentleman, pulsating with passion, obviously very much moved, and obviously believing with all his being in what he was saying, asked," What right has the hon. Gentleman to speak of the murder of a policeman when he himself did not protest against the murders at Amritsar? "[HON. MEMBERS" Hear, hear!"] I am very interested to hear those cheers. Then I take it that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, which apparently is approved by those who sit behind him, was that there is no difference or distinction to be drawn between murder—I suppose he will admit that the killing of the inspector was murder—and the use of force by the law which results in death. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wholesale slaughter" and "massacre!"] If a bloodthirsty mob—I am not referring to Amritsar—attacks a building, in which men, women and children are, with the intention of killing them, and the troops or police, in the execution of their duty and under orders of their executive officers, fire on that mob—[Interruption]—perhaps hon. Members will do me the courtesy of allowing me to finish my argument—if these soldiers or police use force, if in the execution of their duty, and under the orders of their executive officers, in order to save the lives of men, women and children, they are compelled to use force against the rioters, and certain people are killed, then the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that that is wholesale murder. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must allow the Noble Lord to proceed with his argument. They must hear the other side.
    Miss WILKINSON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The time is so limited that we cannot get in another speaker if there be constant interruption.
    Earl WINTERTON: That appears to me to be the argument used on the other side. I do not wish to press it further, but, if time permitted, I should not be in the least afraid to pursue it, because I think this is a big issue of principle. All I can say is that, speaking in my capacity as representative of the Secretary of State for India in this House, I deprecate in the strongest possible terms, a right hon. Gentleman and a former Cabinet Minister using the argument which was used to-night, that you have no right to condemn the murder of a police inspector if you hold certain views on another case in which the Government or the executive authority were compelled to take certain action.
    I turn to the main issue of subversive propaganda and of Government action in relation to it. Looking back on history one sees that there have always been two schools of opinion in this country as regards the duty of the Government in this respect. One says that the Government is weak, that its members are pusillanimous and they are taking no effective steps to smash a conspiracy against good order. The other school says there is no conspiracy and that the idea is invented by reactionaries in order to smother free speech and that the Government and its tyrannical police are fighting against liberty. We see that well illustrated in the Debates in this House over 100 years ago, when this country was faced with a menace by the spread of Jacobinism in France equal to the menace with which it has been faced in recent years from Russia. I believe, again looking at the matter historically, that both sets of critics are wrong, and that, on the whole, taking one Government with another, the Governments of this country, irrespective of party, have wisely dealt with the situations with which they have been faced at different times. To come to the present day, there is not the slightest doubt that revolutionary propaganda has been carried on by the Communist party of Great Britain under the direction of the Third Communist International.
    Mr. J. BECKETT: Both of them?
    Earl WINTERTON: I refer to the Communist. party of Great Britain under the direction of the Third International. One is the tool of the other.
    Mr. BECKETT: I asked if this was done by both the members of the Communist party.
    Earl WINTERTON: Well, the number is not large. There are probably not more than 3,000 or 4,000 members in the country, but there is no doubt they are a pernicious body and would stick at nothing if they had the power—if their own statements are to be believed. I find among many statements which have been made by the British Communist party one to the effect. that only the downfall of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of property, the annihilation of the bourgeoisie Government from top to bottom and the internment of the most stubborn and dangerous exploiters. will be able to guarantee complete submission of the whole class of exploiters. Then it Says:
    "The goal of the Communist International is to struggle by all means, even by force of arms, to overthrow the international bourgeoisie."
    Mr. J. JONES: Q.E.D.
    Earl WINTERTON: This party is not a large one, although it has various related bodies, such as the British Bureau of the Rod International of Labour Unions, the Young Communist League, and others. To do these people justice, they make no secret of their aims, and they lose no opportunity of explaining and advertising them, but I think it would be easy to take their long-winded and polysyllabic manifestoes too seriously. Looking back over the last two or three years, and seeing the difference between the threats of what they were going to achieve and what they have actually achieved, I think there is good ground for hope that this movement is going backward rather than forward. I think it is in accordance with British !tradition generally to allow the widest freedom of speech, as I have already shown, and certainly it has been allowed in generous measure to the Communists. I believe it is partly the result of that toleration. and the fact that these violent utterances have been, allowed to take. place, that there has been such a reaction in favour of stability in the country generally. I am convinced
    394
    myself that if Communist statements and threats were even more widely known than they are to-day, that reaction would be even greater. But where the law is broken, and where that violence of speech is translated either into violent action or attempted violent action, the Government will act, as it is its bounden duty to do.
    I may refer to a case recently before the country, the case of one Gibson, of Newcastle, a, member of the local Communist organisation and, I understand, a prominent Communist organiser in the district; he. I understand, is at present safely lodged in gaol on the charge, of which he was found guilty, of being in possession of dynamite for blowing up public buildings. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite may pretend that this is a matter for mirth—
    Mr. MAXTON: I said it was a very brutal sentence.
    Earl WINTERTON: On the contrary, I think it was thoroughly justified by the facts. The atmosphere of jocularity with which hon. Members treat this very serious matter—
    Mr. MAXTON: I am most serious about this.
    Earl WINTERTON: I would like to answer the hon. Member's point by saying that it is not for me either to condemn or to commend a sentence passed by a Judge, and—
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Noble Lord to comment on a case which is presently under appeal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the case be under appeal, I thought I caught a remark about the sentence from the hon. Member himself.
    Mr. MAXTON: The point I am making is, that the sentence is being appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In that case, I must rule both hon. Members out of order.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling my attention to that. It is the first time I have heard that the case is under appeal. There is no mention in the Press reports, but, of course, I accept the assurance of the hon. Member, and will make no further

    395
    reference to it. There was a similar case quite recently in Hyde Park.
    Mr. J. JONES: That is Hobbs, is it, not? Mr. "A.," I expect.
    Earl WINTERTON. Another case, in which proceedings were recently taken against two men under the Official Secrets Act, was connected with the activities of the Irish Republican Army.
    So far as the position in India is concerned, I take it that the terms of the Motion do not relate to ordinary political troubles but only to those caused by subversive propaganda of a Communist and external character. I have not time to go into the ordinary extremist agitation. I propose to deal with the question of Communist propaganda, action instigated from outside sources. It is true to say that the recent terrorist campaign in Bengal was not mainly due to any external subversive propaganda. There has been a certain amount of money remitted to Indian revolutionaries from outside sources, but there is no reason to think that the amount is large, and it comes almost solely either directly from or through organisations connected with Russia, and they have undoubtedly sent both letters and literature to Bengal.
    I would like to supplement something that my hon. Friend the Seconder of the Motion said. He told us that there was something like a reign of terror in Bengal. The effect that would be left upon his hearers was that conditions were very much worse than they nave ever been. That, I would say, with all due respect to the hon. Member's knowledge of Indian affairs, is not so. I should say myself that conditions in Bengal are 'better than they were, for example, in 1907 or 1908. They could not well be worse, and I am sure to-day they are better. It may be interesting to recall to the House what occurred. In 1907–8, the conspirators derailed the Lieutenant-Governor's train, they murdered two English ladies, shot an approver in gaol, murdered an inspector of police, fired at the Lieutenant-Governor, and murdered the Calcutta public prosecutor as he was leaving the Court. I am glad to be able to say that no such series of outrages has occurred in Bengal to-day. I would like to say emphatically that the reason why in my opinion they have not
    396
    occurred, is that the Government of India and the Government of Bengal have taken time by the forelock, and have taken steps by the promulgation of an Ordinance and by other exceptional police measures, to prevent such a state of affairs arising as unhappily arose in 1907. There could be no greater justification for the Ordinance than the comparative peace of Bengal to-day as against what it was three or four months ago. I think the arguments that one very frequently hears from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that suppression never prevents the occurrence of revolutionary action is scarcely correct I would like to say emphatically that where suppression takes the form of prevention of revolution instigated from external sources, that suppression is in nine cases out of ten effective; and in all cases it should be attempted. In regard to the Punjab there is only slight connection between the movements there, to which reference has been made, and subversive propaganda from outside. Finally, the only activity in India that can he traced to external propaganda is that which has been adequately described in the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad set out in the recent White Paper, and I think a perusal of that Paper would show that the Indian Government is fully alive to the movements of agitators and others, and can take all the counter-measures necessary. The Indian Government is alive to the tunnellings and burrowing of those underground workers, whether they emanate from Russia or elsewhere, and I consider that the efforts of these people are far more likely to fall in upon themselves than to do any harm to the main structure of society. In respect of the Resolution which has been moved and seconded by my hon. Friends, every Member of our party is desirous that everyone should have every right of free speech in the proper way. As regards hon. and right. hon. Gentlemen opposite, I must say—and this is my last word—that after the experience of the elections of 1923 and 1924, I wonder that they should be such enthusiastic advocates of free speech in view of their noisy followers. [Interruption.] There is nothing in the Resolution which cannot be supported by any patriotic Member on either side of the House. In passing it the House will show that these movements

    397
    which have been the subject of discussion to-night, though they may not be serious, are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the people.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA rose—
    Mr. G. PETO rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: After all the talk about free speech, the House, I think, will show some indulgence to its only Communist Member and. to its only Indian Member in exposing many of the one-sided arguments and so-called facts put forward by speakers opposite. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that again there is a tendency—
    Mr. G. PETO rose in, his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nall and Mr. Samuel Roberts were named by Mr. SPEAKER as Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Scurr and Mr. Maxton, as Tellers for the Noes.
    Members having passed through the Division, Lobbies, Sir Joseph Nall and Sir Frank Nelson, attended at the Table as Tellers for the Ayes, and Sir Joseph Nall announced that there had voted for the Ayes 233, and for the Noes 109.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is not the case that the names of the tellers who were handed in to you, Mr. Speaker, were not the names of those who are actually told in the Division Lobbies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that they were.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: It is within the observation of Members on this side that the names that were handed in on the other side were not those of the hon. Members who told.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it within your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that in one Lobby the Division started with one Teller, and another was substituted after the counting began?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not the fact that when you called for the names of the Tellers, I said myself and Sir Frank Nelson on this side?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The names that I took from the hon. Member were himself and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Samuel Roberts). If those were not the Tellers, and did not carry out the telling,. then I think the matter is irregular.
    Sir J. NALL: I told in the "Aye" Lobby myself, but I must confess I did not notice who told in the "No" Lobby.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It certainly was riot the hon. Member for Hereford who came up to the Table. Therefore, I must declare that the Division was irregular.
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

    TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
    Again considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 and 12 Geo. 6, c. 65, and extension of period for giving of guarantees.)
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, at end, to add a new sub-section:
    "(3) A policy committee shall be set up which will be responsible to the Treasury for the consideration of national requirements and the promotion of suitable schemes in this connection."—[Mr. Maxton.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ROBERT OULAGI (SENTENCE).
    Motion made, and question proposed,
    "That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Eyres Monsen.]
    Mr. SCURR: I desire to call attention to the case of Robert Oulagi, which was recently dealt with at the Old Bailey.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is well, at the beginning, that I should remind the hon. Member that we do not allow, except on a properly tabled Motion, criticism in this House of any Judge. I do not think that that is the point which the hon. Member is going to raise, but I think it is just as well to say, at the beginning, that he must only deal with the question within the competency of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. SCURR: I was not going to criticise the Judge, but the point I want to raise is in connection with the examination by the medical officer. I do not dispute that that was a considered opinion by Dr. Reece, but I submit that so far as this young lad is concerned he has been of a peculiar temperamental habit. At times he was normal, but at other times he was absolutely abnormal, and I have evidence that he has been exceedingly erratic and got into the habit of thinking of things which he attempted to do, which showed that he was suffering from abnormality. This is shown by the way in which he wished to destroy things in the shop, and obviously he had no mental balance. For these reasons I appeal to the Home Secretary not to put this sentence into execution.
    You cannot under any circumstances expect that you are going to effect a cure by this sort of punishment. It is a horrible punishment, and no one who has undergone it can have anything but the greatest possible resentment afterwards. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to take the course I have suggested. The question has been raised about the lad being of alien parentage. May I point out that the father is a Pole, that he served in the British Army during the War, and that he received his naturalisation free as a result of his services. Therefore, a sneer of that kind ought not to be put up. I ask the Home Secretary to take the whole matter into his consideration, and not let this horrible sentence he inflicted.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I agree with what my hon. Friend has just said in regard to this case. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will appreciate the fact that those who are making this appeal to him are every bit as much horrified by the crime perpetrated as anyone can be in
    400
    any part of the House, but our feeling is that in the peculiar abnormality which this lad has shown and which if there was time we could further illustrate, we feel that the infliction of this punishment can do nothing but accentuate the abnormality in this particular lad. We can understand that a medical officer examining the boy in prison would come to the conclusion that he was perfectly sane, because it is a peculiarity of this abnormality that for long periods those who suffer from it may be perfectly normal and fully their mental age, and yet at intervals they may have abnormal characteristics and show a very strange nervous condition which during these intervals makes them not responsible for their actions. No doubt the idea of the flogging penalty is that it is a deterrent, but I submit that the infliction of this very terrible punishment upon a boy whose very nervous condition makes him particularly unsuitable for its infliction, is very serious indeed, and we ask the Home Secretary to take into account, not merely the medical opinion of the boy at the particular moment when he may have been seen, but also the whole of the facts of his history, and judge his mental state by them. I had hoped that by this time I should have had a medical opinion which was promised me before this hour, but unfortunately, owing to the absence of the doctor, it has not yet arrived. I would ask the Under-Secretary, however, not to pronounce a final decision to-night, but to promise to take into consideration any evidence that reaches him between now and the infliction of the punishment, and, if he can, see his way to remit it, which I venture to hope he will be able to do.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I rather regret that the hon. Member has raised this question after the reply which I gave to his question yesterday. I may say at once that, of course, there is nothing in the fact of this man being of alien parentage. What was his crime? This man entered the house of this woman, took her by the throat, knocked her down, and struck her several very heavy blows on the head. He then said he wanted money. He pushed her through the hall, where she fell down a couple of steps, and when she got up, having been

    401
    injured, she promised that she would give him some money if he would go away. She took him to her bedroom, where she opened a drawer and gave him all the money she had at the moment, amounting, I believe, to about 37s. Although he had obtained the money, he then tied this woman's hands together, and dragged her about the house into several other rooms in search of more money, and then returned her to her bedroom. He then forced her into a chair, he bound her into that chair, and bound the chair to the edge of the bed and kicked her. He then put some papers and books underneath the chair and set light to the bed, and then left the house; and when this woman was found she was unconscious. I should like to point out that he was defended by counsel and pleaded guilty. As the hon. Member knows, the Judge, in passing sentence upon him for what I may call this diabolical crime, said that if it had not been his youth—he is 18 years of age—he would have sentenced him to penal servitude for a very long term of years. The point made by the hon. Member opposite is that medical considerations are in his favour. So far as I can see the medical evidence is all the other way. We have had at the Home Office two very careful reports by the senior medical officer. I read an answer to the hon. Member yesterday. One report was to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the other was to the Governor of the prison. In the first report this is what the chief medical officer says:
    "This lad has been under observation. I have carefully examined him and I have. read the depositions in the case. Oulagi is of very fair education in his class and he has retained what he learned at school better than most boys. He is in my opinion of more than average intelligence. His own account of his burglaries and his attack upon Eva Bragg shows that he has a per-
    402
    fect recollection of all the details. These facts, taker. together, seem entirely to negative the diagnosis of moral imbecility or what I thought was masked epilepsy, the only morbid condition which would fit in with hi3 statement about fits and irresponsibility. There is, in Oulagi's case, no evidence of epilepsy. I cannot come to any other conclusion than that Oulagi is quite sane and responsible for his actions."
    Then we have the report sent to the governor of the prison:
    "From the medical point of view he is perfectly fit He is sane. He is in robust physical health and condition, and his general bodily and mental development is far in advance of his age. He is really a man and he is probably as well developed as the average man of Aryian race of 22 or 23."
    May I point out what hon. Members apposite do not quite realise, that this man has the right of appeal for 10 clear days from 26th February. Every facility will be given him to appeal. He may appeal without the slightest cost to himself, and any evidence he wishes to adduce on his appeal will be heard. Therefore, firstly there is absolutely no dispute as to the crime, which is a fiendish one. There is no dispute that the prisoner is guilty. It is clear, so far as the Home Office is concerned, that there is no medical evidence in his favour. The medical evidence is against him. It. is also perfectly clear that the Judge let him off a long term of penal servitude because of his youth, and lastly he has a right of appeal. The Home Office has very carefully considered the whole bearings of the question, and in view of all the circumstances, I am afraid there is no ground for the intervention of the Secretary of State.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

POST OFFICE.
  EN-SERVICE MEN.
  EN-SERVICE MEN.
  ANGLO-SCANDINAVIAN AIR SERVICES.
  ANGLO-SCANDINAVIAN AIR SERVICES.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EXPERIMENTS).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EXPERIMENTS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  FOREIGN TELEPHONE APPARATUS AND ACCESSORIES.
  FOREIGN TELEPHONE APPARATUS AND ACCESSORIES.
  ACTON OFFICE.
  ACTON OFFICE.
  PENSIONS (TEMPORARY SERVICE).
  PENSIONS (TEMPORARY SERVICE).
  INVESTIGATION BRANCH.
  INVESTIGATION BRANCH.
  PROMOTION, INVERNESS.
  PROMOTION, INVERNESS.
  WIRELESS LICENCES (PROSECUTIONS).
  WIRELESS LICENCES (PROSECUTIONS).
  COLLECTIONS, LONDON SUBURBS.
  COLLECTIONS, LONDON SUBURBS.
  FACILITIES, ABERDEENSHIRE.
  FACILITIES, ABERDEENSHIRE.
  PRINTED PAPER RATES.
  PRINTED PAPER RATES.
  TELEGRAM CHARGES (POSTAL DISTRICT NUMBERS).
  TELEGRAM CHARGES (POSTAL DISTRICT NUMBERS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMOURED-CAR UNITS (EQUIPMENT).
  TERRITORIAL ARMOURED-CAR UNITS (EQUIPMENT).
  DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.
  DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.
AGRICULTURE.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  WORKERS AND ARABLE CULTIVATION.
  WORKERS AND ARABLE CULTIVATION.
  TRADE UNIONISTS.
  TRADE UNIONISTS.
FISHING INDUSTRY.
  RESEARCH.
  RESEARCH.
  OIL PRICES, SCOTLAND.
  OIL PRICES, SCOTLAND.
  TITHE RENT CHARGE.
  TITHE RENT CHARGE.
INDIA.
  CHILDREN, BOMBAY (OPIUM).
  CHILDREN, BOMBAY (OPIUM).
  INFANT MORTALITY, BOMBAY.
  INFANT MORTALITY, BOMBAY.
HOUSING.
  ATHOLL HOUSES.
  ATHOLL HOUSES.
  DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).
  DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).
  UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS, LONDON.
  UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS, LONDON.
  CONVERSIONS.
  CONVERSIONS.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTEN-ANCE GRANT).
  PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTEN-ANCE GRANT).
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  CASUAL WARDS (STONE-POUNDING).
  CASUAL WARDS (STONE-POUNDING).
EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (SECONDARY AND UNIVERSITY EDUCATION).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (SECONDARY AND UNIVERSITY EDUCATION).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  PRODUCTION COSTS.
  PRODUCTION COSTS.
  MINES CLOSED.
  MINES CLOSED.
  OWNERS' PROFITS, YORKSHIRE.
  OWNERS' PROFITS, YORKSHIRE.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  S.S. "WALLSEND" (INQUIRY).
  S.S. "WALLSEND" (INQUIRY).
  BOARD OF TRADE (SHIP SURVEYORS).
  BOARD OF TRADE (SHIP SURVEYORS).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTED TEA.
  IMPORTED TEA.
  DUNSTABLE CEMENT COMPANY.
  DUNSTABLE CEMENT COMPANY.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.
  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.
  GOVERNMENT STOCKS (CONVERSIONS AND TRUSTEES).
  GOVERNMENT STOCKS (CONVERSIONS AND TRUSTEES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  EGYPT (MURDER OF SIR LEE STACK).
  EGYPT (MURDER OF SIR LEE STACK).
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAYS (THIRD-CLASS SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION).
  RAILWAYS (THIRD-CLASS SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION).
  HEAVY ROAD VEHICLES (DAMAGE BY VIBRATION),
  HEAVY ROAD VEHICLES (DAMAGE BY VIBRATION),
  OMNIBUS TRAFFIC, LONDON (RESTRICTED STREETS).
  OMNIBUS TRAFFIC, LONDON (RESTRICTED STREETS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past four of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I ask leave to present a Bill to provide for the regulation of the manufacture, sale and importation of vaccines, sera, and other therapeutic substances; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I ask leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Abertillery and District Water Board, Barn-oldswick, Eastbourne, Leek, Llanelly, Nuneaton, Paignton, and Weston-super-Mare; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BOROUGH COUNCILLORS (ALTERATION OF NUMBER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (KEIGHLEY WATER CHARGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Employment of young persons as trimmers or stokers):
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, at the end of Clause 2, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(4) The provisions of this section shall come into operation on such day after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, as His Majesty shall by Order in Council appoint."
The noble and learned Lord said: I gave notice to my noble friend on the Second Reading of the Bill that I would ask him to consider whether it was proper to bring a Bill of this character into operation as an Act of Parliament before the conditions which were intended to bring it into operation are fulfilled. The Bill provides for changes in labour conditions on board merchant ships which have been recommended by International Conventions. As to the first of them, which is embodied in the clause added to the Bill by the last decision of the House, I have not thought it necessary to raise any question. It provides for the case of shipwrecked seamen and regularises a mode of dealing with their claims for wages, which I suppose all people of any experience on the subject think is very reasonable and proper, and to which I know there has been no sort of objection among persons interested in shipping.
The clause to which I move an Amendment is a penal clause, which deals with the employment of young men and lads under eighteen in certain departments on board a merchant ship, in particular in the engine rooms and in the stokehold. That, of course, is a matter of importance with regard to conditions of service on board merchant ships. But the thing comes to be proposed in this way. The League of Nations, by its International Convention, brings together representatives of States which are ship-owning

329
States, mercantile States and representatives of other States, and at Conventions conclusions are arrived at as to the proper, or perhaps the best, conditions of carrying on the merchant service. There are three Conventions embodied in this Bill. I pointed out to my noble friend last week that of sixteen Conventions which have been put forward under the same conditions an exceedingly small proportion—I think I might say an almost infinitesimal proportion—have been ratified so as to bring them into general operation at sea. So far as I know, the Conventions here under consideration have not been ratified so as to give them any general operation.
Now what is proposed by this Bill, with its penal clauses with regard to new conditions of employment, is that British shipowners shall be subjected to those new conditions without any security for that general amelioration of conditions at sea, or that equality of conditions of service in. the mercantile marine at large, which is intended to be procured by measures of this kind. I am told, and I believe, that British shipowners are perfectly ready to come into line with any reasonable proposal which may be resolved upon by Convention for the amelioration of conditions at sea; but I know a great many shipowners are anxious lest Conventions should be agreed upon and brought into operation with respect to British shipowners, and should remain mere idle words with regard to shipowners at large. I ask my noble friend whether the best mode of dealing with this matter is not to add to the Bill some provision whereby, when ship-owning nations generally, or to a reasonable extent, have concurred in the proposals which are embodied in the Bill His Majesty by Order in Council may bring them into operation to affect British shipowners.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Merrivale.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): Supposing the Bill were to pass in its present form I understand that as soon as it has received the Royal Assent the law of this country will have been brought into conformity with the provisions of this International Labour Convention. Of course, ratification would have to take
330
place, but under those circumstances ratification would only be a mere form. The point raised by my noble and learned friend is this. Here are a number of Conventions which do put a certain burden, though not I think a very heavy burden, upon shipping: Is it right that they should be carried into effect by this country only and that they should not come into operation at the same time for all countries which are parties to the Conventions?
I think it will be agreed that these proposals are, in themselves, very reasonable and sensible; they are, in fact, I think, proposals which might well have been brought into operation in this country without a general agreement. They are also, I think, proposals which throw a. very small burden upon ships and shipowners in this country. I understand that in most of these cases Great Britain does give the lead; that is to say that if Great Britain, as a great shipping Power, did not ratify this Convention probably the Convention would die altogether, and that other and perhaps less important shipping countries are rather apt to wait for, and follow, the example set by Great Britain in these cases. My noble friend wishes to delay the operation of this Act until such time as other countries have ratified the Conventions. I entirely agree that it is generally much better that these Conventions should be ratified at the same time, but in a case like this—a comparatively small case—I suggest that it would be a mistake for this country to lag behind and not. to take action at once.
Of course, you might have other Conventions of a much more important kind than this which might throw very heavy burdens on the shipping of this country. In that case it would be extremely unfair that our ships and shipowners should be weighted in this way, and that the same burden should not also be borne by the shipping of other countries who themselves have been parties to the Convention. While I ask my noble friend not in this case to press his Amendment, I should like to say on behalf of the Board of Trade that they do not consider themselves at all necessarily bound to make a precedent of a case like this, and that they reserve the right in reference to important International Conventions of this kind to delay or suspend ratification until they are

331
satisfied that a number of other important shipping countries are also joining in the ratification. I hope that my noble friend will not consider it necessary to press this particular Amendment, as the matter is a small one and as I understand several countries will probably follow the example of this country. I should add that so far as the Government is concerned the ratification of these Conventions was mentioned in the King's Speech, and for that reason importance must naturally be attached to their ratification by His Majesty's Government.
LORD MERRIVALE: I have no wish to be obstructive in this matter, but I think it is a matter of principle that the Board of Trade should determine whether, if no particular considerations arise, it is desirable to bring Conventions with foreign countries into operation in this country by penal clauses in an Act of Parliament irrespective of whether the foreign States who have joined with us in concurring in the proposals are ready to carry them into operation or not. My noble friend has said that these are small matters and my belief is that that is so; but it is not immaterial that, irrespective of ratification, this Bill proposes penal enactments not depending upon ratification but adding to the body of the Criminal Law of this country, whether the foreign States concerned take concurrent action with us or not. After what my noble friend has said probably my proper course is to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5. In this Act—
The expression "young person" means a person who is under the age of eighteen years:
The expression "ship" means any sea-going ship or boat of any description which is registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship, and includes any British fishing-boat entered in the fishing-boat register.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT moved, after "ship," where that word occurs for the third time, to insert "other than tugs, dredgers, sludge vessels, barges and other craft whose ordinary course of navigation
332
does not extend beyond the seaward limits of the jurisdiction of the harbour or pilotage authority of the port at which such vessels are regularly employed." The noble Viscount said: I move the Amendment standing, in my name on behalf of the dock and harbour authorities of the kingdom, not necessarily on behalf of London alone, but in the interests of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Glasgow Port Authority, and all those authorities who are members of the dock and harbour organisation and who, in sum, represent practically ninety per cent. of the harbour authorities of the kingdom. The object of the Amendment is, I think, clear. It is to exclude a class of craft which, unless excluded, will be deemed under this Bill to be sea-going craft and therefore subject to all the provisions of the Bill. The particular craft I seek to exclude are small craft—dredgers, hoppers, sludge boats, tugs and a miscellaneous assortment of craft which move up and down the waterways of the port authorities and which by no stretch of imagination can be deemed to be seagoing ships.
The limits of the ports are fixed by Statute. So long as these craft keep within those limits they do not come within the purview of the Bill. But from time to time these craft pass over the imaginary line in the Port of London which constitutes the seaward limits of our jurisdiction, and unless this Amendment is accepted those particular craft, as I said just now, will be deemed to be sea-going craft and will be liable to the pains and penalties laid down in the Bill. A precisely similar Bill to this was before your Lordships' House last year and an Amendment in precisely similar terms to this was moved on that occasion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore. It was accepted without demur by Lord Parmoor who was in charge of the Bill. But ho went further and expressed his pleasure that the Amendment had been moved. He thought, I presume, that it was necessary that such a matter should be cleared away out of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said this:—
"I appreciate the point that there is no necessity so far as the Protocol is concerned, or as regards the real purpose of this Bill, that such ships shall be included as will be in terms excluded if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is adopted. If he desires to press the Amendment, I shall not raise any further objection."

333
I do not know what attitude the noble Viscount will take to this Amendment, but I have heard it suggested that he is not going to accept it.
That, of course, is mere rumour. I have not had an opportunity of testing his mind by personally interrogating him, but it will be a very great disappointment if he refuses to accept it. So far as we are able to judge there can be no justification for refusing to accept it, especially in face of the fact that Lord Parmoor, who is not only a distinguished lawyer but who knows all about these Conventions and has had some considerable experience in relation to them, accepted it. I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, after ("ship") insert the said words.—(Viscount Devonport.)
LORD PARMOOR: In reference to what the noble Viscount has said, when this matter arose last year I think he was absent for some reason and the matter was dealt with by Lord Phillimore and by the representative of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. He was the person who gave the instructions on which, after consideration, the Amendment was adopted. The Convention to which the noble Viscount has referred has relation to sea-going ships only, and I do not think that these particular vessels can be regarded as in the category of seagoing ships. It appeared to me last year that the effect of the Amendment was to make it clear that the matter raised was in accordance with the terms of the Convention. I will say no more than that, because the question was discussed last year and the statement to which the noble Viscount has referred was made after full consideration.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, seems to wish that I should speak before he speaks. I should rather like to have heard what justification His Majesty's Government have for the change of front since last year. I am told, and I must proceed on the supposition, that they are very anxious to ratify the Convention as it stands. Let them do so. But they have put their own construction upon a clause in the Convention. Every nation will
334
put its own construction upon the definition of the word "ship" which appears in the Convention which is the first Schedule to the Bill. Article I provides:
"… For the purposes of this Convention the term ' vessel ' includes all ships and boats, of any nature whatsoever, engaged in maritime navigation, whether publicly or privately owned; it excludes snips of war."
If that is to be the Convention, why is a fresh definition put into the measure?
The Bill now states:
"The expression 'ship' means any seagoing ship or boat of any description which is registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship, and includes any British fishing-boat entered in the fishing-boat register."
I can understand there being no definition in the Act of Parliament and its being left on the construction of the Convention; but if you are going to put a definition in the Act of Parliament insert a proper one. Then conies the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, has raised. There are a certain number of vessels, especially in the Mersey, which are employed purely in dredging operations. They go outside the artificial, conventional limits of the port because it is desirable to get the spoil, or mud, deposited at a further distance: and, under a decision of the Courts of Justice in this country, they are, for the purposes of this country—I do not say that other countries would take the same view—sea-going ships. Thereupon the provisions of this Act which are not appropriate to vessels which are purely engaged in that sort of work, begin to apply.
There is a provision with regard to the medical examination of young persons which would prevent people on an occasion, when work in the docks was changed, putting in a ship which goes to sea some one who had not passed a medical examination, possibly some one who is unfit to go to sea but who ought not to be deprived of his livelihood in working on one of these vessels. Therefore I ask, if His Majesty's Government should follow the precedent set last year as to putting a definition in the measure, why not put a proper one?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Devonport is, as it says, to exempt from the

335
operation of the Convention tugs, dredgers, sludge vessels, and other small vessels of that kind. It is also true that an Amendment of this kind was accepted when the Bill was brought in last year. The question has been very carefully examined by the Board of Trade since that time, and they are of opinion that the operation of these particular words will be rather wider than possibly was intended, or, anyhow, was displayed in the speeches of those noble Lords who dealt with the matter in Committee stage last year. They found a very great difficulty in drawing a distinction between different classes of vessels and drawing some line between these smaller vessels and the larger sea-going vessels.
Their view also was that many of these pilotage areas were rather wide and in some cases took in a certain amount of what the ordinary person would call sea. Therefore, on the general equity of the case, they felt that it was, perhaps, unwise to exempt from the operations of this Convention these classes of vessels, especially when the burden, as I have already said in a previous statement, was so very small. I think they were actuated by another feeling, and that was that it would create a difficulty if this Amendment were carried, as they would probably have to ratify with reservation. Noble Lords realise to what difficulties it gives rise if ratification is to take place with reservation. If you ratify with reservation it is almost an invitation—especially coming from a great shipping Power like Great Britain—for other countries to ratify with other reservations; and the result is that these Conventions fall to the ground.
I recognise the force of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord opposite, and by the noble Viscount. I was going to make this suggestion that, if they would withdraw this Amendment now and put down an Amendment upon the Report stage, I would endeavour with the Board of Trade to consider whether it were, possible to deal with it more favourably, either in that form or in some other form; but I should be very much obliged to have the opportunity of considering carefully the points raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: May I ask the noble Viscount whether we are to
336
understand by the statement he has made that he will consider some Amendment, which would give exemption to this class of ship, on the Report stage? I do not wish to part with my rights at the moment, whatever they may be, under any misunderstanding. But, of course, if that is what he says, I am perfectly satisfied.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I hope the noble Viscount, or the noble Lord, will give no such pledge without very careful consideration. This is an opportunity which presents itself naturally for bringing within the beneficial scope of this Bill the large areas which are covered by the ports in various parts of this country. I asked the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill, in the course of the debate on the Second Beading, whether the Board of Trade had ascertained that the bulk of the shipping interests were favourable to this Bill, and he answered in the affirmative. I do not wonder that there are in the case of the Mersey, and no doubt of the Thames also, a great many vessels where those employed require just as much to have their health protected as in the case of sea-going vessels. For that reason I hope the Government will not be deterred, merely by this question having been raised, from giving it the closest consideration in the shape of social advance such as this Bill gives an opportunity for making.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): I do not think it would be possible for my friend Lord Peel to give a pledge to accept this Amendment on Report, because if that were so there would be no need to postpone consideration of the matter. What has happened is this. The point of the noble Viscount has force, but in addition to what he said my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore has put a point which also, to say the least of it, does require consideration, and it may be that it would be possible to find a form of definition which, while satisfying such real grievance as Lord Devonport and his friends may have, will not really diminish the effect of the Convention as regards genuine sea-going ships.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government want to consider the whole

337
question, and when the Report stage comes they will be ready either to accept the Amendment of my noble friend if he puts it down, or to produce an Amendment of their own, or, possibly, to say that no Amendment is required.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think the course suggested by the noble Viscount, supported by the Lord Chancellor, would be a very good one, and for my part I am content to reserve my Amendment to the Report stage and to accept anything the Government may suggest which will meet the real grievance. I want to make two observations. First of all, with regard to what the noble Viscount has said about pilotage. As I read the section it is not a pilotage authority generally but a pilotage authority of the port. I am told that the words are taken from another Statute. I agree that "a pilotage authority" has a very wide limit; pilotage authority of a port is a very different thing. The second observation is that I want to press my point that you have in your Bill given a different definition. Not being content with the definition in the Convention, you have put in a definition of your own. While you are about it, just make that definition a little clearer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Short title and construction.
7. This Act may he cited as the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act, 1925 and shall be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1923. and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1925.
LORD KYLSANT LORD KYLSANT had an Amendment on the Paper to add the following new subsection:—
"(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-fire: Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council from time to time postpone the coming into operation of this Act for such period not exceeding on any occasion of postponement one year as may be specified by the Order."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment of which I have given notice is almost identical with that which has been proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale, and in view of the undertaking
338
given by the Government I do not propose to proceed with it. Although the Chamber of Shipping feels that it is a bad precedent to propose that something should apply to British shipping which does not apply to other shipping in the world this is such a small matter that I am quite satisfied with the undertaking the Government have given. I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suggested to Lord Devonport that he should put his Amendment down for Report stage. As there will be no Report stage on the Bill, he can put it down for the Third Reading, when we shall be able to consider it.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): privilege Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, this Bill has had a rather remarkable history. It has been approved by four Governments—by a Coalition Government, by a Conservative Government, by a Labour Government, and by the present Government. It has also had a rather chequered career, because on two occasions it was cut in half by the arrival of a General Election, and on the last occasion that it appeared before your Lordships it was rejected in this House by a very small majority in a very small House. It comes up. therefore, now for the fourth time. But it comes up on this occasion in rather a different form from that in which it appeared before. It has on this occasion sought and has obtained the asylum of the Speaker's Certificate as a Money Bill, and it comes before your Lordships with a "safe conduct" in this House. When it was discussed in another place there was no Division of any kind throughout the whole proceedings on the Bill.

339
As its provisions are familiar to your Lordships I shall take up a few moments only in explaining them. During the war a number of prohibitions were imposed in the public interest. For instance, brewers were forbidden to brew beer beyond a certain quantity and a particular quality, and merchants were forbidden to sell flour in certain districts or only at particular prices. It often happened, however, that licences were sought and were granted by the Government to do some of these prohibited acts. For instance, ships could not be sold to foreigners during the war, but in some cases they were sold under licence and in those cases fees were taken, not unfairly, for the licences. In the case of ships 15 per cent. was taken by the Government. I should like to make it quite clear that there was nothing compulsory about these licences. No one need take out a licence who did not want to do so, and it will be admitted that on the general equities of the case it was perfectly fair in time of war for the Government to take these fees. A decision of the Courts, however, decided that these fees were illegal, and the object of this Bill is to validate the fees and charges that were collected. If the total amount of these fees and charges could be handed back it would amount to no less than a charge of £18,000,000 on the taxpayer. Of course, that amount could not be collected as, by the Act of 1020, a great many of these cases are barred, because many of these actions had to be brought within one year of the termination of the war. But supposing some of these fees and charges were given back it would be a little hard on those persons who were not quick enough in bringing their cases before the Courts and who had perhaps refrained from doing so because the Government had stated that they were going to bring in a Bill to validate these charges. That is really the whole contents of this Bill.
Contrary to the procedure in the other Bill all the particular cases are set out clearly in the Schedule of this Bill, and where actions have been brought in the Courts very ample provision is made for paying the costs and charges of litigants. Further, there is no judgment against the Government in any of these cases and, therefore, this Bill, which validates these charges, does not upset any judgment that has been given in the Courts. In these circumstances, and especially as it was
340
obviously right and fair that these fees should be charged—no one raised any objection to them—I hope your Lordships will give a Second Beading to the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Peel has told your Lordships that this Bill legalises certain charges which the Courts have held to be illegal. That, if he will allow me to say so, is a very good description of the Bill. The Bill raises two very important constitutional points. The first point is that it endeavours to legalise certain charges which were made by certain Departments in contravention of the old understanding, by which this country has been governed ever since the days of ship money, which compels any Government who desire to impose a charge upon the people to obtain the consent of the House of Commons. This consent was not obtained, and consequently the charges were held by the Courts to be illegal. Then, in order to put themselves in the right, the Departments concerned persuaded, I think, either three or four successive Governments to bring in Bills legalising the wrong-doing.
I venture to say that this is an extremely bad precedent which we ought not to follow and which we ought not to allow. In fact, last year your Lordships rejected this Bill on the Second Beading. My noble friend Lord Peel said that it was by a small majority, but small majorities are very often right, and the effect was exactly the same whether the majority was small or large. It has been said that unless this Bill is passed it will involve the country in a very large expenditure. I think that the Labour Government at one time actually talked about £17,000,000 or £18,000,000. This was afterwards reduced to a very much smaller sum, something like £500,000, and I believe that in the House of Commons this year the sum mentioned by the critics—for there were critics of the Bill; it is quite true that the House did not divide, but some of the most eminent constitutionally-minded members of the House of Commons opposed the Bill—was reduced, I think, to something like

341
£200,000. But I do not care what the amount is. It is the principle that matters, that you must not do, in these days, that which Parliament refused Charles I permission to do—namely, to levy taxation without the consent of Parliament.
There is another, and I do not know that it is not a still more important constitutional change that arises from these Bills. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, present, because, unless my memory plays me false, ho has or had some knowledge of the Parliament Act, and the procedure which I am now venturing to criticise is the procedure which has been used under that Act. My noble friend Lord Peel, as I understood him, said that there was some difference between the Bill of last year and this Bill. I have the two Bills in my hand, and I will begin, first of all, at the wrong end and take the Schedules. The Schedule of this Bill and the Schedule of the last Bill are absolutely the same. There is no change in them whatever. When, however, we come to part of Clause I in the old Bill, we find that the milk charges have been exempted. There was no necessity to insert those words in the old Bill because the charges were imposed only upon those articles which were mentioned in the Schedule, and milk was not mentioned in the Schedule. The reason why milk was mentioned in the last Bill was that when the Bill was introduced the charges on milk were included, but in the House of Commons last year an Amendment was moved and accepted by the Government leaving out those charges, and consequently there was a little confusion in the drafting which makes no difference whatever to the Bill, because in neither Schedule was milk included.
Turning again to Clause I, I find three paragraphs with (a), (b) and (c) against them. Paragraphs (a) and (b) have been merged into one sentence, and (c) has been left out. Now paragraph (c) in the old Bill was for services rendered, and accordingly, whatever charges were made for services rendered in the old Bill, which was not certified as a Money Bill, are left out of this Bill. Last year's Bill, therefore, was more of a Money Bill than this year's Bill, and yet, notwithstanding that fact, we now find that this year's Bill is certified as a Money Bill. I venture
342
to say that this raises a very important question. Under the Parliament Act, as your Lordships all know, if a Bill is certified as a Monty Bill you can reject it hero and it then goes back to the House of Commons, and, if they do not otherwise determine within a month, it goes to His Majesty the King for Royal Assent. Now I suggest to your Lordships that you should reject this Bill and rend it back to the House of Commons, in order to give them an opportunity of considering how it is that a Bill which last year was not a Money Bill and which this year imposes a smaller charge than the Bill of last year, now becomes a Money Bill.
Your Lordships must remember that this may create a precedent, and that if in the future a Bill comes up to your Lordships' House which you reject on Second Reading, and there is another Speaker, perhaps less scrupulous than this Speaker, in the Chair, he may say: "The Lords rejected this Bill; I will see that they do not reject the next, because I will certify it as a Money Bill." There is no appeal from Mr. Speaker's decision. The only possible appeal is to send back the Bill to the House of Commons in the hope that the good sense of the House of Commons will prevail, and that a Bill which last year was not a Money Bill shall not this year become a Money Bill. The question, I believe, has been raised whether there ought not to be some reform in your Lordships' House. I think this shows that some reform, at any rate in this direction, is absolutely necessary, and that it should not be left in the power of one man to say one year one thing and another year another. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I shall intervene only for one or two minutes in this debate, because I know that your Lordships are anxious to pass on to other business. I need scarcely say, in view of the attitude of the Labour Government last year on this matter, that I rise to support the Bill and to oppose the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord opposite. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading pointed out that this is now the fourth Parliament in which this matter

343
has been discussed, and it therefore follows that pretty nearly every permutation and combination of thought in regard to it has already found expression.
But it is a unique Bill, not only because it deals with a set of circumstances which has not arisen before, but also because it has provided your Lordships' House with the extraordinary and, indeed, unnatural spectacle of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Banbury, that relentlessly vigilant custodian of the national expenditure, actually urging—he did so last year and has done so, in effect, again to-day—that a sum which may amount to as much as £18,000,000 of the taxpayers' money should be given to people who have no moral claim to it whatever. The noble Lord seemed to think that no such sum was in question. That is not so. If he will refer to the debate in another place on the 19th of last month he will find there the authority for what I say. In certain circumstances this may mean £18,000,000 of the taxpayers' money being given away. £18,000,000 is a very large sum, somewhere about 4d in the £ on the Income Tax for one year, and I think it will be very interesting to contrast the attitude of the noble Lord to-day and last year with what he will no doubt have to say a little later in the Session on the Budget as to the vital necessity of reducing the Income Tax.
The noble Lord says that that is not the point—that it is not a question of money, whether the sum be largo or small, but a question of principle and of right or wrong. Very well, but I would remind the noble Lord that what is right or wrong is very often a matter of opinion, and in this case the opinion of four successive Governments, and of eight Law Officers and four Lord Chancellors and of (he vast majority of members of Parliament, is that it is right to validate these war charges. The position has been made quite clear by the noble Viscount who spoke first. These war charge payments were voluntarily incurred; indeed, many of the licences for which the payments were made were greatly clamoured for because of the great advantages secured in return. Moreover, as the noble Viscount pointed out, at the time the charges were made they were thought to be legal, and all Parliament is now asked to do is to legalise something which
344
was then understood to be legal, and which unquestionably would have been legalised at the time if it were deemed at all necessary.
I think that is the real crux of the matter, and is the reply at any rate to the first part of the noble Lord's speech. This is not a Bill which is doing an illegal thing. It is a late or overdue legalisation of acts which were quite good and proper in themselves, and which, when they were done, were not deemed to require special legal sanction. I will not say anything more, except this, that I could wish that every Bill which came before this House was as just as I hold this one to be.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps, my Lords, I may intervene for a few moments, as I was responsible in the last Parliament for the rejection of the Bill in this House. I must question Lord Peel's statement that this is a different Bill. I refer to a statement by his own colleague in another place when introducing this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said this:—
"The Bill in its present form is in the form to which the last House of Commons agreed after a very long debate in Committee …. Two points particularly were raised. One Was that in a measure of this kind each charge which it sought to legalise should be clearly and plainly stated in the Schedule. That is done, as the House will see, in the present Bill."
That quotation shows that in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade it is exactly the same Bill as was rejected in the last Parliament. Therefore, I cannot understand how the noble Viscount can say that this is a different Bill.
I was very much interested in what Lord Banbury said as regards the. desirability of your sending this Bill back to the House of Commons in order that this question may be considered, so that we may have a decision as to the attitude of Mr. Speaker—wiry, on one occasion, he should give his Certificate for it as a Money Bill and should not have done so on the other occasion. We should also then know whether Mr. Speaker has carried out the provisions of the Parliament Act, which were put in to safeguard occasions like the present, and to prevent Bills being bandied about between one House and the other. The Parliament Act requires that Mr. Speaker, before

345
giving his Certificate, shall consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the Chairman's Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection. I shall be interested to know whether those two assessors are appointed every Session, and if Mr. Speaker does address himself to those assessors. Whatever may be our views with regard to the matter it is very important indeed that the Parliament Act should be carried out very strictly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am rather glad, in one way, that we have had an opportunity of considering this Bill again, because you will perhaps remember that I was one of those who voted in the minority last year, and was of opinion that the decision of the majority was ill-advised. I held that opinion then, and of course my noble friend Lord Banbury, who is a model of consistency himself, will expect me to hold the same opinion now I was very sorry that the decision to reject the Bill was reached. My noble friend says that it was come to by a majority, and he does not feel at all daunted by the fact that the majority was a small majority, and was a majority in a very small House. Really I think that is a material consideration. I do think that those who are in favour of the Bill are glad that we have a larger attendance of members here to-day to whom we can appeal than we had on the last occasion. Moreover, the issue was, as Lord Strachie will remember, a little confused on the last occasion by the intervention of the milk issue.
He was the author of the introduction of the milk issue, and he was of opinion, which he expressed very strongly, that by the action of the then Government great benefit was going to accrue to the middle men which ought to go to the farmers. He protested against what he considered to be the ill-usage of the farmer. That is a matter which always makes a strong appeal to your Lordships, and I dare say it was responsible for several votes in the Majority Lobby—quite enough to make all the difference between a majority and a minority as the House was then constituted.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Milk was out of it last year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, but milk formed a very important issue in the debate last year. It is, however, really not material to the point. The point is simply whether in the case of these specific matters mentioned in the Schedule there should or should not be a validating of the charges which the then Government of the country imposed. Those charges do not include the milk charges. I am not going to dwell upon the amount, although the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, drew attention to the largo sum involved. If the payments were unjust I should not ask you to pass this Bill by reason of the amount involved. If the money was really due to these gentlemen, and these charges ought not, to be validated, then we ought not to shrink from it merely on account of the amount; but I hold that these charges were properly charged in equity, although they turned out to be illegal.
I must deal with one other consideration, which has been introduced in the debate You have been reminded that the Bill reaches you with one different aspect this year from the Bill of last year, and that is that it has been fortified by the Certificate of Mr. Speaker. I confess very much regret that it has the Certificate of Mr. Speaker. I should have liked to fight this issue upon its merits in your Lordships' House. I feel a strong confidence that, upon the merits alone, now that your Lordships have real time to consider it, and in such a House as I see before me at this moment, there would be no doubt whatever as to the result, altogether apart from any question of whether this be a Finance Bill or not.
I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Banbury will not expect me to defend the Parliament Act. There are members now in your Lordships' House who might be willing to defend that Act, but they are very few. We all of us consider that, in the form in which that Act passed, your Lordships had a great grievance, and I will not say anything different from that. But undoubtedly that is the law, and in the administration of that law Mr. Speaker has given his Certificate. Lord Banbury, who has comparatively recently left the House of Commons, evidently thinks that Mr. Speaker was wrong. I certainly should not venture to offer any opinion; it would be entirely outside the province of a

347
member of the Government to say anything of that kind. I do not know upon what grounds Mr. Speaker came to his conclusions. There is a difference in the drafting of this Bill, compared with the Bill of last year. My noble friend admitted that. Paragraph (c) of Clause I, for instance, which existed in last year's Bill, has disappeared from this year's Bill. But these matters are very technical, and, as I say, I certainly have no notion upon what reasons Mr. Speaker proceeds. That is a matter which he understands, and which no noble Lord is supposed to be able to understand.
My noble friend says: "Then let us send it back to the House of Commons, and find out what their reason is." But you will not find out their reason by sending it back to the House of Commons. They are not bound to give a reason. I venture to say that they will not give a reason. Why should they? That is not in the Parliament Act. What will happen, of course, is that they will put into force, as they are entitled to do under the Statute, the provision which exists, and the Bill will be passed over your Lordships' heads. Even if I agreed with my noble friend on the merits, which I do not, I certainly would not advise your Lordships to take that singularly undignified course, when you know that, by the law of the land, the Speaker is entitled, upon considerations which seem to him good, to issue his Certificate. That would be a course very lacking in dignity on the part of your Lordships, who are bound, as no other Assembly in the world is bound, to act according to the strict letter of the law.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Under the Parliament Act the House of Commons has the power not to exercise its right. The words are "unless the House otherwise determines."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not doubt, and my noble friend does not doubt, that such a course would not be taken. The House of Commons would certainly pass the Bill, as they are entitled to do, without reference any further to your Lordships. Now let me leave these technical considerations, and say a word or two upon the merits. When I hear my noble friend quoting his old—I was almost going to say musty—
348
constitutional precedents, and when I remember that he is applying them, not to the ordinary times of peace, but to the tremendous convulsions of the European War, and what took place then, I confers I am astonished. It is quite evident that in equity none of the precedents apply. During the war we did every day things that were in the highest degree unconstitutional. All of us did them. We were proud of doing them; we were proud of scrapping the ordinary rules of the Constitution in order that the country might exercise its fullest strength in the war. Little mistakes were made. I do not find fault with the Government of that day because they made mistakes. When you consider the pressure under which those decisions were made, although I was in opposition at the time, I should not criticise them. These traders were asked to pay a small fee, and they were quite willing to pay the fee in the great majority of cases. It was a bargain between the two; they said: "If you give us these advantages we will pay the fee." Well, they had the advantages, and now my noble friend says they do not want to pay the fee. Could there be anything more monstrously unfair than such a proceeding? That is what he asks your Lordships to countersign.
There used to be a word very common in these discussions, a word which I myself very seldom use, but a word which describes some of the gentlemen who made money on these occasions: they were called "profiteers." Now why should we in your Lordships' House take the strong course of rejecting this Bill in order to increase the profits of certain profiteers? That is what my noble friend really asks you to do. It will not help the workers, it will not help anybody who deserves our compassion: but if my noble friend is successful he will help a certain number of men who made an exceedingly good bargain during the war. I think that would be a most profound mistake. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will not countenance the suggestion of my noble friend. Even if Mr. Speaker had not intervened—and I confess I sincerely wish he had not intervened—I should still say, and say very emphatically, that I hope your Lordships will allow us to pass this Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived: Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

GERMAN DISARMAMENT.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they can fix a date for the publication in whole or in summary of the Report of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am aware of the generous laxity of your Lordships' procedure in the matter of question and answer, which is differentiated from the comparative rigour—not always successfully enforced—which prevails in a place with which I am more familiar. I will therefore, with your Lordships' indulgence, take advantage of the freer atmosphere which I now breathe to make one or two prefatory observations before I ask the Question of which I have given Notice, in order to make clear its meaning and its purpose.
Let me at once disclaim any intention to make it the starting point for anything in the nature of a roving expedition over the wide and scattered field of foreign policy. Still less do I desire that it should be regarded as calculated in any way to cause embarrassment to His Majesty's Government, or to appear to force them to a premature disclosure of matters which, in their view of the general interest ought, for the time being at any rate, to be kept in reserve or even in silence. It is very difficult, indeed I think it is impossible, in the times in which we live to isolate the various problems which disturb the serenity of statesmen and cloud the horizon, not only of Europe but of the whole world, by endeavouring to put them into distinct and independent compartments. Even if you take by way of illustration two such questions as those of Allied Indebtedness and European Security, logically quite separable, you will find at once that they have reactions and inter-actions which would make it an unprofitable task to attempt to solve or even to discuss the one without reference to the other.
I have purposely confined myself, in the inquiry which I propose to address to His Majesty's Government, to a matter which it seems to me can be and ought to be discussed as standing upon a footing of its own. It arises under Articles 42-i and 429 of the Treaty of Versailles which are to be found in Part XIV of that Treaty under the general heading of "Guarantees." They provide, as your Lordships are aware,
350
for the temporary occupation of German territory lying "to the west of the Rhine together with the bridgeheads." As is clear from the terms of these Articles, the occupation was not intended to last for more than fifteen years unless at that date—that is to say, after the expiration of that term—in the language of one of the subsections, the guarantees against unprovoked aggression by Germany were not then considered sufficient by the Allied and Associated Governments. In the meantime, during these fifteen years of provisional occupation, what was contemplated was a progressive evacuation of specified areas at the end of each term, subject to the general proviso that "the conditions of the present Treaty are faithfully carried out by Germany." The first term of five years came to an end, at any rate as we in this country hold, on January 10 last. Thereupon the bridgehead of Cologne and the adjacent territory, which has been held I think during the whole of those five years under the Treaty by British troops, were due to be evacuated subject to the proviso which I have just quoted. And it is in consequence of alleged defaults on the part of Germany which amount in the language of the clause to failure faithfully to carry out the conditions of the Treaty, that evacuation has been, at any rate for the moment, postponed.
Before I proceed to say a few words about the actual facts, I should like to make a general observation. Though the provisions of Articles 428 and 429 come under the heading of what are called "Guarantees" they are, on the face of them, temporary measures. They form no part of, and they have no organic connection with, the provisions which were contemplated by the negotiators of the Treaty of Versailles for the permanent security of France. The permanent security of France was considered to be provided for in another way, in a twofold fashion: first of all, to some extent and by very material and stringent provisions, in the Treaty itself. I mean by those Articles of the Treaty, Article 42 and Article 43, which deal with the left bank of the Rhine and, indeed, with more than the left bank of the Rhine. Article 42 provides, as your Lordships will no doubt remember, that—
"Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the

351
left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometres to the East of the Rhine."
And Article 43 provides that—
"In the area defined above the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military manœuvres of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilisation, are in the same way forbidden"—
a very stringent and, as was then regarded and I think ought to be regarded now, an effective safeguard, so far as it goes, against German invasion.
But quite apart from those provsions of the Treaty, and outside the Treaty altogether, there can be no doubt that France counted upon, and may, indeed, to some considerable extent have been induced to modify the position which her Government originally set up in this matter by the tripartite pact between France herself, ourselves, and the United States of America which, at that time, there was reason to believe-might be, and indeed would be, ratified, but which, as we know now, for reasons it is not necessary to go into on this occasion, never came into effective existence, or, indeed, into existence at all.
I have always thought that the feeling not only of soreness but of insecurity which the lapse of that arrangement has undoubtedly left in the minds of the French people, was a perfectly natural and legitimate consequence; and I know my friend Lord Grey has on more than one occasion, both in this House and outside, given expression to the same view; and I believe it is very widely shared in all parts of this country. But legitimate. natural, genuine, deeply seated as that feeling is, it has no real relevance to the present question. It may well afford, and I think it does afford ground, and ample ground, for devising—as I hope the statesmanship of Europe and the world will soon prove its capacity to devise in the interests not only of French but of European and of worldwide security—a substitute and a more comprehensive pact. That, in my judgment, is at this moment the primary and the most urgent need of the international world.
But the fact that that need has not yet been met can afford no reason whatever for attempting to re-write these Articles
352
of the Treaty and to convert the strictly limited and temporary measures for which they provide into an indefinite occupation by the Allies of the left bank of the Rhine. If that were so, if that contention were really well founded, there would be no point or object in going into the question of German default. The real question, therefore, as it appears to me is this, and it is a question of fact: Has there been such unfaithfulness (I use the language of Article 429 of the Treaty) on the part of Germany in fulfilling the conditions of the Treaty as to justify the Allies in the non-performance of their prima facie obligation to evacuate the Cologne area at the specified date in January last?
This is not the first time, let me remind you, that the question of the failure of Germany to carry out the very important, and, I will add, the very necessary, disarmament provisions of the Treaty, has arisen. As far back as March, 1921, an allegation of such default was one of the heads of the ultimatum which was then presented to Germany by the Allied Powers. Two years later—I am not sure that everyone remembers this—in the early part of 1923, curiously enough immediately after the French occupation of the Ruhr, the question was again raised; and interrogatories were addressed to the Government of that day (Mr. Bonar Law, I think, was then Prime Minister) in the House of Commons, with regard to the whole matter of German disarmament. The War Office was questioned upon the matter, and the Under-Secretary of State for War, Colonel Guinness—the exact date is March 22, 1923—said in the House of Commons:—
"The British representative is satisfied that the reductions in the German Army contemplated by the Treaty, both in respect of men and material, have been so carried out as to constitute effective disarmament."
Some six weeks or two months later, a further Question was addressed to the Government upon the subject. The date is May 7, 1923.
The Question was addressed with particular reference to the German police, and the Under-Secretary of State for War, replying again, said:—
"Our military advisers are satisfied that the provisions of the Treaty with regard to the surrender of arms and munitions have been carried out to such an extent as to ensure that at the present time Germany is effectively disarmed."
And he added:—
"It is known that, just prior to the French occupation of the Ruhr, the authorised Army was considerably under establishment."
That is less than two years ago. There was, I believe, some interruption- some people say some obstruction—of the effective supervision by the Inter-Allied Commission on German armaments in the months that followed; but we now understand that in September of last year they resumed active inquiries. The result is, first of all, a preliminary Report, and now, as we understand, a final Report, upon which the Allied Governments are asked to take action.
I should like to make perfectly clear, what indeed it ought not to be necessary to have to make clear, that no one, I will not say in this House but anywhere in this country, so far as I am aware, has any motive or desire to screen or to minimise German default. If the provisions of the Treaty as to disarmament can be shown to have been so infringed as to amount, to use the words of the Treaty itself, to unfaithfulness in carrying out its provisions, the contingency upon which the Allies agreed to evacuate has not arisen. As I said a moment ago, that is a question of fact; it is a question of the weight of evidence,. and I confess that it is much to be regretted, very much to be regretted, that the Treaty did not provide some adequate and trustworthy machinery, an instrument of inquiry, for deciding such matters as this. It has done so in some cases; it, has not done so in this.
There are two considerations—I will only mention two—among many which are obvious and which ought, I think, to be kept in view, and which I have no doubt are being kept in view, by His Majesty's Government. In the first place, the kind of default which would justify a postponement of the prima facie obligation to evacuate must, as everyone-will agree, be a default not trivial or casual but substantial and deliberate. Another consideration is this: that you must make a distinction—I am not suggesting for a moment that that distinction will not be made, for it is a vital one—between measures which may be legitimately taken in a country subject to the existing economic and political conditions which prevail in Germany, to strengthen the
354
safeguards against internal and domestic disorder, and measures which can only be legitimately and adequately interpreted as preparing the way and providing the means for external aggression. No fair-minded man will deny that this is a consideration which ought always to be kept in view.
That being so, I want to submit to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Marquess who represents the Government, that it is of the utmost importance that the evidence, upon which for the moment only a provisional decision has been taken—as I understand the case the full and final Report of the Commission had not then been produced or considered—should be produced, and that if need be Germany, the German Government and those who speak for it, should have an opportunity of stating, if they have one, their counter-case. I ask this, not in the interests of Germany but in order that our fair dealing in the matter, our desire and determination to act in such a case, when we are alleging that we are, excused from an obligation which, prima facie, we have undertaken, should be free from all question and even free of suspicion.
We have no want of respect, any of us, for the Inter-Allied Commission, no want of respect for the military and expert judgment of such a great authority as Marshal Foch, no want of respect, let me add, for that distinguished body which has recently apparently become part of the international polity of Europe, with a mysterious attribution of curiously sporadic vitality, the Ambassadors' Conference. I shall be glad to learn from the noble Marquess what are the precise functions and the exact authority of that Conference; whether it is merely an international clearing-house, whether it is a factory for provisional decisions, whether it has any independent authority of its own, or whether, as would seem to be the case and ought to be the case, it is both in initiation and determination subject to the great States of whom its constituent members are the representatives and the delegates. If that is the case, as I think and believe it is. I am not at all sure that it may not in the long run turn out to be an instrument not for accelerating but for procrastinating decision.
Be that as it may, it appears to many of us, and to most people in this country, unless His Majesty's Government have overwhelming reasons to the contrary, that in the general interest—it is a matter of almost imperious necessity—the evidence, I do not say necessarily in complete detail, but the substance of the evidence, which the International Commission has collected and which has been submitted to these various authorities, and which must ultimately be weighed and decided upon by the Governments concerned, should be evidence of value and weight which the whole world can judge. Let me add, if it is necessary to add, that in making such an appeal we are not showing, certainly none of us have any desire to show, any lack of regard for the opinions or the susceptibilities of our friends and Allies. I may claim, speaking perhaps without presumption as an old friend of France, at any rate as one who during many responsible years did everything in his power to cultivate and develop the Entente so providently brought into being by my noble friend whom I see opposite, by the wisdom and statesmanship of Lord Lansdowne—that Entente which, when the testing moments came, was one of the main agents, I would go so far as to say the main agent, for saving Europe and the world from irretrievable calamity—that the request which I make to the Government, which they will, of course, answer or not, fully or with such materials as they think proper, is made, as my noble friend, I am sure, well knows, in a spirit of loyalty to that which I conceive, and I believe most people in this country conceive, to be the best interests of honour and peace. The country will be glad to know, and I think your Lordships' House will be glad to know, in this matter, where exactly at this moment we are, and whither, so far as the noble Marquess can foresee, we are going.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the noble Earl, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, could hardly have selected a topic of greater interest or importance than this, or one upon which he was better entitled to speak with full authority. We did not need the reminder which was addressed to us in the penultimate passage of that speech to recall the great part which the noble Earl himself
356
played in the earlier history of these events and his supreme right to address your Lordships and to advise the country upon their sequel. The noble Earl spoke to us with that admirable conciseness and lucidity which have always characterised his utterances in another place, which it is now many years since I heard from a position opposite to him on the floor of that House, but with which I am sure your Lordships will rest dissatisfied if he does not frequently favour us in the course of our proceedings here.
In the opening sentences of his speech my noble friend said that he would take a passing advantage of the generous laxity which characterises our proceedings. As he went on I am bound to say that he did not transgress the strict limitations of his Question anything like so widely as nine-tenths of your Lordships are in the habit of doing from day to day. It is true that at one moment he diverged into an expression of his views upon the question of the claim of France to have her frontiers guaranteed by some pact or other, and the question of security as a whole, but he did not pursue the matter beyond a few sentences, and no one will recognise, I am sure, more readily than he that this is and must be a subject of independent debate upon which we shall have many opportunities, in all probability, of speaking at later periods of the Session. By far the greater part of the noble Earl's speech seemed to me to be directly connected with and arising out of the Question upon the Paper, although that Question itself is somewhat circumscribed in character. I do not know that there was a single observation or group of observations in his speech with which I or, I think, any member of His Majesty's Government would venture to disagree, and I shall be somewhat disappointed if at the close of my observations I do not succeed in claiming a similar measure of assent from him and those who sit with him.
The noble Earl began by referring to those clauses in the Treaty which relate to the progressive evacuation of the Rhine by the Allied Powers who at present have troops stationed there, and he referred to the quinquennial periods through which, one succeeding the other, that evacuation, so long as the conditions of the Treaty are fulfilled, ought to take

357
place. I need not recapitulate anything that he said upon that point. I will merely take up the case at the point in history to which he referred as having arisen in September last. He mentioned that in the preceding year and a half there had occurred a practical suspension of the visits in Germany of the Inter-Allied Commission of Military Control. That was one of the consequences of the French occupation of the Ruhr. In September last—I think the date was September 8—these visits of inspection were resumed, and towards the end of December the Allies were called upon to come to at any rate some preliminary decision as to what action they would take with regard to evacuation when the first quinquennium expired, as it was about to do, on January TO of the present year.
I made a speech in your Lordships' House just about that time in response to a Question addressed to me from the opposite Benches in which I explained that it was impossible for the Allies, and inferentially, therefore, for our own Government, to come to a decision upon the matter until the Inter-Allied Commission, which had resumed its work only three months before, was in a position to report. At the beginning of January an Interim Report was issued by the Military Committee under the presidency of Marshal Foch, which sits at Versailles, and in fairness to the German Government it was thought desirable and propel' to send to them a summary of the reasons which had justified the Allies in arriving at a provisional decision to suspend the evacuation of the Cologne zone after the date of January 10. The main causes of alleged default were stated in that note addressed to Berlin, and I think they were six in number. The German Government made a general reply without entering into details.
Meanwhile the Inter-Allied Commission pursued its labours, and it was on February 15 that the Report drawn up by them was signed at Berlin. It was transmitted from Berlin to Paris, where it passed into the hands of the Versailles Committee on February 18. During the little more than ten days that have elapsed since then, the committee under Marshal Foch have been carefully scrutinising and examining that Report, as to the nature of which I shall have a
358
word to say in a moment, and only to-day, I believe, their Report has passed from their hands into that of the Ambassadors' Conference at Paris. Now, on this point, in his speech the noble Earl did indulge in one slight divagation, because he put to me the constitutional conundrum what exactly the Ambassadors' Conference is, what are its powers, and what it either does or is expected to do.
The situation, although it may be difficult to sum up in a sentence, is one which it is perfectly possible to apprehend. The Ambassadors' Conference was first constituted after the war as a convenient machinery for dealing with all the minor issues arising out of the fulfilment, or non-fulfilment, of the Treaties signed at the conclusion of the war. It was felt desirable to utilise a body representing all the great Powers, which already existed at Paris, for the purpose of consultation and advice, and only in minor cases of independent decision. The Ambassadors' Conference has no executive authority beyond that which it derives from the Governments represented upon it. All its substantial recommendations are referred to the Governments, and common as are the charges brought against it that it is sometimes dilatory in its proceedings, I think it is only fair to say that it does an amount of business which nobody else could usefully discharge, and that it is very useful to the Foreign Offices and Governments concerned.
This Report passed into their hands, I believe, this morning. It will be considered by them without delay, and I have no doubt that in a few days' time the Report will be passed on by them to the various Allied Powers. It will then be the duty of the Powers, either by personal consultation or otherwise, to consider very carefully the nature of the Report, the recommendations that it makes, and the character of the demands that it may be necessary to make upon the German Government. Certainly, in the course of those proceedings, I should hope that the German Government may be given a fair opportunity of being heard, because I myself hold strongly to the view, which I shall express again later, that it is only by common consultation and co-operation in this matter that this great question

359
can satisfactorily or speedily be brought to a conclusion.
Now as to the Report. The noble Earl's Question upon the Paper is as to whether His Majesty's Government can fix a date for the publication in whole or in summary of the Report of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control. I think that there has been, not indeed in the speech of the noble Earl but in some organs of public opinion, some misconception upon this point. There seems to have been a sort of idea that His Majesty's Government, or the Allies in general, were anxious either to cover up their provisional decision not to evacuate, or to be obscure and secretive about the reasons which have led to it. There is no foundation for any such misconception. The Report itself is a document of about 160 closely-printed pages, filled with a mass of technical details which I am sure your Lordships will believe are hardly suitable for publication in their entirety.
There is, however, another point of greater importance still, which I will ask your Lordships to remember. It is this: It was no part of the duties of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control at Berlin to sift the matters of outstanding importance from those which are only of minor consequence. The noble Earl himself drew a marked distinction between the two. The task of the Berlin Commission was to establish the facts. It is for the Governments to form a due appreciation of those facts. Consequently the Report itself is an exhaustive rèsumè of all the points, great and small, in which the German Government have been found, during the course of the general inspection, to be in default in respect of their disarmament obligations.
Now His Majesty's Government are of opinion that a decision of so grave a nature as the retention of their troops in the Cologne zone for a further period, if it has to be taken at all, should be taken only on matters of real importance. It therefore appears to us that considerable embarrassment might be caused if we were to publish to the world a voluminous list of minor infractions, to which the Allied Government may not be disposed to attach a decisive importance when coming to a decision on the question
360
of evacuation. Such a course would not, in our judgment, be calculated to facilitate the conclusion which we have in view, and indeed, if I may express a strong personal opinion, it would be that the publication of the entire document would render a pacific solution much less likely and much less feasible than I hope myself it may turn out to be. It is for this reason that His Majesty's Government could not very well propose to their Allies—and your Lordships must remember that one party cannot publish it by itself—that it must be an Allied decision—that the Report should be published.
On the other hand, I am glad to take this opportunity of assuring your Lordships, rather on the lines of the suggestion in the second part of the Question of the noble Earl, that no decision will be taken on a matter of such importance to this country as the retention of British troops in the Cologne area, without making public the whole grounds and the facts upon which such a decision is reached. Subject to the concurrence of our Allies, we have every intention of making public the detailed list of defaults to be communicated to the German Government, which must be made good in order that the evacuation of the Cologne zone may be proceeded with. That is the answer, and I hope the House will agree that it is a satisfactory answer to the Question addressed to us by my noble friend.
May I before I resume my seat, inasmuch as he indulged in some general remarks upon the situation as a whole—may I, without following him in that respect, add a word as to the general principles by which His Majesty's Government are actuated in this matter. It is our first duty, and our main desire, to see that the Treaty of Versailles is carried out in all essential principles, and when I say carried out I mean by both parties, and further that the decision on evacuation must not be made to depend upon considerations which do not arise out of the military clauses of the Treaty. It must be treated on its own merits and in strict relation to the conditions laid down in the Articles which were read out by the noble Earl. Consistently with that we desire that the occupation of Cologne should terminate as soon as possible. No one can regard without alarm an indefinite occupation of those regions.

361
But, following a remark that I made a little earlier, we feel very strongly that that evacuation is much more likely to be successfully and, if possible, speedily carried out by frank discussion, by mutual settlement, by the co-operation of all the parties concerned, than it is by any abrupt or violent measures in one direction or the other. I do not think I need add anything more to this general expression of the sentiments of His Majesty's present advisers, but I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given me an opportunity of stating them with such clearness to your Lordships' House.

THE ARBITRATION PROTOCOL.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give further information on the subject of the Geneva Protocol in addition to that contained in the answer of the Leader of the House on December 10th of last year. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Protocol, to which I only wish to refer incidentally on the present occasion, is intended to enable obligations contained in the Treaty to be carried out by both parties. I am sure the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will bear in mind, and I dare say the noble Earl will bear in mind, that there are not only obligations in the Treaty on what I may call the defeated countries—that is, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria—but that, by Article. 8, there is a corresponding obligation that all countries within the limits of that Article shall agree if possible, or shall assent, to a reduction in armaments. Therefore, for five years now, one of the main objects of the League and of the Council of the League has been to bring about conditions which will make that disarmament possible. The question which arises, and always will arise in connection with disarmament, is whether a sufficient security has been obtained as regards the normal conditions of peace to allow the provisions of Article 8 to become operative.
I want to direct my Question to two points. When this matter was discussed some time ago in this House the noble Marquess said that the Government were not prepared to give an answer, on two grounds. I think I cover the matters touched on in his answer, but if in any
362
way I have limited them I will at once accept the correction. The first thing was that there had not been time to consider the provisions contained in the Protocol itself. Since that date there have been three months for consideration. It never occurred to me that the Protocol as a document was difficult to interpret or to understand, but since that time there has been ample discussion, and no doubt the noble Marquess is aware of the accurate and careful analysis made by that great international lawyer and jurist, Sir Frederick Pollock. I do not think that he approached the Protocol originally in any specially friendly spirit, but he makes a masterly and accurate analysis, showing what the Protocol does and what little basis there is for many of the suggestions made as to what it is supposed that the Protocol might do. If I might refer to one passage from his analysis it will show what I mean. He says—
"The risk of a British Fleet or a French Army, not to speak of contingents from the Dominions, being ordered about under some foreign command is fabulous, and not less so because the fable has been accepted by some persons who ought to have known better. We shall see that the Protocol is careful to observe this fundamental denial of any quasi-federal executive power in the Council."
I merely quote that because I do not desire to go into matters of that sort in any wide terms on the present occasion.
The other matter which, I admit, does raise considerable difficulty, is the attitude of the Dominions and Dependencies. It seems to be forgotten when this matter is discussed that at every stage in formulating the Protocol the representatives of the Dominions and of India at Geneva were fully consulted, and in many respects their advice was adopted. I do not want to press the matter too far, and also I am cognisant of the fact that, not only as regards the Protocol but as regards the general Imperial relationship between the Mother Country and her Dominions and Dependencies, there are questions pending at the present time which, in the interests of everybody, should, if possible, be finally dealt with on a satisfactory basis.
I should like to say one or two words on some information which has come to me. I have lately been in the East. Eastern opinion appeared to be all in one direction—in favour of the Protocol.

363
I should like to say a word about Australia's attitude, and I will quote from a statement made by Mr. Duncan Hall, who is said to have written the best book which has yet appeared on the constitutional position between a Colony and the Mother Country. What does he state?
"The outstanding fact is that there is no decisive opinion in Australia on the Protocol. Sensational headlines in a section of the Press, and alarmist statements by an eminent politician with an axe to grind created considerable uneasiness in the early stages of the discussion. But the arrival of full information from Geneva, including the final text of the Protocol, and reassuring statements by responsible persons based on a study of these data, have done much to check apprehension."
He ends with these words:—
"Already one can say with some confidence that the current is setting towards ratification."
I do not desire to place too much weight on any one opinion, however well founded, but I think it is a great mistake to approach the Protocol with the idea that there is anything contained in it which either created alarm in our Dominions or which, on the other hand, is other than favourable to them in the security which it gives for the normal conditions of peace.
There are two other extracts to which I should like to refer. The former Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden—I am sure he is an authority whom we should recognise in this country—declared at a meeting of the Canadian League of Nations that he gave his support to the Protocol. That is a very important matter. I admit that it is very difficult to speak with certainty on questions of this kind. In the same way it was argued by Sir Francis Ball at a meeting in New Zealand, over which he presided, that the Protocol should be subjected to some amendment before ratification. No one objects to that; I have often said that the question of amendment should be left open. That meeting carried unanimously a resolution urging that the Protocol be ratified. So that whatever the balance of ultimate opinion in those places may be, and it is as difficult to gauge as the final opinion in our own country, there is a large body of responsible opinion in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to which I have referred, undoubtedly in favour of the
364
ratification of the principle of the Protocol; and one would expect it to be so. The Protocol is a document which appears to me to be favourable in an extraordinary degree to our Colonial possessions.
There is one more word that I should like to say about Australia. The Chairman of the First Commission which had to deal with very important matters in framing the actual terms of the Protocol, was Sir Littleton Groom. Sir Littleton Groom, who is Attorney-General of the Federal Government of Australia, after full consideration and communication with his Government, assented to the terms of the Protocol and said that he thought they were favourable in regard to the position in Australia. I have not heard that he has said anything since which is out of accord with the opinion he then expressed. I was in intimate association with him for a series of weeks on this point, I saw him every day and every evening, and I feel certain that his mature consideration, on behalf of the Federal Government of Australia, was in favour of the terms of the Protocol, to which he finally gave his assent.
I cannot help recalling another fact in reference to New Zealand. I have quoted the opinion of Sir Francis Bell, but the representative of New Zealand in Geneva was Sir James Allen. When we were discussing the Protocol in its earlier stages—it was necessarily altered and revised many times—there were points in it to which objection was taken on behalf of the Government of New Zealand. Telegraphic communications took place between Sir James Allen and his Government, and Sir James told us in very frank terms that as the Protocol then stood he thought he could not give his assent to it on behalf of New Zealand. Those matters were dealt with. The objections raised by Sir James Allen were met, and after they had been met, he told us in terms, after communicating with his Government, that they were prepared to accept the terms of the Protocol as then arranged; and when the time came he gave his vote, of course, in favour of the acceptance of those terms as they were brought before the Assembly at Geneva.
It seems to be forgotten how much intercommunication there was between the Mother Country and the Dominions and India upon this point. India was

365
specially represented by Lord Hardinge of Penshurst us well as by a very well-known military expert in India, Major-General the Maharajah of Bikaner. I do not think you could have had two more representative members of the delegation or two gentlemen more conversant with conditions in India, and both of them gave their assent to the terms of the Protocol. I do not want to go so far back at the moment, but your Lordships may recollect that when Lord Hardinge returned to this country he sent to the newspapers a warning against the misapprehensions as to some matters which had been sent home, and gave his adhesion to the terms of the Protocol as it existed at that time.
May I turn now to another point, because it will be the shortest way of dealing with this question, and will show how matters stand. I hold in my hand the Report by the right hon. Austen Chamberlain on the Thirty-second Session of the Council of the League of Nations, as to which, I think, a very important point arises, and I hope that the noble Marquess will be able to give me an answer in regard to it. Mr. Chamberlain made it clear that he was merely asking for an adjournment of the last Council meeting as a matter of procedure, and that he was giving no opinion whatever as to the merits of the Protocol either one way or the other. That is entirely in accord with what the noble Marquess said in answer to me. These are the actual words of the Report—
"In asking for a delay, he wished it to be clear that ho made no declaration and gave no indication of what the ultimate decision of the British Government would be."
Therefore, so far as the last Council meeting is concerned, the matter was left at large.
But M. Briand is reported as having made a statement. I admit that I give great weight to M. Briand's statement not only because of his personal knowledge and ripe experience, but because I have the same feeling as that expressed by the noble Earl, that every possible attention, within the limits, of course, of what is right and just to others, on the question of security should be given to the French representatives. The remarkable fact is that at the Assembly itself M. Briand accepted the Protocol as satisfying the French desire for security (which
366
is the main point that we ought to fix in their favour) and there and then said that he would accept the Protocol—I do not think there is ratification in France—on behalf of the French Government as a great document and a great proposal which, in his view, would give the security which all France desired and which would erect an almost insuperable barrier to warfare in future.
What did M. Briand say at the Council meeting? I take this from the Report which has been issued—
"The French delegate said that it was easily understandable that the British Government should ask for the adjournment of this question, purely for reasons of procedure."
There we are all on common ground.
"The question before the Council at that moment was, therefore, only one of procedure, and concerned the mere adjournment of the question on the agenda of that Session."
Then he said something which, to my mind, is very important—
"The work, however, which had been undertaken had not been discontinued …"
The Council had undertaken that work on a mandate from the Assembly and not on its own initiative. It had to do it because it had been ordered by the Council to do it, and I want to know what the work was which had been undertaken and had not been discontinued. I ask that question for this reason in particular. When I came back from Geneva I was asked, through the ordinary sources, to nominate a member of the Drafting Committee which, under Article 3 of the Protocol, was to indicate clearly how far the Protocol would introduce amendments in the provisions of the original Covenant.
I nominated a person—of course, I do not give his name—with special knowledge in international matters, a special jurist and draftsman; there can be no question whatever of his capacity for nomination. But before that nomination was made effective the change of Government was brought about, and I want to know whether, in accordance with the request then made, an English representative, a draftsman and international lawyer, has been carrying out this work. It is extremely important. I am afraid that I have read the Protocol so often that it seems to me to be a very easy document to interpret, but it is also, apparently, an easy document to misinterpret. But

367
if you can once have the amendments introduced, by a proper drafting committee, into the Covenant itself—that was the desire of the Council—then it would be clear to everyone whether, and in what respect, there was any difference between the two documents, and the era of speculation—unfortunate speculation, I think—would be closed.
Then M. Briand goes on to say this:
"And it was contemplated that in March next "—
I think the Council meet next Monday. but I am not sure; the noble Viscount would know that—
"the Council would be able to take up, with a certainty of achieving positive and practical results, the discussion which it thought might be held in the present Session."
Is our representative, who I understand will be the Foreign Minister, going to stand aloof, or is he going to take the part and the influence which Great Britain ought to exercise in the work which has "a certainty of achieving positive and practical results"? That is a very concrete question. Are we going to stand aloof? I think there can be no greater misfortune than that Great Britain should stand aloof from a great project of this kind.
It is not that the project itself is so important in one sense, but it is the step, and the only step, which has been at present devised in order to bring about a great world Conference on Disarmament. Are we going to help towards a world Conference on Disarmament, or not? It does not seem to me that the details of the Protocol are of importance for this purpose. If there is a world Conference I have no doubt it will have to be adjusted and reconsidered; because, unless at the world Conference a project of disarmament is generally accepted, the whole matter becomes null and void. Is there any other way of carrying out the obligations of Article 8 of the Covenant except through the process of a world Conference? And if there is to be a world Conference ought it not to be carried out through the agency of the League of Nations? If this opportunity is lost—it has been a very difficult matter to bring about—when is an opportunity likely to recur in which the Prime Ministers of France and England were jointly concerned, to which they gave
368
their joint consent, and which was afterwards adopted in principle by the forty-nine nations at the Assembly of Geneva?
The opinions of other countries, again, may be a question of difference in different cases; but I should like to quote one because I think it very much concerns that which was said by the noble Earl this evening. The opinion I am going to quote is that of the Foreign Minister of Poland, Remarks have been made at different times as regards the attitude of Poland towards the League of Nations. I want to bear my testimony that its attitude has always been a loyal one, and the very great difficulties which have arisen on every Council I have attended at the League—the noble Viscount, no doubt, met with the same difficulties—on the questions of nationality and minority between Poland and Germany have been met on both sides in a spirit of compromise and good feeling, and a very difficult matter has been practically finally settled.
The Foreign Minister of Poland declared that though the form of the Geneva Protocol might undergo many modifications, it was quite impossible that its spirit of general solidarity and its desire to see difficulties settled by arbitration should cease to exert an influence. Why should it cease to exert an influence? If the League of Nations means anything it means that countries, instead of determining their own rights in an isolated spirit, should be prepared to submit them to a common tribunal and, therefore, a common settlement. He goes on to say that Poland held, on the contrary, that the Treaty policy was universal solidarity to safeguard the Treaties, and he believed that if all the States pledged themselves to combined intervention against a nation infringing the peace, there would be no more war. Then he said, with reference to the guarantee of peace to which reference was made by the noble Lord, that to guarantee peace on the English Channel—that was, a guarantee, or pact, between England and France—while leaving the whole of the rest of the world at the mercy of events would mean, he thought, not peace but war. He could hardly believe that any nation could be brought to sign such a document.
That is only one illustration. I do not suppose it would be right to refer to

369
matters of private information, but I am bound to admit that I think I am entitled to say that I find on every side, as regards communications made to me, with comparatively very few exceptions indeed, a unanimous feeling in support of that which was done and sanctioned at the last meeting of the Assembly in Geneva. I do not, of course, suggest for one moment that a scheme of this kind is perfect; nor do I suggest that there may not be ample grounds—I believe I see by the newspapers that it has been raised by the Committee of Imperial Defence—on matters of that kind where amendments should be allowed and accepted. Those are really infinitely small points in comparison with the general scheme that there shall be no more war as far as human prevision can foresee.
Perhaps I may be allowed, as one does not know what information has been obtained—at any rate, no information has been asked especially from those who were at Geneva—to give a short illustration from the Navy. Unfortunately, as I think, we were not given much assistance, during our discussion of the Protocol, by the Service Departments of this country. But late in the day a very eminent representative of the Navy was sent specially from the Admiralty and he came to see me at Geneva. I have not the slightest doubt that he was sent as a man of the highest authority. He raised three points. Two of them are met by special provisions in the Protocol as it stands, and the third point was not met because it was too late; the Committee had already adjourned. The first of the points was to make it quite clear that in the adoption of the Supreme Court provision was made that there should be no interference with the principles of naval warfare adopted by British Prize Courts. If you look at Article 3 you will see that this is provided for in terms. Whether it was necessary to provide for it in terms is another matter. I thought it was not; but it was possible to do it and we put it in. Another point is met by Article 10. It was feared by the Navy that if they were called upon to co-operate under a League of Nations action they might not have belligerent rights. I think the supposition was superfine, but if you look at Article 10 you will find we were enabled to put in words to satisfy them
370
that belligerent rights can be exercised under these conditions.
The only other matter has to do with Article 7, and I want to say a word or two about it. I think Article 7 is somewhat unfortunately drafted. It was intended to do nothing more than this—to maintain the status quo during the hearing of an arbitration before the Courts. Just the same sort of provision was inserted for this purpose in the Treaty of Lausanne. There has been some difficulty as regards Iraq in seeing that such a provision is properly maintained; but it is quite clear if you are to have a procedure by arbitration, or court of conciliation, that while that procedure is going on you must have a provision that the status quo shall be maintained. When the matter came before the Assembly I made a statement in public, as I had promised the naval representative I would, and said that in my opinion this was nothing more than a status quo clause; and if it is a status quo clause it is what no one would dissent from. If it can be construed, as I understand it is said to be construed, as a general interference with mobilisation, then, of course, it ought to be altered. No one suggested that, no one thought of it, and the only reason why a matter of that kind was not made quite clear was because it was not until the Sunday that this eminent naval authority raised it, not until after the Committee which dealt with this matter had dissipated. It was therefore not from any want of desire to make the matter clear but because it was impossible to deal with it. That was fully explained at the time.
Those were the only three points raised. I do not suggest that further consideration may not have raised other points of difficulty, but these were the only three points raised. Two of them are dealt with specifically, and as regards the third it was stated that we believed the fear of the Navy was not well founded. It was certainly not the desire of any man, not the desire of any of my colleagues or myself, that these wide powers should be inferred from the words we had used. But how is one to deal with these, suggestions which come, from the various Services? I want to deal with them; we want to deal with them; and we have tried to deal with them. The noble Marquess opposite knows that if any one wants to bring about a constructive

371
scheme of this kind he naturally desires that difficulties of this kind should be met; they should be brought into the open. Let us understand what they are and then those who are responsible for the Protocol will be prepared to give their assistance within all reasonable limits; but you must have limits.
There is the question whether the Protocol is to apply to countries outside the League of Nations. The answer to that, of course, is quite clear. You cannot determine that finally until you have had a world Conference. The Protocol is not a final thing for conditions as they exist now. It is only a step towards a world Conference, and at that Conference every country, whether in the League of Nations or not, will have a full opportunity to see what arrangements can be come to. If they are generally accepted then of course the Protocol falls through; you cannot have greater safeguards than that. But if before the time comes for seeing how far security and disarmament can be connected you create difficulties, I might almost say invent difficulties, I do not see how any scheme of this kind can be fairly considered. If the security is to be less the measure of disarmament will be less. That is the simple proposition which we had in our minds. We desire that the measure of security should be as wide as possible. That is the right principle.
The obligation we have already under taken as signatories to the Treaty of Versailles, in which the original Covenant is contained, is that we will bring about these conditions of mutual disarmament. One can hardly think that Germany will take any other attitude than that of saying: "We will carry out our obligations but all the other countries should carry out theirs." When I was at Geneva on the last occasion we appointed a Commission with the assent of all the other bodies, and particularly of France and Italy, to take over the question of disarmament at the right moment in Germany, Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary. It was a Commission appointed for that very purpose. I do not know whether the right moment has come or not, but when it comes you will have the question of disarmament settled so far as the defeatist countries are concerned, and if you allow the Protocol to go forward there is a great
372
chance that you will have a system of disarmament all round. I am not going to prophesy as to the measure of success, but let us try it. Suppose it fails; we shall have taken our part. And if it succeeds it will be the greatest triumph in the cause of peace that can possibly be imagined, having regard to conditions in Europe at the present time. I do not want to detain your Lordships longer now and I will ask the Question which stands in my name.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I saw the Question of the noble and learned Lord on the Paper for the first time yesterday, and if he had informed me in advance of his intention to put it upon the Paper, or had consulted me as to the propriety of doing so, I should have advised him to wait, because it would have been in my power at a later date to make a much fuller exposition of the case than it is possible for me to do now.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I interrupt the noble Marquess for one moment? As soon as I could, I communicated with him and suggested a later date, but he asked me to bring it on at the earlier date.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh, no! That is not quite the case. The noble Lord communicated with me this morning and asked me whether, as there was important business in the earlier stages of our proceedings to-day, he might postpone this Question until Thursday. On Thursday I happen to have an engagement in the country which renders it impossible for me to be here, and therefore I urged my noble friend, if he desired to take the discussion this week, to have it this afternoon. But when I spoke of postponement, I meant a postponement of ten days or a fortnight from now, and I feel that it would have been better in the interests of my noble and learned friend himself had he postponed his Question. Indeed, the fact that no one expects any serious debate to take place upon this subject is evident from the state of the House. The attendance is by no means proportionate to the great importance of the issue of the Protocol, and I am certain that, at this late hour and with this small House, I shall hardly be expected to do more than deal in a sentence or two with the matter. Nor,

373
indeed, do I feel justified in doing so, because, after all, the Question on the Paper is merely this. The noble Lord asks His Majesty's Government whether they can give further information on the subject of the Geneva Protocol in addition to that contained in the answer that I gave on December 10 last year.
The noble and learned Lord himself has taken advantage of the occasion to deliver a long and eloquent speech in which he has, with truly parental enthusiasm, examined, explained and defended the Protocol, as he is perfectly entitled, of course, in the right place, to do. But that is not what he asks me to do. What he asks me to do is to say what has happened, or whether I have any further information to give as to what has happened, since December Inst, and that is the Question to which, with your Lordships' permission, I will reply.
I think that when I spoke in December I mentioned the fact that the examination of the Protocol had just been referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which I have the honour to act as Chairman. The reference had been made by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the late Government, and that reference was confirmed by Mr. Chamberlain when he took over the Foreign Office last year. I was astonished to hear the noble Lord sneak of the Protocol as a document easy of comprehension, easy of explanation, easy of discussion, easy of decision. I should have said that in every single respect those epithets were wholly wide of the mark. I should have said that the Protocol, as drawn up at Geneva, apart from its great importance which no one can deny, is a document of the most complex character, exceedingly difficult to understand, raising issues of the most momentous description and incapable, except by a grave dereliction of public duty, of being examined or settled in a short space of time.
As a matter of fact what has been done? For three months without cessation, week by week, the Committee of Imperial Defence, or Committees of that body, have been sitting and subjecting this document to the most exhaustive scrutiny and examination. The noble Lord in one portion of his remarks complained of the inadequate assistance that, on the whole, he had received from the Service Departments.
374
Any deficiency that occurred on their part then has been more than made up, I can assure your Lordships, by their paper eloquence since. We have had from them an almost unlimited series of papers upon almost every aspect of this case, and this is a case that concerns not only every Department of Government, not the Service Departments only, not the Foreign Office only, not only the Colonial Office, the Treasury and the Board of Trade, but it embraces in its vast compass the whole of the interests of the Empire.
The noble Lord spoke with enthusiasm about the opinion of certain gentlemen or bodies, some of them of importance, in the various Dominions and India, as being favourable to the Protocol. It was our duty, of course, to consult the Dominions officially, and we did so, and so far from treating the matter as easy of understanding or easy of solution several of the most important of them have not given us their reasoned opinion yet. We have had provisional replies from some among their number. The noble Lord, for instance, referred to India, and I might mention that the reply of the Government of India, after full consideration by them, reached us only last week, and a detailed examination of this document by some of the most important of the Dominions, which, as I say, has been promised and a forecast of which we have received, has not yet reached us. I am bound to say that, although I doubt not that the noble Lord has quoted the actual sentiments of those persons to whom he referred, they must be singularly out of touch with their Governments if he thinks that their opinions reflect the general attitude of the Governments to which I have referred.
Then as regards our own proceedings. As I have said, almost daily, certainly sometimes two or three times a week, we have been examining this question since December. Our examination is now drawing to a close, and I have no doubt that something more will be heard about the matter at the forthcoming meeting at Geneva to which the noble Lord has referred, and at which our Government will be represented by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As soon as the examination has been completed there will be no delay whatever in placing before the public or before

375
Parliament the conclusions at which we have arrived and the reasons for them. I hope that that may take place within a very short distance of time, very likely within ten days or a fortnight from now. Your Lordships will remember that, with regard to the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which was a somewhat analogous case to this, though in a minor sphere, the procedure adopted by the late Government was to lay the reply of their Foreign Minister, Mr. Eamsay MacDonald, in the form of a Parliamentary Paper. So far as I remember it was laid in the middle of the month of July last year, and in the latter part of the month, I think in the
376
third week of the month, the noble Lord himself gave a full exposition of the views of the Government and a defence of their letter. I suggest that this is the procedure that we had better adopt in the present case, that your Lordships should wait for the Papers which will shortly be laid before you, and which will be by no means lacking in information, and that then we should have in your Lordships' House the full debate and discussion which the importance of the subject will demand.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL, [H.L.]
A Petition of Messrs. Martin and Co., of 27, Abingdon Street, Westminster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a petition of Lord Newton and Major the Honourable R. P. Molyneux, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered to-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Rills have been complied with:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

Standard Life Assurance Company [H.L.]—(Substituted Bill).

Renfrew Burgh—(Substituted Bill).

Clydebank Burgh Extension—(Substituted Bill).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  SUBSTITUTED BILL.
  Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for a Bill by the Great Western Railway Company ought to be dispensed
378
with, and leave given to introduce the Bill: And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Nottingham Corporation Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.

FRENCH PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE SAVOY BILL. [H.L.]
  ST. MARY'S CHURCH, BIRMINGHAM, AND GENERAL HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
    ST. MILDRED'S CHURCHYARD BILL. [H.L.]
    Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HORLEY DISTRICT GAS COMPANY (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
BEXHILL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:—

E. Clarendon (Chairman);

E. Lovelace,

L. Tilford,

L. Erskine,

L. Hindlip,

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday, the 12th instant, at eleven o'clock: and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners

379
praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Glasgow Boundaries—(Substituted Bill).
Paisley Burgh Extension—(Substituted Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL, [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Referred to the Examiners.
MERCHANT SHIPPING(INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3a on Tuesday next.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of six members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 18th of February last, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, and a Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committee's Committee Room, to-morrow, at eleven o'clock; leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.