Sitting of 21 April 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Fylde Preston and Garstang Joint Smallpox Hospital District, Newquay, Pontefract, Stoke-on-Trent, Swanage, and Watford," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST, 1924–24).
Copy ordered of "Statement showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil Services and Revenue Departments and the Navy, Army, and Air Services for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1925."—[Mr. Ronald McNeill.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT (AIDES-DE-CAMP TO HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why provision is made in this year's Estimates for an aide-de-camp to the High Commissioner in Egypt, seeing that such an officer was not required by his predecessor?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No change has been made in the number of aides-de-camp to the British High Commissioner in Egypt, but the pay of one of them has been transferred to the Diplomatic and Consular Vote.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    STRAITS COMMISSION
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representative on the Straits Administrative Commission renders any reports regarding the activities of the Commission; and, if so, whether they will be published?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The British representative on the Straits Commission does not render any report to His Majesty's Government regarding the activities of the Commission, which, under Article 15 of the Straits Convention,"carries out its functions under the auspices of the League of Nations"and reports direct to the League. He collaborates, of course, in the preparation of the Commission's occasional reports to the League of Nations as well as of the Annual Report. The first of these Annual Reports has just been submitted to the League, and it is not yet possible to say what steps will be taken in regard to its publication.

    BRITISH CONTRIBUTION AND SECRETARIAT.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the annual subscription of His Majesty's Government to the League of Nations; what is the number of English subjects at present employed' at the League secretariat; and what control His Majesty's Government exercise in regard to the appointment or dismissal of the English members of the League staff?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The contribution payable by His Majesty's Government to the League of Nations (excluding the International Labour Organisation) for the year 1926 amounts to 1,772,303 gold francs, or approximately £70,000. I understand that on 1st December last. 140 British subjects, excluding the nationals of the self-governing Dominions and India, were employed in the secretariat of

    1181
    the League, and that there has been no appreciable change in this number since that date. All appointments and all terminations of appointments in the League secretariat are regularly submitted by the Secretary-General to the Council of the League on which His Majesty's Government are represented.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any proposals for the postponement of the Preparatory Conference on Disarmament, fixed for 17th May in Geneva; and whether he is prepared, in order to remove any possibility of such postponement, to propose some other venue than Switzerland for this conference?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Russian Government been invited to attend this Conference, and, if so, have they accepted the invitations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: They have been invited to attend and have declined to attend.
    Mr. HUDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information to the effect that certain smaller States in Europe are objecting to the Conference in view of the fact that Russia is not likely to be represented?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not possible, in view of the importance of this question, that something could be done to remove the disagreement which now exists, and bring this Conference to a successful conclusion?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Conference will meet.
    Mr. HUDSON: With all its representatives?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Conference will meet. Russia has declined to attend it if it be held in Switzerland, and has declined, in terms which are not very courteous to the League or favourable to the objects which the League has in view. Every effort was made to obtain a settle-
    1182
    ment of the differences which had arisen between the Soviet Government and the Swiss Government in order to prevent this happening, but those efforts have failed. It is impossible that the League should transfer its seat from Switzerland at the bidding of any Power which happens at the moment to have a diplomatic difference with the Swiss Government.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of urging that meetings of the League of Nations Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference subsequent to the opening meeting shall be held in some town outside Switzerland in order that the collaboration of a Russian representative may be secured?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    EMIGRANTS (INSPECTION).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what agreement the International Labour Office at Geneva inquires into the arrangements made for emigrants by shipping companies, and so throws expense on British shipping companies; and whether he has consulted with the Board of Trade in this matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The question of the simplification of the inspection of emigrants on board ship was included, by decision of the governing body of the International Labour Office, in the agenda for the eighth session of the International Labour Conference, which is to be held in Geneva at the end of next month. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to the attitude to be adopted on this matter by the British Government delegates to the Conference.

  BRITISH PRESS FACILITIES, COLOGNE.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on the occasion of the recent visit of the President of the German Republic to Cologne, British Press representatives were denied the usual facilities for their work, and whether he will make representations in the proper quarter

  1183
  which will secure British Press representatives the usual courtesies enjoyed in a foreign country for the recording of news?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a statement to the effect named in the question. I do not propose to take any action.

  RUSSIA.

    ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has, within the last year, received any representations from British representatives regarding anti-British propaganda by Soviet agents in foreign countries, and, if so, what; and whether any diplomatic action has been taken in connection with any of such representations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; such reports have been received, but I cannot undertake to state their contents. The Soviet Government are well aware of the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards such propaganda and I have more than once spoken about it in general terms to the Soviet representative in this country. I have not thought that it would serve any useful purpose to go into particular cases.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable, in view of the disregard of the representations made to the Soviet representatives, to point out the very definite powers we have to terminate the trade agreement so that this detriment to British trade abroad may be stopped.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If I thought it advisable to make further representations than those I have made, I should have made them.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very vicious anti-Soviet propaganda carried on in this country among his Tory friends, and will he undertake to give them a very generous measure of the Locarno spirit?

    VISIT OF MEMBERS TO RUSSIA.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the group of Conservative Mem-
    1184
    bers of Parliament now visiting Russia bears any official or semi-official character; and whether any of its Members have been charged with any diplomatic or other inquiries by the Foreign Office?
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the party of four Members of Parliament who left for Soviet Russia last week was entrusted by the Government with an official mission or was in any sense an official delegation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The party bears no official or semi-official character; it neither was entrusted by His Majesty's Government with any official mission, nor is in any sense an official delegation; nor have any of its Members been charged with any diplomatic or other inquiries by the Foreign Office.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless hear what these hon. Members have to say when they return, with a view to correcting some of his present impressions?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall wait until the hon. Members themselves ask me to see them.

  UNITED STATES.

    SCHOONER"EAST WOOD (BOMBARDMENT).
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state fully the circumstances under which the British schooner"Eastwood"was bombarded by the United States of America revenue cutter "Seneca"; whether the incident took place outside the 12-mile limit; and what representations have been made to the United States Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: On 23rd February His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington requested the United States Government to institute inquiries into the circumstances attending the incident in which this Canadian vessel was involved. On 22nd March, at the request of the Canadian Government, Sir Esmé Howard communicated to the United States Government a protest by the owner of the vessel against the action of the United States revenue cutter, and a

    1185
    marine protest of the master and crew of the vessel, together with other relevant documents. In this second Note Sir Esmé Howard requested that he might be notified of the results of the investigations into the matter by the United States Government at the earliest possible moment. No report on the matter has so far been received from the United States Government, and I am therefore rot in a position to state fully the circumstances in which the"Eastwood"appears to have been bombarded, nor at what distance from the shore the incident took place.
    Colonel APPLIN: Was the vessel hit?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot say, without notice, whether she was hit or not.
    Captain FAIRFAX: Will the circumstances be communicated to the House as soon as they are known?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: When I am in fall possession of all the facts, I shall be glad to answer further questions. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with me as to when I shall be in a position to give him an answer.

    BRITISH BONDHOLDERS' CLAIMS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has been taken by the Foreign Office in connection with the request for diplomatic action made to his Department by representatives of British bondholders who hold securities in connection with moneys lent to individual States which now form part of the United States of America?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. As the hon. Member is aware, from replies given to his prey ions questions, the matter of these debts is one that has been given careful consideration in the past, and I have recently been giving attention to it again.

    REVENUE CUTTERS (VISITS TO BAHAMAS).
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the terms are of the agreement to give the United States of America an extension of area to the Bahamas for the operation of their revenue cutters; and whether he has considered, or will consider, obtaining some concession in re-
    1186
    turn, such as better treatment for British immigrants at Ellis Island and other ports of entry to the United States of America?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no agreement with the United States Government to extend to Bahamas the area for the operation of their revenue cutters. The United States Government have, however, been informed that, on account of the difficulties in the way of giving notice, through the usual official channels, of the intended visits of the United States patrol vessels to Gun Cay and the adjacent islands, specified vessels may in future visit these waters without formal notice, provided that a call is first made at Bimini to notify the Bahaman Commissioner of their intentions. This purely administrative measure is a continuance of the policy embodied in the Convention respecting the Regulation of the Liquor Traffic, and is not in itself in the nature of a"concession"for which counter concessions could properly be demanded.

  RHINELAND (ALLIED OCCUPATION).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the declaration signed by the late President Wilson, M. Clemenceau and the then Prime Minister of this country, on 16th June, 1919, that, if before the lapse of 15 years Germany had given proofs of her good will and satisfactory guarantees to assure the fulfilment of her obligations, the Allied and Associated Powers concerned would be ready to come to an agreement between themselves for the earlier termination of the period of occupation in the Rhineland; and whether, seeing that the Conference of Ambassadors has stated to the League of Nations Council that Germany has fulfilled her obligations with regard to disarmament, His Majesty's Government will now propose to the Allied Powers the curtailment of the period of occupation in the Rhineland?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The declaration in question was laid before Parliament at the time, and I am aware of its contents. But the hon. Member inadvertently misquotes the declaration by the Ambassadors' Conference of 6th March. The Conference did not declare that Germany had fulfilled her

  1187
  obligations with regard to disarmament. Their statement was different. In order to prevent any objection to the acceptance of Germany as a member of the League arising out of the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Covenant which governs the entry of any new member into the League, the Conference of Ambassadors stated that as far as they were concerned and to the best of their knowledge Germany was then giving effective guarantees of her sincere intention to discharge her treaty obligations. There is a substantial difference between this declaration and the satisfactory guarantees to assure the fulfilment of her obligations named in the declaration of 16th June, 1919.
  There are other matters of importance in regard to the character of such an announcement as that of June, 1919, upon which I should have to speak in any full statement on this subject, but the hon. Member must permit me to say that I cannot conceive a worst moment for raising so wide a discussion or one at which any statement by me is less likely to serve the objects which he has in view and of which His Majesty's Government have never lost sight.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that it would be possible for a State to be a full member of the League of Nations and yet have part of her territory occupied by the armies of other members of the League?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no connection between that question and the one on the Paper, and none between the question and my answer.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the statement made in 1919 will be carried out as soon as the conditions mentioned in that statement are to the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government: and may I ask if His Majesty's Government adhere to the declaration made in 1919?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The declaration of 1919 is a declaration of the then intentions of the three Governments, and it is not a declaration to which the German Government have a right to appeal. I have already stated that I do not wish to be pressed further, and in my opinion there could be no more
  1188
  inopportune moment for a discussion on this question, or one less likely to serve the interests which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view.

  CHINA.

    SHANGHAI VOLUNMBR CORPS (MUNITIONS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature and quantity of arms and munitions supplied by Great Britain to the Shanghai Volunteer Corps; when the most recent supply was sent and of What it consisted; whether his attention has been drawn to the formation of a new organisation entitled the Temporary Reserve Unit of the Shanghai Municipal Police which is being given special training for use in the event of disorder arising out of strikes and whether he will state from whom the commandant of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps takes his instructions?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The following arms and ammunition have been supplied from this country since 1919:

    1,800 rifles.

    100 bayonets.

    20 Lewis machine guns.

    14 Vickers' machine guns.

    10 barrels for Maxim machine guns.

    60,000 rounds.303-inch ball.

    15,000 rounds.455-inch revolver, ball.

    600 grenades, rifle.

    600 cartridges, illuminating, one-inch.

    The most recent supply, consisting at 200 Short Lee-Enfield rifles, was sent in April, 1925.
    For some years past a reserve unit has formed part of the Shanghai Municipal Police Force, but there is no information with regard to the formation of the new organisation to which the hon. Member refers. Under normal conditions the Commandant of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps takes his instructions from the Municipal Council of the International Settlement. In times of civil commotion, if circumstances necessitate the landing of Naval contingents for the protection of life and property, the senior naval officer then in port takes supreme command of all the defence forces, including the Volunteers.

    CHILD LABOUR, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the recent ratepayers' meeting at Shanghai, any steps were taken by His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai to support the recommendations of the Shanghai Municipal Council's commission on child labour and to secure the agreement of his colleagues, in accordance with the instructions suggested in his despatch of 24th February, 1925?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reports of His Majesty's representatives in China on the recent meeting have not yet been received. In the meanwhile, I would refer the hon. Member to a, reply given to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on 8th March last.

  POLAND AND LITHUANIA.
  Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the fulfilment of the promise made by the Polish representative at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations last month that, in satisfaction of the Lithuanian representations, the Polish military forces which had invaded the undelimited frontier territory near Kernava would be immediately withdrawn?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Polish Government agreed to the proposal of the Council of the League of Nations that every member of the police or armed forces who was concerned in the incident should return to the place in which he was on 15th February, and that all persons held prisoners as a result of the incident should be set free. The prisoners have been set free; and the Polish Government do not admit that their forces occupied any Lithuanian territory, and maintain that they have never left their original position.

  ABYSSINIA (BRITISH AND ITALIAN INTEREST).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations have been in progress between the Royal Italian
  1190
  Government and His Majesty's Government with regard to certain Abyssinian matters, including the future irrigation of the Sudan from the waters of the Blue Nile; and what is the nature of these negotiations and their object?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government have for some time been seeking to establish a clearer definition of their respective interests in Abyssinia under the Tripartite Agreement of 1906 and previous treaties, and have embodied the result of their discussions in an exchange of Notes, the text of which will be registered with the League of Nations in due course.
  Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Surely that agreement of 1906 is rendered a little obsolete by the adhesion of Abyssinia to the League of Nations?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not merely in form, but in substance; that is another question.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the adhesion of Abyssinia to the League of Nations make any difference to the attitude of this country as an independent country in the sphere of influence?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's definition, but I would ask him, if he wants to ask further questions, to put them on the Paper.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we have laid before us the final agreement reached with Italy on this matter?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In due course.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have these Papers laid? It is very important.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say at present.

  RUMANIA (SUBMARINES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information regarding the reported sale of even submarines of the French "Amphitrite" class to Rumania; and whether, in view

  1191
  of Article 18 of the Treaty of Washington, any action, or joint action, is contemplated?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  TURKEY (SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF HEALTH).
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made with the commission for liquidating the affairs of the superior council of health in Turkey; what is the British share of the expenditure this year; and how soon is it anticipated that the work will be concluded?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commission has practically concluded its work, having signed the first portion of its final Report on 23rd January last. No share of the expenditure of the Commission falls on His Majesty's Government except the salary of the British delegate at the rate of £1,350 per annum. This will amount to approximately £560 for this year if, as is hoped, he is able to leave Constantinople about the end of May on the completion of the labours of the Commission.

  GERMANY AND RUSSIA (PROPOSED TREATY).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the views of His Majesty's Government on the proposed treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union have been communicated to the other signatories of the Locarno Treaties through the usual diplomatic channels; and whether this House will be informed as to what those views are?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the Treaty has not yet been concluded, and I have not seen the text of any of the Articles, but the German Government have given assurances that the Treaty will contain nothing that conflicts with the Covenant of the League or with the Locarno Agreements. Accepting these assurances, and assuming that the final text of the Treaty completely fulfils them, I see no reason to take exception to it.

  DOVER HARBOUR (WESTERN ENTRANCE).
  Mr. PENNYasked the first Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent accident to the"Maid of Kent"by fouling the obstruction at the entrance to Dover Harbour, he will state what navigational instructions, if any, are given by the Admiralty in regard to the mail steamers; and whether any steps are being taken to remove these dangerous obstructions?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): No special instructions are issued to mail steamers, but a caution is printed on the published Admiralty Chart of Dover Harbour warning large vessels against the use of the Western entrance in certain states of the tide. The Dover Harbour Board are promoting a Bill, now before Parliament, which gives them power to close this entrance to navigation altogether.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not the fact that it was only because that caution was disregarded that the"Maid of Kent"had this accident?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should not like to give a direct answer to that question, but no doubt, if the caution had been observed, and she had proceeded by the other exit, the probability is that there would not have been an accident.
  Mr. PENNY: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his previous answer, in which he stated that if the ship in question had obeyed Admiralty instructions, the result might have been different?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No; I think what was mid in the previous answer was that if notice had been taken of the warning on the chart—not of instructions—it would not have happened.
  Sir W. DAVISON: May I ask why the obstructions are not removed? Could they not be blown up??
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a matter for the Harbour Board.
  Mr. PENNY: Might I press this, because it would have been on Admiralty instructions that the answer was given?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I could not say without reference, but I think the reference was to the warning on the chart. I do not, however, see what difference it makes.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not the fact that this ship left half an hour after low water, whereas the caution said that she had better not leave for two hours after low water?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The caution is that at the Western entrance it is inadvisable for large vessels to leave the harbour by this entrance from one hour before to two hours before high water, or to enter from two-and-a-half hours before high water to high water, except in an emergency.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching the Harbour Board with regard to the removal of these obstructions from one of our principal ports?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not for me to interfere with the Harbour Board, but one Section of the Bill which they are promoting asks for powers to remove these block ships.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROSYTH AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARDS (MENTRANSFERRED).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all the men sent to Devonport from the closed dockyards of Rosyth and Pembroke are established men or whether it is contemplated sending any hired men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): With the exception of a few hired men who were transferred from southern yards to Rosyth during the War, all the men are established.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are these hired men who have been transferred being given employment in every case?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what allowances are being paid to men sent to Devonport from Rosyth and Pembroke?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: As the reply is a long one, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The reply is as follows:
    Men transferred from Rosyth or Pembroke to Devonport are entitled to travelling expenses for themselves and their families and the removal of their furniture at the public expense. Those who were householders at their former yards at the time of transfer—that is to say, were tenants or owners of premises furnished with their own furniture—are entitled to certain allowances in respect of temporary accommodation until permanent accommodation can be secured. The allowance payable to men who are obliged to take furnished accommodation for themselves and their families at Devonport is based on the extra cost of such accommodation over that of unfurnished accommodation, and the allowance payable to men who leave their families behind at Rosyth or Pembroke and live by themselves in lodgings is the extra expense of their board and lodging over the cost of their food when living at home. The maximum allowance payable for the first six months is £1 a week for men whose basic pay exceeds £100 a year and 15s. a week for others. Allowances within one-half of these amounts are payable for a second period of six months if necessary. In addition, reasonable charges for storage of furniture are repaid for a period not. exceeding 12 months. The foregoing is a general statement of the limits within which these lodging allowances are payable, but I may add that in special cases the question of relaxing these limits is considered if it is shown that owing to exceptional circumstances serious hardship would be involved by adhering to them.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of men who have arrived in Devonport and Plymouth from the closed dockyards of Rosyth and Pembroke, respectively; how many more men may be expected to arrive; and on what approximate dates?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The numbers already arrived are 230 from Rosyth and 118 from Pembroke. The further numbers expected are 46 from Rosyth and 57 from Pembroke. The transfers will probably be completed by 30th September next.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will all these men be found employment?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I should like notice of that, too.

    SLAVE TRAFFIC (RED SEA).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been found possible to return those ships of war to their stations for the prevention of the slave traffic in the Red Sea or to replace the ships withdrawn from this duty on account of the disturbances in the Hedjaz by other suitable vessels; whether he is aware that boat cruising was found of value in the past for the suppression of this traffic; and whether boat cruising is still carried on?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: His Majesty's ships in the Red Sea have now resumed their usual patrol duties. Boat cruising has been carried out in the past to a limited extent off the coast of British Somaliland to suppress illicit arms traffic, but it was not found to be of much value. The strong winds which prevail in the Red Sea render it necessary that patrol craft should be of considerable size and capable of steaming from 12 to 14 knots. The conditions are therefore not suitable for boat cruising, and it is not carried on.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that boat cruising was formerly carried out for extended periods with good results, and would he consider its reintroduction?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have said it was carried on, but in larger vessels.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the right hon. Gentleman referring to cruising for suppression of arms traffic, but was it not also successfully employed against slave traffic?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My answer covers both.

    WARSHIPS (OCEAN PATROLS).
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give an estimate of the number, if any, of ships of the Royal Navy normally employed in patrolling the main oceans which can be dispensed with owing to the services which can be rendered by the Air Force at its present strength by means of heavier-than-air craft operated from British territory?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not possible to dispense with the services of any of His Majesty's ships. I would point out
    1196
    that the area of the main oceans (excluding the Arctic and Antarctic regions and the Black, Baltic, White and North Seas) is roughly 129;600,000 square statute miles. Assuming the average radius of action of heavier-than-air craft to be 230 statute miles, the area inaccessible to such craft operated from all British territory, including small islands, is roughly 110,100,000 square statute miles, or 85·2 per cent. of the total area, and if 350 statute miles is taken as the radius, 99,000,000 square statute miles or 76·7 per cent. are inaccessible. My hon. Friend will also appreciate that, with the Air Force at its present strength, it would only be possible to patrol a small percentage of the areas accessible to heavier than air craft, bases would have to be formed before aircraft could operate, and all the territory referred to above would not be suitable for such bases. I would add that no allowance has been made in the above calculations for the existing limitations of aircraft during the dark hours or in bad weather.
    Mr. SMITHERS and Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This discussion on decimals must be adjourned.

    ENGINEER OFFICERS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement on the subject of the engineer officers of the Royal Navy; and if he will consider their case anew?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I dealt with this matter very fully in the Debate on the Report stage of the Navy Estimates, and I have nothing to add to what I said then.
    Sir B. FALLE: Does that mean that nothing is going to be done?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, it does not mean that nothing is going to be done. I have already explained what has been done.
    Mr. BASIL PETO: Before a final decision is arrived at, will the right hon. Gentleman give equal attention to the representations of engineer officers to that he has already given to those of the executive branch?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. Friend has no authority for saying I have not considered both sides. I have. I am always ready to listen to any representations made by engineer officers, and perhaps the hot,. Member will tell me what power it is that they have lost which they enjoyed before the Fleet order to which reference is made was passed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have recently debated this matter.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF WORK.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the amount of relief work at present in course of construction under schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee; the amount of grants towards the same; and similar figures for a year ago?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that I cannot give the figures asked for. Information is available only with regard to the gross estimated cost of schemes sanctioned during a given period and the number of men employed on a given date.

    SHORT TIME (EXTENDED BENEFIT).
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the fact that a considerable number of jute workers in Dundee are now on short time and others likely to follow, he will reconsider the instruction contained in Circular L.E.C. 82/17, concerning benefit payable to persons working short time, as at present it would appear they are not entitled to extended benefit?

    Insurance Year (July to July).

    Paid in error.

    Recovered.

    Amount.

    Percentage of total benefit paid.

    Cash refunded by claimants, etc.

    Recovered by deductious from benefit snbsequently becoming due.

    Total

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1922–23

    …

    62,646

    0·149

    Not available

    —

    33,891

    1923–24

    …

    47,211

    0·131

    11,138

    13,473

    24,611

    1924–25

    …

    43,257

    0·097

    7,449

    7,021

    14,470

    Claimants are liable to repay all benefit overpaid. In cases where the claimant's good faith is not in question, and where insistence on repayment would
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid I cannot see my way to alter this instruction, which is of general application. Claims from jute workers for extended benefit are dealt with by the local employment committee, who will no doubt pay due regard to the direction contained in the document referred to respecting cases where the withholding of benefit would lead to hardship.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the case that the nature of the instructions has led to somewhat anomalous decision by committees?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not personally aware of it, but if the hon. Member will contribute any of them to me I will consider them.

    BENEFIT (PAYMENTS IN ERROR).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour what was the amount of unemployment benefit paid in error during the last three financial years; what amount has been recovered and by what means such payments are recovered; and whether these over-payments were paid for days in advance of those signed for at the Employment Exchanges or for any other reason?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is necessarily somewhat long, and includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should mention that I can only give figures for Insurance Years, July to July.
    Following is the statement promised:
    The amounts of unemployment benefit recorded as paid in error and the amounts recovered during the last three insurance years are as follow:
    occasion hardship, it is the practice to waive the power to recover. In other cases recovery is effected by requiring a cash refund or by deduction from future

    1199
    benefit under Section 9 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, which provides for a recovery by this means where the claimant cannot show that he received the benefit in good faith and without knowledge that he was not entitled to it. Under this power the full amount of the benefit accruing due was formerly withheld until the overpayment had been recovered. The present practice is, however, to deduct at the rate of two days' benefit in every six. Overpayments of `` indirect benefit"are recovered from the associations; the amounts of such benefit overpaid and recovered are included in the above figures.
    Overpayments occurred mainly as a result of erroneous declarations by claimants, and partly as a result of errors of the Ministry's staff. In 1924/25 the figures were approximately as follows: overpayments due to claimants' errors, £37,691; overpayments due to errors of the Ministry's staff, £5,566.

    INSURED PERSONS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if he can furnish an estimate of the number of persons insured against unemployment on 31st March, 1926; and how many additional persons would be so insured if the scope of unemployment insurance were made the same as that of health insurance?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There were approximately 11,690,000 insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme on 31st March last. The second part of the question appears to be equivalent to asking how many persons are insured under the Health Insurance Scheme, and I suggest, therefore, that it should be addressed to the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do the figures refer to Great Britain or to Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it is Great Britain without Northern Ireland, but I will make sure.

    POOP, RELIEF.
    Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked the Minister of Labour whether he can arrange, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, to obtain, for a few representative industrial areas, a statement
    1200
    showing, on a selected day, the number of unemployed persons in respect of whom poor relief is being granted, together with the number of such persons who are and are not in receipt of unemployment benefit and also the number in receipt of Poor Law relief but not of unemployment benefit who are included on the live register?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already arranged with my right hon. Friend for a return more or less on the lines which he indicates. I hope that the information will be available during May.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will it be possible for the return to include the number of those who have been struck off the live register, and are now for the first time drawing relief from the guardians?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will take that into consideration. The other points put to me depend a great deal on the way the figures are calculated by the two Departments concerned.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will it also state how many are struck off in consequence of the extraordinary success of safeguarding in the last six months?
    Mr. R MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether it would be possible to include the number of those men who are ex-service men?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think it is likely I can, but I will look into that.

    BLAINA, ABERTILLERY AND CRUMLIN.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who received unemployment benefit at the Blaina, Abertillery and Crumlin Employment Exchanges for the week ending 17th April, 1926, and the number receiving benefit at the same Exchanges on the corresponding week of 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am unable to state the number of persons in receipt of benefit, but at 12th April, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of persons with claims to benefit current were: Blaina, 417; Abertillery, 1,369; and Crumlin, 547. The corresponding figures at 13th April, 1925, were: Blaina, 2,111; Abertillery, 4,960; and Crumlin, 1,202.

    MINE WORKERS
    Mr. J. E. SUTTON (for Mr. J. A. PARKINSON)asked the Minister of Labour the number of mine workers unemployed on 31st March, 1926, in the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Notts and Derbyshire respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 22nd March, 1926, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of persons recorded as unemployed in the coal mining industry in the counties named in the question were: Lancashire, 11,408; Cheshire, 323; Yorkshire, 4,984; Notts, 889: Derbyshire, 821.

    UNEMPLOYED IN MANCHESTER.
    Mr. SUTTON (for Mr. LOWTH)asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men and boys and the number of women and girls in Manchester for the month of December in each of the years 1923, 1924 and 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The numbers of persons on the registers of Emnloyment Exchanges in the Manchester area were 16,254 at 17th December, 1923; 14,933 at 22nd December, 1924; and 13,949 at 21st December, 1925.
    I am circulating a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    —

    17th December, 1923.

    22nd December, 1924.

    21st December, 1925.

    Men

    …

    11,332

    9,947

    9,936

    Boys

    …

    475

    349

    140

    Women

    …

    4,141

    4,397

    3,695

    Girls

    …

    306

    240

    178

    Total

    …

    306

    240

    178

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WRITING ASSISTANTS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many temporary clerks, who passed as writing assistants in the open competitive examination held in October, 1919, were employed in the Ministry of Labour on 1st January, 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There was no open competitive examination for writing assistants held in October, 1919. There was such an examination in September, 1919, and a limited competition for the clerical class in October, as a result of which a certain number of writing assistants were appointed. If the hon. Member will communicate with me, stating more explicitly, the information he desires, I will endeavour to supply it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that some of the candidates who in October won in the examination for writing assistants have been employed for periods ranging from seven to ten years and yet no permanent employment has been guaranteed to them and they are being dismissed week by week one at a time?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the hon. Member is under a misconception. I think the reason is that the examination for writing assistants was in September and it was the examination for clerks that was in October, as the result of which a few persons who had not qualified for clerks were given posts as writing assistants. It is a little complicated, but if the hon. Member will have a word with me I will go into it.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that there are women with five to 10 years' service who are being turned off and being substituted by young women of 18 years of age?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a perfectly general statement. I can only assure the hon. Member that every regard is being paid to the claims of all women. If he will tell me of any particular class specifically I will go into it. I think perhaps the point the hon. Member who put the question really refers to is that those who went in for the second examination for clerks and did not succeed as clerks and were offered posts as writing assistants did not wish to take posts as writing assistants definitely but remained on on a temporary basis. Perhaps some of those who remained on on a temporary basis may have left of their own volition.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think a private conversation would save the time of the House.
    Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the objection against offering any class of permanent employment to temporary clerks who passed as writing assistants in the open competitive examination in 1919?
    Mr. McNEILL: All the women who received offers of posts as writing assistants on their performance in the open competition held in 1919, and who accepted those offers have been appointed as writing assistants. Examinations for this grade have been held subsequently, at which temporary staff have been eligible to compete, and it is not possible to reopen the list resulting from the 1919 examination.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those who did pass the first examination are still regarded as temporary clerks, they are not yet on permanent employment; and will he give the reason for objecting to giving them permanent employment?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not think the hon. Member's information is correct.
    Mr. WILLIAMS:It is perfectly correct.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    LIGHTER-THAN-AIR CRAFT.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Air the total number and description of lighter-than-air craft now in commission in the Royal Air Force?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Apart from a small kite balloon unit which is maintained for training purposes there are no lighter-than-air aircraft now actually in commission in the Royal Air Force, but the R.33 and R.36 are available for commissioning if required.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it has been decided to give up the development of these small, lighter-than-air craft?
    Sir S. HOARE: No decision has been reached.

    BRENNAN HELICOPTER.
    Sir WALTER de FRECE (for Mr. G. HARVEY)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether Mr. Brennan has received from the Government, in connection with the Brennan helicopter, any other sum beyond the £7,000 which represents the difference between the £40,000 spent on labour, material and establishment charges at the Royal Aircraft Factory, plus £7,000 for salaries of the design staff, these amounts making up the sum given as the total of the expenditure on the helicopter?
    Sir S. HOARE: The total expenditure upon the helicopter was stated as £55,000 in my reply to my hon. Friend on 31st March, and I assume therefore that he is now referring to the balancing figure of £8,000, not £7,000 as stated in the question. This figure of £8,000 represents approximately Mr. Brennan's salary for the seven years of his employment and he received no further emoluments from the Government.
    Sir W. de FRECE (for Mr. G. HARVEY)also asked whether the Brennan helicopter is still in the secret list; and, if not, whether photographs of it are available'?
    Sir S. HOARE: The patents relating to the helicopter have hitherto been treated as secret, and photographs are not available for publication. The whole question is, however, now under consideration.

  ROAD VEHICLES BILL.
  Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Prime Minister whether the Road Vehicles Bill is to be introduced at an early date; and whether it is the intention of the Government to find the necessary time for its passage this Session?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asks me to say that, in the present state of Parliamentary business, he is not able to make a statement on this subject.

  GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household whether

  1205
  he can yet announce the names of the nonprofessional persons to be appointed members of the General Medical Council'?
  Major HENNESSY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): No, Sir. No vacancy among the members appointed by the Crown has yet arisen, and there has, therefore, been no occasion for the Lord President of the Council to come to any decision in this matter.
  Viscount SANDON: Is it not about time that this vested interest was brought to heel?
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

  PARISH RELIEF (OLD MONKLAND AND BOTHWELL).
  Mr. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give the number of able-bodied persons being relieved by the parish councils of Old Monkland and Bothwell for the years ending 30th December, 1924 and 1925?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The average number of able-bodied persons in receipt of Poor relief during the calendar year 1924 was 342. with 1,129 dependants in Old Monkland, and 126 with 408 dependants in Bothwell. During 1925, the average number was 333 with 1,061 dependants in Old Monkland and 138 with 440 dependants in Bothwell.

  CREDIT INSURANCE SCHEME.
  Mr. EDMUND WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the credit insurance scheme?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am carefully considering the report of the Credit Insurance Committee, and hope to be able to make an announcement at a very early date.

  HOUSING.

    LOAN, DARTFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Health whether an application has been received from the Dartford Urban District Council for a loan of £164,610 for housing purposes; whether
    1206
    the application has been approved and forwarded to the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and, if so, when a decision will be reached on the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, my right hon. Friend understands that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have informed the Council that the loan has been granted.

    BRICKLAYERS AND BRICKS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the number of bricklayers employed in 1913–14 and the number employed at the present time; the output of bricks in this country in 1913–14; and the rate of annual output at the present time?
    Sir K. WOOD: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to a question addressed to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Don Valley on the 22nd ultimo. As regards the second part of the question, the information which the hon. Member desires is contained, so far as it is available, in the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Don Valley on the 23rd ultimo.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Member say what steps the Ministry are taking to secure the dilution of the building industry so that these houses, which he stated yesterday were held up through the lack of labour, can be proceeded with?
    Mr. SPEAKER: A question of that kind must be put on the Paper.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is there not a very large number of men in this country who are capable of working in the brickyards, and cannot the Ministry find employment for these men, while such great quantities of foreign bricks are coming in?
    Sir K. WOOD: We are glad to see as many people as possible employed, but my hon. and gallant Friend will know that the Housing Act, 1924, specifically lays down that no restrictions are to be put upon the local authorities as far as orders for bricks are concerned. My right hon. Friend on more than one occasion has

    1207
    addressed communications to the local authorities asking that wherever possible they should give their orders to British firms.
    Mr. THOMSON: Does not the reply referred to show that a larger number of bricks are being made than in 1914?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The question refers to the number of bricks produced. With regard to the number of bricks laid, that is a matter of considerable controversy, and I must not be taken as accepting what my hon. Friend says.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Arising out of the last reply but one, does the Minister not think that it is time the Act of 1924 was repealed?
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. Member aware that in regard to that Act certain sections of the Master Builders' Federation state that the Act works so well that the question of labour has been overcome, and they are satisfied?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    KENT COAL FIELD.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary for Mines the output of the collieries which come under the Kent Coal Company and which received a guarantee of £2,000,000 under the Trade Facilities Acts?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The company's plans include three collieries. One has not yet been begun; another, which is planned to produce a minimum of 750,000 tons per annum, is now being sunk and is expected to begin production on a commercial scale next year; the third has produced coal in the past, but is now undergoing further development and re-organisation to increase its capacity to about 500,000 tons per annum, and is expected to be ready to resume commercial operations in a few weeks' time.
    Sir F. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is the total security for the £2,000,000 advance?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the collieries referred to in the answer?
    Colonel LANE FOX: In regard to the first one I referred to, the site is not yet definitely determined. The second is Betteshanger, and the third is Snowdown. I assume that the security is commensurate, and a very considerable one in view of the reports as to the probable yield of coal in the district.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us of any mine in Kent that has yet returned a profit?
    Colonel LANE FOX: This is a new development, and with very great possibilities. Everyone knows that there have been failures in the past, but the problem has never been tackled in the way it is being tackled now.
    Mr. WILLAMS: Is it not a very delicate thing to lend £2,000,000 on such poor security?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Committee.

    MONMOUTHSHIRE MINES RE-OPENED.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of mines that have been re-opened in the County of Monmouth from the 1st August., 1925, to the l0th April, 1926?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Six mines, at present employing 2,942 wage-earners, have been re-opened in the County of Monmouth since 1st August, 1925. Nine mines, employing 1,299 wage-earners, have been closed in the same period.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CENTRAL LAND BANK.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any details of the Government's Central Land Bank?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Negotiations in regard to this matter are still proceeding, and in the circumstances I regret that I cannot give details of the proposed scheme.
    Sir F. WISE: When will the right hon. Gentleman have the details prepared?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the hon Member is aware that many interests are involved.
    Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with whom he is negotiating—with what particular interests?
    Mr. GUINNESS: With the Bankers' Clearing House.

    CROWN LAND (RENTCHARGE).
    Mr. SUTTON (for Mr. LOWTH)asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the rentcharge per acre of Crown land let to smallholders direct, and the rentcharge per acre of similar kind of land let to smallholders by the county councils?
    Mr. GUINNESS:The rent per acre of small holdings, whether let direct by the Crown or by county councils, varies so widely according to the quality of the land, the situation, and the equipment provided, that average figures for the whole country would be valueless. If the hon. Member has any particular district in mind and will communicate with me I will endeavour to furnish the information desired, but I must point out that the rental value of two small holdings, even in the same parish, must depend on the special circumstances of each, and any comparison would be misleading.

  BRITISH ARMY (HOME-GROWN FLOUR).
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the Report of the wheat-breeding investigations at the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge and the statement in the Report that the all-British loaves made from certain classes of English wheat are in no way inferior to those consisting of flour from imported wheats; and whether he will encourage home production by placing contracts for home-grown flour?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Question 58, and ask whether it is not straining rather far the rules on putting questions. If this question be accepted, the report of any scientific society may be used on which to base a question to the Air Ministry or any other Government Department on a matter outside the purview of this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his assistance. I will bear in mind what he says in regard to other questions.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I have not yet seen the Report in question, but am obtaining it I will consider having a trial made at an Army bakery with some of the home-grown flour referred to. Should the result justify the claim made, I am prepared to consider the question of placing contracts for home-grown flour, provided that the millers are in a position to supply the quantities required at a satisfactory price.

  IMPERIAL PENNY POSTAGE.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the Canadian Government proposes to introduce penny postage on 1st July; and, in view of the existence of penny postage in certain other parts of the Empire and in the United States of America, whether he will endeavour to bring about Empire-wide penny postage in the present financial year?
  The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton on the same subject yesterday.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I heard that answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he has no official information? Is he aware that the- newspapers announce definitely that the Canadian Government intend to introduce penny postage?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no official information, but such information as I have leads me to believe that the introduction of penny postage in Canada is for inland postage.
  Mr. PALING: Is there not reason to believe that the operations of the Post Office have been so successful that there is a possibility of getting back to pre-War conditions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is inclined to debate a question every time.

  MINISTERS' SALARIES.
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount paid in salaries to members of His Majesty's Government in 1924, and the amount to be paid in the present year?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The amount paid in salaries to members of His Majesty's Government in the financial year 1924 was £137,560, and the amount estimated to be paid in 1926 is £144,400.
  Mr. MORRISON: Can the Financial Secretary give me any explanation of this increase?
  Mr. McNEILL: It is partly because the late Prime Minister, following the example of Lord Salisbury, occupied two offices and accepted only one salary, and also because there have been two Under-Secretaries appointed since then, one of which is occasioned by the reorganisation of the Colonial Office.
  Mr. HARRIS: Is this an example of the new economy?

  WAR LOAN (INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS).
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is not generally known to the public that holders of 5 per cent. War Loan can, by instructing the Bank of England, have Income Tax deducted at the source from dividends, thereby in many cases saving trouble and expense both to the individual and to the State; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will issue a leaflet giving the above information with the next issue of War Loan dividends?
  Mr. McNEILL: The Treasury would welcome an extension of the practice of asking the bank to deduct Income Tax at the source from dividends on 5 percent. War Loan, but it is not considered that the public response would justify the expense of sending out 2,000,000 circulars.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that invitation to banks and other forms of interest such as the interest on deposit receipts?
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the Treasury think it desirable the public should be informed in some way of this fact of which they are generally ignorant?
  Mr. McNEILL: I have no doubt my hon. Friend's question will have that effect.

  GOLD STANDARD.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries are on a gold standard and which are on a gold exchange standard?
  Mr. McNEILL: In view of the complexity of currency laws and systems, it would not be possible to make an absolute division among gold standard countries between those which rely on an exchange standard and the rest. But much information on the subject is to be found in the Memorandum on Currency and Central Banks issued by the League of Nations, especially Volume II.
  Sir F. WISE: When was the Report issued?
  Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I cannot give the date off-hand.
  Sir F. WISE: Was it long ago?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the information available for Members of this House?
  Mr. McNEILL: I think it is available in the Library, but I cannot say whether it is available elsewhere.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it is that, since this country has gone back to the gold standard, the working classes of this country have not seen any more gold?
  Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that is not confined to any one class.

  ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of protests he has received from the various health and national insurance societies against the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. McNEILL: Including duplicate copies from different branches of various societies, my right hon. Friend has received some 200 communications criticising the Bill. Many of these are copies of communications sent to the Ministry of Health or other Departments. In answer to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend believes that it will be seen when the Act is in operation that the opposition to it was founded on misapprehension as to its effect.

  ROAD FUND.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many resolutions he has received from the various organisations, municipal, and other local authorities protesting against any money being taken by the Government for national purposes from the Road Fund; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. McNEILL: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Morrison) on the 29th March. As regards the second part of the question, I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

  HAMPTON COURT TEA GARDENS
  Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Colonel DAY)asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the number of people who paid for admission to the new tea gardens at Hampton Court Palace on Easter Monday, 5th April, and the amount of cash taken in these admissions?
  Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): 2,133 people paid for admission. The amount of cash taken in these admissions was £17 15s. 6d.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  CHINA.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the condition of affairs in China, and move a Resolution.
  ASIA AND AFRICA (INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS).
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the question of the long hours and low wages in Asiatic and African territories of the British Empire, and their effect upon the employment and standard of life of workers in Great Britain, and move a Resolution.
  FOREIGN POLICY.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the increasing futility of our foreign policy, and move a Resolution.

LEGALISATION OF BETTING.
Mr. DIXEY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Betting, and to provide for the registration of all bookmakers."
This is a short Bill dealing with the inequalities in our betting system in this country. It is a Bill of only two Clauses, and it will suggest to the majority of the House, I hope, a very reasonable way of dealing with the matter. The first Clause is one for legalising betting. There is tremendous feeling in the country among a certain class that the legalising of betting will create more opportunities for the rank and file to bet, and that it will induce people to waste money which they would not other waste. I say with respect that I do not consider that the legalising of betting would have any such result. I think that if betting were legalised, we would undoubtedly get better and cleaner conditions with regard to betting; we would clear away a large number of bookmakers of an uncertain sort; and we would give many material advantages to most of the people of the country. [Laughter.] Let us be quite frank. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. I say quite straightly that you will never put down betting in this country. There are many people, and sensible people, who desire, and are properly entitled, to have their bet they want to do so. I am not standing up in defence of people who spend more money than they can afford on betting, but I say that if you are going to recog-

1215
nise betting at all, you should recognise it under proper conditions, as you recognise the licensing trade.
I know that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) will oppose this Bill. She, of course, cannot see any good in licensing of any sort. I take up the reasonable standpoint of the man in the street, who says that if you are going to have something you should have it under proper conditions and proper supervision. Therefore, the first Clause of this Bill is merely a Clause to legalise betting and to put it on a proper footing. It is coupled with a further Clause for the licensing of bookmakers. I suggest very strongly that this is a very reasonable proposal. Every bookmaker who wants to make a practice of his trade should be obliged to have a licence in the same way as a public house is obliged to have one. Further, I think that a large revenue would accrue to the State on the turnover of the individual bookmaker. There should be a licence duty payable to the Government in respect of the licence. I am confident that this would bring considerable revenue to the country, and it would prevent what is going on now all over the country, that is, a. large number of people who are carrying on bookmakers' businesses to-day and—
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the Bill proposes to place a. charge on the subject by imposing a licence on bookmakers. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be in order, unless prefaced by a Financial Resolution.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must wait and see. If the Bill conflicts with our Standing Orders, I shall be able to deal with it at the next stage. At present I do not know what is to be in the Bill.
Mr. DIXEY: I was merely suggesting that as a result of this Bill something could be done in future with regard to the proper and adequate taxation of this particular sport. I suggest that because betting is in the unfortunate position of not being legal, or because it is really illegal, there are large numbers of people, commission men, up and down the country, who are deriving a con-
1216
siderable revenue from placing bets with big bookmakers, and some of them are making £1,000, £1,200, and even £2,000 a year on big commission accounts on which they do not pay even Income Tax, because they know that if they return these sums for Income Tax purposes, they will be asked immediately the source from which the money is derived. I know there is a hypocritical feeling that we are being so good as not to legalise betting, when all the time we know that it is going on all over the country. I do not consider that one bet more would be made if betting were legalised. Although I do not care the least bit for hon. Members like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I am certain that he, with his freedom of thought, would agree that anyone who wants to bet under proper conditions is entitled to expect to have his money paid. If betting were legalised, if there were proper licences and supervision of the bookmakers, there would be every reasonable precaution taken to see that people got fair treatment.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to opose the Motion. If the argument is to be used that, because an evil is prevalent, we should register those who are engaged in it, I am afraid that we are going beyond Dixeyland to something far different. The argument has been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in other quarters, that because we have licensed another evil, there is no reason why we should not be engaged in the licensing of the procedure indicated in this Bill. Our country undoubtedly is infected with the spirit of gambling. It is prevalent not only on the street and on the racecourse. It is prevalent right up to the very highest point of what is called society. It is found on the Stock Exchange. In every section of life undoubtedly that is what we have to face. The question which we have to encounter as a House of Commons is whether we are to drift with the evil tendencies of our times, or whether we are to lead in the doing of God's will on earth.
Question put,"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Betting, and to provide for the registration of all bookmakers."
The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 126.

Division No. 187.]

AYES.

[3.52 p.m.

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

Elveden, Viscount

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

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

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Atkinson, C.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fermoy, Lord

Penny, Frederick George

Balniel, Lord

Fielden, E. B.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Foster, Sir Harry S,

Pielou, D. P.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Radford, E. A.

Bennett, A. J.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Raine, W.

Bethel, A.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Remnant, Sir James

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Gates, Percy.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Bowerman, Rt, Hon. Charles W.

Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Ropner, Major L.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Briggs, J. Harold

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Burman, J. B.

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

Smithers, Waldron

Campbell, E. T.

Hilton, Cecil

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hopkins, J W. W.

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

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

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Christle, J. A.

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

Watts, Dr. T.

Connolly, M,

Jephcott, A. R.

Wells, S. R.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Knox, Sir Alfred

Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lougher, L.

Wise, Sir Fredric

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

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

Womersley, W. J.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

MacIntyre, Ian

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Dalkeith, Earl of

McLean, Major A.

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

Malone, Major P. B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Dixey, A. C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sir Cooper Rawson and Sir F. Meyer.

NOES.

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Hirst, G. H.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Astor, Viscountess

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Salter. Dr. Alfred

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smillie, Robert

Barnes. A.

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

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Barr, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Briant, Frank

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Broad, F. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Bromley, J.

Kennedy, T.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

Sullivan, Joseph

Cape, Thomas

Kenyon, Barnet

Sutton. J. E.

Clowes, S.

Kirkwood, D.

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lee, F.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Couper, J. B.

Livingstone, A. M.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Cove, W. G.

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

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lowth, T.

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Dennison, R.

Lunn, William

Thurtle, E.

Duckworth John

Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Tinker, John Joseph

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Townend, A. E.

Ellis, R. G.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

England, Colonel A.

March, S.

Viant, S. P.

Fenby, T. D,

Maxton, James

Warne, G. H.

Forrest, W.

Morris, R. H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

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

Gosling, Harry

Murnin, H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Naylor, T. E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

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

Westwood, J.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Owen, Major G.

Whiteley, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Palin, John Henry

Wiggins, William Martin

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Paling, W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grudy, T. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Potts, John S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hall, G. H, (Merthyr Tydvil

Ramsden, E.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Windsor, Walter

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wright, W.

Hammersley, S. S.

Riley, Ben

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Harris, Percy A.

Ritson, J.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanct, Stretford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Rose, Frank H.

Mr. Scrymgeour and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled,"An Act to authorise the undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation to construct training walls in the Rivers Humber and Trent at Trent Falls; to provide for payment by the Humber Conservancy Board of the cost of constructing the said training walls; and for other purposes." [Trent Falls Improvement Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled,"An Act to empower the Corporation of Halifax to execute street improvements and to confer further powers on them with respect to their several undertakings; and for other purposes." [Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Trent Falls Improvement Bill [Lords],
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (No. 2) BILL,
"to enable leaseholders of houses or premises whose original leases were granted for a period or term of not less than thirty years to compulsorily acquire the freehold estate and such other outstanding interests affecting the property by agreement or, failing agreement, by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, or any statutory modification thereof," presented by Mr. HAYDN JONES; supported by Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Charles Williams, Major Owen, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Morris, Sir Robert Thomas, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Wiggins, and Mr. John; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Ramsbottom Urban District Council Bill,
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bristol Cemetery Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bristol Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill: Sir Alexander Sprot; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Fanshawe.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 16, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.£(Abolition of death penalty for certain offences.)
    For the purpose of abolishing death as a penalty for certain offences the following Amendments shall be made in the Army Act:

    (1) In Section four, paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) shall be omitted;

    (2) In Section five the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (6):

    (7) Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard, or uses any means to compel or induce any governor, commanding officer, or other person shamefully to abandon or deliver up any garrison, place, post, or guard which it was the duty of such governor or person to defend;

    (8) Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy;

    (9) Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's forces or any part therof;

    (10) Misbehaves or induces others to misbehave before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice;

    (3) In Sub-section (1) of Section six the words"if he commits any such offence on active service be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if he commits any such offence not on active service," shall be ommitted;

    (4) In Section seven for the word"death," there shall be substituted the words"penal servitude";

    (5) Sub-section (1) of Section eight shall he omitted;

    (6) In Sub-section (1) of Section nine the words"if he commits such offence on active service, be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment, as is in this Act mentioned, and if he commits such offence not on active service"shall be omitted;

    (7) In Sub-section (1) of Section twelve the words"if he committed such offence when on active service, or under orders for active service, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this
    1228
    Act mentioned; and if he committed such offence under any other circumstances"shall be omitted.£[Mr. Thurtle.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a. Second time."
    I am moving this Clause on behalf of the Labour party officially, and it may be taken as an indication that, when we are next in power and when we next control the War Office, we shall make it our business to introduce Amendments to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act along the lines of this Clause. I ought to explain at the outset that the general purpose of the Clause is to abolish the death penalty as far as certain offences are concerned. It abolishes the death penalty for all that class of cases which involve cowardice and desertion when on active service. We have deliberately refrained from abolishing the death penalty for those cases which involve treachery or desertion to the enemy. It is conceivable that in such instances, involving deliberate betrayal, a case may lie made out for the supreme penalty. At any rate, this afternoon we are not prepared to argue that issue, but we are confining ourselves to this position, that cases of cowardice and of desertion when on active service cannot strictly be classed within the category of crime. They are due more to human weakness than to any vicious intent. We say that it is an outrage on elementary human justice that such offences should be punishable by the irrevocable penalty of death.
    We had a Committee which sat the year before last and went into this question of the death penalty, and that Committee recommended, as the House was told last year and as we shall be told this evening, that the death penalty should be retained. I want to submit to the Committee that we ought not to accept that report as being by any means conclusive. I would call attention to the composition of that Committee. It was of such a nature that it can be fairly described as a packed jury. It was essentially a, Service Committee, made up of Admirals, Generals, Air-Marshals, and people in that category. It was tied hand and foot to the traditional view of the Services in regard to this matter. It could not possibly, in view of its character, bring anything like an open mind to this question. Therefore; we

    1229
    decline absolutely to accept the finding of that Committee as being final and conclusive. I do not wish to be disrespectful to Admirals, Generals, or Air-Marshals, but I think I express the view of the majority of the public when I say that you could not; select any class of people in this country whose outlook is more detached and remote from that of the great bulk of the people than the higher officers of the three Fighting Services.
    This is really a rank and file question, and there can be no question at all as to what is the point of view of the rank and file on this matter. If you take that great body of ex-service men in this country who have experienced some of the realities of war, I am quite confident that the overwhelming mass of them are dead against the continuance of this dealth penalty. I do not profess to know with such great accuracy the point of view of the rank and file of the Army as it is constituted at the present time, but I believe the rank and file of the Army are also overwhelmingly against the continuance of this death penalty. I can speak with a certain amount of authority as to the view of the general public I have been identified with this question of getting rid of the death penalty for some years. In the course of my work in that connection, I have been brought into contact with the point of view of all classes of people belonging to all parties all over the country; I have addressed a large number of public meetings on the subject; and I have found, so far as one can judge by these evidences, that the general public is also of the opinion that the time has come when this barbarous method of punishment ought to be done away with.
    This Committee to which I have already referred stated in its Report that they found no evidence of any miscarriage of justice. That depends entirely, of course, as to what is meant by justice. If the Committee contend that the code as it exists at the present time was administered with reasonable fairness during the War, I am not going to question that position. I believe that the code as it stands was administered with reasonable- care and reasonable fairness during the War, but my contention is that the code itself, as it stands, is monstrously unjust. What is cowardice?
    1230
    That is really the question which this Committee have to settle in deciding this particular issue. I submit that cowardice is almost entirely a question of the nervous system and the will power, and the nervous system and the will power in any given individual depend upon his inherited qualities and the training and environment to which he has been subjected since birth. Nature is by no means equal in the way in which she deals out these qualities. We know very well that there are tremendous differences of physique amongst us all, but there are equally tremendous differences in regard to the nervous system and the will power also, and it is absolutely unfair to take an individual who has been treated in a meagre fashion by nature in regard to will power and the nervous system and say, because of that, you are going to subject him to this very terrible penalty.
    The Committee are bound to admit this as a plain common-sense proposition. If you take two men and subject them exactly to the same kind of nervous strain, one man, because of his natural endowment, will be able to go through that nervous strain successfully, whereas the other man will break under it. We say that in cases of that sort it is a wanton outrage of elementary human justice to shoot a man in cold blood who breaks under that strain because of a weakness for which he has no responsibility whatsoever. If the Committee will forgive me, I will bring these differences home by a reference to ourselves. This is a House made up of all sorts of individuals, and the gifts in this House are of great variety. We have a number of Members who have been endowed by nature with wonderful gifts of speech. We admire those Members and their gifts of speech. Sometimes, perhaps, we admire them too much. We have other Members who have not been treated quite so handsomely by nature in the matter of gifts of speech. Indeed, some of us may have been treated quite scurvily. But we do not argue that it is the fault of these men who cannot make effective speeches like some of the orators in the House, and we do not say that they are to blame for it. In exactly the same way, there comes up this question of courage or cowardice. There is the man who wins the Victoria Cross by wonderful examples

    1231
    of courage. We can admire that man and his great courage. At the same time, it would be monstrously unfair of us to say of another man, because he is differently endowed, because he has not got that will power, that determination, that command over his nervous system that the man who wins the Victoria Cross has got, when he is subjected to a tremendous strain and breaks and collapses, that be is a coward in the real sense of the word. I would like to remind the Committee that even these heroes themselves, these winners of the Victoria Cross, do not take up any impossible attitude in regard to cowards. I would just quote two views of men who have won the Victoria Cross. One is a distinguished lieutenant-commander, and this is what he says:
    "It is almost impossible to define cowardice. La my opinion, it, is the way a fellow is made. You cannot always blame him. No man is really a coward."
    Then I take the point of view of the rank and file. A private soldier who won the Victoria Cross by a deed of great gallantry says:
    "I have seen youngsters going into action all of a tremble and hardly able to hold their rifles. In a moment of panic those lads might do almost anything. But fellows like that ought not to be classed as cowards whatever happens "—
    It is a V.C. who says:
    "because it is all very well to talk of cowardice in battle while we are talking in the Strand "—
    It is all very well to speak of cowardice in battle while we are talking in this House—
    "but I do not think many people understand that there are many kinds of feelings that come over a man when he is in the thick of battle, with blood and bullets and death all around him."
    There is this other point. Quite apart from a man's inherited qualities, we ought to take into consideration the tremendous effect which his upbringing and training have upon him in regard to his ability to withstand the strain of modern warfare. Take a man who has been brought up in the slums, who has been under-nourished almost from his birth, who has spent long periods in unemployment, as so many of our men have who enlist in the Army, consider his physique and the effect that that kind of
    1232
    life has had upon his nervous system, and then take another man who has been well-nourished all his life, who has lived an open-air life, an invigorating life, which has toned up his body and his nervous system, like many of the men who came from Australia and places like that. Take those two types of persons. Surely, other things being equal, even in the matter of natural endowments, the man who has bad good food all his life and who has lived an open-air life must inevitably be better fitted and better adapted to stand the intense strain of modern battle than the other man, who has been bred in the slums and undernourished all his life, yet you find that exactly the same kind of code is applicable to each class of person.
    It is said that this death penalty is only used as a deterrent, that it is never used except when the gravest necessity arises, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has himself said in this House that it is never used in any sense of vindictiveness. I want to take exception to that statement, and I am going to quote one instance to show that this power which we entrust to the military authorities can be and is used in a vindictive spirit. The Darling Committee sat some years ago to consider this question of the death penalty, and it made a great feature in its Report of the fact that no soldier was executed for desertion while on active service in this country. I made it my business, some 18 months or more ago, to look up the records of the War Office in regard to these executions, and in the course of my researches I came across this fact: There were two soldiers due to embark for France. They got to Waterloo Station, they deserted at Waterloo Station, they were absent for perhaps a month or two months, and they were then apprehended somewhere down at Woolwich, I think it was, for desertion in this country. What happened to these two men? They were taken over to France, they were tried in France, they were convicted in France, and they were shot down in cold blood by their fellow-countrymen in France, and this is said to be a sanction which is not used vindictively. Can anyone say that there was any great emergency or issue involved which necessitated these two men, who deserted in this country, being taken over to France

    1233
    in that cold-blooded fashion and shot down there as you would shoot down a rabbit?
    Mr. BLUNDELL: Does the hon. Member suggest that those two men were subject to the great nervous strain which he has just been describing?
    Mr. THURTLE: I would say this even with regard to those men. Men differ very much in their power of imagination and in their sensitiveness, and any man who ever went oversea knows that one of the most trying and tragic moments of all was that moment which came when he had to say good-bye to his wife and children and those who were nearest and dearest to him. [An HON. MEMBER:"Sob-stuff!"] An hon. Member talks about "sob-stuff"; he ought to have a better sense of decency. In those circumstances it is quite conceivable that a man's nerves would get the better of him, even in the railway station at Waterloo. Then there is this point, that the operation of this law- has got nothing fixed and equal about it, that there is no proper equality of justice, that it is applied to a different degree on different occasions. Military commanders deliberately use it as a means, so they think, of stiffening the moral of their troops on certain occasions. It is reported that the moral of a division or brigade leaves something to be desired, the word goes forth from the high command that an example has to be made, and invariably an example is made, which means that sonic poor, innocent victim is the example.
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will deny that this kind of thing happens, but if he does, I will recall to his mind the case which was given in this House two years ago by Lieut.-Colonel Meyler, who is no longer a Member. He recalled a case that came before him when he was presiding officer of a court-martial, and he was called to brigade headquarters before the trial took place and told that, if the man were found guilty, it was expected that he should be sentenced to death and that, so far as any lessening of that penalty was concerned, it was to be left to the other channels. In accordance with this indication from brigade headquarters, that man was sentenced to death, and the sentence was duly carried out, which seems to indicate quite clearly that in that particular case the brigade wanted
    1234
    to make an example. We know full well that this sentence is used as a means of endeavouring to terrorise the troops. We know how those notices were read out on parade, how they were posted at the base depots and so forth, as to men having been found guilty of desertion and having been sentenced to death, and the sentence having been duly executed. These things were done deliberately, with the idea of saying, in effect, to the troops;"Fight; stand your ground; if you do not fight and stand your ground, we will see to it that you are shot in cold blood by your fellow countrymen."
    Let me deal with one other point, and that is the question of sleeping at posts. That is one of the cases where the death penalty may be inflicted, and it is one of those cases in which we seek to take it away. Who is going to suggest that this sleeping at posts is any real, wilful, criminal offence? Is it not quite obvious that when a soldier, worn out with fatigue and with lack of sleep, succumbs to it, he is just obeying the ordinary, elementary dictates of nature and cannot really help himself? Yet the penalty for this offence is death, and. the War 'Office says there is no injustice involved in it. Let this Committee remember the few all-night Sittings that it has to endure. When this House has been up just for about 16 hours and kept out of its bed five or six hours more than is usual, you find all over it Members falling asleep, because they cannot help themselves. If this House could be kept up for about 96 hours, without any sleep at all, I will guarantee to say that, willy nilly, 75 or 80 per cent. of the Members would be falling into deep slumber. [An HON MEMBER:"Not if there was a death penalty attached! "] They would. The soldiers do not merely have to remain up for 24 or 36 hours. In many cases they were practically without sleep for a week or even more than a week.
    I know a little incident which happened in my own brief time of soldiering. I was in charge of a party which had the job of taking some dummy tanks out into No Man's Land, and we put down a covering party for that purpose. An attack was going to take place farther down the line the next morning, and these tanks should have been out in No Man's Land at about 12 o'clock at night. Unfortunately, the Army authorities overlooked the fact that,

    1235
    because the tanks were mounted on lorries, they would get entangled in the telegraph wires. It delayed their arrival, and the consequence was that we were not able to get those tanks out into No Man's Land until about four o'clock, I think it was—about an hour before zero hour. Having got the tanks into position, we looked for the covering party, which consisted of a corporal and four men. Remember, they had been lying there for about seven hours. We found them, every one of them, the corporal and the four men, dead asleep in the long damp grass and we had to kick them to awaken them. According to Regulations, I should have reported those men, and they would have been tried for sleeping on duty in a dangerous position and exposing the line to attack from the enemy. If I had reported those men—I speak now as a human being, and not as a soldier—and they had been convicted and shot, as they might well have been, I should regard myself at this moment as neither more nor less than a murderer.
    The plea of military necessity is what the War Office falls back upon in the last resort. It says:"This may be a terrible sanction, it may be very dreadful that we have to apply it, but it is an absolute military necessity." What in effect that amounts to is this, that the War Office dispenses altogether with the idea of patriotism, with the idea that the men are fighting because they believe in a just cause and are seeking to defend their country, and it says:"These men can only be kept fighting by the discipline of fear, by the threat that if they do not fight, they will be executed." That is the plain, stark, naked interpretation of the War Office attitude. I am not going to argue as to whether or not it is sound. It is their estimate of the fighting quality of the British Army—it is not mine—and I am not going to argue that. I leave that to them, but I say this, that even if military necessity did demand this kind of thing, it does not, and never can, justify the execution of men in cold blood for offences for which they are not responsible.
    This plea of military necessity was, I remember, used about field punishment No. 1. We were told then by the military mandarins that this was an absolutely necessary sanction, and that if you took
    1236
    it away you would gravely imperil the discipline of the British Army. The sanction has been taken away, and have not yet heard that the discipline of the British Army has been seriously impaired, or that the War Office contemplates coming forward with a proposal for the reimposition of this sanction. But I am going further. If this plea of military necessity he pressed by the War Office, I am going to fall back on an illustration which, in my view, utterly confutes it. I am going to refer to the case of the Australian troops in the last War. I know the right hon. Gentleman objects to this being mentioned. For some reason or other, he thinks it may cause bad blood between this country and Australia. I cannot see how it could do that, and, in any case, in justice to the ordinary British soldier, I say this fact ought to be brought out and emphasised.
    The plain fact is that the Australian Government, although it sent many thousands of gallant men to fight in the War, and although those men fought with unexampled gallantry and determination, laid it don n definitely and emphatically that under no consideration, for the offences with which I am concerned this afternoon, was the death penalty to be applied to any Australian soldier. And it never was applied to an Australian soldier for these offences. It was applied to lots of British soldiers, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Irishmen, and it was applied to Canadians. It was applied even to New Zealanders, but never once was it applied to the Australian troops. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to-day, as I asked him last year, whether he can say that the absence of this sanction, as far as the Australian troops were concerned, had any material effect upon the fighting quality of those troops? Did they fight with less determination, with less courage than the other troops who had this penalty imposed upon them? If the Australian troops may be entrusted, and can be entrusted, to fight with courage and determination without this penalty, is the right hon. Gentleman going to get up here and say that the Australian troops may be entrusted in this way but British troops—English troops, Welsh troops, Scottish troops, and Irish troops—are not to be so entrusted? I defy him, I dare him to get up in this Committee this afternoon and say that.

    1237
    I am not proposing to delay the Committee any longer, but I hope, if not this year, then in years to come, we shall he able to induce this British House of Commons to take a changed view of this great human question. In the past, Members of this House who have voted this penalty into law, and, indeed, the Members of this House to-day who are likely to vote it into law, are those who, in the main, do not know what the strain of modern warfare is, and can have no real conception of that strain. Those hon. Members do not know how they themselves would stand the strain of an intensive bombardment of three, lour, or five days. They do not know how they themselves would behave if they were called upon to advance across No-man's land in the teeth of heavy shell fire and a barrage of machine guns. They do not know, they do not understand these things, and I challenge their right to pass the penalty of death, irrevocable, ignominious death, upon any British soldier, whose only crime is that he has shown weakness in a very hard test. I appeal to those Members who do not know what war is, and I appeal to the whole Committee on grounds of humanity, on grounds of elementary human justice, to say that the time has now come when this unnecessary and barbarous penalty should be finally abolished.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: I rise to support the Clause moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), and, in doing so, I wish to point out to the Committee how difficult it is, in the security and comfort of this CI amber, to get the correct atmosphere to discuss a question of this sort. It seems to me that it is tremendously difficult for us to discuss, or to come to a decision of this sort, sitting here in comfort, as we are this afternoon. This seems to me to be one of those questions which ought to be decided at a special meeting of the Cabinet held in the front line. If the question came up for decision there, I have not much doubt as to what the decision would be. Last year when we had a Debate on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who, I presume, is going to reply to-night, in summing up the Debate at the close of the discussion, said:
    "The case which, I think, has most impressed the Committee is the very serious
    1238
    and difficult question: Is there ever, or is there likely to be, a miscarriage of justice? Is it probable that a man will he punished, not for cowardice, but because his nerves have been broken." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1925; col. 1388, Vol. 182.]
    He went on to point out, that in the last War, in which from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 of our soldiers were engaged, only from 200 to 300—I think the number usually agreed upon is 264—were executed, and he pointed out that of those who were sentenced to death, only 11 per cent. of the death sentences were allowed to stand. Surely that destroys completely the argument that if the death sentence be abolished, the Army will go to pieces. One of the arguments put forward is that we abolish this death sentence the Army will go to the dogs; it will be impossible to maintain discipline. Surely the fact that only 11 per cent. of the death sentences were carried out, in the last War completely destroys Mat argument. Exactly the same argument will be used this afternoon for the retention of the death penalty in this ca-se as was used many years ago at a time when it was legal to flog soldiers in the Army. Flogging was abolished, and after flogging there came Field Punishment No. 1, commonly known among the soldiers as crucifixion. At last there came a time when that was abolished, too.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch, in his concluding sentences, seemed to indicate he had not much hope that the Clause would be carried this afternoon, and I am bound to say I agree with him. But, sooner or later—and sooner, I hope, rather than later—just in the same way as flogging in the Army was abolished, and Field Punishment No. 1 was abolished, this House will decide to abolish the death penalty in the Army. Our case is, that we deny that the foundation of discipline is the fear of punishment. It may be said,"Yes, but what about men deserting from their posts? Surely that is a serious matter involving, probably, heavy loss of life?" There have been occasions when even generals have been guilty of mistakes by which thousands of lives have been thrown away. What has happened to them? Were any of those generals ever put up against the wall and shot? I think it is in the memory of many Members of this House that, so far from those generals who made such tremendous mistakes having

    1239
    been shot, many of them are still swanking about with their breasts covered in war medals and decorations. We on this side challenge the argument that men must be overcome by terror of this penalty in order to overcome the terror of battle. If it be true that men will never go into battle except for fear of the death penalty, what becomes of all our rhetoric, which is particularly prominent in war-time, about love of country and heroism? Is the code of the. Army to be based on the assumption that men can only go into battle because of the fear of execution if they do not go?
    I should like to ask a question, the answer to which, it seems to me, would provide some very useful information to Members in discussing a question of this sort. I mentioned that the figure of from 200 to 300 men is usually given as the number of men who were executed in the last War. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give the Committee any information as to the proportion of these men who were regular soldiers, the proportion who volunteered—that is to say, Territorials, or those enlisted under the Derby scheme—and the proportion of conscripts. It seems to me that if we could get the number in each of these three categories, regular soldiers, volunteers and conscripts, we should have some very valuable information that would probably enable us on this side considerably to strengthen our case. The answer to that question has a direct bearing on this subject. My hon. Friend raised the question of a man on sentry duty falling asleep at his post. I have seen Cabinet Ministers sleeping at their posts with disastrous effects to the people of this country. Surely nobody is going to suggest that Cabinet Ministers should be taken into Palace Yard and shot down by 12 of their colleagues in the Cabinet?
    We have to consider the question of what is cowardice. That was the question my hon. Friend put to the Committee. I might have put it in a slightly revised form. What is the difference between the Tommy who voluntarily joins the Army, and, after a gruelling time in the trenches, loses his nerve and deserts, and the man who funks from the beginning, and, with
    1240
    the aid of friends, dodges the Army or serves for the duration of the War on the home front, then flaunts his military titles, and sometimes becomes a Member of Parliament, and we are expected to address him as"the hon. and gallant Gentleman "? The question is whether the difference between these two categories is worthy of consideration, and that was why I tried to tempt the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago to give us the figures as to how many of those who were shot were regular time-serving soldiers or volunteers.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have not got the figures.
    Mr. MORRISON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the whole of the 264 were not conscripts probably a considerable number were volunteers. If that were so, the very fact that they volunteered to go into the Army proved that there was not very much cowardice about them. The question is what is a coward? In the course of the debate on this subject last year I made a remark, which I repeat again, that a man may be a coward in the morning and a hero at night. The definition, I suppose, of a coward would be one who is afraid of danger. If that be so, surely in the War the Tubes were full of cowards. The point that we tried to make on this side is that there is, no such thing as real cowardice unconnected with mental and physical breakdown. The argument, then, that is put up to us is that the retention of the death penalty, by imposing the fear of death, may prevent mental breakdown. We can only say we do not believe it. Those of us who have seen modern warfare, wonder that mental breakdown did not take place on a much larger scale than it did.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch gave one or two instances and he was interrupted by an hon. Gentleman who said"sob stuff." I hope no one will say"sob stuff"to what I am going to say, because it is quite a pleasant story, showing that there is a very fine line between heroism and cowardice. On the left of Arras, when I was over there, this story was told to me by a sergeant. He and 10 men were cut off in a certain place which was little more than a shell-hole. Six of the men were killed and he was left with only four besides himself.

    1241
    They remained in that place two days and two nights with a tremendous German barrage behind them that prevented anyone being sent to their relief. At the end of two days and nights they were almost beyond endurance. The sergeant talked it over with his men and made up his mind that the best thing they could do was to wait until the light began to fail and crawl forward and give themselves up to the first Germans they met. When the light had began to fail, the five men set out, weary, sick and hungry, to surrender because they had no hope of relief and no ammunition and could not fight. Before they had gone far, to their astonishment, on going round the corner of a trench they met a German N.C.O. and six men with him. Both of the little parties held up their hands at the same time. The German N.C.O. could speak English a little, and they had a conversation which was on the lines as to whether the Germans would come back with the British Tommies and surrender to them, or whether the British Tommies should surrender to the Germans. Was it the more probable that they would get back to the British lines in safety or to the German lines? After all, self-preservation is a very important factor in such circumstances. As a result of the information that the, German N.C.O. gave to the British sergeant, the Germans decided to go with the British Tommies. They came back with the British soldiers for five or six hours longer to the shell-hole, and in the middle of the night the German barrage suddenly ceased, within an hour relief was sent up, and the sergeant and his four men gallantly came out of their place of retreat with seven German prisoners. He was decorated for his gallantry.
    The point of view from which I have put that forward is to show that there is a very fine line between heroism and cowardice; both on occasions may be and frequently are merely self-preservation. The Committee may not adopt this Clause to-day; we do not expect that they will. But I would remind them, as I have already said, that crucifixion was abolished, in spite of all the protests and moanings of fire-side Generals and arm-chair Colonels. These are always the people who are anxious about the discipline of the Army—the people who believe
    1242
    that discipline can only be maintained by putting the fear of death into the lower orders. Crucifixion was abolished in spite of their opposition, and I submit that the discipline of the British Army has not suffered in consequence. Even the most fire-eating member on the other side would not propose that we should go back to crucifixion or flogging in the Army, although time after time the Members who were then in this House voted against the abolition of both. Now that they have been abolished, we have seen no serious consequences upon the discipline of the Army. In my opinion, whether this Amendment is embodied in the Army Act on this occasion or not, the time will come, sooner, I think, rather than later, when it will be so embodied, and it will be to the good of the Army.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): This Clause, as the Mover has said, has been moved on previous occasions, and I submit that nothing really new has been said this afternoon which we have not heard on previous occasions. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) opened his remarks by an attack on the Committee which was set up two years ago to consider this question. I am rather surprised he should attack the formation of that Committee, because he knows that it was set up by his own party when they were in office. It was set up by the Socialist Secretary of State for War after a promise made during a discussion on the Army (Annual) Bill. That Committee, although it certainly was composed of many naval and military members, had for its Chairman a member of his party. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who was my predecessor in office, served on that Committee, and I only relieved him as Chairman during the last few sittings it held. I do not think it speaks very well for the hon. Member's faith in his own party that he can so severely criticise a Committee which they set up.
    Mr. BROMLEY: We do not fear to criticise our own. That is the difference between the two sides of the House.
    Captain KING: The hon. Member for Shoreditch had an opportunity, of which he availed himself, of bringing evidence before that Committee. I believe he gave his experiences and made a statement, but

    1243
    in spite of the evidence which he gave, and the views he expressed, the Committee came to the considered conclusion that no case for the abolition of the penalty had been substantiated.
    Mr. THURTLE: The jury was a packed one.
    Captain KING: The jury was appointed by a Socialist Government, and I do not think it can fairly be said that it was a packed one. That it was mostly composed of men who knew what discipline in warfare meant, I quite agree. They certainly knew the necessity for this penalty, and it was for that reason and because of their knowledge of warfare that they were appointed. The Member for Chester-le-Street is certainly a man strong enough in character to see that every point that could be brought before the Committee was brought up. I will not stress the point beyond the fact that the Committee did consider very carefully the various points. First of all, they decided that no case of miscarriage of justice had been substantiated before them in the evidence given. Both hon. Members who have spoken have not spoken of what is suggested as a substitute for the death penalty, but the Amendment puts forward that it should be penal servitude or imprisonment for practically every one of the offences.
    5.0 P.M.
    I should say that, although death is the penalty for various of these offences, it is only death or such less punishment as may be awarded. It dots not follow, though the death penalty can he awarded, that it is awarded. It is only the maximum penalty. All death sentences are reviewed by the Commanderin-Chief—they were so reviewed during the War—and he has a power to reduce the sentence, but he has no power to increase the sentence. As the Committee pointed out, and so did Lord Darling's Committee which sat previously, only 11 per cent. of the death sentences passed during the late War were actually put into effect. That means that the Commander-in-Chief, after reviewing the cases, reduced 89 per cent. of the sentences. The question of inflicting penal servitude or imprisonment in certain cases was considered by the Committee, and it was realised that it would not really be effective. I differ from
    1244
    both the hon. Members who have spoken in their opinion that the majority of men have the quality of bravery, and that it was the unfortunate few who suffered fear. Personally, my experience was quite different. In my view, certainly 999 out of 1,000 officers and men who served in the last War knew fear. After three years overseas' experience during the last War, I can count on the fingers of my two hands, less than ten men whom I believe to be without fear. In my view, practically every man knew fear, and the only difference between them was to what extent they could control their fear. That is not a definition. I only point it out with regard to the power of control over fear. There, a man had to exercise his will power and self-restraint. I do not consider it is just to the men of this country to suggest that they were driven into battle by the fear of the death penalty or anything else. Thank heaven, the qualities of the British race are better than that! There was no need to stiffen their will power.
    Mr. MORRISON: Why was it that when every draft of troops landed in France, the first thing that happened to them was that they were paraded, and a number of cases in which the death sentence had been inflicted was read out to them?
    Captain KING: I think it was only fair and right that they should be warned as to the effect of any failure of their will power. With regard to their control, it is a question of self-control. Some men have it to a greater extent than others. In those who have it least it was proved that there was the necessity that a final fillip should be given to their will power by the knowledge that, if their will power was not sufficient, they could be punished and, if necessary, sentenced to death. It was a deterrent from treachery and other offences under the Act. It is not considered that penal servitude or imprisonment would form an adequate substitute to such an expedient. If a man is to be allowed to lose his self-control and give way to his fear, surely a sentence of penal servitude behind the lines and in safety is not going to be a deterrent.
    Mr. MORRISON: Did it not frequently happen in the late War that men sentenced to penal servitude had to undertake dangerous duty and, if they did it successfully, their sentence was reduced.
    Captain KING: That was possible. The hon. Member is thinking of sentences of death that were remitted to penal servitude, and the men may have been allowed to go back to the lines They had the deterrent already by having been tried by court-martial and a sentence inflicted. The view of the Disciplinary Committee was that it would be quite impossible to enforce discipline if the death penalty was done away with. It would really mean that if a man were allowed to remain with his unit without any power of inflicting the death penalty, it would be a bad example to those men who would realise that the powers were not adequate. That would be bad for discipline. On the other hand, the Committee considered that it would be quite possible that his comrades might take the law into their own hands and shoot him themselves. That would be very undesirable.
    Mr. THURTLE: Very unlikely.
    Captain KING: I do not agree in the slightest. I know a case, in my own experience, of a non-commissioned officer trying to shoot a man with his own hands. He confessed it to me afterwards. Nothing happened because when he told me it was after the War. There have been other instances of men trying to take the law into their own hands where they thought justice could not be done. The Committee were, a majority of them, officers and fighting men. They considered that there was a strong possibility that, if the law was not adequate to deal with those offences, the men, their comrades, might take the law into their own hands and deal with them themselves. That would be most undesirable. On the question of cowardice and the control these men may have of their own feelings, what we have to remember is that it is not merely themselves—they must not be allowed merely to exercise their selfish desire to get into safety, but in practically every one of these cases it is not merely the man himself being selfish but he is running the risk of sacrificing the lives of every one
    1246
    of his comrades. That is the most serious result of his action. If he shows cowardice or is asleep on sentry-go, he is certainly endangering the lives of his own comrades. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) said that many Cabinet Ministers have gone to sleep on this Bench. Though a Cabinet Minister may sleep on duty he is not endangering the lives of his comrades, who will see that he wakes up in time.
    I am not going to be drawn into the question that the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) tried to bring up again with regard to the Australian troops. I would point out to him that every one of the great Powers that had large armies in the field in the Great War had the death penalty, therefore we are not alone in considering the necessity for retaining it. All these arguments have been gone through before, and, as the hon. Member for Shoreditch said, he knows the reply pretty well. On the result of the Committee set up to consider the death sentence and other penalties, the War Office is convinced that it is necessary to retain this power of inflicting the death penalty, though it is to be hoped that it will always be carried out under careful supervision. When you realise the small number of sentences carried into effect out of the convictions in the last War, we need have no fear for the future, and I shall certainly ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I want to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). We can all appreciate the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Under-Secretary. I think it is a sign of the great advance we have made on the whole question of the psychology of the soldier since the late War. Ten or 12 years ago such a question would have been discussed in a sort of back-of-the-war manner, in which people were all cowards or heroes. We have to consider, first, whether it is a fact that the existence of the death penalty is a deterrent; secondly, whether, if people do commit these various acts, they are worthy of being punished by death. I am extraordinarily doubtful, despite all the evidence of distinguished generals on the question, whether the existence of the death penalty is a deterrent to cowardice. You will always find that the older a

    1247
    general is, the more sure he is that the conditions which existed when he was young are right. I have read the Debates on the flogging question, and the numbers of distinguished generals and admirals who said we must have it. They managed to keep on flogging for many years, but there is no question of its re-introduction, and I think we are rather ashamed that it lasted so long. The only argument I have seen is that the Army consisted of more or less the dregs of the people, and you could only carry through such exploits as the retreat to Corunna by flogging. No one suggests that of the present-day soldier. If it be true of flogging, it is also true of the death penalty.
    I think the failure of courage is a thing that occurs on a sudden and the man is not in a position to weigh up arguments on either side and say,"If I go forward, I shall be blown to pieces; and if I go back, I shall be shot." I do not think the reasoning mind is functioning at the time and it is purely a matter of nerves and the more we understand of the psychology of the man the more difficult it is to imagine a person on the verge of a breakdown taking these things into consideration. It depends very largely on the other persons with whom that man is serving as to what is done with him—what kind of non-commissioned officer and what kind of officer he is under—whether he is sent back at the right time when his nerves are absolutely gone, or whether they disregard his complaint and he goes on and his offence occurs at a time when an example is required and he is shot. In the"Army Quarterly," a story is told by the late Chief of the General Staff with regard to Sir Francis Lloyd. It is a story of his courage in the late South African War. He came out of hospital and joined his regiment, on trek, after coming under fire before an action rode to his second in command and said he was not fit to go into action as his nerves were not under control and he must go back to hospital. It was a very plucky thing to do. But suppose that the same thing had happened to a man of the rank and file who does not express himself very well. Supposing he came up to the sergeant-major, who probably does express himself very well, and said,"My nerves have given way." What would the sergeant-major have said? We know what he
    1248
    would have done, unless he happened to have been a very exceptional sergeant-major.
    In a case like that which I have mentioned, the next thing would be that the man would have a breakdown, and not even the knowledge of a death penalty in the background would prevent a man of that kind from breaking down. In this case the man might be shot although it was obvious that his nerves had gone, and he was not in a position to know what would have happened to him if he had gone forward or if he had not. The death penalty is not a deterrent, but a failure to recognise the psychology of men under modern conditions. The idea of a death penalty is a sort of cheap substitute for real discipline. I have already mentioned psychological cases where men's nerves have broken down. It is argued that there is a danger, unless you have the death penalty in the background, of a general breakdown of discipline. In my view, if there is a general breakdown of that kind the person responsible for it is the commander. The efficiency of the discipline of different units is solely a matter as to how those units have been looked after and led by their officers and non-commissioned officers. There have been cases where men have been punished in this way, when the real person who ought to have been punished was the colonel, the captain, or the sergeant. The idea that you can drive men into battle by fear from behind is utterly illusory, and the only real discipline is one founded upon esprit de corps. If I were in command of a number of men, I would not like to have a lot of them kept in my front line by fear of what might happen if they failed.
    On the other hand, it is argued that if we substitute penal servitude, we shall have numbers of men going back to get out of the front line, to enjoy the comparative ease of imprisonment. To those who know the conditions as they obtained during the War to call it"the ease of imprisonment," sounds a curious phrase. I do not believe that is so. It might occur in certain units, but they would be bad units. The way to deal with it is not through individuals, but through the commanders. At any rate, that has been my experience. I know it is possible to give suspended sentences, and I agree that you have a far better chance if a man has a suspended

    1249
    sentence when he is left in the unit, because there is a feeling of sympathy with that man, and very often he is able to get himself reinstated. That is my experience of a man who had committed most of the offences in the calendar, because under a suspended sentence he had a chance of doing something for himself. Everyone gave him a chance, and in six weeks' time he got all his sentence removed because he was treated sympathetically. It is true that man ought never to have been in the Army. but, nevertheless, he might have been shot before the end of the War if he had not been tactfully handled by his comrades.
    I do not suggest that there have been many cases of a miscarriage of justice, but there has been a possibility of them. I have served on many courts-martial, and am not impressed by the ability of the ordinary officer to appreciate evidence. Apart from that, there is something else in regard to the death sentence in that it is very capricious, and depends largely on the attitude of mind of the Commander-in-Chief in that particular theatre of war. Of course, there are Generals and Generals. I will not particularise them by name, but we all know some Generals who are of what you call the strafing type and the more humane type, and it just depends before which type of General a man comes as to what happens to him. Let us remember that in this country the death penalty was instituted at a time when the Army was supposed to be a voluntary one. Then a man joining the Army knew he was undertaking a certain service, and might be presumed to have sonic idea that he was qualified to perform service in the Army. During the late War you had masses of the population driven into the Army who were absolutely unfit for service. They were excellent people in their own sphere of life, but they had not the necessary nerves to fit them to undergo the trials of modern warfare. It is unfair to compel people of that kind to join the Army. I know we have once more a voluntary system, but if war came on a large scale compulsion would be introduced, but we should not compel men to take up work for which they are not fitted and then, when they fail, condemn them to death. The time has now come
    1250
    when we can quite safely do away with the death penalty, and I do not believe that if we do away with this penalty we shall wreck the discipline of the Army. On the contrary, I think that discipline will improve, because the mere fact that you have not got this fallacious incentive to discipline in the background will lead everyone who wants make the Army effective develop to the full the real springs of esprit de corps and the mutual trust of officers and men.
    Major HILLS: I have listened to many Debates on the death penalty, but have never heard one in which the ease was better stated or in which the argument seemed to me to go deeper. I want in particular to say a word of commendation in regard to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I do not suppose anybody likes the death penalty, and if we could abolish it, I am sure we should all go home happier. During my experience in the War I never had a man court-martialled for cowardice, and though, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Mr. Attlee), I presided at many courts-martial, I never sentenced a man to death. Previous speakers have tried to give a definition of fear. May I give, my own? I went to the War from a life of peace. To risk my life in war was quite a novel thing for me, because I was not a soldier. As a rule, when one comes under fire, the first thing one feels is to be afraid of showing cowardice. But afterwards nearly everyone discovers that war is not so very dreadful after all. Of course there are always a few people who are always frightened and really frightened, whose nerves nothing could steady, but these were eases of an exceptional character, and war affected them in a certain way. I believe the truth is this, that we are all of us afraid of something. I know I am. I am afraid of looking clown from heights. Supposing the Germans had been entrenched at the top of a steeple, and I had been ordered to climb up and fight them. In those circumstances, I am afraid I should have been shot for cowardice. It is true, however, that this fear in most cases does not break down men's self-control and it does not affect the ordinary man. In a good unit the level of courage is extraordinarily high, but I would like to ask, do you make them braver by inflicting the death penalty? I can conceive two eases in which it might.

    1251
    It has been said that a man who commits an act of cowardice is not in a position to reason, but I think there is some subconscious deterrent in the fact that he has been told that if he is a coward he will be shot. Again, it might be the case that, if you had an army which had lost all sense of discipline and self-respect, there might be some advantage in having the death penalty. But I am very doubtful about its value in the case of a modern army, for this reason. The armies that went to France and elsewhere abroad were armies that had easier systems of discipline than previous British armies, for the death penalty was inflicted in comparatively few cases, and the general standard of strictness was less than in former British armies; and yet the performance of our armies in France and elsewhere in 1914 and afterwards was as high as any in British annals. I remember reading in Napier's Peninsular War the statement that, when a regiment had lost 10 per cent. of its effectives, that regiment was finished. If, however, you took in a battalion of 500 men, you might lose 50 men in taking up your position for an attack, but who thought of going back? In the late War a battalion would lose half its effectives and still go on. Either the present generation is braver than the generation that fought in the Peninsula, or modern war is less terrible than the old wars. One of these two facts must be true—I do not know which—but I think it may be argued that severity of discipline does not always lead to courage.
    It has been said that if you do not inflict the death penalty, but send a man back, and if he knows he is going back, he prefers prison to the trenches. I expect he would. But supposing a man is a coward, and wants to get back from the front line, he can usually do so. First of all, he can always go to the medical officer and say he has a pain in his stomach. He may have that pain or he may not, but the man is a nuisance, he is no good to his fellows, and his commanding officer is very glad to get rid of him, so in the end that man does get back. There is therefore, a means of escape now, and although, of course, getting back to a nice hospital or nursing home in England, or behind the lines in France, is pleasanter than getting back to penal servitude, still it is the same story.
    1252
    I am beginning to become rather doubtful whether the death penalty is required. I would nut abolish it, perhaps, altogether, but I do feel that my own views regarding it have changed, and I think we are approaching the Lime when, just as flogging was abolished, so the death penalty also can be abolished. After all, each country forms its army and inspires its army with the spirit that it thinks best. We find it best that officers should lead their men, but I believe the Germans found it best that they should drive them into battle at the point of the revolver, and a good deal can be said for both systems. Our system, however, has never been the German system; it; has always been the system of leadership. It is not an ideal system; it is very expensive in officers, and especially in young officers; but still, I do not suppose that anyone sitting in this Chamber would want to challenge it. When you have that spirit, when you see the way in which men followed and led in the War, when you see how rare the cases of nerve failure were, and how, in most of them, there was something that distinguished that particular man from the normal, I think the time is coming when this penalty may be abolished.
    Colonel APPLIN: I have only intervened in this Debate because no regular soldier has given the views of the Army, and I think we have rather lost sight of the real reason why the death penalty is imposed. We have rather lost sight of the fact that you cannot ask men to go to certain death unless they know that, if any man, to save his own skin, is prepared to stay behind and let others go to what he thinks is certain death, he in turn will suffer death for his cowardice. That is the real reason why we impose the death penalty. It is not done to punish the unfortunate man whose nerve goes. We all know what that means. I know that I myself, not once but a hundred times, have been so frightened of what was going on that, had I not been more frightened of what would happen if I did not go on, I should have gone back. I am not alluding to the death penalty; there is something even stronger than the death penalty.
    I should like to remind the Committee that probably the bravest fighting nation in the whole world are the old Zulus of

    1253
    Africa. Any officer who has fought in Africa knows that there are no more gallant and brave men in the whole world. And yet, in the Zulu army, where it is an honour to go forward and die, and there is no such thing, so far as I know, as cowardice, they have the death penalty, not only for cowardice, but for sleeping on post. The death penalty takes place immediately. A man who has been found sleeping on his post is brought before his chief; the chief turns to the indaba and says"What is the penalty? "and the reply is "Death"; and a man steps forward with his spear and puts it through him then and there. That is not done out of revenge or as a punishment; it is done because that man was endangering his comrades; he was risking the lives of hundreds of his brother fighters. That is why the death penalty is imposed for sleeping on post. Those who have taken part, as I have, in small frontier wars, knew that the safety of the small force you may be with depends entirely upon the vigilance of one or two men, and, unless you can depend upon their keeping awake, your life and the lives of your men are endangered and will be sacrificed. It is, therefore, necessary to have a penalty equal to the sacrifice. If you are going to lose 20 or 30 men because one man goes to sleep, it is only just that that man, if he has gone to sleep, should forfeit his life for risking the lives of others. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) has, I think, some difficulty in defining cowardice, and the question of cowardice does come in here, because it is mentioned in the Act. In this case, I think we may define a coward as a man who is willing to save his own life by sacrificing the lives of his comrades, and that, surely, is worthy of the extreme penalty of the law.
    Finally, I want to say one word with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who spoke of the late General Sir Francis Lloyd in connection with an incident that occurred in South Africa. I think the Committee may perhaps have got a wrong impression of what the hon. Gentleman said. I should like to point out that Sir Francis Lloyd was suffering from a wound of such a peculiar nature that he was incapacitated from doing his duty, and it was, as the Committee will remember, from this wound that he finally died 30 years afterwards. I want to point out
    1254
    the difference between Sir Francis Lloyd's action and the action of the hypothetical private soldier who goes to the surgeon and says,"Please, I am not feeling well; I cannot go on." Sir Francis Lloyd was in command of his regiment, with the lives of a thousand men depending upon his nerve, his judgment, his power of taking command; and it was for the sake of those thousand men that lie said,"My nerve is not sufficient to enable me to do my duty in the way that I ought, and, therefore, I will retire again to the hospital." It was a brave act, and a necessary act, and I think the Committee ought to understand why it was done. I myself feel that if it were possible to abolish the death penalty I would abolish it, but I know, as a soldier, and everyone who is or has been a soldier or sailor, or has served in any of His Majesty's Forces, knows perfectly well that, so long as men are men, it is impossible to ask men to face certain death unless they know that their comrade on either side of them is going to face death with them, and to share in what they are going to share; and if any man, for any reason whatsoever, deliberately saves his own skin and allows his brother to go to death, it is only right that he also should be liable to forfeit his life.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken asked us to emulate the Zulu standard. I suggest that we should emulate the standard of the Australians. Surely there are no braver fighters, no more loyal comrades than the Australian troops, and yet they were distinguished, as we have been told already, by the abolition in their case of the death penalty. The arguments that have been used this afternoon in favour of continuing the death penalty are of the same style as those that were used in previous debates in favour of continuing flogging or Field Punishment No. 1. Just in the same way as discipline in the Army survived the abolition of flogging and of Field Punishment No. 1, so discipline in the Army will survive the abolition of the death penalty for the minor offences—because this Clause does not seek to abolish the death penalty entirely, as has been suggested.
    Reference has been made to the attitude of the troops, and the Financial

    1255
    Secretary has suggested that if this penalty were done away with there would be a danger of troops taking the law into their own hands and wreaking vengeance on those who might seek to escape. I can only speak from the short experience I gained when I was privileged to serve in the ranks for two years overseas, and, from what I knew of the minds of ordinary soldiers in the ranks, I do not think there would be any danger of anything of that sort happening. What I gathered was that there was a general feeling of disgust and abhorrence at the infliction of the death penalty as read out in General Orders. I wish briefly to support the eloquent speeches which have been made from both sides of the Committee in favour of the abolition of this barbarous survival of an ancient custom. Surely, we must realise that we are advancing, that we understand better the psychology of men than they did in ancient times, and that the time has come when, without sacrificing the discipline of the Army, we can safely abolish the death penalty.
    Mr. GERALD HURST: I am inclined to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) that the time may not have arrived when the death penalty in time of war may be completely abolished. But I think the time has arrived when the Government might open its mind and consider the question of reducing the chances of the infliction of the death penalty to a minimum. I am not impressed by the fact that Army opinion at the present time is against the change. Army opinion has been against all such changes. Before the abolition of flogging, it was the custom to maintain discipline at the cost of sentences like 1,000 or 500 lashes, which were everyday occurrences, and if the question had been put to the Army in those days whether or no discipline could be maintained without these savage punishments, the answer would have been that it could not be maintained without them. I have no doubt that that, in addition to being the view of the officers, was probably the view also of the great majority of the rank and file in the Army. It was the same with regard to Field Punishment No. 1. When, after the War, this question was raised in the 1919 Parliament, we were told that the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1 was quite impossible.
    1256
    I remember it well, because I made my maiden speech on the subject of its abolition. We were told then and in subsequent years that it was quite impossible. Field Punishment No. I must be retained. Yet two or three years ago the Government abolished it and it made no difference whatever. I do not think in a question like this which deals with the infliction of the death penalty not in time of peace, when we have a professional Army, but in time of war when we shall certainly have a national Army again, the opinion of professional experts carries the same weight that it would if this referred to times of peace only. It is so very easy to understand professional opinion. It is very different from the non-professional opinion which counts with regard to the service of a national Army in time of war. I have no doubt if a regimental sergeant-major went into a barrack room and said,"All men in favour of abolishing the death penalty take one step forward, quick march," he would have a very small response indeed. That is not the way to test the rights or wrongs of a question.
    With regard to the infliction of the death penalty in time of war there are two things that we ought always to bear in mind. First of all, this is one of the very few things where mens rea, criminal intent—intent to commit an offence—is not considered, or is considered in the merest secondary degree, in deciding whether or not a man is guilty of sleeping at his post, or whether or not a man is guilty of conduct which appears to suggest cowardice. Both those questions are questions of fact, and the intention or the state of mind of the person who is guilty of it is quite of secondary importance. We know so much about psychology nowadays that we know that a very brave man may be guilty of apparent cowardice. Men's minds are quite unhinged if they have to stand a bombardment for many hours or days at a stretch. I should think most men who served in the War probably found their voices quaking or their hands trembling, without any conscious cowardice on their part and without being cowards in any way at all, and a man may, therefore, do things at a time when he is more or less distraught, from which any intention of committing a crime against a fellow soldier is absent altogether. In the same

    1257
    way with regard to sleeping at his post, a man may be so exhausted after two or three days' work under terrible conditions, without any sleep, that he may fail asleep simply overwhelmed by his physical condition without any intention to commit negligence at all. The difficulty in this case is that the Court mast find it enormously difficult to discriminate when the offences appear to be identical, whether the man has committed the offence out of negligence or, on the contrary, without any volition on his part. That is why I think the infliction of the death penalty ought to be very slowly sanctioned by the House in cases of that sort.
    A second fact which I think we are apt to neglect in our minds when we are dealing with this question is that very many men serve in the Army at great sacrifice to themselves. I always thought it was a dreadful thing to see severe sentences from time to time passed upon men who perhaps came to serve in the War right across the world, from some far distant Colony, giving up all their prospects. Severe sentences might be passed on them while"gentlemen in England now abed"might be making fame and fortune and living in luxury at home. You cannot neglect that side of the question. We ought to consider whether there is sufficient protection against an abuse of this punishment at present. The main protection, we are told, is that first of all the general officer commanding would go into the circumstances and would relieve the punishment in cases where he considered a man had been hardly dealt with. My experiences in the Army were exactly the contrary. I remember defending certain soldiers from a charge of falling asleep at their post. This was in the East. I was the friend of these men and I helped to obtain their acquittal. What happened? All the field officers of my division were called together and were told by the General Officer Commanding that they were not to defend soldiers any more at a court-martial. That shows that you cannot universally rely upon general officers commanding to give the benefit of the doubt. It is extremely hard for a general, with the best intentions in the world, really to understand the circumstances of every particular case. He only knows the bare facts. He does not see the man. He hears that he
    1258
    has fallen asleep at his post, and he is told it might have endangered the lives of other men.
    It is, of course, a very grave offence, but it is impossible for an officer who has not heard the evidence, who has not seen the accused person, who does not know the conditions under which the soldier had been living, really to put himself in the position of that man. The position of a General Officer commanding, who has simply read the papers, is very different from that of a Judge who tries a criminal at the Assizes, because the Judge sees everyone and knows everything, and the General, naturally, has to depend entirely on hearsay. If that is the case with the General Officer who looks over the papers, it is still more the case with the Judge-Advocate-General. The work of the Judge-Advocate-General is, no doubt, admirably done, but I imagine he would not quash a conviction if the evidence were good in law, and if there were no recommendation for mercy from any of the officers through whose hands the papers had passed. That is not his function at all. The power of discrimination between those cases where a man's fault is due to his own volition and where it is due to circumstances of war over which he has no control, is not possessed by the Judge-Advocate-General nor by the General Officer in Command. If that is so, we are faced with what is really, I suppose, the main issue on this Amendment, whether or no the death penalty is necessary to deter a man from the commission of the military offence with which he is charged. I believe, in 999 cases out of 1,000, the sense of duty is a greater deterrent than the fear of capital punishment. I do not think the fear of punishment is not a deterrent. It is a. deterrent, and it should be. But, after all, it is only in one case in 1,000 that the fear of capital punishment is a main deterrent.
    It has been pointed out that it is purely capricious. The same offence in one theatre of war may be passed over with a slight sentence while it receives the heaviest possible sentence in another theatre of war. The offences may be the same but there may be a greater feeling towards mercy in one ease and, in the other, towards the enforcement of supreme discipline. In not one case in 1,000 is the death penalty as great a

    1259
    deterrent as the sense of duty and discipline which are instilled into the soldier from the day he first joins the Army. Moral is the real basis of discipline, the real basis of the soldier's character, and moral is not built by the fear of the death penalty. I believe the time will come when we shall regard the survival of this form of punishment as barbaric and unnecessary. There is no hurry in this question, because the Amendment can only refer to war time. There is no death penalty, I understand, for this offence in time of peace. But I think the time has arrived when the Government might give an undertaking once more to reconsider this question with a view to setting our house in order in the light of modern conditions of warfare, modern knowledge of men's character, and the modern fact that in wartime the whole nation—civilians totally untrained to the rigours of professional war—are imported into the Army, and to realise that it is no longer possible to hold out expert professional military opinion as the supreme oracle in these cases. I think the time has now arrived when a new oracle should take its place.
    Mr. VIANT: This Debate has been an exceedingly useful one, and one which portends great hope in the direction in which the Amendment undoubtedly will lead. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said he believed each and all of us have certain fears, and I think he is right. One need not have experience of the battlefield. One can gain that experience in the pursuit of ordinary industry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to his fear of great heights. Following the occupation I have been accustomed to follow for the greater part of my life, I can reinforce his statements. Some men could not possibly go to a great height. Their nerves would not permit them to do it, It is a psychological condition. The same thing must obtain upon a battlefield, not because those men are worse than others, but simply because their psychological condition will not permit them to enter into that experience, and because of that, for the penalty of death to be imposed upon them is grossly unfair and unjust. It is quite inhumane. The Financial Secretary to the War Office
    1260
    laid great stress upon the findings of the Committee that recently considered discipline in the Army. I have no desire to under-rate the Committee's services, but the majority of them were connected in some way or other with the Army. They had had exceptional experience in the Army, but they brought with them into that Committee the psychology of the Army, and that psychological atmosphere that they brought with them coloured the whole of their findings beyond a shadow of doubt.
    6.0 P.M.
    I feel that this Debate, and our ability to consider this subject in a detached manner, is more likely to lead to advantageous findings than the findings of that Committee, and we ought all the time and every time to, be prepared to take into consideration that this is undoubtedly a psychological factor. We cannot hope, even although a regiment might embark overseas and be about to go into an engagement, to make nervous men brave by reading out penalties to them. The only way we are going to enable men to become comfortable and to become prepared to make sacrifices for a cause is to have a just cause, and to instruct them in the principles that are involved and the issues in which we are engaged in the war, and in doing that you are taking steps which will enable men, even against themselves, to brace themselves up and be prepared to make, as it were, the supreme sacrifice if need be, But we can never hope by imposing penalties to enable men to brace their nerves up to make the sacrifice required. I trust that this Debate, which has been so hopeful, will be a means of the Secretary of State for War being prepared to give more consideration to this question than has been given in the past.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I wish to draw attention to one or two points which seem to me to have been overstated by those in favour of the Amendment. I agree absolutely with what has been said as to what is the real thing that brings discipline to an Army. It is, of course, good moral. Good moral, as various hon. Members have noted, can be brought into existence only by good officers and good non-commissioned officers in any regiment or battalion. What I think is wrong with this Amendment, in the interests of the Army as a whole, is that it is designed, as far as I can see, more

    1261
    or less upon sentiment. Hon. Members wall agree with me when I say that anybody interested in the Army is concerned in its strength and development as a fighting machine. It is a mistake to treat this matter of the death sentence, the ultimate sentence that can be inflicted upon a soldier, as a thing that is lightly embarked upon, or which does not cause those who have to order it to be carried out the greatest searchings of heart. When we consider the number of men who were employed all over the world during the late War and the comparatively few death sentences that were carried out, we must realise that those who were responsible for the carrying out of the death sentence exercised their power with the greatest precaution.
    The death sentence, as the ultimate sentence, is, I believe, in the interests of the Army as a whole. There are, of course, men who have not the nerve to face difficult situations, who suffer, for example, like my hon., and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who stated that if he were asked to look down from a great height, he could not obey the order. There are eases of that kind, but it seems to me that they are the exceptions. What the. Secretary of State for War has to consider are the interests of the Army as a whole. If we do away with the death sentence, what is the result? There must be in all armies, and there are, men who are affected by the idea that if they do a certain thing, or do not do a certain thing, they will be shot. In the interests of the whole Army it is desirable that men who are capable of misbehaving themselves in the way it is suggested they may misbehave themselves, and so of bringing danger and disaster on their comrades, should be prevented from doing so by this deterrent; but it must be used with the greatest caution. It is used with the greatest caution, and it is essential to the safety of the Army. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) cited the case of the Australians during the War. No one for one moment doubts the courage and fighting qualities of the Australian soldiers—certainly not anyone who saw them—but one cannot deny the fact that there were among the Australians a large number of men who were not of the
    1262
    right quality. Anyone who was in the neighbourhood of the town of Etaples—
    Mr. PALIN: Not a large number.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will say a certain number. I do not mean to imply that the Australians had a greater number of wrong ones than any other army.
    Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: They had none whatever to deserve that criticism.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not appreciate the value of that interruption. Of course, they had; everybody knows it. The opportunities that were given to these men of doing what they ought not to do was very much greater because of the absence of the death sentence. Men who would otherwise have suffered the extreme penalty, escaped to the back o' beyond and lived in a way which was very little different from that of the bush-rangers of old. When I say"a large number," I mean a large number in proportion to the number of men employed in the Australian Army. There were a great many of them. The experience in our own Army was that there were few if any of that type. I do not attribute that purely to the fact that we had the death sentence in our Army, but, undoubtedly, if the Australian Army had had the death sentence, these men would not have existed in the number they did. I think that was agreed upon by everybody who was in France at the time.
    If the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had argued the matter from the point of view that if there was no death penalty in any army and that, therefore, as a result, everybody would drop away to the rear and there would consequently be no fighting, I think he might have brought forward a very good argument for the ending of war. That is, I believe, an argument he adopted in a book which he wrote sonic little time ago. But when he urges that we should do away with the death penalty as a means of promoting discipline, and that we should have just as good a discipline if the death penalty were done away with as we have now, I think the Committee would be malting a very great mistake to believe him. I do not believe that I am any more brutal than hon. Members opposite. I am quite sure that I am not.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Would it need the death penalty to make the hon. and gallant Member do his duty?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I try to think that the fact that there is a death penalty in existence in the Army would have no effect upon me, or upon my hon. Friends opposite. But we cannot get over the fact that there are men upon whom an effect of that kind can be produced. I do not pretend to be braver than any hon. Member opposite, nor do I pretend to be better. I am opposing this Amendment because I believe that if it were carried into effect it would not have the advantageous results which hon. Members anticipate. I do not think it is in the best interests of the Army, and am quite certain it could not be carried out in war time.
    Mr. PALIN: I approach this question from a different standpoint from the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I think that hon. Members who have already taken part in the Debate have not quite realised that we are not living in the time of Wellington or of the Crimean War. The wars of the future are more likely to resemble the Great War that has recently closed, and, instead of a small professional Army taking part, it is more likely to be an Army consisting very largely of the whole of the able bodied manhood of the nation. The death penalty may be a thing which the professional soldier takes on with his eyes open. At any rate, he has the advantage of years of training to inure him to what he is likely to meet on the field of battle, but a citizen who is taken straight from the workshop, as men were taken during the Great War, and pitch-forked into the inferno which they found there, ought not to be treated to the same penalties as the men who have been trained and inured to them for years.
    I do not mind confessing that there were moments when I was as afraid as anyone else, but, being older than most of the boys who were with me, I was fortunate in not being able to show it. Nerve did fail men under very exceptional circumstances. I have seen a man fail on occasions, although I was quite convinced that he was as brave a man as I ever met. That the death penalty should be exacted under the conditions under which it is exacted, does not do justice to the person accused. A court-martial is a very rough and ready method of trying a man for his life. I dare say that for a common drunk it is quite as good and as just as an ordinary Court, but to try a man for his life in a tribunal constituted as is a court-martial takes one back to the time when the Army was a more brutal institution than it is to-day. I do not think we ought to continue laws which were necessary to enforce discipline in the days of Waterloo and the Crimea, having regard to the conditions that prevail to-day, when ordinary citizens are likely to be turned into soldiers. I do not claim to be an extreme pacifist. I can conceive conditions under which we may possibly have to fight again, although I pray God it may never occur. I do feel that the death penalty for such offences as are stated in the Amendment ought to be wiped out. Having regard to the experiences of hon. Members opposite and on this side and the appeals that have been made, I hope the influence may be such that the Government will give further consideration to this matter before the death penalty is enacted for another year.
    Question put,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 269.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES.

    [6.12 p.m.

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

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Clowes, S.

    Gosling, Harry

    Astor, Viscountess

    Cluse, W. S.

    Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Barnes, A.

    Connolly, M.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Barr, J.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Batey, Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    Groves, T.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Briant, Frank

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Broad, F. A.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Bromley, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Duncan, C.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Hayday, Arthur

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hayes, John Henry

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

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Palin, John Henry

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Paling, W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

    Thurtle, E.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Riley, Ben

    Viant, S. P.

    Johnson, Thomas (Dundee)

    Ritson, J.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Kennedy, T.

    Sexton, James

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

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

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Whiteley, W.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lee, F.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Smillie, Robert

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Lunn William

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Windsor, Walter

    March, S.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Wright, W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Morris, R. H.

    Stamford, T. W.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

    Murnin, H.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Warne.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Albery, Irving James

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

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hastam, Henry C.

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

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

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

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Drewe, C.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Duckworth, John

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, M.)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

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

    Elveden, Viscount

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

    Bethel, A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Briscoe. Richard George

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Huntingfield, Lord

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

    Forrest, W.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Galbraith. J. F. W.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Jacob, A. E.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gates, Percy.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

    Gibbs, Col- Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Goff, Sir Park

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Christie, J. A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Grant, J. A.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Loder, J. de V.

    Cope, Major William

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Couper, J. B.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lougher, L.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Craik, Rt, Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Crookshank.Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harland, A.

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    1266

    1267

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Waddington, R.

    Meller, R. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Sandon, Lord

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Savery, S. S.

    Wells, S. R.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Nall, Lieut. Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'fd.)

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafffford, Lichfield)

    Oakley, T.

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

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Owen, Major G.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Smithers, Waldron

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Penny, Frederick George

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Perring, Sir William George

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Preston, William

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Radford, E. A.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Raine, W.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and

    Ramsden, E.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Captain Margesson.

    Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Use of military in connection with trade disputes.)
    The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not he liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply as long as such state of emergency exists.— [Mr. W. M'Lean, Watson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to move,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I have pleasure in moving this new Clause, and I trust the Secretary of State for War will give it more favourable consideration on this occasion than he has done previously. This is a very fitting time for a change in the Army Act in this direction. This new Clause does not seek to interfere with any powers that are in operation at the moment. It is not only the duty of the soldier, it is the duty of every civilian
    1268
    to give every assistance to the police that may be necessary to prevent disturbance, therefore, this Clause does not curtail any powers that are at present possessed by the civil authority. I want to make that point perfectly clear. At the same time it should be made clear to the recruit when he joins the Army that he is not to be called upon to take part in trade disputes, and this is, I think, a fitting moment for the Secretary of State for War to give this matter some consideration. It would be one of the best things that could happen if at this particular moment the Government were to make a gesture in this direction. It would appear that the country is on the eve of a great industrial dispute, and if the Government were prepared to make this concession and agree with us that the military should not be used in trade disputes, I am certain it would have a very beneficial effect.
    What right have the military to interfere in an industrial dispute? It is a civilian affair and is a matter between employers and employed. My contention is that the military should not be engaged in trade disputes. The Government's business is to remain outside, unless it acts the part of negotiator and conciliator, and not in

    1269
    terfere in any way with any dispute that may be going on. Looking at it from the point of view of the soldier him self, I do not think he wishes to be mixed up in any way with a trade dispute, and why should he be compelled to take part in any dispute when he has no desire to do so? We must keep in mind the fact that many recruits do not go into the Army voluntarily. They are compelled to join by economic pressure. They cannot get a living in any other way, and therefore the soldier, I say, does not wish to engage in any trade dispute. From time to time, however, the military are brought in. It is not a great thing we are asking in this new Clause. If you look back over the past 100 years you will find that the military have been very seldom used in trade disputes. An hon. Friend reminds me that it is always disastrous when they are used. I can speak with a little experience on this matter. In 1921 I lived in an area where perhaps the first disturbance in the British coalfield took place. It was a little disturbance. We had several big meetings and processions and things began to get a little bit lively. Had those processions been the processions of students, they would never lave been interfered with; they would have been shepherded carefully, and even if a few windows had been broken, it would have been only"an exhibition of high spirits"and what was to be expected.
    But in this case we had the miners locked out, and they were engaging in these demonstrations. A few windows were broken, and before anyone knew that anything of the kind was to happen the military were brought in. They remained in the place, occupying church halls and schools, during the whole period of the dispute, and never upon one occasion were they required. I submit that that was not because the people were the least afraid of the soldiers. I can assure the House that a district which year by year sends hundreds of men into the Black Watch is not afraid of the Black Watch. The soldiers were never required. As a matter of fact, they would never have been there had not someone lost his head and got excited and imagined that the end of all things had come. Some people had been expecting the great revolution, just as I suppose we shall hear more of it to-day—the plottings and plannings that had been going on during the period of the War and after the War.
    1270
    In 1921 everyone was expecting a revolution.
    Immediately there was this little disturbance the police were shoved aside and the military were brought in. All that happened was that the local ratepayers had a very considerable sum of money to pay for the expenses of the military. In addition, there was all the inconvenience of halls and schools being occupied during the period of the dispute. It was a policy that was wholly unjustified. The police had quelled the disturbance before the military arrived, and the police were perfectly capable of dealing with any further disturbance that was likely to arise. Yet the military remained during the whole period of the dispute, not only at the place where the disturbance occurred, but in all the villages round about. No good purpose was served by introducing them. As a matter of fact the feeling that was aroused by that action did a great deal more to stiffen the backs of the miners than to conciliate them. I say frankly that, although we shall be in another dispute next month—
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We might be.
    Mr. WATSON: Suppose that we are in a dispute next month, and that the War Office still have the power of using the military, that will not alter the position one little bit. It will not prevent the strike taking place, and it will not shorten it by a single day, It will not have the least influence on the strike, so far as the miners or any other section of the community is concerned. Therefore, I cannot understand why the War Office should resist the insertion in the Army Act of a clear and definite statement that a recruit on joining the Army should know that he will not on any occasion be asked to take part in an industrial dispute. The recruit ought to be in no position other than that of an ordinary citizen, called upon to assist the police when the police are unable to deal with a situation. Soldiers ought not to be called upon to go into an area as an organised body, apparently to take a side in a dispute. That is just how it appeals to the workers. Directly they see the military on the scene, the first thing that is said and believed is that those in authority are taking one side, and that makes the position worse.

    1271
    In this new Clause there is provision for an emergency. If a state of emergency arises, that is to say, if the trouble is too serious, if there is the possibility either of an extended disturbance or very serious disturbance, there is provision for the military being used. We do not object to that; we do not object to the military being used if the other forces available are proved to be incapable of dealing with the situation. But you have not only the police at your command. You have now available a force that you had not in 1921. I refer to the Special Constabulary. My contention is that these two forces are perfectly capable of dealing with any situation that may arise during a strike. If the soldier was called upon to fire, upon whom would he fire? Very likely on some of his own relatives or friends, and certainly on men and women, and perhaps children, whom he does not wish to hurt. I hope that the Minister will give this Clause more sympathetic consideration than he has given a similar proposal on previous occasions. Even Navy men were brought in in the 1921 dispute. They worked the pumps in certain areas. The Army and the Navy should not be used in a conflict between employers and employed, but they should stand outside. The Government should keep them outside, and they will be kept outside if the secretary for War will accept this Clause.
    Mr. KELLY: I wish to support the Clause, and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government. The Government have no right to throw on to the soldier the responsibility of taking part in trade disputes. The War Office has laid it down in its own Regulations that soldiers must not organise themselves in order to enter into discussions or disputes with those who employ them. Yet, while that is so in the case of the soldier with regard to his own service, the War Office still takes to itself power to use the soldier in the event of a trade dispute. When one thinks of the discussion which took place on the Clause on which we have just voted, and one realises that the War Office still adheres to the death penalty, one tries to imagine what would happen if the soldier refused to shoot down members of his own family in the event of the order being given to fire. Yet, that is the position in which the War Office is
    1272
    placing the soldier when it takes him into the area of a trade dispute.
    The Mover of the Clause referred to the taking of sides. There can be no other view of the interference of the military than that it is the taking of a side in a dispute. I have had the conduct of many disputes during the last 30 years, many of them extended throughout the country, and we have had but one notion whenever the military have been introduced or there bas been a threat of their introduction. We have always felt that the War Office and the Government have taken the employers' side against us. There can be no other view of it. The military are not brought in to assist the workpeople. They are not brought in even to create an atmosphere that would be favourable to the workpeople. They are brought in to assist the employer and to create an atmosphere. Hon. Members may smile, but what other reason is there? [HON. MEMBERS:"To keep order!"] To keep order when there has been no disorder? They are brought in in order that you may dominate the men who are striking against their employers or are locked out.
    With regard to the miners, it will not be a question of a strike; it looks more like a lock-out, in the event of matters coming to a head. Most of the disputes with which we have been concerned have been lock-outs. The military are brought in in order to impress the men who are fighting for that to which they are entitled—I have never known any other fight—in order to display the force that will"bring the men," as some people say,"to reason"at a much earlier date. We have no right to throw this responsibility upon the soldier or the sailor. The recruit did not join the Army for the purpose of fighting against his own fellows; he did not join the Navy or the Army for the purpose of shooting down men and women and children of his own country. Yet the retention of this power by the War Office means that at the back of the mind of the War Office is the idea that these men may be used for such a purpose in the event of someone being, like a particular man in the Scottish county referred to, fearful that a revolution is about to take place.
    The Government have no right to use these men for the purpose of black-legging. Hon. Members opposite pro-

    1273
    fess to have a great, regard for the man in the fighting ranks. They say in their speeches that they want him to be able to take his place in civil life when he leaves the service; yet if he is to be used in these disputes as has been recently threatened, if he is to be used to take the place of men who are on strike or are locked out, he is being made a black-leg he will go back to civil life with that stigma upon him. It is a stigma which even hon. Members opposite recognise as one which can only be wiped out after many years. We know what happens to anyone who attempts to blackleg in the professions of medicine or the law. Will hon. Members opposite, despite their views concerning blacklegging in those professions, refuse to accept a Clause which seeks to prevent the stigma of blackleg being imposed upon the man in the ranks? We have heard this afternoon of what officers can do. We have heard that an officer who felt that his nerves would not allow him to lead his men, could go to his superior and say he was not feeling fit to lead those men. We have heard that the officer in such a case can resign. [HON. MEMBERS"No! "]
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: He was relieved.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: He was wounded.
    Mr. KELLY: Others were referred to, besides the wounded man. An officer can give many reasons for resignation, but the man in the ranks has no chance of resignation. He is compelled to act under orders and may very probably he sent on duty such as this, into the very district where he has spent the early part of his life. He may meet former fellow workers, and he may find himself called upon to assist the employers against those men in a trade dispute. That is unfair to the men. You have no right to call upon these men to help the employer in defeating workers who are fighting either for good conditions or against the imposition of bad conditions. The soldier is compelled to be blindly obedient, and we should try to save him from having to do work which is not clean and which is not fitting work for him.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think many hon. Members who have listened to
    1274
    the speech of the Mover of the proposed new Clause will deprecate some of the remarks which he made. Although the country is overshadowed by the possibility of a dispute, I think most hon. Members have confidence in the leadership of the more enlightened trade unionists and employers. It is somewhat unfortunate that this new Clause' should be brought forward at the present time. When one considers the arguments which have been put forward and the wording of the proposed new Clause itself, one is somewhat amazed. The Mover said he had no objection to the military power being used to support the civil power in a case of emergency and for keeping order, but the Clause says' that the recruit is not to take duty in aid of the civil power. Surely the civil power would not require aid unless for the purpose of preserving order. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] I think that is so, but this proposal is that the soldier should be in a position to interpret his orders. The soldier ought not to be in, the position of taking responsibility. His function is to take orders from his superior officer. The superior officer' takes orders from the War Office, and the War Office has its instructions from the Government of the day. What the new Clause, in fact, means is that the-recruit or soldier ought to be in a position to interpret whether the Government of the clay are giving correct orders or not. That is a responsibility which ought not to be placed upon him.
    The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) who spoke last used the argument that a soldier might have to serve in-the district in which he had been brought up. Surely that is what happens in the case of the police all the time. The police in most cases are recruited from, and live in, the district in which they keep order. Has it ever been said that the police would not carry out their duty because they happen to be in the district where they had been brought. up? I have never heard a more muddle-headed argument put forward. What is the actual position? With the complicated industrialisation of our community to-day, there is a time when the Government, in order to preserve the life of the nation as a Whole, have to take steps in aid of the civil population as a whole and to see that irretrievable damage is not done. In the case of railways, mines and

    1275
    other matters it may be that, in order to preserve the life of the, country, the Government have to take over services and run them during an industrial dispute. In doing so, they are not interfering in the dispute or prejudging the issue, but it is the function of a Government to preserve such order and to maintain such communications and supplies as arc necessary to ensure that the civil population who are not responsible for the dispute should not suffer. Not merely the present Government, but any Government, even a Government of the Labour party, would be forced, owing to the conditions, to carry out functions of that kind. Knowing the conditions, we need only attempt to envisage what would be the result of this proposal by which any soldier on duty could say to his commanding officer,"I interpret these orders quite differently from the way in which you do it, and I am not going to carry them out." Could anyone expect a, responsible Government to accept a proposal which would lead to such a Gilbertian situation? It would be in the best interests of responsible labour if this new Clause were withdrawn.
    Mr. BROMLEY: I do not intervene for the reason suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), but in order to explain our opposition to the calling in of military in industrial disputes. I suggest that the Clause does not give power, either to the recruit or the seasoned soldier, to choose what he will do in certain circumstances. The Clause seeks to alter the law of the country so that neither the recruit nor the seasoned soldier will be called upon to interfere in industrial disputes, and it makes a special provision for cases of real national emergency. We are not so foolish as not to recognise that, in the final analysis, all government rests on force, and we are not so unwise as to believe that, if ever our organised millions really rise in revolution, whatever laws may be on the Statute Book, the government in power will not suppress us by military force. That, possibly, is the reason why some of us are too wise to make revolutionary speeches—because we know it would mean the sacrifice of our own people first. I am not so optimistic as to believe that a
    1276
    Conservative Government would scruple to use those forces at the earliest opportunity.
    What we desire to point out, however, is something quite different. If hon. Members opposite are fair to their own inner consciousness they know that military forces have been placed on the scenes of industrial disputes, not because there has been the slightest semblance of disorder or riot, but with the fixed intention of cowing the workmen in favour of the employer. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] There is no doubt about it. Let us be honest with each other here at all events. We may blink these things on political platforms, but we are men of the world here, and we know troops have been brought in, often with disastrous results, in order to intimidate strikers and for no other purpose. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] I shall try to enlighten hon. Members opposite. My experience is a fairly lengthy one. I can go back to 1896 when I was stationed, as a railway fireman, at Aberdare. A mines dispute was in progress, and, as a young man, I marvelled at the peaceable spirit shown by the miners. The greatest disorder I saw there was the assemblage of miners on the mountainsides to sing hymns—if my Welsh Friends will forgive me for -referring to that as disorder. The powers that were in those days, however, imported a squadron of lancers—I am not sure if I have the military terms correctly—and stationed them in the centre of the coalfield at Aberdare Junction. The soldiers used to gallop through the narrow streets of the small mining towns where there was an absolutely peaceful population, for the sole reason of terrorising and intimidating the strikers, and accidents—including several fatal accidents—occurred to school children whist scurrying out of the way of the galloping troops.
    7.0 P.M.
    That is the kind of thing to which we object. Some of us remember when gunboats were sent to the Humber to quell the dockers at Hull. I was in Liverpool in 1911 when there was a dispute. There was no disturbance until a certain incident happened, but a warship was sent to the Mersey. Does anybody suggest that had there been a riot in the streets of Liverpool a warship could have fired on the rioters? Not at all. It was simply for the purpose of showing the strikers that their employers controlled the

    1277
    Government of this country and in order to endeavour to instil fear into them. I am trying to get hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see what our point of view is, and to reason it out, for this the place where we are told that we reason things out.
    I shall turn now to the famous incident at Featherstone. A great friend of mine, a member of my organisation, who is at present an alderman of some years' standing on the city council in one of the most progressive cities in this country, was the fireman on the train that took the troops to Featherstone. He has told me that, far from there being any riot, as the train approached the station, a very lively cricket match was being played with hundreds of miners watching it. Seeing the troops with their heads out of the train, the crowd rushed down to the station to see the soldiers, and within half an hour many of them were stretched cut dead. That fireman, who is now an engine driver, says that he would never operate a train taking troops into any dispute in future. There was another unnecessary loss of life by the importation of armed forces when there was no need whatever.
    In 1911 we had a railway dispute, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer held a Ministerial post which empowered to send troops. He suggested sending them to Manchester, but the Lord Mayor said that they were not wanted. In spite of that, they were sent. There was no trouble in Manchester. Railwaymen are the most mild mannered workers in the world. When they strike, they strike peaceably. They remain away, and there is no history of any rioting among them. Troops were sent quite unnecessarily, merely for the purpose of intimidating the strikers. I feel I ought to refer to another incident in the same dispute at Llanelly. There was quite a peaceful dispute there, but troops were imported into the district, and that eventually caused the loss of the lives of people who were in no way interested, except as spectators. There the troops were marching about the streets with a certain officer, who shall be nameless, intimidating the strikers by telling them where they should place their pickets. I may have the power of placing pickets, and no military or police officer shall intimidate me from placing pickets. This
    1278
    gentleman did so, and it caused resentment. Eventually, a train was stopped there by the boyish trick of a young fellow. He lifted up the balance weight of the signal just as the train was starting and the train stopped. The officious officer rushed troops up to where the train was stopped. In a few moments there was firing, and people who were sitting on the walls of their gardens looking down at the little scene at the station were shot. They were quite unnecessary victims, not of rioting or disturbance, but of the fact that military forces had been sent there quite unnecessarily.
    A few years ago there was an unofficial strike of railway men that started in South Wales and travelled about England before it could be stopped. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and myself rushed down there in order to try and appease the strikers in a dispute which had arisen out of a misapprehension. Everyone there of any responsibility was desirous of ending it. The Government sent armed troops down. There had not been a dispute in the street, not even a serious altercation between a striker and a representative of the employers or anyone else. Troops with steel helmets and fixed bayonets marched into Newport, and I admit that, I felt like throwing in my lot with the strikers instead of against them.
    I ask the House to recognise that in the workers when they are on strike there is the same bulldog spirit as when they wore khaki. I would suggest, as a last argument, that the time when organised workers are terrorised by the importation of troops is passing. It did answer at one time, but it is far more likely to-day to rouse resentment and cause the very thing it is supposed to prevent. If our Amendment be analysed, it will be found that it is a perfectly fair one. It does not go to any extreme by saying that under no circumstances of national emergency may forces be used by the Government. That time of emergency may come when this side of the House forms the Government, and I will have great pleasure when we avail ourselves of it then. This is unnecessary; this is purely intimidation which both the House and employers ought to bar. To intimidate men from standing up for what they believe to he their rights by saying,"Here is a power that can deal with you

    1279
    if you give the slightest excuse"is not just. I can recall times when those excuses have been taken advantage of, and have resulted in serious loss of life, often of innocent people.
    An hon. Member opposite spoke of enlightened trade union leaders who would always suppress a strike. We on this side do not always suggest that those who are always against the power of their organisations are always enlightened. There are no Members on this side, and I do not know many leaders of trade unions, who wilfully seek a strike. We have many sleepless nights, and make many efforts in trying to avoid a strike, but there are times when one of two situations may be created. Either the rank and file whom we lead or whom we serve—whichever you prefer to call it—are so indignant at their treatment, and are so satisfied of the injustice of it, that all the enlightened leaders in the world could not keep them from fighting for what they believe to be their right; or, on the other hand, there are times when all the leaders, enlightened or otherwise, are convinced that we will never get justice without force. It is not a frame of mind that I am proud of. It is forced by circumstances which would prove to the most stubborn of us that we do not get justice unless we can back it with force, but that is not seeking trouble, rioting or disturbance or anything of the sort in such trials of strength.
    If it comes in the near future, all of us will regret it. Some of us are doing our best that it may not have to come. Whether it conies or not, I suggest very seriously, fairly, and honestly, that it would be no loss to the power of the employer or to the Government if our Amendment were accepted. It would ease any feelings of bitterness when military are introduced in disputes. It would certainly save the lives of innocent victims when some possibly honest officer takes advantage of—I say it without offence—his class feeling against the people who are striking. I do not say it offensively, but I have heard the expressions of some of these people about what they would do to the strikers. On one occasion I asked them to try it on me, but fortunately for me they did not. I say there are some officers who, out of class feeling against the strikers, may take advantage of some slight excuse and
    1280
    kill some men, women, and children who have nothing to do with the strike. It is for those reasons that I support this new Clause.
    Captain KING: Most of the speakers on the benches opposite have rightly laid down the duty of the civil power to maintain order. The Mover of this Clause rightly described the obligation on the citizen to assist the civil power in so doing. That, in the first place, is the obligation under which the soldier also is called upon to assist the civil power to maintain order. It is his Common Law obligation to assist in maintaining order. He has to use force, as a citizen, if necessary, and to use such force as may he necessary, and not more. He has also to do his best in assisting the civil power. This Clause seeks to prevent him from carrying out that Common Law duty. It is said that, Though he has that liability under the Common Law, yet he must net be allowed to exercise it in support of the civil power. But surely the Committee will agree that a soldier, as one of His Majesty's Forces, can do his best in support of the civil power by acting as a disciplined man, by acting in accord with those with whom he serves, and under the orders of his officers. He has to do his best, and, therefore, he should use his military discipline, and, if necessary, he would have to use his weapons.
    The Clause would prevent the soldier being used—apart from emergency—in support of a civil power in case of an industrial dispute. I take it that hon. Members opposite accept the principle that the civil power is not taking sides [HON. MEMBERS"It does!"] That may be so, but the only reason for the civil power intervening in any way is to maintain order, and, if necessary, to prevent any blow at the life of the community. That is obviously the duty of the civil authority, to whatever party it may belong, but the military can only he called in at the request of the civil powers. The hon. Member who moved the Clause gave us instances of the cases where the troops were called in obviously at the request of the civil power.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what that civil power generally is? Does not the power remain with the Standing Joint Committee or with the chief constable?
    Captain KING: It is with the chief constable, who is representing the civil power. He is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in his particular district. Therefore, if he considers that the force at his disposal is not sufficient to maintain law and order, it is his duty to ask for military assistance, and it is only on such requests that the military are introduced. Again, one hon. Member suggested that the military had pushed aside the police. That is never done. The military are merely there in support of the police; in support of the civil power. We agree on these benches with what has been voiced by hon. Members opposite, that it is a very distasteful duty and certainly not one entered upon unless requested by the civil power.
    With regard to intimidation and taking sides, there is no question, to my mind, of taking sides, and I can see no reason why there should be any suspicion of intimidation. The troops are there—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) laughs, but the honest man is never afraid of a policeman. It is only the wrongdoer who is afraid. As long as any of us keep within the law and behave ourselves, we have no fear of meeting a policeman or of seeing a policeman at the street corner. It is only the wrongdoer who fears, and, providing the strikers in an industrial dispute are keeping within the law, and intend to keep within the law, there is no need for them to have any fear whatever, and there is no reason for them to be intimidated. The hon. Member for Barrow mentioned various cases, of which I cannot recollect the details. They sounded to me in some particulars, perhaps, not quite complete, but in any ease I cannot deal with them, because they are not within my knowledge or recollection. I want to emphasise, however, that it is more by reason of misrepresentation that strikers look on troops as being there to intimidate them. They are there just as much to protect the strikers as any other people. [An HON. MEMBER:"In theory, but not in fact!"] In Fact. The civil authorities, the police, and the soldiers, are there to give protection to the wives and children of the strikers. They are there to preserve law and order, and to see that the civil population shall not be unduly upset and shall not unduly suffer from a purely
    1282
    local dispute. The dispute is between the employers and the employed, and neither the police nor the military interfere in any way as between those two parties. They are there merely to preserve law and order and to see that the rights of the other citizens are maintained.
    With regard to one question raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), with reference to blacklegs, there again he did not give a case where troops were being brought in for the purpose of assisting the employers. A question was put with regard to them being used for essential services. They are only used in any such way either for military purposes, if it is necessary for them to do a civilian's work, and that lies within their duty, or on the other hand, if they are called upon to carry out certain services to save the vital life of the community. There again they might be entitled to do so, but there is no question seriously—and I do not think the hon. Member himself put it seriously—that the soldiers are actually being brought in for strike-breaking or black-legging. It certainly is not the intention. Certain wider powers than I have mentioned have been authorised under the Emergency Provisions Act, but I am speaking of the time before the state of emergency arises, of the possible interference to come from the military. With regard to the question of not bringing them in so soon, of waiting until the Emergency Provisions Act is brought in, of waiting till the emergency actually arises, which is, in effect, waiting till the police are overpowered, surely prevention is better than cure. It is very much better that the troops should be available, should they be required by the civil power. Prevention is better than cure, and for that reason we do not consider it possible to accept the Clause. We consider that those powers that we have must remain, and under these circumstances, especially seeing the hour and that there are other Clauses following, I hope we shall be able to have a Division on this question, without much further delay.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There can be no doubt in the mind of either side of the Committee as to the importance of the subject we are discussing, and I rather deprecate, and certainly do not propose

    1283
    making, any reference whatever, in the discussion of this important Clause, to the present industrial situation. I refuse to do it for two reasons. First, I do not think it would be a good thing, in a discussion such as this, to say a word that might render the situation such that it would be connected with it, and I certainly think our duty in this matter is not to say anything to render more difficult the task of those on both sides who want peace. Therefore, I certainly do not connect it in any shape or form with this Clause. It is the mere incident of the Bill being under discussion to-day that causes that situation, and, indeed, I emphasise that, because nothing would be worse than, in a brief report of these proceedings, for a person ignorant of Parliamentary procedure to connect the industrial situation with the discussion that is now taking place.
    I approach the question not from the standpoint of an Opposition merely opposing the Government, but from the standpoint of a full recognition that those of us who sit on this side of the House will sooner or later—much sooner, I know, than some people on the other side expect—be sitting there, and, therefore, we have quite seriously to keep in mind, in dealing with a subject of this kind, not only the position of an Opposition opposing, but of a Government responsible to the country, and I certainly propose to discuss it from that point of view. In the first place, I would say that there would be common agreement on both sides of the Committee that there is no country in the world where the mass of our fellow citizens are so law-abiding as they are in this country. Without distinction of any sort or kind, there must be common agreement on that broad, general principle, and the best evidence of it is that, beyond any emergency, often the citizens themselves come to the rescue and help of the civil power. There will be common agreement that, so far as the soldier is concerned, he is not only a good fellow, but, if there is one thing he hates more than another, it is going outside his job of soldiering and being mixed up with these disputes at all. There will be common agreement on both those points. There will also be common agreement that in a state of emergency, regardless of consequences of any sort or kind, the
    1284
    Government of the country are responsible and must govern. Therefore, if there is common agreement between all sides on those three general principles, let us now approach the Clause in its application to those principles.
    I am afraid the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who has just spoken, does not quite know, and has never been engaged in, trade disputes sufficiently to understand the psychology, the mentality, and the feeling existing among people who believe that they are fighting for their bread, when he says that the mere drafting of troops into a district can have no effect upon people unless they are wrongdoers. That is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a great dispute where thousands of people are involved, and where troops are brought in when order is being kept, when there is no breaking of the peace, when, in a case of which I know, the mayor himself objected to soldiers being brought in. The only conclusion—I believe it is a wrong conclusion—that these people could draw from a circumstance such as I have described is that the troops coming into the district under those circumstances have come for an ulterior purpose. That only provokes people. Take the incident of the unofficial strike in Wales, where, the Committee may remember, I went down myself, to try to settle it. It was in the midst of the War, and when I got to Wales I found the whole place in a blaze. The one person who was not safe, who was in danger, was myself, because I went down, let hon. Members observe, to persuade, and more than persuade, thousands of men who were out to go back to work. When I got down there, my position was aggravated by the arrival, preceding me, of a whole train load of troops in Newport. I went straight to the commanding officer, and I said: "Look here, nothing is going to save the situation, because of the effect of your troops on this dispute. I believe I can handle it, but T cannot handle it if I have to face people who have got the impression that I have brought the troops down with me." That was the kind of impression they had.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGANCertainly.
    Mr. THOMAS: I admit the reasonableness of the officer in charge, because it

    1285
    was a miserable business for them, and they hated it. I said: "What I suggest that we should do is this: Take all their guns and ammunition from them. I know the Newport girls. Let them loose with the girls to-night." And he did it, and it had a most magnificent effect. The result was that an entirely different atmosphere was created. The moral of that is, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, that you might, if you had a stupid person handling it, have got a situation where, before a little tact could be used, the whole thing would be ablaze. That is the thing we fear. That is what leads to all the trouble.
    Let me give another illustration Take the great national strike of 1919, when for 10 days the whole railway system of this country was paralysed. How many people know that there were 174 football matches between the soldiers and the strikers for the benefit of the strikers' fund? That was a magnificent thing. The point I am making is that that proves, that as far as the soldiers are concerned, they do not want to be connected with strike-breaking at all.
    The general principle of this Clause has been discussed repeatedly, but the right
    hon. Gentleman will observe that there is a remarkable addition to it. The addendum is not to abrogate the right of the Government. That right must be maintained, and no one challenges it; but we certainly suggest that the emergency can and will be dealt with by any Government. We believe that the police themselves are responsible persons. We know from experience that the drafting of troops—without attaching blame to anyone—has the natural effect of provoking trouble, and that is why we ask the Committee if they cannot accept the actual words, to accept the principle, because we are not desirous of being at war with the soldiers. We are not desirous of trying to persuade the soldier not to do his duty, but we are desirous of avoiding an unpleasant situation for the soldier, of helping the situation so far as the masses of the people are concerned and to make it clear and definite that the State in these industrial disputes must be, and ought always to continue to be, impartial as between both sides.
    Question put,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes. 283.

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES.

    [7.32 p.m.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sitch, Charles H.

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Siesser, Sir Henry H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Smillie. Robert

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Broad, F. A

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J E.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Buxton, Bt Hon. Noe'

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thurtle, E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Les F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clowes, S.

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Murnin, H.

    Warne, G. H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Palin, John Henry

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

    Duncan, C.

    Paling, W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gillett, George M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wright, W.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Sexton, James

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Albery, Irving James

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Gates, Percy

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Meller, R. J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Merriman, F, B.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Balniel, Lord

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grant. J. A.

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Bethel, A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'fd.)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Oakley, T.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Owen, Major G.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve

    Harland, A.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Harrison, G. J, C.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Brooke, Brigadier-Genera! C. R. I.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Preston, William

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Raine, W.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hennessy, Major J. H. G.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Campbell, E. T.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

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

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Ruggles-Brise. Major E. A.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Christie. J. A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sandon, Lord

    Couper, J. B.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

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

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H,

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Storry-Deans. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Drewe, C.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Duckworth, John

    Loder, J. de V.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lougher, L.

    Tasker, Major R. Inlgo

    Elveden, Viscount

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    England, Colonel A.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montetth

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Macdonald. Ft. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Waddington, R.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Wallace, Captain O. E.

    Fielden, E. B.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Forrest, W.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Watson, Rt, Hon., W. (Carlisle)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wells, S. R.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Malone, Major P. B.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    1288

    1289

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Withers, John James

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 76 of Army Act.)
    In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment), after the word"person," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words"of not less than eighteen years of age," and for the proviso in that Section there shall he substituted the words,"It Shall be the duty of commanding officers to return to their homes all young persons discovered to have enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen years." — [Mr. Johnston]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move,"That the Clause be read a Second time,"
    I will not take up the time of the Committee, if the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill to-night will give us at once an indication that he proposes to accept this Clause.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS indicated dissent.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in any case, the issues have been so very frequently before the House, that a very few moments will suffice to explain the Clause. As the law stands to-day, I understand, if a boy joins the Army by giving a fictitious age, his parents may secure Ins release at once if his age be under 17. But the boys between 17 and 18 can only secure a free discharge if their pa-cents can prove real necessitous home circumstances. That, I understand, is the technical phrase. I have tried on one or two occasions to secure the release of boys on compassionate grounds of that kind, and it is an exceedingly stiff job. To whose satisfaction are we to prove the necessitous circumstances? Some Army colonel who does not know what necessity is, who simply cannot understand why any boy should want to get away from the high, civilising agency of a job in the British Army. I do not know how many, but in a large number of cases boys run away from home, owing to some quarrel or some momentary disagreement with their parents, or, perhaps, some quarrel with their job or with their fore-
    1290
    man. They take it into their heads that the only method of escape is to join the Army. They run away to the recruiting sergeant, giving a false age, and sometimes the recruiting officers are only too anxious to accept a false age. Then the relatives, in poor circumstances perhaps, apply for the release of the boy, because his, wage is required at home, and it is discovered to be impossible to prove real necessitous home circumstances to the colonel in charge. I have brought cases before the right hon. Gentleman, and he has submitted them to the Army colonel in charge, and invariably they have been turned down on the ground that there is no necessity.
    Can a boy of 18 years of age be an asset —a physically fit asset—to the Army? He is not, fully developed, he is not mentally developed, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, because the right hon. Gentleman will not allow him to have a vote until he is 21. He says he is not fit to be a citizen, he is not fit to have a vote, he is not fit to make the law and to say whether there shall he war or no war. He is outside the realm of citizenship, and yet he is taken into the Army, and he is put to drill. On the medical side, there is proof, voluminous and conclusive, that a boy of 18 years of age cannot, on the average, carry an army pack without its tending to bring on a certain kind of disease which resembles diabetes in later life. At any rate, Sir Auckland Geddes said that was so, and I take his word for it. Is it not a scandal that boys of 18 years of age, not in peace-time but in war-time, should have been shot for alleged dereliction of duty? There was one case, at any rate, of a boy who enlisted and gave a wrong age. He was sent up the line and was in action for 36 hours. At last, he fell asleep at his post, and he was taken out and shot. Hon. Members who represent Manchester know that the Army authorities and the generals have not been popular in Manchester ever since as a result of that tragedy. There is no shortage of applicants for the Army. So long as there is poverty and unemployment you

    1291
    will get plenty. If you want more, you can raise the money appeal. Why take boys, and particularly the sons of widows? Why break up homes in the way you are doing? There is no adequate reason why the British Army and the British Empire and the might and power of this State should depend for its defence upon the acceptance in the ranks of the Army of boys of 18 years of age.
    Mr. MARCH: I desire to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in connection with this matter. I really think that the Government would be doing the right thing if they would make it compulsory that any boy who joined the Army under the age of 18 should be returned to his home when notification of his enlistment has been given. Since I have been a Justice of the Peace for the past six years, I have had, I think, half-a-dozen cases of lads who have joined the Army at various times, and, in many instances, because of some correction that has been meted out to them either by their widowed mother or by an infirm father. They have been corrected about being out late at night and other things, and because they have thought that it was not the duty of the mother or the father to correct them they have joined t he Army. After they have been in the Army for a little while they have found out their mistake. In a case where the boy is the only son of a widow I have had very little difficulty in getting that boy returned, so long as it could be proved that he had employment to go to. That has not always been easy, even though the person concerned has been the employer for whom the lad previously worked. It has sometimes been unsatisfactory.
    I have in mind two instances. When I have been able to show myself by the word of the employer or by a note from him to the effect that work is waiting for the boy there has been no trouble in getting the boy hack again, but, if I have not known the full circumstances of the case, and if I have not known the character of the boy—I know a great many of the boys in my division, but I do not know them all—I have not been prepared to go to the employer and give a guarantee that the boy who is coming out is of good character. The result has
    1292
    been that in such a ease, although the boy may have been a widow's son, he has not been returned. I consider that when it can be shown by a birth certificate that something has occurred to force the boy to rush into the. Army that should be sufficient if the mother wants the boy back again. We want to avoid the hardship that is meted out to parents in these eases, and the way we can avoid it is by getting it laid down by declaration that no boy shall be forced to remain in the Army against the parents' wish until they have reached the age of 18.
    Captain KING: I think the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) who has just sat down rather misunderstands the wording and the intention of this proposed new Clause. It is not that a boy under the age of 18 should be released on request, but it is putting a duty on the commanding officer to dismiss the boy and to send him home whether he wishes to go or not.
    Mr. MARCH: I nave tried to make it clear that by regulation no boy should be allowed in the Army under the age of 18.
    Captain KING: I am afraid the closing remarks of the hon. Member did not quite give me that impression, but, even in that case, there is still a further misunderstanding in dealing with only one class of case. The class of ease that has been put forward is that of a boy who has joined the Army without the consent or wish of his parents. We are thankful to know that in this country there are families who have a tradition of the Army, who have military service as one of their family traditions, and hose boys go into the Army at the earliest possible age they can induce the recruiting sergeant to take them. Many of the boys enter under the age of 18, misstating their age, and misstating it with the full knowledge and consent of their parents, who wish their boys to go into the Army and who would be very annoyed indeed if this Clause were passed and these boys were returned.
    Compassionate grounds are very carefully considered. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) wanted to know who the hard-hearted people were. My right hon. Friend (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) and myself have to consider these cases, and, so long as there are corn

    1293
    passionate grounds and it can be proved that the boy has a job of work to go to, he is released.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I have got boys back myself.
    Captain KING: Many hon. Members opposite have communicated with me, and I have authorised the discharge on compassionate grounds of a, number of boys whose cases were put forward. The question is carefully considered, and under the arrangement made last year it is now possible for a boy to make an allotment to his parents. The boy who takes advantage of that and allots money to his parents is better off than the boy who goes into the labour market on discharge without a chance of a job. There is another point which I think has been overlooked. When this Clause was
    moved last year it was pointed out to the Committee that, apart from these boys misstating their age and coming into the Army under the age of 18, we do take in a considerable number of boys under that age for the purpose of training them as musicians and as skilled mechanics. The need for skilled mechanics is so great that it its only by training our boys in our own training establishments that we can meet that need. These boys are trained under a system of apprenticeship, and I do not think that hon. Members opposite would desire to deprive such boys of the training that we can give them. For those reasons, I regret that the Government cannot accept this new Clause.
    Question put,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 266.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES.

    [7.59 p.m.

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

    Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Smillie, Robert

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Burte)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Clowes, S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Close, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Tinker. John Joseph

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Warne, G. H.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

    Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Murnin, H.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Owen, Major G.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Fenby, T. D.

    Palin, John Henry

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea. East)

    Gillett, George M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)

    Ritson, J,

    Windsor, Walter

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Saklatvata, Shapurji

    Wright, W.

    Groves, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Sexton, James

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A. Barnes.

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Hall, G H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Astor, Viscountess

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Applin, Colonel B. V. K.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Bethel, A.

    Astor, Mai. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Penny, Frederick George

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Harland, A.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assneton

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Preston, William

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

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Raine, W.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hilton, Cecil

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Rye, F. G.

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

    Hopkins, J. W, W.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sandon, Lord

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Savery, S. S.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Jephcott, A. R.

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

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

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Skelton, A. N.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Knox Sir Alfred

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

    Curtis-Bennett. Sir Henry

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Leigh, sir John (Clapham)

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Lougher, L.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Drewe, C.

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Duckworth John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, S.)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Elveden, Viscount

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    England, Colonel A.

    McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Waddington, R.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Watson, at. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Wells, S. R.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Forrest, W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Meller, R. J.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Withers, John James

    Goff, Sir Park

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Womersley, W. J.

    Grant, J. A.

    Neville, R. J.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Nicholson, O (Westminster)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Oakley, T.

    Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

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

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

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 138 of Army Act.)
    In Section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to penal stoppages from the ordinary pay of soldiers), at the end of the proviso, there shall be added:
    (d) where a soldier has made an allotment from his ordinary pay for the support of any dependant, penal deductions from his ordinary pay shall be made only from the portion of his ordinary pay not so allotted. — [Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to move, "'That the Clause be read a Second time."
    On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) I move this Clause. I do not propose to offer any words in the way of explanation. I think that in any case where an allotment has been offered by the soldier to his family at home it is very necessary arid desirable that it should be carried out. I hope that on that ground alone the hon. and gallant Member in charge
    of the Bill will see his way to accept the Clause and that any reductions in pay that are made shall not be made from the allotment.
    Captain KING: I regret that we cannot accept this Clause. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) who has moved it that we have already, since this time last year, gone quite three-fourths of the way we are asked to go. At this time last year an allotment could cease altogether if a man was owing a debt which amounted to a period of three months' pay. We have now gone into that matter, and the soldier is already placed in a very much more favourable position than the civilian in ordinary life. The family of the civilian has to bear his mistake. I regret that it is impossible to accept this Clause.
    Question put,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 114 Noes, 260.

    Division No. 191.]

    AYES.

    [8.10 p.m.

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

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Smillie, Robert

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bromley, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T,

    Sutton. J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Clowes, S.

    Lee, F.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mac Neill-Weir, L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Murnin, H.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Owen, Major G.

    Whiteley, W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Gillett, George M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor, Walter

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Wright, W.

    Groves, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Mr. T, Henderson and Mr. Warne.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fielden, E. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Meller, R. J.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Forrest, W.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Galbraith, J. F, W.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Gates, Percy

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Murchison, C. K.

    Balniel, Lord

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Golf, Sir Park

    Neville, R. J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Oakley, .

    Bethel, A.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hen. William Clive

    Harland, A.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kint)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Preston, William

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Raine, W.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Burman, J. B.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hilton, Cecil

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Salmon. Major I.

    Cayzer, sir C (Chester, City)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Samuel, A. M (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Savery, S. S.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Clayton, G. C.

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

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Conway, Sir W, Martin

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cope, Major William

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

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Couper, J. B.

    Jephcott, A. R.

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

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

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lougher, L.

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Drewe, C.

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Duckworth, John

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

    Vaugnan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Waddington, R.

    Ellis, R. G.

    McLean, Major A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    England, Colonel A,

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Wells, S. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    1300

    1301

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

    Withers, John James

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Womersley, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Captain Bowyer.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L,

    It being after a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: I beg to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, rigorous measures should be taken to suppress toe revolutionary propaganda which is being carried on in Great Britain and the Empire, both amongst the civil population and the armed forces of the Crown, by organisations which have for their object the overthrow of the British Constitution."
  I am encouraged in the speech I purpose to make on the Resolution that stands in my name by the knowledge that it must receive, I will not say unanimity, but I think it will receive the support of the majority of the. Members of this House, irrespective of party. After all, when we were elected, and before any of us were permitted to undertake our Parliamentary duties, we all took the oath of allegiance, and to that oath I assume every one of us is held, and it is not our desire to depart from it to any extent whatsoever. There are few indeed who will pretend that there has not been a great rise in the propaganda of a subversive and seditious nature throughout this country. I propose this evening, in the first place, to show to what extent that propaganda is increasing and give, if the House will permit me, some idea as to the manner in which it is being propagated. After that I will offer considerable evidence to prove that the party opposite are by no means guiltless in helping this propaganda to dive deep into the body of our nation. Finally, I shall urge that the time has come for us to take more strenuous steps for the suppression of this evil, and if to-day the law be not sufficiently strong for that work, we should immediately with the utmost expedition of this House so strengthen that law that it may be fitted to deal with any emergency that can arise. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear! "] I am a little surprised at the
  1302
  sarcastic cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, it is no later than Friday last that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), speaking on the Economy Bill, made one or two pregnant observations. In the first of them he said, referring to the Communist party in this country:
  "They are using all their energy and all their power deliberately to break the Parliamentary method."
  Five minutes later he said:
  "I look upon Communism as a danger to the world."
  [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear!"] Those cheers seem a little more sincere, but I wonder if that will be the ease when I make my further quotations, showing as I can, that many hon. and right, hon. Gentlemen opposite who sit on the Labour benches have associated themselves with the Communist movement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said:
  "The Communists have really done the Labour movement a service by publishing their hysterical demands for a campaign of sedition and disaffection among the soldiers and sailor.… The whole Labour movement will be with us in disavowing any sympathy with this childish talk of violence and Mutiny."
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: In view of the fact that, those are words from one of the leaders of the Labour party, I wonder that there is not a little more cheering. I do not believe that any longer we think that this is a bogey. The matter has gone far beyond that. Nor can we accept the claim that this propaganda is upon precisely a parallel basis to the propaganda on behalf of any of the established political parties. I know that that plea which was put forward by one of the men who was condemned in a Communist case—Pollitt—but it was accepted neither by the jury nor by the Court. Communism is an entirely different thing. It is a branch of a world-wide revolutionary conspiratorial organisation, working deliberately to smash up any State which is not organised upon a Communistic basis.

  1303
  No one will agree with that more readily than the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), and I give him this credit, that he has always been open in his avowal of these principles, and that is more than can be said by some of those who breathe hot and cold in their sympathies with Communism. This propaganda is growing day by day and hour by hour—[An HON. MEMBER:"It is 'impropaganda'! "] I agree, and I hope the hon. Member will vote with me in the Lobby. I want to give the House one or two ideas as to the manner in which it is carried out. First of all, I would like to mention, in passing, the Proletarian Sunday schools. I am not going to speak of them at any length, but I have taken an opportunity of listening to one of them, and I can only say that to hear wee kiddies being taught to deride religion, to regard discipline as an evil, and to scoff at those whom in years to come they will have to serve, is one of the most pitiful things in our modern civilisation. I only hope the time is not far distant when we can so arrange our laws that these rotten institutions can be closed down. From them I go to the propaganda in the factories and in the workshops. Here, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will probably know far better than I do, the system is perfect. They have their great Communistic centres, and from these they form locals. From the locals, again, they start their factory organisations with their factory papers. To show the extent to which these meals are going ahead, I want to give just one quotation from one issue of the"Workers' Weekly "—that of last week. This kind of thing can be seen in every issue of the"Workers' Weekly":
  " NEW LOCALS.
  "Through the efforts of our Sheffield District Party Committee of the Communist party, a new group has been formed at New Edlington, near Doncaster.
  "Through the efforts of the Birmingham District Party Committee of the Communist party, a new group of the party has been formed at Nuneaton."
  That is two in one issue of the paper, and the addresses are given of the secretaries to whom those desirous of joining are to apply.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: One member in, each district!
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: There might be one member in each district if the whole of the evidence were not entirely to the contrary. There are at the present time 70 factory papers being issued—the hon. Member for North Battersea is nodding his head in confirmation, and he knows it is true—and 50,000 copies of these are being distributed, not one per man, but a few in each place, which are sent round and are read a hundred times over. It is not to be imagined for one minute that this is a small contribution to the propaganda of the Communist party. During the year 1925, they issued no fewer than 3,549,500 publications in this country. These are facts that I have got from a. source which hon. Members opposite positively cannot controvert. Let me show them one or two of these local papers—I have bundles of them here. I daresay hon. Members on the other side have all read them. Let me first take one that demands a recruiting campaign. It tells us the type of recruit that Communism wants. This is what it says:
  "A new member is not expected to know all the party policy or to be prepared to die on the barricades next week. Every worker who is ready to play a part in the class struggle should be encouraged to join the party, and he will be made into a Communist, by contact with the party and work in its organisations."
  I will now give a rather interesting quotation from one of these papers known as the"Empire Rebel," which has a circulation among the miners. [Laughter.] I am sure hon. Members know perfectly well that any amount of laughter is not likely to upset me in this House. My only regret is that they should treat a question of this sort, with which they are endeavouring to persuade the country the party to which they belong has nothing whatsoever to do, in a spirit of ribaldry. It would surely far better become them, in their position as leaders and Labour Members of this House, to pay a little attention to the seriousness and the merits of the question. This quotation from the,"Empire Rebel"refers to the efforts—successful efforts, we are grateful to think—that were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in what threatened to be a conflict in the railway world. It says this:
  "Above all, work inside the union to make this the last victory of Thomas. Show that at, the next annual general meeting the majority is the other way. By

  1305
  steady work inside your organisation, fight the Thomas policy in every branch by rallying and organising the militant elements."
  I do not know whether that has any influence upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Does it occur to them to think that this is a thing to laugh at? [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I think it is only fair to allow the hon. and gallant. Member to develop his argument.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it fair that the hon. aid gallant Member should charge us with reading papers which we have never seen?
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: I do not remember charging anyone with having read these papers. I am reading them; I am telling hon. Members that they exist—a fact which seems to be of no importance whatsoever to them. [HON. MEMBERS:"This is all new to us! "] If it is new to hon. Members, I am here to instruct them upon it, and I am glad to believe that they can be instructed on Communist matters. Here is a publication issued by the United Group of the Communist party entitled"The New Star," and it has attached to it this very interesting paragraph:
  "One of the eight members of the Executive Council of our party who have been arrested has been charged with preaching sedition. The typewritten sheet that contains the material complained of we have decided to attach and distribute with this issue of the New Star.' We ask you to read it and judge for yourself whether you think it is sedition, or, on the other hand, facts."
  The paper attached starts with this inscription:
  "To all workers in factories, mines, barracks, warships, and aeroplane depots,"
  and then it proceeds to the seditious statements upon which was founded the successful prosecution, of which we all know. There is one paragraph in it hat is certainly worthy of the notice of the House, and, if this is not something that is calculated to create class hatred, I do not know what is:
  "Remember! At Tonypandy, before the War, soldiers were used to break strikes, and workers were shot. At Featherstone, in Yorkshire, Asquith and Churchill sent troops against the miners on strike, and one was shot dead. Gunboats were used to help the scabs during the 1912 dock strike. In March and April last year British armed forces shot down hundreds of Indian mill
  1306
  strikers. Are the troops of to-day willing to be used against their own class like this? "
  [An HON. MEMBER"What is wrong with that? "] Hon. Members will find plenty in my speech to associate them with the Communists. Then we get this:
  " HOW YOU CAN HELP US.
  "If you know a soldier, sailor, or airman, write to him enclosing this."
  If this is not an attempt, deliberate and even open, to undermine the civil position in this country, I do not know what one can possibly term it. From that I want to turn to the attempts to influence the armed forces of the Crown. If we throw our minds back to what has happened in the case of the civil forces, it is gratifying to think that not even the Socialist Government which followed the Government that took action in the case of the police strike was prepared, in view of the danger that would have been created were a precedent set up, to alter the decision of the Government that had to deal with that strike. Let me say at once of all the armed forces of the Crown, that I am not to be made to believe that circumstances can be brought about whereby their loyalty to the Crown will be broken; but that is not the point. It is that it is a most unfair thing to place seditious matter before these men, perhaps straining at the loyalty of some who are feeling a, passing discomfort in the position they hold under the discipline of these forces. I do not propose to quote many examples, but it has been well established that this seditious movement is going on, and the reason of it is perfectly obvious. What is the good of having a great strike, a vast universal industrial smash, if you know that behind all still, to protect the rights of the civil population, there is a loyal and dependable Army, Navy, Air Force, and police? So these people have set about in a cunning and a devilish way to undermine that loyalty. I want to show just two examples. The first is one that appeared during the manœuvres of last year, and was distributed freely amongst the troops in an envelope, on the outside of which was written,"Joe Smart's 6d. special, late Paddock Message." I rather admire the ingenuity of the blackguard who did that. Inside we find a Communist leaflet entitled,"Are you blue or red?"Only a few paragraphs are

  1307
  worthy of notice, but they are good.
  The first is:
  "Why do you remain in the Territorials? Why are you sent for training each year? If you thought carefully about it, surely you would hesitate. Look at what is going on all around you. What are manœuvres? A lot of soldiers walking round in the rain with no coats on."
  The next paragraph is headed"Bloody Hell." We then learn:
  "The workers through their trade union movement have declared that they are opposed to the designs of the capitalist war-makers, and will have nothing to do with any future Imperialist war. We want you to do the same; take a similar definite stand."
  Is not that an attempt to draw men away from their oath to the Army or Navy?
  Finally:
  "Should soldiers be trade unionists? The officers and the Government say no. The workers say yes."
  If this is not a close association between the Communists who issue this and the party on that side, it ends up in this way:
  "John Wheatley, Labour M.P., has rightly said, If you obey the orders of your superiors, who are our class enemies, and allow yourselves to be used as blacklegs, and even murderers, victory will be for the brutal capitalists and defeat the lot of the workers. When the workers strike, fight with them and not against them.' "
  The next one, which is a leaflet thrown into Chelsea barracks four days ago in immense quantities, is the first deliberate incitement to mutiny that has appeared. They are making their case by progressive steps. They are not fools behind this movement, but merely rogues. This is to the men of His Majesty's forces:
  "You are workers in uniform. Your officers are bosses in uniform—"
  Referring to war:
  "You could put a stop to the whole damned show if you'd only set up your soldiers' and sailors' councils."
  He then refers to the possibility of strikes:
  "When that time arrives, remember that you are workers."
  Finally:
  "When your officers call for volunteers to break a strike of your brothers in industry, remember all your little grievances; how much money you have lost in pay stop ' and Royal Warrant '; how much C.B. and detention you have done."
  It is an appeal to the worst characters, if there be such:
  "As members of the working class, throw in your lot with the workers against your officers."
  That is deliberate incitement to mutiny. This leaflet, curiously enough, ends up also with a quotation from a Front-Bench member of that party:
  "The following appeal was repeated after George Lansbury, M.P., by 10,000 workers in the Albert Hall on Sunday, 7th March: We call upon all soldiers, sailors, and airmen to refuse under any circumstances to shoot down workers in Britain, and we call upon all working men not to join the capitalist Army or Navy."
  What is the responsibility of the party opposite? I think it ought to be brought home to them. I am not going to pretend for a second that a half or even a third of the Members on those benches have any truck whatsoever with the Communist policy of Russia or desire for a moment that we should have any parallel with the state of affairs in that country, but to say the least, they have been amazingly indiscreet. I want to make some apology here, that if I make a quotation of something that has been said by any hon. Member opposite who does not chance to be in the House, I shall be forgiven. Let me start with the Leader of the party. Does he come out of this with clean hands? Let us have a look at that. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Revolutions are as much in order against democratic majorities as against tyrannical kings."
  Then we get to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I need scarcely quote him. He is doing it daily. He said at Liverpool, on 21st November, 1925:
  "Maxton and I have come to Liverpool with one object, to add 5,000 or 6,000 to the number of rebels in this city."
  On 23rd September, 1923, he told an expectant world:
  "We have a revolution to get through."
  At a luncheon at the Mars Restaurant he said:
  "Until the working class learns that it is engaged in a class war, we shall make no progress."
  But though he does not claim to be an open Communist; he is just as open as the hon. Member for North Battersea, for in this House he made this amazing statement:

  1309
  "Those who have advocated the shooting' of upper class and middle class Germans have no right, no reason for objecting to the practice of bloodshed as a policy. If you are entitled to claim the right of shooting rich Germans, whose removal you think would help you, you have the right to advise the working classes to shed the blood of those who stand in the way of their prosperity."
  I am sorry to have a few more quotations. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) said on 13th September, 1925:
  "I would be prepared to shoot and kill, it necessary, in order to uphold the principle of government by the people."
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) hurls his quotations about. I have sheafs of them—
  "The Socialist movement is prepared to fight, and will fight, until we carry out the Socialist Republic, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet."
  The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) said:
  "I stand for the Bolshevist régime every time."
  The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) said at Plymouth on 3rd September, 1923:
  "I have deliberately been trying to spread discontent amongst our people."
  The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) said in June, 1923:
  "The Monarchy should be swept away." The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said:
  "I am a Republican and advocate Republicanism. When the social revolution conies we shall know what can be done with Kings, Presidents or anyone else. One day perhaps you will not have a King and Queen."
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) said:
  "I am prepared to arm the proletariat."
  Finally, the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) said:
  "If we are to make the common people free nod comfortable we shall have to pull down the wealthy and mighty."
  I want the House to appreciate this point, that it is not a matter of raising up those who are poor, but of dragging down those who are rich. When I read expressions like these—and I could have added to them one-hundred fold—I ask myself,"Is is possible that those hon. and right hon. Gentleman have had the audacity to stand at that Box, and to take the Oath of
  1310
  Allegiance?"If they have done so, I can only believe that there are different conceptions of the meaning of the word honour, and that the difference lies as poles apart between the conception on the benches opposite and that on these benches.
  They have made a great parade of turning out the Communists. Pious resolutions passed at packed party meetings at Liverpool and Scarborough cut no ice with the common-sense men in this country. The Communists deride them. They know that the Communists deride them. I like to know what the nation's enemies are doing. The Communist knows that if you publicly kick him out of the door, there is a welcome waiting for him down the, chimney and through the window. When you, in the heat of your passion, lose that common sense which controls some of your speeches in this House, you foment trouble and—
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to say that you"foment"anything? I understand that remarks are addressed to the Chair?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was wondering whether I was being accused of these crimes.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: I admit that it was a slight slip on my part. I will say that the Members of the party opposite are in the habit of fomenting trouble in the country in a. manner which is certainly a detriment to the country at large, whatever advantage it may be to our party at the polls. I say in all sincerity to hon. Members opposite,"we on this side would infinitely rather be able to believe that there are none of you associated with these people, and that you are really developing into a possible alternative Government, instead of being an incohate mass of men holding a variety of different views, some to the left, some to the right, none of which can aid in the better governance of our land."
  It is impossible for hon. Members to advocate revolution one minute and then to come here and tell us that they have nothing to do with it. I do not know whether they will believe me when I say that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is believed in America to be a Communist. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh! "] Yes. You must be

  1311
  judged by your associates. After hon. Members of the party opposite thought fit in this House to question the decision of an English jury in a case with which we are all familiar, the hon. Member for North Battersea, as a result of certain negotiations over which he had no control, found that he was unable to enter America. His case was defended over there by a number of members of the party opposite, and here is the comment in a leading article in the"Washington Post."
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to any action of the American Government?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member has yet gone beyond the Rules of Order.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: A leading article appeared in an important American newspaper, the"Washington Post." This is what it said:
  "With the exception of a few Communist sympathisers like Ben Riley and F. W. Pethiek-Lawrence, members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union have expressed approval of the action of the United States in excluding the Communist."
  The Communist in question was the hon. Member for North Battersea. I know that hon. Members opposite will get up and say,"How preposterous all this is. Everybody knows we are not in favour of Communism." Everybody does not know that. They probably interpret their own speeches in a very mild manner, but I am among the other 50,000,000 of poor, foolish people who interpret their speeches as pure sedition, and we want to protect our fellow men from that type of thing. I cannot for the life of me understand the attitude of mind which desires to treat this as a laughing matter, when their names are mixed up in it by reason of their close association with these types of persons.
  Now let me turn to the newspapers of the party opposite and their attitude towards class warfare and the Communist movement. I do not wish to mention any newspaper by name, but the chief daily newspaper of the Socialist party to-day has in almost every column—I am sure that I can say that without being accused of exaggeration—some attack upon the
  1312
  fairly comfortable or upon those who want things to remain as they are. It makes astonishingly dull reading, but it is not advancing the cause of peace as between man and man. One of the worst instances that I came across was an article by an hon. Member who sits on the benches opposite which appeared in a weekly newspaper run, I believe, by another hon. Member opposite. It was entitled the"Diamond Cross."
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Name the paper.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE:"Lansbury's Weekly." This particular Member had been one of those who attended the opening of Parliament, when we listened to the King's Speech. Apparently, the only thing that caught the eye of this writer was a diamond cross upon the person of one of the ladies who sat on the seats below. She proceeded to exploit the appearance of this dazzling jewel in an article attacking the particular class to which the lady belonged, and, what is much worse, made reference to certain matters in language which not only comes as a profound shock to the average English man or English woman, but at the same time develops a feeling of greed, which is very easy to exploit when you have a million of unemployed people as we have at the present time, and discontent with things as they are. In one of the paragraphs there appeared the names, in juxtaposition, of Lenin, Barrabas and Christ. That is not pleasant reading. That in a newspaper which might be helpful if it were dealing with Labour matters and not Communism!
  As a matter of fact, the party opposite treat Communism as the heart treats human vices. They condemn it in public, they cherish it in secret. They prosecute it but they dare not proceed with its prosecution. They throw it out, but they come back to it again as a dog returns to its vomit. They have not done a great service by their advocacy of friendship with Russia. Why is it, I ask myself, that they do not turn their attention to the prosperity of America. Would it not be a rather gracious thing that they should publicly receive and publicly issue the reports of the men who have been on a mission to America and Germany. I know in advance what their attitude will be. It will be said these men have been bought. They will

  1313
  go down to the country and stand on platforms knowing that they are wrong from beginning to end when they try to make out that the Soviet ship of State is a fine and well found and up-to-date vessel, with an enormous number of happy passengers, manned and officered by men working in happy communion one with the other with its holds bulging with the surplus goods of Russia which only await acceptance at the ports of countries which at present refuse to have anything to do with them. They know perfectly well that such a picture is a lying picture. The real picture is quite different. The Soviet ship of State is a noisome hulk, rotten from truck to keelson, with a starving and verminous crew, and officers who have been drawn from all the foul ghettos of Europe or the scum of all the international prisons.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such a reference to a friendly State?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I did not hear what the hon. and gallant Member said.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: I was not referring to a friendly State. That is my ease—
  Mr. RILEY: On a point of Order. Is it not the fact that in the King's Speech references were made to our friendly relations with Russia, and is it in order for an hon. Member to make the remarks which the hon. and gallant Member has just made?
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: Is it not the case that Russia has a representative in this country?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is so, undoubtedly. I did not hear what the remark of the hon. and gallant Member was, for I have only just come into the Chair.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Well, if he does not tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, and I will leave you to judge as to whether the hon. Member is in order. He said that Russia at the moment is governed by a verminous and cowardly crew.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If that was the remark, it is not in order to refer to a friendly Government in such a way.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: If I had made, that remark I should certainly have been out of order. I will repeat my words verbatim,—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The House will be able to judge by the OFFICIAL REPORT between a gallant and hon. Gentleman like the hon. Member and a Scottish Member like myself.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: The precise words I used were these: I said that the Soviet ship of State is a noisome hulk, rotten from truck to keelson, manned by a verminous and starving crew—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think such a reference to a Government, in friendly relations with this country, ought not to be made. The hon. and gallant Member will see that it is our duty in this House not to make a reference of that kind to a Government with whom we are in friendly relations.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. My remarks were to apply to the poor people of Russia.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That makes your offence worse.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: That is my case—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are running away from your own statement.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: I am not running away from anything. I say that this propaganda is going on ceaselessly throughout our land. They are getting at the children, they are permeating our industries and they are undermining the loyalty and the discipline of our armed forces. I have proved, I think, that the party opposite have not been guiltless in this matter. The position of the country to-day is far too pregnant with difficulties for us to raise bad feeling, and I have made these remarks, and given these extracts, in the hope that now we shall find members of the party opposite on our side. Surely we can appeal to them not to go on making the present discontent greater—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: We will make it worse.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: They know that out of increased discontent no hope for the future can arise. I know there are one or two hon. Members on the opposite side who do not take the view of the hon. Member who has been occasionally interrupting, and knowing that, and also the possibility of trouble, I think the second thing for which we might appeal is that the law should be strengthened. I have seen only to-day the copy of a measure which has been introduced into the Union Parliament of South Africa, and has passed its Second Reading by the Labour and Socialist Government, under which the law in regard to sedition has been made more stringent. I hope the Home Secretary, if he is to speak this evening, will be able to give us some assurance that he is watching matters. Meanwhile, I do not want my critics to think that I have approached this question in anything but a most serious mood. It is a big thing. It has gone altogether beyond the range of being a bogy, and the suggestion that if we leave it alone it will die out, and that if we attack it we are only advertising it and giving it strength, is as puerile as it is wrong. I regret nothing I have said. In view of what I have been able to show the House, I urge that we should take some steps to remove this canker from our midst, and so better the position of the people of this country.
  Major -General Sir A. KNOX: I desire to second the Motion which has been so eloquently proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. It is my firm belief that all these ideas from which the country is suffering at the moment come from the unfortunate country which used to be called Russia. Whether it is the Third International, or the Soviet Government, or the Soviet Union of Labour Internationals it all comes to the same thing. In 1921 they started here an organisation called the British Branch of the Red Union of Labour Internationals. The name was not very popular among our British workers, who, after all, are not internationalists in any sense, though their enemies try to make them so. They did not care for the name, and so in 1924 we found the name changed to the International Minority Movement. Practically the same organisation went on. That organisation has conferences about twice every year. They had a fourth conference the other day. Always the un-
  1316
  fortunate constituency of North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) is chosen, apparently, for the meetings. According to the reports there were 883 delegates, representing 950,000 wage-earners, attending the conference. Of course the 950,000 we need not pay any attention to, but I would like to ask from what source the 883 delegates got their travelling allowances. At £2 per head it would come to £1,700, which is a very considerable sum. Did that money come from some foreign agency or from the trade unions of this country?
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Each delegate was financed through his trade union branch.
  Sir A. KNOX: I thought that that was most probable.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: A political levy, I suppose?
  Sir A. KNOX: I would like to allude to some of the activities of the National Minority Movement outside the Conference. We all know of the unofficial strikes that have occurred. There was the strike of carpenters at Wembley. By whom was that led? By a Mr. Lovell, who was the secretary of the Communist organisation of Willesden. Then we come to the engineers' strike at Southampton, repeatedly addressed by Mr. Harry Pollitt. There was also the unofficial seamen's strike, which lasted so long last year. At the head and front of that were Mr. Tom Mann and Mr. George Hardy, also of the Minority Movement. Are these men doing any good by creeping about and stirring up disaffection between the classes? At the present time, when our country is going through a period of strain and stress, every man with any sense of responsibility, no matter to what party he belongs, tries to avoid any reference to the burning question of coal that will excite the susceptibilities and the passions of people. With one or two exceptions, that is done. But let me make a quotation from the"Workers' Weekly," which, I understand, is the official organ of the Communist party in this country. On 12th March it described the members of the Coal Commission as
  "a quartet of outstanding bourgeois exploiters,"

  1317
  and referred to their report as
  "this latest move of the capitalist offensive."
  " The Worker," the official organ of the National Minority Movement, on 20th March referred to
  "this infamous document,"
  and in the following number said,
  "Scrap the, Coal Report."
  That is not the frame of mind in which to approach the problem if it be desired to get any settlement, and I hope that we all want a settlement of this burning question. I am the first to acknowledge that there are members of the party opposite who have the courage to speak out openly against these machinations. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said as recently as 11th October last:
  "We must smash the Reds, or they will smash us."
  But, as the numerous quotations given by my hon. and gallant Friend have proved, not all hon. Members on the benches opposite have the courage or the conviction to speak out in the same uncertain voice as the right hon. Member for Derby. I want to ask the members of the Government to what extent a Government can stand this sort of thing, how long ought the Government to bear with open sedition in the country?
  I want to tell the House of three countries which have lately adopted the policy of the ostrich by hiding their heads and pretending to notice nothing, and I will point out what has been the result. It will be remembered that in 1916, at Faster, there was a rebellion in Ireland. In July, 1916, there was a Royal Commission of three Judges, which reported on the rebellion, and said that the prime cause of the rebellion was the way in which increasing lawlessness was allowed to go on without any check. Then I come to Russia. I happened to be out in Russia during the two revolutions. I vas there on the occasion of the first revolution on 12th March, 1917. I was in Petrograd on the occasion of the Bolshevik revolution and coup d'etat of 17th November, 1917. I think the case of Russia will always be an outstanding example of how poisonous propaganda can ruin a fine Army in a marvellously short space of time. On 1st January, 1917, the Russian Army in the Eastern theatre occupied 1,586 enemy battalions.
  1318
  The whole of the Allied forces in France occupied only 1,327 battalions on the same date. Russia was pulling more than her share.
  I know that the Russian Army was tired, but not more tired then than at the beginning of 1916. In 1915 it had gone through the terrible trials of the retreat from Poland. It would have come again, and, with all the facts at my fingers' ends, I say unhesitatingly that we would have ended the War in 1917. If that first revolution had produced one who was man enough to protect the Russian Army from pacifist Bolshevik propaganda, we would have fought through to victory before the end of 1917.
  I would like to allude briefly to one or two interviews that our Ambassador had, for I was called in to act as interpreter. As I have said, the first revolution was on 12th March. On 9th April Kerensky, who was the popular man in Russia, visited our Ambassador, and I was interpreter at the interview. We complained to Kerensky that a paper called the"Pravda"was attacking the Allies in a most disgraceful way. Kerensky replied that the"Pravda"had no influence, and that we need take no notice of it. We asked him about the Soviet. He replied:
  "It will die. We could destroy the Soviet to-morrow, but politically it is better to let it die itself."
  Then he got rather impatient with our various questions, and said:
  "You must allow that we are not children. We are grown up men with brains. We know Russia, and the course that we are taking is the only course that will lead us to the end that we desire."
  Then he pushed a request for the return of the political exiles, Trotsky and others, who were abroad. It was pointed out to him that these people would fight and work in Russia against the War. He said he believed in freedom of speech.
  The exiles returned, and the result was the downfall of Kerensky, and, what is far more important for the world, the downfall of Russia. A few days later the British Ambassador went to visit the Prime Minister, Prince Lvov, and read a paper which I had drawn up asking that for the sake of the Allies he should prevent any politician of whatever shade of opinion visiting the forces of the

  1319
  Crown. Our Ambassador read this out to Prince Lvov. He listened carefully, and in reply said:
  "You need not worry yourself. The Russian Army was never in better fighting trim than now, and is perfectly well able to take care of agitators."
  I knew myself at that time the Russian Army was not fit to fight at all. That was proved on the 1st July. Then on the 16th and 17th July, 1917, there was the first abortive rising of Bolshevik troops in Petrograd. Two units, roused by the fiery speeches of Trotski and Lunacharski, made a demonstration—not a demonstration of the kind we have here in Trafalgar Square, but a demonstration with machine guns which were dragged through the streets. A few people were killed, and the rest of the peaceful citizens trembled. Things were critical in Petrograd, No one knew how the troops were going to declare themselves, and there was no discipline. That rising was not put down by the Government. The Government had not the courage to act, but two subordinate officials in the Ministry of Justice had in their hands complete proof that the Bolshevik organisation was in receipt of funds from the German General Staff through Parvus and Ganitski and two others. They gave this information to the Press and the troops; the troops at that time proved loyal, and the situation was saved. In spite of all our representations, this rot went on in the army, and the second coup d'Etat took place on 7th November of the same year. That is the second instance.
  The third instance of where insidious propaganda had been going on and where a Government took no notice of it, is Italy. I happened to be travelling in Italy in 1920 when that country was on the verge of Bolshevism. The Government did nothing, but the people of Italy roused and saved the situation by their own unaided efforts. It is far better however that a Government should take action and not allow the people to do it. I look upon a Government as a trustee for the safety of the people. It is their duty to protect people against foreign aggression and against disorder in their own country. I am only a new politician, or perhaps I should say I am not a politi-
  1320
  cian yet, and never will be, but I am representative of the man in the street. I have given my vote for my Member of Parliament, and I look upon it as his duty to help to protect the people of the country from any disturbance. I do not worry myself; I go about my business and do my work and play my games and do as I like, looking to the Government to protect me. I ask the Government to-night if they think things are all right now and if it is not their duty to take further steps to protect this country from the insidious propaganda which my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover has so aptly described?
  I desire also to refer to a speech made by one who is a very great writer, and what is more a very great British patriot and Imperialist, namely, Mr. Rudyard Kipling. Some months ago, describing the condition of this country, he likened Great Britain to a ship and called it"His Majesty's Ship Britannia." He said this ship is moored between two continents and has the added disadvantage of suffering the foul weather of both. She is crowded from stem to stern with 45,000,000, including stowaways, many of whom are discontented while some are storm sick and some are ship stale, getting in each other's way and each telling the other how the ship ought to be run. He added that such is the faulty construction of the ship that she only carries at any one moment six weeks' supply of foodstuffs, and if by enemy action or the folly of the people on board the supplies should be cut off, the people on that ship will be reduced to cannibalism. That was his picture, and he went on to say that there is an enemy power trying to bring in a new kind of warfare, by trying to induce our own people to cut each other's throats—that being a cheaper and safer method of waging war than coming aboard the ship to do it themselves. I think that is a true picture of our condition. Is it not the duty of the Government to do everything they can to turn out the people of ill-will who preach the deadly doctrines I have indicated—those slaves of class consciousness who talk of nothing else and dream of nothing else but trying to spoil our British character? Surely it is not too late for the Government to take steps to save our country.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word"House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "the loyalty of the forces is beyond doubt, and proof against seditious attempts, and that all experience of the past has shown that the prosecution of opinion is useless and defeats its own ends, and that the stability of national institutions is best reserved, not by panic legislation or administrative violence, but by the progressive removal of grievances and injustices and the improvement of the lot a and the increase of the opportunities for the mass of the people."
  The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Burgoyne) was, I think, no surprise to the Home Secretary. In fact, I think the Home Secretary has been one of the angels in this case, and that the hon. and gallant Member has rushed in with a ready-made Motion handed to him by the Government Whips.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): That is perfectly untrue. I think I may say on behalf of the Government Whips, and certainly on my own behalf, that there is not one single word of truth in the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I naturally withdraw at once. I informed one of the Government Whips I was going to refer to the matter, and I do not think if is any disparagement to do so. Whips very often suggest certain Motions, and I understood a similar Motion to this was suggested by the Whips. However, if I have done any injustice, I withdraw unreservedly. I will await with interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to see how far he agrees with the Motion before the House and with the Amendment which I now move, because the Government in this matter undoubtedly does talk with two voices. I do not often praise the present Government, but there is a section of them who have a few traces of political sanity left, though I am sorry to say the Home Secretary is not in that camp. Although the accents we heard to-night were the accents of Esau, I think the hand of Jacob was not very far distant from the speech of the Mover of the Motion.
  Mr. MACQUSTEN: It was the voice of Jacob and the hand of Esau.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I purposely put it the other way round, and if the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) thinks it out, he will see the reason. This cry of Communist propaganda is very convenient for the Conservative party. It is the one political cry by means of which they hope to divert attention from their political bankruptcy. Making this a political cry will not do much harm in this country, but it does harm to British credit and reputation abroad. Speeches of the kind to which we have listened are used for the repression of British credit in foreign markets. There are people ill other countries, otherwise well informed, who owing to this artificial alarmist agitation, think we are on the verge of a revolution. Everyone knows that the institutions of this country have never been more stable and that we have never been further from a revolution than at the present time.
  The Mover talked about undermining the discipline and loyalty of the armed forces. That is an insult to the Army and Navy. The Army and Navy have shown no signs whatever of being affected in any way by leaflets of the sort he has quoted. I do not pretend to answer very much for the Army, although hon. Gentlemen who served as private soldiers in the Army have added their names to mine in support of this Amendment, but I do claim to know something about the British bluejacket because the greater part of my time in the Service was spent in small ships, and I was thrown in much closer association with my men than is the Army officer unless he be in the front line. I know the sort of men we have to lick into shape, the"Nobby Clarkes," the"Dusty Millers," the"Spud Murphys"and all the rest of them. Very few of them are what would be known as active politicians; they have the politics of the families they come from. All three parties are represented. The sort of agitation that is carried on in attempts to subvert them will be absolutely futile as long as they have no real grievance.
  Although we went though trying times in the War when other Navies mutinied, the last great mutiny was the Mutiny of the Nore. Although at that time the party in power attempted to saddle their opponents with it, the historian admits

  1323
  that political agitation had nothing to do with it. They had certain grievances and they were war weary, but neither political agitation nor the Jacobinism of that day had anything to do with it. We went through the War in the Navy with only a few disorders in a few ships, but with nothing in the nature of a political mutiny. In fact, the word"mutiny"could be wiped out of the Navy vocabulary for the last 50 years. I would remind hon. Members opposite that there was a time when to sing the"Marseillaise"meant transportation. At the time of the French Revolution, the forerunners of the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury and more prominent people, were frightened to death of Jacobinism and afraid of a sudden uprising in England.
  What happened during the War? We went through that time without any serious disorders at all. Other navies in the war did mutiny, and the most serious case of all was not that of the Russian Navy. The hon. Member who seconded spoke a good deal about Russia, and talked about German money passing into Russian hands. I thought he was going to tell us about the monk Rasputin. The German navy had a very bad mutiny in 1917, and another just before the Armistice when they refused to go to sea at all. When they surrendered the German ships were in the hands of"Sailors' Councils"and the officers had to be very careful what they did. Before the War the German discipline was much stiffer and harder than ours. The same thing applied to the whole Prussian system. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are badgering the Government and spurring on the willing steed, the Home Secretary, to more vigorous measures. Do they think they will he able to set up a system of repression in this country as efficient as the Prussian system, or a system of political tyranny as ruthless as the Tsarist system? Yet both systems came crashing to ruins, and there is a democratic republic in one country and a Socialist Republic in the other. The whole system of Prussian political organisation was such that no one could get any post unless he supported the Junker party. The Conservative party of this country has not the nerve to put into force such a system. They have not the nerve to be as politically ruthless as
  1324
  the Tsarist Government. Yet those, two Governments could not stand the strain of the War and, in the case of Russia, of partial defeat, and, in the case of Germany, of complete defeat. Both those systems came crashing down.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Just like the Liberal party.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Liberal party has a great deal to be proud of. The Liberal party has earned the gratitude of this country by its fight for the free institutions of this country, by its fight for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. It was that which enabled us to go through the very great strain of the War and of the years afterwards, the troubled years of unemployment, without any serious disorders in this country at all. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion read out copious extracts. He revelled in their strong language. He seemed to thoroughly enjoy quoting some of the swear words that appeared in those documents. He told us that there were 17 weekly papers. The hon. Member for North Battersea. (Mr. Saklatvala) said that there were 700 of those papers. We heard a tremendous lot about the thousands of pounds—I suppose in gold roubles—that have been poured into the coffers of the Communist party from abroad. I have not heard of them being received over the counter of any public house, but I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite believe this tale. What is the effect of it all? Has there been one case of a soldier or sailor refusing to do his duty on account of this propaganda? Can the present trouble in the engineering trade be traced to these efforts? Can the threatened trouble in the mining industry, and the trouble we recently escaped in the railway industry, be really seriously saddled on all this agitation? [HON. MEMBERS"Yes! "] What absolute nonsense this is. Can the strikes before the War be traced to the same source? [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to hear the other side of the case.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They see he is alone, and they take advantage of it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) does not give a fair chance of both sides being heard by his interruptions.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I marvel at this country when I look at the condition of the people. When I go into my own constituency, into the worst quarters of the working-class districts there, I wonder at their extraordinary patience. There, in Hull, we have been suffering from the most terrible depression in shipping and fishing and in the coal export trade. We have had 10,000 unemployed for years. The housing conditions in the worst part of my constituency are beyond belief. Yet the Communists are a mere handful, and do not matter a row of pins. The people work hard when they get work, and are only too glad to get it. They are most patient and most loyal, and my only trouble with them is that, even now, so many of them will vote Conservative. It is a sort of hereditary political madness. The action which has already been taken against Communists has only strengthened and advertised them. As to the Communists who are endeavouring to work their way into the trade unions, I know that the non-Communist trade union leaders do not welcome the efforts of the Home Secretary. Those efforts do not help their position at all. We are a politically grown-up people. We had our revolution at the time of the Commonwealth. We will not find it necessary to have another revolution at all, unless muttonheaded people are able to frighten sufficient old women of both sexes and to stampede the Home Secretary into the sort of Measures asked for by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution.
  That is the only danger in this country. We have a law that can be applied and that can deal with real incitements to violence or with actual violence. The law is there, and the police are absolutely loyal. No suggestion can surely be made that this propaganda has had any effect upon the police. [An HON. MEMBER:"What about the police strike? "] How many years ago was that? The Army is absolutely loyal, from all that I can hear; I know the Navy is; and I am sure the Air Force, the youngest force, is just as loyal as the other two. If only we will show a little statesmanlike sanity in this matter, and not allow the temptation of possibly good political propaganda, from the Conservative point of view, to make us forget the history and the experience of the past, we will win through our pre-
  1326
  sent trouble. One may be in doubt about that if the present Government goes on much longer, but one can always hope for the best, and we can, at any rate, change the Government without violence. The British people are absolutely sound, law-abiding, sensible, and most patient. The common law can be enforced, and, I believe, is all sufficient for the purposes required. We are a free people, and after the very trying and testing years through which we have gone, in spite of this panic-inspired movement that has been started by what is, I believe, even now a minority of the Conservative party and a small portion of the Conservative organisation, unless those panic-stricken people get control of the machinery of government, which I do not think they will do, there is no danger whatever.
  The policy to follow is to try and remove the just grievances that do exist, to open the doors of opportunity wider for the people. The trade unionists who-have returned from America recently have been quoted. One of them was a constituent of mine, and I had the pleasure of talking to him yesterday. One thing he will talk about presently, when he gets back to Hull, is the fact that in America a man has a chance absolutely according to his merits. Nobody in the American business houses asks at what school a man was educated, from what university he came, whether he is a cousin of So-and-so, or from what family he comes. There is equality of opportunity there, and the business people there do not take days off in the middle of the week to play golf and then come and grouse at their workmen for idling. They all work there, from the top to the bottom, and I am sure that the lessons those men who have recently returned from America will bring back are not quite what the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury would expect. If they were capable of blushing, I think they would make some Members of his order blush very deeply, if they ever heard them. My objection to the Motion and my constructive alternative to it are contained in the Amendment on the Paper, which I now move.
  Mr. FENBY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am sometimes amazed at the subjects upon which the time of this House is very often wasted. We have heard to-

  1327
  night a good deal about the word"propaganda," but I think we should apply it to the other side of the House, so far as the besmirching of the party above the Gangway and the belittling of the party which sits below the Gangway on this side in part are concerned. When hon. Members opposite talk about the nightmare of which we have had abundant evidence to-night, they forget the real character of an Englishman. We have had comparisons made to-night by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion as to what happened in the Russian Army, with what might happen here, but does any hon. Member in this House think that what happened in the Russian Army could happen in the British Army? As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has pointed out, we have heard about fears concerning the contamination of the forces in the Navy and the Army, but I know sufficient of the men, although I have not been in either Service, in both branches of the Service to prevent me having any fear whatever of them being at all intimidated, frightened, or misled by any of the propaganda that has been referred to.
  With regard to the propaganda mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion, let me say that I have no sympathy with it whatever. I want to say that quite frankly and sincerely, and, with regard to a suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull, I do not always agree with the Home Secretary, and, if he will allow me to say so with all respect, I sometimes think he is a better Home Secretary when he does not speak than when he does, but I should never associate him at this particularly critical time with a Resolution of this kind, because if there is a time upon which a subject of this kind ought not to be treated in the lighthearted and irresponsible fashion in which we have had it treated from the other side to-night, this is that time. If I understand anything about history, the way to prevent revolution is to reform abuses, and the responsibility for the reforming of abuses, for the granting of greater opportunities, and for the improvement of the lot of the individual worker, and of the man in the Navy and the Army, is neither upon those who sit
  1328
  on the benches above the Gangway nor upon those below the Gangway on this side of the House; the responsibility is upon the other side of the House.
  When I listen to hon. and right hon. Members talking about the influence of Communism among the working classes, I am amazed at the many things they forget. My hon. and gallant Friend talked about the housing conditions in his constituency. I can talk about the housing conditions in mine. One hon. Member opposite rather attempted to make us nervous because we have only six weeks' food supply in this country, but whose fault is that? It is certainly not the fault of the workers of this country. I could take hon. Members to a farm in England to-day of more than a score or even a hundred acres of good arable land, upon which neither a plough nor a spade is being used to-day. I could take them to an official whose business it was to inspect the condition of certain agricultural land not so long ago, and who drew the attention of the tenant to the very filthy condition of a field and to the fact that nothing but weeds was growing in that field. The tenant replied:"I have only been here a few years, and I have never touched it." When hon. Members opposite talk about the food supply of this country, let them not talk about it being necessarily kept at six weeks' supply, but let them press their Government to bring in some legislation to give the people an opportunity to till the land of this country.
  You can walk about the City of London. I did that last night, and what did I find? I found men working on all the great services that every citizen of London and every visitor to London has made available for him by very disagreeable tasks that no hon. Members would like to do, but that the workers of this country do for us, at not too high wages, and so long as we have these duties carried out for our comfort and convenience by men who do it without grumbling, and, who even do the disagreeable work cheerfully, I am not afraid of any of the Communistic doctrine or propaganda interfering with the loyalty of the men in the Navy or Army or ordinary workers up and down in the factories, lanes, or fields of the country, or in the sewers that are under the great municipalities. I think that if there is' anything which puts on a lower level the character, the intelligence, the

  1329
  probity, and the sound constitutionalism which the great majority of the British working men always exhibit, it is a Motion of this kind, brought forward by Members opposite in a semi-serious fashion, and asking the House to consider and walk into the aye Lobby to support.
  I have not always agreed with the Home Secretary in some of the things he has said and some of the things he has done while he has been Home Secretary, but I have confidence in the Home Secretary and the Home Office in this respect, that the right hon. Gentleman has too much commonsense to be led away by the twaddle to which he has been compelled to listen to-night in support of the Motion. I believe if the present Home Secretary had had his way, he would have deprecated the bringing forward of this Resolution at the present moment. We read in newspapers, and hear speeches, that everything is all right as far as the critical conditions in a certain industry is concerned. I am afraid those who know the least about that industry are the people who are the most optimistic about what may happen at the end of 10 days.
  I entirely agree with the constitutional terms of the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved. Did ever any attempt at repression, such as the transportation of men who attempted 100 or so years ago to combine in order to protect their wage and livelihood, in any way help the progress of this country at that time? Certainly it did not. Is it not a fact that history has always proved that any Government or any country that excels in repression is not for long either prosperous or progressive? If you are to have a country opening the door wider for freedom to the men who want to help themselves, and in helping themselves help their country, this is the country, and the party to which the hon. and gallant Member and myself belong is not going to hide its head under any shade whatever as far as the past of the party is concerned in making the bounds of freedom wider yet. But—and I say this with no taint of disrespect—when you are talking about interfering with the armed Forces of the Crown, it will not do for Members on the other side to go too far back into our national history. There is a proverb which says, Let sleeping dogs
  1330
  lie." Some people put it the other -way and say,"Let lying dogs sleep."
  I do not think the interests of our national institutions, the interests of the great mass of the peaceful workers of this country, who only want the opportunity to earn an honest living and do an honest day's work, are helped in any way by the terms of the Motion to-night, and still less by the speech and the spirit of the speech in which the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne) moved the Motion. While I have no sympathy whatever with the propaganda which may be going on here, there and yonder, for which the Communists or any other unconstitutional organisation may be responsible, I would say that, personally, I know something both about political prosecution and persecution, and what I have had to stiffer in that respect from autocrats and people who hold opinions which Gentlemen opposite have hinted at. My vote will go for the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend that there shall be no aggressive repression, that there shall be a reasonable and free opportunity for a full expression of opinion, relying through all the troubles we may have to face in the future, as we have been able to do in the past, without being let down, upon the common sense, honesty and good will of the great majority of the men and women of this good old country.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I did not realise at first, as I realise now, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member was one of common form, which had been handed round, possibly for some considerable time, among hon. Members to be moved according to the fortune of the ballot. I thought it represented the really spontaneous feeling of the hon. and gallant Member, produced by some specific act of lawlessness. We now know it is merely a piece of the ordinary political armoury—a somewhat tarnished piece of armoury—which has been produced to fill up an idle evening. Notwithstanding that fact, the harm which may be done by a Motion such as this, if taken seriously, is quite considerable.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE: It is my own Resolution.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I understand that a similar Resolution has been in contemplation for some time, but whether

  1331
  it is the same Resolution or not, the fact is the harm that it can do is very considerable. It is really a reflection—I think an undeserved reflection—on the capacity of the Home Secretary. The suggestion of this Resolution, if it means anything, is that the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the very competent officials and authorities who assist them in their work, need stiffening up in some way in regard to the inactivity or activity which they pursue. Therefore, I think the Home Secretary can regard this Resolution, if it means anything at all, as a vote of censure on himself. What are the facts of the case?
  The Home Secretary has, we may assume, in his possession far more information about this alleged Bolshevik danger than the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne). The Attorney-General is far more competent to decide whether a particular prosecution should be entered upon than is the hon. and gallant Member. These right hon. Gentlemen, in their wisdom, have not seen fit since they took action in a certain case—the merits or demerits of which I do not propose to discuss to-night—to take any further action. When the Home Secretary does take such action, no doubt he will be criticised by some people—possibly correctly or incorrectly—but I am quite sure that he will be able to justify himself. But what the. House may fairly object to is that the hand of the Home Office should be forced by the hon. and gallant Member or by any Member merely on the ground of certain tittle-tattle of a species which is several years old and which has no direct reference to anything which is happening at the present time.
  There is another objection to the sort of attitude which the hon. and gallant Member is taking. There is nothing more important, when the Attorney-General has to decide whether he will embark on a particular prosecution or not, than that he should be free in that matter and that he should not be fettered by any opinion of any hon. Gentleman as expressed in this House. Surely the hon. and gallant Member has sufficient confidence in his own leaders to let them decide whether there is a Bolshevik peril, and how they
  1332
  should act. If the hon. and gallant Member says:"I do riot complain of any administrative act here, but I do say that the law should be strengthened," meaning, I suppose that the Government are at fault because they have not introduced further legislation to deal with this terrible matter, then again I would point out that, as most persons who are familiar with this subject know, the present common law of this country dealing with sedition is amply sufficient for any case which may need correction in any Court of Law, and this really does resolve itself into a mere idle clamour on the part of the hon. and gallant Member. I hesitate to think that the hon. and gallant Member has moved this Resolution for political purposes. I am sure that he is only actuated by a sense of the public good, and I am endeavouring to point out to him that, so far from promoting the public good by raising these scares and agitations, he is really doing a very considerable public disservice. What is really the situation today? We have a population, much which unfortunately is very poor, many people are unemployed, but a population which I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree never was more peaceably disposed, never was more loyal, never was more quite satisfied with constitutional Government. than the people of this country at the present time.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE Sir A. BURGOYNE indicated dissent.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir H. SLESSER: The hon. and gallant Member shakes head. He relies on the facts in leaflets thrown over the wall of Chelsea Barracks. But, seriously, is he really prepared to make an accusation against any considerable body of people in this country that to-day they are not a loyal, law-abiding people? I am sure the great majority of his colleagues would disagree with him if he said anything to the contrary. Let us get at the realities of the situation, and let us not indulge in these scares so largely manufactured. The people of this country are law-abiding, and they are able to use constitutional methods as a means of obtaining any redress which they may legitimately seek against the social injustices which at present exist. On the hon. Member's own admission, these Communists of whom he speaks have been at work in this country for three or four

  1333
  years. He gave us statistics and spoke about all kinds of propaganda of the most wonderful and cunning knaves who climb in through windows and chimneys when they cannot get in through doors, and who go about with dark lanterns and Heaven knows what. What has been the result It may be accident, but there were far more industrial disturbances in this country before Bolshevism and Communism ever occurred than there are at present.
  If we have had important crises in various industries—which I do not propose to discuss at present—there has been no indication at all of any real tendency to lawlessness or impropriety on the part of any substantial section of the community. There may be a little disturbance here, and there may be a little disturbance there at intervals of several years, but, taking the bulk of the population of this country, it is obvious that the whole of this propaganda, this talk of incitement to revolution, has utterly failed, and that it has been going on, on the hon. and gallant Member's own admission for a considerable time without the. slightest result. The reason why it has been a failure is because the only way in which this propaganda might happen to be successful would be if it were taken seriously and if it were advertised by the hon. Member and his colleagues. If these people were the sort of people which the hon. and gallant Member described, if they liked to be talked about, and to have their little bodies multiplied a thousandfold, what better instrument could they find for advertisement and for bringing their message home to everybody than the eloquent words of the hon. and gallant Member? As a result of this Motion the sentiments of these people will be multiplied in all the newspapers. We have had a rest from the Communist peril, but the news papers will once more be talking about it, thanks to this Motion. But there will be no more peril than there was before, but what there will be, thanks to the hon. Member and his friends, is an advertisement of these very people which may result in an accession to their number.
  I want to go a little further. The hon. and gallant Member and his friends in
  1334
  this matter do not come into this House with clean hands. There is only one party in this House which has ever succeeded in subverting the loyalty of the forces of the Crown, and that is the Conservative party. The Communist party may or may not have attempted this, but the only people who have brought it to success and fruition are the members of the party opposite. I do not care to mention these things, but when we are attacked we are entitled to reply, and the incidence which occurred in 1914 at the Curragh Camp and elsewhere clearly proves that the only party in this country which has succeeded in tampering with the Forces of the Crown is the party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs. What can we think of the Conservative party, which has such a had record and which has disregarded the law in the past, when its members come here and sign psalms about constitutional propriety? Another matter—the Conservative party are very largely mixed up today with an organisation which, whether it be lawless or not, is at any rate favourable to a system of government opposed to Parliamentary government. If Fascism means anything, it is a system opposed to Parliamentary government, and if the British Fascisti are anything, they are a group opposed to Parliamentary government and many hon. Members opposite belong to that seditious group. [HON. MEMBERS:"Name! "] Are hon. Members suggesting that they do not belong to any Fascist organisation?
  Mr. B. PETO: Has the hon. and learned Member any right to make an accusation of that kind without substantiating it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are entitled to ask for the name. I cannot go any further than that.
  Mr. DIXEY: Surely if an accusation be made like that by an hon. and learned Member on the Front Bench, we are entitled to some explanation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have allowed the question to be put.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I was going on to say that I am perfectly willing to ease the situation by saying that there are large numbers of the Fascisti which belong to the Conservative party. [Inter-

  1335
  ruption.] I am not going to withdraw the statement at all. I do not pretend to have ascertained the exact influence of hon. Members opposite. I am very glad to have the admission of the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) that he agrees with me that the Fascisti are a lawless and possibly dangerous organisation. May I point out, further, that the Labour party had specifically excluded the Communists, whereas the hon. Members opposite have not taken action through the Primroses lodges, or wherever they carry on their business, to exclude the Fascist;?
  Therefore, if there be any unlawful relations between the two parties, the Conservative party are in the very worst position to talk about the constitution. While the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury in his Motion has not explained to us—possibly wisely—in what way he wants the law strengthened and altered by the Home Secretary, with whose inactivity most of us are quite satisfied, he has done a thing—I think most unfortunately—which is doing the very thing he desires to fight. We must assume of you, and you of us, that we both do believe in constitutional methods of Parliamentary government. It is impossible to conduct Parliamentary government in this country unless we give each other a certain competence in believing that we really do one and all intend to alter the law only by means of Act of Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury may snatch at some particular quotation of one of my hon. Friends and I may snatch a particular quotation from a speech of his, but surely, taking the thing as a whole, if he wishes to promote Parliamentary government, it is much better that this sort Of game should stop.
  I believe it is true that this Government is being corroded by the influence of trusts, and he thinks we are trying to corrode and corrupt him by transferring wealth to guilds and states. The sort of suggestion that one party is constitutional and the other is not, is quite opposed to the idea that they are the Government and we are the Opposition. May I point out, finally, that the hon. and gallant Member cannot point to any way by which the Labour Government in office allowed the prestige of this country to suffer in any way. If we allowed these
  1336

  things to happen, I could understand the hon. and gallant Member making these points, but in the matters of constitutional propriety of every kind the Labour party behaved like any other party. That is not a fair way of dealing with us. Our economic and political views may be right or may be wrong, but there are as many good constitutionalists on this side of the House as on that. In Russia, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) referred, there never was been parliamentary government at any time. I think he will agree with me as to that.
  In every case in Europe where Parliamentary government has been overthrown, it has always been overthrown by reactionary Conservatives—in Italy and Spain and Bulgaria—in every case it was the Conservatives and the Fascisti. There is not a single case where Socialists or Labour have overthrown a Government, with the exception of Russia. It is true that there is nothing more necessarily inherent in the Conservative principles than the Labour principle which protects constitutions. The hon. and gallant Member has shown in the past, and some members of the Cabinet have shown, that they were perfectly prepared to alter the Constitution when it served their purpose. As regards this Motion, let us have sufficient confidence in the Home Secretary to believe that he is doing what is necessary, and also sufficient confidence in the law of this country to believe that the law of sedition is sufficient, to protect us against any dangers.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: In the very short time at my disposal I shall try to review the position from an independent point of view. I would beg the House on both sides, from my right hon. and hon. colleagues on the Labour Benches as well as the Members opposite, not to misunderstand or misconstrue my words in any partisan spirit. I agree that the time has arrived, and definitely arrived, when the legal position of this country in regard to propaganda and in regard to sedition as it is known in the language of the old world, in regard to what you call subversive propaganda, must be all redefined and reconstructed in the light of the growing consciousness of the proletarian masses in this country and all

  1337
  over the world. I do not take it as a light matter that the laws of 1797 and laws enacted 20 and 50 years ago are sufficient.
  I also desire to point out that the alterations of these laws does not always mean an act of official vindictiveness or desperation on the part of the apostles and upholders of the old school of thought. I rather want to place frankly before this House the position which I, as a humble member of the Communist party, seek to establish. There is no doubt that what the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Resolution has said in moving it requires some consideration. There are these factory papers. The propaganda used to be carried out in the labour world and the labour organisations before the Russian Government was formed. The Minority Movement is there. Propaganda and messages through Communist newspapers or filbert Hall or Queen's Hall meetings, or hints at Independent Labour party meetings are facts. I at once admit that Communists are not infallible, and they may make mistakes. Sometimes they may do things in a clumsy and hasty way, but these are only human and individual elements. The fact remains that the ideal of the soldier has undergone a great modification since the termination of the. War, not because of anything that happened in the War, but because of the last Russian revolution.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has moved an Amendment which I am sorry to say I fail to understand as being relevant to the real issue. It is a general pious expression of opinion and a. line of conduct similar to that which we understand when people grumble you have to bribe them and give them a little. If that is so, we shall grumble all the more. When there is a definite struggle marked out and a definite issue laid down that the workers of Great Britain are out to take possession of the means of production, distribution and exchange; that the nation is entitled to take entire possession of the land and houses of the nation, that programme being there and rubbed into the minds of the workers and the soldiers and the soldiers' families, there is no escape from it but for the proletariat of this country to march up to it, or for the capitalists of this country
  1338
  to beat them back. Whether 'you take notice of it or give advertisement to it, or whether the last prosecution gave undue advertisement to it or not, makes no difference, because that is not a serious way of considering a serious position which is becoming a world position. The hearts and minds of people are being educated. I myself am the child of the British Labour party. [Interruption.] I am the product of the teachings of the British trade unions. I am a member of the Communist party because, rightly or wrongly, it honestly appeals to me to be pointing the way through which the objects laid down by the Labour party are to be achieved. I may be wrong, but that is my perfectly honest conviction.
  I was a member of the Independent Labour party for several years, and the Independent Labour party sings a hymn to-day entitled"England, arise!"It is considered to be a constitutionalist hymn, and at Sunday schools, Independent Labour party meetings, Labour party meetings, socials and concerts, they all sing that hymn. It was not composed in Moscow; it was composed, perhaps, one or two generations before the Russian Revolution. I have learned the lines:
  "Workers, on your face a web of lies is woven;
  All your laws are false."
  If I learned that day and night within the Labour movement, does the Home Secretary expect me to pay respect and unqualified obedience to capitalist-made laws which the Independent Labour party and the Labour party have taught me to believe are all false? That is the position. I was taught that, on the first day of the first session of the Trade Union Congress which took place in Birmingham in 1868, it was resolved that the Trade Union Congress was brought into existence for the purpose of organising the workers of this country in order that they may take possession of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I want to know how and when I am to take possession of the means of production, distribution and exchange. [Interruption.] I am told that I am a member of the dispossessed class, bereft of everything; that my class opponents have acquired all means of production as well as all accumulated wealth produced by the workers in the

  1339
  past. Now I am quietly told that I, the dispossessed one, must wait till I am strong enough to buy out everything from those who have monopolised the whole wealth. When I hear of such processes, I naturally disbelieve in their feasibility, and I say:"No; my idea of taking possession of the means of production is simply to take it." [Interruption.] That is my view, and when I read the Conservative newspapers—[Interruption ]—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member who is speaking represents a distinct point of view not yet heard in the Debate, and I think it is only fair that the House should hear it.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: When I read in the Conservative papers, and even in the Liberal papers, that the workers must first learn the art of obedience to law and order, that the O.M.S. will be organised, that special constables will be appointed, that Fascists are the patriots of this land, I do take it that that is also a serious fact which must be borne in mind by thoughtful persons, and then I come to the conclusion—I know that my respected leaders in the Labour movement do not agree with that conclusion—that in this wicked world I must, as a trade unionist, form my own defence corps. I take it for granted that what are known as constitutional rights, privileges and practice have all arisen out of a. system of habit of thought which openly sanctions the possession of the few possessors, and it has been traditional, up to the point of the Russian revolution, that the duty of the Army, the duty of the machinery of law, the duty of legislation is all to give sanction and back up and fortify the possession of the individual possessors who have acquired things not by producing them but by illegal process. When that happens, I naturally consider what is going to happen to me when I sincerely, faithfully and honestly strive to do what the Labour party has taught me to do, namely, to go and take possession of the means of production. There are guns, there are rifles, there are revolvers, there are aeroplanes, there are bombs. I cannot, with my fists or my hands or by speeches or by propaganda, stand against those bullets and those bombs. Then I consider, quite naturally, that I and the
  1340
  80 per cent. of the population of this country who represent the working classes are entitled to safety. I then come to the conclusion that my safety is not to arm and fight them, because I cannot arm. My safety is to go to the people who are armed and tell them,"Do not shoot me. I am your friend. You are our friends. Your families and my family suffer from the same injury. Your families and my family are all out to follow the teachings of the Labour party, to take possession of the means of production and distribution, and on that occasion, when I engage in that revolutionary performance, I want you not to shoot me."
  I seriously put it to the other side that they should remember there is one great difference between this country and others where there is the law of conscription. Where there is conscription the need of propaganda within the Army is not so justifiable and not so necessary, for this simple reason, that every lad who goes to a Socialist school, every lad who goes to Labour party functions, takes the lessons to heart, and in course of time they are all bound to be within the Army. In this country, where. there is no conscription, and where young boys are lifted away from certain spheres of life which are purely created by economic misfortune, our only hope of teaching peace, and Christian doctrines, and Socialist doctrines, to human beings is to appeal to the men who are actually armed and say,"Thou shalt not."
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) has issued a peace letter. I am determined to work for him, but should I confine myself to going to women, to aged persons and to persons of known proclivities of an anti-militarist character and say to them,"You sign this peace letter "? No, my greater effort, and my more earnest effort, and my more sincere effort, should be directed to going to the men who are armed and wean them away from their trade, and to point out to them a new phase of life. A reference has been made to the Albert Hall meeting. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Resolution read the pledge that was taken at that meeting. The action of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on that occasion was described by the Home Secretary as melodramatic.

  1341
  Be it so. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the 8,000 persons who were there could not all be described as melodramatic.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Hear, hear!
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Some of them would be quite sincere and earnest.
  Sir W. JOYNSON- HICKS: Hear, hear!
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Out of the seven or eight thousand people a few hundreds were bound to be closely related to the soldiers and the naval boys. They are bound to convey the message to them, and the Home Secretary, our Home Secretary, is bound to consider the situation. He has two alternatives in front of him. He has to take the view, on the one hand, of the Mover of the Resolution, to stop it all, to build a new wing to Wandsworth Prison, to enlarge all the prisons and lock these people up continuously. I can assure the Home Secretary and those who support that idea that there will not be land enough on which to build the prisons, because the British citizen will go to prison rather than surrender his feelings.
  There is the other view, namely, to analyse what is happening, and what hon. Members opposite call sedition!in the Army and what they call mutiny. One hon. Member has told us that he has faith in the loyalty of the Army. The Communist propaganda, the Socialist propaganda, the effect of the teaching of trade unionism in this country is not aiming merely at disaffection in the Army with a view to raising a wanton mutiny or to replace one thing by another thing. The issue is perfectly clear. The propaganda in the Army is not for a mutiny to-day or to-morrow, but it is to prepare for the coming Socialist revolution for which everybody is working. I will read a paragraph from a speech of the Leader of the Opposition. It is excellent sentiment. Speaking at Cambridge last Saturday, he said:
  "The House is doing mere work at the present moment. I do not like demonstrations, wildness, and shows of any kind. I am one of those quiet sort of people, one of those coral insects which build and build and build and nobody seems to know that they are doing it, but ore day, lo and behold, the work they have done comes up out of
  1342
  the water, and everybody knows, without talking, without boasting, without highfalutin' language, that the work has been done. That is what we have to do in the Labour movement."
  The Leader of the Opposition vas expressing his own personal opinions and sentiments, mixed up with the general view of the movement. He takes, personally and quite sincerely, a- distinct view of -his own. We must allow for human nature. He says that he does not like disturbances and demonstrations. That does not mean that each and every individual on this side does not like disturbances and demonstrations. It is obvious that it holds on both sides. I agree with the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman that we are like the coral insects,"building, building, building." The Russian revolution was something that came up above the surface of the water as a result of what trade union leaders and British Labour party leaders were teaching to Europe and the world before the Russian revolution. They were teaching the workers of the world to unite together and take possession of the means of life. I put it to the other side that there is a distinct challenge here.
  There is no attempt at wanton military mutiny of the ordinary type, but there is a direct preparation, upon a large or a small scale which ever you like to call it, and I put it to hon. Members opposite that they will have to make up their mind either to stop it or to revolutionise their own way of thinking about it. If you want to stop it, then I do not appeal but I warn you that you will have to stop Communism to-day, Socialism to-morrow, and the Labour party functions on the third day. You will not be able to draw the line, because this building—the building of the coral insect—is continually throwing up Communism on the surface of the water. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that as an officer of the Navy he has licked many a young man into shape. The officers of the Army and the Navy enjoy full political rights and freedom. They are able to have full political contact with political literature and political speeches—
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, no!
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I do not mean when they are on active duty. I contend that these same rights and privileges should be allowed to the lower rank, and my appeal to the country is to squash their old-fashioned ideas about sedition, modify their old-fashioned ideas of the Army being kept in a glass cover and being unable to think politically, communistically, or socially, and alter the law in the direction of allowing the rank and file the same rights and privileges as are now open and possible to the officer class.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We have just had the privilege of listening to a speech, a clear speech, and a very logical speech, which a good many Members on both sides of the House will find difficult to controvert, from an hon. Member who styles himself a child of the British Labour party. While he was speaking 1 had an opportunity of watching the proud and happy parents, and I must confess that I never saw a more unhappy group in all my life. The poor old hen was never more surprised at the ugly duckling than were the respectable parents on the other side of the hon. Member who said he was a child of the British Labour party. I should like to say a word or two in regard to the attacks which have been made upon me and upon the Government at not being sufficiently severe, and also the compliments which have been showered upon me by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. It is the first time the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has called me an angel, and I appreciate the compliment. It is one of those things that lend flavour to our sometimes angry discussions—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must not forget that there are black angels as well as White ones.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to make quite clear the position of the Government in regard to this question of sedition, and the view which has been expressed in more than one quarter that it is the duty of the Government to stop expressions of opinion, to take such steps, either by administration or prosecution or by obtaining further powers from Parliament, as will put a stop altogether to the expression of seditious opinions, or, at all events, Communist opinions, in this country. I want to be
  1344
  quite clear on this subject. Great Britain has been built up on the absolute freedom of opinion, thought and speech. The last time I spoke on this subject I quoted a statement of Lord Erskine, one of the greatest Judges we have ever had, in regard to the question of prosecution for opinion. He laid it down quite definitely that at no time in England was a man allowed to be prosecuted either for holding or for expressing opinion.
  Hon. Members opposite, or people in any part of the country, are quite entitled to hold the view that the present economic system is wrong, and that it is desirable to substitute for it another system based on the doctrine of Karl Marx. They are quite entitled to that opinion, and they are quite entitled to spread that opinion. They are quite entitled to do their utmost at a General Election or at a Bye-Election and to express that opinion by means of the Ballot Box, which is open to everyone in this freest of all democratic countries. And in saying that I believe that all the compliments which have been paid by hon. Members opposite to the commonsense of the British people and the way in which they have been"sober, quiet and constitutional"under great hardship—I believe all those compliments are due to the fact that the British people know that they are the freest democracy, and that it is open to them, if they can get a majority, to change the. economic position of this country. On the other hand there are my hon. Friends and myself and others who totally disbelieve in the theories of the Socialist and Communist party.
  I appreciate what was said by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), that hon. Members opposite are honest in the holding of their opinions. I have said so frequently in this House, and I have very often appealed to them to give me credit, as the hon. and learned Member did, for the honesty of my opinion. Hon. Members opposite think that they will make a new Eldorado for the people of this country by an alteration of an economic system which we believe, equally honestly and clearly and equally determinedly, is the system under which the prosperity of the country has been built up, and under which the position of the

  1345
  working classes of the country has been enormously improved during the last 50 or 100 years. I do not think that anyone will deny that the position of the workers of this country under the present constitutional and economic system—I am not saying that it is as good as it might be—is infinitely better than it was 100, 70 or 50 years ago. I do not think any hon. Member opposite would question that statement except perhaps the hon. Member for—
  Sir H. SLESSER: It was much better 500 years ago.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS; At all events the view I have expressed is a view which we honestly hold. But the Government say, and I say on their behalf, that we do not intend to depart from the fundamental right of every Englishman to state his views and to try to get his views accepted by the people as long as he proceeds on constitutional lines. He is entitled, as I say, to use the ballot box and to express by speeches to the people his view in favour of an economic system other than that in which we believe. But the moment he goes beyond that—and I believe I shall have the assent of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds in this proposition—and says,"I desire to bring this about not by constitutional means or by the ballot box, but by an attempt at armed revolution," then' it is the duty of the Government to take such steps as are in their power to put a stop to that action. That is exactly where we have to draw the line between the economic views and the political methods of the great bulk—I admit—of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the views and political methods of a certain section of the community which is led very largely by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). We may be asked, as we were in a previous Debate, and as we have been asked tonight by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds: Why give these people a gratuitous advertisement?
  Sir H. SLESSER: I was not referring to anything which the right hon. Gentleman might do to interfere; I was referring to the interference of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Resolution.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coble Valley (Mr. Snowden) in the last Debate quite distinctly put this to us,"Why do you prosecute; why should these people be advertised? They are a very small section, leave them alone and no harm will be done." I think a Government is not entitled to take that view. If half-a-dozen men are seen setting alight a number of small fires in a factory, a little one here and a little one there, each one of no importance possibly, is it the duty of the policeman or the watchman to walk away and say,"They are only little fires," although when morning comes the whole factory may be burned down I have drawn a clear distinction between revolutionary Communism and Socialism, and I always have done so both in my speeches here and throughout the country, and in spite of the small character, it may be, of Communist revolutionary propaganda where there is revolutionary Communism preached definitely and clearly and frankly enunciated, then it is the duty of the Government to consider two things. First, is it illegal according to the law of the land, and, second, is it desirable to take proceedings against it?
  I was challenged two weeks ago in reference to a speech made by the lion. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) at the Albert Hall and referred to by the hon. Member for North Battersea just now. I did not seek to prosecute in that case. I did not ask the Attorney-General, with whom the initiation of a prosecution rests, for his opinion because I thought, and I still think, that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was melodramatic in the speech which he made on that occasion. At the same time, I may be guilty and the hon. Member for North Battersea has shown me where I maybe guilty. It may be that I was wrong, and that the hon. Member for North Battersea is right in saying there were in the Albert Hall on that occasion hundreds of young men who were not melodramatic and who took the view that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was right and that his melodramatic speech may have the effect of leading hundreds of these young men into paths of revolutionary Communism in which they would be guilty of breaches of the law. That is, of course, what the

  1347
  Home Secretary has to weigh, whether a thing is within the law or not, and whether it is desirable to take proceedings in regard to it. If I may say so, the hon. Member for North Battersea has for a long time been a great temptation to me. I must confess that more than once my fingers have itched when I read some of the hon. Member's speeches. Listen to this: on 22nd March this year be said:
  "The Union Jack is nothing but a symbol of murder and robbery."
  That may not he seditious, but, after all, we on this side, and many Members opposite, believe in the Union Jack. Our blood boils when we hear statements of that kind made in regard to the Union Jack.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You are making it a party symbol.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I am not. The hon. and gallant Gentleman either did not hear what I said, or I fear did not intend what he said. I said that we on this side of the House, and many Members opposite—those were my words—are just as keen on the Union Jack. The hon. and gallant Member, who served himself under the British flag, ought to be equally proud of it, and equally resentful of these words.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I object to it being made a party symbol.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Surely, the best way of preventing it being made a political party symbol is for the whole House to rise up and denounce a speech of that kind. To go a step further in regard to my itching fingers: On the 21st of last month, at Bow Baths, the hon. Member for North Battersea said:
  "They must be prepared to go to places like Aldershot and the naval ports and carry placards pointing out to those unfortunate men who had joined the armed forces through economic pressure that their duty was to refuse to fight the workers and to join the Labour party and the Communist party.''
  He went further than that a week ago, and I hope it will interest a large number of those who do not agree with the views of the hon. Member. Speaking at Mansfield he said:
  "The Army and Navy was composed of hired assassins, officered by the capitalist class, and they would be used in the capitalist interests."
  1348
  Hon. Members opposite do not believe that. I am quite sure that they do not believe that, except perhaps one or two.
  "The workers made the bullets for the Army and Navy, and, when they were made, they handed them over to the capitalists. No wonder the capitalists felt safe. If the workers went to the Boss Clubs and said, 'Give us higher wages and shorter hours,' would they get it? No! Then it appeared that the only way was to break the law. The law said that the capitalist class should have these things. The law, the Church, the Army and the Navy were all behind the Boss Clubs."
  To break the law! If the hon. Member or any other speaker in this country deliberately goes out and challenges me, challenges the Government., by saying that he intends to break the law, he knows what the law is. He has given a very fair interpretation of the law in this House to-night. He has been perfectly frank. He has told the House that all he said was the logical conclusion of what he learned at the feet of the Labour party some few years ago. Wherever the hon. Member learned it does not matter. The fact is that there is a distinct organisation in this country—it is not denied—the Communist party, who are out far in advance of the Labour party, far in advance of the trade union movement. They have been expelled from the trade union movement. [An HON. MEMBER:"No! "] They have been turned out of the trade union movement. [An HON. MEMBER:"No!"] Well, the bulk of the trade union movement do not agree with them. If there is that section, the Communists, who are out to deny the democratic position and the constitutional right of action through the ballot, and to say quite definitely:"We will use force; we will go to the Army and Navy, and we will ask them to join with us in using force, in order to destroy and alter the constitution of the country," then at all events it is the duty of the Government to govern. I was struck at hearing the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), in a previous Debate, quite frankly use those words, that the Government has a duty to govern, I agree, very respectfully, with him. We are placed here as the Committee of the great. democratic millions of this country. We are elected for a certain number of years. We, the Ministers, are in effect the apex of the democratic constitution.

  1349
  For the time being, you have entrusted us with the powers of the community. The country as a whole has entrusted us —that is the position, and it would be the same if the party opposite got a majority —with the duty of governing the country, within the constitution, of course, and with due regard to law and order, and I say that when we took the steps which we did take a few months ago in regard to the Communists, we thought we were acting in accordance with what we believed and were advised to be the law. We thought it our duty to act, and we acted. We have not gone back from that action, and I say to hon. Members on my own side of the House that there is a very grave and a very heavy responsibility, upon the Home Secretary, perhaps, above all others, in regard to this matter. It is I who am, responsible for the maintenance of law and order in this country. Six months ago we struck. I have not asked my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to make any further prosecutions up to the present, but I know the position, I think, perhaps, even more fully than the hon. Members who have spoken here to-night. Information is in my hands, and from time to time that information accumulates. If the hon. Member for North Battersea, or if any other, inside or outside of this House—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: No threatening. Do not breathe out any threats.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If anybody, inside or outside of this 'House, thinks the time has come to challenge the right of the democratic Government to maintain law and order in this country, he will find that this democratic Government will not be averse from taking up the challenge.
  Sir A. BURGOYNE Sir A. BURGOYNE rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld
  1350
  his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. MARCH: I want to say a word in connection with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) had himself said that he was the child of the Labour party. May I say that the hon. Member, in conversation with me, told me he was a Liberal before he was a Labour man?
  Sir A. BURGOYNE Sir A. BURGOYNE rose, in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Since the Amendment to the Motion has been before the House, only one back bench Member has spoken, and the speeches have been too long for me to grant the Closure.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  First and Second Schedules agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  VACANCIES FOR, WOMEN AND GIRLS (INTERVIEWS).
  VACANCIES FOR, WOMEN AND GIRLS (INTERVIEWS).
  WEDNESBURY.
  WEDNESBURY.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CRANWELL COLLEGE (FLIGHT CADETS).
  CRANWELL COLLEGE (FLIGHT CADETS).
  PILOTS (AGE LIMIT).
  PILOTS (AGE LIMIT).
  TRANSFERRED DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (ALLOWANCES).
  TRANSFERRED DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (ALLOWANCES).
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  EXPORTS FROM DANZIG AND GDYNIA.
  EXPORTS FROM DANZIG AND GDYNIA.
  FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  ACCIDENTS IN MINES.
  ACCIDENTS IN MINES.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (COST OF SITTINGS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (COST OF SITTINGS).
  SAAR VALLEY (FRENCH TROOPS).
  SAAR VALLEY (FRENCH TROOPS).
  POST OFFICE (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  POST OFFICE (EX-SERVICE MEN).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of the Secretary of State for India I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confer on Courts in India and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages, the parties whereto are domiciled in England or Scotland, and to validate certain decrees granted for the dissolution of the marriage of persons so domiciled, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOWMENT FUND BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
Bill referred to the Examiners.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD rose to ask His. Majesty's Government—
1. Whether they are under any pledge to support the claim of any country (other than Germany and the countries already having such seats) to a permanent seat on the Council of the League of Nations:
2. Whether it is their policy to exercise a leading influence in the choice by the Assembly of the League of Nations of countries to occupy elective seats on the Council or, so far as possible, to encourage the free choice by the smaller Powers of countries that will represent them effectively.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting these Questions on the Paper nothing could have been further from my

855
mind than to revive criticisms of past transactions. What took place lately at Geneva and previously has been very thoroughly discussed in both Houses of Parliament and for my own part this afternoon I shall assume very gladly indeed that anything done in this connection of late by Sir Austen Chamberlain in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty was a wise thing to do at the time when it was done. My concern is entirely with the question of just where we now stand. It almost goes without saying that what is called a League of Nations policy is the policy deliberately adopted by our country and its warmest upholders are to be found equally in all Parties in the State.
Among those upholders there is a pretty general agreement upon one or two secondary but still very important points. One of those points I take to be this, that in the interests of the whole League itself, even more than in our own, all the recognised Great Powers should have seats upon the Council of the League. That could, I imagine, be well ensured, as one looks at the matter now, by simply leaving the election of the Council open to the Assembly of the League. Assuming for the moment Germany to belong to the League, the Assembly of the League, unless it wished to destroy itself and the League at a stroke, could not possibly fail to place both Germany and France upon the Council. But inevitably those who had to frame the Covenant could not rely upon that. They had to resort to the expedient of having certain permanent seats upon the Council given to recognised Great Powers in the League, with the understanding that other Powers of similar status would follow, and given also, as a signally exceptionally case, to Belgium—owing, I take it. to special reasons which existed at that time and which, please God, will never again exist in the case of Belgium or any other minor State.
But the course that was then adopted seems to carry with it not merely the giving of permanent seats to those Great Powers, but the restriction of those seats, with the single exception that I have named, to those Great Powers. To a humble but respectful outsider it would seem quite obvious that if you once make an exception in favour of some Power not obviously and in all senses a Great Power, and give it a permanent seat on the
856
Council, you will do one of two things; either you will let loose all kinds of rivalries which are at present held in leash, or else you will destroy the Council as an effective body. I do not think there is in this country very much difference of opinion upon that. The broad principle is admitted. What I have tried to say was stated, with his own incomparable force in this House not very long ago, by my noble friend, Lord Oxford and Asquith, and in reply to him the noble Marquess who leads the House said, in effect, that that was the broad principle upon which the Government acts.
I have no quarrel with the guarded phrase "the broad principle." I would not ask the Government for a moment to lay down on the matter any sort of cast-iron rule which might hamper them in some unforeseen emergency. What I want, however, very respectfully but very earnestly to inquire is: Is there any foreseen emergency in which the Government think it likely that the application of that broad principle will have to be restricted? Is there any existing engagement on the part of His Majesty's Government? Is there—I was going to say any entanglement—"entanglement" is not the right word; the right word, but I cannot think of it, would be more entirely polite than "entanglement" is—which might compel them to limit or to extend their championship of the broad principle to which I have referred?
A good many of us, I think—and there, again, I do not believe the anxiety is restricted to any one Party—are a little anxious upon that point for a reason which I will try to make clear. I shall have in this case plainly to mention Spain and the claims of Spain, but it goes, I think, without saying that I do so without the slightest disrespectful or unfriendly feeling. It appears that some four years ago, not under the present Administration but under another, upon an occasion of some difficulty within the bosom of the Council itself, about which I know nothing and ask nothing, the then representative of this country upon the Council did promise and give for that occasion support to the claim of Spain to a permanent scat upon the Council. Whether, in view of the circumstances of the moment, that was wise or not I do not know, and I am not asking.
I pass on to the part played by the present Foreign Secretary, in whom we all have such a high general confidence

857
in this matter. I do not think I need quote at length from his statement in the House of Commons and I will come back to Spain in a moment, but he referred in that statement to the conversations he had had with M. Briand last December, in which I think M. Briand raised the question of the admission of Poland and some other State, not Spain, to permanent seats upon the Council of the League. In reply, the Foreign Secretary, quite rightly, did not indeed see fit to lay down that broad principle about the restriction of those seats to Great Powers to which reference has been made in this House, but took his stand upon another still broader and unassailable principle—the objection on the part of this Government to giving anything in the nature of a pledge as to what it should do on the Council or in the Assembly of the League, and a preference to make up its mind, if possible, in the light of the discussions which might take place in the Council or the Assembly, as the case might be. That was the attitude which, as I understand it, was taken by the Foreign Secretary in regard to the claims of States other than Spain.
He had said previously in. his speech that he had felt compelled to take a somewhat different line in the case of Spain. He had been asked some question, not by M. Briand but by the representative of the Spanish Government, in regard to his attitude upon that matter and as I understood him he had answered that he was prepared, in suitable circumstances, to give the same support to the claims of Spain as had been given by his predecessor under a previous Administration. The impression conveyed to an ordinary reader by what the Foreign Secretary said is that he would have taken the same line in the Spanish case as he had taken in the others but for the fact that he felt himself committed in some degree by what had previously taken place. I know not whether he had any other reason. But the question which a little puzzles some of us is this. I am assuming that there is no secret reason, that we know nothing of, which makes the case of Spain an altogether exceptional one. If, on that occasion, Sir Austen Chamberlain felt himself committed in that matter by what had been done by his predecessor in the representation of this country, may not he or his successor
858
feel tied on some future occasion in precisely the same way regarding the claims of Spain if they are again put forward? I will go a little further. Is not the Spanish Government actually entitled to expect a renewal of that support unless it has already been made plain to the Spanish Government, or is now made plain to the world, that the Government hold themselves wholly and entirely uncommitted in this matter and free to carry out in full the broad principle enunciated in this House by the noble Marquess, to which I have just referred?
I hope I have made my point plain, and I would like to add in passing from it that I hope the Government stand uncommitted because of the gravity, as it appears to me, of the particular point which I have been stating. I should like to think it was so for a somewhat wider reason, and without saying anything pedantic or carping about conversations and so on which take place beforehand, I feel sure that the more the deliberations of the. League, whether in the Council or in the Assembly are the free deliberations of people who come together so far as possible previously uncommitted and wishing to come to a common mind in the light of their discussions then and there, the better it is for the future of the League and the more fully will the League carry out those aspirations which the Government and so many of us have regarding it.
I have placed on the Paper a second Question which I think I can explain in a very few words. Your Lordships will not treat it as unimportant because I think it can be dealt with very briefly. It appears that in the course of those troublous and difficult conversations and negotiations on the part of the Foreign Secretary which we have discussed so much, he made a suggestion, in view of the claim put forward (by Poland I think it was) to a permanent seat upon the Council, that Poland and possibly some other Power ought to be elected by the Assembly to one of the elective seats upon the Council. I am not mentioning that for purposes of criticism, because to have made that suggestion in view of the difficulty then existing seems to have been an obvious and reasonable course and it was a suggestion which I can well imagine would come with at least as good

859
a grace from the Foreign Secretary as from any other man there who could have made it. But it suggests to my mind not any sort of suspicion of him or the views of the Government, but the hope that the course taken in those exceptional circumstances was taken as an exceptional course.
It is very desirable, broadly speaking, that so long as there are permanent seats allotted to Great Powers the remaining seats on the Council shall be common, so far as possible, to the representatives of the minor Powers excluded from those permanent seats. I am perfectly aware, of course, that the whole Assembly and not the minor Powers elect representatives to fill the elective seats, and I am not suggesting any principle which would restrict the action of the Government in some future case. I merely wish to elicit what I rather think I shall obtain—the sympathy of the noble Lord who is following me for the general principle that it is desirable in this matter that the smaller Powers should express themselves freely, led, or prompted, or driven as little as possible by the influence of this or that Greater Power. If it is certain, as it is, that the success of the League requires a certain predominance to be given to the Greater Powers in view of their greater responsibilities and, indeed, their greater interests, it is no less certain that the success of the League depends also upon the freeness and the fulness with which the influence of lesser States is there made felt. I beg to ask my Questions. I hope I have succeeded in making my words perfectly plain. I must also apologise for being, I feel, one of those people who have rather a difficulty in making themselves quite plain without at the same time making themselves inordinately long.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to give definite instructions to the British Representative on the Constitution Committee appointed at the late meeting at Geneva; and to move for Papers, said: My Lords, I do not rise in any way to criticise or to differ from the views put forward by the noble Lord who has already spoken, but I am bound to say, on the points to which he has called the attention of the House, that I should not put the view which I hold on those matters in quite the same
860
language as that which he used in addressing your Lordships. I do not say that in a spirit of criticism, but in order that I may be understood if I appear to differ slightly from him on one or two of the points that he has made. I entirely agree with him in one matter. We need not trouble further about the past. We have had a good many discussions here and elsewhere on what is known now as the Geneva failure. I do not want to go back to that but to keep our attention on the future. I say that for this reason. I am no alarmist as regards the future of the League of Nations. On the other hand, I am not, I hope, so foolish as to disregard the signs to its disadvantage that are undoubtedly apparent on the horizon at the present time, and the object I have in referring to the future is to make one or two suggestions in order that those difficulties should not be enhanced, but, if possible, met and answered.
The first Question that the noble Lord asks he certainly puts in a different form from that which I should suggest. Perhaps the noble Viscount who is going to answer these Questions may consider what I am saying. I should like to ask him on the negative side somewhat in language of this kind—whether they are not now, having regard to the conditions of Locarno, under a pledge not to support any claim for any country to have representation on the Council until the claims of Germany have been satisfied in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Locarno? I should like to make one or two observations upon that. The opinion of this country has been expressed with a wonderful unanimity in favour of that proposition. More recently the German Government have expressed quite clearly, although with great reserve, dignity and moderation, their views of what was intended and meant by the Locarno Agreement. No one will know or recognise more fully than the noble Viscount that in the Locarno Agreement there was merely a question of the entry of Germany into the League with a permanent place on the Council.
But there are a number of very vital questions affecting Germany and the other parties to the Locarno Treaty which, in case of difficulty or dispute, are referred to the Council and, as has been stated

861
by the German Government, that means to the Council as constituted after the entry of Germany. No one suggests that the constitution of the Council is sacrosanct or should remain unaltered for all time. I certainly make no such suggestion, but I do say this, which is a very different thing, that questions of reconstruction should not be approached and considered until Germany has become a permanent Member of the Council and, therefore, has full authority to say what she desires and what she thinks is best on these matters.
As regards the second Question also, I am afraid, I cannot endorse the words that the noble Lord has used. I should ask the Government, if they are adopting an attitude, to adopt rather a different attitude. In my view there is no more vital matter, if we are to maintain the integrity, the power and the impartiality of the Assembly, than to allow the Assembly free and unfettered right in its own decisions or in its own discretion—to use the words which we find in the terms of the Covenant itself: the free and unfettered right in its own discretion to select without interference by any Power small or great the non-permanent or representative Members of the Council. I am one of those who agree in the necessity of permanent Members, but it is the representative Members only who voice the opinions of the Assembly and the Council and it is of the utmost importance that they should represent the real opinion and the unfettered opinion and discretion by being elected without any interference or any suggestion by any of the outside Powers. One of the most essential matters which I think was overlooked at Geneva—I am not going back into the past—was to preserve the free action of the Assembly, and the matter perhaps most to be criticised by those who have been to Geneva is that at the last meeting the Assembly was not allowed to function at all—that is to say, so far as the question is concerned for which it was really summoned to a special meeting, namely, the entry of Germany with a permanent place on the Council of the League.
There is one other caution that I should like to mention and it is this. I do not regard these matters as mere matters of procedure. I think we must
862
look underneath procedure to see where the underlying difficulties are and we must not shut our eyes to those underlying difficulties. Quite apart from political Parties, a very large majority, as I believe, of people in this country are in favour of the maintenance of the authority and influence of the League. What I think was forgotten was this. Since the War different conditions attach to international relationships from those which existed before the Great War broke out in 1914. In those days the eight Great Powers, as they were called, practically influenced or o decided all these questions which we are discussing at the present time. That was in a certain way satisfactory. It worked at any rate from 1713—that is, after the Treaty of Utrecht—until 1815, and again from 1815 to 1914. Its weak point was that it could not operate to establish a permanent peace when the Great Powers themselves fell out one with the other, which, of course, was the fact in the Declaration of War in 1914.
I only want to remind your Lordships—I think it is the shortest way—of what was said so truly by General Smuts. He said the War was the liquidation (that was the term he used, if I recollect aright) of the old Europe, and that the heir-ship had fallen to the League of Nations, the only possible safeguard of a permanent peace system in the future. I think that is absolutely right and that the noble Viscount is not in the least likely to question it. I think its representatives must be careful to safeguard the procedure which alone is applicable to these new conditions. You must remember, for instance, that you cannot at Locarno make arrangements which might have been made effective if we were there with Russia and Germany, the old Austria, the United States and Japan. You cannot do it. The new epoch has given a far larger power and a far larger share in these matters to the smaller States, which are represented on the Assembly of the League.
I have been in communication with the noble Marquess who leads the House and the noble Viscount, and also with my noble friend Lord Lambourne, who has a Question on the Paper, and it is thought better that the Question which comes a little later in my name should be discussed now in order that I should

863
not trouble your Lordships with a further speech. I understand that that arrangement meets the convenience of the noble Viscount. My Question raises what is immediately a very important matter. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will tell us whether he is to represent this country on what I may call the Reconstitution Committee.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: I am exceedingly glad to hear that that is so. It will be a very difficult and complicated question, and in what I am going to say I hope I shall not in any way do other than assist him. He and I, I am sure, are equally anxious for success. If there is not success the future of the League looks to me a difficult and dangerous one. The importance of this Reconstitution Committee or Commission was emphasised in an extract sent to me the other day from the Journal de Genéve which is really the organ of the League at Geneva. I will read this extract because it puts the point I want to put quite shortly. This is what is written:
"If within the next three weeks the situation concerning the League Council has not radically changed we shall witness in the Commission which is to meet at Geneva on May 10 discussions even more painful than those of the last month."
That would be a very great misfortune. What are the dangers and how can we best meet them? I think we are bound to face the difficulties and I should like to do what I can to help solve them.
I regret, I admit, that the Commission as formed is not an impartial Commission. There is, I think, only one impartial Member of it, and that is Switzerland. It really contains all the partisans and protagonists in the late discussions at Geneva. I also regret one other matter which is very important before a task of this kind its embarked upon. I must say that I should like a free and open discussion in the Assembly itself. I am not now talking about the particular position of Germany, but before you embark upon such an enormously important question as the general reconstitution of the Council I should like a discussion in the Assembly itself. It is no good, however, going back on that now. The Commission has been constituted. I do not know
864
how many of your Lordships have considered the terms of reference of that Commission. They are extremely important and also extremely wide; in fact, they encourage, if I may say so, the resurrection of all the frictions and troubles which were encountered at the last meeting at Geneva. I will not read the whole reference, because it is very long, but I will read one or two of the terms:—
"This Committee shall give particular attention to the claims up to now put forward by or on behalf of any Members of the League—"
that is to say, shall give particular attention to the very matters which at the last meeting at Geneva raised so much trouble and friction. That is a very serious matter, and what I hope may be done in connection with it I will say shortly. Then it is asked also that the Governments, through their official representatives—that will be through the noble Viscount in our case—will submit statements in support of their case or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee. Therefore all these complex matters—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not think that is the meaning of the phrase you quote.
LORD PARMOOR: I have it here and I will read it to the noble Viscount. He will correct me if I am wrong. The terms of reference say that the Committee shall
"be authorised to invite the Governments of any Members of the League who so desire to lay before it any statement, whether in writing or through an official representative, in support of their case or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I believe that was intended really to apply to those Members of the League who are not Members of the Commission. I do not mean that it would prevent Members of the Commission sending in any statement—they would have a right to do so—but it was to open the door as wide as possible so that any Member could lay before the Commission any view it held.
LORD PARMOOR: I see the importance of what the noble Viscount says, but on the other hand the words are equally applicable—whether wisely or not I do

865
not say—to the Members, of which the noble Viscount will represent one, who are represented upon the Commission or Committee. Then it says:
"It shall bear in mind the various proposals on the subject which have been previously discussed by the Council or the Assembly, and in particular the resolutions regarding 'geographical and other considerations,' and repeatedly adopted by the latter body."
The other considerations are those which the Assembly itself adopted some time ago.
That being the constitution of the Committee and those being the wide terms of reference, it seems to me that nothing could possibly be more important, as affecting the League and its future, than the attitude which the noble Viscount will be asked to adopt on behalf of the Government when he goes to Geneva on May 10. Of course I do not ask the noble Viscount to express his own views, which are well known. He has been at the meetings of the Council and the Assembly almost from the first and I suppose no one has attended so often as he. He has expressed to the League of Nations Union views with which personally I am entirely in accord, so far as I understand them. But I am referring—and I need not deal with the matter at any length—to the views which I think ought to be brought forward, and which I am hoping will be adopted as the views of this country and of this Government when the noble Viscount goes to Geneva.
The noble Viscount will agree, I think, that there is no country which individually exercises a wider and, on the whole, a better and saner influence than Great Britain, and perhaps the reason for that is twofold. First there is our traditional policy, and, in the second place, opinion in this country—as I know very well from the experience of meetings in other countries—has, under the guidance of the League of Nations Union, been educated far beyond that of any other of the countries concerned. I think that the force, authority and power of the League of Nations Union, guided amongst others by the noble Viscount and by Professor Gilbert Murray, have had an enormous influence at Geneva.
In order to emphasise my point of view I have made a short extract of one
866
passage of M. Unden's speech at the concluding meeting at Geneva. I dare say that the noble Viscount was present. I gather that M. Unden was received in a wonderful manner, and, so far as one person can summarise the general view of the outside Members of the League, he seems to have done so. I will read a short quotation from this speech, which seems to me to be a convenient summary. M. Unden said:—
"The sole object of this special Session of the Assembly was the admission of Germany into the League and the allocation to Germany of a permanent seat on the Council."
In September there will be what is really an adjourned meeting of the Assembly—one may call it that—to deal with matters that were not satisfactorily dealt with in March. I want to know if the noble Viscount has any fault to find with the expression of the view that whatever else may happen, one of the principal objects will be "the admission of Germany into the League and the allocation to Germany of a permanent scat on the Council." I want this to be regarded as what I may call an isolated matter which, in all circumstances, must be carried through.
I approach this matter from both points of view. Nothing could possibly be more unfortunate than the failure, of Germany's entrance into the League. It is the most important point that one can contemplate at the present moment. Further, I cannot help thinking that, unless that is made the sole preliminary point, some at any rate of the criticisms—I do not want to go beyond that—made upon the attitude of our representative at Geneva in March would be very fairly justified—to put the matter as fairly as I can.
M. Unden goes on to say—and this also is a very important matter in relation to the coming Committee—
"Unhappily the question of the entry of Germany has been bound up with other questions which are foreign to it."
I hope that, whatever the considerations of the Committeee may lead to, the entrance of Germany into the League will not be bound up with other matters which are foreign to it, but will be taken as an isolated matter in which our honour and faith are really concerned. I feel very strongly that if that attitude is adopted our authority and influence are sufficient

867
to ensure its success. M. Unden also says:—
"National claims have arisen in various quarters; special interests have found themselves in opposition with the general interests and with the common welfare of the League of Nations."
I should like to know whether there is a single word of the extract that I have read from M. Unden's speech from which the noble Viscount differs. It seems to me that in those few stately sentences he goes to the root of the matter. He speaks of the isolation of this one question and pleads that it should not be mixed up with intrigues but should be kept free from the pushing forward of these rival claims which undoubtedly—no one can find any fault with that—arouse very strong feelings regarding national interests and national antagonisms. That is, I think, a most important point. I dare say that the noble Viscount heard it said at Geneva that England expected every Swede to do his duty. I hope that every British representative—indeed, I have no doubt about it—will be commanded in the same way.
I want to say a word of caution about two matters. As I have said, I do not think that any questions of the constitution of the League can fairly be discussed until the question of Germany has been finally settled, but there are two points on which I should like to express my view, though I do not know whether the noble Viscount will agree with me or not. In the first place there has been a good deal of discussion about unanimity on the Council. I am one of those who believe that unanimity ought to be preserved, because I think it is much too early in the history of the League for anything to be done apart from what I may call the doctrine of general assent. It is easy enough to say that we can do this and that without unanimity, but we cannot do these things without arousing antagonism as soon as we have given up unanimity. Whatever may be said of the future, I do not believe that the time has yet come when the principle of unanimity, which was so strongly insisted upon at Versailles, ought to be altered.
My other point concerns the permanent Members of the League. I am bound to say that I dissent entirely from any proposal to add at this juncture any permanent Member to the League beyond
868
Germany herself as a condition of her entry into the League. I think that is a very important point. Perhaps I have used words which are too strong in my Question, but I think it would be well if we could get this result put thus:—that the first matter of all is the entry of Germany, and that these other two matters, whatever may be their future consideration after Germany has entered, are not yet ripe for discussion. From my own experience in these matters I see that it will be an extremely difficult task which will fall upon the noble Viscount opposite. It will not be an easy task for a member of this Committee to carry through satisfactorily, but I think that his position would be materially strengthened and fortified if, on one or more of these crucial questions, the attitude of the Government could be publicly announced, because I believe that the public announcement of a definite attitude by the Government of Great Britain would do more to solve these difficulties than any other step that they can take at the present time. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, not exactly in the terms of my Question but substantially in those terms, what advice or answer he can give to your Lordships' House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I am very grateful to Lord Charnwood and to the noble Lord opposite who has just spoken for raising these Questions at this time. The noble Lord who has just spoken was good enough to say that he thought that the task of the representative of this country on the Committee would be a very difficult one. In that observation I respectfully agree. I think the task of the Committee will be a difficult one and for that reason I am anxious to receive, since it has fallen to my lot to be that representative, all the assistance I can obtain from members of this House and from others, in order to fortify me in representing this country on that Committee.
The noble Lord made some criticism on the composition of the Committee itself. His criticism is, of course, a forcible one. He said that this is not an impartial Committee, but a Committee consisting precisely of representatives of those countries who were most actively engaged

869
in the controversy which arose last March. I think every one would have desired to have constituted a perfectly impartial Committee, but I think it passes the wit of man to do such a thing and yet make it an influential body. Obviously, if it is to be an influential body it must have upon it representatives of some or all of the more influential Members of the League of Nations. Once you say that, it is obvious that some of those who took part in the controversies last March would have to be on the Committee, and once you put some of them on that Committee it becomes impossible not to have them all. In other words, if you are to have an impartial Committee, or perhaps I should say a body which will arrive at an impartial decision, you must have it composed either of people who have nothing to do with the dispute or else composed of representatives of all the parties to the dispute. To take the example of a Royal Commission, the members, as your Lordships know, are of two classes, those who represent all those interested in the question and those who are entirely outside the question altogether.
LORD PARMOOR: But you generally have one member as an impartial member.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think if the noble Lord will read with some care the names of the members he will find that certainly they include more than one whom we can free from any suspicion of partiality in the matter. Then the noble Lord made a very elaborate criticism, or perhaps I should say comment, on the terms of reference to this Committee. I think if he will allow me to say so that he a little misread those terms, because they are all governed by the first paragraph:—
"The Council, considering that it is desirable that a thorough study should be made of the problems connected with the composition, number and method of election of the Members of the Council, decides to appoint a Committee for the purpose."
That is the main reference to the Committee. It is a broad general reference of the method of election to the Council. Then it goes on to draw the attention of the Committee to particular points which affect the decision of those questions or the advice to be given on those questions, and it refers on those points to the
870
matters which created so great a stir at that time and to other matters also.
It was then pointed out that if you had a Committee of a limited number—and we were very anxious to keep the numbers down to a reasonable number in order to have a chance of arriving at a decision—it was very difficult then to exclude altogether from the deliberations of that Committee other Members of the League, since all are in forested in the decision of these very vital questions. Following the precedent set by the Covenant of the League itself, it was enacted, not perhaps in the most completely happy phrasing that could be devised, that any Member of the League should be entitled—not only of the Committee itself, but any Member of the League—to make representations verbally or in writing in reference to the questions to be decided by the Committee.
That is the nature of the Committee, and when the noble Lord says that the Committee ought not to make any recommendations on the subject of the composition of the Council until Germany has been given a seat on the Council, that, of course, means that it ought not to sit at all until after the next Assembly, which I am sure would not be a desirable course to take; and I may remind the noble Lord that the appointment of the Committee was advocated by Germany at Geneva as what they thought was the best solution of the difficulties which had arisen. No doubt they hoped that Germany would be a Member of the Leaque at that time, but it was part of the German proposal—I do not say that it was solely the German proposal—that this Committee should be nominated, and I observe in the newspapers that this was one of the reasons put forward in the discussions in Germany why Germany should accept the invitation to sit upon this Committee, which I am glad to know she has done.
Before coming to the Questions raised by Lord Charnwood and Lord Parmoor in their Notices on the Paper, I should like to say one word upon the point raised at the end of his speech by the noble and learned Lord—namely, whether His Majesty's Government are in favour of the maintenance of the rule of unanimity. I think that has already been stated in the clearest terms by my right hon. friends in the other House. In any case there is no doubt at all that His Majesty's

871
Government do believe that it is right to maintain the rule of unanimity in reference to the decisions of the Council and of the Assembly, subject, of course, to those exceptions which already exist. I do not think I need say anything more on that point, because the answer is, I hope, perfectly clear and definite.
But I want to call your Lordships' attention to this. The necessity for this Committee to discuss the composition of the Council does not arise only from the events of last March at Geneva. Apart from special matters there are really two broad questions which call for discussion and consideration. The first is that to which both the noble Lords have alluded, the permanent Members. At present, as the House knows, there are four permanent Members, who were described in the Covenant as the Allied and Associated Powers, including, of course, at that time the United States, and it is proposed to add another of the Great Powers—namely, Germany. The rule, good or bad, is quite clear and definite. Every one knows, broadly speaking, which are the Powers in the category to which the Principal Allied and Associated Powers belong. It is a perfectly definite category.
I shall have a word to say about it in a moment, but I should myself say, as I think I said on a previous occasion, that if you are to abandon that rule, or make an exception, at least you must secure that you substitute some other rule equally clear, equally definite, and equally to be relied upon as a guide to the future proceedings of the League. Otherwise it is evident that you have no means of resisting a claim by this or that country to sit upon the Council, and there is no limit to its expansion, and consequently ultimately to the destruction of its usefulness, or at any rate of the character which it now possesses. May I correct an error into which my noble friend, Lord Charnwodd, fell? Belgium is not a permanent Member of the Council: permanent membership is confined, as the noble Lord will see in the Covenant, to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. So that there is not even that exception, which no doubt would have caused some difficulty, if it had existed.
Besides the question of permanent eats, which raised the great difficulty at Geneva, there is a very considerable question, as I have no doubt was brought
872
to the attention of the noble Lord when he attended the Assembly, as to the non-permanent Members. When the League was constituted, four Powers were named as the original non-permanent Members, and to them have been added two other Members, making six in all. With certain exceptions, for special reasons into which I need not go at this moment, those Powers have been re-elected year after year, and I think I am right in saying that four of them are the same four, or something like them, that were originally on the Council. There has been considerable feeling in the Assembly for years past, culminating in a definite Resolution of the last Assembly—but I think some similar Resolution had already been passed—calling for a system of rotation.
LORD PARMOOR: It was passed some years ago.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, and reiterated last year. And the reason is quite simple. The Members of the League say, rightly enough, that the Council is one of the most important, if not the most important body in the League, that it has elective Members, and that they ought to be given a reasonable share in the transaction of the business of the Council by a system of rotation, so that the bulk of the Members will have the privilege of sitting from time to time on the Council as Members of the Council. That is a very urgent question, and has to be dealt with. For reasons into which I do not wish to enter, because it is raking up old controversies, which I do not wish to rake up, it has been impossible to settle that question up till now, and when this Committee meets undoubtedly one of the things it will have to do will be to consider the question as to how far, and in what form, rotation should be allowed, and in what respects the very legitimate aspirations of the Members of the League can be dealt with. If your Lordships will read carefully the passages which my noble friend read out of the reference to the Committee, you will see that a great part of the reference had in view that question—for instance, the reference to geographical considerations—it had in view not the question of the permanent Members, but the question of the non-permanent Members, which will

873
also have to be settled, and which is a very important matter.
I have been asked by Lord Charnwood a specific Question about the election of non-permanent Members which it might be convenient for me to answer at this stage of my observations. The noble Lord asks me whether it is the policy of the Government
"to exercise a leading influence in the choice by the Assembly of the League of Nations of countries to occupy elective seats on the Council, or, so far as possible, to encourage the free choice by the smaller Powers of countries that will represent them effectively."
Lord Parmoor thought that did not go far enough, and he wanted me to say that the Government would pledge itself against any interference in the free election of non-permanent Members. I really do not quite know what the noble Lord means by "interference." He is familiar with the procedure under which these Powers are elected. The President gets up and says: "It will now be the duty of the Assembly to elect the Members of the Council for the ensuing year," and thereupon the election takes place. It is perfectly true—I do not wish to conceal it; it is inevitable—that certain Members of the League attach importance to the action which this country is taking in this, as in many other matters, and they come and ask us, the representatives of the British Empire, whom we are going to vote for, or whether we are going to vote for this particular Power or that. I do not think that is a thing that can be interfered with.
LORD PARMOOR: That is not what I meant: it was in contrast to what the noble Lord had said. He suggested interference in favour of the smaller countries. My answer was that there should be no interference in that sense at all. Of course, the actual election is a very different matter; in the actual election discretion must be left to the Assembly itself.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Well, it cannot be taken from them, because, as the noble Lord very rightly stated, the Covenant gives them the right in their discretion from time to time to elect these Members. I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, to suggest that the British Government
874
ought to interfere or intervene expressly in the election of these Members at all. I thought rather that he said he understood that a statement had been made that Great Britain would in certain circumstances last March support the election of particular countries to the Council. He did not criticise the Government for doing that in the special circumstances of the case, but he hoped it would not become a rule or precedent for further action. That was the question, as I understood, that my noble friend addressed to us, and I am glad to know that I rightly understood him. I need not say that it would be a complete departure from anything that has ever gone on at Geneva, and I think a departure which none of us would welcome, if it became the practice of any Powers, great or small, to announce in the Assembly or elsewhere that they were going to vote for this or that particular country and desired that their friends should do so, or any phrase of that kind. At the same time, as I have already said, you must not carry that too far, and if we are asked what we are going to do and if we have a strong view as to the class of countries that ought in any particular ease to come in, without using undue or improper pressure, I think it is impossible to say that this country should refuse to give its advice in a case of that kind.
I come now to the main Question which Lord Parmoor has placed on the Paper and which he developed in a way which was not, perhaps, altogether what I expected. However, I shall answer that Question, and I think I shall answer all the subsidiary Questions which the noble Lord put. He asked whether it was intended to give definite instructions to the British representative on the Constitution Committee. I have no doubt at all that the British Government will give definite instructions to its representative. It is evident in a matter of this importance that no representative would like to go out—I certainly should not like to do so—without being sure that he was representing the views of his colleagues as well as his own, and although I will not go in any detail into what those instructions might be because I do not think the noble Lord has asked me to do that, nor do I imagine he would desire it, yet I think it is germane to call his attention to the instructions which were given to Sir

875
Austen Chamberlain and myself when we went out to the last meeting because they seem to me to answer a good many of the points he put to me.
Those instructions, of course, are unchanged so far as I am concerned and so far as they are relevant to the matter with which we have now to deal. The first instruction was—
"No change in the Council"—
I call the noble Lord's attention to that—
"can be admitted which would have the effect of preventing or delaying the entry of Germany."
That is still the policy of the Government. The Government desire that at the earliest possible moment the application of Germany for membership of the League and, consequently, for a seat on the Council should be granted and they are strongly of opinion that no action ought to be taken which will in any way hamper or hinder that proposal from being given effect to. It is true that the instructions went on to say—
"It would be best that Germany should, as a Member of the Council, have full responsibility for any further change in the Council beyond her own admission."
I still hold strongly the view that the principle of that instruction should guide the proceedings of the British representative; but I cannot go quite so far as I was asked to go by Lord Parmoor in saying that we were under a pledge that no other change should be considered until Germany was a Member of the Council. That, of course, is impracticable now, because we have appointed a Commission the very purpose of which is to consider what changes ought to be made in the composition of the Council.
LORD PARMOOR: But it would be quite competent to the noble Viscount to say that Germany should first be admitted; that is the first thing, by itself.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Even if that were the conclusion to which the Commission came they would still have to consider what changes were to be made in the composition of the Council, though, very properly, those changes might not be made until after Germany had become a Member of the Council. It seems to me a matter which is well worthy of consideration, that that. ought not to be done; but to say that it should
876
not be considered is obviously going too far. Germany will be there and will be a party to the consideration and we hope—that is the hope and design with which this Commission is appointed—that we shall be able to lay down the principle upon which, as we shall recommend to the Council and the Assembly, the Council shall be composed for the future and the method of the election of its Members.
LORD PARMOOR: You only recommend, I think, to the Council?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, we only recommend to the Council; but in a matter of this kind nothing could be done without the Assembly because the Assembly is master of all matters affecting the composition of the Council. It would have to go to the Assembly. Therefore the first principle is that which I have already read to your Lordships about the admission of Germany. The next proposition which was laid down answers one of the specific questions which the noble Lord was good enough to put to me. It is as follows:—
"The rule that only Great Powers should be permanent Members of the Council should, in principle, be maintained."
I think those were almost the words in which he asked me to affirm that principle.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: He did not ask me to adopt a rigid or cast-iron rule; but it seems to me as a matter of fact that if you are to have a rule for permanent Members and you have that rule now and can think of no other rule which would be equally clear and definite, we are bound to maintain that rule at any rate. Subject, of course, to anything that may be said to us to show t hat we have misread or misunderstood the subject, the policy of the Government is undoubtedly to maintain the rule as to the permanent Members of the Council.
Then there is a reference to Spain and other Powers in the instructions that were given to my right hon. friend and myself. Since those instructions were given a new situation has arisen. There have been all the events which took place at Geneva and there has been the appointment of this Commission. The representative of this country will, in consequence, go to the Commission

877
quite free from any obligation or any declaration that may have been made in the past with reference to the membership of the Council, on behalf of this country. I think my noble friend Lord Charnwood asked me whether that particular question had been made quite clear to Spain. I do not want to go more into detail than I need, but I can assure him that there is no danger whatever that Spain will be under any illusion on the point of that declaration. Beyond that I rather hope that I shall not be pressed to go, at any rate at the present moment. I can assure noble Lords that in a sense I should be very glad to be tied down hand and foot before I went to Geneva. It would be a great relief from my responsibilities if that were done.
LORD PARMOOR: You do not want a free hand or foot?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I might want neither, but I do not think it would be courteous to other Powers that we were meeting at Geneva or likely to produce a favourable result in any negotiations if it were announced before hand that the British Government had absolutely made up its mind on every conceivable question and that it was no use addressing arguments to them upon it. The broad principles I have ventured to lay down with full authority from my colleagues. Beyond that I hope that the representative of this country will be trusted to do his best to bring those broad principles into effect by the ordinary methods of negotiation and discussion.
I was glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Charnwood a strong plea for freedom in such matters, a plea which I venture respectfully to endorse. One thing of which I do want to remind the House in this connection is this. No result can be obtained except by agreement. That is not only a question of the rule of unanimity. We are engaged in remodelling to some extent and modifying the constitution of the League. If it is to work, and work smoothly and with acceptance, we must aim at the modification by agreement. There must be no question of dictation. There must be no Power, I hope, going to Geneva and saying: "This is our policy; we can listen to nothing else." We must be ready to
878
meet and try to understand the views of other countries and so far as possible to meet their views consistently with the essential interests of the League.
We must never forget that it is one of the fundamental principles of the League that all its Members are equally sovereign and independent. This country has undoubtedly a great influence, as other countries have a great influence, in the League, but it is the influence, if I may say so, of a moral character and not constitutional. We have no more rights in the League than any other Member of the League, and I do not think we ought to have any rights beyond the fact that we are permanent Members of the Council. But that is an argument winch is equally applicable to everybody. There most be no dictation to us. We cannot admit that any Power has any right so to use its position and voting on the Council as to prevent steps being taken which it admits are in themselves desirable unless also some position is given to it which it desires. That seems to us to be, very respectfully may I say it, an abuse of the right and powers and position of the Members of the Council. We are all for freedom, but it must be for freedom on both sides, independence and sovereignty for all Members of the Council and Assembly alike.
I heard with great agreement the serious words that Lord Parmoor addressed to this House as to the gravity of the crisis which may supervene from a continual failure to solve the problems of the composition of the Council. I agree that the crisis is serious. I have always felt ever since I have had anything to do with the League that these questions affecting the prestige and position of particular countries in the League are much more dangerous to its prosperity—I will not say to its existence, for I hope that is beyond doubt now—but to its prosperity and strength than much more serious questions affecting the whole international position of the world. They excite much more violent and personal passions, if one may so put it, and in many respects they raise problems more difficult to settle and to reach agreement upon. That is why I venture very earnestly to appeal to all members of your Lordships' House and to everyone else to do their utmost to help the Government in trying to reach agreement upon these questions

879
I have already told your Lordships that I am sure they can only be settled by international agreement. I venture to add that the possibility of international agreement depends very largely indeed upon the existence of national agreement in this country as to the way in which they should be settled. I have no right to dictate to noble Lords opposite, or to advise them as to what view they should take of this or any other question, but I very earnestly appeal to them to give what assistance they think they reasonably can to the Government in this matter. I venture to say to them that if they have any suggestion or any advice to give, either publicly or privately, I, as the representative of this country on that Commission, will be only too delighted and glad to receive it.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE REGULA TIONS.
LORD LAMBOURNE LORD LAMBOURNE asked His Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to prevent a recurrence of the appalling sufferings caused to a cargo of beasts from Canada as reported in the Morning Post on Friday, March 19. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be thought by your Lordships in any way to infringe the dignity of this House if I venture for a very short time to place before you the sufferings of a cargo of animals during a voyage of the steamship "Manchester Producer" from Canada to England. The Society with which I am intimately connected, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has invariably opposed the removal of the embargo upon Canadian cattle, because they were of opinion that inevitable suffering would be caused if the embargo were removed. Unfortunately we were not able to prevail and the embargo was removed, and what happened in this case is one of the consequences that we foresaw would happen.
The sufferings of the animals to which I refer were reported in the Morning Post of March 19, 1926. I regret that I was unavoidably compelled to put off my Question until after Easter. It was during a terrible storm on the Atlantic that these animals suffered. I believe I am correct in saying that the Atlantic Ocean is the coldest ocean in the world.
880
It is also subject to sudden and most terrible gales, so that it is impossible for any human being to foresee what sort of a journey the cattle on these boats are going to have, especially during the winter months. This wretched ship was caught in one of these gales in some of the coldest weather that we have experienced.
Your Lordships may judge of the extent of the disaster when I remind you that out of 410 animals embarked altogether 148 apparently were lost at sea. There was not a humane killer on board. I am only too glad to be able to say at once that the Ministry have given an order that for the future a humane killer is to be carried, but I am afraid that will not be sufficient to ensure a decent journey for these unfortunate animals. It is no use for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to say to the Atlantic Ocean: "Peace, be still, I have a humane killer on board and I have a Canadian veterinary surgeon on board. It is true he has no instruments or medicines with him, but I consider we have done our best." That would be useless for the purpose of mitigating the sufferings of these unfortunate animals. No humane killer was carried during this voyage and the company alleged that even if it had been carried they could not have used it. In reply to that I would point out that these unfortunate animals were lassoed and caught with ropes and eventually pushed into the sea alive to suffer a most painful death by drowning. As it was possible to do that, surely it would have been possible to use a humane killer had one been on board. I will, however, drop the question of the humane killer because the Government have met us as well as they possibly could in that matter.
In the words of one of the men who shipped on board as a cattleman:
"We had to untie the animals, and drive them, as best we could, to the side of the ship.…Those who were not flung over by the roll were therefore hitched up to one of the winches, dragged along to the side, and lowered on to the bulwarks. Then, when a heavy roll came, the crew would cut the ropes and the animals would go overboard. There they lay, plunging and foundering in the trough of the sea; while we had to stand by and let them drown."
That is not a very pleasing description and even if, as has been hinted, it was

881
exaggerated I do not think any man with any amount of exaggeration could draw such a picture as that unless there had been a great deal of truth in it. It should be noted that in the Importation of Canadian Cattle Order no provision was made for carrying a humane killer. It was only because of Members of Parliament asking Questions that the Ministry of Agriculture issued an order for a humane killer to be carried.
As regards carrying cattle on the upper deck, according to the report which I have already referred to, the cattle were housed on the upper deck in ordinary cattle pens, boarded on one side and with a miserable tarpaulin covering the top. They were given only the flimsiest protection during this bitter winter weather. It is appalling to think of the miserable accommodation for these animals. The Order distinctly states that
"animals while on board a vessel shall be protected against injury or unnecessary suffering from undue exposure to the weather."
I venture to say that this provision was certainly not properly carried out.
Then there is the question also of the attendants on these animals. The Order says:—
"The vessel shall, in addition to the ordinary crew, carry a sufficient number of qualified attendants to tend the animals properly; and every consignment of cattle shall be in charge of a responsible foreman, who shall have under him competent assistants, numbering with himself one for every twenty-five head of cattle."
That is a very proper arrangement and if it was properly carried out it would have been very beneficial. But the correspondent of the Morning Post says he was engaged in Montreal as one of these attendants and was paid 10 dollars for the passage across the Atlantic. He says:—
"No questions were asked of my fitness or experience in handling cattle. I met my fellow cattle-men at St. Johns. They were of all trades and professions—farmers, mechanics, business men, an actor, and others. There was only one experienced cattle-man in the party."
It would appear, therefore, that this excellent and humane provision in the Order was totally ignored.
With regard to lighting arrangements the section says:—
"Arrangements shall be made for the provision at all times of adequate light for the proper tending of the animals."
882
Mr. Berry, in the Morning Post, is reported to have said:—
"I was appointed night watchman, and I was expected to see that the animals on deck were fairly comfortable during the night. But I had no electric torch or light of any sort provided for me, and it was impossible to see what was happening to the animals during the night."
Here again, apparently, the provisions of the Order were not carried out. I want to ask the Government what steps they are going to take to prevent a recurrence of this most horrible tragedy, because it is a tragedy when you think of it that these unfortunate animals are sent across the seas during a gale, which nobody of course could prevent, and have to die slowly by drowning. It is no use for the Government when another of these occurrences takes place to say that they have done their best, that they put a humane killer on board and that there was a veterinary surgeon on board. According to the report, there was a veterinary surgeon on board this vessel, but he had no instrument and no medicines and was totally unable to look after the minor ills from which these poor animals were suffering.
The truth is that these store cattle ought not to be allowed to be put on the upper deck during this passage during the winter months. There is no necessity for it. The poor animals could be killed on the other side perfectly well and sent over as dead meat. I think the Government should restore the embargo, certainly during the winter months, say, from October to March, to prevent store cattle at all events—I should be in favour of all cattle—being shipped from Canada to England, because of the dangers of transit and the impossibility almost of housing them securely. It is no good when these incidents have happened to say that they have done everything they could. I am perfectly certain the noble Lord who is going to answer me is equally as humane as I am and that he is equally anxious that these animals should not suffer in this way. But how, without the embargo being replaced, is he going to ensure that animals should not be caught in a storm and be made to suffer similar terrors? I await with great interest the answer of the Government to my question as to whether they cannot see their way to put back the

883
embargo, certainly during the winter months. I should prefer the embargo to be replaced in reference to all cattle from Canada.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this traffic was only commenced some two or three years ago. I forget exactly the date, but it was quite recently. Therefore I can quite believe that the Ministry of Agriculture and my noble friend Lord Bledisloe knew nothing whatever about this incident or other incidents which may have taken place. It is perfectly clear that it is very likely if you carry cattle across the Atlantic in the winter this sort of thing will ensue. I am quite prepared to admit it may not happen very often, but on the other hand your Lordships must remember that if there had not happened to be an amateur on board this vessel we probably should have heard nothing about it. Therefore it is quite possible that other events of a similar character. may have occurred.
May I read a few lines from t he statement made by this gentleman, to whom I think we owe a debt of gratitude, concerning one of the incidents that took place on board this vessel:—
"We dragged the poor animals one by one along the deck, tied by ropes and hawsers; they watched one another going to execution like dumb souls. Then they were hoisted into the air, perpendicular; lowered, and then the rope was cut, and they fell into the sea. They swam round us, watching us with their almost human eyes, until they were swallowed up by the waves. The most hardened sailors on board were almost in tears at the sight; some of us were physically ill. Food was becoming shorter and shorter and the water-butts were emptying."
What is the reason for the occurrence of this suffering? It is because it was supposed that if cattle were shipped from Canada across the Atlantic meat would become cheaper. I was a Member of another place at the time, and it was stated there that meat would become something like 6d. per pound cheaper. As a matter of fact, meat did not become cheaper. All that has happened has been the suffering inflicted on these animals.
Supposing, as my noble friend Lord Lambourne suggests, that this traffic were prohibited, at any rate during the winter months, no result adverse to the food supply of the people could possibly follow. All that would occur would be that the animals would be slaughtered on the
884
other side of the Atlantic and the food sent over either chilled or frozen. Accordingly the quantity of food would be exactly the same, or probably more, because there would be no cattle thrown overboard or destroyed if the passage were prohibited, at any rate during the winter months, and if the cattle were slaughtered on the other side. The only possible result would be that the butchers on this side might make a little less profit, while possibly some people on the Canadian side also would make a little less profit. I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and the Ministry of Agriculture, now that these facts have been brought to their notice, have every desire to prevent further suffering if it is possible to do so.
My noble friend Lord Lambourne says that the Government are prepared to put a humane killer on board, but we have the statement—I have it here in my pocket—of the owners of the "Manchester Producer" that if there had been a humane killer on board it could not have been used. I believe that the actual number of cattle thrown over was 133, which, after all, is a fairly considerable number, and accordingly, as my noble friend says, the mere provision of a humane killer on board would not prevent the cruelty that has occurred. Everybody knows that the Atlantic is a stormy ocean, especially in winter. Personally I should like to see this traffic stopped altogether, because I do not think that you can guard against the weather even in the summer and, if you have bad weather, something of this sort is almost bound to occur. I should like to see the traffic stopped altogether, but at any rate I hope that my noble friend will exercise his influence with the Government to induce them to stop the traffic during the winter months.
As I have endeavoured to show, no hardship would be inflicted upon anybody and the only possible result would be a little less profit to the butcher, who would not be able to sell as the best English meat, for which he charged the best English prices, cattle which had been brought over from Canada. With that exception—and I do not think that anybody wishes to encourage that sort of thing—and possibly with the exception of a little loss to Canadians, no harm could result to anybody. I earnestly hope that

885
the question brought forward by my noble friend Lord Lambourne will have the serious consideration of the Government and that steps will be taken to prevent anything of this sort occurring again.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, my noble friends Lord Lambourne and Lord Banbury of Southam have described to you this afternoon a most distressing occurrence which took place in the Atlantic in the month of February and which, I am sure, we must all very deeply deplore. The story told by my noble friend Lord Lambourne, harassing, distressing and pitiable as it is, is not exaggerated, and I can assure the House that the Ministry, so far as it lies with them, are prepared to take all reasonable precautions that can possibly be taken to prevent the recurrence hereafter of similar disasters. There are, however, sometimes, as your Lordships are aware, very abnormal weather conditions in the Atlantic Ocean, not always confined to winter, in face of which all human effort would be powerless to prevent such accidents as occurred in this case, and all Departmental Regulations would prove futile.
It only fair to say that after very thorough investigation of all the circumstances the Ministry of Agriculture is satisfied that in this case, when the disaster actually occurred and after it occurred, the master and crew of the vessel, and the owners by wireless instructions, did all that was humanly possible to mitigate the undoubted sufferings of the animals. The storm to which reference has been made is said to have been the worst storm experienced in the Atlantic for about thirty years. It was the same storm as that which caused the shipwreck of the "Antinoe," whose survivors, as your Lordships may remember, were rescued with great gallantry by the "President Roosevelt."
Will your Lordships allow me to tell the whole story as it has been told to us and as, so far as possible, we have confirmed it The "Manchester Producer" left Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 26, with 428 cattle. On the fourth day of the voyage very heavy weather was encountered which broke the rudder and put the vessel entirely out of control.
886
She drifted helplessly in the Atlantic for no fewer than sixteen days before she could be taken in tow. She was then towed to the Azores, and arrived at Fayal on February 24. Of the 428 cattle, 32 were actually washed overboard and 133 were jettisoned, and of those that were jettisoned only one was thrown overboard on account of injury, all the rest being jettisoned in order to avoid the starvation of the animals owing to the serious shortage of fodder. Two were slaughtered for food for the crew, and there were nine other casualties from various causes. It should be noted, therefore, that 176 cattle were actually destroyed out of a total of 428, and that 132 of that number were jettisoned without being injured in order to avoid their sufferings through possible starvation.
LORD LAMBOURNE: They were drowned?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes, they were deliberately drowned, There remained 253 cattle, including a calf which was born on board, which were lauded at Manchester on March 16 in perfectly good condition. There were fourteen cattlemen employed in tending these animals, under the direction of an exceptionally experienced foreman. The captain, crew and cattlemen did their utmost to succour the animals whilst at sea. Both the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships have, I think drawn attention to the allegation that these cattlemen, or most of them, were unqualified persons. I dwell upon it because at any rate Lord Lambourne drew attention to the account of the disaster in the Morning Post, which, I think, described the cattlemen, or most of them, as unqualified persons. There is no certain evidence about that, although I have no doubt in my own mind that the noble Lord is, in the main, accurate in suggesting that these were not highly qualified cattlemen, and to that extent the Regulation which he quoted appears to have been offended against.
When the vessel was disabled, and fodder ran short, the owners, known as the Manchester Liners, sent a wireless message to the master to broach the cargo, which consisted in part of oats, and no less than 60 tons of oats, forming part of the cargo, was actually used as cattle

887
food. In addition 20 tons of hay was sent from Cardiff and 24 tons of hay from Lisbon. Fifty tons of dried beetroot pulp was also obtained at the Azores. Although undoubtedly short rations were fed to the animals before arriving at Fayal, adequate supplies were obtained there which enabled the animals to resume their good condition before being landed at Manchester.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to the lack of a humane killer, or other suitable instrument for destroying these cattle when in distress. Some of the cattle jettisoned were first of all stunned with a hammer, but, unfortunately, owing to the heavy seas, it was found impossible to deal accurate blows with the hammer and in the interest of humanity the remainder were put overboard and drowned, without being struck at all. The captain had a revolver, which apparently he kept for use in such emergencies, but its use was regarded as unsafe, in view of the rolling of the ship, and I think probably the noble Lord is right in quoting the opinion that even if there had been a humane killer its use would have been equally difficult, if not possibly equally ineffective. The vessel did not, in fact, carry a humane killer.
Lord Lambourne has quoted some of the Regulations and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote the whole of them. These Regulations, governing the carriage and treatment of animals conveyed by sea, have been in operation since 1891 and have been embodied in the Importation of Canadian Cattle Order, 1923, which followed the passage of the Act which removed the embargo to which Lord Lambourne referred, and the same Regulations appear in the Foreign 1nimals Order, 1910. These Regulations are to the following effect:—
"(1) Animals are not to be carried on more than three decks without a licence from the Ministry."
I may mention, incidentally, that only one licence has been issued—to the Ellerman-Wilson Line, I think, about a year a go.
"(2) Animals whilst on board to be protected against injury and unnecessary suffering from undue exposure to the weather."
May I here say that it is extremely difficult, without permanent structures upon the upper deck of very different character from the coverings usually employed and those employed on this
888
occasion, effectively to protect animals against accident under such conditions as those which prevailed in this case.
Then there follow these Regulations:—
"(3) If any animal on hoard has a limb broken or is otherwise seriously injured the captain is required to cause the animal to be slaughtered, unless it can be kept alive and led away without cruelty;
"(4) Animals are not to be overcrowded in any part of the vessel so as to cause injury;
"(5) Size of pens not to exceed 11 feet by 9 feet, to prevent injury by animals being thrown against one another, and the floors of the pens to be fitted with battens or other proper footholds;
"(6) Ships' fittings likely to cause injury to be properly fenced off. Passage ways to be provided 1 foot 6 inches wide between each row of pens, and to be kept free of obstructions;
"(7) Sufficient ventilation and light to be provided."
Some of the larger of these vessels, I believe I am right in saying, are provided with electric light, but it would be quite impossible to insist upon electric light being provided on the ordinary cattle boat.
"(8) Cattle to be tied by the head or neck in such a manner as not to cause suffering, and so as to stand athwartships;
"(9) Every vessel to carry a sufficient number of qualified attendants, and every consignment of cattle to be in charge of a responsible foreman.."
I am bound to say that I think in this case it is open to question whether the attendants were qualified cattlemen, but the foreman in this case, as I have said, was an exceptionally experienced man. The Regulation continues:—
"the number of attendants to be one for every twenty-five head of cattle."
The noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, has drawn attention to the fact that in this case the number was rather short of that requirement, but I may mention that this is deemed now to be an excessive requirement for most cattle ships, because they generally have water pipes running the full length of the ship, which renders it less necessary to have the same number of men. The Canadian Regulations, recognising that, require three men only for every 100 animals, and if these Regulations were to be redrafted I think that so far from increasing the number of men in charge, we should probably be inclined to conform with the Canadian Regulation, which is more suitable to modern conditions.

889
The noble Lord has also referred to the compulsory provision of a humane killer. The Regulations which I have read do not require the provision of a humane killer, but, as I have stated, it is said that the captain of the "Manchester Producer" carried a revolver and ammunition for use in case of necessity. As a result of this unfortunate occurrence the Minister of Agriculture on March 27 made a new Order, which requires that every vessel on which any animal is carried is to carry a proper killing instrument discharging a bullet or captive bolt, approved by the Ministry, with sufficient ammunition. The Ministry has advised shipping companies that it will probably be found most convenient to use a killer of the captive bolt type, which is suitable for animals of all classes, and that satisfactory instruments of this character can be obtained from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or from the Temple Cox Research Company. Full particulars of these instruments have been given to the companies, and the correspondence that has taken place shows that the companies have already taken the necessary action to comply with the new Order, which will come into full operation on May 1.
Both noble Lords who have addressed you have reminded you that the R.S.P.C.A. opposed the removal of the embargo on Canadian store cattle when the matter was under discussion between Canada and ourselves some few years ago. I need hardly remind your Lordships that so did I most strenuously; in fact, I am not sure that I was not perhaps more emphatic in my opposition than even the society to which reference has been made. But we have to recognise the fact that it is now the law of the land, and I am sure your Lordships, while adopting the most humane measures that are practicable, would not wish to do anything by a side wind to destroy, or seriously to injure, this industry. The number of casualties which have actually occurred to cattle on the seas is really not great when the number of cattle so shipped is taken into account. In fact, the number of actual losses is surprisingly small. During the last fifteen years 850,000 cattle have been carried across the Atlantic to this country, with a total loss of 1,705, or about two per thousand, that is·2 per
890
cent. The "Manchester Producer" itself has carried 8,924 cattle during the past live years, and the total loss from all causes, excluding this particular voyage, was only five.
Nevertheless, the fact that heavy losses are caused occasionally when severe storms are encountered suggests that the conditions under which cattle are brought over the ocean are not entirely satisfactory, and I should like to say, in answer to Lord Banbury and Lord Lambourne, who have particularly referred to improved accommodation for cattle on these ships, that the Minister of Agriculture is entirely in favour of some structural improvement being made in these cattle ships where cattle are carried on the upper deck, and we realise the importance of this. The Department is at the present time in communication with the persons who are mainly concerned, first of all the Dominions Office and the Board of Trade, and also very particularly those who are interested in the Canadian shipping trade. I am not in a position to say anything definite on this matter to-day. This is naturally a subject for negotiation and discussion, and the Ministry, while most anxious to ensure that cattle are carried under the most humane conditions, must avoid throwing large additional expenditure upon shipowners during a time of acute depression in the shipping industry, if it can be avoided. I hope that I shall not be further pressed on this particular point to-day. It is under diplomatic discussion, and I can only reiterate that the Ministry and I personally are in entire sympathy with the case as presented by the two noble Lords, and we shall do our utmost to remedy these admitted defects.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend what reason there is why cattle should be carried on the upper deck at all. My noble friend has told us that it is accompanied by two very grave evils. One is that there is not, and cannot be, any adequate protection from the weather for the cattle when carried on the upper deck. The other arises from the fact that proper lighting accommodation to the pens or stalls on the upper deck cannot be given. In other words, the carrying of cattle on the upper deck involves the breach of two of the important Regulations which have been

891
made to regulate this cattle traffic, and it is practically impossible to avoid breaking those Regulations so long as cattle are carried on the upper deck under present conditions. Is there any real reason why the carrying of cattle on the upper deck should not be prohibited altogether? It might, I suppose, cause some little extra cost, but in these matters humane considerations are, after all, exceedingly important in order to avoid the horrible suffering of which we have heard to-day, and I should have thought that the loss of a little extra profit to the shipowner ought not to be allowed to govern these matters. My noble friend referred to some structural alterations in these ships which may be imposed by the Board of Trade. I am very glad to hear that that is under consideration, but I hope that when that question is considered the question of using the upper deck at all, with all its accompanying evils and objections, will be seriously considered.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am very glad that Lord Danesfort has raised the point about proper accommodation on the upper deck, because protection from the weather is a thing which we are very seriously insisting upon in the traffic in old horses. I should like to know whether the Ministry has any means, through its representative on the other side, of inspecting the accommodation and the means of taking care of cattle before they start for this country. Have we any representative over there, as we have here for the shipment of old horses?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may answer these two questions. In regard to Lord Olivier's question, it is perfectly true that we have an inspector over there, but this has so far been considered a matter of domestic character, if I may so describe it, and not one about which we should be properly entitled to interfere.
LORD OLIVIER: Are they not British registered ships?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Some of them are; but at any rate I will inquire further into the matter. Lord Danesfort asks: Why carry cattle on the upper deck at all? It is simply a question in every case of accommodation, of the number of cattle that are being shipped. There is naturally a greater temptation to carry cattle on the upper deck when an exceptionally large number have to be conveyed, and it is, in effect, meeting the objection which Lord Danesfort by implication makes when we suggest that the right thing to do is to cover in permanently that upper deck, so that, in fact, it ceases to be an upper deck. But I cannot disguise from your Lordships the fact that in order to render this trade possible from an economic standpoint it is necessary to ship as large a number of cattle, taking into account the size of the vessel, as possible; and, quite frankly, the shipment of or rather the accommodation provided for such cattle does not anticipate the very unusual occurrence—supposed to be unprecedented or unparalleled over a period of no less than thirty years—which actually happened in February last. The larger the vessel, of course, the greater the number of cattle that can be carried. This happened to be an exceptionally large vessel and in normal circumstances there would have been no serious risk to the cattle. As I have already said, the casualties taken over a long period are exceptionally and extraordinarily small. I do not know that I can carry the matter any further in reply to my noble friend's Question. We have not yet wholly explored this subject and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I add nothing more at the moment.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAM WAYS BILL. [H.L.]
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Earl of Hardwicke be Proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Chichester; read, and agreed to.
KNOTTINGLEY GAS ORDER, 1926.
DARLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1926.
WELSHPOOL AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
GWYRFAI AND OGWEN RURAL DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
LITTLEHAMPTON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
SANDBACH ALSAGER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECTIAL ORDER, 1926.
WALTON-LE-DALE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WELLINGTON (SOMERSET) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
FLINT AND HOLYWELL ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
RICHMOND (YORKSHIRE) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
TOBERMORY ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WALLINGFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Orders Committee to meet on Tuesday next.