Sitting of 2 August 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 26th July, and agreed to.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That, in the case of the Southend - on - Sea Corporation Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

POOR LAW RELIEF.
Return ordered, showing the number of Persons in receipt of Poor Law Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1926 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 164, of Session 1924–25).—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    FACTORY INSPECTION, BOMBAY.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of factory women workers in the Bombay Presidency; whether there are any women factory inspectors; if so, how many; and when these were appointed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The num-
    2604
    ber of women workers in factories was 72,679 in 1924. One lady inspector was appointed in that year.
    Mr. YOUNG: Has the Noble Lord any influence, and, if so, will he use it to get more women factory inspectors appointed?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid the answer is that this is entirely a matter for the Local Government. No doubt they will take into consideration the relevant facts of the case.
    Colonel DAY: In view of the large number of people employed there, and there is only one factory inspector, will the Noble Lord make representations?
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answer which I gave. I said that this was a matter for the Bomb0ay Government.

    MATCH FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that no young children under the age laid down by the Factories Act are employed in match factories in Bombay where such employment was prohibited by notification from the Government authorities in Bombay, a similar notification has been issued in regard to match factories in other provinces; and, if so, in how many provinces this notification has been issued?
    Earl WINTERTON: All the provisions of the Act apply (a) to all factories where power is used and at least 20 persons are employed, and also (b) to other places (where at least 10 persons are employed) declared to be factories by the Local Government. The Bombay Government's declaration relates to places where splints are converted into matches, and at least 20 persons are employed. The Government of Burma has taken similar action in regard to match factories employing at least. 10 persons. So far as the available information shows, no declaration affecting match factories has been made by other Local Governments.

    CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTION.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what propor-

    2605
    tion of the percentage of appointments of the 20 per cent. sanctioned for promotion to the Indian Civil Service has been attained and the percentage appointments of the sanctioned 30 per cent. by direct recruitment from the several provinces in each case?
    Earl WINTERTON: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As I informed the hon. Member on let April, it will necessarily take time to work up to the full 20 per cent. of superior posts, but a start has been made. I do not understand the reference in the second part of the question. Direct recruitment to the Indian Civil Service of Europeans and Indians is, however, proceeding on the half and half basis recommended by the Lee Commission.

    AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE (COIMBATORE).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the number of students that can be accommodated at the Government agricultural college at Coimbatore; and whether, in view of the importance of agricultural training to the prosperity of the country and the fact that out of 170 applicants during the current year 130 were refused on the ground of insufficient accommodation, the Government of India propose to increase the accommodation at this college?
    Earl WINTERTONThe matter is one for the Government of Madras. My Noble Friend does not know what number of students can be accommodated at the College, but understands that new buildings have recently been, or are being, constructed.

    DIVORCE LAW.
    Mr. RAMSDEN (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if it is the intention of the Government of India to pass legislation similar to the Indian and Colonial Divorce Bill, so that women in Great Britain whose husbands are domiciled in India may have rights similar to those which will be conferred by the Bill on women in India whose husbands are domiciled in Great Britain?
    Earl WINTERTON: Legislation with this object would not be within the com-
    2606
    petence of the Indian Legislature, but would have to be passed by Parliament. There is no intention of extending the scope of the Bill now before this House in the manner indicated.

    HINDUS AND MOSLEMS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES).
    Mr. ALBERY (for Mr. PILCHER)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of Hindus and Moslems, respectively, employed by the Indian Government and by the more important Provincial Governments in their respective secretariats and in their police departments?
    Earl WINTERTON: I regret that the information is not available, and that it would hardly be possible to collect it without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. Moreover, since the proportion of Moslems and Hindus varies in each Province, a return of this nature would not afford a basis for estimating the proportionate representation of the two communities in these services.

    INTER-RELIGIOUS STRIFE (FATALITIES).
    Mr. ALBERY (for Mr. PILCHER)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of fatalities attributable in India to inter-religious strife in the decade or decades preceding the war and in the period which has succeeded the war?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that a statistical return of this kind would be very difficult to compile, and would involve a disproportionate amount of research in every province in India.

  KENYA.

    ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Kenya Colony- has stated that he is anxious to secure throughout the settled part of the Colony the appointment of unofficial resident magistrates from amongst the settlers; and whether, considering the difficulties involved in such a departure from the established administrative practice of the country, he will give the matter his consideration before any change is made?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals on this matter from the Governor. The hon. Member may rest assured that all relevant factors will be carefully considered if and when such proposals are submitted to him.

    LABOUR SUPPLY.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of reference of the Labour Committee, recently set up in Kenya Colony under the chairmanship of the Chief Native Commissioner, contain any instruction to them to consider any measures that may be practicable to facilitate the flow of labour from the reserves?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: According to a local newspaper, the terms of reference contain, among other matters, an instruction in the sense indicated in the question.

    COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of subvention paid qualified administrators have been sent to study how analogous problems are dealt with by countries such as the United States of America, France, and Holland, who also have tropical possessions?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: While visits of courtesy and informal meetings are exchanged on suitable occasions between officers administering the Governments of British dependencies and corresponding foreign Colonial officers, 'my right hon. Friend doubts whether it would be practicable to arrange anything of a more formal character. Every effort is made to follow the developments in methods of administration of Colonies by foreign Powers, in particular in regard to agricultural research and kindred matters.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    FOREIGN CONTRACTS LOST.
    Major AINSW0RTHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department he has any figures showing how many foreign contracts for
    2608
    British coal, and the tonnage, have been lost to this country through the coal stoppage?
    The SECRETARY to the OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (Mr. A. M. Samuel): I have no figures available that would give my hon. Friend a full or reliable reply, but I have no doubt whatever from the fragmentary information at my disposal, that we have lost many foreign orders for coal owing to the present
    dispute.

    MINERS WORKING.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines what is the nearest convenient date on which he can give the figures of the number of wage-earners at work in the coal mines, exclusive of safety men; and what was the number?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The latest date for which figures are available is the 24th July. On that date there were 93,370 wageearners employed, of whom 66,300 were employed at mines not producing any coal, or producing coal for colliery consumption only.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the figures of the men other than the safety men engaged in raising coal actually?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think the hon. and gallant Member will have to give me notice of that question.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: Has the number of safety men employed been reduced during the progress of the coal dispute, and, if any reduction has taken place, on what ground?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am not aware of any considerable reduction, or any reduction, but again I must ask for notice.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman I wanted to get the number of men at work in the coal mines, exclusive of safety men.
    Colonel LANE FOX: The answer I have given is that 66,300 wage-earners were employed on the 24th July at mines not producing any coal, or producing coal for colliery consumption only.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the mine is not producing coal, or that the men employed are not producing coal?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Surely it is the same thing. If the men are not producing coal, the4 mine is not producing coal.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: As the right hon. Gentleman has given the answer, it might read that there are so many men employed in mines not winning coal. I want to know the number of men actually engaged in getting coal. There is an ambiguity in the answer.
    Colonel LANE FOX: It is a matter of simple arithmetic. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see me afterwards, I will explain.

    PEMBROKESHIRE.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of subvention paid to the coalowners of Pembrokeshire during the subvention period?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The amount of subvention payable to owners in Pembrokeshire is not yet definitely ascertained, but it is estimated to be about £8,600.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines (1) the average wage per man shift worked paid to the coal miners of Pembrokeshire for the 12 months ended 30th April last;
    (2) the average profit per ton received by the coalowners of Pembrokeshire for the five years ended 31st December last, giving each separately?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Separate particulars for Pembrokeshire are not available. The only figures available relate to South Wales and Monmouth as a whole.

    OUTCROP WORKING.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON (for Mr. WRAGG)asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the number of accidents occurring in outcrop mining by shafts, and if the Regulations imposed by the Mines Regulation Acts are enforced?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. These workings are visited by the inspectors of mines, and everything possible is done to enforce the safety provisions of the Coal Mines Act.
    Sir F. SANDERSON (for Mr. WRAGG)asked the Minister of Health whether the men employed on outcrop mining have their health insurance cards regularly stamped?
    Sir K. WOOD: Insurance cards are required to be stamped for men so engaged if they are employed under a contract of service, but not otherwise. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case which he may have in mind, I will have inquiries made.

    MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).
    Mr. LOWTHasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the reports by voluntary organisations from many mining areas of the distress prevailing there amongst babies, young children, pit boys under 16, and expectant mothers, occasioned chiefly by the system of relief on loan, he will sanction, for the remainder of the stoppage, the adoption by the relief authorities concerned of a more generous scale of relief?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has asked his inspectors to give special attention to the occurrence of cases of hardship, and the reports which he has received do not support the view that distress among the classes mentioned is prevalent in the mining areas.

  AGRICULTURE.

    DISEASES OF ANIMALS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the decision in a recent case has made it clear that the certificate of the Ministry of Agriculture's local veterinary inspector is conclusive evidence in all Courts of Justice in any case of sheep scab or other disease of animals, the Government will, in fairness to farmers, introduce at an early date legislation to amend the provisions of Section 44, Sub-section (5), of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave

    2611
    on the 29th July to my hon. Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Murrough Wilson), a copy of which I am sending to him.

    WAGES COMMITTEES.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture how many county wage committees have fixed wages at less than 35s. per week?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Forty-one of the agricultural wages committees have fixed the minimum wage for ordinary adult male workers at less than 35s. per week, excluding overtime.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the National Wages Board or the Minister of Health caused inquiries to be made why so many counties are deciding upon wages at so small a figure?

    The total area of land returned as being used for agricultural purposes in the undermentioned years in England and Wales, together with the total population in those years and the number of acres per 1,000 of population, was as follows:—

    —

    Acreage of Crops and Permanent grass.

    Acreage of Crops, Permanent grass and rough grazing.

    Total Population.

    Acres per 1,000 of population.

    Crops and Permanent grass.

    Crops, Permanent grass and rough grazing.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    No.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    1870

    …

    25,957,035

    *

    22,501,000

    1,154

    —

    1880

    …

    27,363,782

    *

    25,714,000

    1,064

    —

    1890

    …

    27,872,335

    *

    28,764,000

    969

    —

    1900

    …

    27,538,130

    31,050,986

    32,249,000

    854

    963

    1914

    …

    27,114,004

    30,895,569

    36,967,000

    733

    836

    1924

    …

    25,876,797

    30,823,135

    38,746,000

    668

    796

    * Returns of the acreage of rough grazings were not collected before 1891.

    No information is available as to the suitability of the land for agricultural use.

    FRENCH CUSTOMS DUTIES.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has any information showing that the French customs duties are to be raised?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The French Committee of Experts, which has recently considered French finances, has recommended a substantial increase of the existing tariff. The terms of the recommendation appear on page 70 of the Board of Trade Journal for 18th July, a copy of which I will send to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have no reason to think that the Wages Board are not carrying out their duties under the Act.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (ACREAGE).
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give figures showing the amount of land returned as agricultural land in England and Wales that was suitable for agricultural use in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1914, and 1924, together with the population of England and Wales for those years and the number of acres per 1,000 of the population?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statistical statement giving the information desired by the hon. Member.
    Following is the statement:
    Captain BENN: Was this matter mentioned at all when the negotiations for remitting part of the duties was being considered?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That question should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    POST OFFICE (TRACING STAFF ACTING LIST).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General why it has been considered necessary to go so far down the

    2613
    seniority list of the tracing staff employed in the Accountant-General's Department in order to find officers qualified for inclusion on the acting list'?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): A large number of supervising officers are due to retire under the age limit in the near future, and it is necessary that opportunity should be taken of testing the fitness for promotion of a certain number of officers of outstanding promise.
    Mr. AMMON: Will the Noble Lord kindly reply to the question, why it has been considered necessary to go so far down the list before giving opportunities for the men to act?
    Viscount WOLMER: In the circumstances, I have explained that it was necessary to bring some men, who were regarded as being of outstanding promise, up for trial somewhat earlier.
    Mr. AMMON: Does that mean that all those with greater seniority have been passed over without any opportunity?
    Viscount WOLMER: It does not mean that all have been finally passed over.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether it is to be understood that there is any party in this House in favour of promotion merely by seniority?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is the time for putting questions to Ministers—not to others.

    CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (OFFICERS'PENSIONS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Commissioners referred to in the Central Criminal Court Act, 1834, have not power to formulate a scheme for superannuation of the officers of the Central Criminal Court; whether it is within the knowledge of His Majesty's Government that the Commissioners caused certain proposed Amendments to the said Act to be drafted, copies of which were submitted to the Lord Chancellor and to the London County Council for consideration and reconsideration; and, in view of the fact that about four years have elapsed since the proposals were first drafted, will His Majesty's Government take such action as will enable the officers of the
    2614
    said Court to participate in a scheme of superannuation at an early date?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. Proposals have from time to time been made for the establishment of a pension scheme for the officers of the Central Criminal Court. It would appear that, any such proposals would require the approval of Parliament, and it is desirable that before a Bill for this purpose is submitted the previous agreement of the parties concerned (that is, the Corporation of the City of London, the London County Council, and the other county councils contributing to the expense of the Central Criminal Court) should first be obtained. Efforts have been made to bring about such an agreement, but hitherto without success.
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask the Attorney-General whether he cannot use his persuasive powers to induce the parties to come to an agreement, in view of the fact that the Central Criminal Court is the premier assize court in the country?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is a matter which does not rest with me but with my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I understand that his Department has been doing its best to produce some agreement.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he will explain the position of an orphan under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, who on the death of its mother is adopted by its grandparents, close father remarries and subsequently dies, leaving the adopted child still with its grandparents, and the second wife, now widow with one or more children; would such a child living with its grandparents be treated as entitled to an orphan's pension or an additional allowance; and, if so, to whom should this pension or allowance be paid?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): In the circumstances indicated in the question, an additional allowance would be payable in respect of the child of the first marriage. Normally, an additional allowance is payable to the widow as part of her pen-

    2615
    sion, but the Act contains provisions which authorise the transfer of the allowance from the widow to the person having the charge of the child.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases where grandparents have taken charge of the child almost from its birth, and the grandparents have not been able to receive the benefit of the referee's award? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the case if I submit one to him?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

    LIQUOR SMUGGLING.
    Mr. 'MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the conferences with General Andrews, of the United States of America, in respect to the suppression of smuggling and granting rights of search of British or alleged British ships or other means of freighting cargoes of drink, he will insist that reciprocal facilities will be given to this country and its dependencies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the statement made on this subject in this House on the 27th July, and to the White Paper issued in May (Command 2647). 1 do not understand how the question of the grant of reciprocal facilities to this country and its dependencies arises.
    Mr. MACGUISTEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed of any case of an American citizen being poisoned by liquor smuggled by their own nationals or Britishers into America? Has his attention been called to the poisoning of over a score of British nationals in British territory by poisonous drink smuggled by Americans into British territory; and does he not think he might suggest to General Andrews that he should return to his own country and amend the disgraceful state of affairs there?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I deprecate the tone of my hon. and learned Friend's question. It really is not that which we should adopt towards another great
    2616
    and friendly nation. I have no doubt that the American Government are as anxious to put a stop to improper trading on the Canadian frontier as are the Canadian Government.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Am I not entitled to be indignant at British citizens being poisoned?

  ABYSSINIA.

    ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Note which has been sent by the Regent of Abyssinia to the Secretariat of the League of Nations, protesting against the recently-concluded Anglo-Italian Agreement relating to his country and stating that the Agreement was concluded without the knowledge of the Abyssinian Government and is opposed by that Government, will be laid before Parliament and whether he proposes to make any comment upon it?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The correspondence is at present incomplete, but I shall be glad to publish it when it is concluded.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to answer the last part of the question, as to when he is prepared to make some comment on the matter?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the matter is to be introduced into Debate this afternoon, and I shall then have the opportunity of making a fuller statement.
    Captain BENN: Will the correspondence include the letter of the Regent of the 15th June, which I understand was sent?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the letter to the League?
    Captain BENN: No, the letter to the British and Italian Governments of 15th June.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should, of course, have to have the assent of the Abyssinian Government to its publication,, but subject to that there is no objection.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that all the papers will be laid, and that they will include the correspondence with the French Government, provided that Government do not object?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not say that all the correspondence that has passed will be found there, but there will be the Notes to the Abyssinian Government and the communications from the Abyssinian Government, the communications we received from the League and our communications to the League.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the correspondence with the French Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is occasion to do that. I will see what correspondence there is, but I am sure there is nothing material.
    Colonel DAY: Will the correspondence with the Italian Government be published?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am endeavouring to satisfy the curiosity of hon. Gentlemen, but it is unwise for me to attempt to answer detailed questions without notice. The British Government have nothing whatever to conceal in this matter, as I hope I shall make plain in the course of the discussion which an hon. and gallant Member opposite proposes to initiate.
    Colonel DAY: Has there not been a lot of correspondence between Signor Mussolini and our Ambassador at Rome on this subject?

    TSANA BARRAGE.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, whilst negotiating with Italy regarding the economic spheres of influence in Abyssinia, he kept in touch with the Government of Abyssinia; and whether and when the Government agreed to the building of a barrage for Lake Tsana?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The building of the Tsana barrage by His Majesty's Government or the Government of the Sudan was foreseen in assurances given to Sir John Harrington by the Emperor Menelik in March, 1902, and confirmed by an exchange of Notes, but the Agreement
    2618
    of the Abyssinian Government to an actual scheme remains to be obtained. The communication to the Abyssinian Government, during the course of protracted negotiations with Italy, of information regarding their progress would not have contributed to their successful outcome. Once agreement had been reached, the Abyssinian Government were immediately informed of the substance of it.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is it correct, as stated in the Note which the Abyssinian Government sent to the League of Nations, that this Agreement was made without their knowledge?

    TRADE UNIONS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour the number of unregistered trade unions; and how many of the above possess a membership of more than 50,000?
    The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The number of unregistered trade unions and other employes' associations concerned with the conditions of employment of their members was 704 at the end of 1924, the latest date for which complete figures are available. Of these, two have over 50,000 members.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what those two trade unions represent?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are, I think, the National Union of Teachers and the Union of Post Office Workers.
    Mr. LEE: Does this return apply only to workmen's unions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This answer in particular applies to workmen's organisations.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are unregistered unions compelled to send in returns to the Registrar?
    Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: No, Sir.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date to amend the law relating to trade unions; if so, whether one Bill will be introduced or more than one; and

    2619
    whether, in the meantime, he will publish the conclusions at which the Government has arrived, so that there may be a, full opportunity of discussion throughout the country?
    Commander FANSHAWEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will amend trade union law so as to ensure that no larger sum than the average of that expended by societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act shall be used for the management and expenses, including salaries, of trade unions?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I shall answer these questions together. I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. KELLY: Are we to understand that no promises have been made by the Government to any section of either workers' organisations or employers' organisations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, of course, without notice I could not answer that as regards what any individual members have said; but to my knowledge the answer would be in the negative.
    Mr. KELLY: I am not referring to individual members of the Government, but to spokesmen of the Government when receiving deputations from sections of either workpeople's organisations or employers' organisations.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should have to have notice of that question. I have not received any myself.
    Sir H. BR ITTA INasked the Minister of Labour whether there is any method by which any member of the public may obtain information as to the expenditure of unregistered trade unions and the proportion of expenses incurred in salaries other than working expenses, strike pay and other benefits?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Unregistered trade unions are not under a statutory obligation to make returns on their financial position, and information is available to the public only in so far as they voluntarily agree to its publication.

    REGISTERED SOCIETIES (MANAGEMENT EXPENSES).
    Commander FANSHAWEasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the total annual income is used for management expenses, including salaries, by societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply. No statistics are available which give the precise information desired. Societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act include not only friendly societies, but also working men's clubs, cattle insurance societies, benevolent societies, and especially authorised societies. The management expenses ratio on these four classes has never been calculated. In 1924 friendly societies (other than societies with branches, which include 50 per cent. of friendly society membership, and collecting societies) received total contributions of £6,430,000, and spent on management £690,000, or about 7½ per cent. of contributions. In the same year collecting societies spent 34 per cent. of their total income on management.

    POISON GAS (PROTECTIVE MEASURES).
    Mr. AMMON: asked the Prime Minister whether a gas mask sufficiently reliable to resist the newest discoveries in gases for use in warfare has been invented; and what steps do the Government propose to take to bring such to the attention of the civilian population and to provide instruction in the use of such protective measures?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is every reason to believe that protective measures are keeping abreast of current developments in gas warfare. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Attercliffe on the 10th February.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

    PREFERENCE (MANDATED TERRITORIES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Prime Minister whether the forthcoming Im-

    2621
    perial Conference will consider the difficulties of extending Imperial preference which arise from the fact that mandated territories are at present prohibited from reciprocating any Customs preferences that may be granted to them by other parts of the Empire?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. I do not anticipate that this subject is likely to be raised at the forthcoming Imperial Conference.
    Captain BENN: Has the attention .of the hon. Gentleman been called to the form of this question, which speaks of preferences being " at present prohibited " .? Is there any intention of altering the article of the Covenant which prohibits preferences in any mandated territory?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. and gallant Member is not correct in his statement. There is a great variation in the terms of the mandates. Under the terms of " C " mandates a country can receive preferences, under " B " mandates there are other conditions and " A " mandates stand in a category by themselves. The point of this question is whether the whole matter will be examined at the Imperial Conference, and I have said it will not be.
    Captain BENN: But is there any intention of altering the general principle by which these territories held in trust give no preferences?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No alteration of the terms of the several mandates can take place without the unanimous decision of the Council of the League of Nations.

    DIVORCE LAW.
    Mr. RAMSDEN (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will bring to the notice of the Imperial Conference the terms of the Indian and Colonial Divorce Bill with a view to arranging for the extension Of the Bill to the self-governing Dominions and the passage of similar legislation by these Dominions?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: His Majesty's Government had not contemplated extending the principle of the present Bill to cover cases of persons domiciled here
    2622
    and resident in the Dominions, or initiating a discussion on the matter at the Imperial Conference. But it would, of course, be open to any of the Dominion representatives to raise the question, should they so desire.
    Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that grave objection is taken to this in Scotland?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know that there are objections, but, as I have said, the initiative would he open to any Dominion Government.

    EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.
    Mr. MAC QU I STEN (for Lieut.-Colonel THOM)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if at the forthcoming Imperial Conference any schemes for the development of the uninhabited territories of the British Empire, and of the Empire generally, will be considered?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has no doubt that the question of Empire development will arise in the course of the discussion on oversea settlement which is to be included in the Agenda for the Imperial Conference. There are, also other subjects for discussion at the Conference on which such questions may arise. But, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend mentioned in the course of his statement on the 29th July, it is for the Government of the area concerned to initiate the consideration of any particular scheme or schemes of this nature.

    TURKEY (WAR. MUNITIONS).
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Prime -Minister whether the Government, directly or through any agent, have been in negotiation during the present year for the sale of munitions of war or armaments to the Turkish Government or its agents; and whether the negotiations are still in progress?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No direct negotiations whatever have taken place. The only indirect overtures that I can trace consisted of inquiries of private firms, but so far as I am aware nothing materialised, and no negotiations are now in progress.
    Mr. JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to an article in a London paper this morning in which specific allegations are made that an offer, through an intermediary, was made on behalf of the British Government by a Birmingham firm to supply 100,000 rifles and 100,000,000 rounds of ammunition; and whether it is a fact that this offer was made, as it is declared to have been made, on the express authority of the Foreign Secretary himself; and whether he is prepared to deny it?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not get further in the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers than the head lines. The facts are as stated in my answer. There is nothing in international obligations or in our relations with the Turkish Government which should cause us to prevent British firms from supplying them with armaments if they desire it.
    Mr. JONES: As there is nothing in international law, may I ask whether there is not something in the actual practice of nations that precludes us from doing this sort of thing?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Do not firms have to get the permission of the Foreign Secretary before they can trade in that way?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, there has to be permission from the British Government for the export of arms, but that permission ought not to be capriciously withheld. There is nothing, as I say, in the state of the world or in our relations with the Turkish Government which should cause me to think it in the public interest to prohibit the export of arms to Turkey at the present day.
    Mr. JONES: As a matter of fact, is it not stated specifically in one of the communications from the private firm to the Turkish Government that this kind of thing is done for the first time by this Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That I do not know, because I have not seen the communications which have passed between the private firm and the Turkish Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that British men-of-war were sunk in the Dardanelles by mines supplied by British firms, and is he prepared to see a repetition of that?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not contemplating a new war with Turkey. We have just successfully concluded negotiations which place our relations on the most satisfactory footing, and there, I trust, we shall be able to maintain them, if this House will allow us to do so.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that there is in Bedford Park a large gun captured from Germany which was made in Great Britain to kill British people?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question is irrelevant.

    DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES(ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. LEEasked the Attorney-General if he will give the names and addresses of the County of Derbyshire Magistrates Advisory Committee?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The following constitute the Derby County Advisory Committee:
    His Grace the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., G. C. M. G., G. C. V.O., Chatsworth, Bakewell (His Majesty's Lieutenant).
    G. H. Strutt, Esq., V.D., D.L., J.P., Bridge Hill, Belper.
    C. R. Crompton, Esq., J.P., Stanton Hall, Stanton-by-Dale, Nottingham.
    The Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas, M.P., Unity House, Euston Road, N.W.1.
    Mrs. Carruthers, J.P., 8, Gower Street, Bloomsbury.
    Enoch Overton, Esq., J.P., 33, Oxcroft Road, Bolsover, Chesterfield.
    Edwin C. Barnes, Esq., C.B.E., D.L.,
    J.P., Ashgate Lodge, Chesterfield.
    H. St. John Digby Raikes, Esq., K.C., J.P., C.B.E., 10, Eccleston Square, S.W.1.
    Lord Doverdale, Westwood Park, Droitwich.
    Mr. LEE: Does the Attorney-General think that four out of five members who are not resident in Derbyshire is a proper proportion?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no information at all on the matter.

    EDUCATION (HEALTH AND WELFARE COURSES).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider suggesting to education authorities the institution of health and welfare courses for the older girls in council schools, on lines similar to those given at the Bedford College for Women, with a view to the better fitting of such girls for the carrying out of the duties of later life?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The subject of health education will be dealt with in a special chapter in the revised edition of the volume of " Suggestions for Teachers," now in course of preparation.
    Colonel DAY: Will it, also contain a reference to the work of welfare education?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I cannot say specifically, but I think my answer covers that question.

  MOTOR CYCLES (SILENCERS).

    WARNING BY HOME SECRETARY.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the noise caused in many cases by motor cycles; and whether he will take steps to secure a stricter enforcement of the law relating to the use of silencers?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the unnecessary noises created in the outer circle of Regent's Park by motorists and motor cyclists with open exhausts; and, in view of the discomfort and danger caused to invalids in the neighbourhood, whether he will devise some means of controlling or eliminating altogether this nuisance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): This subject has been engaging my attention for some time.
    2626
    The question of improving silencers in motor cycles has been under discussion between the Ministry of Transport and the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Manufacturers' and Traders' Union, but I regret nothing has resulted so far from the discussion. The only course now open to me is to instruct the police to take active steps to enforce the law, and I am accordingly doing so and issuing a warning to motorists that if they desire to escape liability to the penalty provided by the law they must see that their machines or any machine which they purchase are effectively silenced, and that they must so use and drive them as to reduce the noise of their exhausts as far as may be reasonably practicable.
    Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that officers have been specially employed in detecting these offences, and that there have not been more detections is due to the inability more of police authorities to employ more officers on this work owing to many forces being under strength.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I told the House the other day that 4,000 prosecutions took place in London last year, and that does not seem to have had any effect. I am asking the police forces to see that the law is properly carried out.
    Sir H. BR ITTA IN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of an effective silencer?

    THEATRICAL MANAGERS' REGISTRATION ACT, 1925.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that prosecutions for offences under the Theatrical Managers' Registration Act, 1925, can only be instituted in the district where such registration was effected; and will he consider an Amendment to the existing Act in order to provide for proceedings being instituted in the districts where performers may have been abandoned.?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSSo far as I can see the Act already meets the hon. Member's case as an offence has to be prosecuted before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction within the area of which the offence was committed. If, however, the hon. Member will give me particulars of any difficulty which has arisen I will consider the matter further.
    Colonel DAY: Is the Home Secretary aware that just lately a prosecution took place in London where the place of registration was Newport, and consequently the magistrate could not deal with the case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will give me the details of the case I will look into it.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether theatrical managers are in the habit of committing offences?

    LOUD SPEAKERS (BY-LAWS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary if he will suggest to local authorities the advisability of by-laws being adopted with a view to the nuisance occasioned by the use of loud speakers in gardens or open spaces being abated?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would not be proper for me to intervene in a matter of this kind. It is for the local authority in the first instance to consider whether a substantial nuisance exists in their district which can be dealt with by by-law.

    IRAQ (REMISSION OF DEBT).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the chancellor of the Exchequer why no Minute was presented to the House of Commons by the Treasury giving particulars and explaining the circumstances of the gift to the Iraq Government of the agreed sum due from that Government in respect of certain works and communications in Iraq?
    Mr. McNEILLThis book debt consisted of a liability to pay the value of certain works of public utility constructed in Iraq during the period of military occupation, and subsequently transferred to the Iraq Government. The circumstances in which remission was considered desirable were explained to the House in the Report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young). No Minute is required to regularise the action of the Treasury in authorising remission.
    Sir R. HAMILTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider, having regard
    2628
    to the fact that this gift was of an unusual nature and exceeded £10,000, that it was in accordance with the Treasury Minute of the 25th May, 1923, that no information should be given to this House?
    Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir.
    Captain BENN: Has the Treasury power to remit large debts like this, running into many thousands of pounds, without consulting this House at all?
    Mr. McNEILL: Yes. Sir.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to the memorandum sent to the Reparation Commission by the German Government making a claim on the charge of the annual payments?
    Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on the 28th July.
    Sir F. WISE: Was there not a meeting of the Reparation Commission at the Bank of England last week?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not know I must have notice of that question.

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangement he has made with Portugal in regard to the debt of £23,000,000 due to Great Britain?
    Mr. McNEILL: Negotiations in regard to this debt are at present taking place.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any representation has been received from the new French Government on the question whether payments from France to England should be contingent on reparation payments received by France from Germany?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

    PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the Govern-

    2629
    merit from 1st April to 30th June, 1926, and also the cost for the similar period of 1925, of old age pension, disability pension, war pension, national health insurance and unemployment insurance?

    Service.

    Cost (partly estimated).

    1st April—30th June, 1925.

    1st April—30th June, 1926.

    £

    £

    Old Age Pensions

    6,522,000

    6,887,000

    War Pensions (including War Disability Pensions)

    16,891,000

    16,175,000

    National Health Insurance

    1,966,000

    1,680,000

    Unemployment Insurance (Exchequer Contribution to Fund).

    3,270,000

    2,770,000

    NOTES—

    1. The figure for Old Age Pensions excludes the cost of administration. Other figures include the cost of administration.

    2. Certain disability pensions, not included above, are also paid by the Service Departments, but their amount is negligible in comparison with the figures given above.

    COINAGE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to make a change in the design of the coinage; which coins will he affected; and what is the reason for the change?
    Mr. McNEILL: Proposals for improving the design on the reverse of certain silver coins have been under consideration, and a statement will be made when it is possible to give details.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the House of Commons any control over this matter before the designs on the coinage are altered?
    Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When this matter was under consideration, did the right hon. Gentleman consider the coining of five-shilling pieces again—crown pieces?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think that that was one of the matters that were under consideration.
    Colonel DAY: Is it contemplated that the three-penny bit shall be done away with?
    Mr. McNEILL: As the answer consists of a table of figures, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    Fallowing is the Table promised:
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

    TAXI-CABS.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a Report from the London Traffic Advisory Committee regarding prowling taximeter cabs; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to deal with this nuisance?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I have nothing to add at present to the answer which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to a similar question which he put to the Minister on the 19th July.

    HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY (LITIGATION).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state the extent of the financial liability to the Government involved in the Government's guarantee of responsibility for counsel in the recent case in which the Highland Railway Company were the appellants; whether the Government was consulted before four senior counsel and

    2631
    one junior were briefed; and how many counsel were briefed to represent the defendants in the case?
    Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZ ON: The extent of the financial liability cannot be determined until the final judgment in the case is given. The retention of counsel was a matter for the railway company, but the Government were aware of the company's intentions in this respect, and, in all the circumstances, saw no reason to dissent from the proposal to brief additional senior counsel in the last stage of the case. I have no information as to the number of counsel briefed by the respondents, but I understand that three appeared on their behalf in the proceedings before the House of Lords.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he will be in a position to tell the House what is the extent of the Government's liability in this matter, and whether the Treasury were consulted before this expenditure of public money was guaranteed?
    Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I shall be able to tell the hon. Member the liability when the case has been decided in the House of Lords. Until then I do not know.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Treasury were consulted about this expenditure of public money upon four senior and one junior counsel?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I should have to have notice of that question, but I understand the Government were consulted.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the money being spent among a very deserving class?

    ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC.
    Mr. RYEasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the danger to pedestrians caused by the adoption of one-way traffic in London, he will consider the advisability of abandoning the trials and reverting to the old traffic system?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am aware that there is a fairly widespread impression that one-way streets in-
    2632
    crease the danger to pedestrians, though the figures of accidents, which are available, tend to show that the risks have diminished rather than increased. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already asked the London Traffic Advisory Committee to advise him whether any steps can usefully be taken further to minimise the risk of accidents, to pedestrians, either by altering the position of the refuges or increasing their number.
    Mr. RYE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the contrary view is held by prominent members of highway authorities, and that, in particular, at a meeting of the Westminster City Council, on Thursday last, it was thought that there is grave danger on the north side of Trafalgar Square, and the construction of a subway was advocated?
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

    SOLITAR V CONFINEMENT.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Home Secretary if such a. penalty as solitary confinement is permissible under the Prison Regulations; if so, what is the maximum length of time for which such is imposed and for what crime; and has it been necessary to impose such a penalty within recent years?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. Solitary confinement was abolished long ago. The nearest approach to it, close confinement, is a punishment occasionally imposed for breaches of prison discipline, but it does not mean complete solitude. It can be awarded up to a period of three days by governors, up to 14 days by visiting committees of local prisons, and up to 28 days by boards of visitors and directors of convict prisons. The prisoner is allowed, on promise of good behaviour, an hour's exercise daily, after the first day's confinement, and to attend chapel on Sundays. Usually the confinement is to the prisoner's ol4n cell or a similar cell. Of recent years the Prison Commissioners have encouraged a tendency to substitute loss of privileges for close confinement. A table showing the number of prison punishments, including close confinement, will be found in Table B of Appendix 6 to the Commissioners' Annual Report for 1924–25.

    PALESTINE (RAILWAY EMPLOYES' HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. BROMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent action of the management of the Government railways in Palestine, in discontinuing the granting of annual holidays with pay and refusing to pay for statutory holidays to the staff, is with his knowledge and approval; if so, why has this step been taken; and what were the net profits of these railways during the last period estimated?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information regarding the first two parts of the question. During the financial year 1925–26 the excess of the actual revenue of the Palestine Government railways over the actual working expenditure was about £104,000. This represents less than 5 per cent. interest upon the estimated capital value of the railway.
    Mr. BROMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make inquiries as to the position indicated in the question?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir, we will make inquiries.
    Sir F. WISE: Do these railways belong to the British Government or to the Palestine Government?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They have been purchased by the Palestine Government.

    EMPIRE MARKETING.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN (for Lieut.-Colonel THOM)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whether any part of the sum of £500,000 allocated this year for the purpose of encouraging the sale of Empire produce has yet been expended; and when the Marketing Board are to begin their advertisement campaign?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement on this subject which my right hon. Friend made in the course of the Debate last week on the Second Reading of the Bill, to which I am not at present in a position to add anything.

  POOR LAW.

    RELIEF (MODE OF DISTRIBUTION).
    Mr. E. W. H. WOOD (for Colonel BURTON)asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the economy which can be effected by distributing relief in kind instead of cash; and whether he will cause instructions to be issued to the various boards of guardians throughout the country to cease distributing cash and institute a general system of relief in kind?
    Sir K. WOOD: in the Circular which my right hon. Friend issued at the commencement of the present dispute, he drew the attention of boards of guardians to the importance of granting a substantial proportion of any relief in kind. He doubts whether there would be advantage in issuing any further recommendations on the subject.

    CASUAL WARDS, (ORTH-WESTERN AREA.
    Mr. LOWTHasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of there having been only two dissentient boards of guardians in the area, he will reconsider his refusal to sanction a proposal submitted by the North-Western Voluntary Vagrancy Committee last July, under the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, that the ordinary house dinner be supplied to casuals when detained?
    Sir K. WOOD: The dietary of casuals was carefully considered before the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, was issued, and my right hon. Friend attaches importance to uniform compliance with the dietary prescribed therein. He is, however, prepared to consider any further representations which the North-Western Joint Vagrancy Committee may desire to submit to him.
    38. Mr. LOWTHasked the Minister of Health whether he can give a list of casual wards closed in the area of the North-Western Joint. Vagrancy Committee?
    Sir K. WOOD: Complete information is being obtained, and will be forwarded to the hon. Member.

    SEAL FISHERIES, NORTH PACIFIC.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for

    2635
    Foreign Affairs whether the present Soviet Government of Russia has continued the agreement embodied in the International Convention between His Majesty's Government, the United States of America, the Imperial Government of Japan, and the late Imperial Government of Russia prohibiting the killing, taking, and hunting of seals and sea otters within the waters covered by the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1895.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. As regards the waters covered by the Convention referred to, these are described in Article 1 as "the waters of the North Pacific Ocean, north of the 30th parallel of north latitude, and including the seas of Behring, Kamchatka, Okhotsk and Japan."

    WAR PENSIONS, BIRMINGHAM (FINAL AWARDS).
    M. Sir F. WISE (for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE)asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the Birmingham War Pensions Committee, at a recent meeting, complained of the attitude of the Ministry with regard to final awards; and will he consider the advisability of having cases reopened where it can be proved that injustice has been done to the ex-service men who are suffering by reason of their service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Lieut. - Colonel Stanley): My right hon. Friend has not yet received any representations from this Committee arising out of their recent meeting. I would remind the hon. Member that, as has been repeatedly stated in this House, administrative measures have long since been taken to deal with the wholly exceptional ease where a final award is proved to be erroneous.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    The following question, stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir H. BRITTAIN:
    "73. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost in the way of labour and material in the manufacture of the penny; what number of these coins was minted during the last 12 months; and whether, in view of the considerable bulk
    2636
    and weight of this coin, he will give consideration to designs for something smaller and of more convenient size to be introduced at an early date?"
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I not put Question No. 73? It has not been called.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exceeded his ration.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: If you will count my questions, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that they are not over the ration.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will count them again, but I have this question marked as the fourth in the hon. Member's name.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: I only put down three.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN(later): I should still like to put Question No. 73, if I may, on the second round.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have inquired into that. My counting was done on the Blue Paper, which is the official notice to the House. I find that the hon. Member asked that a question should be taken off. That question appeared on the Blue Paper as No. 31, which accounts for the gap in the numbers in to-day's Question Paper, where there is a question missing between No. 30 and No. 32.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: I put three questions on the Order Paper, and, unless I am on starvation rations, I submit that I am entitled to ask three.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have had to rule before that Members could not withdraw a question, and in that way get in a fourth one. The Blue Paper is the official notice to the House; the White Paper is printed merely for convenience.

    BRITISH GOODS (RETAINED IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the aggregates of the retained imports and the exports of British goods of kinds to which safeguarding duties have been applied during the first half of 1926 and of

    2637
    1925, respectively, and also the aggregates of the retained imports and exports of British goods to which no such duties have been applied for the same periods?

    A RETURN of the AGGREGATES of the value of retained IMPORTS, and the EXPORTS
    (MANUFACTURES of the UNITED KINGDOM), of GOODS (a) to which "safeguarding" duties under
    the FINANCE ACT, 1925, and the SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT, 1925, have been
    applied, (b) to which no such duties have been applied, registered during the SIX MONTHS,
    JANUARY—JUNE, 1926 and 1925, respectively.

    Group.

    January—June, 1926.

    January—June, 1925.

    Retained Imports.

    Exports (United Kingdom Goods).

    Retained Imports.

    Exports (United Kingdom Goods).

    (a) Safeguarded Goods:

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Lace and embroidery

    259,691

    990,850

    363,145

    1,314,116

    Cutlery

    118,969

    397,468

    186,461

    433,115

    Gas Mantles

    29,815

    15,049

    120,737

    18,004

    Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of mantles for incandescent
    lighting.

    8

    14

    Not available.

    Gloves of leather or of fur, and cotton fabric gloves and material for such
    gloves.

    612,965

    69,250

    1,783,573

    91,421

    Total

    1,021,448

    1,472,631

    2,453,916

    1,856,656

    (b) Other Goods:

    All other manufactured goods (Class III—Wholly or mainly manufactured).

    136,317,018

    273,979,760

    155,515,169

    310,862,874

    It should be noted that the imports of the safeguarding goods under (a) were increased by forestalments prior to the imposition of the duties, and that these forestalments have diminished imports in the first half of 1926.

    FEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRIES.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in tire name of Mr. THUILTLE:
    "76. To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the figures for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the Federation of British Industries, showing the total receipts, working expenses, officers' salaries, allowances, amid expenses, respectively?"
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I put Question No. 76?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member been asked to do so by the hon. Member in whose name the question stands?
    Mr. THORNE: No, Sir; but I should like to have the privilege.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Questions 53, 54 and 55 have not been answered.
    Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister is not here.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: What will you do about that, Mr. Speaker? The Minister ought to be here.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister was here on the first round. He is not obliged to be here on the second round, if hon. Members are not present to put their questions earlier.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Small Holdings and Allotments [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 50.

Division No. 422.]

AYES.

[3.35 p.m.

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

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Murchison, C. K.

Albery, Irving James

Harrison, G. J. C.

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

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Hawke, John Anthony

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Headlam, Lieut,Colonel C. M.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Atholl, Duchess of

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Balniel, Lord

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

Price, Major C. W. M.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Hills, Major John Walter

Ramsden, E.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Hilton, Cecil

Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.

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

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

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

Berry, Sir George

Holland, Sir Arthur

Ruggles-Brisel Major E. A.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brass, Captain W.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Rye, F. G.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

Sandon, Lord

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)

Hume, Sir G. H.

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hurst, Gerald B.

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

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Smithers, Waldron

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

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Jacob, A. E.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dawson, Sir Philip

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Ellis. R. G.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Tasker, Major R. Inlgo

Elveden, Viscount

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Tinne, J. A.

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

Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

MacIntyre, Ian

Wells, S. R.

Falie, Sir Bertram G.

McLean, Major A.

White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dalrymple

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Fielden, E. B.

Macquisten, F. A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Fraser, Captain Ian

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Wolmer, Viscount

Fremantie. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Womersley, W. J.

Gates, Percy

Malone, Major P. B.

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

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

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

Margesson, Captain D.

Wood. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

Grace, John

Merriman, F. B.

Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Moles, Thomas

Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Mr. F. C. Thomson.

NOES.

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

Gosling, Harry

Lowth, T.

Ammon, Charles George

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

Lunn, William

Attlee, Clement Richard

Greenall, T.

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

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Bondfield, Margaret

Groves, T.

Riley, Ben

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Bromley, J.

Hardle. George D.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Charleton, H. C.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)

Tinker, John Joseph

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Dalton, Hugh

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Day, Colonel Harry

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Windsor, Walter

Duncan, C.

Kelly, W. T.

Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

Fenby, T. D.

Kirkwood, D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Lawrence, Susan

Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Hayes.

Gillett, George M.

Lee, F.

FACTORIES (No. 2) BILL.
"to consolidate, with Amendments, the enactments relating to Factories; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Secretary Sir WILLIAM. JOYNSON-HICKS; supported by Captain Hacking; to he read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Adoption of Children Bill, with Amendments.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

  AGRICULTURE.
  Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I wish to raise a very important topic, namely, the survey of land. This question has been raised in this House last year and repeatedly this year. I think the time has come when we ought to know what the Government intend to do in regard to this matter. As Chairman of a Private Committee more than two years ago, I found the greatest difficulty in getting the necessary information on which to arrive at an opinion as to the condition of agriculture in this country. We have no real information on this question of agriculture. Since 1875, no census has been taken. America, with its enormous territory of 350,000,000 acres, can take the necessary survey every ten years. We have taken no survey since 1875 We want to know what are the economic and social implications of the existing system. We want an economic survey that will cover the land at present cultivated. We want to know the kind of land that is used, how it is used and the quality of the cultivation.
  I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland present, because I am sure that his example ought to push along the Minister of Agriculture in the direction in which we wish to go. His survey of Kincardine, of which I hope he will tell us, is a move in the right direction, and I am happy to think that he is going to extend it to two other Scottish areas. Why the Minister of Agriculture cannot have a survey of the poorer lands of England, and why we cannot get a sample census of the land of England, beats me to know. A lot of the poorer lands of England are waterlogged, and we know that there are many of the very light lands in England that are dropping out of cultivation. We want to know the
  2658
  reason for that. Surely it is the business of the Government and of the Minister of Agriculture to give the necessary information to this House. It is estimated by authorities that at least 200,000 acres of land in England are waterlogged and useless, and that there are certainly 1,000,000 acres that could be reclaimed and made useful for agriculture.
  Before we can arrive at a solution of the very serious position in which agriculture is placed to-day, we want to know what land is suitable for the various types of cultivation and what land is suitable for afforestation. How is the land owned? We want to know the number of occupiers, the number of holdings and whether the occupiers occupy more than one holding. Above all, we want to know what form of transportation is available for these various forms of cultivation. Are the roads suitable and are the railway facilities suitable? Can they get their produce to the market and can they get their necessary supplies from the ports to their farms, when they have to get their supplies from overseas? This question of transportation is very serious. Incidentally, we want to know how far the tax on heavy vehicles is taking away the use of such vehicles from the farmers. In individual cases, to my knowledge, farmers who are now farming large tracts of land and who use these tractors for taking sheep and other animals to market, have now ceased to use them because of the heavy taxation
  We want to know a great deal about buildings. What many farms lack, particularly in the poorer areas, are suitable buildings in order to carry on the necessary business of agriculture. The buildings are unsuited for housing cattle and for covering up farm implements. Undoubtedly, England, especially in the poorer areas, is much behind Scotland in this respect. The census should tell us exactly what buildings exist, and what are necessary for the successful carrying on of the farms. It should also tell us the buildings that are necessary for housing the farm servants and other workers. I am not one who believes that a tied house on a farm is a bad thing. My experience is that these houses are the necessary equipment of large farms. The men are housed close to their work, they cultivate small gardens in their spare time, and they are much fitter than the worker who has to go long distances back from the

  2659
  farm to his house, and is very tired when he gets home at night. There are many farms in England where buildings do not exist and farmers are unable to get the necessary labour they require because they cannot house the labourers.
  I welcome what the Government are doing towards the repair of worn-out farm houses. It is said that this is money for the landlords, but it is also money for the farm workers, because it is necessary to provide healthy buildings for farm workers. One of the reasons why people are moving from the country districts to the towns is because there is a lack of proper housing accommodation; and in any return that is made we should be told what the real position is. It is only after we have had a proper census made of what is required that we can consider the legislation that is necessary. We also want to know the general position of allotments. In Scotland we have a good system of providing a small amount of land around the farm buildings, but in England there is nothing of the sort, or very little. We want to know exactly what land the houses have got, and what they might have. Then there is the question of the educational facilities for the children of these workers, and their social conditions—whether the social environment is attractive and going to tend towards keeping the men on the land. We also want to know the kind of farming, by districts, which will really give some return on the capital invested. We have various types of farming. There is dairy farming, which sonic people say is the only kind of farming paying to-day. There is also stock farming, but the real foundation of agriculture is the arable farmer, whether he is producing milk or cereals.
  The Minister of Agriculture is closely associated, I know, with the use of cereals. Let me tell him that the use of cereals in this country is in a very serious position. Farmers who are trying to run a rotation of crops and make their farms pay find that they are losing money every year. This last season the crop has been a particularly bad one, and the reason is that they are unable to market their cereals. There has been a continua fall in markets. Take the case of wheat. The bulk of the wheat grown in England is not milled for flour. A great deal of the wheat that is milled comes from
  2660
  abroad. Millers, especially large millers, find that to have a strong flour they must have a strong wheat like Canadian, American, or Australian, and they are unable to use more than a small percentage of home-grown wheat. Any census that goes to the bottom of the agricultural problem should tell us what the. wheat is used for; you have to get down to the percentage of home-grown wheat that is used by our millers. If you go to the large mills at the London Docks, Hull, Liverpool, Edinburgh or Glasgow, you will find that less than 10 per cent. of home-grown wheat is used by them in the production of flour, and the necessary bread for our people. Whether millers want a particularly strong type of flour in order to produce bread which will keep racist for a longer time I do not know, but we ought to know what happens to this wheat. I am satisfied that we might do a great deal towards producing the wheat that is turned into flour by improving the seed, by using this new Yeoman seed that is now produced at Cambridge and which has been tried in one or two counties in Scotland with good results. It has certain characteristics and is used freely by millers. It can be graded and bulk handled. We want to know what has happened to when, throughout the country.
  Then as to barley The large barley farmers complain that they cannot sell their barley. The reason is that the products from which beer is made are provided largely from abroad. We want to follow out what happens to the barley; how much is turned into malt for beer; how much beer is made from foreign imported barley: how much whisky in Scotland is made from imported barley, and how much from home-grown barley. I am convinced that there is a very grave decrease in the amount of barley now used as compared with the amount used 10 years ago. Then you come down to the potato crop, one of the most important, not only for the action it has on the land, but as a food for the people. There again you get farmers having to take part in a purely speculative trade. One year potatoes are £10 a ton; next year they are £5, and last year they were 25s. The farmer is entirely in the hands of the world's market. We want to know from the Minister of Agriculture exactly what is the position of this very fine

  2661
  food. I do not know how far the Committee of Imperial Defence has examined the question of the food supply of this country, but at any rate it ought to be closely examined. There is no crop that can produce food more quickly than the potato crop, and it is most important we should see that it is cultivated to advantage.
  4.0 P.M.
  One thing I must point out. We do not know what land requires lime, the deficiency of lime, and where we can get lime. I am sure that there are a great many places where lime used to be produced which are now closed down, and it would be of great value to agriculture as a whole if we could get a proper census and know where this lime comes from. Some two years ago—it does not come under my right bon. Friend's jurisdiction, but under that of the Board of Trade—a. census of production was ordered. The late Minister of Agriculture, Lord Irwin, promised that something would be done in this direction to meet the demand for a census. How soon are we to expect a preliminary Report with these figures? We know that the whole of the figures cannot be given quickly, but we might at least have some form of preliminary Report which would guide us in the direction in which we want to go. I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture what his predecessor said. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), this day last year, Lord Irwin said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman pressed me a good deal on the question of an agricultural survey in reference to the Debate we had earlier in the session. I agree with him to-night, as I agreed with him then, that what we want in this matter are facts, and not opinions. I have applied my mind, as I have in all these Debates, to the best way of producing the facts. After mature consideration I have decided, for reasons which I cannot go into now, that the Agricultural Returns Act would not give us what we want. I have, therefore, decided to make a rather extended use of the census of production that, it so happens, falls due this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 1091, Vol. 187.]
  Again earlier in the year Lord Irwin said that he entirely agreed that this census was required. He said:
  "I have in mind, if it could be achieved, something quite different. I would like to get a national record of the state and possible productivity of English land, and,
  2662
  therefore, while I will certainly consider what has been suggested on this point, I am inclined to doubt whether this Bill"—
  the Agricultural Returns Bill—
  "will give it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1925; col. 2292, Vol. 182]
  He again refers to it later on in other Debates. He says that he considers a census of agricultural land or at least a sample of it is necessary, and I am perfectly certain that he has in mind an early census of various sample districts throughout England. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he still adheres to the necessity for this census. I am perfectly certain that he would not be one to go back on what his predecessor thought was really necessary. He ought to take a leaf out of Scotland's book and get on with it, because, after all, it is a very serious matter. We also want to know the amount of land that could be reclaimed. Many years ago, especially in Norfolk, we had large reclamations of lands which are now very fertile, but it seems that in recent years we have done absolutely nothing towards reclaiming land which has been taken from us by the sea and by the rivers and in the waterlogged areas of this country. If you take other countries, you will find that between 1846 and 1923 Belgium reclaimed no less than 558,000 odd acres; Denmark, since 1860, something like 1,000,000 acres; that Germany are at present busy reclaiming about 60 square miles near Berlin; and that Holland, between 1900 and 1918, have reclaimed something like 250,000 acres, and are now busy at the Zuyder Zee. I am sure that there must be quantities of land that could be reclaimed if we only had the requisite information, and, if we could use some of the present unemployed on the work, we could get a real return for our money.
  Then there is the question of land drainage. We do not really know the necessity in this country for land drainage. Anyone who goes and walks through the fields knows the condition of the land. It was drained 40 or 50 years possibly with pipes too small, and now the drains are choked and the poorer and especially the heavier lands want redraining. As far as I can see, the Government, since 1921, have done very little in the matter of land drainage. In 1921–22, they spent £248,000 on

  2663
  drainage schemes; in 1923, £270,000; in 1924–25, £253,000; and now we are down to £170,000. The figures are a mere bagatelle for such an important thing as the draining of land. You cannot grow crops on sodden land; you lose money every time. The lack of land drainage has been estimated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to cost at least £80,000,000 a year in England alone. Surely, if he could recover some of that money, it would be well worth doing. I was very interested in the Forestry Commission's Report to September, 1925. There anyway, something has been done, and I congratulate the Government on what they are doing. They have not done enough and they are doing less than the programme and than the Report suggested—there are a good many thousand acres more that might be done—but still they are doing something in that direction.
  A census would also give us a very clear idea what land is available for small holdings and the number of people we could put on those small holdings. The real thing is to find out what is the demand, what land is available, and what is the price of that land, whether it is going to he charged at a fictitious value or whether it can be bought, either through a local authority or through a national authority, at its agricultural value. Everyone who has anything to do with small holdings knows that the cost, especially the cost of equipment, is very heavy. It is right that the land that we use for small holdings should lie the best land that we can get hold of. If is no use putting smallholders on to the worst land. I have seen tracts of very bad land all over the country which has been sold for small holdings, probably to people who did not know the difference between one class of land and another. The result has been that the State has lost a good deal of money. A census would give us the type of land available, the position of that land in relation to industrial areas, and the possibility of equipping the land.
  I do not think there is any great demand for buying small holdings. I know that the number that has been bought with the facilities given through the county councils is very small, something like 400 or 500 in 30 years. What
  2664
  the smallholder really wants is good land suitably equipped and a certain amount of financial help over a period of years. He wants to get hold of a little spare money for handling his small holding and to enable him to make it a successful venture. According to the right hon. Gentleman, there were, on 8th July, 1926, 14,847 applicants—I am not quite sure that does not cover those who desire small holdings—and of that number only 612 had been approved. Surely, we can get a bigger move on. If we can only get more people settled on our countryside it will cure many of the evils from which we suffer to-day. Another thing which the census would tell us is the amount of land required for allotments, which I hold is one of the most important forms of cultivation in this country. Allotments, however, must be close to the habitation of those who work them. When I was in Germany I noticed, with a great deal of interest, the development of allotments in the large cities there. New parts of towns were laid out with trams and everything and ground for allotments was apportioned near to the new buildings. Certainly, in looking forward, we ought, in town-planning, to lay down definite areas for allotments. At the end of 1924, we had something like—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I rather think that a good many of these things would require legislation. To-day, on the Appropriation Bill, we are governed by the rules of Supply and must not discuss things which require legislation.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: I did not intend to ask for legislation on these matters. I was only pointing out that we cannot know what is required until we have a census. We want to know the demand for allotments and the. position of the land available, and I am trying to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that it is necessary to have this census in order to find out what is really wanted. After all, the real trouble in this question of allotments is the position, the rent, and the question of the fixity of tenure. Many of these people are turned out at short notice. We want to know the tracts of land near industrial areas that can be used for allotments. I look upon this as a very important thing, because allotments will certainly carry through many poor families in times like these, when we have such industrial distress.

  2665
  Another question on which I would like to touch is that of housing. We do not know what is the position of rural housing. We do not know what difficulties farmers experience in getting houses for their workers. It is most important that we should know what houses are required by the various cultivators of the soil and what houses can suitably be put on the land. As I have said, I am one of those who hold that the iniquity of tied houses has been overstated. The farm worker's house should form part of the equipment of the farm. The nearer such houses are to the men's work, the better. It is the business of the Minister to find out what are the requirements of the farmers, so that he can shape his policy accordingly. This survey has been long overdue, and I hope and trust that almost immediately he will set about taking samples of the various areas in the country, not forgetting some of the poorer and heavier lands, so that we can really know what are the facts, and so that we can get on and try to alleviate and improve a very important and difficult industry.
  Mr. NOEL. BUXTON: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has very cogently elaborated the grounds for urging on the Minister what both he and I have on several occasions urged on him before, namely, the institution of a survey. I will not labour that point again, but I would use my opportunity to support warmly the proposal for a survey, because it is a step which is absolutely required before you proceed to what is above all necessary, the raising of our standard of farming. We must obtain some better means than we have now of improving the production of our land, and a survey is interesting as a step to that. We have not been able to get much change out of the Minister in regard to this question of the survey, for he has been busying himself with other lines of approach to the English and Welsh agricultural problem. I would like to point out what he has been doing. Take stock for a moment of the Government record. Compare the hopes of 18 months ago, when the Government came into office and there was a great deal of talk about increasing our arable area by 1,000,000 acres, with what has been done since that date. It is rather a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous to have had much labour given to very small things, such as weights and
  2666
  measures at cattle fairs, subventions of drainage, and lately a Bill to increase the number of small owners.
  In view of the admitted urgency of making better use of our resources in general, I cast about for a word which properly characterises the Minister's attempts to deal with the great problem, and it seems to me that the word is "footling." I am afraid that my vocabulary does not provide me with a more appropriate word, and if you compare the needs with the work, I do not think my word is unjust. The Minister is genuinely interested in many sides of agriculture. I wish he would pursue them. I remember that some years ago he introduced a Bill on another side of the matter, on the humanitarian side, in connection with operations on horses—an admirable thing. The right hon. Gentleman has a genuine interest in these things. I wish that he would pursue his real interests and not occupy his time over methods which are really small and which would not he necessary if the Government would deal with the fundamental causes of the trouble. When you are trying to deal with the admitted defects of our production, to attack it with these little Measures is like hunting a tiger with a pop-gun. What has the right hon. Gentleman done, after nearly two years of work for agriculture, to improve the level of farming on a single farm? I do not see what any of these Measures is likely to effect in that way. Have they affected the equipment of a single farm? The whole edifice of our agriculture is admitted to he cracking. I need only quote the Minister's predecessor, when he said:
  "Either the soil is going to be starved, and is gradually going to lose some of its fecundity, and the land become waterlogged, or the nation is going to say, We cannot watch this process going on, and the State will come in to fulfil the function of the old landlord by lending capital.'"
  I think that the State will have to come in a great deal further than that. By common agreement, the edifice is, in a sense, cracking. But what are the Minister's Measures doing? They are like the man who plasters over his house to hide the cracks, when what he ought to do is to underpin the building. What do we see as we go about the country? I was very distressed to see in Suffolk, I think in the Minister's Division, the

  2667
  roofs of some extremely good barns falling in because the owner had not money enough to repair them. In Essex there is an enormous area which is positively handicapped by want of lime, and another great area by want of drainage. The farmer is handicapped because his partner in the business is failing to carry out his share of the bargain to provide the buildings and the drainage.
  I want to call attention, in connection with the need of a survey as a step to great progress, to a model which we already possess of the advantages of such a survey. I refer to the Crown lands. In the case of Crown lands we control a very large area. Everyone is familiar with the fact that there are Crown lands; it has not struck anyone as revolutionary that the land belongs to the State. The State has stepped in already. There is an opportunity for model management, and that is the State ownership which provides the State, un that area of land, with the opportunity of completing an efficient survey. I would like to give a few facts in order to show what results from an efficient survey. I was talking the other day to the chairman of a county agricultural committee. He was admitting that the present system is dying, that it is not fulfilling its functions, but his feeling was "I am not going to do anything to replace it with another one." There it seems to me is a characteristic of the Tory mind, which, however, is not appropriate when you are dealing with what is really a very big loss in our national resources. I saw last week a very successful farmer in a Home County. He makes lots of money out of his land and, incidentally, pays wages a great deal higher than the official rates. He was telling me of the great number of farms in his district which are going down for want of equipment and for want of farmer's capital and knowledge. He also cannot see any cure. But all the time we have within our ascertained experience a model of what can be done by good administration, combined with an efficient survey of the land.
  Let me toll the House two or three facts about the Crown lands, which naturally come under the purview of the
  2668
  Minister, as they came under my purview when I was Minister. You might imagine from what is said about the State ownership of land that the tenants of Crown lands were suffering from a horde of officials. But ask the Crown tenants whether they are hampered in their work. The difference to be noticed between Crown lands and most other lands, is that it is well equipped, and that the agency is very good. The farmers' standard of farming is controlled by the condition of their tenure; it is not controlled by a third party butting in and worrying them to do something which they do not want to do. It is controlled in the only possible way which is free from friction, by the control which the owner naturally has in letting the land. All this time, for want of such a method, over great areas we are losing perhaps 20 per cent. of the production which would result, not from specially high-class farming, but, according to the general opinion of the heist authorities, merely by bringing up the low standard to the medium or ordinary and average standard of the land as it is farmed now. Twenty per cent means, perhaps, in rough figures, £50,000,000 of production a year, and that is not a thing about which we can afford to be idle. It is very relevant to the proposal before the House of a survey, to remember that these benefits to Crown lands have resulted from an efficient survey over an area which is nearly 200,000 acres, if you include the two Duchies, and it is not much short of that even if you confine it strictly to agricultural lands. You have also about 450,000 acres under the county councils, which is in principle land in the same position of public ownership.
  It is very interesting to notice that, since the Crown lands were taken over by a new firm of agents in 1007, an extraordinary improvement has taken place both in the rents and in the population on the land. In 14 years the rents rose by 37 per cent. and there was not a bankrupt farmer nor a decrease of prosperity on the farms. The small holding area at the beginning of that period was 900 acres, and it has increased in the 14 years to 14,000 acres—from 16 per cent. of the whole property to 19.3 per cent. of the same land. There was not a single bankruptcy among that large

  2669
  number of smallholders. Owing to having an efficient survey of that very large area, equal to a moderate county the need of drainage was realised, and in that short period £18,000 was spent on drainage. The figure for repairs was extraordinarily low, owing to the good agency, spread over such a
  very large area. The repairs were actually under 7 per cent, of the rental. I knew an estate once where they were 4 per cent., but that was phenomenal. Most estates are far higher. These farms are in good order at that greatly improved figure.
  One might suppose that some Labour Government had established landowning on a great scale like this. Suppose that it came before us as a new proposal, what a fearful shock we should have. If Labour were responsible for the existence of this great public estate, we should be told that the complaints in the counties were loud and long. But what is most distressing for those who are horrified at the idea of public ownership is that there is no complaint at all from these districts. Are the farmers distressed? You find that there is a rush for land on most properties when a vacancy occurs. On the Crown lands there is an even greater demand. Is it, regarded as an eyesore in those counties, I think about 12, where the Crown owns land? On the contrary, you do not see the roofs falling in as you do in other parts of the country on private land. Is it an offence and a by-word to have this Socialist ownership, this red flag land, spread about Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and so on? On the contrary, local feeling is rather proud to have Crown properties and samples of a well managed estate in the district. But you would probably say, if such properties were created by the Labour party, that it was by some extravagant expenditure. On the contrary, the Crown Estate is a very good investment to the Crown, and an improving one.
  I adduce that as an example of what can be done with an efficient survey combined with an efficient levelling up of the standard of farming. Contrast what the Minister offers to us as his cure for the trouble. He wants to increase the number of owners of land. There arc familiar arguments for that, but no one
  2670
  will deny that the English farmers do not want to be the owners of their land. Some of them have had too bitter a taste of it; the rest are anxious to keep out, and they have none too much capital for working their land. All occupying owners, I am afraid, are not models of improved farming since they became owners, and you have just as great difficulty, if not greater difficulty, with private ownership in levelling up the standard and in replacing the indifferent farmer by the worthy farmer, while there are many worthy men who are unable to get farms. If you increase the number of private owners and values improve, as they must improve, with the decrease in area of the world which grows wheat in proportion to population, you are only going to lose for the public the increase of values which is their due. If you increase the number of private owners the labourer has to wait for land a great deal longer, because, I think, even under the scheme of the Liberal party, you are not to have quite a free hand to take the land where you want to for small holdings or allotments, but you are to be guided more or less by the chance of land falling into the market.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees that there must he a perfectly free hand for the public to take that land which is suited for small holdings or allotments. It seems to me, as compared with such a scheme, the efforts of the Government—and they have been numerous in their small way—represent mere tinkering, which leaves untouched t he primary need of the situation—that is to keep the farms in good order, to increase the population on the land where it pays, and to level lip the standard of farming.
  Mr. ERNEST EVANS: On this day of the year—perhaps the only day in the case of scores of thousands of our fellow-citizens, when they have the opportunity of gaining some practical knowledge of what is meant by the slogan of "Back to the land "—it is not inappropriate that, following the precedent of last year, we should spend a short time in the discussion which has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison). I support his demand for a survey of a compre-

  2671
  hensive character, and I desire to emphasise the urgency of the need for such a census. It is no use any longer talking as if the provision of such a survey was impossible, or was even too difficult, for the Ministry of Agriculture to undertake. As has been pointed out, the United States of America has a survey every 10 years of an area approaching 350,000,000 acres. If that is possible in America, a survey such as we ask for is not impossible in this country. In fact, we need not go as far as America to find an example. An experiment has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish people seem to be as inquisitive as they are acquisitive.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not get much here.
  Mr. EVANS: Some of us in this country, although we cannot hope to emulate the Scottish people in the last-named respect, would like to follow their example in regard to the first-named quality. I should like to know when we may have an opportunity of studying the Report of the Scottish survey. I am sure it will be a valuable document, and I hope the Government will extend the experiment and will make similar surveys in other parts of the country. Many people were dubious in the past about such a survey, but it has since been endorsed by many people of experience and practical knowledge of agriculture I would refer to a letter in the "Times" of this morning from Sir Henry Rew, whose experience in agricultural matters will not be questioned in any part of the House. That letter is a strong endorsement of the demand which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose. It is true he points out the difficulties and says those who ask for a survey ought to have a clear idea as to what they intend, and as to what should be included in the survey. He makes the suggestion, which I think worthy of consideration, that if there should be doubt on that point a small Committee should be set up to decide the scope of the inquiry and the survey which is to be made. I pass from the "Times" to the "Morning Post." There is a communication in the
  2672
  "Morning Post" from Mr. Gavin, who starts by pouring scorn upon this demand and then goes on to say that he would like to see a report on two questions, namely, the use of lime and land drainage. These are obviously questions of practical importance, if a survey is to be useful, but there are many other questions upon which a survey would he equally suitable and perhaps more valuable.
  The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Agriculture appeared to be quite convinced of the desirability of a survey of this character. I am not going to quote the passages which have been read by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose, but the late Minister of Agriculture showed clearly that he was greatly impressed by the desirability of having a survey of this character, although he could not see his way to grant it. At the time he said he hoped to get similar results by utilising the census of production which was due to be made last year. Incidentally, I should like to ask the representative of the Board of Trade when we may expect that Report. Of course it is a report the preparation of which will take some time, and I am not urging any hasty preparation of it, but in the case of the census of population we often have an interim report, and I do not see why a similar course could not be followed in regard to the census of production. I gather that the present Minister of Agriculture is not so impressed by the urgency of the demand as his predecessor. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. C. P. Williams) on 6th July put a question t o the Minister asking whether he had decided to institute an agricultural survey, and what terms of
  reference he proposed to lay down. I understand the right hon. Gentleman at that time was not in a position to give a definite answer, but said the matter was receiving his careful attention.
  Even if the Minister does not realise the desirability of a survey his Department does. His Department issues periodically a series of very interesting and valuable documents known as the "Economic Series." They have issued reports on agricultural credits, on cooperation and many other matters which are full of valuable information. If that can be done in regard to particular

  2673
  items, why is it impossible or undesirable to have a survey which will not be con-fined to one aspect of the problem but will deal in a comprehensive manner with all aspects of the question. As the late Minister of Agriculture realised, the Agricultural Returns Act is not sufficient for the purpose. Re claimed the credit for introducing that Act and we do not deny it to him but it is not sufficient. It is too narrow and the Ministry cannot ride off from this demand on the ground that they have given us the Agricultural Returns Act. It has been said that narrow-souled people are like narrow-necked bottles; the less they have in them, the more noise is mode in pouring it out. When there is a demand for a large Measure of this sort, Government Departments produce some small return and claim that it is adequate for the purpose. In this case we want a more detailed and comprehensive survey giving us the information which we require. As an illustration of the desirability of such returns I mention the case of smallholdings and allotments. In the series of reports to which I have referred, there recently appeared a report on Land Settlement in England and Wales. This report rose to the height of quoting from "Punch"
  "A warmer be a man as won't own up as 'e's made a profito'ow—artful like; an' small-olders, they be men as won't never admit they be doing badly—terrible obst'nit-minded."
  In this Report it is stated that since the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act was passed there has been a great increase in the number of people who have been settled on the lend. That is a matter on which we ought to pride ourselves, as showing one of the directions in which an attempt has been made to meet the cases of men who had served in the Forces and who were desirous of being settled on the land. Among some county councillors in agricultural districts you will hear two things said. You will hear it said that the people who have been settled on the land are failing. According to this Report that is not the case. It is said that the number of men who had been provided with holdings up to 15th January, 1923, and who had left for financial reasons and might therefore be regarded as failures was 1,226 or 6·5 per cent. The estimate had been made that approximately 10 to 12 per cent. of the
  2674
  men settled on the land since the Armistice, had left their holding owing to failure up to 31st December, 1924. That is just the sort of subject upon which we require reliable information, because one of the powerful weapons which is used by those who object to small holdings is the statement that the people who have been settled on the land since the War have been failures.
  Another point which is made by similar people is that there is no demand for small holdings. Is that true? That is a question on which we require information. According to a reply which the Minister gave on 8th July there were on 31st March this year 14,847 unsatisfied demands for small holdings in England and Wales, and of these 612 had been approved, but have not yet been provided with holdings, and 8,234 were awaiting interviews or standing over. That again is a matter where reliable information is required in order to deal with the complaints which one constantly hears that rates are being wasted by providing land for small holdings for which there is really no demand. That is only one illustration of the many questions upon which we really are entitled to have information of a perfectly reliable character. Mr. Gavin, in the communication to the "Morning Post" to which I have referred, makes out that those who demand a survey of this character are wanting a return from the Government of people who, in the opinion of inspectors, are good farmers and people who are bad farmers, or a return of the qualifications of a good farmer and a bad farmer. I can assure the Minister that he need not be frightened on that account, because nothing is further from our minds than that. We want a return to show how every acre of land is being cultivated, and how many acres of land which are not at the moment being cultivated can be cultivated. I have seen it stated that there are over one million acres in this country which could be reclaimed. I do not know whether that is true, but it is another illustration of the difficulties and of the importance of this problem.
  There is another important consideration. For some reason or other, whenever any reference is made to the land programme, some people suspect that those who mention it are engaged in some tremendous fight against what is called an ancient institution in this

  2675
  country. I have never been able to find out what that institution is, but, however that may be, the trouble is that we are so busy criticising each other's policies, and the Government are so apparently impressed by the Report which has recently been produced by a Committee set up under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that they have been unable to declare their own policy, and they content themselves with criticising ours. It is said that when the Judges of the High Court, many years ago, were drafting a loyal Address to present to Queen Victoria, one of them suggested that the best way of starting would be with the phrase: "Conscious as we are of our own infirmities," but as an amendment the suggestion was made that the phrase should read: "Conscious as we are of each other's infirmities." That seems to be the trouble at the present time with the Government in regard to an agricultural policy. They claim to be so conscious of the infirmities of my right hon. Friend's proposals, that they seem to be afraid of producing their own.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), who introduced this discussion, brought forward many arguments in favour of a, survey to be taken of the land, and he said that, if we had a survey, we would then know what sort of legislation we ought to adopt in order to bring about a better state of affairs. While he said that, what do we see? We see that his leader—I suppose he is his leader—has brought forward-a cut-and-dried programme for altering and renewing our whole system of agriculture, without waiting in any way to get the survey and to hear what the survey could tell us. Then the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) also spoke in favour of a survey being made of our land, but without waiting to hear what the survey brought forth, he also commenced elaborating his cure for the evils which exist, in the shape of an extension of Crown lands. I am not against a survey being taken of our land. I quite agree that, if we had it, we might be able to find out some weak spots which could be improved on. I quite believe that we might be able to make improvements,
  2676
  because it is a very good thing indeed that cannot be improved on at any time, but I think it is a totally wrong impression to form that the agriculture of this country is in a decadent condition.
  The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has, in previous Debates in this House, told us that the numbers of livestock per hundred acres in this country are very much less than they are in Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and some other Continental countries, but he totally ignored the fact that those countries which he compared with ours are all flat and level countries, having no ranges of mountains or hills such as we have in England, Scotland, and Wales. Therefore, any arguments bringing forward the total numbers of stock per hundred acres in a comparison between this country and those Continental countries is a totally inaccurate method of comparison. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends have told us that British agriculture is in a hopelessly decadent condition. I have had some connection with agriculture in Scotland, and I. can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if ever he would come to Scotland, I could show him many parts of it where I do not think any improvement could be made. If you go to the stock-rearing parts throughout Berwickshire, Roxburghshire, and the South of Scotland. and again up in the North of Scotland. r if you go to the arable districts in the Lothians or in the County of Forfar, which I have the honour to represent, I say that to characterise these districts as carrying on the industry in a decadent fashion is very far removed from the truth.
  The industry in this country is not in anything like the bad way described by hon. and right hen. Members opposite. I know some districts of England. I have made it my business to know parts of England, and I have seen, in a county such as Lincolnshire, land farmed to the very highest possible standard of efficiency. I have seen potatoes produced in South Lincolnshire, in the Spalding district, which my hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Dean) represents, which I do not think you could find improved upon in any country in the world. Therefore, to characterise this whole industry as being in a decadent, moribund condition is quite inaccurate. I have no doubt

  2677
  there are plenty of bad farmers, the same as there are inefficient men in every other line of work, but I think the general standard of farming has improved very much in the last 30 years. The improved production of fertilisers has been taken advantage of, and the general quantity of crops produced has thereby been enormously improved. Undoubtedly, the land, especially in England, could be very much improved by the use of wild white clover, along with phosphates and potassic fertilisers, but yet there is an improvement going on. A survey might, perhaps, do good, but, after all, who is going to make your survey? I suppose you are going to employ a great number of people, probably young men, who have been to an agricultural college and think they know everything about it, but suppose you bring in a great horde of inspectors going through the districts, and they make reports and classify their knowledge under various heads. After all, it will mean a lot of work and a great deal of information, but how many people will ever read it?
  I quite agree that there may be some good come out of the movement, but think this House does not need to be made aware of the idea that merely because we make a survey of our land we arc not going to bring about a new state of perfection in British agriculture. The prosperity and the efficiency of British agriculture will always rest on the individual enterprise and skill of the man who is conducting the business, and as long as our cultivators are actuated by skill and by the incentive to improve their methods, and if they have got an opportunity of taking advantage of the scientific methods which research work can give to them, I have no fear at all that our standard of agriculture will not be maintained. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk asked what the Government have done to improve agriculture. It would not be in order for me to say all that might be done to improve agriculture, but when we look around and sec foreign produce being sold every day in this country as being of home origin, it is clear that there is an impediment put in the way of the home producer which is grossly unfair, and for which we suffer at the present time. I am sure that if our agriculture were looked at, not with party spectacles at all, but in a practical
  2678
  manner, with the desire to help the industry and to remove old-fashioned obstacles which are allowed to stand in its way, this industry of agriculture would be, as it can be, a great source of strength to the nation as a whole.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: May I be allowed to remind the House that the first person in these realms to realise the necessity for an agricultural census was a Scotsman? Sir John Sinclair, whose great-grandson takes such an interest in agriculture, and who contributes to our Debates to-day, was the first man to realise the necessity of an agricultural census, and he had compiled, very largely through his own efforts, what is known as "A Statistical Account of Scotland." That was in 1790, and we have now arrived at 1926, and I venture to suggest that, having regard to the changing conditions of the day and to the way in which the land of our country is changing hands, the time is more than ripe for us to take stock again, and have a thorough census of the whole of the agricultural land. The speech of the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) was a very strong argument for the necessity of such a census. He agreed that it would be a desirable thing that we should have a census, but then he went on to say that some people state that agriculture is in a decayed state, and proceed to propound their nostrums, whereas, he said, in parts of Scotland agriculture was by no means, as we all know, in a decayed state.
  That is just what we want to know. We want to know where the facts lie and whether or not people who say that agriculture is in a decadent state are
  justified, and we cannot have these facts without getting a survey. I am afraid we are under a disadvantage in not yet having before us fully the results of the very important survey that is being made, under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland, by the Board of Agriculture in the County of Kincardine is a small county lying along the East Coast of Scotland between Aberdeen and Forfar. It has good soil and bad soil, and good farms and bad farms, and the survey which was made there brought that out very clearly. I have in my hand the Journal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which contains, in the number for July, a short summary

  2679
  of what the survey effected in that county, and if I may be allowed to do so I should like shortly to refer to one or two of the principal points which that summary brings out. The summary says that during the winter of 1925–26 it was decided to hold this survey
  5.0 P.M.
  "with the primary object of finding out what use was being made of all land not accounted for by the agricultural returns."
  What the survey found out was most remarkable—
  "it was then discovered that the discrepancy between the total area shown in the agricultural returns and that in the Ordnance Survey of the county was due almost entirely to inaccuracies, many of them fairly large, made by occupiers in estimating the extent of their mountain and heath land used for graving."
  If hon. Members will consider for a moment, they will see what very serious import lies behind those word Statistics based upon facts which were so thoroughly inaccurate can only be misleading, and it is only by means of such a survey as has been held in Kincardine that we can get at the right facts to ascertain to what purposes the land in the counties is being used, and not only that, but whether it is being put to the best use.
  While that survey was going on four typical parishes in the county were selected for a more detailed survey. The object of that was twofold—
  "It was intended primarily to describe the present state of agriculture in these parishes. Its ultimate object was to throw into prominence the importance of all factors connected with the proper management of the soils, crops, and stocks of the farms examined."
  That is exactly what we want to get at, and it is those facts which will be of such enormous advantage to the agriculture of this country. The summary goes on to say that the surveyors found that there were tremendous variations between the results obtained in farms in neighbouring parishes where the sail was good and where the soil was bad. They go on to point out their conclusions that these variations were largely due either to the system of management which followed on the farms or the skill in the management of the farms.
  As the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) has just said, the success of farming depends very largely on the
  2680
  farmer himself. That must always be so, but in spite of that you may have a very good farmer following a system which is not the best in the management of his farm, and a survey could show where the plan is wrong and how a different system of rotation could give a greater production from that farm. The good farmer will get the benefit of such a survey, and will be able to obtain a greater profit through his good farming than he did before. I will only touch very lightly on one or two of the main points in the survey, but I want the House to notice that these facts which have been brought out by this survey are not only vital to any consideration of the future of agriculture, and to the whole of the country, but that they are also of the greatest importance to those who are engaged in farming at the present time. The surveyors go through all the various factors of good and bad management of the farms—the whole system of working expenses, how the different crops improve on different lands, how sheep-breeding can be made an advantage, the management of stock, the question of horse-breeding, and so on. There is a remark which I would like to emphasise, where the surveyors speak of the rotations adopted. They say:
  "Cereal growing is often said to be a non-paying concern in these days. But this statement is loose and misleading. Despite low prices and high costs of production, cereal growing may still be profitable, provided the yields per acre are sufficiently high.… On the more fertile farms close-cropping and high labour costs were frequently associated with very good results."
  So there again we come to the question of whether agriculture is in a bad state or not, and the surveyors point out over and over again that, where farming does not pay, it is very often due to the want of management on the farm. They point out that it is a question of skill, a question of the want of proper management, or of the want of proper skill in the management, that farms can be shown to give much better profits by a different system of rotation or by giving more attention to poultry and pigs and to the side-lines of agriculture. I am very glad to see that they think that better profits can be obtained by co-operation, and they show that if the farmer is a member of a co-operative society, he will get the best advantage, riot only in buying, but in selling. They point out that a lot of

  2681
  time is wasted by the farmer at the market. The farmer's time is worth so much, and yet he will go and waste days in the market haggling over a matter of a shilling or two. The question of buildings is not enlarged upon in this summary. I do not know how far it is dealt with in the main Report, but the whole question of buildings which my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir R. Hutchison) referred to in opening this Debate is one of the utmost importance to the whole of the farming system. It is necessary that the buildings should be suitable for working the industry, for housing the people, and for all the work on the farms.
  A very important paragraph in this summary is the last one, the General Conclusions, where the surveyors say that the land that they surveyed was generally clean, dry, well managed—as regards organisation of labour—and in very good condition. They go on to say that, in spite of this, the balance sheets, after interest on capital and allowances are deducted, are frequently on the wrong side. There are low prices for what the farmer has to sell and high working expenses, but they do not explain why so many farmers are able to show balances on the right side. It is not all a gloomy outlook on agriculture, and if we could get before us the facts which a detailed survey would give, the bright lines would become very much brighter and stronger. It has been made plain that skill, or lack of skill, in the management of crops and prospects accounted for a wide difference in the results. Anything that we can do to make good the deficiencies of skill, either in agricultural education or by bringing the facts to the notice of particular farmers so that they can make use of them, are all to the good of this great basic industry. I do urge most strongly upon the Minister of Agriculture that he should not merely say that a census might be useful or would be desirable, but he should say how necessary it is for agriculture that it should be done, and we have seen it can be done, for Scotland has shown us the way.
  Mr. DEAN: I have listened with considerable interest to this Debate. The hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) who opened this Debate re-
  2682
  ferred as the principal means of relief for agriculture to the necessity for having a survey of the country. The hon. and gallant Member I am glad to say, has taken much interest in English agriculture. Re has, I think, concentrated his energy more particularly on the poorer land of this country than he has on the better land, and I notice that he said in the first instance the enormous amount of land that we had in this country that was water-logged. I quite agree with him. Nobody knows it better than myself. I have also heard it said that the agriculturist and the owner of land in this country were behind the times, and that they did not make the best use of their land for the growing of cereals. But I would like to point out that so far from their being out of date and behind the times they are very much up to date, much as they would like to cultivate the land, and much as they would like to spend money upon it in order to produce food for the people, they know they cannot do so unless they spend more capital upon the land than they can get out of it, with the present prices and the present competition.
  We have also heard that we have in this country nearly a million acres of land for reclamation. I have had an opportunity of seeing land in this country that might be reclaimed, and that might grow very high modern crops. I have the honour to represent a division where there is a great deal of that land—on the Wash, in Lincolnshire. I was viewing it only the other day, and I know it might be reclained, but in conversation with business men I found out that the reclamation of that land would not pay capital expenditure. We have heard a great deal about the buildings on our poorer land not being efficient and in bad repair, but I would like to remind those hon. Gentlemen who take up that attitude that the land on which those buildings stand has for some years, in many cases, been cultivated at a loss. I do not mind whether you have private ownership or State ownership; you are not going to ask the private owner to invest his capital in an industry in which he is not going to get interest, and I do not believe that the State should be asked to invest its capital if no return is to be forthcoming. That to my mind is the situation.

  2683
  Now I would like to turn to a rather brighter side. I have been speaking of the poorer land, but with regard to the better land of this country that can still he cultivated at a profit, and you can still pay a decent wage to your worker, but that is only a comparatively small proportion of the whole of the land of this country. If you are going to keep the poorer land in cultivation, as it is our great hope that we may do, then you will have to do something by way of relief from rates and taxes and other expenditure in order that that land may be kept in cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) referred to the Crown lands of this country, and to the enormous advantage of the Crown lands being managed by the State. I do not want in any way to depreciate Crown land owners, but I would like to say that they are not superior to the bulk of private land owners of this country. I will give a concrete reason for making that statement. There is a very large acreage of Crown land where I happen to be chairman of the drainage authority of that particular district, and I may say that the central drainage is in perfect order. In this district, where you have the different interior drainage draining into the main drain, nearly all the private owners of land have put their hands in their pockets and produced the money in order to put down artificial pumps to drain the land. The Crown have not helped to put in artificial pumps to drain their tenants' land. In this particular district, which is a fairly large one, the Crown, as the owners of land in that particular district, are behind the private owners. It is not because they do not know about it, because they have been told from time to time, not only by people connected with the Drainage Trust, but also by their own tenants, that people have put down private pumps in order to drain their private lands, whereas the Crown drainage have only the natural drainage to rely upon. The pumps from other fens help to flood those lands where there is no pump, because the artificial pumping prevents the natural drainage.
  Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the place where the Crown is negligent?
  Mr. DEAN: I did not go as far as to say it was negligent, but my right hon. Friend seems to think it is negligent. It is the Black Sluice district of Lincolnshire—the drainage of the parishes of Billingborough, Swaton and others. Where you have something like 20 interior drainage systems, and only about six or seven that have not got private pumps, and in those cases—the Crown tenants—have not in one single instance got any artificial drainage for their land, so far as I am aware. I really give this as an instance to show that you arc not going to get, under public management, anything better than you get under private ownership. You have had in the past, if I mistake not, landlords generally who have taken an interest in their estates, and who know something of the management of estate. We have heard it said that many tenant farmers are very much behind the times. Tenant farmers, in my experience, are very much abreast of the times, but they see all the difficulties they have in conducting that industry to make it profitable. Something has been said—and I believe this Debate started principally with regard to a survey—tha a survey was going to cure all our ills, or, at least, a great many of them. That rather reminds me of the Irish priest who was asked to bless the crops. He went round from crop to crop, and cast a blessing upon each, in order that all might he well. Last of all he came to a crop which was looking rather sickly, and said, "I am sorry, but it is no good my giving my blessing to that: that crop requires muck."
  The suggestion is that there should he, a survey, but a. survey will not make the land profitable. At the present time, we in England have a census of all our cereal crops, of our green crops and of our grass land and livestock. There is if I am not mistaken, a county agricultural committee for every county, with its agricultural organisers. I, myself, have hem chairman of one of these agricultural committees, and I know that during the time I was chairman of that committee, our organizer knew how the whole of the land in our county was cultivated. He knew whether it was well cultivated or badly cultivated, and we, had the report before the committee. I am quite sure that the reason why a great deal of that land was not as well

  2685
  cultivated as it ought to have been, was because it did not make a return. I can point now to a considerable acreage of thin land in Lincolnshire which is very highly cultivated indeed, and I have seen the returns for the last few years where nothing has been wanting in the way of good farming It has been efficiently managed the land has been properly cultivated by men who understand their work, men who during the years before the War, and, of course, immediately after the War, were able to make a good profit upon those lands; men who have never lost money on agriculture before. But you have to see their books to-day— they do not speak lies. Their books show most distinctly, with regard to their Income Tax returns, that they are making an annual loss. I do not say the annual loss is large, but I say it is there, and until you can do something for the poorer land of this country, do not let this House, do not let the country at large, do not let our large industrial population be led away with the idea that it is the farmer's fault, that it is the landlord's, that it is neglected. It is exactly, to my mind, like the case of the coalmines. If the coal does not pay to lift, then you cannot lift it. If agricultural land generally will not pay to cultivate properly, and as it ought to be cultivated, then do not blame agriculturist, if you see that the land is not in as good a state of cultivaton as it ought to be.
  Mr. RILEY: There seems to be a general consensus of opinion in favour of the Minister of Agriculture supplying us with some adequate information in the nature of a survey of agriculture.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: Certainly not.
  Mr. RILEY: I said that that is the general opinion. Personally, while I have no objection to the widest survey, if it is going to be useful, I venture to say that in one or two directions we have already perfectly adequate information as to the utility of the purposes which the Department can serve in the domain of agriculture. May I first express regret that, for some reason or other, hitherto the Minister has not thought fit to give anything like an annual report of what the Ministry is doing in its various fields of activity, I know that we have had some excellent special reports, such as
  2686
  those on land settlement, the marketing of produce, and so on, but there seems to be nothing in the nature of a comprehensive report covering in one annual statement a general review of the work of the Ministry, and I do submit to the present Minister that he would set a good example if he would see his way to initiate a more or less comprehensive annual report, which would cover the Ministry's various fields of activity, and inform Members concisely what the Ministry is actually doing. In other Departments, such as education, that is done.
  Having said that, I want to say, that, without waiting for any further survey, or any further information, there is at least one Department of the Ministry's work, namely, that which is charged with the encouragement and promotion of small holdings, about which there is already ample information to establish the success and the utility of that part of the Ministry's work. It has been said in previous Debates, and it is worth while reminding the House that, since the year 1908, something like 33,000 small holdings have been established under the 1908 Act and the Act of 1919. Under the Act of 1908, roughly, 15,000 what are called self-supporting holdings, were established before the War and since 1919, 18,000 have been established under the Land Settlement Act. I want to say, in passing, that while there is no doubt a great need for assisting small holders to market their produce, to organise, to promote co-operation, to make the most of the system of small holdings, none the less it is now beyond all question that the principle and method of small holdings has in this country already achieved a signal success. If there be any doubt about that, there is the fact that 33,000 small holdings have been created, and for the last four years approximately 28,000 more have been waiting—10,000 in Scotland and about 18,000 in England and Wales, have been waiting for the holdings not yet provided for them.
  Therefore, it is clear that there is scope for a definite piece of useful work, pregnant with signal success for the country. But I want to complain, that if one looks into the accomplishments of the present Government, as a matter of fact since 1922, those accomplishments are extremely small. Two or three weeks

  2687
  ago I asked the Minister the amount of land which had been acquired for small holdings, either by the Ministry or by local councils, between January, 1925, and March, 1926, a period of 15 months, and his reply was that only 670 acres had been acquired by the Ministry and only 57 new smallholders, that is 57 out of the 33,000 established under the Acts since 1909, had been established by the Ministry or by local councils since January, 1925. Although the present Government, and their predecessors in 1923, talked about being in favour of small holdings, practically nothing has been done since 1922 to create smallholders. The House ought to remember that of the 32,000 or 33,000 existing small holdings created by Statute, less than 100 have been established within the last two or three years. That is a fault which the Ministry ought to remedy. In view of the experience since 1908, they ought to go ahead courageously with the establishment of small holdings, not on the lines of occupiers purchasing their holdings, but by creating occupying tenancies.
  I also asked the Minister a week or two ago how many smallholders had purchased their holdings under the 1892, 1909, and 1919 Acts. The total number of smallholders under these Acts is, roughly, 33,000, and the number who have been in the position to purchase is as follows: Under the 1892 Act, 59 holdings were purchased; under the 1908 Act, 67 holdings; under the 1919 Act, 43 holdings. That is a total of 169 out of 33,000 holdings That is a pregnant fact, showing that what people require is not to be allowed to buy, for they cannot buy, but to have occupying tenancies, so that they can employ such capital as they can command in making the land productive. In emphasising this signl success of the small holdings movement, which was scoffed at in years gone by, and regarded as a mere chimera, I would ask the House to realise what it has meant from the economic and social point f view. I put on the Order Paper to-day the following question:
  "To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will give figures showing the amount of land returned as agricultural land in England and Wales that was suitable for agricultural use in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1914 and 1924, together with the population of England and Wales for those years, and the number of acres per 1,000 of the population."
  2688
  I have not had the official reply, but by word of mouth the Minister has told me the rather singular thing that the amount of agricultural land now available is practically it was in 1870—it is 25,000,000 acres, roughly the same to-day as then. When we take into account the increase in population we find that whereas in 1870 there were 1,100 acres of agricultural land available per 1,000 of the population, to-day there are only 600 acres per 1,000 of the population That emphasises the necessity of making the most of the land, of encouraging that type of culture which gives the maximum production both from an economic and social point of view.
  On that aspect of the matter a remarkable return has been issued by the Government of Denmark showing what has occurred in Denmark as the outcome of the small holdings movement. On farms of from 1 acre to 25 acres the economic yield, the product, was £22 per acre, and the amount going in wages and taxes was £14 Os. per acre. In the case of farms of from 25 acres to 50 acres the product per acre was £20 14s., and the social product, that is, the amount going in wages and in taxes, was £11 5s. In the case of farms of over 250 acres the economic product was £12 2s. per acre, as against £22 per acre on farms up to 25 acres, and the social product was only £7 Is. per acre, as against. £14 9s. Those facts emphasise the great necessity in this country, with a growing population and a limited amount of land, of making the most of the land by intensive cultivation. [An HON.: "What is the tenure in Denmark?"] As to 98 per cent., they are occupying freeholders, I admit, but in recent years, under the new laws, there have been 3,000 occupying tenancies, and the whole tendency now is to go in for occupying tenancy. Henceforth, under the new laws, there will be no further monopoly of land. It is a startling fact that these 25-acre farms in Denmark, according to the official returns of the Agricultural Department of the Danish Government, yield on the average £550 worth of produce per annum. Of that sum there goes to the family occupying the land £375, the rest being absorbed by outlay on production. If we could have a similar state of affairs in this country it would add enormously to our economic and social well-being Therefore, I would

  2689
  urge the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in both hands and go ahead with the development of small holdings. He ought not to confine himself to allowing a few individuals, or this county or that county, to take a forward step if they feel inclined to do so, but, in view of the possibility of having to find employment for a surplus mining population, to go forward with the development of group holdings on a large scale, organised by the Ministry, acting, it may be, through county councils. There we have a field in which much may be done for the betterment and the well-being of the people.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I sincerely hope the Minister will not listen for a single moment to the suggestion that a survey of agricultural land should be inflicted on this country. I remember the same suggestion being put forward a year ago. The reasons given to-day by the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) have been slightly enlarged. Last year the demand by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was based solely on the ground that land was uncultivated and that much more could be made of it, and we were to have this horde of officials sent down to examine each farm, to tell us how to cultivate our land, and to suggest that it was improperly done.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is now attributing to me something which I never suggested. To begin with, I never suggested that there should be a horde of officials, and, in the second place, it was no part of the survey that the officials were to instruct individual farmers. It was to be simply a survey and a report on the condition of agriculture in five or six typical counties, such a survey, as a matter of fact, as has already been conducted in Scotland, in the county of Kincardine, where there is no horde of officials instructing the farmers.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: The last thing in the world I wish to do is to misrepresent what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If it is to he a superficial survey of the land such as he now mentions, I fail absolutely to see the reason for it. Without a thorough examination it is quite impossible to say whether land is well
  2690
  farmed or not; but I go further, and say there is no reason whatever for such an examination in this country. We had an independent examination within the last two or three years by the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation. Three independent experts were appointed by, I believe, the late Government to examine into the condition of agriculture, and the final Report was only made in May, 1924. I will just read one paragraph, 287, of one of the Reports—
  " The facts do not show that there is ground for depreciation of British agriculture as a whole. It pays wages that are high as compared with those in other European countries; the yield of the area which is under the chief crops compares favourably with that of the areas under the same crops abroad; while the actual decline of the agricultural population as tested by male persons employed has not, over the whole length of our period of reference been so startling as is often supposed or so rapid as that of other European countries. Farmers are not responsible for the natural conditions or the national policies which have affected the form of cultivation that is most profitable; subject to the conditions, the cultivation of the land in Britain cannot he described as inefficient."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Whose Report is that?
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: It is the Report made by Professor MacGregor.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the Minority Report.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is not accurate, because each Report was stated by the Commissioners to be supplementary to the others, and each Commissioner was responsible for his own Report.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is the Report by Professor MacGregor, Professor Ashley and Professor Adams and they took very different views. I know that Professor MacGregor did not carry his colleagues with him.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: T cannot charge my memory with the exact words used.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the Minority Report.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I would like to have read the actual words, but I know that one Report is supplementary to the other and they have to be read together, and each member was responsible for what

  2691
  he signed. Here is the passage dealing with this point in the Report:
  " We submit for your consideration our final Reports. We wish to say while on some matters we represent different points of view they should also be regarded largely as supplementary one to the other, each Report meeting certain aspects more fully than the others. Each member of the Tribunal is responsible, of course, only for the Report to which his signature is appended."
  I differ from the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he says this is a Minority Report, because it is no such thing, and I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman can quote to-day any cases in the Report of Sir William Ashley or Professor Adams contradicting the extract which I read from the Report made by Professor MacGregor. If that be so, then the whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's case goes. We have set up in every county in England an agricultural committee. We are having the position of agriculture discussed and considered in every single county. The position of small holdings is known there and also the state of the agricultural industry. In these matters you have to get a certificate from the agricultural committee. I know the right hon. Gentleman the _member for Carnarvon Boroughs has taken a very great interest in this question in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and I am greatly interested myself in that district, but, surely, he knows the state of agriculture in East Yorkshire. At any rate the county council is aware of the state of things there. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell us that in the successful body of small holdings which have been set up in that county, they do not know the whole condition of agriculture in the East Riding of Yorkshire? Of course, they do. Those who understand the position in the East Riding would be the first people to decry the sending of a gentleman from Whitehall to make a cursory survey of the East Riding of Yorkshire district, because that is not what we want.
  The one evil we suffer from to-day is what the coal trade is suffering from. It an economic trouble., because our expenses are greater than our returns. It does not need these gentlemen to come down and tell us that some of our farming is bad and some is good, because
  2692
  we know that already. In our country districts we can easily pick out the best farmers. Do we want another Coal Report on Agriculture? Who is going to tell us our business? I want the agricultural interest to tell the Minister that the whole of this thing is eyewash, and of no use. I agree with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) said, but upon different grounds. I was very interested in regard to what the hon. Member said about smallholders in Denmark, and I should like to study that question a little further. In the same Report to which I have already referred, dealing with the small holdings policy in England, I find this further passage:
  " Fourth, the small holdings policy. This rests on the ground of general efficiency and justice to the labourer. There is not evidence to show that sinallholclers are either more or less efficient and productive than large farmers."
  Mr. RILEY: Does the hon. and learned Member contest my figures?
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: The hon. Member did not tell us what was the nature of the farm to which he referred. The small holdings policy is based upon picking out the best land.
  Mr. RILEY: The figures I gave were the average, and they dealt with a given size of holdings.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am not opposed to small holdings. On the contrary, I am a strong supporter of them, not so much on agricultural grounds, but on political and social grounds. I think access to the land should he made easy. Each labourer ought to have an opportunity of acquiring a small holding, and T strongly support the small holdings policy. I strongly support the Bill put forward by the Minister of Agriculture for increasing the number of small holdings, and going further and making it possible to establish by means of State credit ownership of cottage holdings in order that a man can have three acres of land as a holding, and become the owner by paying an annual fair rent charge. What I want to point out is that small holdings are not going to cure the agricultural trouble which we suffer from to-day. The smallholder's life is one of the hardest in the country. He has to work from morning until evening and he has no standard wage. Not only this, but his wife works as hard

  2693
  as he does and the children as well, and it is only by great hardships that they can make a living. Therefore small holdings must not be taken as a cure for the agricultural problem.
  What we want to see is the industry put on a proper basis and on a paying basis. We want to see the agricultural labourer and the agricultural worker who works on a weekly wage having a much easier time as a smallholder. We want the land kept under the plough; that is our object. The trouble we have to face is the price. It is not a matter of intensive or light cultivation, but a question of balance sheets. I have seen a rich man come into our country districts and produce the heaviest and finest crops, and the worst of balance sheets. If be had not been a rich man, he could not go on from year to year, but because he is interested in agriculture and in good cultivation, he does not care. That, how-ever, does not cure the troubles of English
  agriculture. It is, the position of the ordinary farmer we have to consider. Like any other trader, the farmer must have some return for the money which he puts into the business, and he must make a profit sufficient to support himself and his family like any other man of business. What is a survey going to do to achieve this object? Who are the surveyors going to be? There is no man at the Board of Agriculture who can take on the
  job, and are we going to have some broken-down farmers appointed to make this survey? Who does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs suggest should do this survey? When the right hon. Gentleman gets his survey, what more information are we going to get than we have in one or other of the various Reports which have been issued? I am not aware of the details in regard to the survey which is going to be made. We have the Farmers' Union to protect the industry of the farmers and collect all the information they require. They piece the information together, and that is very useful. But what would be the value of the information gathered by this suggested survey? It cannot be anything that will benefit the industry. I conclude, as I began, by asking the Minister not to listen for one moment to this proposition, because, as a practical farmer, I say it cannot be of the slightest value to the industry.
  Mr. FENBY: 1 am glad that even on August Bank Holiday we are having a Debate upon agriculture. There are two things I want to say in particular. We have been debating the question of whether we should have a survey of the agricultural position of this country. We have had speeches on this question from both sides of the House, but neither from the Minister of Agriculture nor from the Secretary of State for Scotland have we yet heard a single word with regard to the suggestion which has been made. That, perhaps, may come in due course. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has a considerable stake in the Riding to which I myself happen to be sttaked, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) says contains the best agricultural land that he has seen for some considerable time. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not himself object to the small holdings movement, and I remember that I had the pleasure of presiding at an inquiry in regard to the taking of land by compulsion from his estate for the purpose of providing allotments. He also made the remark, which is quite true, that the Agricultural Committee, and particularly the Chairman of the Agricultural Committee, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, know everything about the agricultural conditions in the East Riding. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman up to that point, but I totally differ from him when he says that, as they have all that information, the Government do not require to have it.
  There is one point that has not yet, been made, and that is that the one factor that disturbs those engaged in the agricultural industry more than any other factor with which they have to deal is that of change. They get very sudden and violent changes in the weather, which, although they may account for some profit, account for a good deal of loss to those engaged in agriculture. The agriculturist doe not know where he is from one day to another as regards the weather; and I often tell my agricultural friends that it is little use relying on the Conservative Government for any agricultural programme, because the Conservative Government seem to be just about as fickle as the weather in their

  2695
  attitude towards agriculture. Let me begin with the Ministry itself. It is very significant that during the lifetime of this Government the only change that has taken place in the Government, if I remember rightly, has been in the Ministry of Agriculture. I quite agree that there were very good reasons. Heaven forbid that I should reflect in any way upon the present Viceroy of India. We were very proud of him. He was the product of the East Riding, and we thought we should get a good deal of help from him, but, unfortunately for us, he has passed on to help India instead. There has been a change at the Ministry; hut I am not going to confine myself merely to what has happened under the present Government with regard to this difficulty of stability of policy—I go further back. There may be tender spots in my own political party. We had guaranteed prices, but not for very long. They led agriculture into a kind of blind alley, and a good many people engaged in agriculture went by the board. Then we were going to have a large reconstructive programme with regard to drainage it, the agricultural areas of this country. Drainage officials were engaged, and we were going to have drainage schemes, but it was not very long before they went.
  With regard to small holdings, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) suggested that the Ministry should have something to do with the setting up of small holding colonies, but God forbid that they should ever touch small holding schemes again, in view of the exhibition we have had of a Government or a State setting up small holding colonies, not only from the point of view of money, but from the point of view of the heart-breaking experiences of the men and women who were put on these holdings. From that point of view I think it will not be the Government that will do it best, but the county authority.
  My argument for the agricultural survey that is being asked for is this The reason for the changes of which I have been complaining is that one Government or Minister has looked at a section of the agricultural problem, and another Government or another Minister has come along and looked at another section of the problem, and each, from his own point
  2696
  of view, has been endeavouring to do a certain thing, but they did not hang together. The successor of an innovator has often practically cut the throat of something that his predecessor thought was very useful. I think the survey would be useful for this reason, and I would say to the Minister, who, I know, is very anxious to do his best for the industry while holding his present office, that it is very little use his thinking that, during the lifetime of this Government, be it long or short, he can introduce a. complete policy for the improvement and regeneration of agriculture. It is impossible for him to do it in the time; it is a very slow-moving industry.
  What I would like the Minister to do, and to have the honour of doing, if he desires to have it, is to agree with his predecessor in his own Department that the present law, as has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, does not give us all that we want with regard to information. We want a complete survey, and the Minister will find that it will be more useful to him and his Department than to anyone on this side of the House, because, if a Government mean to make their agricultural policy a success, whether it be a Liberal, a Conservative, or a Socialist Government, for it to be possible to have a complete policy they must have a complete survey; they must have the complete facts in their hands before they can begin to make any policy operative that will be at all likely to be successful and prosperous.
  What does the agriculturist say? I remember that, when the right hon. Gentleman came into office in succession to the present Viceroy of India, a good many of my farming friends said to me: " Now, Fenby, what kind of a fellow is Guinness? " I said: " He has done very well in the office he has been holding. I do not know how much he knows about agriculture." They said: " Well, you know, there are a great many people talking about agriculture, but, unfortunately, they do not know anything about it; we hope he is not one of them." I tried to give them a very good impression in regard to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am anxious to continue the testimony I paid
  to him on his appointment, but he can only justify that by the action he will take. He has taken action with regard to small holdings. He is going a

  2697
  certain way, but, as I pointed out the other day, he is only going a very little way. It is like an infant travelling in the night. We have had experience, which has been testified to on both sides of the House, and particularly by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead, that the success of small holdings justifies a large Measure, and not a small one, for the extension of small holdings. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is going such a little way. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead said that the agricultural committees have the facts in their own particular areas, but, if only the right hon. Gentleman had them, he would be in a much better position. I do not mean the mere report of a political economist or some faddist or other. We want the facts. Someone suggested that the Minister might get them in the same way that the Secretary of State for Scotland gets his facts, but I suggest a much more ready source of information. If the right hon. Gentleman will come down to the East Riding of Yorkshire, he will soon be put in possession of a great many facts that will be very useful to the Ministry but we want to go further than that.
  What is the problem? It is really a matter of the condition of the river hank. That is another very important matter. Take one of the most extensively flooded areas I know in this country. What is the trouble? Is it that there is no money to drain it? No. Is it that people are not anxious to have it improved? That is not altogether the point. The difficulty is this. You have the Ouse running eastward. You have the Derwent, a smaller river, running westward, and one meets the other. The stronger water coming down the Ouse running eastward backs all the water up the Derwent that wants to run westward, and you get hundreds if not thousands of acres of good land flooded simply because the river, instead of running into the Ouse, wants turning the other way. [Laughter.]It is not such a difficult thing to do as some hon. Members opposite would suggest. All you have to accomplish—and it would provide a very ready means of absorbing a little unemployed labour in that area—is simply to cut through a neck of about a mile and a-half in width and you would soon
  2698
  alter the Derwent, from running westward, into running in the same direction as the Ouse. The two would join a mile and a-half lower down and you would save thousands of acres from being overflowed, sometimes for six months in the year. If the authorities had these things put before them, you would very soon find that the agriculture problem was not so difficult of accomplishment as they evidently think it at the moment.
  I am anxious that the agricultural policy of the country should partake a little less of a political character and a little more of a continuous character, that there should be certain broad lines of agricultural policy laid down, and that it should be the business of each successive Government, whatever its party colour or its political principles, to carry the policy out in little bits. That would be a great advantage to the agricultural community and to the country as a whole. Something has been said on the success of small holdings. We have been told of the very large number of people who are still anxious to be smallholders. But that takes no account whatever of the very large number of people who are not applying because they are so disgusted with the large number who have applied and the small opportunities they have had of being put upon the land. If you could only get the demand clarified you need not fear at all. Some people have the idea that land for small holdings would be very difficult to get. Since the Small Holdings Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was introduced the authority with which I am associated has had 1,500 acres offered in one lot and between three and four hundred acres offered in another My regret about the Government's small holdings policy is this. We have been waiting for it for a very long time. We had a White Paper, but we got no Bill. Now the Bill has come at the tail end of the Session, and we are not going to have anything finished before the end of the year, if we get it then. The Minister should begin at once, and begin at the right end. He should begin with an agricultural survey and get at the facts. Then let him sketch out a broad policy, which may be a policy not only for the present Government but for all successive Governments to complete and carry on as they come in their turn.
  Major PRICE: There are one or two facts which have emerged from the Debate so far, but the principal fact that has not emerged is what sort of survey is required. The survey that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) wants is to pick out two or three typical counties and take a survey the same as the Secretary of State for Scotland obtained in one County, and deduce certain agricultural facts from it. I do not know whether that would commend itself to the hon. Member who proposed it. If so, I do not think, if such a survey be made, it will be of the slightest value to agriculture as a whole. We have in every county an agricultural committee and agricultural organiser and an agricultural staff. Each county can make its report, as it does make its report, to the Ministry of Agriculture and from it can be gauged with accuracy the condition of agriculture in each county. All the information that any survey will give is already at hand and it only requires to be used.
  There are many reasons, which vary with every county, why agriculture is not flourishing. One party has a remedy. It was suggested, I think on Saturday, in the agricultural county of Surrey by the Leader of the Opposition, that he only had one remedy for agricultural depression, and that was nationalisation of the land. Whatever his supporters may suggest, it is certain that if they are going to put forward any other remedy it has not got the support of their Leader. Now we have a request for this survey in order that an agricultural policy shall be based upon it. The Leader of the Liberal party has already adumbrated his agricultural policy. He has laid it down in the Green Book and in the revised edition. We know that his solution is small tenancy—that there shall he created a whole host of small tenancies under the guidance of certain councils apportioned in the different counties. We have had that backed up by a Member of the Labour party, who told us of the great and flourishing state of agriculture in Denmark. Undoubtedly agriculture is flourishing in Denmark, and I think a great deal of it is due to the spirit of co-operation, but tenancy has nothing whatever to do with it because the tenancy is 99 per
  2700
  cent. small ownership, with which they will have nothing to do either in the Liberal party or the Labour party, and for which we are the only champions.
  The question of co-operative marketing is a very serious one, and I think the Ministry of Agriculture could take some steps by propaganda to try to bring about a feeling in favour of co-operative marketing in the minds of the farmers. Co-operative buying is a simple proposition, but co-operative marketing is entirely different and infinitely more troublesome to carry out. The few attempts which have been made in the country districts have generally resulted in disaster to those who made them, and in ruin, in my part of West Wales, to the farmers who gave guarantees, relying on the Government of the day helping them through. But, undoubtedly, cooperative marketing with small holdings is an absolute essential if you are going to make a small holdings scheme a success. One of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), and who agreed with hon. Members opposite that small holdings were a signal success, must, I think, be based either upon a misunderstanding of what is a signal success or on a misunderstanding of small holdings. If it be a signal success from the point of view of putting people on the land, much of the criticism which they have given us is baseless. If it he a signal success from the economic point of view, I only ask them to turn to the accounts and to realise the amount of loss small holdings have caused the country up to date. I do not want to labour the point very much, but we have in my own county selected our tenants with the greatest care. They are all doing well, but the amount of loss the country has suffered is just about equal to the amount of rent we get.
  Mr. RILEY: Does the hon. Member draw a distinction between the Acts of 190S and 1919?
  Major PRICE: I am dealing with the small holdings belonging to the county as a whole.
  Mr. FENBY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman distinguish between the Acts of 199c3 and 1919, and is it not a fact that the terms of the Act of 1948 pre-

  2701
  vented any county losing a single penny upon any of the small holdings they purchased?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is inviting the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the dangerous path of discussing legislation, which would be out of order.
  Mr. FENBY: If you will forgive me, Sir, a statement was made, and I should not like it to go unchallenged.
  Major PRICE: I did not suggest that the loss had fallen upon the county. I suggested that there had been a loss upon the scheme, and it does not matter whether it falls upon the county or the country. If the loss be there, it is an uneconomic matter and one which should not be encouraged.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not due, in the main, to changes in policy?
  Major PRICE:It is due to the fact that when you create small holdings you have to equip them. The cost of equipment of a small holding is very nearly as much as the value of the land itself, and you therefore have to treble the rent in order to get a return. In our county we have had no failures. There has been no return of land in the hands of the county' council. The loss, taken as a whole, on the small holdings estate in the county of Pembroke is very nearly 100 per cent. The rent roll is about £5,000 and the loss is about £5,000.
  Mr. FENBY: Is not the loss met out of the £20,000,000 set aside by the Act of 1919 for the settlement of ex-servicemen upon the land and not by the county council?
  Major PRICE: I do not think that interruption has any relevancy. Whether the loss falls upon one body or another., it comes either out of the taxpayer or the ratepayer.
  Mr. RILEY: It is a war charge.
  Major PRICE: If it be a charge it is a loss. When we turn from small holdings as they are administered by the county council and look at small holdings as administered by the Government, the loss is a startling one. I have here the figures for one farm settlement for eight years. There is loss after loss, amounting on the working account to £28,829
  2702
  and on the Treasury account to £57,868. There you have a heavy loss on farms carried out under State control, with the whole backing of State machinery and State knowledge. Now we are asked that there shall be another return, a return which is in the hands of every county council to-day, and a return which can only be used in the ultimate end by the county councils themselves. The knowledge is there and can he applied. Undoubtedly small holdings are of the greatest value. We wish to encourage them in every possible way, and we wish to continue the benefit to agriculture by the continuity in policy which has been suggested by hon. Members opposite. When this Government came into power they asked for the right to create such a policy from those engaged in agriculture. They asked the farm labourer. How were they met by him and the Labour party? ".Do not have anything to do with it." They asked the Farmers' Union. They were not at all keen on the job. They asked the landowner, and he was the only one who was in favour of it. But the result was that you could not get agreement amongst the parties themselves for a definite policy, and I am certain I am voicing the opinion of every agriculturist when I say, until such time as we get agreement, Heaven help us from State interference.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I rise chiefly to offer, from my own knowledge, one reason why there should be such a survey as is asked for. In the town in which I live and have been brought up there are three rivers converging. They have been silted up in the course of time by workings from coal pits, and now every year, sometimes eight times in the year, all the land over about 14 miles is flooded. It is not only in one county but in three counties. It is not land held by one landowner. It is held by 50 or 60 owners. It is not one man's job to move the silt out of the river. If one man did it it would not matter. His land in turn would be flooded by the overflow from other people's land. Unless we can get a survey, unless we can get to know accurately what changes are required to give us power to deal with a situation of that kind, we are faced with the fact that about 14 miles of splendid arable land is going out of cultivation and going back to waste. It is not only that, the roads are flooded away every year, and

  2703
  I make bold to say, though I cannot get the figures from the Minister of Transport—and I know hon. Members opposite have endeavoured to get them too—that the cost to the State during the past eight years in reconditioning the roads has been far more than would have totally purchased the whole of the land in question. There is a case where a survey is absolutely essential. It is not a party matter. Hon. Members opposite have asked the Minister to give us something time and again. We have written to the Board of Agriculture, and we have raised it in the House. Unless we can get a survey we are helpless. That is one illustration of the vital necessity of a survey. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said there was no argument for a survey because of any reduction in the agricultural population.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: Any great reduction.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: During the last 17 years, and these figures are official, there has been a reduction of 30 per cent. in the number of adult males engaged in agriculture in Scotland. There is no other country in Europe that can show such a terrific decline during that period—30 per cent. or one-third of the total agricultural population wiped out.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: It is pretty nearly the same in this country.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: It is nothing like so bad. if it can be proven that 30 per cent. or one-third of the agricultural population have disappeared from the land during a period of 17 years, surely that fact alone warrants a survey, and warrants it with the united backing of every party in this House. What the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) said about co-operation was correct. if we are to give the smallholders a chance, we must take every possible step to secure a market for their produce at a decent price, and we cannot do that if we allow the smallholders to fend for themselves under the most severe handicap and the greatest difficulty. Here, again,' there is an illustration available of what we want. The Secretary of State for Scotland has in his possession a Report, which he will issue to any hon. Member who demands it, but for
  2704
  some reason he will not publish it. It is a report of agricultural co-operation in the Orkney Islands, and it is most remarkable. It was started almost haphazardly, at the instance of one private
  landowner. What has been the result l Here in the Orkneys, separated from the mainland by wild and stormy seas, and with every possible difficulty in the way of transport, purchase and sale, these people, by virtue of agricultural cooperation—they have set up co-operative societies to dispose of their poultry and produce in the Scottish markets of Leith and Edinburgh—are now getting 4d. more per dozen for their eggs than the individualist producer near to Edinburgh, on the mainland.
  Major PRICE: I think the reason probably why Orkney is getting this advantage is that there is not the haggler at the door there.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: There are plenty of hagglers there. It is because the Orkney people back up their co-operative societies that they are able to carry through their business.
  Major PRICE: The Orkneys are so remote that I thought the haggler would not be there.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: There is not any place where there were more hagglers, and it is because of the hagglers that the agricultural co-operative societies were started there. Note the identity of the hagglers. They are the private adventurers under the individualist system, which the hon. Members opposite are always hoping for. The hagglers went round the islands with old suits of clothes, pairs of boots, chests of tea or pounds of tea, exchanging these commodities for the eggs. The producers were swindled both ways. Because of these hagglers, because of these private adventurers, whom hon. Members opposite are always proud to support—the report in the possession of the Secretary of State for Scotland shows it—they only got 4d a dozen for their eggs, but under the agricultural co-operation system the price of eggs rose to is. 6d, a dozen. Why should not we have a survey? Why should we not get to know all the facts? The more knowledge we have the better position we shall be in to use our privileges and power in this House to bring

  2705
  about a satisfactory change in our agricultural conditions. For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many hon. Members opposite should for one reason or another try to prevent the Secretary of State for Scotland continuing the work he is doing in getting his agricultural survey, or to prevent the Minister of Agriculture in England proceeding on the same lines.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): This is not the first Debate, by any means, which has taken place on the subject of agricultural statistics and the necessity for a census of agricultural production, in the last 18 months. This subject is becoming something in the nature of an August bank holiday topic. The House devoted considerable attention to it in the Debate which took place on the 3rd August. last year. I had hoped to hear the opinions of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) before I spoke. He has taken a very leading part in the previous Debates, and he asked for this opportunity for debate, and. I think it would have been much more helpful if I had had his considered opinion as to what ought to be done in the way of a census, before I attempted to deal with what has been said.
  The proposals made this afternoon have grown, in comparison with the proposals made last year. The proposals last year were much more modest. We have been told by the hon. and gallant. Member for Montrose Burghs. (Sir R. Hutchison) and the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) what that section of Liberal opinion would like to see included. Some of those subjects are already covered by the measures which we are taking in connection with the census of agricultural production, and by the work of the Oxford Institute for Research into agricultural economics. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs said that he wanted information as to how the land was used. We give very complete statistics on that subject in the first part of our annual agricultural statistics. We have been asked this afternoon for a drainage survey. We have already carried out what we consider is a sufficiently detailed survey, with the help of the local authorities, of the land in need of drainage, to enable us to form a
  2706
  policy. I have on a previous occasion given figures of the land which is waterlogged and the smaller amount of land which can be improved by drainage operations.
  We have been told, I think by the same hon. Member, that it is necessary to have evidence as to the kinds of farming which pay in different districts, and on different types of farms. That is being covered by the very exhaustive inquiry, covering 1,500 farms, of which I will give further details, which is being carried out by the Oxford Institute. We have been told by several speakers that we ought to have a survey of land which needs lime. That is not a matter which can he dealt with by a. casual inspection.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The "Morning Post " said it could.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the "Morning Post " may not have realised the machinery which already exists for advising farmers as to the benefit which they can expect by the addition of lime. We have a staff of agricultural advisers attached to each of the big agricultural colleges and university departments of agriculture—something over 50 altogether. Besides that, there are the agricultural organisers, appointed in the counties. These staffs are in constant touch with the farmers, testing their soils and advising them as to the treatment to adopt. If hon. Members will go to any of the various agricultural institutes such as Rothamsted they will see the very ingenious and fool-proof methods which have been worked out, so that by simple chemical tests the farmer is enabled to learn for himself by taking a small sample of soil front every field or from every part of a field, what areas in his farm are in need of this and other methods of soil improvement. We believe that this matter can he dealt with far better by these methods, and by propaganda among the individual farmers, than by a widespread census, which really would not give the information or furnish the means of helping the farmer to put things right.
  We have been told that we ought to have a census to show what land is available for small holdings. I think the hon. Member for the Welsh University raised that point. I am absolutely puzzled AS to what is meant by that statement.

  2707
  There clearly is no land available at the moment for small holdings, because small holdings naturally need the best land, and the best land is practically in ail cases in agricultural occupation. I do not see that a census of the land would be any help in that direction. The qualities of the land are fully known to the local authorities who would responsible for acquiring land for small holdings. That is not a subject which can be dealt with sufficiently by any method of wide inspection. I was glad to note that attention is being devoted to other departments. We have been told that we ought to have a census of transportation. We were also urged to institute inquiry into educational facilities.
  Coming to the economic side, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Boroughs, who has a great knowledge, as I know, of certain classes of cereals, said that we ought to set up machinery apparently for tracing out the transactions in wheat, barley and potatoes. That is a very large measure, and I do not imagine that any section of the community concerned would welcome the control or the form of interference which would be involved by that investigation. I do not in any way complain of the desire of hon. Members in various parts of the House for the maximum of information, but we have to remember that information costs money, and we are bound to see whether we are going to get an adequate return. At the present time, we are spending on our annual agricultural returns £32,600. On the census of production, the agricultural section, we are spending £13,600. The Oxford Institute for Research into Agricultural Economics receives a grant of £6,000. Should we be justified in adding to this very considerable expenditure, in these times of financial difficulty, the £100,000 or £200,000 which would certainly be necessary for the meticulous inspection of the land which has been suggested?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell us what information he hopes to get under the census of production, and also from the Oxford experiments.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly I will do my best. It is a little difficult to
  2708
  describe statistics in a speech and more difficult to do so in a form that is readily understood. Let me deal a little more with the objects which hon. Members have in asking for this census. What they hope for is some report as to the quality of cultivation. I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs develop his views this afternoon, but last year he said:
  " The first thing to find out is whether, in the judgment of those who investigate the matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, it is true that a better economic use could be made of the land of those districts and more employment furnished."
  That is another form of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has so widely made—
  " My second question would be as to the instances where, by improved cultivation, land has increased largely its yield, and employment had been increased. That is the real test. " — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1925; cols. 1012-13, Vol. 187.]
  The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have spoken clearly want something very different from the usual statistical returns which we furnish. They want not well-founded information, but opinions as to the possibility of increased production. I suggest that any such opinions would be misleading and valueless unless based on the economic factor of prices. That must be the dominating consideration in agriculture, whether it is run by the State, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk North (Mr. Buxton), or whether it continues in the hands of private enterprise. Information as to the possibility of increased production as the result of inspection by experts would only be conclusive if based upon costs. That would mean the right of access to farms and books, and I am sure it would be regarded as a very inquisitorial inquiry by those who would come under its operation. Already I get a great many letters from people who are indignant as to our curiosity and who suggest, most unjustly, that our existing returns, which I think are well thought out and necessary, have been suggested to us by civil servants who want to make jobs for themselves and their friends. I can imagine what my correspondents would say if we went further and came to Parliament, as we should have to, for compulsory powers to enter into farms in order to examine their business for those

  2709
  details on which alone you can make a report as to the possibility of increased production really valuable.
  There is no industry in this or in any other country which has been more thoroughly examined than agriculture in the last few years. During the War, we had Lord Selborne's Committee on Agricultural Policy. Then we had the Linlithgow Committee, which carried out a painstaking and most useful research into prices of produce which we are now occupied in carrying into effect in, various directions. Then, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, we appointed the Agricultural Tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman occasionally quotes carefully selected passages from the Report of that Tribunal, but he has never tackled what they themselves point out is the fundamental issue—namely, that the maintenance or an increase of the arable area of this country depends on the willingness of the nation to pay for it, whether by import duties, by subsidies or a guaranteed price. I do not forget that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the policy of the Corn Production Act, but, unfortunately, in addition to being the author of that policy, he was afterwards its assassin. The facts of the situation are really not in dispute. There is a dispute as to the conclusions which can be drawn from the published figures and as to the remedy which should be applied. But here again there is no lack of literature. First in the field we have the right hon. Gentleman's Green Book; next to it in point of bulk is the Red Book, which we expect shortly from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and last in point of bulk, but first, I hope, in point of utility, is the White Paper of the present Government.
  I fully recognise that the country is entitled to be supplied regularly with the most up-to-date and comprehensive information that is possible. The annual statistics which have been published are admitted to be as accurate as those of any other country. I have looked this morning at those in America to which the hon. Member opposite referred, and they really do not go any further than the ground we are covering and shall cover by the special inquiries which are now taking place. The first new factor in statistics which will be
  valuable will be
  2710
  the report based on the agricultural section of the census of production. I hope it will be published before the end of the year. It will give the information necessary to ascertain the aggregate output completely and accurately, it will furnish information as to the growth of production, of crops and livestock, the gross output of products sold off the land, and, what necessarily must be more in the nature of an estimate, the net output in terms of value, representing the balances which are secured, and available for rent, rates and taxes, wages and profits. Information will be included as to the labour employed, and estimates will be given as to the capital invested.
  In recent Debates there has been a good deal of comment as to the 6,000,000 acres of land which is unaccounted for in the agricultural return. We know that 2,000,000 acres is represented by woods and forests, but the remainder, which is covered by towns, villages, factories, mines, recreation grounds, private houses, is being carefully examined by our staff of 300 crop reporters, and we hope to be able to report how far there is a substantial area of potential agricultural land included in that 4,000,000 acres. The Report will cover a very wide and new area of facts, but it will not deal with the possibility of increasing the production of this area or that, or give any opinion as to what may be the maximum capacity of this country. Short of a visitation of farm by farm and a careful examination of books and records, an opinion on this point must be valueless. A decrease in production may not be due to inefficiency or to bad methods, or bad management. It may be due to poor land, low prices, and bad seasons, and nothing but a careful examination of books and costs would really give the explanation. Opinions would be inconclusive, and if they did not bear out the views of hon. Members opposite, which they have so often expressed, I feel sure they would hold that it was because of the instructions on which the investigators set out on their task. We shall give definitely ascertainable facts and a complete statistical picture of the present stage of British agriculture and the changes which have taken place in the last few years.
  I come to the Report which is being prepared by the Institute of Agricultural

  2711
  Economics Research at Oxford. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has seen this book. It is difficult to summarise it, but I will do my best. The institute is engaged upon an agricultural survey, designed to secure data for the study of farm economics as a whole on the lines which have been made familiar by the work of American farm economists. A letter and schedule have been sent to upwards of 1,500 farmers, and after they have had time to collect the information—they are to be personally visited by investigators to clear up points which are in doubt and to help the farmers to fill up all the information required. The reports are then taken back to Oxford and tabulated and statements are made showing—these are only examples—the value of production on particular farms of various sizes, the influence of the size of the farm on the nature of the farming business, the influence of the type of the farm on the labour requirements of the farm, the influence of the size and type of the holding on labour efficiency, the influence of the type of farm on the use of manures, and the relation of crop yields to rent of farms. They will further throw new light on many important economic aspects of farming, some of them questions which often form the subject of political controversy, such as the most efficient size of farm for a particular kind of farming. They will also show the economic factors which influence the system of management, and bring out the conditions which make for the success of small farms and small holdings, and the most suitable types of equipment, stock, etc., required. It will afford definite and considered data as to the methods of marketing produce. Hon. Members will admit that this work of the Oxford Institute will fulfil the same purpose and cover .a much wider area than the inquiry covering 300 farms in Kincardineshire which has been instituted by my right hon. Friend beside me.
  Apart from these special inquiries which we hope to see realised in a few months, the Ministry have appointed eleven advisory economists, attached to the principal agricultural colleges and university departments. These economists
  2712
  are collecting information from the farmers in their areas.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In what areas?
  Mr. GUINNESS: There are 11 different centres to which they are attached, and they deal with their own -areas. I think perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will realise the work which is being done if I say it includes the work of Mr. Ashby at Aberystwyth; Dr. Ruston, attached to Leeds University; and Mr. Venn at Cambridge. These investigators have great experience and believing, as we do, that skill in management is the most important factor in good farming, we attach great importance to obtaining and spreading reliable information on the true economic position and the best conditions for various types of farms in their own localities.
  Finally, and this has been mentioned this afternoon, we arc pressing on with our inquiries into marketing. We hope to obtain greater information, which may help farmers to secure a fairer share of the profits of the home market which now so often escapes. I believe that any really reasonable demand for agricultural information is now being fully met, and that nothing will be gained by a roving inquiry as to whether the land is farmed to its maximum capacity without regard to the, economic factors of cost and price and the profit to be obtained by embarking capital on farming as compared with other industries. At the same time I am by no means contending that all is well and that there is no room for improvement, but I believe the way to improvement will be found by these inquiries which are taking place. It is common ground that there are disquieting features evident to everyone in British agriculture, and it is also obvious all the farming is not up to the level of the best. But is that peculiar to agriculture? Is it not equally true of every other of our great staple industries, and must we not remember that the farmer is peculiarly liable to the law of diminishing returns, and that many of them have had bitter lessons of the truth of the saying that high farming is not a remedy for low prices. We have had a terrible experience for the farmer in the steady and uniform drop in prices, and the index number is now lower than it has been since the War.
  Considering that, and considering the reduction of the purchasing power of the

  2713
  community by unemployment in connection with our present difficulties, it is in no way surprising that there should be at the present time a certain agricultural depression, but we must surely remember that it is not only here but all over the world that agriculture has to face these exceptional difficulties in trying to recover the position which was shattered by the transformation which took place during the War. Nowhere has there been a greater convulsion than in the farming of the United States, in spite of the abounding commercial prosperity with which American farmers have been surrounded. I think it is not only unwise but unjust continually to be depreciating and criticising the services which the British farmer tries to render to the community in the face of the most formidable difficulties. Ought we not rather to remember that there is no industry in which so much capital has been employed for a return lower than the owner could enjoy if he abandoned the struggle, realised his assets, and invested them in gilt-edged securities? Agriculture, as has been said this afternoon by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), is a slow-moving industry, and must, owing to the differences of soil and conditions" be an intensely personal industry. We cannot hope for any short cut, by an agricultural census or any other means, to the millennium. In the opinion of the Government, the road to the revival of prosperity will be found on the lines of the White Paper, by trying to strengthen the weak places and to discover and teach better methods of production and by removing the obstacles which hamper the free and fair play of private enterprise.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Minister of Agriculture is rather disposed to complain that I did not speak before he got up. My explanation is that I had already put my ease once or twice on the question of the survey, and I wanted to know what he proposed. I am not in the least sorry that I postponed what I had to say until after his reply, for I think it has been so far the most satisfactory answer to which I have had the privilege of listening from him, and I hope he will go a good deal further next time. The right bon. Gentleman gave an indication of two or three inquiries of first-class importance
  2714
  which will elicit information of the very greatest importance, and which will be helpful from many points of view as far as those who believe that the restoration of the countryside is the most important, social and economic problem of the day are concerned. There are some who think that there is one method which will achieve that end, and there are others who think you must have different methods, but what matters is that there is a growing opinion as to the gravity of the conditions and as to the importance of something being done from some point of view to restore the condition of food production in this country.
  Before I come to the detailed answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to make one or two general observations as to what fell from him and other speakers. Let rue say at once, there is no attack on the British farmer. I think the British farmer, under the conditions, is making the very best of his industry, and our complaint has bean that the conditions are not favourable for him to make the best use of his ability and that they do not encourage him to expend capital and to do what people in other industries are prepared to do. Our complaint is rather with regard to the conditions under which he works. I am not entitled to go into that question now because that would involve legislation, but I want to make it quite clear that our charge is not against the farmer, or his skill, his ability, his knowledge, or his industry, quite the reverse. I think, having regard to the conditions under which he works, he has achieved marvels, but our opinion is that the conditions ought to be altered in respect of tenure. in respect of the kind of assistance the Government gives him, in respect. of transport and marketing, and in respect of credit. All these conditions ought to be changed, and, until they are changed, the British farmer cannot make the best' out of his business. That is all I want to say with regard to that point, but I would not like it to be thought that we are asking for a survey in order to show what a bad job the British farmer is making of his industry. That is not our case.
  The right hon. Gentleman brought a very serious charge against me, a charge of murder and infanticide. He said I was the parent of the Corn Production Act and that afterwards I assassinated

  2715
  it. Neither of those statements is correct. I am not repudiating in the least responsibility for the Corn Production Act, because it was a- very essential Act in the conditions in which it was introduced. It was done in order to increase the production of food in this country at a time when communications were very precarious, and when it was a matter of calculation from one day to another whether we should have enough food to go through. At one moment we were with only about two months' supply in this country, and we had to devise every conceivable means to increase- production of food here. My impression is that Lord Selborne was the first to suggest it, and the driving force was very largely Lord Milner, whose views on this subject are well known to the right hon. Gentleman. He took a very large and statesmanlike view in my judgment of the essential need of some agricultural policy for the life and security of this country. He was largely responsible, but I myself did use the whole of my influence as Prime Minister to support him.
  When you come to the question of how the thing came to an end, it was partly the responsibility of the Treasury and partly that of the House of Lords. It was an unholy conspiracy between the Treasury and the House of Lords that destroyed that Bill. The House of Lords, if the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, threw out the one condition under which the subsidy was granted, and that was the condition in regard to cultivation. They cut that out. The result was that there was not the same inducement for a subsidy, and the Treasury then came in and thought this was the opportunity to get rid of the whole thing, and they did so. We had unfortunately guaranteed, not merely wheat, but oats. The Scotsman said he had no interest in wheat, and the Irishman said the same thing, and they asked, " Why should all the money go to England? If there be any fat going, the Scotsmen ought to have their share."
  Mr. MACOUISTEN: What about Wales?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Undoubtedly, and Wales. It was said, " If you are going to give a guarantee to the English wheat production, where do we come in? " As a matter of fact, looking back
  2716
  on it, I think it was a mistake. It was essential during the War that you should produce oats and barley as well as wheat, but after the War I do not think it was essential, and I think it would have been wiser to have confined it to wheat. If that had been done, there would have been a very different story to tell, because oats suddenly broke in the market, and it involved a loss of something like £15,000,000
  to £20,000,000, mostly over oats. That really broke the Corn Production Act. I am only defending myself against this charge of murder and infanticide which was brought against me.
  The other point I want to make is with regard to what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Price). I think his argument was a perfectly fair one, but he quite missed the point. The loss was very largely over the settlement of soldiers and ex-service men on the land, and that was due to conditions which do not exist at the present moment. You had to undertake the settlement of soldiers on the land immediately after the War, because there was a promise given when you were recruiting—a recruiting promise—that when they came back everything would be done to try and get them settled on the land. It was felt, therefore, to be a question not of cash but of honour. It was the same sort of promise as was given in the days of the Roman Empire. It is the sort of promise that has been given in almost every great war undertaken in the history of the world. And there has been always the same difficulty, the difficulty of the cash and the land. You had to redeem it at a time when building cost three times and even four times as much as before the. War. You could not consider the question economically, for it involved an obligation of honour. That is why the £18,000,000 or £20,000,000 was voted. We knew that we could not possibly build at less than three or four times the pre-War cost, and equipment cost so much that we could not possibly let at a rate which was economic. That loss was a calculated loss; it was a loss which the House of Commons knew perfectly well would have to Be faced. It is unfair, therefore, to charge the small holdings policy with something which had reference to that very special condition, when the House of Commons

  2717
  deliberately ignored the loss in order to discharge its obligation of honour to the recruit.
  Major PRICE: My point was that the losses had been incurred, spread over, not the years immediately after the War, but the eight years since the War, and that losses had been incurred within the last two or three years. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can suggest that the cost of building is going immediately to fall because that particular Act has passed away. The cost of building will be the same, or approximately the same, next year as this, and the loss will go on.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. The losses which he quoted are losses incurred from the obligations of the first few years after the War.
  Major PRICE: No.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not the actual documents here, and I do not think that anything will be gained by my saying "Yes" and the hon. and gallant Member saying "No."
  Major PRICE: We were blamed for not getting to work directly after the War. The loss was not incurred in the first few years.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The £18,000,000 was expended in the main in respect of settlements immediately after the War. I know that from experience. One of the difficulties that we had in Scotland was that we came to a point where the cost of equipment was so high, owing to the cost of building, that we had to decide whether it was possible to go on. We found it extraordinarily difficult. But the cost of building has come down to something approximating an economic level. I am not saying that the community will not have to face a certain amount of expenditure if we are going to put the countryside right. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is bringing in a Bill to-morrow under which he is going to face a, certain obligation. It is the same with regard to general housing. I do not believe that you will put the countryside right without facing a certain expenditure, in order to make up for the past. That is one of the things to be considered. However, I am not going into that question, because it
  2718
  raises a very large issue. I turn rather to the question of detail of the investigation. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman, who is prepared to have the kind of investigation these Oxford gentlemen are initiating, cannot go further. He says that it will involve an inquisitorial investigation into the accounts. Unless these gentlemen have an inquisitorial investigation their report will be of no use at all. What is there to be done? They are to get the costings in all these 1,500 farms. I was very glad to hear that it was to be done.
  I know Professor Rushton and the others. They cannot come to conclusions until they get every figure that the farmers can give them. That involves a complete account by 1,500 farmers of what their farms cost, their expenditure and their receipts, and then a balance will be worked out. Unless the investigators get details the reports will be of no use. I do not think that there will be the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman imagines. They will get the 1,500 agriculturists who are working in that area to supply the accounts, provided that the names are not given. The latter point is of importance, for a man does not want to have all his accounts published. As long as there is a guarantee given by the investigators that the castings will not be published, they will get the information. I am in a mood to urge rather than to criticise, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he finally makes up his mind, whether he cannot go further. Why does he not go as far as his colleague beside him, the Secretary of State for Scotland? Let them talk over the subject together. Through the courtesy of my right hon. Friend, I have had supplied a report of what he is doing in Kincardineshire. There you have a whole county where A, survey has been undertaken, and a very searching survey.
  The Minister of Agriculture asks, " Are you going to have an inquisitorial investigation? " I do not like to use the word " inquisitorial," but this Kincardine inquiry is a very searching examination of accounts. The method employed in carrying out this survey was, briefly, as follows: Every individual farm and holding, over 30 acres arable, was visited. Then a full account of the profits and the costings was

  2719
  obtained. As far as I can see from the Report, no one withheld any information. On the contrary, they very readily granted the information. Certainly, I see here no account of any resentment on the part of the farmers in Kincardineshire, nor would there be elsewhere as long as it was known that the information was gathered in the interests of agriculture, that it was not obtained for any political purpose, nor in order to report to the agent or to show up any landlord or estate, but to get general information as to the state of agriculture in a particular county. Every farmer would be treated in the same way, and as long as it is known that you are not picking and choosing, the farmers would not complain.
  I had exactly the same experience with the Census of Production Act. I remember the father of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, coming to me behind the Speaker's Chair and saying, "of course you will have the charge made that you are inquisitorial. They brought the same charge against me in respect of some other Act which I introduced." Then he said. " is worth while facing it." We had to get the most detailed information with regard to the yield of businesses, and whether there was a rival enterprise, and the most important thing was to make it perfectly clear that information would not be given to anyone else, but that it would be used in the aggregate for the purpose of knowing the state of industry in the country. I shall never forget the interview that I had with the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, or the valuable advice which he gave me before I introduced the Bill. It is equally true here. If we convince the farmer that the information is required, not to annoy and harass him, but in order to get information upon which to base a policy for improving agriculture as a whole, no difficulty will he experienced.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 'Scotland has experienced no difficulty in Kincardineshire. That was a. very searching investigation. I would have liked it to go a little further. The investigation was not inquisitorial at all. I would like the question to be put " Is there a shortage of houses? " There is
  2720
  no reason why that question should not be asked. That information would be very useful from the point of view of the County Council, and the County Council might be able to answer it. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) seems to think they could do it. Why could not the Minister of Agriculture do it. I hope that we shall have another opportunity of pressing him on the subject, and that he will go still further than he has gone. He has gone very much further than he has given any indication of up to the present. There is a good deal of the information he is getting which will be invaluable, especially after the searching examination as to the 1,500 farms in that area. Why should he not do as has been done in Scotland and take one or two counties, if he thinks six are too many? He might take one or two typical counties.
  There is no one here who knows agriculture better than the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope). He made a very interesting speech. His scientific farming is an example to the poor Southerner, who does not always achieve the same measure of success. The hon. Gentleman said that farming in this country is very good. That may be the case. But I notice that he took certain counties. For instance, there was Lincolnshire. There is no doubt at all that for very special reasons there has been a very great success in Lincolnshire, but Lincolnshire is not a typical county, and it does not represent the whole of England in respect of the amount of produce that you get out of the soil or the quality of it. Even in choosing counties in Scotland he chose some of the best, and I think he knows that he did so. You must take agriculture as a whole. This is not merely a question for farmers or agricultural labourers. It is a question for the country as a whole. It is a question of food production, a question of employment, a question of reviving the countryside. It is no use saying that agriculture is merely suffering like any other industry. These symptoms were almost as true with regard to agriculture before the War as after the War. It has been a gradual decay. The population has been leaving the land. The output has not been maintained. Since the War there have been special conditions which do not apply to any other industry. This is a

  2721
  thing which the right hon. Gentleman always ignores, and it is one of the things that a survey of Britain would bring out.
  The capitalist in agriculture is no longer in a position to spend the necessary cash in order to keep up the land. It is not a question merely of drainage on a large scale, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby), who wanted to divert some river from the east to the west—no doubt a most admirable scheme. I am not referring to cases of that kind. Look at the speech of the Minister's predecessor, who criticised Welsh agriculture and talked about neglected drainage and land becoming waterlogged. It is not a question of great areas being swamped by floods, but a question of general deterioration. I wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would supply the Minister of Agriculture with a few copies of the Scottish Report on Agriculture. For instance, there is the Report which he issued with regard to the condition of drainage in Scotland, where he points out that a good deal of the drainage of Scotland had been very largely neglected because of the lack of capital, and that the land was becoming waterlogged. It is because you have general deterioration owing to the fact that the landlord his not any longer the necessary cash for the purpose of keeping it up. [Interruption.] I do not know what there is to say about that. That is so. The taxation of the War has reduced the surplus which the landlord has available for the purpose of spending upon drainage and other things. I hope, having started this investigation, the right hon. Gentleman will persevere in well-doing and will extend the area of his inquiry.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I would like to direct the attention of the House to the question of the new Treaty which has been contracted between ourselves and the Italian Government in reference to Abyssinia. Abyssinia is one part of the African Continent which, so far, has not been divided between the great Powers of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I say that the very idea of any advance, economic or otherwise, made by any great European Powers in any part of the African Continent,
  2722
  naturally excites, from the beginning, the suspicion and alarm of those who remember what has happened as a result of the partition of other parts of Africa between European Powers. When we hear that Abyssinia is the subject of representations to the greatest Powers in the world, we cannot help thinking of Egypt, of Tripoli, and of Morocco. There is a strange similarity—I am not saying in reality but in appearance—between the Moroccan situation and the Abyssinian situation. You have two Powers—in that case Spain and France, in this case Great Britain and Italy—and a third Power—in this case France, in that case Germany—watching, with, perhaps, not always very friendly intent. We must remember that, connected with our own occupation of Egypt and with the Franco-Spanish occupation of Morocco, there were moments and names which brought us to the very verge of war. In 1898 for some months we were on the brink of war with France arising from the quarrel about the partition of that part of the Nile Valley. Agadir, Tangier —these are names in Morocco which remind us that the Great War can he traced by those qualified to do so in detail, and by the general observer in reality to the European policy of the partition of Africa. Tripoli is another such name; and in every case we had the same assurances that the sovereignty of the particular country concerned was to be fully respected. Look at the Egyptian and the Moroccan documents, and you will always find the phrase that the sovereignty of the State affected was not in any way to he infringed by the now arrangement proposed. When we find the same sort of documents on the present situation in Abyssinia using the same language, then it is natural that we should feel suspicious and should demand full information. I notice it stated in " Le Temps " that in their opinion the action of the Italians was a stroke against German ambition, and they rejoice in the idea that the Anglo Italian Treaty is going.. to advance the Latin idea. They say:
  " There is de facto solidarity in the Mediterranean, between France and Italy, to assure throughout the world the future of the Latin idea."
  That is exactly the sort of language which was used by the Germans when they were pursuing a policy of world

  2723
  power in order to secure what they called the German idea. Signor Davanzati, who can be regarded as au Italian spokesman, says:
  "France's behaviour in the present circumstances shows a small sense of loyalty to the Powers who have vital interests in North Africa."
  That is the same idea again—the idea of great Powers uniting to exploit an African State. In this case we are under a treaty agreement with Italy, and the Italian record in their dealings with the sovereignty of Abyssinia is a bad record. They succeeded at one time—in 1887 I think—in making a treaty by virtue of which they secured a protectorate over Abyssinia, and if it had not been for the ghastly defeat at Adowa, about eight years later, there would have been established an Italian protectorate over the Abyssinia State. In 1915 again we had the Treaty of. London. I am not going to criticise the Treaty of London, because we were hard put to it to secure friends in the War, but the wording of the treaty speaks about territorial compensation for the Italians as a reward for their intervention on behalf of the Allies in the War. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will reply that we never regarded any territorial compensation as in the least affecting Abyssinia. Italy has had part of Jubaland, has had an adjustment of the boundary with Tripoli, which fulfils, as we think, this obligation. We should like to know if it is the Italian standpoint that the territorial compensation promised in the treaty of 1915 affects in any way the territory of Abyssinia. As regards ourselves, with the exception of the expedition in 1868, I do not think we have had any hostile relations with Abyssinia. In fact, we had some friendly assistance from them at the time of the Mahdist rebellion.
  It is proper that we should make commercial arrangements or agreements with them and that for value received they ought to give us the rights to construct the necessary works at Lake Tsana for the purpose of securing more water for Egypt and the Sudan. There is nothing improper in that and, in fact a long time ago they agreed that they would not themselves construct any works which would be hurtful to such a scheme when
  2724
  it became ripe. In 1906 there was the famous Tripartite Treaty on which the present Treaty is based. The strange thing about the Tripartite Treaty of 1906 is that it affects Abyssinia but Abyssinia is not one of the three signatories. It is signed by three foreign States about Abyssinia, and the Abyssinians were not, in its initiation, parties to this Treaty. It is a Treaty which, as far as one can sum it up generally, says that the three parties will not get in one another's way in their economic enterprises in Abyssinia. Article II of that Treaty deals with this point and, if that be the Article on which the present Treaty is based, there is nothing at all in it about any exclusive exploitation.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Which Treaty?
  Captain BENN: The Treaty of 1906.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It may only be a question of language, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is constantly speaking of the " present treaty." There is no present treaty. I take it he means the exchange of Notes.
  Captain BENN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not versed in diplomatic language. I am speaking about an effective agreement and I call it a treaty, but in the nomenclature of the Foreign Office it is an exchange of Notes. In the Tripartite Agreement of 1906 I do not find in Article II, which deals with the grants of concessions, anything which applies to any undertaking on our part to secure the exclusive exploitation of any part of Abyssinia to any power. Article II, which, imagine, is the basis of the new exchange of Notes, says that as regards demands for agricultural, commercial and industrial concessions in Ethiopia the three parties undertake to instruct their representatives to act in such a way that any representation which may be made in the interest of one of the three States, may not be injurious to the interests of the two others. There is nothing about exclusive rights for anybody in the Treaty of 1906.
  A very great thing happened in 1919. The League of Nations wail formed and the great Powers announced that they were going to reshape the whole of their foreign policy, which of course includes

  2725
  such things as the partition of Africa, with a view to avoiding in the future the causes of conflict which produced the Great War. In 1923 Abyssinia became a member of the League of Nations. I think I am right in saying that Abyssinia did so in face of the opposition of Great Britain and Italy. That fact itself is worth noting, in passing, in view of the exchange of Notes which has taken place between the two Powers. In 1925, comes this new agreement. We are to have the right to construct some waterworks at Lake Tsana and a motor road into the Sudan. I do not know who is to guard the motor road. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will say whether we are to have the right to put any military posts along the motor road to safeguard it against brigandage or any sort of interference. That is a matter of substance, because if we were to put soldiers on the road and if anyone were to kill one of those soldiers it would immediately create a demand for some action on our part. It is no use treating the matter with derision because that is the sort of thing which creates ill-feeling and before we know where we are, we find that some sort of expedition is considered necessary for the honour of the country.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no derision.
  Captain BENN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is an expert in these matters and 1 am not, but it is not a question for experts; it is a question for the decision of the people of this country. In the treaty, or the exchange of Notes, of 1925 we find an entirely new
  feature. The letter to Senor Mussolini states that the British Government are prepared to recognise an exclusive Italian economic influence in the west, of Abyssinia. The Italian reply emphasises this and states that the Royal Italian Government note that in the event of His Britannic Majesty's Government, with the effective support of the Italian Government, obtaining from the Abyssinian Government the concession asked for, they will recognise the exclusive character of the Italian economic influence in the west of Abyssinia. I can find nothing in the Agreement of 1906 which promises that we will support exclusive economic influence for Italy or any other Power in
  2726
  Abyssinia, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will devote a few sentences of his reply to an explanation of the word " exclusive." It appears to me that by this exchange of Notes we pledge ourselves and another Power, demanding concessions in this part of Africa, to resist the demands of other Powers with obvious danger to our good relations with those other Powers, whoever they may be.
  All through 1925 this exchange of Notes was being concocted. In December it was actually effected. We knew nothing about it. I do not know whether it came to light by accident or whether it was intended to publish it, but at any rate it did not reach the public Press until the middle or late spring of the present year. It appears that on the 15th June, when the contents of the Note became known to the Regent of Abyssinia, he sent a strong letter of protest to the British and Italian Governments, and this was a matter of surprise to many people, because the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply on the 30th June, rather gave one to understand—at least, I understood from his answer—that the Notes had been exchanged, but that any sort of interchange of Notes with the Abyssinian Government had not yet taken place. On the 29th July the Abyssinian Government sent a Note to the League, a very dignified Note, which would appeal to disinterested people as being a Note couched in the spirit of justice. These are the facts concerning the exchange of Notes dealing with Abyssinia. I would like to say again that, as regards a real, commercial agreement for the supply of water in the Sudan, no objection can he taken, but this is a different thing. This is the joint Agreement of two great Powers to present joint demands to a very weak Power, a very small Power, the latest and the weakest member of the League of Nations, and I think that they are right in protesting that they are not given that full commercial liberty of decision which they should have when they find themselves faced with identical demands made by two Powers whose influence, economic or military, they are quite unable to resist.
  I understand further that the question of Abyssinian membership of the League may be raised, because I believe that when they became a member of the League of Nations they gave certain

  2727
  undertakings in reference to the suppression of slavery. No doubt there are many misdeeds in the government of Abyssinia—there is no doubt about that —but I would like to know whether there is any question, at the forthcoming meeting of the League, of anyone attempting to remove them from membership of the League, on the ground that they have not fulfilled their obligations in reference to slavery. Everyone would desire that slavery should be suppressed, and that the League of Nations should require members of the League to suppress slavery, but if, at the very moment that you are working jointly with the Italian Government, who have never been particularly enthusiastic about the League and who have never been very squeamish in dealing with weaker Powers, you are also going to start an inquiry as to whether Abyssinia ought to be in the League at all, I say that you lay yourselves open to the suspicion that the inquiry or demand as to the membership of the League is not bona fide,but motived by your ambitions in other directions.
  Then, again, I understand that in fact Abyssinia's political integrity is protected under Article 10 of the Covenant. The fact that the 1906 Agreement was pre-War has nothing whatever to do with it. The Covenant itself, in Article 10, says that any agreement hostile to the Covenant is automatically abrogated by the signature of the Covenant itself. Abyssinia stands protected by Article 10 of the Covenant. She has asked for an inquiry into this matter, I understand from this letter from the Regent, by the League of Nations. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say what form that inquiry will take, whether it. will be an inquiry before the Council of the League, if so, who will represent Abyssinia's interests in the inquiry, whether she will be made a temporary member of the Council for the purpose of the inquiry, or what form the inquiry will take, because I believe that there is a volume of opinion in this country which sees a possible danger in this form of negotiations, and dislikes extremely joint Notes concocted privately by great Powers and presented to weaker Powers.
  These matters of Foreign Office affairs may involve a great deal of experience
  2728
  and a great deal of knowledge, but at root they affect particularly the whole mass of the population, because if, in fact, they are possible causes of War, it is not only the diplomats and the people who make these agreements and the concessionaires who have to suffer; it is the people who have to find the money and the men to conduct the war. The people of the world really believed that in the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations a new spirit was to inform the whole diplomacy of this country and the other great Powers, and they are very anxious that, in reference to this particular Agreement, some reassurance should be given by the Government that in fact the policy which is to be pursued will not be the old policy of the great Powers partitioning the weak States of Africa, but the new policy, in which we regard ourselves as trustees for the weak, and in which we pursue legitimate commercial aims in a spirit of disinterestedness and in strict accord with the instinct of the League of Nations.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has taken this opportunity to make inquiries with regard to a question which is undoubtedly of very great importance and which should be brought before the House before we adjourn for the holidays. The document that was issued giving the exchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government certainly was of such a nature as to make us anxious as to the negotiations that were being carried on, but when, recently, the Regent of Abyssinia. addressed a Note to the League of Nations protesting against these negotiations between this country and -Italy, the whole matter assumed a gravity of which we must take notice very carefully. This method of conducting diplomatic negotiations with another Government about a third Power is doubtful in the extreme, and when that third Power is a comparatively weak Power, that has not got the same prestige or voice in the Council of Nations, it is no wonder that people regard that form of negotiations with some suspicion.
  We have been accustomed before now to hear of economic spheres of influence being assigned to this Power and to that Power, and we can all remember, just before 1914, the very grave predicament

  2729
  into which we had been brought by the partition of Persia in that very same way between the Czarist Government of Russia and ourselves, with a territory that was left to the Persians in between. It was becoming increasingly embarrassing for us. We know that economic spheres of influence are a preliminary to a partitioning of political spheres of influence. We find that this exchange of Notes between this Government and the
  Italian Government took place in December, 1925, but that the Abyssinian Government was not informed until June of this year. The Regent of Abyssinia, in sending his covering Note to the League of Nations, says:
  "The arrangement was arrived at without our being consulted or informed."
  That, I venture to say, is a most serious charge to make, and it naturally arouses a great deal of suspicion. Why should not the party chiefly concerned, in whose territory all the work projected was to take place, he consulted at every stage of the proceedings? Then we find that the Regent of Abyssinia, in acknowledging the Note which was sent by His Majesty's Minister in Abyssinia, makes the following comment:
  " The fact that you have come to an Agreement, and the fact that you thought it necessary to give us a joint notification of that Agreement, make it clear that your intention is to exert pressure, and this, in our view, at once raises a previous question. The British Government had already entered into negotiations with the Abyssinian Government with reference to its proposal, and we had imagined that, whether that proposal was carried into effect or not, the negotiations would have been concluded with us; we should never have suspected that the British Government would come to an Agreement with another Government regarding the lake."
  Therefore, the Regent of Abyssinia regards this method of negotiation as exercising pressure, and that was what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition feared when he asked the
  Foreign Secretary, on the 5th July:
  " Is it quite clear that this Agreement between Italy and ourselves is not to be used for the purpose of coercing Abyssinia into granting Italian claims and our own later on? "
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "It certainly is not to he used and cannot be used for the purpose of coercing the Abyssinian Government. I believe the Agreement to be in the interests of all three parties, but of course the Abyssinian Govern-
  2730
  ment have a perfect right to judge of what is in the interest of Abyssinia."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 5th July, 1926; col. 1614, Vol. 197.]
  I should like to examine this question of pressure and coercion. Our desire, and a perfectly laudable desire, is to get sufficient water for the Sudan by the construction of a barrage in Lake Tsana, and by the further construction of a motor road from the lake up to the frontier. We consider that that is a necessity to the Sudan, and that we are
  perfectly justified in asking the Abyssinian Government to concede our request on this point, but, failing in our negotiations with Abyssinia, which have been protracted and have gone on for sonic years, admittedly, we have linked up our demand with a demand that Italy has for a railway from the frontier of Eritrea in the North, through Western Abyssinia, into Italian Somaliland. Anyone who understands that Abyssinia is the same size as Germany, France and Spain put together fully realises the enormous extent of territory involved. Coupled with this railway concession is this demand, which my hon. and gallant Friend has already quoted, for an exclusive sphere of economic influence for Italy.
  What is going to happen? If we fail in our request with regard to Lake Tsang, then the Italians cannot go on with their railway, and the whole thing falls to the ground. If the Italians fail
  in their claim to the railway, we have to throw up this scheme that we want to link up the waters to the Sudan. The two things hang together. Now it
  is perfectly clear that we have linked ourselves on to the Italian claim and are not content to continue our negotiations alone, because we want to exert pressure against Abyssinia. Otherwise,
  what is the exact meaning of this double claim? We are now compelled to with-draw this claim to get water from Lake Tsana if the Italians fail to get this further immense railway traversing the
  whole of Abyssinia. It is the strangest form of diplomacy that we have ever had in modern times. It has some very disagreeable features, because all this is going on behind the backs, so to speak, of the chief parties concerned, who are
  protesting against it in an extremely dignified and well-grounded way to the League of Nations. My hon. and gallant

  2731
  Friend the Member for Leith asked in what form the Abyssinian protest will come up before the League. notice in the correspondence that the Secretariat of the League, on the 22nd July, have acknowledged the Abyssinian protest and have asked the Abyssinian Government in what form they desire this matter to come before the Council of the League. They asked for a telegraphic answer, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in replying, will be able to inform us what the Abyssinian Government has said and in what form this matter will come before the League of Nations; whether it will come before the Council, and, if it does, whether the Abyssinians will be represented on the Council. We have a traditional friendship with Abyssinia. It is the last independent Kingdom left in Africa. The Abyssinians see the great Powers gradually creeping round and exerting pressure on them, and they very naturally feel that their integrity and independence are threatened.
  We found during the period that we were in office that the negotiations were being carried on with regard to Lake Tsana. It was in 1924 that the Regent of Abyssinia Came over to this country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. It. MacDonald) who was then Foreign Secretary, had conversations with him on this very point. He was not agreeable to any of the projects that were put before him. Negotiations, no doubt, have been protracted and difficult. He is naturally suspicious and jealous of the encroachments on the integrity of his country by economic exploitation of any sort or kind; but I do not think it would have ever occurred to my right hon. Friend, after the Regent had left the country, to say, " I cannot get on with you, but I can get on with Signor Mussolini behind your back, and the two of us will be strong enough to make you toe the line." It has come as a shock to us to find that the old diplomacy, the old ideas of exercising pressure on two sides against these small, less developed, I will not say less civilised countries, still existed. We thought that that kind of diplomacy had gone, but here we have a very flagrant and very dangerous instance of it. I can only hope that the one solution of this difficulty rests in the existence of the League of Nations. The League
  2732
  of Nations is in being, and we all hope it is strengthening its authority and its position. Abyssinia is a member of the League of Nations, and has very properly and correctly brought its cause of complaint before the League. I hope that we shall abide by the decision of the League and help Abyssinia to see that its case is properly put before them, and not, along with our partner, Signor Mussolini, exercise any outside pressure, but use the authority which our strength and our prestige can bring to help so small and ill-developed a country as Abyssinia. It is a tradition of this country that we are proud to help small and undeveloped countries in their difficulties and strengthen them in their weakness. It will be a very bad day when that tradition is broken, and I am sorry that this correspondence and this course of diplomacy has given us so much cause for anxiety. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will be able to dispel some of our fears.
  Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I would like to present to the House an entirely different view from that put before it by the two previous speakers. I do not intend to deal with the question as to the desirability of entering into a commercial treaty concerning a territory which is free and independent. What I would like to draw the attention of the House to is that it is quite possible that these Notes may result in too dear a purchase, apart altogether from the question of their desirability. The ostensible reason for the Notes is in order that the British Government or the Sudan Government may be able to control the waters issuing from Lake Tsana. If control over these waters can he easily and cheaply got, undoubtedly it would be a very excellent thing for the Sudan, but, in my view, it is not an absolute necessity. These waters are not so great a factor in the Nile problem that they alone should be made a necessity for the Sudan, and I do not think they are a necessity. There are alternative proposals which could be carried out, which would have the same effect as the control of Lake Tsana, and over which we or the Sudan Government have control without interfering with Abyssinia. There is an impression in the Abyssinian minds, as well as in the minds of a great number of our own

  2733
  countrymen, that the control of the lake will in some way interfere with the tombs or temples which are known to be on the small islands in the lake itself. There need be no interference whatsoever, even if the Sudan Government does get control of this lake. There is no need to increase the levels so that the temples will be prejudicially affected.
  Many years ago I made a suggestion to Lord Kitchener on this same subject, which was that, instead of storing the flood waters by making the flood still higher in the lake, we should lower the outlet to such an extent that, the lake being a deep one, a lower part of the lake would be made available rather than the top as a storage place for water in the flood season. There would then be no difficulty regarding the temples or tombs. But the whole scheme might be conceivably purchased too dearly from the point of view of negotiations with Italy, or it might be purchased too dearly from the cash point of view. In the latter case, it is possible, I believe, to build a dam at Roseires and store with it for the benefit of the Sudan. You could not there impound as much water as would be impounded at Lake Tsana, but there is no demand now or likely to be in the immediate future for any great volume of water. I understand a Commission has reported on the division of water between Egypt and the Sudan. Their Report has not been issued yet, but I think it is fairly well known that they were willing to give rather more water to the Sudan than it has at present. It is also well known that the quantity of water which the Sudan has could go over a much greater area of land than it is at present being restricted to. If the existing water could go over a greater area, then the Sudan will be provided for quite a long time ahead even under present circumstances. If new works were at Roseires rather than outwith the territory of the Sudan, it is possible that water supply could be carried on for many years ahead without the necessity of going to Lake Tsana during it.
  The whole matter is complicated by the further difficulty that, at the present moment, the Egyptian Government have decided not to build a reservoir at Gebel Audia. It is perfectly obvious that it is political reasons which have been lead-
  2734
  ing the Egyptian Government not to carry out that work, and it is not quite so much a technical problem. The Egyptian Government are afraid, apparently, of building works in the Sudan in case these works should be controlled by the Sudan in the years to come to their prejudice. I regret that they should have that feeling, because my advice to them in bygone years was that the more works the Egyptians had in the Sudan the more rights they would have there. They are particularly anxious to have rights in the Sudan, and, in my opinion, the only way is to build works there, so that they could say, "These are works for which we must have some rights le these territories." If the Egyptian Government, therefore, do not build the Gebel Aulia Dam, which I see by the reports in the Press is to be suspended in favour of raising the Assuan Dam, so as to be able to store more water there, it is possible that more water could be stored at Assuan, though, in my opinion, no great additional volume of water could be stored. Egypt, however, wants far more water than she could conceivably store even at Gebel Aulia. She has a great area of territory in the lower part of the country not yet developed, and for that area she requires water. The only real solution is to go to Lake Albert, and what I would like to suggest to the Government would be this: Has consideration ever been given to the inter-relation between the various works, apart from the order of building, as to their probable cost? In this case we are, apparently, going to incur something beyond the cash cast. We are going to make the Treaty cost, which may have influence over the trade of our nationals in Abyssinia in the years to come.
  If the British Government authorised the building of a dam at Lake Albert with sufficient training works, then, undoubtedly, the problem for many years ahead would be solved for both Egypt and the Sudan, because if Egypt gets more water from Lake Albert, she need not restrict the Sudan, as now, on the Blue Nile. I would, therefore, suggest that consideration should be given to the question of whether the building by the Sudan Government of a dam at Lake Albert would not be a thing which would satisfy not only the Sudan but Egypt,

  2735
  even if Egypt does not care to come in to help to find the money. As much water as Egypt could possibly require for 30, 40 or, may be, 50 years ahead, would be provided. I believe the Egyptian Government have been considering training the river through the sudd, and are contemplating the building of huge dredgers. I hope that particular scheme will not he abandoned, because it will really form part of a Lake Albert Reservoir scheme, and it will have an extraordinary effect. It will have this effect that, from Malakal southward, in the vast swampy region where the river is just at the level of the land, or, in a great number of places, slightly over it, the land being thoroughly waterlogged, and in the wet season the marshes almost turn it into a lake, if this training were done the whole level of the sudd would be lowered, and something like 40,000,000 acres of land would be made available for the cultivation of cotton.
  At the present moment Lake Tsana reservoir is asked for by the Sudan Government because she desires—and rightly desires—to continue the cultivation of long staple cotton in the Gezira. But if it is really found to be true that the Egyptian Government is willing to give more water between July and the 1st January, then, undoubtedly, a very much greater area could be developed in the Sudan under long staple cotton. I think Manchester will agree that there is a limit to the quantity of long staple cotton which is really required, and what they are asking for is short staple cotton, and if the river through the marshes of the Sudan were lowered, there is no doubt whatever that a vast area of land would he made available for short staple cotton production. It is inside the rainy belt. It would not require irrigation water in the same way as the long staple cotton. As a consequence, the building of Lake Albert reservoir, and the lowering of the river through the sudd would be probably a better scheme for the British Government and Egyptian Government to carry out than the Lake Tsana scheme at present.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that this subject has been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am much obliged to him for having given me
  2736
  notice in the course of last week of his intention to raise it. I think our discussion will have been useful, because if we have occasioned so much anxiety to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and even shocked the late Under-Secretary of State, it is quite clear that a great deal of misconception must prevail as to the intentions both the British Government and of the Italian Government. The hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, made a very interesting contribution to this Debate. He is a very high authority upon these questions, an expert authority, which I am not, and I should hesitate to bandy expert opinions with him. He admits the immense importance of an efficient and expanding water supply both to the Sudan and Egypt. He compares, with an expert knowledge, the different schemes and possibilities which they offer, and he seemed to favour, perhaps not unnaturally, the largest scheme which came within his purview, the draining of the Sudd, and all that follows on the use of the waters from Lake Albert. But the hon. Gentleman himself, I think, published a book not very long ago, and estimated that before this scheme could mature, at least 35 years must pass.
  Thirty-five years is a long time to which to look forward in regard to the supply of water both to the Sudan and to Egypt, and I confess that I saw with profound regret and with some anxiety as to its effect upon the future prosperity of Egypt, and, in particular, the probable effect upon the Fellaheen, the decision, reported in the Press, of the Egyptian Government to postpone any credit for the Gebal Aulia, Dam. I think it will he found that the alternative which they suggest, that is, the raising of the Assuan Dam, has been fully examined by their predecessors, and by authorities whose efficiency and judgment they themselves would hardly dispute. The problem is a pressing one. The population of Egypt numbers 15,000,000. The land at present available for agriculture is about 7,500,000 acres, and it cannot be increased without further supplies of water being made available, whereas the population is increasing at the rate of something like 300,000 a year. There is a grave problem there, which in the interests, above all, of the Fellaheen of Egypt, ought to be taken into the earliest consideration, and I hope that,

  2737
  though these Estimates have been postponed for the present, we will see the project resumed and the work carried out as expeditiously as possible, so that no great disaster may befall.
  As regards Lake Tsana, let me begin by saying that this, of course, is no new problem. As long ago as 1901 it was placed by Sir William Garstin in the forefront of the works to be executed—in order of urgency it was placed first. So Lord Cromer observed arid reported in his Summary of that year. In 1902 the Emperor Menelik exchanged Notes dealing with this very matter. It is perhaps better that I should read the exact terms of the assurances which were exchanged:
  "That there is to he no interference with the waters of the Blue Nile and Lake Tsana, except in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sudan. That in case of any such interference; all other conditions being equal, preference will be given to the proposals of H is Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sudan, and that His Majesty the Emperor Menelik has no intention of giving any concession with regard to the Blue Nile and Lake Tsana except to His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the Sudan. or one of their subjects."
  Then I come to the Tripartite Agreement of 1906, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the discussion alluded. I think he ought to have made it. clear that the whole purpose and desire of the three Powers concerned was to maintain the integrity and the independence of Abyssinia, and that they put that in the forefront of their agreement arid their object. In this connection I would venture to observe that it is not always to the advantage of a small Power or a weak one that big Powers should be quarrelling about their interests in that small Power's territory. The rivalries of big Powers may be dangerous, and are much more likely to be dangerous to small Powers than are friendly agreements based on a common desire to preserve the integrity of the country in question.
  Coming down the years, in 1914 I think it was, or a little earlier, negotiations tad been begun under the auspices of Lord Kitchener—I think the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) alluded to it—and I am not sure that the whole matter might not have been settled at that time had it not been for the outbreak of the Great War and the interruption it brought to the negotiations.
  2738
  Lastly, when His Imperial Highness Ras Taffari was here during the late administration in this country, conversations and Notes were exchanged by my 'predecessor and the Regent. The last of the series of Notes then exchanged was one from my predecessor to which the Abyssinian Government have never sent any reply.
  As years pass the urgency of an increased water supply becomes more pressing to those who are directly responsible for the welfare of the Sudan—indirectly interested in, perhaps. but not able to disregard the responsibility for the welfare and safety of Egypt—and we have to take up these negotiations again. I was anxious to secure that exterior opposition should not intervene to prevent a friendly arrangement such as the Notes exchanged and the assurances given by the Emperor Menelik 24 years ago authorised us to expect in dealing with the Abyssinian Government. The initiative in respect of the Notes which were ultimately exchanged between the Italian Government and ourselves came from the British Government. I should say that I dealt first with the Italian Government, and as soon as we agreed with them and the Notes had been received here and printed they were communicated to the French Government and dispatched to Abyssinia, but as the post to Abyssinia is a long one the substance of them was at once telegraphed to our Minister in Abyssinia. He informed the Abyssinian Government of their character and contents. That information reached Ras Taffari and the Abyssinia Government before the end of January, the notes themselves having actually been sent in the month of December. Some correspondence—or some communication, I am not sure whether there was correspondonce—followed with the French Government, some slight alterations, suggested for the purpose of making nor meaning plainer, were adopted, some correspondence followed with our Minister in Abyssinia, and I think it: was not till June that the actual text of the Notes were presented to the Abyssinian Government.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did the French agree?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The French were perfectly satisfied. I think I am entitled to say the French were entirely

  2739
  satisfied by the explanations we gave of our part in it, and they published their own communique, the text of which I have not before me. A communique also appeared in the French Press which showed, I think, they were equally satisfied by the explanations which they had received from the Italian Government.
  Captain BENN: Was the letter of protest dated 15th of June received from the Regent?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I have received any letter of protest from the Regent. No, Sir, I have not. Explanations were offered to him when he showed some disquiet about the Note. Further explanations were offered to him, partaking of the character of those which I gave in this House, and a part only of which was quoted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Let me repeat explicity that these things constitute a Bilateral Agreement between Italy and ourselves. They do not pretend to bind, and they cannot possibly bind, any other Government, whether the Government of Abyssinia or any other. They suggest and imply no attack on the independence of Abyssinia, and no limitation on the right of the Abyssinian Government to decide freely whether or not to grant us the concession which we ask. What they do is to secure us against Italian opposition to the grant by Abyssinia of a concession for the construction of the Tsana works by the Government of the Sudan, and to protect Italy against opposition through us for a concession for the construction of the railway. One railway has already been constructed as foreseen in the Tripartite Agreement of 1906 up to Addis Ababa. It is the French one, and I have no doubt it will serve the interests of the French Protectorate, and I am sure it will serve also the development and prosperity of Abyssinia. I repeat that the works contemplated by the Italians and ourselves will be equally to the advantage of Abyssinia, will not threaten her independence or integrity, and should cause little alarm to her government and little anxiety to her friends or to her people.
  Hon. Members opposite seem to be very much troubled by this word "exclusive," and ask if we recognise the exclusive right of Italy. That can only be exclusive as against our own concessionaires. It
  2740
  cannot and does not pretend to be exclusive against any third party. What it does mean is that we undertake not to support in opposition to Italy or the Italian concessionaire the claims of British concession hunters. Hon. Members have asked to be assured that in coming to this agreement with Italy we were not attempting to interfere with the discretion of the Abyssinian Government, or to impose our rule upon them. I have already said in answers to questions, one of which has already been quoted, that there is no desire to bring pressure to bear upon the Abyssinian Government. We have no desire to hurry them. We have approached them in a proper way and we have made our proposals in a friendly way. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith said something about. a suggestion of using some pretext to exclude Abyssinia from the League in order to get a favourable decision, but I have not heard of such a suggestion from any source.
  Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is rather straining what I intended to say. There has been some talk about some examination before the League of the propriety of Abyssinia remaining in the League, or at any rate of the fulfilment by Abyssinia of her obligations in respect of the slave trade. What I said was that any such inquiry at this juncture would be looked upon with a certain amount of mistrust by those who might think there might be an economic motive behind it.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have heard no suggestion of any proposal to raise the question as to whether Abyssinia ought to remain a member of the League. I should most certainly hope that she would remain a member of the League, and I think even if there be things which we may hope to see altered in her internal economy, and in the domestic side of society that it is probably by giving her a welcome into the League and giving her the assurance which membership of the League gives, and by making her a party to the deliberations of the League that we can best achieve those results.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May we take it that the opposition which the British Government had to the entry of Abyssinia into the League is now definitely withdrawn?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Abyssinia is a member of the League, and there is no question of opposition. She is already a member and I hope she will remain a member.
  Mr. SMITH: I would like to point out that in 1922–23 the British representative did raise opposition to the entry of Abyssinia into the League, and has that point of view now been withdrawn?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is now recalling past history. I know that at a. certain point one of my predecessors, representing the British Government, opposed Abyssinia, but there is no intention of raising that question again, and I say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that I trust Abyssinia will continue a member of the League. I have no comment to make on this point, and nothing to withdraw in relation to what a previous Government did at a previous time. I am sorry the point has been raised, because it really takes us off what is important. One hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether the Abyssinian Government had replied to the answer of the Acting Secretary of the League to their first communication. As far as I know they have not, nor have I up to this moment replied to the communication of the Acting Secretary-General of the League, that is to the communication to His Majesty's Government. As the only purpose of making a reply to that communication is to reassure all the Governments who are members of the League, or to whom the communication of the Abyssinian Government was sent, I do not think it will be considered disrespectful of me if I at once inform the House what the reply is which we propose to send. I will not read the whole of it, but I hope it will serve to carry further the assurance which I have given as to the intentions of the two Governments in the Debate this evening.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Is that a reply to a communication received through the Secretariat of the League of Nations
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; it will be addressed to the acting Secretary-General of the League of Nations at Geneva. I will read the whole of it. It, is as follows:
  "I am directed by His Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
  2742
  Foreign Affairs to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd July, with which you were good enough to transmit copies of the letter addressed to Sir Eric Drummond by His Imperial Highness Ras Tafari, together with a protest in regard to the Notes exchanged between the British and Italian Governments in December, 1925, undertaking to afford each other mutual support when the consent of the Abyssinian Government is sought for the construction in Abyssinia of certain public works defined in the Notes.
  "2. His Majesty's Government regret that in spite of the assurances conveyed to the Abyssinian Government by the British and Italian Ministers at Addis Ababa when communicating the text of the AngloItalian Notes, their purport should have been misconstrued and intentions attributed to the British and Italian Governments which they have never entertained. The Abyssinian protest is so worded as to imply that the British and Italian Governments have entered into an agreement to impose their wishes on a fellow member of the League, even if against the latter's interests. Members of the League are asked to state whether it is right that pressure should thus be exerted on Abyssinia which they would doubtless repudiate if applied to them.
  "3. There is nothing in the Anglo-Italian Notes to suggest coercion or the exercise of pressure on the Abyssinian Government. Sir Austen Chamberlain has stated in Parliament that the agreement was certainly not to be used,' and could not be used, for the purpose of coercing the Abyssinian Government. He believed the agreement to be in the interest of all three parties, but added that ()I' course the Abyssinian Government had a perfect right to judge of what was in the interests of Abyssinia. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires was instructed by telegraph on 14th July to bring these statements to the knowledge of Has Tafari.
  "4. As to the suggestion that the British and Italian Governments are trying to force the Abyssinian Government to yield to their requests in a hurry, and without being afforded time for reflection and study of the requirements of the Abyssinian people, I am to point out that in Notes exchanged between the British Minister in Addis Ababa and the Abyssinian Government on 18th March, 1902, the Emperor Menelik confirmed an oral undertaking given some days previously 'That there is to be' "—
  that is the passage that I have already read, and I need not read it again. The reply goes on:
  "Since the date of this undertaking, which shows that 24 years ago the Emperor Menelik contemplated the construction by the British Government of a barrage at Lake Tsana, His Majesty's Government on several occasions made specific proposals in regard to this work, the full effect of which it is now possible to foretell as the result of the detailed observations which have been carried out by scientific missions dispatched to the lake with the consent and assistance

  2743
  of the Abyssinian Government. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government feel that they cannot fairly be charged with proceeding, in regard to Lake Tsana, with undue precipitancy.
  "5. In the concluding paragraph of their protest, the Abyssinian Government inquire whether the Anglo-Italian Notes can be regarded as compatible with the independence of Abyssinia, especially when those Notes state that a portion of Abyssinia will be 'reserved' to the economic influence of a particular Power. Sir Austen Chamberlain desires to emphasise that the Anglo-Italian Notes do not 'reserve' any part of Abyssinia to Italian economic influence. His Britannic Majesty's Government, so far as they are concerned, and under certain conditions, 'recognise an exclusive Italian economic influence in the west of Abyssinia and in the whole territory to be crossed by the above-mentioned railway' (joining Eritrea and Italian Somaliland). This recognition cannot affect the rights of third parties or hind the Government of Abyssinia. It imposes no obligation on anyone except the British Government, who, in return for the Italian undertakings in regard to Lake Tsana, engaged not to compete or to support competition with Italian enterprise in the regions specified.
  "6. Sir Austen Chamberlain will he happy to repeat. these explanations and assurances to Abyssinia in the presence of the Council at its next meeting, when it takes into consideration the Note addressed to you by the Government of Abyssinia,"
  I trust that the House—
  Captain BENN: Will Abyssinia he represented?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Most certainly.
  Captain BENN: By whom?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: By whomsoever she chooses to send. The character of her representation is entirely a matter for herself. If the Council enters on a discussion of the Note of the Abyssinian Government and the reply of His Majesty's Government, and any reply that the Italian Government may think proper to send, if it does send one, then it will be in accordance with the practice and rules of the Council that Abyssinia should be invited to take her seat at the Council for the purposes of that discussion.
  It will be seen that His Majesty's Government have no improper purpose to serve, are contemplating no unfriendly act or forcible or improper pressure on the Abyssinian Government, but that we recognise their right to decide about their own territory, and we
  2744
  believe we should be able to convince them that this work is in itself perfectly harmless to them and to the interests they have to protect, that it may be a source of profit to Abyssinia, and that they may find their interest in giving to the Sudan Government the concession we seek. Though I regret that the Abyssinian Government should have felt so suspicious as to think an appeal to the League necessary, and though I had at one time entertained the hope that the explanations which our Ministers had given had removed those suspicions and would render any such appeal unnecessary I say, for my part, that I welcome the opportunity which the League may afford of showing the innocence of British policy and the propriety of the action of the British Government before the Council of the League of Nations.
  Mr. R. SMITH: I heard, with considerable pleasure, the letter which the Foreign Secretary has just read. I cannot help regretting, however, that such a letter should have been necessary. I find it difficult to understand that in 1926 it is possible for the Foreign Secretary to approach diplomacy with an independent State in the manner he has been doing, and in the manner that this correspondence with Italy reveals. If this correspondence had been published in 1907, we could have taken the view of historical continnity, because the spirit and the attitude of the Foreign Secretary are quite in harmony to-day with the attitude that was manifested in the Tripartite Agreement of 1906. The right hon. Gentleman accused me of going into history when I went back three years, but I think he will be the first to recognise that in the last 20 years the foreign policy of the great Powers of the world has undergone very great changes, and that we have to deal, in handling the whole Abyssinian question, with a point of view and an attitude entirely new in our history: I cannot understand why the Foreign Secretary should have waited until after he had concluded his arrangements with Italy before, even unofficially, he approached the very Power that is concerned. I cannot understand why the one independent native State of Africa, which, since 1923, has been a member of the League of Nations, and, therefore, is

  2745
  entitled in foreign affairs to be treated in a spirit of friendliness and equality in such a matter as this, which concerns fundamentally and vitally her economic if not her political existence, should not have been approached direct and have been consulted from the very first in an open and friendly way about the project concerned.
  So far as this is a matter of economic development, so far as it is a matter of utilising to greater advantage the waters of the Nile, for the benefit ultimately of Abyssinia, the Sudan and Egypt, I do not think we require any assurance from any part of the House that no one would ever dream of opposing it. The greatest need of all parts of Africa is for tremendous and rapid developments in economic life. The fundamental thing that wants to be done in Africa is the rapid—as rapid as may be—expansion of great reconstruction schemes, both with regard to the waterways and railways and other fundamental productive enterprises. But I should have thought that, in 1926, even if Abyssinia had not been a member of the League, even if she had been an independent State without conscious and deliberate relations with the League of Nations, in the light of all we have lived through since 1906, and especially since 1914, if the right hon. Gentleman was really anxious to enter into friendly economic relations of cooperation with that Power, he would have gone to them and consulted with them from the beginning. Suppose, for example, that Germany and France and the United States had entered into some kind of economic arrangement to do something here in Great Britain, there would have been tremendous indignation. We should not only have been talking about economic penetration, we should have been talking about the threat to our very national existence. And when we remember the past history of Abyssinia, how she has been attacked, once by the British, how she has been attacked from the Egyptian side and attacked by the Italians, we can understand at once why they should have the most grave and most reasonably grounded suspicion when a scheme of this kind is suddenly put before them without so much as a moment's consultation.
  I thought when I read of the six months official delay in the handing over of the
  2746
  correspondence to Abyssinia, the Foreign Secretary might have had in mind the six months' delay with the late Ruler of Abyssinia was guilty of when the tripartite agreement came into operation. I gathered that he did not quite know how to answer the assurance that there was no intention at all with regard to affecting the integrity or independence of the State. It took him a long time to understand the meaning of that language used in documents of that kind. It is worth while to remind him of the answer he gave after this six months of deliberation 20 years ago. He said:
  "We have received the arrangement. made by the three Powers."
  Again without their consultation in those days as in these.
  " We thank them for their intentions and their desire to keep and maintain the independence of our Government, but let it be understood that this arrangement in no way limits what we consider our sovereign rights."
  9.0 P.M.
  It appears that 20 years ago the monarch was very anxious as to what was meant by this question of the unlimited authority which Abyssinia then enjoyed. I want, therefore, to ask the Foreign Secretary, following the valuable letter he has read, that he will, when he goes to the Assembly of the League this year, take every proper occasion to come into direct contact with the Abyssinians on this proposition, and to dispel the very serious and justly grounded feelings which not only they, but thoughtful citizens in this and other countries entertain with regard to the particular method which has been adopted in connection with this water enterprise from the sour4.es of the Nile.
  I should like also to stress how seriously the men and women of the country view this method in t he light of the rapidly developing Imperialistic tendencies of the Italian Government. No one, I think, can fail to be impressed with the remarkable similarity of the language used by the Italian Government in the last few years to that which the late German Government used between 1900 and 1914. We are getting almost exactly the same sentences used that the late Kaiser used with regard to Imperial policy. "Oar future lies on the water" is a phrase which has been passed on by the ex-Kaiser to the pre-

  2747
  sent dictator of Italy, and we have had similar statements as to the nature of the rapidly growing Italian Imperialism. I think the Foreign Secretary will understand, knowing the nature of the present Italian claims, knowing how they require an outlet for their population, why it is that people who are anxious as to the future peace of the world should be very gravely concerned that he has linked up a purely economic project, of ultimate benefit to the Abyssinians, to the Sudan and to Egypt, with the larger enterprises of another great Power in the world.
  I should like to emphasise the point of view of the Abyssinians themselves. The State of Abyssinia represents the last chance the people of the world have to see what a native State in Africa can do apart from the direct tutelage of Europeans. In every other part of Africa the black race is more or less directly and deliberately subjected to the power of one white race or another.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Liberia?
  Mr. SMITH: There are one or two that I will except, but in a general way the Foreign Secretary will agree that the resources of Abyssinia, both in minerals and from the point of view of agricultural possibilities, represent the one really significant social experiment that is left to the world for the possibility of seeing what can be done by a, native people to develop its own political like. I think not only the late monarch but the present regent have given evidences of a definitely progressive character. They have shown themselves to be deeply desirous of sharing in the life of Western civilisation. The mere fact that the present regent applied to become a member of the League of Nations, the mere fact that he has, out of his own purse, sent quite a number of his own subjects to acquire a West European education, the mere fact that he is working in co-operation with Christian missionaries from all parts of Europe and from the New World—all these things give evidence, whatever their backwardness and whatever their difficulties may be, of a people who are really anxious to make headway. I should like to read to the Foreign Secretary the opinion of an American visitor to Abyssinia with regard to the mental
  2748
  qualities of the average children of Abyssinia. This quotation is taken from the report of the Phelps-Stokes Commission which investigated especially the educational problem of the Eastern States of Africa. This is the judgment which this gentleman formed:
  "I have never met an Abyssinian who was not convinced of the benefits to be derived from education. That this desire for education permeates all classes may be gathered from the remark made by an old Mohammedan Galla of Sayo, near the Sudan border, who said, 'Take my boys and teach them; if they learn Christianity, never mind, so that they learn. As for me, I am too old to change.' I think it is no exaggeration to say that if any sort of poor excuse for a school were put down in any obscure hamlet in Abyssinia, without recommendation of any kind, it would in less than no time attract a multitude of children, very ragged and dirty as to body, but almost without exception possessing minds avid for knowledge to a degree which is little short of remarkable. That this condition exists augurs well for the future. Here is not the dense black Paganism of the White Nile or the fanatic Mohammedism of the Blue Nile or Somaliland, but a people eager to learn."
  I would impress upon the Foreign Secretary, in something of the spirit if not of the full practice as yet realised by the League of Nations, that we as a British people in the working out not simply of our conception of a mandate but, above all, our conception of a black people associated with the League, do want in our relations with Abyssinia to make them feel in advance that we are going out of our way to remove suspicions, and that we are even prepared to make sacrifices in order that Abyssinia may forget the past of her history, and in order that Abyssinia may learn that when she sends her coffee out she need not have French arms coming in: but that she may rest assured of the best dispositions of the three great Powers, and that she can use her very small resources, not for the purchasing of old-fashioned rifles, but for education and for developing a policy of co-operation with the British Government in economic enterprise.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Let us get back to the needs of Lancashire. I do not want to be accused of being unsympathetic to the aspirations of small peoples. During tile few years I have sat in this House whenever I have seen a small people attacked and the blame could be brought home to our Government at home—as in the case of

  2749
  Ireland—I have always spoken out. The policy of my party has always been to stand for the benefit of small peoples, especially when some economic advantage accrues to them and benefit can be conferred to our own industries, as in the case of Lancashire. We all know that Lancashire is disturbed at the shortage in the world's cotton supply. From the purely British point of view, if we can by straightforward, honest methods obtain the right to construct this barrage on Lake Tsana, and the other great works lower down on the Blue Nile, it would have been a great advantage to the textile industry in Lancashire. Let us examine the Foreign Office policy from that point of view.
  The ridiculous policy which has been pursued is enshrined in the White Paper which was published a few weeks ago, although it contains notes of an agreement dating to December last. We have ended by thoroughly arousing the suspicions of the Abyssinians. They are practically the last free people in Africa; the last independent native State. They are, incidentally, a Christian people, belonging to a. very ancient Christian Church, not the same as ours, and they feel that they have a right to some sympathy from another Christian people. Their suspicions have been thoroughly aroused, and they are people who are not averse to fighting. They are good soldiers, and it would cost many valuable lives to subdue them, as it did in the middle of the last century. The mountaineers especially in Abyssinia, under their native chiefs, have good cause to be proud of their fighting record.
  It is regrettable that we have aroused the suspicions of such people. Fortunately, they have applied to the League of Nations. 1 think the application to the Secretary of the League of Nations by Abyssinia is the best thing that has happened for the last few years in the history of the League. It gives an opportunity now for the British Government to reverse this wholly mistaken policy of a secret Agreement with Italy. We have entered into this Agreement without any consultation with Abyssinia, because, forsooth, the Foreign Secretary says that the negotiations for the right to construct the great barrage were making slow progress. Because the negotiations were proceeding too slowly,
  2750
  we thought that we might find a means of bringing pressure on Abyssinia by entering into this Agreement secretly with Italy. The right hon. Gentleman has explained what exclusive economic influence means. He has said that it means that no British subject shall be supported in rivalry with an Italian concession company. That is not how the Italians look at it. The Italian Government take note that
  "the British Government will recognise the exclusive character of Italian economic influence in the west of Abyssinia and in the whole of the territory crossed by the above-mentioned railway. The British Government will further support with the Ethopian Government all Italian requests for economic concessions in the above-mentioned zone."
  How can the right hon. Gentleman say that that only means that we will not support a rival British concession hunter as against the Italians?
  We have, thanks to the wisdom of the Abyssinian Government in appealing to the League of Nations, a chance of reversing this policy. I consider that this Agreement, after due notice to Italy, should be denounced. We shall never get any distance with our great scheme for a barrage on Lake Tsana in alliance with Italy. The Italian record is too bad. Her record is one of aggressive Imperialisim towards Abyssinia. The Italian record during the war was only a continuance of this same Imperial policy which has led Italy to one defeat, and if pursued, it will lead her to another defeat in the mountains of Western Abyssinia.
  I do not believe that Abyssinia will ever, until Italian policy changes, grant concessions for the building of the railway from Eritrea to Italian Somaliland. I do not believe that railway will ever be built. The cost will be enormous. So long as we are bound by this agreement to Italy, as laid down in the White Paper, we shall never get the right to construct our motor road to the Lake, to construct our barrage or to build other works which could be constructed in the mighty gorges.
  We should reverse this policy completely. I hope the Debate in the House to-night will have a good effect on the Abyssinian Government. We have been trying to obtain the property of somebody else without paying for it. That sort. of

  2751
  thing was all right with regard to Morocco or Persia in the days before the War. The same language was used, "Preserve the sovereign independence"—and it is used again. It is always the signal for an encroachment, and if the British and Italian Governments pursue this policy I believe the conscience of the world, acting through the League of Nations, will checkmate us. As regards cotton for Lancashire there will not be an extra gallon of water in Lake Tsana as a result of this policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman declared the innocence of the British Government. Yes, innocence, and that is what makes it worse. They have bungled the whole business. Western imperialism is very wicked, but utter stupidity of this sort is a crime. I am glad this Debate has taken place, and that the Abyssinian Government has appealed to the League of Nations. I hope the Foreign Office will now reverse their whole policy, start from the beginning again, satisfy the suspicions of the local inhabitants, who do not want to see their holy places submerged by this barrage scheme, and pay a decent royalty to the Abyssinian Government. I understood that all that stood in the way of the final agreement were two poor batteries of mountain artillery, and yet we were told that we were sending 100,000 Army rifles to Turkey. Above all, we should get clear of this entanglement with the Italian Government where Abyssinia, is concerned. Unless we do that there will be no extra cotton from the Sudan for Lancashire, and we shall have to adopt the other scheme and proceed to dredge the Sudd Valley and barrage the White Nile as an alternative to the Blue. This policy is utterly foolish, and I hope the right lion. Gentleman will have the courage to admit it and the moral courage to go in for a straightforward policy.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: My task at. This late hour of the evening and at the end of an exhaustive Session will not occupy more than a very short. time. The question I have to raise is a very old one—namely, the comparative position of the voluntary and provided schools. It is a question I have raised before, and on one occasion a Resolution I moved on this question was carried unanimously by the House of Commons. A Resolu-
  2752
  tion which is carried without a single dissension may be regarded as a real historic and influential fact. I do not say it binds future Parliaments, but it shows the unanimity of feeling on what was once a very vexed question. As I view it, the present system, a double system, imposes a religious discrimination, which is contrary to the acknowledged spirit of the age, and in my particular case it involves also a class discrimination. It is well known that the men I represent in Liverpool, and the Irishmen I represent in England, Scotland and Wales, speaking generally, belong to the poorest section of the community. Surely it is class discrimination that they are called upon to contribute towards the creation of buildings which in the case of other and wealthier classes is defrayed at the expense of the ratepayers and the State. How were the schools of my own people in Liverpool created? I have described the conditions many times in this Rouse before and I have never described them without gaining sympathy of three-quarters, if not the whole House of Commons, except those who look at the school question from a narrow and sectarian point of view. The history of these Irishmen in Liverpool is well known.
  Sir GERALD HOHILER: On a point of Order. Is not this a subject which requires legislation and is it not, therefore, out of order?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman is merely suggesting legislation, undoubtedly that would be out of order but if he is going to suggest any means of meeting the case without legislation, it would be in order.
  Sir G. HOHLER: Upon that point of Order. Are these any means when the law is quite clear?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am waiting for the development of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I must make a comment, not a hitter comment, on that interruption. Whenever I attempt in this House to obtain justice for the schools belonging to my countrymen, the hon. and learned Member has always been ready to embarrass me and trip me up instead of trying to help me. in a case which should be his as well as mine.

  2753
  Everyone knows how these schools were first built. My countrymen came to England, and especially to Liverpool and Glasgow, after a famine in Ireland. They settled down in the slums, and it is somewhat of a humiliation to me as an Irishman that, coining to the slums nearly a century ago, they are still in the slums. But, still, out of their miserable wages they paid a contribution, a small sum, though to them large, by which they built first the Church of their faith, and, secondly, the school in which their faith could be taught. That is the origin of these schools. The Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education, I am sure, has sympathy with that spirit of sacrifice. He will say, as he is entitled to say, that the schools thus created are inefficient, from the point of view of construction, and I have to admit the truth of that indictment. But when I see the comparative poor buildings in which these schools are housed I cannot help making the reflection that it is a sad paradox that, in order to preserve the faith of their children, these countrymen of mine have had to risk the healths of their children and their families.
  That is the position. Look at the other side of it. A. big cotton spinner or shipowner, who make a hundred thousand pounds a year, has well-constructed, modern buildings to house his children not because the needs of his children are as great or greater than those of the children of the poor but because he has the good luck to accept conscientiously a form of religious teaching which would not be accepted by members of my own creed. I call that religious discrimination, social discrimination. Up to that point I have the agreement of every one in the House. I do not say how the Government can deal with this question. I have to watch this malignant enemy of the schools for which I am pleading, who is watching me with the perverted ingenuity of a lawyer. I would say to the Noble Lord that in this House there is not a single party which has not a majority in favour of my view with regard to these schools.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, in whose paternal capacity in this House I rejoice, but I am rather afraid that the trend of his argument is to suggest
  2754
  building grants, which will, I fear, involve legislation.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I accept your paternal warning. I will only make an allusion to recent developments in the speeches of the Noble Lord. I will not suggest that this thing can he settled by general legislation. It would be absurd to ask any Government, whatever its composition or its majority, to enter on the morass of a reconstruction of the whole education. of children. All I would urge on the Noble Lord is that he will encourage these localities, including that which I represent, to come to terms among themselves and to be in a position one day to ask him—I do not think he will decline to do so—to give enabling powers which will enable them to settle this on a basis of mutual good will.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): It has been made a little difficult for us to discuss this question without trenching on ground which would be out of order. 1 do not know that raising the subject under such conditions is exactly conducive to a clear statement of policy. I hope that we shall always discuss this question with a due regard and remembrance of both sides of the question. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed to the self-sacrifice of the Roman Catholics in this country, who have providedthese schools.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: And many of the Anglicans.
  Lord E. PERCY: I quite agree with him. The Anglicans, Roman Catholics and other communities have made great sacrifices to provide, preserve and maintain voluntary schools. Moreover, let us never forget that they were the pioneers of education in this country. It is to them, and not to the State, that we owe the great pioneering work of our national education. At the same time, let us not forget another fact. The right hon. Gentleman talks about religious discrimination in the present system. I think that those who think with him on this subject will stand a very much better chance of making their views prevail in the country' if they recognise the other fact that at the present moment the ratepayers of this country are bearing a very

  2755
  large extra cost on account of the provision of voluntary schools. It is because the ratepayers and taxpayers pay for the staff of these schools that these schools can be carried on. The maintenance of a large number of schools, in many cases small schools, means an expenditure on staff, greatly in excess of what would be necessary if one could organise all the schools of this country on a uniform basis, distribute the children among a number of similar schools, and distribute the staff. The maintenance of small schools means an extra expenditure on staff which is borne by the taxpayer and ratepayer and that means, and it ought to be recognised as, a regular contribution by the taxpayer and ratepayer to the principle that it is a good thing to encourage the provision of schools by voluntary religious bodies. Therefore I would ask my right hon. Friend—my right hon. father, if I might so call fiim—to bear that in mind before he talks too much about religious discrimination.
  We all know we have a problem before us. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the so-called black list to which I referred in Debate recently. It applies not only to voluntary schools, but to a large number of council schools as well. It does create a problem. The voluntary bodies, Roman Catholic, Anglican and others have already met it in many cases and are meeting it in more. They are providing money to put those schools right. In my Estimate speech I made an appeal. The black list is not a condemnation, but a challenge. I want from those responsible for these schools, whether they are local authorities or religious bodies, a definite plan of improvement. Where they think that the criticisms of the Board's inspectors are excessive and improvement not needed, let them say so. Opinions always differ. Let us have definite proposals and come to a definite plan. Let us not be frightened by the financial problem. I am perfectly certain it can be solved. The generosity and the self-sacrifice shown by the religious bodies in this country in the past, and the determination in the past of the ratepayers and of the taxpayers to provide for the children, taken together, ensure that we shall be able to solve this problem, but we will only solve it if we put all our cards on the table and show
  2756
  what we are prepared to do, what money we can raise, how far we can go. If every voluntary body in this country will do that, and will get down to the practical details, I am sure that we can solve this problem. If these joint considerations between the local authority and the voluntary body lead to the conclusion that further power should he given to local authorities in the matter, I have already stated in public to local authorities that I am prepared to consider any such proposal. Further than that I cannot go.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I wish to thank the Noble Lord for his statement.

  ORPINGTON HOSPITAL (ACCIDENT).
  Mr. HAYES: I wish to raise a matter with the Minister of Pensions. It is a matter which I raised at Question Time on 17th June, concerning a man who was an inmate of the Ministry of Pensions Hospital at Orpington in connection with other disabilities caused by War service. The fact that the Minister of Pensions is not able to be present to-night is quite understood by me. I know that he would have preferred to have replied, and I regard his absence as not due in any way to lack of courtesy, but as unavoidable. The question I asked on 17th June related to an ex-service man named William Richardson. I inquired whether the Minister was aware that, while this man was a patient at the hospital, he was knocked down and run over .by a motor car within the grounds of the institution; and I further suggested that the treatment that the man received in the hospital, with the subsequent amputation of his leg, was not qualified or proper treatment. The reply of the Minister, which was regarded by me as unsatisfactory, was that the Ministry could not accept liability in the matter because the accident occurred at the hospital gates and was caused by a private motor lorry which had no connection whatever with the Ministry. That was stated in the first portion of the reply. A second argument as to the inability of the Ministry to accept responsibility was that the Minister could find no grounds which in any way supported the suggestion of neglect or improper treatment on the part of the hospital staff.

  2757
  During the time that has passed since the question was raised, I have been endeavouring to obtain information that would support the allegations made in this case, and I am now in a position, not only to confirm what was said in the House, but to add to it, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, in giving his reply, will be governed by the necessity of making fuller and even more proper inquiry into the matter than has hitherto been the case. Briefly the particulars are as follows: In July, 1921, this ex-service man was sent to Orpington Hospital for treatment for neuralgia and nerves. On Sunday afternoon, 27th November, the man was inside the hospital grounds talking to a military policeman. A motor-car proceeding outside the hospital grounds collided with the corner of the wall of the hospital grounds, and, through no intention of the driver, dashed into the grounds of the hospital. At any rate it was at least six or eight yards within the hospital grounds, according to our information, when it struck this patient, who was talking to the military policeman.
  Sir G. HOHLER: On those facts it seems clear that there is a civil action against the lorry driver.
  Mr. HAYES: I will not be deflected from the statement of the case, because the hon. and learned Gentleman who interrupts has no authority to pursue the inquiry after the case has been stated. I am quite prepared for the Parliamentary Secretary to give his reply. The man was severely injured and was taken into the hospital. He was not seen by the hospital surgeons. In fact he was in his own ward for two or three hours before he was seen by a doctor at all. He was then seen by a physician and not by a surgeon. The physician said that his leg was badly bruised. No further steps were taken. The man lay for 24 hours in the greatest of pain with no further attention. Another 24 hours passed before the leg was X-rayed, and it was only on Tuesday afternoon at four o'clock—the accident had occurred on the Sunday afternoon—that he was visited for the first time by a hospital surgeon. The limb was then examined, and the hospital surgeon said that it must be put into splints as soon as possible. Two
  2758
  hours later, or 51 hours after the accident, the Sister who was in charge of the ward in which the man lay, with two orderlies, commenced to set the limb without any anaesthetic, local or general, and without any qualified assistance for the setting of the limb. It may be that up to that point there was no direct negligence or improper treatment, if it happens to Le the practice in any hospital for fractured limbs to be set by persons other than qualified surgeons, but I submit that, even if that bad been the practice, or if a limb could he set by a nurse assisted by orderlies, it is a highly improper proceeding in the treatment of a man who is known by X-ray examination to be suffering from a fracture. The treatment should have been by a surgeon.
  The man's description of the pain which he went through is something of this kind: "The sister got two orderlies and three or four patients to hold me down, and then started pulling and twisting my limb unmercifully before applying the splints." That statement can be supported by substantial testimony. For the following 17 weeks the man lay in his bed, and when the splint was removed the limb was bent, twisted and out of all recognition. Five days after the splint was removed the man received orders to leave the hospital immediately. In spite of his protest he left the hospital in a taxicab, and returned home. He saw his panel doctor, who, after examining him, said that he could do nothing, in view of the terrible state in which the man was. The man then went to the Sussex County Hospital for treatment. There he was examined by a surgeon, a Dr. Turton, who would be fully cognisant of the importance of making a statement which might be in the man's favour from the point of view of subsequent action, because this particular doctor is also a doctor or surgeon of the Ministry of Pensions. Dr. Turton was aghast, as also was the surgeon specialist who collaborated with him. They discovered that little or nothing could be done except by amputation, and the limb was subsequently amputated.
  It may be said that this case has been again and again inquired into by the present Minister of Pensions when he was in the Government preceding the Labour Government and that during the

  2759
  time of the Labour Government a decision was given confirming the previous decision. That may be true. I am not raising this as a question of party politics and I hold no brief for the Minister of Pensions in the Labour Government or for the Minister of Pensions in the Conservative Government. One likes to deal with these questions, particularly where they affect the individual, without any regard to party politics, and certainly this man has no interest in party politics. It is in the interests of the man's own welfare that I bring the matter forward and without any regard as to whether or not it has been previously dealt with either by a Conservative or a Labour administration. I would only point out that the only occasion on which this case came under review during the term of the Labour administration was about four days after the Labour Minister of Pensions first appeared before the House in that capacity and then, in answer to a letter from the Secretary to the British Legion, the previous decision was simply reiterated. The matter never had the personal attention of the Minister of Pensions in the Labour Government, though it would have had, if the case had been brought before him in the same manner as it has been brought to the-notice of the present Minister. It was not brought to the notice of the Ministry in the time of the Labour Government, simply because the matter was not raised by any Member of this House and the facts were not then stated as they have been stated to the Conservative Ministry.
  The position of the Ministry of Pensions is, that because the man was knocked down by a lorry, which was not the property of the Ministry, and because he was, as they contend, outside the hospital grounds, they can accept no responsibility. I submit that, in fact, the man was inside the grounds, but even if he were not, he would not have been at Orpington at all but for his condition, which was due directly to his War service. The responsibility for his presence in that hospital ought to be accepted by the Government. Had he not been there, he would have forfeited all the rights of benefit which he enjoyed under the Royal Warrant and, while he was there, he was, to all intents and purposes, a servant of the Ministry, and
  2760
  he would have to obey all their regulations. If there is a technical difficulty in recognising his present disability, I feel that the Minister of Pensions and the Treasury could find a way out of that difficulty which would be honourable to the Department and to the man and would not set up a dangerous precedent —of which perhaps the Department is more afraid than of anything else.
  I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to believe me when I say that this case is not raised by way of making any attack on the Minister or his Department or his administration. I personally have met nothing but courtesy when I have endeavoured to present this case to the Ministry. I am raising it as a matter of principle, and I ask the Government to recognise that this man's present situation is due entirely to his patriotism. I ask them to remember that his patriotism did not commence with the Conscription Act. It took him into the voluntary forces in 1905, and in 1914 he went to France with his territorial unit. He was wounded at Neuve Chapelle, returned to France in 1923, and was finally discharged in 1919. Now he is going about with one leg—a condition directly due to War service—and the Government ought not to allow him to be a burden upon his people or the local rates or benevolent employers. He has benevolent employers, but one wonders how long that will last. His employers are the Brighton and Hove Gas Company, and I mention their name because they have acted splendidly in his case. They have paid his fares to and from his work since he has been incapacitated, and, if he remains with them about 10 years, they will voluntarily have shouldered an expense of about £100 in that respect. I feel confident the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me an assurance that this case will be gone into again.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I realise that the hon. Member is raising this matter entirely because of his interest in the man's case, and not from the party point of view, but there arc one or two statements in his narrative with which I cannot agree. Before dealing with those, I might point out that he said this case had not been before the previous Minister of Pensions because it had not been raised by a Mem-

  2761
  ber of Parliament. That is rather underrating the people who did raise it. It was raised by the British Legion, who can, I think, he regarded as looking after the interests of ex-service men to the best of their ability. Coming to the hon Member's narrative of the facts, I must differ very strongly from him in several particulars. He said the man was standing at least six or eight yards inside the grounds when the accident occurred. The inquiry which was held does not substantiate that statement at all. He was standing at the gateway of the hospital and, in a thick fog, a motor lorry mounted the pavement and did undeniably run into him and knock him down.
  Clearly, the Ministry were not responsible and attempts were made to trace the responsible party. The lorry itself was actually traced to a firm in the town, but they were able to prove that the lorry had been taken out without their consent or knowledge and they could not be held liable. The hon. Member then went on to make accusations which, f think, at heart, he can hardly believe himself. He says, in effect, that the treatment of the man in the hospital was extremely brutal and that he was not seen to for two or three hours after the accident. I have gone through the whole ease carefully since getting notice of the hon. Member's intention to raise it—I had never heard of it before—and as I read the evidence the man was seen to at once. The hon. Member also says that the man was not X-rayed until 48 hours after the accident, and that again is not the case.
  Mr. HAYES: Twenty-four hours.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I put it down as the hon. Member spoke.
  Mr. HAYES: If the hon. and gallant Member is under a wrong impression, may I correct it? It was 24 hours before the leg was X-rayed, and he was not seen by the physician for an hour or two after the accident.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My information is that he was seen by the doctor at once, and was X-rayed the next day. It was not until then that it was ascertained that he had a broken leg. That is a very common occurrence. I am not a medical man, hut I have known in my experience plenty of cases where a frac-
  2762
  ture was not revealed except as the result of an X-ray photograph, and that was the case on this occasion. As soon as it had been realised, as the result of the X-ray photograph, that the leg was broken, it was set. Here again I have the man's statement that it was set by a sister and that he was held down by two or three orderlies. I have looked through the whole case, because that is the man's own statement, which I have seen, and I can find no evidence of that of any kind. There is no evidence that it was not perfectly properly treated, and every possible care taken of him. May I point this out, that all the time the man was in hospital he made no complaint whatever of his treatment to the head of the hospital. He never complained that he had not been properly treated, and when he was discharged, five months later, the X-ray photograph showed that his leg had joined satisfactorily and was in a good condition.
  He had the accident in November, 1921, and he was discharged in 1922. He had been taken into the hospital, very naturally, because it was the nearest place to which he could be taken. A Court of Inquiry was held as soon as possible to investigate the whole case, and it was clearly proved that the accident was not his fault, nor was it the fault of any official or servant of the Ministry. He was removed from hospital when his leg had reached a stage when he could be safely so removed, and that was in April, 1922. The next that was heard of him by the Ministry was not until November, 1923, a year and a-half later, and two years after the accident had taken place, and then he complained that his leg had had to be amputated, and he claimed that it was the responsibility of the Ministry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions had investigated this case very carefully, and would have preferred, I know, to answer it himself, but in consequence of a previous engagement he was unable to do so, but when I heard of the case, I went into it most carefully for the first tile, and I must say that I cannot see on what grounds, either legal or moral, the hon. Member can claim that this man should he pensioned for this disability. He says that the man was an inmate of the hospital, and, therefore, as he had the accident, he ought to be treated as a

  2763
  pensioner for it, but I want to point out to him that all that we are entitled to do, all that we can do, is to treat a man for his War injury, and this is not a war injury. This happened some years after the War and had nothing to do with the War. When the hon. Gentleman says it happened to the man inside the Institute, does he mean to say that locality makes any difference? If it had happened 300 yards or a mile away, does he contend that the Ministry would have been liable because the man was an inmate of the hospital?
  Mr. HAYES: Whether inside or out.
  Lieut.- Colonel STANLEY: I do not see that it has anything to do with it. If the hon. Member says he has got fresh evidence, it will be examined, but I am bound to say that, unless it is something completely new, which can be well corroborated, something quite different from what we have had at the present time, I honestly do not see how he can claim that this man should come under the pensions system, and he must remain simply a pensioner for his War disability and nothing else. If the hon. Member will send me any further evidence that he may have, I shall be only too glad to examine it and help hint in every way I can.
  Question, " That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill according read the Third time, and passed.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th July].
  [Mr. JAMES Hoes in the Chair.] Question again proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards losses incurred by councils of counties and county boroughs in providing small holdings, and of councils of counties in providing cottage holdings, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919."
  10.0 P.M.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. HAYES: I do not propose to keep the House long in connection with this Bill, but there are one or two points upon which I should like some information from the Home Secretary. The agreement that was arrived at in regard to the first portion of the Bill was based upon the findings of the Committee of which Lord Lee of Fareham was the Chairman, and that Committee's Report made it clear, in reference to the arrangement that had been agreed to, and that is embodied in the first portion of the Bill, with regard to increased deductions from pay from members of the police forces, that the representatives of the police forces—I am quoting from page 5 of the Report—urged that
  "some improvements should be made in the existing scale of pensions, allowances, and gratuities for widows and children under the Police Pensions Act, 1921."
  I am not entirely referring, of course, to the position of the old widows, a position which was raised fairly well and to which we had a reply on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am referring to the position of certain police officers' widows, and particularly those who are provided for neither in the recent legislation dealing with widows and orphans, nor in any of the Acts referring to the police forces themselves.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson - Hicks): On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is permissible on the Third Reading of a Bill to deal with questions which are not contained in the Bill, and which the hon. Member may possibly think ought to have been contained in the Bill? I submit that questions relating to police widows and so forth are quite out of order on the Third Reading stage.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is an accepted rule, which has been enforced by Mr. Speaker, that on the Third Reading of a Bill we may only discuss the contents of the Bill, and that on Second Reading we may discuss anything congruous that is not in the Bill which hon. Members think should be in it.
  Mr. HAYES: What I am endeavouring to discuss is a Clause in the Police Pensions Bill which increases the deductions from pay in respect to superannuation, and I submit that I am in order in referring to superannuation, in respect to which deductions are paid. My only reason for wishing to pursue this matter is to know whether, in agreeing to this Clause, the wishes expressed in the Lee Report are likely to be given effect to by the right hon. Gentleman as arising under this Bill, or in connection with any Regulations he may subsequently make. One of the discrepancies which the police desire to have removed is the position of the widow of the police officer with less than five years' service.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. It seems to me quite useless that we should attempt to discuss the introduction of widows' pensions, or the increase of widows' pensions, on a Bill which deals entirely with a different subject. There is nothing in this Bill, and no money can be provided under it, to increase widows' pensions. The question was raised on Second Reading, and I had to say then that it was impossible to include widows' pensions in this Bill. I submit therefore, that the hon. Member is out of order in attempting to raise this question.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not, clear that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument. I understood him to argue, on Clause 1, that the deductions there mentioned would have an adverse effect on the position of wives and widows of police officers. But I now understand he puts forward a suggestion that there should be a revision of the scale of widows' pensions. That could not be done by administration, and there would have to be a Resolution of the House. If that be so, it will not be in order to discuss it on Third Reading.
  Mr. HAYES: I am not referring to any widows' pensions or allowances that do not exist already, and in respect to which these deductions are earmarked. All I wanted was the courtesy of some information as to whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make such adjustments within the existing limits of legislation as would meet a situation under which some widows are deprived of benefits by existing laws. It is a very
  2766
  simple question, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman might have been in a position to have said whether he proposes to deal with that point when he gets his Bill. If I remember rightly, several months ago, when I raised the matter by way of question and answer, he admitted that there were certain anomalies which were being looked into. With regard to the second portion of the Bill, may I refer the House to page 34 of the Mackenzie Committee Report, in respect to the inquiry as to the police officers who were dismissed from the service in 1919. I only want to refer him to paragraph 85. There is a reference there which states that, so far as the prison officers were concerned, the Committee thought that the Prison Commissioners might usefully exercise their discretion in giving an ex gratin payment, and it is suggested that, by legislation or otherwise, this authority could be given to them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to indicate whether he proposes to take any steps to give effect to that Report. With regard to that Clause in relation to the police strikers, I regret that he resisted the Amendffient in Committee to make the Bill compulsory, and I can only hope that the spirit of the gift which the right hon. Gentleman has given will find its way into the hearts of the watch committees who will be concerned by this Bill. It was only in that respect that I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to give us some indication of the steps he has taken to see that the committees carried out the Bill in the sense in which it was left to their discretion.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The two first points raised by the hon. Gentleman are quite obviously out of order. It is quite impossible for me to reply to them, because the Bill does not apply to widows' pensions, and it has nothing to do with prisons officers. With regard to the third point, the hope he expressed that local authorities will carry out the provisions of the Bill in a kindly spirit, I can only say that my experience of local authorities leads me to believe that they will do so. The hon. Member asks what steps I have taken to communicate with the local authorities, but it is impossible for me to communicate with them until the Bill has passed. When the Bill passes

  2767
  through the House and it passed in another place, I shall then communicate with the local authorities.
  Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether we can expect legislation on the matter of the prison officers subsequently?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman put a question down if he wants further information? I cannot, and I am not prepared to answer questions regarding prison officers on a Police Bill.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Grays and Tilbury Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a. Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Company, which was presenter on the 8th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the South Suburban Gas Company, which was presented on the 12th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Croydon Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the North Middlesex Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:
  Clause 20, line 9, after 'therm,' insert or part thereof.' "—[Sir Burton. Chadwick.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1832 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Gainsborough, in the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, which was presented on the 21st day of June, 1926, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Llantarnam, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 1st clay of July. 1926, be approved."—(Sir B. Chadwick.]

  MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [14th July] on consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Lords Amendment:
  In page 6, line 8, at the end, insert
  NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power to exempt certain institutions from Part II.)
  (1) A local supervising authority may grant exemption from the operation of this Part of this Act in respect of—

  (a) any hospital or other premises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible; or

  (b) any hospital or institution not carried on for profit and not used mainly as a maternity home.

  (2) A local supervising authority may at any time withdraw an exemption granted by it under this Section.
  (3) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of local supervising authority to grant exemption under this Section in respect of any hospital, premises or institution, or by the withdrawal of any such exemption previously granted by the authority, may appeal against the refusal or withdrawal to the Minister of Health, and the Minister, after considering the matter, shall give such directions therein as he thinks proper, and the authority shall comply with any directions so given.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Lieut.- Colonel Fremantle.]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. R. W. Smith.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of muirburn of certain times.)
  Lords Amendment:
  In page 1, line 9, leave out from "that" to the end of the Clause, and insert
  "(a) It shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, or for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner, to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April, both days inclusive; and
  (b) Where the proprietor of any lands or his factor or commissioner has refused or has failed within seven days after written application for such authority has been made to him by the tenant of such lands, being a tenant who is entitled under the provisions of his lease or by virtue of an Order made in pursuance of the immediately succeeding Section of this Act to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands, the tenant may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner written notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereafter in this Act referred to as the Board) and the Board may on such application, if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, by Order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands during the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the Order relates, in accordance with the conditions contained in the lease or in the Order under the immediately succeeding Section as the case may be. A copy of such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner.
  (2) In the ease of a deer forest more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, the foregoing Sub-section shall have effect as if the fifteenth day of May were substituted for the thirtieth day of April."
  Lords Amendment read a Second time.
  Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) of the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words
  "within seven days after written application for such authority,"
  2770
  and to insert instead thereof the words
  "to give such written authority within seven days after written application therefor."
  The object of the Lords Amendment and of the Amendment which I am moving is merely to make more clear the purpose of the Bill. It was found, after the Bill had been through Committee, that the wording was not quite what was intended, and, therefore, the alteration was made in the Lords. My Amendment is merely a drafting matter
  Mr. JOHNSTON: May we not have a statement from the promoters of the Bill telling us in what respect the Amendment made in the Lords makes the Bill more clear? It is hardly good enough simply to say that this is merely a drafting Amendment or that it makes the Bill more clear. In what respect was the Bill not clear when it left the Standing Committee and how far has it been made more clear in another place? Unless we can get an explanation we propose to debate it.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): With regard to the further Amendment of my hon. Friend, it merely makes a verbal alteration. It makes the Lords Amendment which was passed more grammatical because it was found that the words "refused or has failed" were standing in the air. We did not say what the proprietor was refusing or failing to do. In regard to the Lords Amendment the Clause was redrafted in order to make clear, first of all, that, in default of the landlord's consent to burn during this further extended period, permission should be granted only to a tenant who either is entitled to burn under his lease or a tenant who has got an order releasing him from restrictions of his lease under Clause 2 of the Bill. Secondly, it is made clear that the tenant, before making his application to the Board for an order, must give the landlord notice of his intention to do so. Thirdly, it is made clear that. the conditions which govern .the method of burning heather during the normal statutory period should equally apply during this extended period. That was not clear from the original wording, but obviously that was what was intended. Lastly, the Board are required when

  2771
  they make an order to send a copy to the landlord as well as to the tenant.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Perhaps it might be convenient if I were to say for the information of the House that these Amendments have been carefully scrutinised by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which is satisfied with them as they stand, with the verbal Amendment which has been suggested by the promoter.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that the only respects in which a concession has been made to the landlords is, first of all, that a notice must be sent by the tenant to the landlord before the application is withdrawn, and that after it has been made it shall be sent to the landlord as well as the tenant? Do we understand that it is only in these two respects that any concessions have been made?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think I should call these Amendments concessions, because they are only intended to make clear the machinery of the Bill. It was always intended that the landlord should have a chance of appearing before the Court, and making any representations he wanted to make, and obviously he can only do that if he has notice that a tenant is making an application.
  Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords Amendments down to page 2, line 39, agreed to.

  HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Construction, short title and extent.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 10, at the end, insert
    "and in the case of a common grazing includes the committee appointed under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and the expression lease ' in relation to such common grazing includes Regulations made or approved by the Land Court under the said Acts."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May we have an explanation as to what this Amendment means?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: This Amendment is intended to make it perfectly clear that the power to make orders may apply to common grazings as well as to moorland. The Board of Agriculture is given power to regulate the burning on common grazings as well as on moorland, and the question of burning and the extension of the principle may be as valuable on common grazings as upon ordinary moors, and this can only be done under this Bill. All we do by this Amendment is to make it clear that we intend to extend the machinery to the case of common grazings as well as to moorland.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that the powers presently held by the Land Court are no longer to be held by the Land Court, but are being transferred to the Board of Agriculture?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir, certainly not. The Land Court has certain powers of control over common grazings under the Small Landholders Act. That is quite apart from the question of what is legitimate in the matter of muirburn. We are dealing with the matter of muirburn here, and we are allowing an extension of the period of muirburn and a relaxation of the conditions, under the ultimate control of the Board of Agriculture. It would, as I think the House will agree, be a mistake if we were not to include in the benefits of this Measure common grazings and, if we did not include it ,here, the Land Court would have no power to deal with it.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  RURAL HOUSING BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Captain BENN: May I ask whether, on the Bill that we are to discuss to-morrow—the Rural Housing Bill—it is the intention of the Minister of Health to make a statement about the subsidy for urban houses after the 1st October?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No., Sir, I do not think that it would be possible to make such a statement on the Bill to be discussed to-morrow, which deals exclusively with rural housing. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put down a question.
  Captain BENN: if I may be allowed to press the matter, it was understood that the Minister of Health would make a statement on this important question of the continuation of the housing subsidy before the House rose for the summer holidays, and I would urge that it should be made before the House rises.
  Sir K. WOOD: I doubt if it will be possible to make such a statement before the House adjourns. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it has been repeatedly stated in this House that the matter of the subsidy has to come under review in October, and my right hon. Friend desires, if possible, to make some statement with regard to the . future. Whether that will be possible or not I
  2774
  should not care to say to-night, but I think, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put a question down for Wednesday, that, perhaps, would be the best course.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not the case that the Minister of Health has told a deputation of Members of this House that he hopes to make some announcement before the House rises? Obviously, it would be out of order on the Bill that is to come before the House to-morrow.
  Sir K. WOOD: I have said that my right hon. Friend would desire, if possible, to do so, but I pointed out to my hon. Friend the other day the difficulty in which we are placed by the terms of the Statute. Obviously, it is a matter upon which a question addressed to us could be put down for Wednesday, or, no doubt as a matter of urgency, a question could be handed in to-morrow.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before Eleven o'clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED, GLASGOW.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED, GLASGOW.
  NEW EXCHANGE, GLASGOW.
  NEW EXCHANGE, GLASGOW.
  CAMBERWELL BOARD OF GUARDIANS (APPOINTMENT).
  CAMBERWELL BOARD OF GUARDIANS (APPOINTMENT).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  BACON FACTORIES (INSPECTION).
  BACON FACTORIES (INSPECTION).
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, SOUTHWARK (RE-HOUSING).
  SLUM CLEARANCE, SOUTHWARK (RE-HOUSING).
  PARLOUR AND NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (COST).
  PARLOUR AND NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (COST).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES).
  SCOTTISH COLLIERY COMPANIES.
  SCOTTISH COLLIERY COMPANIES.
  SCOTTISH HARBOURS (ENTRANCES).
  SCOTTISH HARBOURS (ENTRANCES).
INDIA.
  MADRAS PLANTERS' LABOUR ACT.
  MADRAS PLANTERS' LABOUR ACT.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTION).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTION).
  ASIATICS IN SOUTH AFRICA (CONFERENCE)
  ASIATICS IN SOUTH AFRICA (CONFERENCE)
  AIR FORCES, INDIA AND AFGHANISTAN.
  AIR FORCES, INDIA AND AFGHANISTAN.
KENYA.
  LAND TENURE (KIKUYU TRIBE).
  LAND TENURE (KIKUYU TRIBE).
  NATIVE LABOUR.
  NATIVE LABOUR.
  CHINA.
  CHINA.
  ABYSSINIA.
  ABYSSINIA.
  UNITED STATES (LIQUOR SMUGGLING).
  UNITED STATES (LIQUOR SMUGGLING).
  PROHIBITED PLUMAGE (SEIZURES).
  PROHIBITED PLUMAGE (SEIZURES).
  COINAGE (COST).
  COINAGE (COST).
  FEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRIES.
  FEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRIES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  SOUTHBOROUGH EXAMINATION (DEPARTMENTAL MARKS).
  SOUTHBOROUGH EXAMINATION (DEPARTMENTAL MARKS).
  TRADE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CALCUTTA (APPOINTMENT).
  TRADE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CALCUTTA (APPOINTMENT).
  LEGITIMACY BILL.
  LEGITIMACY BILL.
  LEAD POISONING.
  LEAD POISONING.
  EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (TRADE FACILITIES AND CREDITS).
  EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (TRADE FACILITIES AND CREDITS).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY. (LIVE RAIL ACCIDENT).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY. (LIVE RAIL ACCIDENT).
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR-BEET CULTIVATION (WAGES).
  SUGAR-BEET CULTIVATION (WAGES).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
EDUCATION.
  HISTORY.
  HISTORY.
  TEACHER'S SALARIES (BURNHAM SCALES).
  TEACHER'S SALARIES (BURNHAM SCALES).
  POST OFFICE (MANIPULATIVE GRADES).
  POST OFFICE (MANIPULATIVE GRADES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, would it be convenient to the noble Earl who is leading the House if I asked him whether he could make any statement as to the course of business to-morrow and after?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I understand that there is every hope if things go well that the proceedings before the adjournment will be concluded on Wednesday morning, and that the Royal Assent will be given, by arrangement with the Commons. That, perhaps optimistic, but I hope not too optimistic, statement of policy depends, of course, upon our getting through the Bill which is already before your Lordships. That will require, I think, in fact I am sure it will require, the suspension of the Standing Orders to-morrow; so that to-morrow we shall be able to take the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Mining Industry Bill which in a moment or two will occupy your Lordships' attention, and also certain other very important Bills which are not very likely to be discussed in this House—the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and the various financial measures, as well as the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. But the only measure which is likely to raise any discussion in your Lordships' House is the one which comes on immediately for consideration in Committee to-day, and in order to finish that in time to carry out the programme I have sketched to your Lordships, I shall have to ask you to suspend the Standing Orders to-morrow.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in the circumstances we shall make no difficulty about the suspension of Standing Orders.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that this Bill is endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucan I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

MINING INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL CHELWOOD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I have on the command of His Majesty to say that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Mining Industry Bill, has given his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prepare amalgamation and absorption schemes.
1.—(1) Where with a view to the more economical and efficient working, treating, or disposing of coal the owners of two or more undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines agree to amalgamate their undertakings either wholly or partially, they may prepare and submit to the Board of Trade a scheme (hereinafter referred to as an amalgamation scheme) framed in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(2) Where the owner of any such undertaking, or where the owners of two or more such undertakings who have agreed to amalgamate, consider that in the interests of the more economical and efficient working, treating, or disposing of coal it is expedient that one or more other such undertakings, the owners of which are unwilling to agree to amalgamate or to agree to the proposed terms of amalgamation, should be absorbed wholly or partially by the first mentioned minder taking, or by the amalgamated undertaking, as the case may be, the owner or owners may prepare and submit to the Board of Trade a scheme (hereinafter referred to as an absorption scheme) framed in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(3) In this Part of this Act—

(a) companies whose undertakings are to be amalgamated are referred to as constituent companies;

(b) a company whose undertaking is to be absorbed is referred to as an absorbed company;

(c) a company, whether or not an amalgamated company, in which any other company is to be absorbed is referred to as the principal company;

(d)"partial amalgamation" of undertakings includes the amalgamation of parts of undertakings and arrangements for the joint exercise of powers of working, treating, or disposing of coal, or powers incidental or ancillary thereto, or for the conduct of any business or operations in the common interest of the constituent companies, or the vesting in a separate company of the control of the constituent companies, and "partial absorption" has a corresponding meaning, except that no partial absorption scheme shall, without the consent of the owner of the absorbed company, provide for the separation of the treat-

403
ing or disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, provide for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary to such primary object.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I would first of all point out that the majority of the Amendments which stand in my name are consequential upon this Amendment. I was obliged to put them on the Paper because if I succeeded in leaving out this clause and the other clauses remained in the Bill, they would make nonsense. If I am defeated upon this Clause 1 shall not, of course, move any of the other Amendments, with the exception of one on Clause 5.
My noble friend Lord Cecil, in the debate on the Second Reading, rather challenged my statement that though this clause was ostensibly voluntary, as a matter of fact it was a compulsory clause. If your Lordships would look at the Bill, which I have had now more time to examine, you will see that it says that if any particular person is unwilling to agree to a scheme of amalgamation proposed by another mine owner then, if the Board of Trade find there is a primâ facie case, the whole matter goes to the Railway and Canal Commission and it becomes obligatory. Just see what that means. I am the owner of a mine which is in rather poor condition and which does not pay. My noble friend Lord Cecil is in possession of a mine which has all the modern appliances and does pay. I go to him and I say: "I wish to amalgamate with you." He says, not unnaturally: "Certainly not, you have a bad asset and I have a good one; I do not wish to amalgamate with you."
Then, under the Bill, I go to the Board of Trade. If the Board of Trade, having been instructed to see whether or not the matter is in the national interest—the interest of Lord Cecil and the interest of myself go by the board; the question is whether or not it is in the national interest—come to the conclusion that there is a primâ facie case that it is in the national interest, because some of Lord Cecil's profits will go to make my mine which does not pay a paying concern, or at any rate a concern which can be worked, they refer the whole matter
404
to the Railway and Canal Commission. The Railway and Canal Commission, also, are only instructed to have regard to the national interest and there is no definition as to what the national interest is. The Railway and Canal Commissioners then decide that Lord Cecil's good mine must be compulsorily amalgamated with my bad one. Does anybody suppose that is going to work? I challenge my noble friend to contradict anything that I have said. I do not see Lord Parmoor here, but on the Second Reading he said he did not agree with me. Had be been here I should have challenged him to contradict anything I have said. Is that really going to conduce to good working of the industry? Is it likely to induce anybody to do what is absolutely essential if the mining industry is to become profitable—that is to say, put more capital into it? Nobody would dream of putting capital into it when it is liable to a situation such as I have outlined.
But the matter does not end there. This is only a preliminary step. I have provided myself with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT and during the short time that I have had at my disposal I have read with much interest my noble friend's speech. I find he stated that the Commission said that if after three years the Mines Department are of opinion that sufficient progress has not been made there was to be a power for the Mines Department themselves to take the initiative in the matter. My noble friend went on to say:
"The Government have felt that on the whole it would be better not to anticipate what would be the decision of Parliament in two or three years' time… and they accordingly provide that the procedure shall be such as I will describe in a moment, subject to this: That the Mines Department are to make a Report as to the progress of amalgamation and absorption under the Bill at the end of two years and annually after that period so that Parliament can intervene if it thinks that the matter is not proceeding with sufficient rapidity."
What does that mean? It means that you are nominally—as I say, really—introducing compulsion at once. You are nominally allowing voluntary amalgamation but if, in two years time, amalgamation does not take place, or if the trade union headed by Mr. Cook think there is not enough amalgamation,

405
then Parliament is to intervene and to make amalgamation compulsory. Again, I ask, is that at all likely to achieve the end which we all desire—namely, to make the mines profitable and workable? My noble friend Lord Cecil, also, in his speech, said that he did not see that this is any more Socialism than to compel the railways to amalgamate.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not say that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Well I have it here.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I was talking about facilities; it was not amalgamation.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: This is what the noble Viscount said:—
"I venture very respectfully to say to him that really it is not a bit more Socialism to have compulsory purchase in order to facilitate the working of mines than to have compulsory purchase in order to facilitate the working of railways."
I never said compulsory purchase was Socialism; there were other matters with which I was dealing that I said were Socialism. But I will ask my noble friend, does he think that compulsory purchase has facilitated the working of railways? I should have said that compulsory purchase has done the worst possible thing for railways. It has not facilitated their working; it has put them very nearly into the Bankruptcy Court and has destroyed the facilities which the public had before and have not now. With all due deference to my noble friend, whom I used in the old days to follow, It is the very worst analogy that he could possibly bring forward. We do not want any more amalgamations like the railway amalgamations. We want to have everything left so that the ordinary person can manage his own affairs without interference by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: With regard to the last passage of my noble friend's observations, which perhaps is not very material, the controversy between us on the Second Reading of this Bill was this. The point with which I was dealing was not in
406
reference to amalgamation at all but whether there ought to be power under the facilities clause to insist on working coal which otherwise would not be properly worked, and it was with reference to that that I said it did not seem to me that it was any more Socialism to give power compulsorily to buy coal for the purpose of facilitating the working of coal mines than it was to give power compulsorily to buy land in order to lay out railways. That was what I ought to have said more fully than I did say it; that was the comparison which I had in mind.
My noble friend began Ids observations by saying that a good many of the Amendments of which he has given Notice were really consequential and that if he succeeded in inducing your Lordships to strike out Clause 1 that would, in fact, make nonsense of the greater part of the rest of the Bill without these consequential Amendments. My noble friend is perfectly right. Clause 1 is almost the most essential part of the Bill and I confess that I think his Amendment gives proof of that of which no one needs proof—namely, the political courage of my noble friend. After having tried, unsuccessfully, to induce your Lordships to reject the Second Reading of this Bill, he now comes before your Lordships with a Motion which, on his own showing, is equivalent to a Motion for the defeat of the Second Reading of the Bill.
I do not propose, unless your Lordships desire it, to labour once again after all these many weeks—indeed I may say many months—of discussion, the case for amalgamation of coal mines. Whatever may be said of parts of the Samuel Commission Report, certainly the part which deals with the necessity, the absolute necessity in many cases, for getting rid of the small mines and amalgamating them with larger mines, and the enormous importance for the prosperity of the industry of having larger units than exist in some parts of the country, was put with convincing force. I do not think I should be acting respectfully to your Lordships if I again elaborated that argument. Your Lordships will remember the argument, which is contained in pages 44 to 63 of the Report, and it would ill-become me to try to summarise the very elaborate argument which is contained in nearly twenty pages of print.

407
I will endeavour, however, though I fear I shall be unsuccessful, to diminish the fears of my noble friend. It is not really true to say that the only thing that will be considered in the case of amalgamation is whether it is in the national interest that that amalgamation should take place. The first thing that is to be considered is not, strictly speaking, the national interest, but rather, in the words of the Bill, whether it would conduce to
"the more economical and efficient working, treating, or disposing of coal."
That is the first thing that the Board of Trade have to be satisfied upon—namely, that this really will make the industry more effective and make the output larger and cheaper than it would be otherwise. Until the Board of Trade are satisfied on that point nothing can be done. Then the matter goes to the Railway and Canal Commission, and they have to be satisfied further, broadly speaking, that the amalgamation is in the national interest.
But that is not the whole of their duty. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 7, subsection (2), paragraphs (a) and (b), he will see that they deal with the power of the Railway and Canal Commission to confirm schemes. Paragraph (a) says that the Commission
"shall confirm a scheme if satisfied that it would be in the national interest to do so, and that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby."
Then paragraph (b) says that the Commission
"may in particular if, upon an objection lodged by the holder of any securities in a constituent or absorbed company to whom by the scheme securities in the amalgamated or principal company are allocated in substitution therefor, they are satisfied that the substitution would not be fair in his case,"
order that he shall be paid. Therefore, it is really quite untrue to say that there has been any neglect of the individual interests of those who are concerned in these schemes. In these circumstances it would be quite impossible for me to suggest that the Government could accept this Amendment. It would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill and really, if I may say so respectfully, would be to go in the teeth of the decision which your Lordships arrived at by a majority of close upon three to one.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Viscount has said, truly, that this is an Amendment which goes to the very root and principle of the Bill. It is not an Amendment dealing with compulsory powers. It is an Amendment dealing with a perfectly innocent clause—innocent taken by itself—which enables those concerned in the ownership of mines to agree and then to present a scheme before the Board of Trade. Subsequently it may be sent to the Railway and Canal Commission. If the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, desires to restrict the powers of the Railway and Canal Commission, whose assent is required for any exercise of compulsion, then the clause which gives them the power, which occurs a long way further on in the Bill, is the appropriate place in which to do it. As the noble Viscount truly said, it is an objection which goes to the very root of the Bill. It is reviving the Second Reading discussion which we disposed of. And I notice that the noble Lord has put down an Amendment to every clause of the Bill irrespective of whether it involves compulsion or does not involve compulsion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh no, I have not.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is a long list of Amendments. If the noble Lord has an objection in the abstract to compulsion I would remind him that during the long tenure of his distinguished connection with the Great Northern Railway many Bills were brought before Parliament which involved this principle. For the noble Lord to say compulsion is not a right thing in the case, above all, of the railway companies is to belie the distinguished service which he rendered to that great company.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh no; I always objected to it.
LORD JOICEY: I confess I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. I happen to be one who has a very poor opinion indeed of the Bill as a whole and I should not be sorry to see it destroyed. Therefore I have not the same hesitation in opposing this clause that the noble and learned Viscount below me has. I do not know any case in which Parliament has given power to any particular industry

409
to compel amalgamation. I have some experience of amalgamation. I have been connected with a good many additions to the concern which I represent and I have some pretty good experience with regard to the value of amalgamation. I think the importance of these amalgamations has been very much exaggerated. I question whether very much good will result from any compulsory amalgamation in any part of the coalfields. In one or two cases we have had advantages where coal has been lying near an adjoining colliery which did not belong to us. In cases where we have amalgamated, of course, we have been able to work that coal, after getting the consent of the lessors, who have never objected, because the lessor is just as anxious to facilitate the working of coal as anybody else. In one case of that kind we have been able to get a large electric power station which, of course, could be applied to more collieries owing to the amalgamation that took place.
But I do not think that the advantages which I have seen offset at all the disadvantages. Of course, everybody who has a bad colliery which he will never be able to make pay would only be too glad if he could get connected with a colliery which does pay. But what does that mean? It simply means a certain amount of unification. That is, you take the profits of the good concern and you apply some of them to the losses of the poor concerns. Consequently, the general profit of the whole concern is merely reduced. I cannot see why these compulsory amalgamations should take place. If any of the various owners of the mines wish to amalgamate there is no difficulty whatever in doing so. I have always found that where it was really an advantage to adjoining mines to amalgamate there was never any difficulty whatever in bringing amalgamation about. I am bound to say that if this Amendment goes to a Division I shall be obliged to support it, but I shall do so because I feel that the whole Bill is not going to have the result that many people expect. I think that it would be a failure, when you consider the number of Bills connected with the mining industry that have been passed during the last twenty years. We have been harassed and hampered in every way,
410
and it is a wonder to me that we have done as well as we have done. I look upon this Bill simply as an additional burden to be placed upon the coal industry. It will not settle the difficulties that we have to contend with. I feel quite sure that it will add to them. I am bound to say that I support the noble Lord who has moved the omission of this clause.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division unless some other noble Lord desires it, but I should like to say, in reply to the noble and learned Viscount, that there are twenty-six clauses in the Bill and I put down fourteen Amendments. Accordingly I have not put down an Amendment to every clause, because fourteen is less than twenty-six. I have already said that a good number of my Amendments are consequential. I will not withdraw the Amendment, but I do not propose to go to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Contents of total amalgamation schemes.
2.—(1) A total amalgamation scheme under this Part of this Act may contain such provisions as may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the objects of the scheme, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision—

(a) may provide either for the constitution and incorporation of a new company, or companies, under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1917, with or without the dissolution of all or any of the constituent companies, and the transfer to the new company of the undertakings of the constituent companies, or the distribution thereof amongst the new companies and such of the constituent companies as are not dissolved, or for the continuance (with or without change of name) of one or more of the constituent companies, and the dissolution ca the other constituent companies, and the transfer of their undertakings to the continued company or the distribution thereof amongst the continued companies;

(b) may provide for vesting in the new or continued company or any of the new or continued companies any or all of the property, rights, powers, duties and liabilities of the constituent companies;

411

(c) may provide generally as to the terms and conditions of amalgamation, and for the winding up of the constituent companies or such of them as are to be dissolved, including the allocation to holders of securities of the constitutent companies, in substitution therefor and in satisfaction of all claims arising thereunder, of such securities of the new or continued company or any of the new or continued companies and of such amounts as may be specified in the scheme;

(d) may make such provision as may be necessary with regard to the share and loan capital of the new or continued company or companies, including provision for increasing all or any of the existing classes of loan or share capital of any such company, or creating new classes of loan or share capital of any such company, with such rights, priorities, and conditions as may be specified in the scheme;

(e) may provide for any of the matters for which provision is made by Part V. of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863;

(f) may make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient in order to give full effect to the purposes of the scheme.

EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved, after paragraph (e), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"(f) Shall provide for the annual publication of the accounts of a new or continued company, including particulars as to the amount of coal used for the purpose of any business or operations carried on in the interest of a constituent company and the price charged therefor, and particulars as to the number of persons employed in each grade or class by the new or continued company, and the aggregate wages paid to each grade or class, such accounts to be published in a form to be prescribed by the Board of Trade."
The noble Earl said: When the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill made his speech on the Second Reading he based this measure, apart from the financial part of it, on the ground that a great proportion of its provisions would assist to bring about better relations between employers and men, would encourage a greater feeling of confidence in the mining industry and would reduce the suspicion and antagonism which, unfortunately, exist at present. My Amendment, if he will allow me to say so, is entirely in accord with the spirit of the Bill and, far from being in any sense a hostile Amendment, I think that, if the noble Viscount will look into it, he will see
412
that it is an additional step in the direction that he indicated on the Second Reading.
Everyone who has had anything to do with the mining industry has noticed the intricacies and obscurities of the system of calculating the wages that are paid in that industry. I had the honour for a time, under the old agreement that is now at an end, of being the independent Chairman of the South Wales and Monmouthshire coal district, and I confess that when the first cases came before me I was astonished at the complexity which was to be found in the various mines and the difficulty of ascertaining what wages the miners were receiving and what wages they would be likely to receive in the future. I think it was Mrs. Poyser who once said that anybody could turn up Genesis but that it took an able-bodied man to find Hosea. Anybody in the ordinary trades of the country can recognise and appreciate what the wages are in that particular industry, but in the case of the miners it takes a chartered accountant to arrive at any conclusion as to what the miners are getting and what they are likely to get in the future. In an ordinary trade, apart from piece work, wages rule which are fairly well known. They are ordinary weekly wages and the men, the masters and people outside know what the amount is. In the mining industry there is, in the first place, the basic wage, and upon that there are percentages, up and down, of various sorts, the sustentation wage, the minimum wage, and allowances for coal and housing; and, finally, there is the ascertainment of profits, under which 87 per cent. of the receipts go to wages and 13 per cent. to profits and the employers.
I think the complications of this matter provide one of the reasons why, in this unfortunate dispute that is still going on, the public are very much puzzled to know what are the rights and wrongs in regard to the wages of the miners. On the one hand, we are told that the wages are starvation wages and that it is quite impossible that they can be further reduced. On the other side, we are told that a number of the men earn £4, £5 and £6 a week, that their wages are very high indeed. I think that, from the public point of view and especially from the point of view of the miners themselves, we ought to have further information and

413
that such information should be given in a public form, so that there can be no doubt as to its accuracy and as to the justice of the wages that are being received. I think that the miners are entitled to know the numbers employed, the wages paid and the profits made, not only in the aggregate, but in each separate concern.
Further—and this is really the main point of my Amendment—there are, as noble Lords know, ancillary industries which depend upon the coal trade, such as steel works, iron works, coke plants and others, all of which are supplied from the mining industry and involve the consumption of very large quantities of coal, which are not sold in the open market, but transferred to these industries from the mines themselves. Unfortunately, there is a lurking suspicion in the minds of the miners and of other people that the amount, the prices and other particulars are sometimes to a certain extent manipulated to the advantage of the mine owners and to the disadvantage of the miners, because these transfers of coal come into the quarterly assignment which is carried out by chartered accountants who, by going through these figures, arrive at what the wage ought to be in the coming quarter.
I think that it is difficult to deny that, in the first place, those who are employed in the mining industry are entitled to know the exact amount that is so transferred, the exact price at which it is transferred and whether profits which ought to go to the total amount involved are deducted or are included. It may be said that this information is already at the disposal of the miners, because all these questions are gone into by chartered accountants and the miners as well as the employers have their representatives on the board. That may be so, but unfortunately it does not give full confidence and they do not get full particulars, because the chartered accountants in their report give only the aggregate amount of the wage of the whole trade, and do not have regard to separate concerns. Further, they are sworn to secrecy in regard to the information obtained. I believe that a noble friend behind me will raise that particular point, and accordingly I need not dwell on it now.
The mining trade is practically a profit-sharing industry, but unfortunately it is not based upon the proper basis of a
414
profit-sharing industry. All the partners in such a concern ought to have the fullest possible means of ascertaining the actual output, the cost of output, the wages and the profits, they should have the fullest possible information annually as to the amount of profits and they should have some voice in the method by which they are distributed. That, unfortunately, has not obtained in profit-sharing in the mines, and in every case, instead of having good will and confidence, we have this deplorable antagonism and suspicion which prevail in the mining trade. This Amendment, if accepted by the Government, gives an opportunity to dispel that feeling, at all events as regards these new companies which will be formed under amalgamation or under combination.
It would undoubtedly be an advantage if this proposal could be applied to the trade as a whole, but we are of course confined this afternoon to the four corners of this Bill and my Amendment can therefore only deal with the new companies created under Clause 1 and Clause 2. As far as they are concerned, I would urge the Government to accept, and I would press your Lordships to support, my Amendment on the ground that it will do much, if accepted, to dispel this suspicion which now exists and therefore to bring greater satisfaction and greater good will to the coal trade as a whole. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to particulars of wages and profits being published in the form approved by the Board of Trade. If there is anything concealed or to be concealed, surely that is an irresistible argument in favour of publicity. If there is nothing to conceal, no harm can be done in publishing these figures and it will have the advantage of removing this suspicion.
There is one other point to which perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will allow me to refer, although it is a delicate one. It is this. It is useless to disguise the fact that at the present moment with this dispute on the miners are under the strong impression, amounting in some cases in their view to certainty, that the Government throughout this matter have thrown their weight on the side of the employers and against the miners. That is, in my opinion, entirely unfounded, but the suspicion exists and if in any way that suspicion

415
could be diminished surely it would be an advantage. If the Government could see their way to accept this Amendment they would have taken one step at least which, while no disadvantage to the mine owners, would be a step which the miners themselves would appreciate, and which would do something to alter the view that they hold at the present moment. On the other hand, if they do not accept this Amendment, the suspicion will be further deepened that they look at these matters from the side of the employers instead of the side of the miners.
The general view at the present moment in regard to all industrial disputes is that there ought to be much greater co-operation between employers and employed, that the employed ought to have much more opportunity of taking part in a share of the business, and that they ought to have greater publicity and the greatest possible amount of information. The proposal of this Amendment which I have put down would help in that direction, as regards this Bill. I would therefore very earnestly press upon the Government, for the reasons I have given, to look favourably on this proposal, to which no objection can be taken in principle, and which, if accepted, would, I believe, have some advantage. I would like to say this also in order that there may be no prejudice on the matter. This Amendment in no way affects the deplorable strike that is going on at present. I hold a very strong view, in regard to that particular dispute, that the men's leaders have unfortunately carried out a deplorable policy of refusing to suggest anything and of turning down all proposals that are made to them. This Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the present strike, but, if accepted, it may to a certain extent help to bring about better relations and better confidence. While it may not affect the present strike, it may do something to prevent future strikes.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Buxton.)
LORD THOMSON: I desire to associate myself with every word that has fallen from the noble Earl who has just sat down. In fact, his speech is the speech I would like to have made on my own Amendment which comes later on. Since this stoppage began I have been at pains
416
to consult with very many of the miners' leaders, whom I know to be honest, decent fellows, moderate in every respect. There is no question that the Amendment would to some extent meet their views and soften the resistance, which, unfortunately, in the case Of these moderate men is getting more bitter every day. I have been told stories by men of very high character about the transfer prices of coal transferred to ancillary undertakings. They profess to know details which are certainly very unsavoury and disagreeable. I do not attach any importance to it, but, if there are no suspicious circumstances of that kind going on, I cannot see what objection there is to furnishing the information proposed by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Buxton. I propose to move my own Amendment on another point, but to begin with I wish to associate myself with this one.
LORD HYLTON: May I suggest to the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment that after the word "wages" the words "and allowances" ought to be added if his purpose that the public should become fully acquainted with the real wages or value of wages received by coalminers is to be carried into effect? Your Lordships are well aware that in the payment of wages by collieries—certainly, in nearly all the coalfields with which I am familiar—there are such things as coal and free houses available to the miners. In order to enable the public to ascertain the real, value of those figures that the noble Earl desires to obtain under his Amendment, the words "and allowances or the value of allowances" ought to be inserted after the word "wages" I venture to suggest that to the noble Earl.
EARL BUXTON: Perhaps my noble-friend will move that, for I would be very glad to accept it. That Amendment would make it much clearer.
LORD TREOWEN: I should like, as one closely associated with the South Wales coalfield, to welcome the Amendment that my noble friend has proposed. In the speech to which we have just listened from him he has got more closely to the heart of the real difficulty that exists down there and that has caused so much trouble than all the speakers I have

417
heard during the recent debates on this question. It is a constant complaint and difficulty there that a man never knows what he is entitled to or what he is going to get. The complication of accounting and of calculating the wage of workers in the coal mines is of untold complexity. I have not had the experience of my noble friend and I do not pretend, without such experience as that, to be able to give a distinct explanation of it myself, yet I have heard it talked of a great deal during the years I have been associated with the industry. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. I am certain that it will considerably strengthen their Bill, and will do more than anything else to help that which we all desire, a happier condition of things in the mines.
LORD JOICEY: I confess that, so far as the Amendment goes, personally I have no objection to it, but I am not representing the coal trade in this discussion; the views I give are entirely my own. I have always gone on the principle of giving as much information to our workmen as we could when any difficulty arose. I had a most striking case a few months ago. There was a difficulty about costs, and we were losing a great deal of money. I thought it was best to see the representatives of the pit, or rather two pits, for two were concerned. They came with the checkweighman, and there was one of the principal delegates of the Durham Miners' Association there. I explained the whole position, the costs, prices realised, and everything, pointing out the difference there was between the amount received from our produce and the costs we had to face. I said: "you can have your accountant to go into all these figures, so as to be sure it is quite right" What was he answer? The answer was: "If you say so, my Lord, it is quite enough for us" They took that, but ultimately a pit had to be closed because there was no means of reducing the cost to anything like a possible figure at which the pit could be carried on.
I think it is wise to give as much information as you can to the workmen. I would do much to avoid suspicions, but, whatever care you take, you cannot always avoid that, either in connection with mines or anything else, because
418
sometimes suspicion has very little behind it, and it is very difficult to deal with. So far as Durham and Northumberland are concerned, I believe it is the custom for each workman at the end of the week, when he gets his wages, to hand a small paper which he gets from the office to the union, so that they can know what wages the man in the mine earns. The objection which many coal owners have is that they do not care for everybody to know whether they are making profits or losses. If you are making heavy losses it tends to affect the credit of the concern, and if you are making heavy profits the men, of course, think they must have an extra share of them. You cannot blame them for that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have the very greatest sympathy with much that fell from my noble friend Lord Buxton in moving this Amendment. I particularly sympathise with his lament over the extraordinary financial complications which seem to prevail right through the coal industry. That is quite true, but he will remember that probably in no industry in the country has more been done in order to elucidate these very complicated transactions, and as he is well aware—indeed, as he mentioned in his speech—the miners have a right to appoint their own accountant to see that all these elaborate calculations are fully and fairly carried out. Therefore that must be recollected in approaching the whole question.
As I understand it, the noble Earl's Amendment has two main purposes. In the first place, he desires a general publication of accounts, and not only accounts but statistics, as one may say, of the undertaking. In the second place, he particularly desires that precautions should be taken to remove the suspicion which undoubtedly exists that, by manœuvring the transfer prices, the mine owners conceal some of their profits and are therefore able to pay lower wages. As to the second, I really do not think that practically there is any danger of that, because of the accountants' procedure, and as far as the mine owners are concerned, they have more than once given quite formal undertakings that they are ready to meet the miners and try to devise adequate and satisfactory plans which shall remove altogether the suspicion which at present exists. There

419
remains the broad question of publication. My whole sympathies are with the noble Earl on that point. I believe this fetish of secrecy, which exists not only, or even chiefly, in the mining industry, but right through the industrial world, is pure nonsense and does infinite harm. It does not exist in America. There is no such feeling at all there, and I believe that it would be of enormous advantage to the smooth working of the industry without doing anyone any harm if, I will not say the whole of the secrecy were swept away, but all such parts of it as could really give rise to suspicion between employers and employed were removed.
But this Amendment raises the question in a very difficult form, if I may say so to the noble Earl. He does not propose an Amendment dealing with the whole of the coal industry. He thinks that he could not do so as a matter of order. I am not sure whether he is right in that, but whether he is or not, we must take the thing as it is. He proposes to apply this rule with regard to publication only to those mines which are amalgamated or absorbed, the "new or continued companies" in the wording of the Bill. The Government and their advisers are extremely afraid that if they were to put these particular coal undertakings under a different régime from that which applied to all the other coal undertakings, they would be weighting the scales against the adoption of this Part of the Bill, to which they attach so very much importance. I cannot help thinking that it would be better not to put this Amendment into this Part of the Bill. The matter was very fully discussed in the other House. There was a good deal of opinion expressed in favour of it, but, on the whole, both in Standing Committee and in the House itself, the majority of members were clearly against it.
I will only make two further observations. In the first place, the noble Earl said the Government are accused of favouring the owners in the whole of these transactions. No one who has listened to the debates in this House would think that that is an accusation which can very plausibly be alleged. The whole attack on the Government's policy has come from noble Lords who cannot be regarded as altogether out of sympathy with the coal owners' position.
420
I do not think one must pay too much attention to these charges. They are always made in times of political excitement, and I think your Lordships would do well to put that aspect of it altogether aside, and decide what, on the whole, is the best thing to be done with this Amendment, quite apart from any supposed or anticipated effect it may have on this or that section of public opinion.
I suggest to your Lordships that you cannot make this regulation with respect to one section of the mining industry and not apply it to the whole. That would be altogether an unreasonable position, and I venture to direct my noble friend's attention to the clause of the Bill which establishes pit committees. It depends on how that is applied and it depends on a great many things of that kind, but undoubtedly a great deal may be done under that clause in order to remove suspicion by free discussion—indeed, that is the purpose of the clause—between the representatives of the miners and the representatives of the employers. It seems to me that it would be wiser to await the operation of that clause to see whether under Regulations made in pursuance of the clause the broad objects which the noble Earl has in view—I do not say the specific terms of his Amendment—might not be carried out. It would have this enormous advantage—that if anything of that kind could be done reasonably under that clause, as I think it could, it would apply not to amalgamated mines only, but to all the mining industry of the country.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I cannot characterise the speech of the noble Viscount as anything but disappointing. He made a speech so much in favour of the proposal on the merits that I ventured to think that had it been made in the other House before they came to a decision on the point it probably would have carried the bulk of those who seem to have doubted. What is the situation here? Lord Hylton, who is intimately acquainted with the large coalfields in Somersetshire, Lord Joicey, whose experience is unrivalled in dealing with miners, and Lord Treowen, who knows South Wales, have all told your Lordships that on balance this clause is a highly desirable one in the respect that it will give information which will tend to allay suspicion and which is, indeed, in-

421
formation which every good coal owner wishes to give. The noble Viscount admits that. But what is his answer? The Amendment is only to apply to new combinations and amalgamations, and it ought to apply to the whole coal mining industry. I agree with him; but whether or no it would have been technically wrong to put such a clause into this Bill, it was at least outside the general scope of the Bill. What difficulty does that occasion? Coal mining Bills occur every second year, and all you have to do on a subsequent occasion is to insert a very short clause saying that the clause now proposed shall apply to all coal mines instead of merely to new amalgamations, and then you will have served your purpose. What difficulty can the whole matter occasion?
The noble Viscount has said: "Ah, but this may handicap amalgamation and the disposition of people to move against the existing state of things." In face of the testimony that has come from those who have given us the benefit of their experience in dealing with coal mines that does not go for much, because they apparently would say: "This information is what every good coal owner wishes to give," and although there are some who will not, in the main it is information which ought to be given. I cannot think that the prejudice against giving that kind of information will survive for long if the paragraph is put into this Bill. It seems to me that the argument in favour of the Amendment enormously preponderates over the argument the other way, and I should entertain the hope that if the Bill goes back to the other House with this provision in it, illuminated by the discussion we have had to-day in which there has been so far unanimity against the Government, the other House will accept it as an improvement of the Bill. I shall feel bound, speaking as a person who has tried to give reasonable support to the Government in the difficult questions which this Bill raises whenever he can, to vote with my noble friend if he goes to a Division on his Amendment.
EARL BUXTON: I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Cecil for his speech. He made a much more powerful speech than I was able to make on behalf of my Amendment, and I am distinctly obliged to him for making it obvious to noble Lords on both sides of
422
the House that the Amendment ought to be in the Bill. His only objection to it was that it did not go far enough. I mentioned that in my observations, because one is obviously restricted, in dealing with a Bill of this sort, to Amendments within the scope of the Bill. That was the only reason why I did not propose to extend my Amendment to the whole industry. My noble friend who has just spoken said that if the House is prepared to accept my Amendment and insert it in the Bill the proposal can be extended by some future measure in a comparatively short time to the whole of the industry. I trust that your Lordships were impressed by the fact that three or four representatives of the owners in different portions of the coal industry not only offered no objection to the Amendment but were strongly in favour of it. That shows, as it seems to me, that if the Government give a lead in this matter by accepting the Amendment it will be accepted generally and will soon be adopted throughout the trade.
I am afraid, however, after the speech of the noble Viscount that the position is this. It has often occurred in your Lordships' House that a Bill has been brought in at such a late stage that it has to be passed in a few hours. I notice that it is suggested that Standing Orders should be suspended so as to pass this Bill, and I believe the only reason why the noble Viscount was not able to accept my Amendment is that he was afraid that if it was put into the Bill and the Bill went back to another place, it might imperil the passing of the Bill. He did not mention that. The only argument he used was that the Amendment was not wide enough in scope, which does not seem to me to be a very strong argument. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is accepted in principle now, undoubtedly it will very soon be applied to the whole industry.
LORD DARLING: Before it is too late for anyone to say a word on this Amendment I should like to say that the reason put forward by the noble Earl opposite is not the one, it seems to me, which actuates the Government. I had intended to be a long way from here to-day but on receipt of an urgent summons I came here. I would not have come here had I thought that I should only be here

423
to register the decrees of anybody. We come here to debate as it seems to me, and it would be useless to expect members of your Lordships' House to come here to debate if the noble Earl opposite is right and it is already determined that no Amendment whatever, no matter how needful, is to be put into this Bill at this stage.
Your Lordships may think I have no right to intervene in this debate, but long ago I had a very considerable interest in collieries which were left to me. When I knew that I was to be appointed to the Bench I got rid of them, but I did not then get rid of all the knowledge I had when I was a director of those collieries. I hope it is not too late for the Government to accept this Amendment and to amend it, of course, in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, because it would be most misleading to apply it simply to wages which the miners get week by week and not to tell the public what they receive besides. In many cases what the noble Lord calls "allowances" are very considerable indeed. I think there is no argument against this Amendment. Really only one has been submitted and that was that it did not cover the whole ground. That is true, but it seems to me that that is not reason enough for rejecting it. If there were applied to the newly-created amalgamated collieries certain beneficial provisions, they could easily be applied to all necessary collieries afterwards. I hope the Government who have brought us here to support this Bill will not say to us, "You must not swallow this gnat, because presently we have to offer you a camel.'
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Before the House goes to a Division I should like to say two things. In the first place, I would like to say to my noble friend Lord Darling that if the Government have brought him here for the purpose he stated then they have prepared for themselves a woeful disappointment. I think the noble Earl a little under-rated the importance of one argument which I ventured to urge upon him and I will therefore repeat it—namely, if you make a distinction in this respect between the amalgamated concerns and the non-amalgamated concerns you will, I am assured, hamper the process of amalgamation and that is a very serious matter in view of the immense importance that we all attach to that object at the present time.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Earl desires to move the Amendment printed on the Paper with the addition of two words after "wages" in line 9.
On Question, Whether the following new paragraph shall be there inserted?—
"(f) Shall provide for the annual publication of the accounts of a new or continued company, including particulars as to the amount of coal used for the purpose of any business or operations carried on in the interest of a constituent company and the price charged therefor, and particulars as to the number of persons employed in each grade or class by the new or continued company, and the aggregate wages and allowances paid to each grade or class, such accounts to be published in a form to be prescribed by the Board of Trade."
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-contents, 57.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Joicey, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Leconfield, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Armstrong, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Buxton, E.

Arnold, L.

Olivier, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Braye, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Northbrook, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (L. Clanwilliam.)

Sandhurst, L.

Sondes, E.

Shandon, L.

Darling, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Thomson, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Treowen, L.

Haldane, V.

Emmott, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Argyll, D.

Sutherland, D.

Wellington, D.

Onslow, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Bute, M.

Ernle, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Faringdon, L.

Novar, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Airlie, E.

Peel, V.

Hampton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Heneage, L.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Eldon, E.

Atkinson, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Grey, E.

Avebury, L.

Lamington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Merthyr, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Biddulph, L.

Methuen, L.

Howe, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Iveagh, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Sumner, L.

Lovelace, E.

Colwyn, L.

Trevor, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Macclesfield, E.

Cranworth, L.

Wittenham, L.

Mayo, E.

Daryngton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved to insert the following new subsection at the end of the clause:—
"(2) When any question arises in the course of wages' ascertainments in the mining industry, the authorised representatives of the miners in the district concerned shall have the right to receive information regarding the selling price of coal transferred to ancillary undertakings."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I admit, bears a strong family resemblance to the one moved by my noble friend Earl Buxton. I persist with it because it does raise a new point and provides a certain amount of machinery for expressing the desire of the men in the coalfields. While I agree with everything that the noble Earl said I would also add on behalf of my own Amendment that it does carry out the recommendations of the Report. On page 140 of that document the following words are to befound—
"We are inclined to think that the only real solution of the difficulty is to leave out of account the transfer prices which the individual employer may enter in his books, and to declare officially and publicly from time to time, through some impartial authority in each district, what shall be taken as the market price at that period of every kind of coal sold in the district."
That is really the motive behind my Amendment, because the Bill itself does not contemplate any such impartial authority and, as a matter of fact, in no coalfield does such an impartial authority exist at the present time.
I would like, if I could, to persuade the noble Viscount to have this matter con-
426
sidered before the Report stage to-morrow if that can be done. If he would agree to do that I would not waste your Lordships' time with a Division. It does seem to me to be an important point and he was very sympathetic to the noble Earl's Amendment. This is a less comprehensive and less detailed Amendment, but it has this solitary virtue that it involves a new point which is clearly laid down on page 140 of the Report.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, at end to insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course I will consider the Amendment. If any noble Lord asks me to consider an Amendment before the Report stage I very gladly undertake to do so and to take care that it is properly considered by the authorised advisers of the Government. But at the same time I could not possibly accept it for the moment. It seems to me to be the same point raised in rather a different way and, if I may say so, in not quite so attractive a way. This merely suggests a particular method of getting rid of a particular grievance—namely, the transfer prices grievance. I have grave doubts whether that, particular grievance would be removed by the Amendment as it stands.
I would like to remind the noble Lord of the present position in regard to this matter. The owners have expressed an undertaking over and over again—two or three times, at any rate—that they will do their very utmost in concert with the men to arrive at some solution of this admitted difficulty. I think we ought, as prudent men of business, to give an opportunity for that, consultation and for

427
that effort to reach an agreement. Undoubtedly it will be far better if it can be done by agreement than by any amendment, however ingeniously contrived, and even backed up by a paragraph of the Samuel Report. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I gladly give him an under taking that the matter will be further considered, though I must say in perfect frankness that as at present advised I do not think the Government can accept the Amendment.
LORD THOMSON: I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Supplementary provisions as to schemes.
5.—(1) A scheme under this Part of this Act shall not provide for the allocation to any person of securities subjecting the holder thereof to any liability for calls in excess of the liability (if any) to which he was subject as the holder of the securities for which the allocated securities are to be substituted.
(2) No stamp duty shall be payable in respect of any amalgamation or absorption scheme, or on any debentures, or in respect of any share or loan capital of any company issued in pursuance of such a scheme, or on any conveyance, assignment, or transfer of any of the property of any constituent or absorbed company made in pursuance of any such scheme as aforesaid.
(3) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the memorandum or articles of association of any company, and no action taken for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation or submission of a scheme under this Part of this Act shall give rise to a right on the part of the holders of any debentures or other securities of a company, or of any persons on their behalf, to enforce the security.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (2), after "property," to insert "or securities.' The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is a pure matter of drafting. The word in the clause is "property," but it is suggested that "property" may not include "securities." As, evidently, securities ought to be included it is proposed that these words should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38, after ("property") insert ("or securities").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words from the beginning down to the second "Act" and to insert:
"(3) Any action taken for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation or submission of a scheme under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be within the powers of any company, and no such action."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is, perhaps, rather more than drafting. It is to cure an omission in the Bill. The Bill already provides that where the memorandum or articles of association are contrary to such a proposal they can be overruled, but the Bill does not provide that in a case where they are silent about it the power can be conferred. This Amendment is intended to correct that mistake.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 3 of page 6 and insert:
("(3) Any action taken for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation or submission of a scheme under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be within the powers of any company, and no such action").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: When I saw this Amendment I thought there was something to be said for it, and that it would meet the objection which was raised by my noble friend the Earl of Crawford last Thursday. But on comparing the Amendment with the Bill I think if it does anything at all it makes this clause rather worse. The subsection as it stands says:—
"The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the memorandum or articles of association of any company."
What the noble Viscount wants to do is to put into the Bill these words:
"Any action taken for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation or submission of a scheme under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be within the powers of any company, and no such action,"
and then the clause goes on:

429
"shall give rise to a right on the part of the holders of any debentures or other securities of a company, or of any persons on their behalf, to enforce the security."
Therefore the Amendment makes the clause worse, because it will prevent either the Board of Trade or the Railway and Canal Commissioners doing anything to secure for a person his security.
If I have advanced money to a company on certain securities and it is found on amalgamation that my securities will be depreciated, or if I desire—as I have the power to do—to call in my money, I cannot do that because by so doing I shall interfere with the scheme. It is true that Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the Railway and Canal Commission, if they are satisfied that a substitution of fresh securities is not fair, may order that a man's existing securities
"shall be purchased at a price to be determined in such manner as the Commission may direct."
I have managed to save a little money, and I have invested the fruits of my hard work in a certain way, under certain security, with the power to realise that security in case certain things are not done. My noble friend takes it all away from me and puts it into the hands of a Commission. He first of all says that any security that I may have must be taken away if it in any way interferes with the amalgamation, and he puts it into the hands of the Commission to say what price I am to receive for my depreciated security.
Supposing that I were a Railway and Canal Commissioner and such a case came before me, I should consider myself bound to say: "Your security is injured because, under the Act, you cannot enforce it, and therefore it is not so valuable as it was before this Act came into operation. I think that the securities that are proposed to be given you are not fair." It may be that, in lieu of a debenture, the new scheme offers a preference. "I do not think that this is fair, and therefore I shall fix the price at which you are to be bought out. But, since your security has depreciated, I must take that into account in fixing the price, and therefore I fix the price"—I merely give this as an illustration—"at £90 instead of £100." I cannot conceive how anybody with any business experience, acting in a fair and honour-
430
able way, could do anything else. I should certainly do that if I were a Commissioner. I should do it with great regret, but I should consider that I was bound by the Act to take that line.
I do not think that my noble friend can really have considered this. I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating my arguments, but, as I have said before, any person who has a debenture in a company may Lind that he is offered a preference instead. There is nothing whatever in this Act to prevent it, and, if he does not accept that preference, then he is to be bought out at a price that three gentlemen may choose to fix. The three gentlemen at the present moment happen to be lawyers, but they need not be, and even if they were lawyers, they might perhaps be tinged with the sentiments that pervade the Front Bench opposite and I should be very sorry if I had to come before them to justify my security. Again, if I were a banker and had lent money on a certain security, repayable within a certain time and on the condition that if it were not repaid I could foreclose, this Act, as I read it, would take away my security. I hope that my noble friend will consider this point and will accept my Amendment to leave out this subsection. It really has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. It will not have any effect upon the amalgamations taking place, if they are fair and proper amalgamations, but, like most of the Bill, it will prevent any sane person lending any money to any coal owner or any colliery undertaking.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Much as I admire the ingenuity of my noble friend opposite, I think that on this occasion he has been too ingenious. The only purpose of the clause is to enable persons representing a company of which it is proposed that the powers should be extended by the joint action of the Board of Trade and of the Railway and Canal Commission, to make an application for that purpose. That seems a very simple thing, but it is not. As regards the actual doing of the thing, when it is once before these bodies, it can be done, and the debenture holders or shareholders can protect themselves by making representations; but until they get there, while they are merely in the stage of making a representation or presenting a petition,

431
for instance, they are at the mercy of anybody who likes to proceed in the name of the company.
In my unregenerate days, when I was at the Bar, I more than once got an injunction and made people pay the costs who were applying to Parliament for the enlargement of the powers of the companies to which they belonged. I am not sure that I ever appeared for the noble Lord, but I may have done so. The unfortunate people were not even allowed to put forward an application, because it was said that it was not within the powers of the company to do these things and accordingly they must not ask that they should be done. Of course, they may go forward and take the risk, but the point is that they may be caught in the early stage of the application. All that the Amendment of the noble Viscount proposes is to enable them to do this without being convicted of putting forward an ultra vires application. Since the days of which I speak the Companies Act has been amended and the Court now has power to enlarge the memorandum of articles of association and the powers contained in it. This is a highly technical Amendment, directed to getting rid of an oppressive technicality, and I trust that your Lordships will not listen to the objections of the noble Lord opposite.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I never liked this clause but the interpretation put upon it by the noble and learned Viscount makes it, it seems to me, very much more serious than I had anticipated. He contends that the only object of the earlier part of the clause is to enable two or more companies to make an application to the proper authorities. He went on to say that, once an application is being prepared, nobody can enforce their security against any one of the proposed constituents. I beg your Lordships to consider how far that goes It means that once two companies choose to make a preliminary application to the Board of Trade, then, until the Board of Trade and, it may be, the Railway and Canal Commissioners also—I am not sure upon that point—have given their judgment, no security—for instance, a loan or an overdraft on a banker—can be enforced. That is what Lord Haldane said.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I was not dealing with that point. What I said was that, if you go to the Board of Trade and to the Railway and Canal Commissioners and get their sanction, then you can do all these things, but the law as it now stands prevents, you from even going and asking them in the name of the company. The injunction must stand if the law is not put straight preventing the question even being considered on its merits. It is the merest technicality.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does Lord Haldane mean that to-day two companies can take steps to amalgamate themselves and thereby prevent a security against them being enforced? Of course not. This confers a new power, and I wish to point out to your Lordships that it will operate against the colliery companies and not in their favour. I want it left out in the interests of amalgamation and of good finance in colliery concerns. If this sort of thing, as Lord Haldane interprets it, is put into the Bill, it will become more than ever difficult for the colliery industry to obtain advances for its development.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I hope that my noble friend Lord Crawford will forgive me for saying that he has, I hope, a little misunderstood the effect of the clause. Let me first remind your Lordships that there are two points: there is the Amendment of which I have given Notice, and there is the subsection itself. The Amendment of which I have given Notice, as I tried to explain in my first observations, is really nothing more than a drafting Amendment. It merely provides more effectively for that which is already provided for in the subsection, and accordingly I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a further defence of that Amendment. But my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam has, in effect, raised the question concerning which he has put down an Amendment—namely, the question whether subsection (3) ought to be there at all.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is the point.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Let me remind your Lordships what the conception of this Bill is. The proposal for amalgamation or absorption—in this case

433
it does not matter which—comes forward. We assume that it is in the public interest and that it is important for facilitating the economical working of the colliery. The scheme provides that the terms are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby in the opinion of the Railway and Canal Commissioners—that means that the scheme is of that class—and the other conditions of the Act are complied with. None the less, under the memorandum or articles of association of the particular company, amalgamation in any form is ultra vires. That is the case. Apart from this Act, or anything we put into it, any debenture holder can go to a Court and say, "You must not go on with this scheme or make your application to the Board of Trade or the Railway and Canal Commissioners because if you do you are acting ultra vires and I have the right, since I am a debenture holder, to insist that you shall stick closely to the terms of the memorandum and articles."
It is evident that, if the law was left in that condition, the whole policy of that part of the measure could be upset if a single debenture holder, who might be a wholly unreasonable man or a man who took a violent view against, the Bill, like my noble friend, could hold up the whole scheme and, merely by making an application to the Court, prevent the scheme even being launched. It is merely to prevent that that the subsection exists. My noble friend Lord Crawford is under the impression that when it says that, no action taken in connection with a scheme under the Bill
"shall give rise to a right on the part of the holders of any debentures or other securities of a company, or of any persons on their behalf, to enforce the security,"
it takes away his right to enforce it for debt or any other cause outside the Act. That is not so. It only takes it away so far as it is affected by proceedings under this Bill. It is only an action under this Bill, which affects the security, which he is not allowed to thwart by action in the Courts. I can assure my noble friend that I went very carefully into this matter with those who are specially skilled in it. I think he is under a misapprehension and that there is no danger here of any injustice or impropriety taking place. I hope that he and Lord Banbury will not think it necessary to divide the House on this particular point.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I would point out to my noble friend that if the Bill only did what my noble friend says it does, there would not be any great objection to it, but it does much more than that. It says that they cannot enforce their security. It says, later, that the Commission may, upon an objection lodged by the holder of any securities in a constituent or absorbed company, to whom by the scheme securities are allocated in substitution of his securities, if they are satisfied that the substitution would not be fair in this case, order that his existing securities shall be purchased at a price to be determined in such manner as the Commission may direct. That surely contemplates the substitution of an inferior kind of security, or a security of another class, for the kind of security which a man has at the present moment. It goes further than that because it says what is to take place in that event. I do not think there is any particular harm in the Amendment of my noble friend, and I shall not object to it. I do not want to make a second speech on my next Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMhad given Notice to move to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I shall not make a speech again on this Amendment. I understand from my noble friend Lord Sumner that I am mistaken and that my noble friend is right. If that is so I will certainly not go on.
LORD SUMNER: I hope the noble Lord will not divide, at any rate.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend does not commit himself.
LORD SUMNER: I have already said it sitting down and I shall say it again standing. I am quite satisfied that, when the clause says that no action taken of a certain kind shall give rise to a right on the part of holders of debentures, it does not mean that anything else shall give them no right of action. It means that simply preparing a scheme will not give them a right.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that Lord Banbury does not press his Amendment.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that Lord Banbury of Southam does not move the rejection of the next nine clauses, of which he had given Notice.
Clauses 6 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment of 13 and 14 Geo. 5. c. 20, Part I.
13.—(1) Any person who is desirous of searching for or working, either by himself or through a lessee, any coal may, under and in accordance with Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923 (in this part of this Act referred to as the principal Act), make an application to search for or work the coal, and on such an application being referred to the Railway and Canal Commission under the principal Act the Commission may, subject to the provisions of the principal Act, grant the right if they consider that it is expedient in the national interest that the right should be granted to the applicant.
(2) Where the working of any coal, or the working of any coal in the most efficient and economical manner, is impeded by any restrictions terms or conditions contained in a mining lease, or otherwise binding on the person entitled to work the coal, a right to work the coal freed wholly or partially from such restrictions or conditions, or to work the coal on other terms and conditions, may, on an application for the purpose being made and referred to the Railway and Canal Commission under the principal Act, be granted by the Commission in any case where the Commission consider that it is expedient in the national interest that the right applied for should be granted to the applicant.
(3) An ancillary right may be granted to a person to whom a right of working coal is granted in pursuance of this Part of this Act at the time when such last-mentioned right is granted or at any subsequent time.
(4) The principal Act shall, as respects coal, have effect as if in Section five the words "having an interest in any minerals," and "those minerals or any adjacent," and in Section six the wards "in virtue of which he is entitled to make the application" were omitted therefrom.
(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act "coal "shall not include lignite or brown coal, but save as aforesaid shall include bituminous coal, cannel coal, anthracite, and all other minerals worked or to be worked therewith.
(6) This Part of this Act shall be construed as one with Part I of the principal Act, and references in that Part of that Act to a right to work minerals shall include references to any right granted under this Part of this Act.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) Where the working of any coal or the working of any coal in the most efficient
436
and economical manner is impeded by the same being included in a mining lease, or by any restrictions, terms, or conditions contained in a mining lease, or otherwise binding on the lessor or by the absence of any such restrictions, terms, or conditions, a right to withdraw the minerals from the mining lease and to re-lease the same to parties other than the lessee, or to work the same, or otherwise to vary the terms of the mining lease, may, on an application for the purpose being made by the lessor and referred to the Railway and Canal Commission under the principal Act, be granted by the Commission in any case where the Commission consider that it is expedient in the national interest that the right applied for should be granted to the applicant."
The noble Lord said: The subsection which I have included in my Amendment is intended to make good what appears to be an omission, possibly accidental, from the Bill. Subsection (2) creates, as your Lordships will see, a new power whereby a right is given to work minerals free from all restrictions contained in a lease, on application by a lessee to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, it being the duty of the applicant to prove that the case comes under one of those contemplated as contrary to the free working of minerals. The most frequent cause would be the one which I have noted down here as coming under Section 4 (1) (d) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, that of a person, having the power to grant the right, who unreasonably refuses to grant it or demands terms which having regard to the circumstances are unreasonable. I hope your Lordships will take notice of that particular subsection of that Act because it is very pertinent to the Amendment which I have moved. The subsection which I move to insert is the corollary of the one which already exists in the Bill and gives to the lessor as well as to the lessee the right of making application to the Commission. At present it is a one-sided privilege which is given. The lessee is entitled to make application if he can show certain cause, but the lessor is debarred under similar circumstances from making such an application.
The reason why I think this is necessary I shall give to your Lordships in an example, which is not a hypothetical example, but one actually occurring in a district which I know well. A mineral owner, A, lets, or has let, a certain area of coal to a company, B. The company

437
finds on working that they strike a fault that is much more serious than they anticipated from their previous knowledge of the district and which practically cuts off a considerable area of coal beyond the line of this fault. The lessor, A, goes to B and says, "This coal is no use to you. I have other coal on the other side of the fault. I am now negotiating to get some of that coal taken up by another company. Will you surrender your coal?" Company B say: "No, we do not see why we should. We do not want anybody to come and develop that coal." This is an actual case. The result is that this position is created. The coal is let for a considerable area: it cannot be developed beyond the line of this fault. The mineral owner A may get some of the coal taken which is lying further on, but that new company which he wants to act naturally wishes to acquire as much of the coal as possible, and not to leave an intervening section of coal which would not be developed at all. In a case like that the lessor clearly would be acting in the public interest in going to the Commissioners and saying: "These people who have the right to work this coal are acting unreasonably, and we apply to you to give us relief."
When this point was raised in another place I do not think it, was clearly understood, for the learned Solicitor-General, who replied on behalf of the Government, said that it could be dealt with under sub sections (1) and (2) of the clause as it stands. If you read those subsections I think you will see clearly that the case which I have quoted cannot be dealt with under them. The Solicitor-General said the policy of the Bill was not to enable a mineral owner to re-shuffle his leases—that was his expression, by no means a pleasing expression—but he should be acting with the lessee and then the lessee could make the application. Here is a case in which the lessee refuses to act in that reasonable manner. But surely then, in the interests not merely of the lessor but of the public, in order to prevent a considerable area of coal being let which could not be developed, he ought to have the same right to apply as the lessee
A good deal might be said on the question of the principle created under this clause of allowing an authority to step in and over-ride the conditions in a
438
lease, but I do not propose to say anything on that subject. That principle has been adopted already in an Act which has now been in force for some time, and this clause in the present Bill is merely an extension of the powers granted under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act. What I ask, therefore, is simply that that extension should be made a logical one. As you desire that every facility should be given for the development of coal, you should grant to the owner of the coal the same power that you give to the lessee of the coal to apply for a variation to be made. The matter is a small one, but I think the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will clearly see the point which I am raising. On the question of the re-shuffling of leases, which was referred to by the Solicitor-General, really that could not arise, because that lessor, if he wanted to get this power, could not apply for the power except in a case of public necessity, and he would be obliged to prove that the person having the power to grant the right, that is to say the lessee, was unreasonably withholding his consent, or was demanding terms which were unreasonable.
Amendment moved—
Clause 13, page 9, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Treowen.)
LORD JOICEY: I think it would be a rather dangerous thing to accept this Amendment. When any one takes a royalty he calculates what coal is likely to be in the land, and he provides machinery to deal with it, very often with large capital. In the course of development they came across a fault, which cuts off a certain amount of the coal. I have never yet come in contact with a fault which could not be got over—of course it is expensive to do it. To give power to the lessor to take a portion of the coal, upon which the scale of expenditure in relation to the whole capital of the company was based, would be, I think, most unfair and unjust. It might be also that the coal on the other side was very cheaply worked coal, and naturally the adjoining lessee would be only too glad to get hold of that if he could. But I do not think it is a wise thing to give such a power to the lessor—practically to break his lease, and to insist on the lessee giving up a portion

439
of the coal upon which he calculated to work, and upon which he had had to spend very large sums indeed. I have had some experience of this sort of thing. I have never yet known a case where any one acted unreasonably in a matter of that kind. I have known cases where the lessee refused to give up coal, but it has always been because he wished to work the coal himself as soon as he was in a position to do so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment, partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Joicey and also because I do not think it really touches the point which is intended to be dealt with by this clause. There are really two cases dealt with in this clause. One is where coal, to the public detriment, is not being worked, and subsection (1) gives the power to work it if the Board of Trade and the Railway Commissioners are of opinion that that is a desirable course to take. The other is where there are restrictions in the lease which impede the working of the coal. In that case, subject to certain safeguards and with the assent of the same body the lessee can go and get himself liberated from these restrictions, which are, in fact, not carrying out the general purpose of the lease, which was to get the coal.
Merely to say to the lessor that he should be entitled to use the same proceedings in order to rearrange the arrangement he has made with his lessee would be going a considerable degree further. If it is a case of two lessees, with properties adjoining one another, and one lessee is not working his coal properly, and the other lessee comes to the landowner and says: "Let me work this coal which the neighbouring lessee is unable and unwilling to work", then the landowner can utilise this clause and get any restrictions removed, if it be really necessary. I do not think you can go further than that. It does not appear to me that the noble Lord has made out any real case for dealing with this matter, and as for the particular illustration he gave, if it were really an unreasonable and improper refusal to work the coal at the other side of the fault,
440
then I should have thought it could be dealt with under Clause 13 (1) of the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I quite appreciate the difficulty which the noble Viscount has pointed out in the view that this proposal goes too far. But I draw his attention to this—that the matter is one for the Railway and Canal Commission and they are debarred from assenting to an application unless they find it to be in the national interest that it should be granted. I should have thought with that restriction that the powers sought to be inserted would meet a class of cases for which it was desirable to provide and that the Amendment of Lord Treowen was, therefore, not open to all the objections which the noble Viscount has made to it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: One does not want unnecessarily to add complications to the arrangements for working the coal and to create the kind of doubt and hesitation which this Amendment has evidently created in the mind of so experienced a coal owner as my noble friend Lord Joicey.
LORD TREOWEN: After what has fallen from the noble Viscount opposite and from Lord Joicey I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment. But before dismissing the question altogether I must offer my congratulations to Lord Joicey in that through a very long and successful life he has had the good fortune never to meet any one who was unreasonable.
LORD JOICEY: With one exception.
LORD TREOWEN: I think that is one of the most remarkable records I have ever heard of in connection with coal. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill seems to think it is possible that persons may be unreasonable, and I can assure him that not only is it possible, but of very frequent occurrence. However, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Royalties welfare levy.
14.—(1) Every person liable to pay mineral rights duty on the rental value of rights to work coal and of mineral wayleaves in connection with coal, or who would be so liable but for any exception by common law or statute, shall be liable to pay for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty- seven, and for every subsequent financial year a levy (hereinafter referred to as "the royalties welfare levy") at the rate in each case of one shilling for every twenty shillings of that rental value:
Provided that no person shall be liable to pay the royalties welfare levy in respect of any coal worked, or to be worked, by means of any mine of which the principal object is the getting of fire-clay, ganister, ironstone, or other similar minerals.
(2) The provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, relating to the assessment, collection and recovery of mineral rights duty and matters incidental thereto, as set out and adapted in the schedule to this Act, shall apply to the royalties welfare levy, and in cases where the proprietor of the coal, or the person to whom rent is paid in respect of a right to work coal or a mineral wayleave in connection with coal, is liable to the payment of mineral rights duty, the royalties welfare levy shall be collected at the same time as and together with that duty, and in every other case the royalties welfare levy shall be payable on the first day of January in each year.
(3) For the purposes of this section and the said schedule—
"Coal" shall not include lignite or brown coal, but save as aforesaid shall include bituminous coal, cannel coal, anthracite, and all other minerals worked therewith other than minerals exempt from mineral rights duty;
Rental value shall be determined in accordance wiith the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, relating to mineral rights duty, as amended by any subsequent enactment;
Other expressions shall have the same meaning as in the said provisions as so amended.
(4) This section binds the Crown.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and for every subsequent financial year" and insert "and for each of the subsequent four financial years." The noble Lord said: This, again, seems to me to be an inadvertent omission from the Bill. The Bill says that this welfare levy shall be made for the financial year ending March 31, 1927, "and for every subsequent financial year." That seems to give it an indefinite existence, so that it would go on for ever unless something
442
was done to repeal it. On the other hand, the Fund to which the levy is to go comes under review at the end of five years from the time it was created, that is to say, in 1931. I submit that the levy which is made on the mineral rights owners for the benefit of the Welfare Fund should be limited in the same way to five years. The point is such a simple one that I do not think many words are needed to commend it to your Lordships. The noble Viscount will remember that not only does the whole machinery of the Welfare Fund come under review at the end of the financial year 1931, five years hence, but that the Eight-Hour Act which was lately passed by your Lordships is also limited to a period of five years. It would seem that the whole question should be brought into one purview at the end of that time. As it stands now the Miners' Welfare Fund might be abolished or completely altered at the end of five years, but the liability to contribute would remain though the Fund might possibly have ceased to exist. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("and for every subsequent financial year") and insert ("and for each of the subsequent four financial years").—(Lord Treowen.)
LORD DYNEV0R: On behalf of the Mineral Owners Association, I most heartily support this Amendment, which I had also placed on the Paper. The object of the Amendment is to enable the levy of one shilling in the pound on royalties to come up for review at the end of five years, in 1931. There are several reasons why it should come up for review. I would remind your Lordships that the Miners' Wedfare Fund comes up for review in 1931, and the Eight-Hour Act which has just become law also comes to an end in the year 1931. It is only fair, therefore, that this levy on royalties should be placed on the same footing. Strong arguments could be brought forward as to why there should be no levy at all. Most of the royalty owners have to pay Income Tax at the rate of four shillings in the pound at the present time and Super Tax at varying rates up to six shillings in the pound. Then they have to pay another shilling for Mineral Rights Duty, and it is now suggested that another shilling in the pound should be levied upon them. Nobody else

443
is called upon to contribute anything like that sum out of his income. Many royalty owners are small people of slender means, but whatever their means may be they will have to pay this new levy.
As a matter of fact this levy on royalties ought not to be put in this Bill at all, but in the Finance Act. It is collected by the Inland Revenue authorities and is then paid over to the Board of Trade. All kinds of intricate questions ought to have been raised in connection with this levy—questions of deduction of Income Tax and of Mineral Rights Duty, before the levy is paid, and a deduction from Super Tax. I have read very carefully the Report of the Coal Mines Commission and there is no doubt that miners and mine owners are asked to contribute something temporarily in order to put the industry on an economic footing. They are asked to make sacrifices. Then the Commissioners say that it is their firm conviction that the mining industry, with the aid of science, will certainly recover and even surpass its former prosperity. Therefore, there may be some argument as to why the royalty owner should be asked also to contribute something temporarily, although his contribution has nothing whatever to do with the economic position, as the levy is to go to the provision of baths at the pit-head. But there is no reason at all why the royalty owner alone should be called upon to contribute for all time, while all the other matters to which I have referred are to come up again for revision in 1931.
LORD LAMINGTON: I heartily associate myself with the two speeches to which we have just listened upon this Amendment. This levy will be particularly severe in the case of royalty owners in Scotland, where mining royalties are subject to pay half the rates levied in the parish or district. This levy is for emergency purposes—that is, for the provision of pit-head baths. It is only reasonable and equitable that there should be a limit of time, as Lord Dynevor has just remarked, in accordance with the other provisions affecting the question of the levy. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment and to give a limit so that there shall not be a distinct case of spoliation at the expense of a very small class of people.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I hope this Amendment will be accepted. The effect of this clause will be almost wholly mischievous and this Amendment will at least tend to mitigate that evil effect. I suppose this clause is intended to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission said there was a moral obligation on mineral owners to provide for the men who work their minerals in the same way as there was a moral obligation on the landowner to provide for the population that works on his estate. That was a most unfortunate analogy, because, as a matter of fact, the landowner is not responsible for the whole population working on his estate. He is responsible for his tenants and for his employees, but not for the employees of his tenants. Therefore the attempt to draw such an analogy breaks down altogether.
However, no one would wish to oppose the statement that there is a moral obligation on the mineral owner to provide for the well-being of the miner in so far as he can, though in strict logic there is no obligation at all. He sells the coal to another man who employs the miner to work it. There is no contract of any kind between the royalty owner and the miner, but no one would wish in a case like this to be strictly logical. Let us admit the moral obligation. Now a moral obligation is a thing which every man must decide for himself. Every man must discharge that obligation according to the dictates of his own conscience and to endeavour to define it by law as meaning five per cent. is perfectly ridiculous. Five per cent. might be far too large in some cases and might not be nearly enough in others. I can imagine a case where a very wealthy royalty owner is living in a district where the miners are ill-housed, where they have no pit-head baths, no recreation grounds, etc.; in his case five per cent. would be a very small contribution. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Dynevor has pointed out, five per cent. from the smaller and poorer royalty owners, who after all form the bulk of the royalty owners, would be too much. A man has, perhaps, £300 or £400 a year and probably that is almost his sole source of income. To make him pay a Mineral Rights Duty of five per cent. and put on another shilling in the pound for this levy is, I think, a gross injustice and in these circumstances it

445
means forcing upon him something which he is quite incapable of bearing.
One would really suppose, from the language which has been used by the Royal Commission and even, I regret to say, by my noble friend Lord Cecil the other day in the House, that nobody had ever discovered that there was a moral obligation on the part of the mineral owner to do anything at all for the miners. The Royal Commission never mentioned that the mineral owner had ever done anything and one would infer from the Report that these gentlemen who were upon the Royal Commission had just discovered this obligation for the first time. The other day, in this House, the noble Viscount remarked, in answer to Lord Gainford, that he saw no reason why royalty owners should object to providing baths for miners seeing that the miners got dirty in providing them with their wealth. According to the point of view of the Royal Commission and of the Government, apparently, royalty owners are merely a class of property owners who are quite content to batten upon the mining industry, getting every penny they can out of it and even grudging the miner the consolation of a bath when he comes up from the mine. That is not a very fair picture to draw.
There is another point of view, the point of view, for instance, of the royalty owner whose family for many generations has recognised this obligation. There is the point of view of the royalty owner whose family for generations has done all it can for the miners. The outward and visible signs of these endeavours can be seen in churches and in schools which he has built and endowed, in the provision of recreation grounds and charitable institutions, and all sorts of things. He has taken every kind of active interest in the welfare of the population among which he resides. I know one royalty owner who has provided twelve miles of fishing for miners at a merely nominal rent of a few shillings a year. Notwithstanding that, the Government come along and say in so many words: "You have never recognised any moral obligation and we are going to impose upon you an extra five per cent." But what really does matter is the actual effect of this kind of legislation. If you are mulcted of 11 s in the pound and the Government choose to put
446
on another 1s. in the pound you cannot do all that you have been doing up to now, and all this active interest which has been taken in the welfare of the miners will cease altogether, or almost cease altogether. Although a most pernicious agitation has been conducted by the Labour Party against the mineral owner, I believe that in a great majority of cases there is a fellow-feeling between the miners and the mineral owner where the latter has done his duty in the manner I have indicated.
What will happen when this Bill passes? All this fountain of charity will be dried up altogether and the mineral owner will have the consolation of knowing, not that in the future he will be able to provide for the men who actually get out his coal and provide him with his wealth, but that he will have to contribute to this levy to provide pit-head baths for people he has never seen, who have no connection with him at all and who probably live at the other end of England. We hear so much about the soulless relations between Capital and Labour that I really wonder whether this Bill is purposely designed to embitter those relations and to render them still more soulless, because that certainly will be the effect. The miner who is working the royalty owner's coal will not know that the royalty owner is contributing to this levy. All that he will see is that what the royalty owner has been doing for him in the past he is now ceasing to do, and that the royalty owner is not taking the same interest in him that he has done up to the present. The only result will be that it will exacerbate the relations between Capital and Labour which, I should have thought, would be the one thing the Government would wish to avoid. I believe that is going to be the main effect of this legislation.
I do not want to keep the House, but there is just one other matter to which I should like to refer. It is equally serious, or even more serious, and it is this. This Bill will form a very serious precedent for future legislation. It will form a very serious precedent for imposing similar burdens upon other property owners who are an infinitely more suitable objective for attack than the mineral owners. Let us take, for instance, the landowner and his labourer. Why is not the agricultural labourer equally deserving with the miner? His industry has

447
suffered from a similar or even worse depression. Numbers of agricultural labourers have been thrown out of work and their wages are even less than those of the miner. Why not impose a compulsory levy upon all landowners to provide for all agricultural labourers? Again, what about the shareholders in industrial concerns. Why not mulct them to the extent of 1s. in the pound? Alter all, the mineral owner has recognised his obligations. There may be a few exceptions, but in the great majority of cases he has recognised his obligations. What is the shareholder in railways doing for the wellbeing of the railway worker? He never gives the railway worker a thought. He is content to pocket his dividends and never thinks of the welfare of the railway men.
There is one phrase which is constantly on the lips of members of the Labour Party. They are always talking about the useless shareholder. That phrase has been constantly used by no less a person than Mr. Snowden, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Labour Party come into power, which may not be a very long time hence, I suppose they will introduce legislation and this will form a very useful precedent for them. Every single argument which has been used for this Bill will no doubt he used by them. When that time comes I have no doubt that I shall get a Whip from those who form His Majesty's present Government asking me to vote against the proposed legislation, and I shall do so. But we shall be deprived of every single argument that might be used against it. This being the case it seems advisable that the Government should accept this Amendment. At any rate, it will give them some excuse for not passing this kind of legislation and for saying that it should not be made a precedent for similar levies upon property owners in the future, because this was only adopted as an exceptional measure which was thought proper for a special contingency and for exceptional circumstances and therefore it should not be applied to every industry. I do not say that would be a good excuse, but when you embark on legislation which is fundamentally and radically unsound you have to be content with bad excuses.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry that my noble friend the Duke
448
of Northumberland takes so gloomy a view of this Bill. He regards it as a revolutionary measure and, as I understand it, as one likely to do infinite harm and to dry up the fountain of charity—I think that was his phrase—which at present flows, as I know it does, from royalty owners, and that it will exacerbate relations between employers and employed. I suppose the noble Duke was referring to the particular clause which we are now discussing, and therefore it is his opinion—and he asks your Lordships to share it—that the imposition of this levy will have all these grievous effects. I cannot help hoping that he is mistaken. The levy amounts, as I ventured to tell your Lordships, to a sum which, taking the average royalty at 6d. per ton, amounts to rather less than one-third of a penny per ton. I shall be very much surprised to hear that that would have the terrible results which my noble friend thinks. He complained very much of a phrase which I used, or rather which he thought I used, in the debate on the Second Reading. I do not know from what report he was quoting.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: It was in the newspapers.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am surprised that my noble friend with his experience should think that that is a satisfactory source from which to quote.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I apologise.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: They gave a very fair report of what I said generally but if my noble friend will turn to the OFFICIAL. REPORT he will see the actual wording of what I said. I was quoting an observation which had been made by somebody that it did not matter to the royalty owner whether the miners were clean or dirty. That was not what I said. What I said was:—
"I think that was rather an unfortunate thing to say. The royalty owner, after all, obtains his profit by the work of the miners and the capital of the mine owners and it is surely right that he should make a reasonable contribution to the welfare of those engaged in the industry."
I do not think that I should be exposed to the criticism of my noble friend when

449
I was merely quoting an observation made in the debate, but I am sure he will agree that I was in no way—
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I apologise to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am only anxious that it should not be thought that I was guilty of such a rather cheap attack on the royalty owners, which was far from my mind. The case for this levy is simply this. A Welfare Fund was created by the Act of 1920—I think that was the date. That Welfare Fund was formed by a contribution of 1d. per ton of coal raised and is paid by the lessors, the actual workers of the coal, and the mineowners in proportion. I am told that as thing have actually gone it works out about half and half. It is now suggested that the action of this Welfare Fund, which is already applied to pit-head baths and things of that kind, should be accelerated with regard to pit-head baths. For that purpose evidently more money is required. I cannot for the life of me see that it is unreasonable in these circumstances to ask the third party interested in coal operations—namely, the royalty owners—also to make a small contribution for that purpose. You may say that all these things ought to be left entirely to private charity and ought not to be the work of compulsion or assisted in any way by the State. That is a point of view which I quite admit has a great deal to be said for it in principle and it may be, for all I know, that it would have been wiser—I do not think myself that it would have been—for us to have framed our legislation on that principle. But for a great many years we have abandoned that as a theory and, particularly in this case, we have definitely accepted a view that things of this kind may be provided at the direction of the State and that the money that is required should be obtained by a levy from the industry concerned. That is the broad case for this proposal.
I agree with my noble friend that if we were resting this purely on a theoretical, moral obligation—which, as we all know, is very fully recognised in the case of the royalty owners—it would be a very objectionable proposition to try to translate a moral obligation into legislation. But that is not really the
450
case. We have got beyond that. We have got the principle accepted that this kind of amenity should be provided for the miners, that it should be provided by compulsory levies, and the only question that seems to me to remain is whether, in the circumstances, it is just or unjust that we should ask the royalty owners to make this relatively small contribution. Even when that contribution has been made it is not contemplated by the Government, as was explained both in the other House and by the Commission itself, that it will provide the whole of the money needed. Additional money will have to be provided out of the existing Welfare Fund. That being so I venture to think that there is nothing so iniquitous in this proposal that it would be right for your Lordships to cut it down in any way that you could in obedience to any Amendment that might be moved because, if I may say so, that is really the main argument that the noble Duke has put before us.
He rests his case on the theory that this is an iniquitous and improper proposal, and that, therefore, it is no doubt better to be iniquitous, and improper for four years than in perpetuity. Therefore he says: "Cut it down to four years." I submit that, that part of the case is not sound and that it is not so iniquitous a proposal as he urged. He said that this would form a very improper precedent. I am not so much afraid of improper precedents as some people. I think the British people are perfectly capable of saying what is a reasonable thing to do or what is an unreasonable thing to do, whatever may be the precedents on one side or the other, and I believe that, if any future proposal is made for making a levy on any particular form of property, the argument that will weigh in considering whether it shall be adopted or not is, not whether three-tenths of a penny should be raised out of each sixpence from the royalty owners, but whether the proposal in itself is found, when it comes to be examined, to be a reasonable and just one.
As regards the actual proposal to make this a temporary grant, I confess that it seems to me very difficult to defend. It is said that we ought to make it a temporary grant because the Eight-Hour Act is going to come to an end in five years. But the whole case for the Eight-

451
Hour Act, whether it was right or wrong, was that it was to be a temporary and not a permanent arrangement. That was the case that was put forward to justify it from the very outset. But the provision of pit-head baths, whether it is right or wrong, is evidently not a temporary measure. If it is a thing that ought to be done, then it ought to be done in all cases and without exception. Then it is said that the Welfare Fund will come up for reconsideration in 1931. Even if that is so, I very much doubt whether my noble friends are wise in expressly saying, as apparently they want us to say, that when it comes up for reconsideration the question of what contribution, if any, should be made by the royalty owners should be again considered. I should have thought that from their own point of view, this was an unwise thing to do. It would be inviting the Parliament of the day to review the question of whether three-tenths of a penny was enough. I should have thought that this was quite as likely to work adversely to the interests of the royalty owners as to work in their favour.
For these reasons I trust that your Lordships will reject this Amendment, though I regret to have to ask your Lordships to do so. I believe that the general principle of a levy on royalties is in this case, on the whole, justified, and it is not made less justifiable on account of the nature of the Mineral Rights Duty, to the imposition of which I was always vehemently opposed and which I still think quite wrong. That is quite a different matter. I say that this is a levy which is actually imposed in order to assist in the provision of amenities which have already been sanctioned, as it were, by Parliament as proper things to provide by measures of this kind. I think that in the circum-stances it would be right to ask the royalty owners to make this contribution, and, if it is right to ask them to make it, I do not see any ground, either in justice or expediency, for limiting the grant to five years.
LORD LAMINGTON: My noble friend made no reference to the very unfair case of the royalty owners in Scotland. He spoke of one-third of a penny, or three-tenths of a penny, per ton, but that is quite a fallacious way of stating his case.
452
The point is that there is practically nothing left to the royalty owner under the existing forms of taxation. The burden is so heavy that in many cases another 5 per cent. will practically leave nothing. May I add, since the noble Viscount says that there is no reason for limiting it to five years, that surely the whole strength of the case is that this is an emergency proposal for the provision of pit-head baths. When the pit-head baths have been constructed, presumably within five years, it is only reasonable that this levy should cease. It is not a small levy, but a very heavy levy indeed.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: With regard to the last point, I am afraid that my noble friend is too sanguine in thinking that it would be possible to supply pit-head bathe in five years. It will take much longer than that.
LORD LAMINGTON: What about all these new houses that are being built for the miners, and the baths that are being supplied in the houses?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot pretend to a personal expert knowledge of this matter, but I am sure that if it is done in ten years or even sixteen years that will be the very earliest that we can hope for under this Bill. With regard to the Scottish question, I will certainly look into that and see if there is a special case. From the debates that took place in the House of Commons I had formed the opinion that those who are supposed to know the state of the law in Scotland did not take so gloomy a view of the situation as does my noble friend.
LORD TREOWEN: I rise to reply to the noble Viscount, if he will allow me to do so. In the very interesting speech to which we have listened he totally passed by the question raised by my Amendment. He elaborated the argument that he used on the Second Reading in support of the welfare levy. He used an argument which is very old and very familiar when he said that this contribution was "a very little one." We know that this argument has frequently been used before as an excuse for various things, but to-day he elaborated it. I agree with him entirely that there is a primâ facie reason why

453
the mineral rights owners should contribute. But that was not the point of my Amendment. My point was that this contribution should be put on the same footing as the contribution that is taken from the other parties interested. The Amendment also, if I may use the noble Viscount's argument, is a very small one. I am not raising the principle that he has defended with such vigour, and other matters may have been raised during the course of the debate which are not raised by the Amendment. If I ask your Lordships to give an opinion on the Amendment that I have submitted, it is not that
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "rental value," immediately before the proviso, to insert "save that Mineral Rights Duty shall be deducted therefrom." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in
I wish for a decision upon the principle as to whether the contribution should be made or not. I want your Lordships to decide whether the contribution should be put on the same footing as the contribution from the mine owners and the miners. That is a very different thing. It is that issue, and that alone, that is raised in my Amendment. In those circumstances I really cannot withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Burnham, V.

Desborough, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Haldane, V.

Emmott, L.

Sutherland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Ernle, L.

Wellington, D.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Peel, V.

Faringdon, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Heneage, L.

Airlie, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Kilmaine, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Buxton, E.

Atkinson, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

De La Warr, E.

Biddluph, L.

Olivier, L.

Eldon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Shandon, L.

Howe, E.

Braye, L.

Stanmore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sumner, L.

Lovelace, E.

Teynham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Thomson, L.

Mayo, E.

Cranworth, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Onslow, E.

Darling, L.

Stanhope, E.

Daryngton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Allendale, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Northumberland, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lamington, L.

Novar, V.

Leconfield, L.

Bute, M.

Sidmouth, V.

Merthyr, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Bathurst, E.

Armstrong, L.

Monkswell, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Avebury, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Grey, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Treowen, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Hylton, L.

Trevor, L.

Northbrook, E.

Joicey, L.

Wittenham, L.

my name is a very simple one. It is to safeguard the mineral royalty owner from being assessed on 20 s. when he has only received 19 s., the odd shilling having been already deducted owing to the Mineral Rights Duty. It is only fair that the Government, having already taken off a twentieth part of his income, he should only be assessed on the remain-

455
ing nineteen parts and not on the whole twenty parts. I think it is a very reasonable request to ask the Government to accept the Amendment. The noble Viscount, who was very polite in the last Division when he asked the royalty owners to do something, will, I hope, support my Amendment which is only to secure that the levy shall be paid on the money actually received and not on what the Government have taken away from the royalty owner. It is done in the case of Income Tax and I cannot see why it should not be done in this case.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, at end insert ("save that Mineral Rights Duty shall be deducted therefrom.")—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: This point was raised and discussed in the House of Commons. I am very much surprised to hear my noble friend say that this levy is paid after Income Tax is deducted. I do not think that that is so.
LORD LAMINGTON: The Solicitor-General said so in the other place.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not think that is so. I think my noble friend has mis-read it. I have his words here. What he says is this:—
"It may be some satisfaction to my hon. friend to know that, at any rate, half of this Amendment is not required. It has long been the law that Income Tax and rates, in the case of lessors of minerals in Scotland, may be deducted before the Mineral Rights Duty is computed.
"That will also apply to the new tax. I do not know whether my hon. friend wants me to explain why that is so, but I think I can do so quite shortly. The 1s. is to be paid on the rental value which is defined as the rent that is paid to the landlord, and it was decided some 13 or 14 years ago that what is paid to the landlord is that which the landlord receives after Income Tax has been deducted. So far as rates are concerned, it was provided, by a special clause in the Finance Act of 1912 that rates may be deducted. Therefore, the Amendment before the House comes down to a proposal that the Mineral Rights Duty shall be deducted before the 1s. or the 5 per cent. is computed."
But that all appears to be with reference to Scotland. However, the broad argument seems to me to be that this depends on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who made certain calculations, and arrived at the conclusion that a sum of £250,000 a year
456
was what might reasonably be required for this purpose. If you alter the basis of that calculation it seems to me you will also have to alter the basis of your 5 per cent. I think it is better to leave it as the Royal Commission fixed it. After all, the Amendment really involves an extremely small sum of money one way or the other, from the point of view of the payer of the tax, and it may throw out the whole of the calculations on which this sum is based. I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to proceed with an Amendment which was withdrawn, after being proposed, in another place.
LORD LAMINGTON: The principle which is so bad is that you are asking a very small section of the public to be arbitrarily taxed upon something which they have not received, the Government having already taken that portion of their income away from them. You are asking that they should be assessed on that 1s. in the pound which they have already paid to the Exchequer. The principle seems to be wrong; therefore, if I get any support I shall go to a Division.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I intervene, as chairman of a colliery company? This matter was brought up in the Courts by the Inland Revenue Department about thirteen or fourteen years ago, and it was contended that the Mineral Rights Duty should not be levied on the total sum paid, but on that sum after the deduction of other taxation. That was accepted by the Courts. Surely it would be fair in this case for the Government to say whether this deduction is to be made before or after the other taxation has been deducted think we should have a declaration on that point, because it would save a great deal of litigation later on, and it is a perfectly good point. It cannot affect the yield of the total sum by more than a few thousand pounds, but it makes a great deal of difference to the ordinary shareholder, because, unlike the case of the Income Tax, such a tax cannot be deducted from the preference and debenture interest, as the Income Tax can be. If Income Tax is put up, then it is deducted equally from all classes of shareholders, but this tax falls entirely on the ordinary shareholder or the individual proprietor. I think we should have from the Govern-

457
ment a distinct understanding, one way or the other, whether this is to be levied on the total sum paid to the lessor by the company working the minerals, or on the net sum which remains when the Income Tax and Mineral Rights Duty have been deducted.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: There is another point I should like to raise. As far as I can see from the Bill, when this levy has been made the royalty owner will have to pay Income Tax and Super-Tax on it in spite of having paid his levy. I may be wrong; perhaps my noble friend will clear that up.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am afraid I cannot clear up the point put by the noble Duke. Income Tax law is very difficult, but I quite recognise the force of a good deal that he said. If my noble friend will leave this over till to-morrow I will look into it again. I am afraid the difficulty I shall meet will be the difficulty of throwing out the whole scheme of the finance of the Bill at this very late stage of its career.
LORD LAMINGTON: I will withdraw the Amendment, but I will put it down again to-morrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 14. The noble Lord said: After the Division which we had a short time ago it is no use dividing the House on this Amendment, but I should not like a clause which I regard as a most iniquitous clause to pass without protest. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, in speaking a short time ago on the last Amendment, said that it was the custom now not to leave charity to the good feelings of the persons concerned, but to enact that those persons should contribute something by law. I do not know where that has been the case. This is the first time, as far as I know, that anybody has been compelled by law to provide baths or anything else for other people. This is the first time that a tax has been imposed on an individual class for the benefit of another class. In addition to that, one must not forget that you are here depreciating the property of the royalty owner on the ground that, because the miner gets the coal out of the ground,
458
the royalty owner should pay something towards the work of that miner.
What is the real position of a royalty owner? He gets nothing more if the coal is got out at a cheap rate and the mine is prosperous. He gets a fixed rate, and the owner and the miner between them share the profits. It has nothing to do with the royalty owner, who is no more responsible for the welfare of the working miner than I am who have never in my life, fortunately, had anything to do either with collieries or with royalties. The Royal Commission recommended the purchase of the royalties. Their reasons seem to me to be very poor, but as a matter of fact they did recommend it. My noble friend said on Thursday that, the Government having appointed the Royal Commission, if they did not carry out their suggestions they would lay themselves open to ridicule. It is therefore quite possible that this Government, or at any rate another Government, may bring in a Bill to acquire the royalties, and they will acquire them on a depreciated basis. It is the worst possible kind of legislation. You want to buy something, and before you buy it you put a tax on the person whose property you are going to buy, and thus depreciate the value of his property, and get it more cheaply. It is quite possible that that may be the effect of this clause. I do not propose to go to a Division, but I will not withdraw my Amendment; I will have it negatived.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 14.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15:
Increase in number of welfare committee.
15. The number of the committee constituted under Section twenty of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, as amended by the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the miners' welfare committee"), shall be increased by the addition of a member appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with such associations or bodies as may appear to the Board to represent persons liable to pay the royalties welfare levy, and the said Section twenty shall have effect accordingly.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to leave out "a member appointed by the Board of Trade," and to insert "two members appointed by the Board of Trade, of whom one shall be appointed after consultation with the Miners'

459
Federation of Great Britain, and one." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment with reference to the composition of the Miners' Welfare Committee. In the course of the discussion in the other House the Government agreed to add another member who would represent the owners. The miners' representatives complained that by doing so they had spoilt the balance of the Committee, and the Government thereupon undertook that they would ask for the insertion of another member in order to restore the balance.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("a member appointed by the Board of Trade") and insert ("two members appointed by the Board of Trade, of whom one shall be appointed after consultation with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and one").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Provision of washing and drying accommodation.
17.—(1) It shall be the duty of the miners welfare committee to secure as far as reasonably practicable the provision at all coal mines, to the satisfaction of the committee, of accommodation and facilities for workmen taking baths and drying clothes.
(2) The committee shall in each year appropriate out of the welfare fund for the purposes aforesaid until the Board of Trade otherwise direct, the whole of the proceeds of the royalties welfare levy paid into the welfare fund in each financial year.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to add the following new subsection:
"(3) Subsection (5) of Section twenty of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, is hereby repealed."
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of rather more than a drafting character. Under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, certain rather troublesome and onerous conditions were attached to the construction of pit-head baths because they had survived from an earlier set of legislative provisions in a previous Mines Act. It is now proposed that in the new circumstances it would be unnecessary to insist on those conditions, and the purport of the Amendment is to repeal so much of the previous Act as made those conditions imperative. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Recruitment.
18.—(1) The Minister of Labour may, after consultation with associations representing respectively employers and persons employed in the coal mining industry, make Regulations for securing that in the recruitment of persons over the age of eighteen years for employment to which this section applies preference is given, while this section is in force, to persons who were employed in such employment during the period of seven days ending on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, or when last before that date in regular employment, and in particular such Regulations may impose restrictions on the engagement of persons for employment to which this section applies, and on the employment of persons engaged in contravention of the Regulations, and may provide for requiring the owners, agents and managers of coal mines and persons employed in or seeking such employment to furnish the Minister of Labour with such information as he may require for the purpose of securing compliance with the Regulations: Provided that no such Regulations shall impose restrictions on the engagement for employment of any person in actual receipt of a pension granted out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of a disability arising out of his service with His Majesty's Forces during the War.
(2) This section applies to any employment in or about a coal mine in the getting, handling, hauling, preparation and despatch of coal, being employment such as to make the person employed an employed person within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1925, except employment of any class which by the regulations may be excluded from the application of this section. Any question as to whether employment is employment to which this section applies shall be determined by the Minister of Labour.
(3) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made under this section he shall be guilty of an offence and shall, in respect of every such offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or, in the case of a continuing offence, not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence continues.
(4) If for the purpose of obtaining employment either for himself or for any other person in contravention of any regulation made under this section any person knowingly makes any false statement or false representation, or if any person required under the regulations to furnish information to the Minister of Labour knowingly

461
furnishes any false information, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
(5) All regulations made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and it an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation:
Provided that section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1493, shall not apply to any regulations made under this section.
(6) This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 18. The noble Lord said: The only advantage I can see in this clause is that it is proposed that it shall only be in existence for three and a half years. But we must remember that if the present Government is still in office at the end of that time and my noble friend is still a member of the Government, he may come down to the use and say: "Perhaps four or five years ago we should not have consented to this sort of legislation, but, after all, we have changed and adopted the principle. We adopted it three and a half years ago and, therefore, we may extend it and make it perpetual." What does this clause do? It gives a monopoly to the men who are now on strike. They have put the nation to a very great deal of inconvenience, they have caused the nation to lose vast sums of money, and instead of telling them that, they have behaved badly, that they had better mend their ways and go to work on the best terms they can get, the Government creates a monopoly for them. It not only creates a monopoly for them but it puts into the hands of the Minister of Labour—I had hoped that Ministry would have been done away with when a Conservative Government came into office—power to make Regulations. It says that while this clause is in force preference is to be given to persons who were employed in such employment during the period of seven days ending
462
on April 30, 1926. So that a man who may have been working for a week before April 30, 1926, now gets a monopoly.
The clause goes on to say that the Minister of Labour may, in particular, "impose restrictions on the engagement of persons for employment to which this section applies." That is what I call Socialism. The Minister of Labour may say to a mine owner: "These are the rules and restrictions which I have made under this Act concerning the people whom you may employ." I do not know what those rules and restrictions are. As far as I know they may be anything that a Minister of Labour may impose, and presuming a Labour Government was in office and one of the more extreme members in another place was Labour Minister, it is impossible to foretell what he might or might not impose. I see that all Regulations made under Clause 18 shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made. That is a perfectly illusory safeguard so far as another place is concerned. Such Regulations will come up after eleven o'clock, and nobody will be there to take any interest in them. It is undoubtedly different with regard to your Lordships' House, if you take the trouble to find out what, is going on and read through all sorts of Regulations which are being constantly made. I must admit that when I first became a member of your Lordships' House I obtained all these documents and read them carefully. But there was such an enormous number of them that at last I got tired of it. You have to read the whole of them before you find out what is actually happening, and if you do find out what is happening, what chance have you here? Of course, if a Labour Government was in power I should have my noble friend with me; but so long as a Conservative Government is in power I do not think you would have any chance.
I see no chance under this particular clause of any end being brought to the particular strike that is going on now. These clauses encourage the miners and their leaders to remain out in the hope that at last the Government will be compelled to do something for them. The leaders can point to all the various clauses that are being brought in and can say: "See what effect the pressure is having upon the Government. Though

463
we still refuse to alter our demands and though we are still out, you see that the Government are bringing in all these provisions." The result will be, not to bring the dispute to a speedy end, but to continue it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 18.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not know what is the case in England, but in Scotland of late years a very large number of Irishmen have come into the country, chiefly from Southern Ireland, which, I suppose, we may regard as a foreign country or something like it. These men, I am told, are sometimes employed in the mines instead of the sons of Scottish and English miners. It seems to me that under this clause preference ought to be given to these sons of Scotsmen and Englishmen in the matter of employment in the mines—it is obviously the right thing to do—and that these Irishmen should be sent back to their own country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope my noble friend Lord Cecil will give a rather fuller explanation of this clause than he has given about some that we have passed already. It is a very striking thing that we are laying down law that a Minister of State may impose restrictions on the engagement of persons—restrictions on the engagement of able-bodied men—and make it difficult for able-bodied men to get work. It is, as I say, an extraordinary proposition, and something more than the casual explanation we have seen in the Samuel Report ought to be afforded. You may impose restrictions: is there any limit to what those restrictions are? It is no defined in the Act. Where Socialist gentlemen obtain control of town councils now they impose such regulations on employment that nobody is allowed to get work with the municipality unless he is a member of a trade union. Can the Minister of Labour in this case say that no new man shall be able to work in a coal pit unless he joins a trade union? Is that within the ambit of the word "restriction"? It is being done already and there is no reason why it should not be done to-morrow if a person who shares the views of those who say nobody shall get employment in town
464
council work if he is not a trade unionist should in turn be Minister of Labour.
These clauses have been obviously prepared with the very greatest haste. This Bill is half dealing with the Companies Acts and another great portion of it ought to be treated in the Finance Act. Here is a restriction of employment clause which seems to me to have very, very grave import. The idea that Parliament may pass a solemn Resolution against these Regulations is good as far as it goes, but we know very well that once Regulations reach the point of having been prepared by a Department and accepted by the Government it is often virtually impossible even to make the smallest amendment to them. I want to know if Lord Cecil would be good enough to tell me whether under the restriction contemplated in Clause 18 it might be said, "No man shall be employed unless he belong to a trade union" or, per contra, "Every man ceasing to pay his contributions to a trade union shall lose his appointment"?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I venture to rise in this House as quite a lay Peer knowing nothing about the coal trade; I can only deal with general principles. When I see a clause put in a Bill containing a complicated piece of machinery which has been carefully prepared by the Government I shrink from the idea of taking out a big part of that machinery, for this reason: the machine may not work This Bill has been thought out by His Majesty's Government after careful consideration by a Commission. I do not like Clause 18; I hate Clause 18; but when I was young I hated Gregory's powder and it is no good not taking the medicine because you do not like the taste of it. The evil is here and the Government have proposed a measure to alter it and, if possible, to alleviate it. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, that we ought to say the miners have behaved very badly and are still behaving badly and that they ought to go back to work. I do not know enough to say that, but I do know that His Majesty's Government have thought out the question and have produced this rather delicate and complicated machinery to deal with it. That being so, I do not feel justified, much as I dislike

465
this particular clause, in voting against the Government, if the noble Lord goes to a Division.
LORD JOICEY: This is the first time that I have known the owners and managers of an industry to be prohibited from choosing the man that they thought best adapted to the particular work they require to be done. I think it is extremely unwise to limit the choice to those who have been in a mine before. During the War we had miners going to fight and others coming into the mines who had had no previous practical experience in mines, and, of course, they were generally the first to go when we got our men back from the War. I know from my own experience that there was a very strong feeling amongst the miners who went to the War against the men whom they found in the mines when came back. However, I think it is an extraordinary thing that any Government should prohibit a manager or an owner of a mine from employing the man who is likely to do his work best. If you begin to make these privileged persons in connection with the mining industry, do you think that this privilege is likely to be limited to that industry? The next thing you will have will be a Bill brought in to prevent anybody being employed upon a farm who has not been upon one before, or being employed in a machine shop who has not worked in a machine shop before. I think the principle is a bad one and a dangerous one for Parliament to adopt. I hope the noble Viscount will reconsider this question before the Report stage and, if possible, give up the idea of limiting the engagement of men in this manner.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I can assure my noble friend Lord Joicey that the moment I saw this Clause 1 asked about it, because, on the face of it, it seemed to me open to the same kind of objections as those which he and others have developed during the course of this discussion. The objections which have been raised are those which would immediately occur as reasonable objections to those reading this clause, but I venture to think that the clause has been a good deal misunderstood. My noble friend Lord Banbury thinks that the object of this clause is to provide that strikers should be re-employed. That is
466
not the object. I am informed and I believe—indeed, it seems quite obvious—that that is not the way the question will arise. When the strike comes to an end the strikers will necessarily go back, at all events skilled strikers will do so, because they are skilled men. Coal mining, as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, is very difficult and you cannot supply at a moment's notice men who can best do the work, at any rate, the work required in the most difficult parts of the industry. But that is not the case here. The case that was under consideration by the Commission and has been very much under the consideration of everybody is this.
Granted, as a result of economic causes, it will be impossible for all mines that now exist to go on, some, whatever arrangements you make, will certainly have to be closed down. In that event there is likely to be, particularly in the present condition of the labour market, a great addition to the unemployed and It was thought that it would ease that situation if you could say to the people who are opening up new mines: "At any rate give the preference to those who have been thrown out of work owing to economic causes." That is the purpose of this clause. It is not a clause which requires necessarily that every man who has been at work will have a monopoly, as my noble friend put it. That is not so. The men will have a preference—that is to say, other things being equal, they will be employed before people who were not so employed before this crisis took place. I do not think that is an unreasonable provision, understood in that way.
My noble friend Lord Crawford said that one of the restrictions made under a Labour Government might be that no one should be re-engaged who was not a member of a trade union. I do not think any such restriction could be put in legitimately under this clause. The Regulations are
"for securing that in the recruitment of persons over the age of eighteen years for employment to which this section applies"
it is only for that purpose—
"preference is given, while this section is in force, to persons who were employed in such employment during the period.…"
You could not twist that into giving a preference to trade unionists over people who are not trade unionists.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It was to the words in line 13 that I was referring.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: But you must read them subject to that which goes before. The earlier part is the operative part and you must read line 13 as having been subject to that general proposition—that it is for the purpose of dealing with this particular economic difficulty. Apart from that, the provision as to laying the Regulations on the Table of your Lordships' House is a very considerable security. Nobody knows that that is so better than my noble friend Lord Banbury, who has often struggled in the House of Commons, as I can personally remember, for the insertion into Bills of this very clause on the ground that it is a considerable safeguard. It is so particularly in a matter of this kind where there are a great many people interested who are watching exactly what is being done by His Majesty's Government. They are sure to find out if a real injustice or impropriety is being done and they will come to my noble friend Lord Banbury, or some other equally patriotic and energetic member of your Lordships' House, and ask him to raise, much as he would dislike doing so, an objection to what the Government are doing under the Regulations. One other point was raised by my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch. He suggested—I thought with great force—that it was very unfortunate if the effect was to exclude from the mines sons of miners.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Yes, English and Scottish.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That matter has been considered and that is the reason why it is not to apply to youths under the age of eighteen years. That is in order to enable these boys to go to work and become workers in the mine. They can be moved up to any position they are able to fill. I think that will answer the difficulty expressed by the noble Duke. For those reasons I trust your Lordships will not reject this clause. To do so would be, I think, a very serious step to take at this stage of the discussion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to ask the noble Viscount to con-
468
sider before Report stage the exclusion of words which he says are practically meaningless. The words occur in lines 12, 13 and 14:—
"and in particular such regulations may impose restrictions on the engagement of persons for employment to which this section applies."
If it is only to ensure that persons over eighteen years of age shall have worked in coal mines previous to the strike, and that preference shall be given to them, what is the object of putting in these words "may impose restrictions on the engagement of persons"? It is quite indefinite, and I have no doubt in my mind that a Socialist. Minister of Labour would act upon these words in the same way as Socialist municipalities act who are throwing men off their books if they do not join a trade union. There is grave danger that this clause may make a close trade of the mining industry, and if you make a close trade of the mining industry you will do as much harm as has been done by making a close trade of the building industry. Half the disease in this country is due to the fact that we have a close trade in the building industry and now you are going to apply it to the mining industry.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend may rest assured that I will consider the point he has raised, and he may like to know that the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to say that possibly some words might be inserted to make it clear.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Establishment of joint committees for coal mines]:
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice to move the rejection of the clause, said: This is a very bad clause, but I do not think it is so bad as some of the others and in view of what my noble friend has said, that he will consider some Amendment on the point raised by the Earl of Crawford, I will not move my Amendment.
LORD DARLING: On this clause I desire to call the attention of the noble Viscount to what he said in the discus-

469
sion on the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, that he thought hat the noble Earl desired might be time under Clause 21 which deals with the establishment and operation of joint committees. I hope he will be able to accentuate that. I have looked carefully at Clause 21 and I see that under it the Board of Trade may make Regulations and these committees may exercise such functions as may be prescribed by the Regulations. It seems to me important to notice that it is provided in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) that
"no powers in relation to the control or management of a mine shall be incanted among the functions of any such joint committee."
I have considered and I am sure my noble and learned friend has also considered, whether the words in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl would be kept out by reason of paragraph (b) It does not seem to me that they could be. I am very glad to think that the effect of what the noble Earl desired to have in the Bill when moving his Amendment is already possible under the hill as it stands.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF OHELWOOD: I should hesitate on the spur of the moment to attempt a, construction of the clauses of this Bill which would be in any way authoritative. I can only say that I think the general purpose of this clause is on the lines of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Earl Buxton. The power to make Regulations is to come into operation if
"no adequate opportunity has been afforded by the owner, agent and manager of the mine for the establishment of machinery—
these are the important words, I think—
"for mutual discussion between representatives of the management of the mine and
470
representatives of workers employed in or about the mine, of matters of common interest in regard to the working of the mine."
That seems to me a very wide phrase which would include such matters as we were discussing earlier in the afternoon. I think it only right to remind your Lordships, however, that in an earlier Act there is a provision that particulars of this kind are not to be published. Therefore, though they might be given to the pit committee for the satisfaction of the representatives of the men I should think it would be doubtful whether any Regulations could be made setting aside express statutory provision against publication.
LORD DARLING: It seems to me that what the noble Viscount has said ought to be very consoling to the noble Earl when he reads it in the Report of the debate. He is not now here, and I regret that he contented himself with a Parthian shot.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, before the House adjourns I think it would be convenient if I stated that there is no reason why we should not meet to-morrow at the ordinary time.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.

Preamble
KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L]
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND MINISTERS' AND SCOTTISH UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS' WIDOWS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE, 1926.

  EPISCOPAL PENSIONS MEASURE, 1926.
  BENEFICES (ECCLESIASTICALDUTIES) MEASURE, 1926.
  Text of the Measures: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.