Sitting of 5 July 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Connah's Quay Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords],
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Bill [Lords],
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill [Lords],
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
Southend - on - Sea Corporation Bill [Lords],
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    PAYMENT OF WAGES.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government of India as to the introduction at an early date of legislation with the object of preventing delay in the payment of wages and the consequent hardship which delay inflicts on the workers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend has not heard whether the Government of India have reached a decision, but will inquire.

    UNCOVENANTED SERVICES (LEAVE PASSAGES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to intimate the intentions of the Government of India in regard to placing members of the uncovenanted services of non-Asiatic domicile upon a similar footing with members of the superior services in the matter of free passages on leave?
    Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw Milne) on 19th April and to the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Pilcher) on 7th June. Further lists of recommendations have been despatched from India, but have not yet reached this country.

  IRAQ.

    FINANCIAL AGREEMENT.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to introduce a Bill releasing the Iraq Government from certain international obligations in accordance with the promise recently made by Sir Henry Dobbs?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The Iraq Government have been released from certain financial obligations incurred under Article 5 of the Financial Agreement of 1924. I am dealing with this matter in my reply to a subsequent question by the hon. and gallant Member. I am not quite sure what he means by "international obligations." There is no question of release from any obligations other than those that I have mentioned.
    Captain BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has relinquished any of its financial claims on the Government of Iraq; if so, to what extent; and whether the authority of Parliament will be sought for such action?
    Mr. AMERY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Full details of the claim which has been abandoned will be found in Article 5 of the Financial Agreement made under the Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 1922. As regards the third part of the question, the authority of the Treasury has been obtained, and I am advised that it is unnecessary to seek the authority of Parliament for this transaction.
    Captain BENN: I beg to give notice that, at the end of Questions, I will raise this matter.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Have we received any concession for giving up this £700,000?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend will read the Report made by in right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) he will see that there were strong reasons for not pressing these particular claims against the Iraq Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not that an additional reason why Parliament should have a chance of ratifying this arrangement or otherwise?
    Sir F. WISE: I have read the Report referred to very carefully and it specially states that substantial concessions in regard to railways should be given.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that this is British taxpayers' money?
    Mr. AMERY: These were particular items after the War which we thought could be reasonably claimed against the Iraq Government. The Iraq Government always demurred to these claims, and in all the negotiations we have had they have pressed their point of view. A special mission was sent out under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich to inquire into the matter, and they took the view that these claims ought not to be pressed further. We have decided to remit them, and, as I am advised, no Parliamentary authority is needed.
    Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that, until they were remitted, these items did constitute a debt to the Crown?

    JEWISH EMIGRANTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that about 140 Jewish families from Iraq and Kurdistan are stranded in Bagdad on their way to Palestine, where they are desirous of settling; that these settlers are possessed of sufficient means, having sold up all their property, but are being discouraged by the delays and are being put to considerable expense; what are the reasons for these delays; and whether he will give instructions for permits to be given as soon as possible to these people?
    Mr. AMERY: I have seen a Press report to the effect stated in the question. I have received no official information on the subject.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this sad business?
    Mr. AMERY: I will.

    OTTOMAN PUBLIC DEBT.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount of the obligation taken over by the Iraq Government of the Ottoman public debt under the Treaty of Lausanne?
    Mr. AMERY: It is hardly correct to speak of Iraq having "taken over" on obligation in respect of the Turkish Debt. The Treaty of Lausanne provided that the pre-War Ottoman public debt should be divided between Turkey and the various detached territories in proportion to the gross pre-War revenue of the several areas concerned. The exact amount to be assigned to each area was fixed by the Ottoman Public Debt Council subject to appeal to an arbitrator. The share assigned to Iraq amounted to about 5 per cent. of the total debt, or £6,772,142 Turkish. This total is made up of a number of sums expressed in Turkish currency, but repayable under different conditions regarding conversion into other currencies. Disputes exist in some cases regarding the interpretation of the provisions relating to conversion and repayment. I am consequently not in a position to estimate the precise sterling equivalent of the above figure.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we, as the Mandatory Power for Iraq, responsible for the payment of this debt?
    Mr. AMERY: No.

    GIBRALTAR (NOTE ISSUE).
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the position in regard to the Government note issue in Gibraltar; whether he is aware that these notes are inconvertible; that each note bears an endorsement stating that the Government of Gibraltar declares the note to be of the value of £1 and to be legal tender for that amount, and undertakes to redeem the said note in sterling money for the full face value at a date to be fixed hereafter by His Excellency the Governor; and what steps he proposes to take to establish a sound and convertible currency in the colony of Gibraltar?
    Mr. AMERY: My attention has been drawn to this matter, and I am in consultation with the Treasury with a view to the regularisation of the position.
    Mr. WILSON: Is it not the case that these negotiations have been going on for about two years, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are expedited?
    Mr. AMERY: I will try to do so.
    Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: Is it not a fact that currency in Gibraltar is entirely within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that therefore, in a matter of this kind, this Government are ultimately responsible?
    Mr. AMERY: I should have notice of that question.

  KENYA.

    MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature and scope of the inquiry in Kenya which has been entrusted to Mr. Justice Feetham?
    Mr. AMERY: Many questions of municipal government and public health in the township areas of Kenya have arisen, and the Governor has appointed a Commission, with an independent chairman to consider these matters, beginning with Nairobi. The Colony is fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. Justice Feetham as chairman.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Will this inquiry deal with the constitution of Kenya itself?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. Certainly not.

    DEFENCE BILL.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has given his sanction to the Kenya Defence Bill; and whether this Bill provides for the compulsory enlistment of Europeans between the ages of 16 and 60?
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kenya Defence Bill, shortly to be introduced into the Kenya Legislature, involves the compulsory enlistment of Europeans; and what is the position of natives under this proposed legislation?
    Mr. AMERY: I have approved of the Bill being re-submitted to the Legislative Council subject to certain Amendments. If it becomes law, all male European residents between the ages named will, unless exempted on account of ill-health or occupation or otherwise, be enrolled as members of the local defence force. This does not necessarily mean that every such man will be called up for training or service. Natives are not affected by the Bill.
    Colonel DAY: Will this legislation apply to American citizens?
    Mr. AMERY: I should have notice of that question, but I would assume not.

    SISAL PLANTATIONS (LABOUR).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that permission has been granted to two sisal plantation companies in Kenya Colony to import nearly 1,000 men from Portuguese East Africa on contract for a period of 12 months; and will he inquire into the matter?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am in communication with the Governor on the subject.

    SHEEP (WOOL STRAIN).
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the efforts of some of the natives in Kenya to improve the wool-bearing character of their sheep by crossing with merino stock; and whether the Agricultural Department has taken any steps to assist this native aim by facilitating the supply of merino stock for native flocks?
    Mr. AMERY: I have just received a report in which the Director of Agriculture refers to the desirability of improving native sheep by introducing a special wool strain and of establishing a stock farm for training pastoral tribes in this and other matters of animal husbandry. I will communicate with the Governor on the subject, which is of importance from the point of view of the well-being of the pastoral tribes and of the Colony's production.

    SEXUAL OFFENCES.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether during the past year there has been an increase of sexual offences in Kenya; and whether the provisions of the Bill for increasing the penalties which has recently passed the Colonial Legislature has been approved by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. AMERY: The necessity for a drastic change in the law relating to sexual offences has been urged on me by the Governor of Kenya, with the support of his Executive Council and the Chief Justice. The Governor has reported that two extremely brutal attacks of a sexual nature by natives on European women have occurred during the last few weeks, and that the police have had information of several others during the year, in which the victims were unwilling to give evidence and no case could, therefore, be brought. As the correspondence has been by telegram, I have not the text of the Ordinance, but it would appear to be covered in all essentials by the authority which I have given.

    COLONIAL OFFICE LIST.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. McDONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Dominion Office and the Colonial Office List is an official publication; and what Department receives the revenue derived from sales and the insertion of advertisements?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; the List is not an official publication, and any profits that may be derived from its publication do not accrue to the public revenues.
    Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELL: To whom does it belong?
    Mr. AMERY: I believe it belongs to the editor.

    SINGAPORE BASE (FEDERATED MALAY STATES CONTRIBUTION).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the gift of £2,000,000 made by the Federated Malay States towards the cost of the Singapore naval base, whether, in view of the impropriety of receiving gifts from States not under its protection, the Government will reconsider its acceptance?
    Mr. DUCKWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the gift of £2,000,000 by the Federated Malay States towards the cost of the Singapore naval base is being adversely criticised on the ground that the Imperial Government should not accept such a donation from races not under its protection, he will state whether any guarantee exists that these races will not be over-taxed to provide a sum of this magnitude?
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in Singapore there is criticism as to the principle involved in accepting gifts from non-protected races towards the needs of the Imperial Government; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries with the object of ascertaining local opinion on this point?
    Mr. AMERY: Hon. Members appear to be under a misapprehension. The Federated Malay States are territories under His Majesty's protection, and the native inhabitants of these territories possess the status of British protected

    1585
    persons. There is thus no question of His Majesty's Government accepting gifts from non-protected races. There is no reason to anticipate that any excessive taxation will be necessary to provide the sum.
    Mr. PENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout Malaya there is a great feeling of joy at the spontaneous gift of this sum; and is he further aware that the previous gilt of the Sultan of Perak of His Majesty's Ship "Malaya" was of the greatest assistance to this country during the War?
    Mr. AMERY: There is no doubt of that, at all.

    UGANDA RAILWAY.
    Mr. MacLARENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sums have been received by the Imperial Exchequer in respect of interest and sinking fund on the capital expended on the Uganda, Railway, Mombassa to Lake Victoria, for the years 1923, 1924, and 1925?
    Mr. AMERY: As I stated in reply to a question on the 30th November, no interest, and, of course, no sinking fund, has so far been charged on this amount, and the question has by arrangement with the Treasury been postponed for consideration in 1934, in view of the continuing necessity for further development of transport in East Africa.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE (MANDATED TERRITORIES).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial civil servants employed in the Crown Colonies, Protectorates, and territories mandated to the United Kingdom and the civil servants employed in territories mandated to British Dominions are deemed to be engaged in a common service for the purpose of promotion?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative. The conditions of service of civil servants employed in territories mandated to the Dominions are entirely
    1586
    under the control of the respective Dominion Governments, and though I should be glad to facilitate interchange so far as possible if it were desired, I do not think that a common service would be practicable. I might add that the Colonial civil servants referred to in the earlier part of the question, whilst not deemed to be engaged in a common service, are in many cases interchanged from time to time.

    COLONIAL OFFICE.
    Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his Department is organised solely on a regional basis, or whether, in addition to the regional organisation, there is a staff devoted to the study of the various problems of health, agriculture, veterinary services, and geological survey?
    Mr. AMERY: The Colonial Office is organised primarily on a regional basis. There is also a General Department, which is concerned with correspondence of a general and miscellaneous character. The study of the various problems mentioned in the question is promoted by reference to various Committees, and expert advisers such as the Colonial Advisory Medical and Sanitary Committee, the Colonial Survey Committee, etc. I have also recently appointed a Chief Medical Adviser to the Colonial Office, who will advise me on medical and sanitary problems arising in,connection with the Colonies and Protectorates.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it in contemplation to appoint any advisers on agricultural problems?
    Mr. AMERY: I shall have to take that matter into careful consideration.

    COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES (IMPERIAL PREFERENCE).
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Crown Colonies give customs preference in respect of British goods?
    Mr. AMERY: The following Colonies and Dependencies at present grant a preferential rate of import duty to goods of Empire origin:

    Bahamas.

    Barbados.

    1587

    British Guiana.

    British Honduras.

    Cyprus.

    Fiji.

    Jamaica.

    Leeward Islands.

    Mauritius.

    Northern Rhodesia.

    Trinidad.

    Windward Islands.

    The territories of the South African High Commission (Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate, and Swaziland) grant a preference in respect of certain specified articles.
    Captain BENN: Do any of the mandated territories grant a preference to British goods?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. By the conditions of the mandate they are precluded from doing so.
    Colonel DAY: Are we considering reciprocal treatment for these Colonies?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. In respect of some of their chief products, as, for instance, sugar, tea, cocoa, tobacco, we do give a preference.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that we give a larger market for Dominion and Colonial products than their market for our export trade?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what subjects will be considered by the Imperial Conference which is to meet in October next; what will be the dates of meeting and the order of business; and what will be the probable duration of the conference?
    Mr. AMERY: I hope that it will be possible for a statement on the subject to be made within the course of a very few days.
    Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Prime Minister whether. in view of the fact that subjects such as the nationality of married women and other matters of special interest to women will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, he will consider the
    1588
    desirability of appointing women either as representatives or, failing this, as expert advisers?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The question will be considered, hut it will be necessary to bear in mind that subjects of special interest to women will form a very small part of the matters to be discussed at the Conference.

    CANADA AND WEST INDIAN COLONIES.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Agreement arrived at last year between the various West Indian Colonies and the Dominion of Canada has been ratified by the Government of that Dominion?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. The Act of the Canadian Parliament approving and giving effect to the Agreement received the Royal Assent on 15th June.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (CONTRACT FOR SALE).
    Colonel DAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the contract has been signed and the deposit paid far the purchase of the Wembley site, of the British Imperial Exhibition; what was the amount realised by such sale; and what is the completion date of sale?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT of OVERSEAS TRADE (Mr. A. M. Samuel): I am informed by the liquidators that a contract has been signed and 10 per cent. deposit paid for the sale of the estate of the British Empire Exhibition for the sum of £300,000. This the liquidators, after investigation of previous offers, considered to be the most advantageous proposal received. The date fixed for completion of the purchase is 1st October, 1926, but the purchasers have the option of deferring completion, if desired and after giving proper notice, until 1st July, 1927, on payment of interest at 5 per cent. per annum.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this property was withdrawn at public auction when an offer of £315,000 was made for it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a question which should be addressed to the auctioneers or the liquidators.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is there a discretion as to the purposes for which the property may be used?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There was an inquiry, and the restrictions, or whatever the difficulties were, were discussed, and the result of that inquiry was published recently, In any case, the purchasers evidently satisfied themselves that the restrictions, if any, had been removed or were not of such a kind as to prevent them taking the steps they did take with a view to purchase.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it the case that this property was withdrawn at £315,000 and then was later sold by private treaty for £300,000?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It may or may not have been the case, but there is one fact which must be borne in mind. Certain obligations rested upon the shoulders of the sellers, the liquidators, and they were considerable; such as the upkeep of rates and taxes and other contracts. Under this sale, as far as I understand it, every obligation which may rest upon the liquidators at date of sale contract has been taken off their shoulders, and the sum for which the property has now been sold covers everything, so that the purchasers take over liabilities which may exist on the property at date of purchase, as part of the bargain at the price agreed upon.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the straight question I put to him? Is it the case that an offer of £315,000 was made for this property, that the liquidators refused it, and that they later sold it for £300,000?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say whether or not that was the case, but this I think I can say, that the conditions as to liabilities under which the property has now been sold are different from those under which it was offered before at auction.
    Mr. F. LEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the obligations now entered into will make the price more than £315,000?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Speaking off-hand, I should think they would

    MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department has had any communications with the Governments of foreign Powers concerning the probable effects of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill upon the trade between this country and the foreign Powers concerned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: But is not the hon. Member's Department or the Foreign Office going to make inquiries on this important trade matter, and especially with regard to the effect of the widened proposals upon existing Treaties?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not see any reason why we should go out on purpose to search for trouble.

    WEST INDIAN FRUIT (BRITISH MARKET).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, for the purpose of placing West Indian fruit, and particularly the banana, at a lower price on the English market, consideration is being given to the possibility of the development of this trade under ail British auspices and to the elimination, as far as possible, of the various agencies through which this fruit passes to-day before being placed upon the home market?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This question has been investigated and the point raised by my hon. Friend exhaustively dealt with by the Imperial Economic Committee, whose recommendations will be found on page 268 in their third Report, on "Marketing and preparing for market of foodstuffs produced in the overseas parts of the Empire." I understand that the Empire Marketing Board are at present considering in conjunction with the Imperial Economic Committee what steps should be taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report. I may add that the very points raised by my hon. Friend are dealt with in this Report, which is at the disposal of the hon. Member after Questions.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Thank you very much.

  AGRICULTURE.

    WAGES REGULATION (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the number of prosecutions that have been instituted under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act; the amount of fines imposed; and the amount of arrears of wages recovered?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Seventy prosecutions have been instituted under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, as a result of which fines amounting to £343 have been imposed and arrears of wages amounting to £1,180 recovered.
    Mr. BUXTON: Does not the Minister think that, in view of the facts, there is a case for the appointment of more inspectors under the Act?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have now 10 inspectors, and an additional four were appointed only last autumn. We are now in a position to make test inspections in various parts of the country.

    MOLASSES (SUBSIDY).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, considering that a subsidy of over £70,000 was paid during the past season in respect of British sugar molasses containing less than 70 per cent. and not more than 50 per cent. of sugar, he will inquire whether this waste of sugar in the molasses and also a considerable amount of the subsidy paid can be saved by more efficient manufacture; and whether he is aware that molasses with an extra 2 per cent. of sugar is used for the purpose of feeding stock, just as is the cheaper molasses on which a lower subsidy is paid because the residue of sugar is smaller?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The subsidy on molasses cannot be separated from the subsidy on sugar; it forms part of a total measure of assistance granted by Parliament to the industry as a whole. As a certain amount of sweetening matter must always remain in the residues of sugar manufacture it cannot be described as "waste." If the manufacturer secures a higher quantity of sugar from the beet juice, he secures a larger amount of subsidy on the sugar he makes, but a less amount of subsidy on the residues. I have no power to interfere with the manu-
    1592
    facturer's liberty in the conduct of his business, nor with his freedom in his choice of the market for his residues.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by wasting an additional 2 per cent. of extractable sugar the factories are able to get a higher subsidy, having regard to both sides of the production?
    Mr. GUINNESS: They get a higher subsidy for molasses but a lower subsidy for sugar.

    IMPORTATION OF CARCASES (PROHIBITION).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the anxiety and misunderstanding amongst meat traders in this country on account of recent official statements regarding the lack of any evidence to show that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease could be conveyed by frozen meat; if he can now state the ground upon which the Order excluding Continental fresh meat is based, while supplies of chilled and frozen meat from the Argentine, where disease has been prevalent for many years, are still allowed to enter this country?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Order in question was made because of the actual discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in three consignments of pig carcases from the Continent. No case of disease has been traced to Argentine meat, and in the absence of definite proof that disease has been introduced by such material, the prohibition of its importation would not be justified.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman paid attention to the largely increasing price of store pigs?
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the statement of the veterinary inspector of the Dutch Government to the effect that complete investigation had failed to show that infected pigs from Holland had been responsible for introducing disease to this country, and to his further statement, made with the concurrence of the British veterinary inspector, that the carcases sent back from England in the steamship "Schokland" were entirely free from disease; and whether, in view of the conflict of evidence, he expects to be able

    1593
    to modify or remove the embargo on Dutch meat when the full facts have been ascertained?
    Mr. GUINNESS: My attention has been drawn to certain statements in the Press attributed to a veterinary inspector of the Dutch Government, but the discovery in a British bacon factory of the feet of Dutch pigs bearing healed lesions of foot-and-mouth disease admits of no doubt that infective material was being imported. The result of inquiries in Holland makes it reasonably certain that carcases of animals slaughtered while in the highly infective incubative stages of disease must have reached this country, inasmuch as pigs are allowed to go from farms on which disease exists to a slaughterhouse exporting pigs to Great Britain. It is true that the carcases showing visible evidence of disease found on the steamship "Schokland" ex Rotterdam were of Belgian origin. As I have already announced, I cannot hope to be able to modify or remove the embargo on Dutch meat until the risk of introduction of disease has been eliminated.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Agriculture how many outbreaks of food-and-mouth disease have been notified in this country since the embargo on the importation of Continental fresh meat was imposed; where the outbreaks have occurred; how many contact animals have been slaughtered; how the carcases of any animals slaughtered were disposed of; and if the source of infection has yet been traced?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BUXTON: Does the right. hon. Gentleman still think it possible that the outbreak from which we have suffered may have been due to foreign meat?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is impossible yet to say definitely the cause. There are three centres of infection, and they develop at such dates that it might conceivably be accounted for by the imports of foreign meat. But I never pretended that this embargo is a certain
    1594
    preventive of all infection, and the Order' has only been issued as stopping the most obvious proved channel.
    Commander WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with this matter, will he consider the case of the importers of foreign meat and the hawkers of foreign onions?
    Mr. KENNEDY: Assuming that the embargo is justified in the case of Holland and Belgium, ought not all possible sources of infection to be similarly closed? On what ground is exception justified?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have closed all importation against all countries who send us fresh meat where foot-and-mouth disease exists. We arc still willing to receive fresh meat, for example, from Iceland, say, where there is no disease.
    Mr. KENNEDY: With regard to the Argentine, where there has been disease, why did not the embargo apply there?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Because we do not get any fresh meat from there; it is all chilled or frozen.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are the carcases of the animals burned as soon as possible?
    Mr. GUINNESS: They are burned as soon as possible or buried in quicklime, according to the condition of the case; but in present circumstances it is impossible to get fuel to burn them.
    Mr. KENNEDY: If the exception in the case of the Argentine is explained on the ground that the supply there is frozen or chilled, ought not the embargo in the case of Holland and Belgium, o here we get chilled or frozen meat, to be lifted?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, I give the distinction between Europe arid the Argentine roughly as being that in the one case they send us fresh meat and in the other chilled, but that is not the only difference. Europe is far more heavily infected than the Argentine. Standstill orders in Europe are absolutely impossible, whereas in the Argentine there are quarantine regulations which, according to our information, have proved effective.
    Following is the reply:

    The following STATEMENT shows the outbreaks of FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE confirmed in GREAT BRITAIN during the period since the prohibition of CONTINENTAL MEAT was imposed, 4TH JUNE—4TH JULY, 1926, together with the NUMBER OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED, and the manner in which the CARCASES were disposed of.

    Aniamals slaughtered.

    Disposal of carcases.

    Date of Outbreak.

    Locality.

    Cattle.

    Sheep.

    Swine.

    Goats.

    Destroyed as affected.

    Destroyed as unfit for food.

    Salvaged.

    June 4th

    Carluke, Lanarkshire.

    17

    —

    —

    —

    2 cattle

    15 cattle

    28 sheep

    2 sheep

    June 8th

    Carluke, Lanarkshire.

    31

    145

    —

    1

    3 cattle

    1 goat

    143 sheep

    June 14th

    Carluke, Lanarkshire.

    11

    —

    —

    —

    6 cattle

    5 cattle

    June 22nd

    Coppenhall, Crewe, Cheshire.

    5

    —

    24

    —

    13 swine

    5 cattle

    11 swine

    June 25th

    Coppenhall, Crewe, Cheshire.

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1 cattle

    1 swine

    June 25th

    Elmstead Heath, Colchester, Essex.

    7

    —

    —

    —

    7 cattle

    —

    June 30th

    Carluke, Lanarkshire.

    6

    —

    —

    —

    1 cattle

    5 cattle

    37 cattle

    July 1st

    Wista-ton, Crewe, Cheshire.

    44

    75

    —

    —

    7 cattle

    5 sheep

    70 sheep

    July 3rd

    Crewe, Cheshire.

    67

    85

    6

    —

    3 cattle

    37 cattle

    27 cattle

    4 pigs

    2 pigs

    85 sheep

    July 4th

    Carluke, Lanarshire.

    8

    —

    —

    —

    1 cattle

    7 cattle

    July 4th

    Carluke, Lanarshire.

    37

    —

    —

    —

    2 cattle

    35 cattle

    Total

    11 outbreaks

    234

    305

    31

    1

    33 cattle

    174 cattle

    27 cattle

    17 swine

    7 sheep

    298 sheep

    3 swine

    11 swine

    1 goat

    On 9th June disease appeared in eight cattle isolated on a farm at Carluke, where an outbreak had originally been confirmed on 28th May. All these eight animals were slaughtered and their carcases destroyed as diseased or unfit for food.
    With regard to the last part of the question, the outbreaks at Carluke are all in close proximity to the original case on the sewage farm which was traced to imported carcases of pigs. The original case at Crewe may have been due to imported packing material which had been allowed to come into contact with pigs, in contravention of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order, 1925, for which offence the owner was convicted and fined £15 and costs. The origin of the Colchester outbreak has not yet been discovered, but inquiries are still proceeding.

    EGYPT (MEMBERSHIP OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Egypt's application for membership of the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. I do not propose to define the attitude of His Majesty's Government in what is at present a purely hypothetical contingency.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH OFFICIAL'S WIFE.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign

    1597
    Affairs whether he is aware that the wife of an official in the British Mission at Moscow was recently arrested by the G.P.U.; with what offence was she charged; and whether representations were made to the Soviet Government on the subject?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries and have ascertained that there is no foundation for the report which has reached my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the members of the British delegation at Moscow are still shadowed by the G.P.U.?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the question on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice; I have had no complaints at all.

    DIPLOMATIC AGREEMENT.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, after the Russo-British diplomatic conflict in 1923, the British Government of the day gave a pledge to the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics that His Majesty's Government will be quite willing, in the event of any future infringement of the pledge thus again recorded, that the case should be brought immediately to the attention of the Government concerned rather than that such incidents, if they are found to occur, should be allowed to accumulate before complaint is made, and that under this agreement several incidents which were the subject of complaint on both sides were satisfactorily disposed of, and why, under the circumstances, His Majesty's Government; decided to abrogate the above agreement; and whether at any time His Majesty's Government informed the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics that the former did not intend in future to abide by this agreement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am aware that His Majesty's Government stated that they were willing to follow the procedure described by the hon. Member, and several incidents have been liquidated by means of it. The Agreement has not been abrogated, but I have not thought that any good purpose would be served by a constant stream of complaints in the present state of relations between the two Governments.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be better for the Government to state in a diplomatic manner causes of complaint against the Soviet Government, rather than allow members of the Government to make incendiary speeches up and clown the country.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be permitted to disregard the latter part of this question, and to state that, while I have not thought it would serve any useful purpose to make a continuous stream of complaints, I have left the Soviet chargé d'affaires, when I saw him, under no misapprehension as to the general causes of complaint of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a concrete instance where these representations have been made?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, they have not been made in my time except in so far as the House is already aware.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman's disregard of the latter part of my hon. Friend's question caused by a disregard of collective responsibility on the part of the Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; but that part was only intended to be offensive.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman toll the House why the course pursued with the representative of the Soviet Government is different, from that which he would take with the representative of any other Government with which an agreement had been made?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Because no other Government that I know would behave in the some manner as the Soviet Government.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In what particular has the Sovict Government behaved differently from other Governments?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that at Question Time.

    GERMAN EXPORT TRADE (LOAN).
    Mr. PURCELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the German

    1599
    Government and German business men have jointly arranged to give a credit of £15,000,000 to assist the development of German export Trade to Russia; whether he is aware that much of this money has been raised on the London market; and whether, as this agreement will give to German manufacturers and exporters an advantage over British manufacturers and exporters, His Majesty's Government intend taking any special measures to assist British firms who are at present trading or intend trading with Russia?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that with the assistance of the German Government a credit has been arranged for financing Russo-German trade up to from £6,000,000 to £7,500,000. Credits have not been arranged up to the £15,000,000 originally proposed. With regard to the second part, I am not aware that any of this money has been raised on the London market. With regard to the third part, I would refer the hon. Member to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on 10th March last.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Member say whether or not an Anglo-German Trust has been formed in London, for the purpose of financing this business during the last month, with which Lord Ashfield is connected?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of it.
    Mr. PURCELL: Is it not the fact that in the case of the recent large loan that was raised, a large amount was subscribed from this country?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of any loan. I do not know to which loan the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the German Government could hardly afford to back this loan now if it were not for the German Government loan of £18,000,000 obtained in this country 12 months ago?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is another matter, and I do not agree with what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a well-known fact in money circles in this
    1600
    country that a great deal of the money we advanced to Germany is used by Germany to capture trade in Russia which would otherwise come to us?

    TRADE AGREEMENT.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that paragraph 13 of the Trade Agreement between His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic expressly provides that, in the event of the infringement of the provisions of the agreement or the conditions in the preamble to the same by either party, the other party shall immediately be free from the obligations of the agreement, and seeing that the British Government have publicly stated that the terms of the agreement have been repeatedly broken by the Soviet Government, he will take immediate steps to release British citizens from the disabilities under which they now suffer by reason of the agreement in being prevented from suing in the Courts of this country Russian trading companies established under the agreement, who are selling in Great Britain property which has been forcibly appropriated from British nationals without any compensation being paid therefor?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that the abrogation of the Trade Agreement would achieve the object which he has in view. He will find the law stated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case Luther v. Sagor in1921.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is the fact that international status is given to these companies by reason of the Trade Agreement that has prevented British citizens from suing in the Courts of this country for property belonging to them which has been taken without compensation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension.

    COMPENSATION CLAIM (MR. MARTIN).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Martin has lodged any statement of

    1601
    claim with the Foreign Office or any of its Departments for damages alleged to have been inflicted on him by the Soviet Government during the period of his detention by that Government; and, if such a statement of claim has been lodged, will he state the money value of the claim and lay upon the Table of the House a copy of such claim?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Mr. Martin has lodged a claim with the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade against the Soviet Government for £20,000 in respect of imprisonment and confiscation of property. I do not consider that any useful purpose would he served by laying papers.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the publicity given to this case, would it not be a good thing to allow the public to hear or to read everything Mr. Martin has to say about his treatment rather than leaving it to hearsay?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is already on the Notice Paper another question about the nature of Mr. Martin's claim or about his injuries, which I shall answer in due course. I think it would be a bad precedent to lay papers in regard to one out of the many claims which have been presented.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Martin is anxious for every form of publicity for his case?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The anxiety of Mr. Martin for publicity will not affect the judgment which I have expressed to the hon. Gentleman.

    BRITISH TRADE.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Russia's purchases in Great Britain increased from £2,809,541 in the year 1920 to £31,170,995 in the year 1925; whether Great Britain's trade with any other foreign country can show the same proportional increase during the years mentioned; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will take all the measures within its powers to foster and encourage this trade?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am unable to express an opinion as to the accuracy of
    1602
    the figures quoted by the hon. Member, which are taken, I gather, from an article in the "Soviet Union Monthly." It is there stated that the figures include purchases in other countries of goods to be shipped to Russia without touching at ports in the United Kingdom. As the figures do not relate solely to British exports, no comparison can be made between them and our trade with other countries.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Member not aware that these figures have been endorsed by the Anglo-Russian Chamber of Commerce, of which a colleague of his was a leading member until he joined the Government?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will permit me to say so without offence, I think he has created a trap for himself and fallen into it. He makes use of the word "purchase." Purchases can be made by the Russian representatives in London of large amounts of, say, Brazilian goods which might be sent straight from Rio de Janeiro to Russia, but they would not constitute an export from this country of British goods or a re-export of British goods. The hon. Member's figures may well be correct, without constituting any export from this country of British goods or a re-export of British goods. They may refer to business which would not have anything to do with this country.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of these figures represent British and Empire purchases?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; if the hon. Gentleman will wait just a moment until I answer another question on this subject down on the Paper, my reply will give him those figures.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As these figures have been endorsed and supplied by the Anglo-Russian Chamber of Commerce, is he prepared to withdraw his allegation that my figures were taken from the Soviet Union Review?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I did not deny the correctness of the hon. Member's figures. They may well be correct, wherever they may come from, but I do not think they are a reliable index of the value of exports by Britain to Russia.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Then why bring in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Review was sent to me anonymously and I used it for information.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is not the remarkable growth of trade mentioned in the question a strong reason why the Government should not interfere? If there is genuine trade to be done, will it not be done quite apart from the Government?
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Russian purchases in Great Britain from the years 1920 to 1925, inclusive, reached the sum total of £70,154,378, and that during the same years, Russian sales on the British market reached the total sum of £64,609,071; that the Russian trading organisations in Germany have concluded an agreement with the German Government and German banking and industrial houses for a credit of £15,000,000 to increase the development of German-Russian trade; and whether, under the circumstances, His Majesty's Government will extend immediately the Trade Facilities Acts to British-Russian trade?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As regards the figures quoted in the first part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have given to his previous question. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I would refer him to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If it is the case that those, figures are approximately right, and that there is a growing export trade from this country to Russia, will the hon. Member use his influence with prominent colleagues of his own to prevent them from crabbing that trade?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of exports to the Soviet Republic of British manufactured goods and pro-
    1604
    ducts for the years 1920 to 1925 inclusive; similarly, of re-exports from Great Britain to the Soviet Republic for the same years; of the total imports in those years from Soviet Russia; and what is the balance in favour of the Soviet of unexpended credit in respect of such Anglo-Russian trade?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is difficult to give figures for 1920 comparable with those for later years, owing to alterations of frontiers; but the excess of imports over exports, and re-exports, of merchandise in our trade with Soviet Russia, as declared for the three years 1921–23 was, roughly, £7,500,000, and for the two years 1924–25, roughly, £14,500,000. An allowance must be made for invisible imports and exports, as to the amount of which we have no exact information. I will, with permission, circulate the figures in detail in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member tell us what the exports of British goods were last year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The exports of British goods for 1925 were £6,165,968.
    Mr. B. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes. Roughly, the trade balance in favour of Russia for the last two years would be £14,500,000 sterling.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is not that a direct contradiction of the statement made in this House by the hon. Member himself?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No. I repeat figures now within half a million of what I said in the House the other day.
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether some of the exports from Russia are not highly invisible?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Seeing that the hon. Gentleman has given us the exports for last year to Russia, will he tell us what are the re-exports of British and Dominion goods from this country to Russia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down on tile Order Paper.

    The VALUE of our IMPORTS consigned from and EXPORTS and RE-EXPORTS consigned to RUSSIA during the years 1920–25 inclusive, are shown in the following TABLE.

    Year.

    Total Imports.

    Exports of United Kingdom Produce and Manufactures.

    Exports of Imported Merchandise.

    Total Exports.

    Excess of Imports.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1920

    …

    …

    33,522,892

    11,992,083

    4,841,300

    16,833,383

    16,689,509

    1921

    …

    …

    2,694,674

    2,181,007

    1,210,283

    3,391,290

    696,616*

    1922

    …

    …

    8,102,829

    3,640,624

    970,403

    4,611,027

    3,491,802

    1923

    …

    …

    9,266,100

    2,491,650

    1,989,476

    4,481,126

    4,784,974

    1924

    …

    …

    19,773,842

    3,860,385

    7,212,144

    11,072,529

    8,701,313

    1925

    …

    …

    25,329,336

    6,165,968

    13,269,054

    19,435,022

    5,894,314

    * Excess of Exports.

    Note.—The figures for 1920 relate to trade with Russia and the territories now forming separate states but formerly forming part of Russia. The figures for 1921–25 relate to Soviet Russia.

    HYDE PARK (HUDSON MEMORIAL).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has any information to confirm the recent Report issued by the Bird Sanctuaries Committee of England to the effect that rare and interesting birds which had previously been. observed within the bird sanctuary in Hyde Park had, since the unveiling of the masonry portion of the memorial, entirely ceased to frequent the sanctuary; and whether, by judicious planting or otherwise, he can do anything to restore the sanctuary to its primary purpose as a home and resting place for birds?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I understand that there is some difference of opinion among birds as to the merits of the memorial, but the majority have loyally accepted the decision of the First Commissioner of Works that the monument must be retained. It appears that the minority, including a chiff-chaff, have migrated to other parts of the Park Four warblers have, however, been seen in the Sanctuary since the unveiling, and it is possible that the young of the migrating birds have taken up their abode at the Sanctuary on the recommendation of their parents.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend, at any rate, admit that a large number of birds have been driven away by this piece of sculpture,
    1606
    and does he not think it desirable that a piece of sculpture that acts as a scarecrow to the birds should be at some other place where its admirers can see it, and where it would not frighten away the birds?
    Captain HACKING: I do not admit that they have been frightened away by the memorial. When the memorial was unveiled, the popularity of the Prime Minister was such that a large crowd gathered, and that crowd temporarily frightened away the birds.
    Mr. MARSH: Do no warblers reside in South Kensington?
    Colonel APPLIN: Is it not a fact that birds man get used to any kind of scare-crow?
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Can any arrangements be made to discover the cuckoo in the nest?

    DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of. State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the United States of America, German, Russian, French and Italian Embassies, respectively, in London enjoy diplomatic immunity; and how many British nationals in the United States, America, Germany, Russia, France and Italy enjoy diplomatic immunity?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Two categories of persons enjoy diplomatic immunity—the official staff of a diplomatic

    1607
    Mission, and the household staff of the head of the Mission. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will publish the figures for which he asks with this answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures referred to:
    The numbers under each category in the case of the United States, German, Soviet Union, French and Italian Missions in London are as follow:

    Official Staff.

    Household Staff.

    United States Embassy

    48

    21

    German Embassy

    35

    7

    Soviet Mission

    23

    17

    French Embassy

    34

    13

    Italian Embassy

    15

    15

    The numbers of the official staffs of the British Missions enjoying diplomatic immunity in the countries in question are:

    United States

    26

    Germany

    21

    Soviet Union

    10

    France

    24

    Italy

    19

    I have no information as to the numbers of the households of the heads of these Missions.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS (POST-WARCASES).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider establishing a pensionable grade covering post-War cases in the three services where illness involving retirement is shown to be aggravated by service, on analogous lines to that existing under Ministry of Pensions' warrants which provide for a smaller annuity than in attributable cases; and will he cause an estimate to be made of the annual cost of such a proposal for each of the three Departments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): My Noble Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that under Ministry of Pensions regulations there is a special scale for "aggravated" cases which is lower than that for "attributable" cases. The conditions of recruitment for the post-War Forces differ considerably from those applying during the War; and I am satisfied that under the existing
    1608
    practice of the Departments all cases are regarded as attributable that can properly be so regarded, and that there is no sufficient justification for providing a special scale in the post-War regulations for cases of aggravation. No statistics are immediately available for an estimate such as is referred to in the second part of the question.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that in effect aggravated cases are covered by the Ministry of Pensions, but are not covered in the case of post-War service?

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    WAGES BOARD.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Prime Minister whether he intends setting up, or making investigations with a view to setting up, a wages board in the coal industry, as established successfully in the railway and other industries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The success of such a Board, in the coal industry and in other industries would depend upon the desire of the industry itself to make it a success. This was recognised by the Royal Commission, whose comment on the subject was that there might be advantages in having a Board of this sort if the two parties agreed. This condition is not at present fulfilled, and I do not think therefore that it would be any use to pursue the proposal for the moment.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Which of the parties did not agree?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Neither of them.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if anything is done in connection with a National Wages Board in the coal industry, something could be done to cover the hours as well? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling of resentment amongst miners throughout the country against the policy of extending the hours for miners?

    MINERS' WAGES (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
    Mr. MACLARENasked the Secretary for Mines the average weekly wage

    1609
    of the German miner and British miner, and the average amount of taxation per head of population in Germany and Great Britain for the year 1924–25?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The average weekly cash income of coal miners in the year 1924–25 was 53s. in Great Britain, and between 38s. and 39s. in Germany (the Ruhr). Complete figures of State or local taxation in Germany in 1924–25 are not available; but Federal taxation amounted to 117 marks, or approximately £6 2s. 6d. per head of population. Imperial taxation in Great Britain during the same period was £15 9s. 9d. per head of population.

    NATIONAL GALLERY (SIR HUGH LANE'S BEQUESTS).
    Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government propose to take on the Report of the Committee appointed by the late Government to consider certain questions relating to the 39 pictures bequeathed under the will of the late Sir Hugh Lane to the National Gallery in London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have given very careful consideration over a prolonged period to the whole matter dealt with in this Report and they have decided that they must accept the conclusion reached by the Committee that it would be improper to modify Sir Hugh Lane's Will by legislation. They have, however, received an assurance from the Trustees of the National Gallery that it is their present intention to lend to Dublin a substantial number of the pictures in question from time to time and for a substantial period, as soon as they are empowered to do so under Section 4 of the National Gallery (Loan) Act, 1883, that is to say at the expiration of 15 years from the date when the pictures came into their possession, whether a special gallery has then been provided in Dublin or not.

    CABINET MINISTERS (SHARE-HOLDINGS AND DIRECTORSHIPS).
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the
    1610
    introduction of legislation to prohibit Cabinet Ministers from being shareholders or directors of public companies whose interests are likely to be affected by Cabinet decisions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No such legislation, even if practicable, is in my opinion required. The safeguard against any difficulty such as the hon. Member appears to have in mind lies in the traditional standards of public life in this country.
    Mr. HUDSON: Is it the statement of the Prime Minister that it is highly improper, according to the standards of this country, for directors to be at the same time members of the Cabinet, particularly if they are directors of companies which may gain by the decisions of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: For some years now everyone on joining the Government in any capacity has been obliged to give up his directorships.
    Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that, when the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman formed his Government in 1905, he required the members of the Government to relinquish their directorships?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That example has been followed by every successive Government?
    Mr. HUDSON: Is that rule followed at the present time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. THURTLE: If it is desirable that directors should relinquish their directorships, is it not equally desirable that large shareholders should give up their share holdings?
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Is it not a fact that a Cabinet decision may tend to affect all forms of property, and would not the suggestion of the hon. Member prevent any owner of property becoming a Minister? Does not that show the futility and the ineptitude of the question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That may be a matter of opinion.

    STANDING COMMITTEES.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that

    1611
    when the number of Standing Committees was increased, and the practice of referring Public Bills to such Committees was developed, Standing Order 49a was adopted for the purpose of relieving the strain upon Members engaged in Committee work; and whether, in view of the fact that, in addition to other Committee work, Standing Committee B proposes to have morning and afternoon sessions, that Standing Committee C has been holding morning and afternoon sessions for some time, and that Standing Committee D proposes to follow suit, he will consider whether any steps can be taken for relieving the heavy pressure upon Members which has become customary at this period of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that at this period of the Session Committee work imposes an additional burden upon Members, but I am afraid that, if the House is to adjourn at a reasonable date for the Summer Recess, in view of the large amount of business to be disposed of, I cannot hold out any hope of being able to put Standing Order 49a into operation.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present arrangement of Government business upstairs makes it impossible for the ordinary Member to attend to his duties here? On Tuesday and Thursday afternoons this week more than 200 Members will be expected to be in Committees upstairs, and it is quite impossible for the work here to be done properly.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That still leaves 400 Members to carry on the work of the House, and although I much regret the congestion, which is common to this period of the Session, it may be that it will have two results—it may induce hon. Members to have some sympathy with the Ministers, and it may also lead to members of the Committees paying more attention to the really essential parts of the Bill than to the non-essential.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of his Ministers have refused a reasonable request that we should meet on Wednesday morning, instead of meeting in the afternoons under an arrangement made simply for the convenience of Ministers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The difficulty about Wednesday morning—this again shows the state of congestion—is that on Wednesday mornings there is always a meeting of the Cabinet.
    Mr. B. PETO: Is the Prime Minister aware that so far as Standing Committee B is concerned, where it is that the proceedings have given rise to this question, the difficulty is entirely in the hands of the hon. Member who put the question, and at most two or three other Members?

    TANGIER (INTERNATIONAL POLICE FORCE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any reports of abuses in the mixed police in the international zone of Tangier, including reports of the forcing of evidence from prisoners by means of floggings and other tortures; whether any steps have been taken to investigate these charges; and what instructions have been given to His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier on the subject?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Reports of abuses of the nature described have been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier, who is pressing for a full inquiry. I have approved his action and requested him to keep me informed.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Great Britain is responsible for the administration of the inter-nation civil police force in Tangier?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Tangier Convention provides that the civil police force shall be under the control of the Administrator who is in turn responsible to the International Assembly. There are three British members of the International Assembly, but they are not representatives of nor under the control of His Majesty's Government. Apart, therefore, from their responsibility as one of the contracting parties to the Tangier Convention, His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the administration of the police force.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from whom the British representatives get their salaries?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think they get any salary, but if the hon. Member wants any further information, perhaps he will give me notice.

    ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is meant, in the notes exchanged between Great Britain and Italy, by an exclusive Italian economic influence in the West of Abyssinia?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: By their recognition of "exclusive Italian economic influence" in Western Abyssinia His Majesty's Government bind themselves not to press the claims of British subjects competing with Italian concession seekers in that district. The Italian Government are aware that His Majesty's Government place this interpretation on these words.
    Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to what, is the view of the Abyssinian Government about these new British-Italian claims?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the answer I gave last week to a question this subject he will see that any agreement between the Italian Government and ourselves can have no binding effect upon the Abyssinian Government, and we are not going to take up discussion with the, Abyssinian Government until they have had full time to consider the matter.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about not assisting British subjects in their schemes in West Abyssinia, does he also mean that no other subjects are to be permitted to make any claims for concessions 'in West Abyssinia, and that it is to be exclusively Italian?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, it is a bilateral agreement, and it is quite clear that we cannot give away the rights of any other nation or any other nationals; but what we do undertake is not to support British subjects in seeking concessions in that area in competition with Italians on condition—and it is only on that condition—that with Italian support we obtain the Tsana concession.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: 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?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It. certainly is not to be 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 Government have a perfect right to judge of what is in the interest of Abyssinia.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will state the total area which has been afforested by the Forestry Commission, and the present number of men employed by the Commission in the care of plantations and nurseries?
    Sir FORESTIER-WALKER (for The Forestry Commissioners): The total area which has been planted in Great Britain by the Forestry Commission is 71,051 acres. The number of foresters, foremen, gangers and forest and nursery workers according to the latest returns- as on 1st June last was 2,546. The number of workers varies considerably, declining during each summer and increasing during the planting season.
    Mr. BUXTON: Is the Commission arranging for a progressive extension of planting in the future?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: Yes, Sir, this last season we have planted some 18,400 acres, and next season, commencing November, it will be something like 24,000 acres.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (GAS MANTLES).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that an agreement has been arrived at by certain British manufacturers of incandescent gas mantles with foreign manufacturers for a period of five years which has had the effect of

    1615
    adversely affecting the price of mantles to British consumers; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the latter's interest?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of the agreement to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have at present no information which suggests that it has caused any increase of price to the consumers of British gas mantles. I have no power to intervene in respect of the agreement. I may say that since this answer was drafted, I have made further inquiries and I find that the total wholesale increased cost only amounts to 3d. per dozen mantles, and the increase is not charged to the consumer. If my hon. Friend; has reason to believe that an imposition is being put on the public, if he will let me know I will look into the matter.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Does that not mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is missing 6s. per gross duty on the mantles which would otherwise come to this country?
    Captain BENN: Why did the Government first give a duty to British manufacturers of gas mantles against the Germans and now permit them to make an agreement with the Germans to enable them to exploit trade in this country?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is too involved a question for me to dispose of by question and answer.

    POWDERED FUEL
    Brigadier - General CHARTERISasked the Secretary for Mines, whether any investigations are being made by the Government Research Department into the further utilisation of coal in the form of powdered fuel; and, if so, what has been the result of these investigations?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy):
    I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The utilisation of coal in the form of powdered fuel has been worked out by commercial firms, especially in America. and particulars are available from ordinary sources. No special investigations have, therefore, been carried out by the
    1616
    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, but they have published a Report on "Pulverised Coal Systems in America," the third edition of which was issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office early in 1924.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the Department aware that coal pulverisers are largely made in this country?

  POOR LAW.

    METROPOLITAN UNIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the Government's annual contribution to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund; and if he can state what is the total amount granted from the fund to the 28 Metropolitan Poor Law Unions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There is no Government contribution to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, which is a fund levied by rates for the purpose of equalising Poor Rate burdens over the County of London. The total amount chargeable on the Fund for the 12 months ended 30th September, 1925, was £5,399,880.
    Mr. THORNEalso asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, in consequence of the delay in paying the money when due to the 28 Metropolitan Poor Law unions, a number of them are compelled to get his permission to obtain overdrafts from the banks until the grant is received, which puts them to inconvenience and extra cost in consequence of having to pay interest on the overdrafts at the bank; and if he can see his way clear to facilitate having the grants sent to the various Poor Law unions as speedily as possible?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend cannot agree that at the present time the fact that payments from the Common Poor Fund are made in arrear leads to any financial difficulty, for the guardians in any half-year receive from the Fund a sum substantially equivalent to the amount which will ultimately be due to them from the Fund in respect of their expenditure in that half-year. At the present time, only six of the Metropolitan boards of guardians are using overdrafts or temporary loans to meet their current

    1617
    expenditure. So far as money is borrowed for the purpose of defraying expenses repayable out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, interest on the sums so borrowed is a charge upon the Fund. Every effort is made to ensure that payments to and from the Fund are made without delay; they are made at the earliest possible date after the audit of the accounts of the authorities, and my right hon. Friend is afraid it is not practicable to arrange for earlier payments.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health whether he will give a list of boards of guardians who, with his consent, have borrowed money to defray the cost of out-relief; and the amount of the loan outstanding in each case?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information sought, as far as it is available.
    Miss LAWRENCE: May I ask whether, as this subject is very shortly to be discussed in the House, the Minister could let us have the names of these districts now, without waiting for the answer to be circulated?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will hand to the hon. Member the copy which I have.
    Miss LAWRENCE: What I am asking is that the House shall know how many of these boards of guardians there are, and who they are, before the Debate comes On.
    Sir K. WOOD: There are several pages of names and figures, which, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me to read. I will hand the copy to the hon. Member.
    Miss LAWRENCE: This question is one of peculiar interest in regard to the Debate which is just about to take place. I do not want to ask that great pages of figures should be read out, but I do think it is important that we should know—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Miss LAWRENCE: I do not want to be out of order, but I think it is important that we should have the numbers of the
    1618
    boards of guardians and their names, and I hope the Minister will give them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) asks for a list of boards of guardians who have borrowed money to defray the cost of out-relief. Are these all affected by the Bill which is about to be discussed?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.
    Miss LAWRENCE: They are, surely, boards of guardians who are in default, or are judged to be likely to be in default?
    Sir K. WOOD: I may say that there are some 40 odd names, and I think it would be more convenient if I handed the list to the hon. Member, so that she could mention any that she may desire to mention.
    Mr. MARRY JONES
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the House desires it, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will read the names.
    Mr. JONES: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's Department is not sufficiently efficient to produce a few dozen copies of the list, at any rate, within the next hour?
    Miss LAWRENCE: I understand that, before an answer can be circulated, the consent of the hon. Member who puts the question has to be asked.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will read the names.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it has not been repeatedly laid down, I think sometimes by yourself, that the answer to a question is at the discretion of the Minister, and not of the hon. Member who puts the question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different point.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Even though it be a different point, may I not have a reply?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is at the discretion of the Minister whether or not he answers a question put to him, but this is only a question whether the answer should be given by being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or whether part of it should now be given.
    Captain BENN: On that point of Order. Do I understand you to say, Sir, that it is at the discretion of a Minister if he answers a question? May I submit to you that it is only in the discretion of a. Minister to decline to answer a question upon grounds of public interest?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would hardly say that, but the point is quite different from the point that has just been raised.
    Sir K. WOOD: The following is a list of unions which held borrowing authority in respect of current expenditure on the 3rd July, 1926, showing the maximum amount authorised on that date, and the total indebtedness at the 31st March, 1926, of the unions which held borrowing authority at that date:

    Union.

    Maximum authorised borrowing on current account on 3rd July, 1926.

    Actual total indebtedness in respect of current expenses on 31st March, 1926.

    £

    £

    Abergavenny

    2,000

    —

    Auckland

    56,000

    21,142

    Barnsley

    40,000

    —

    Barrow-in-Furness

    205,000

    194,332

    Basford

    30,000

    —

    Bedwellty

    684,000

    634,898

    Bermondsey

    50,000

    54,695

    Bethnal Green

    70,000

    67,298

    Birmingham

    854,000

    491,016

    Bridgend and Cow-bridge

    62,000

    26,585

    Cannock

    10,000

    —

    Castle Ward

    2,000

    —

    Cheadle

    2,000

    —

    Chesterfield

    8,000

    —

    Chester-le-Street

    90,000

    32,725

    Cockermouth

    50,000

    8,300

    Crickhowell

    38,000

    26,738

    Dartford

    99,000

    96,430

    East and West Flegg

    1,000

    —

    Easington

    20,000

    —

    Gateshead

    185,000

    87,535

    Greenwich

    105,000

    81,420

    Hartlepool

    10,000

    7,513

    Hawarden

    5,000

    —

    Hemsworth

    50,000

    —

    Houghton- le - Spring

    55,000

    —

    Lanchester

    150,000

    108,550

    Lincoln

    25,000

    23,233

    Llanelly

    35,000

    15,122

    Manchester

    80,000

    —

    Mansfield

    20,000

    —

    Merthyr Tydfil

    275,000

    68,661

    Middlesbrough

    230,000

    99,592

    Monmouth

    4,000

    —

    Neath

    115,000

    14,458

    Newcastle - under - Lyme

    10,000

    —

    Newcastle-on-Tyne

    200,000

    106,844

    Union.

    Maximum authorised borrowing on current account on 3rd July, 1926.

    Actual total indebtedness in respect of current expenses on 31st March, 1926.

    £

    £

    Newport (Mon.)

    50,000

    —

    Penistone

    500

    —

    Pontardawe

    16,000

    3,370

    Pontypool

    5,000

    —

    Pontypridd

    210,000

    40,777

    Poplar

    605,500

    505,794

    Prescot

    20,000

    6,000

    Redruth

    30,000

    29,655

    Salford

    25,000

    37,405

    Sedgefield

    15,000

    —

    Sheffield

    1,773,000

    814,877

    South Shields

    150,000

    121,223

    Stepney

    250,000

    171,902

    Stockton

    20,000

    —

    Stoke and Wolstanton

    25,000

    —

    Sunderland

    15,000

    6,913

    Swansea

    45,000

    20,358

    Tadcaster

    5,000

    Thorne

    3,000

    —

    Tynemouth

    114,000

    —

    Wellington (Salop)

    3,000

    2,800

    West Derby

    750,000

    785,357

    West Ham

    2,740,000

    2,167,031

    Whitchaven

    10,000

    —

    Wigan

    40,000

    8,692

    Woolwich

    30,000

    46,777

    Worksop

    20,000

    —

    Wortley

    10,000

    —

    Wrexham

    10,000

    —

    Information is not available as to the amount of loans outstanding at the present time.

    KINGSTON NURSING ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Health the name and qualifications of the medical officer appointed by his Department to inquire into the administration of the Kingston Nursing Association; and whether any previous investigations have been carried out in regard to the association?
    Sir K. WOOD: The officer in question is a member of the medical staff of the Ministry of Health, but my right hon. Friend does not think any useful purpose would be served by giving the officer's name. For the decisions based en the investigation of this officer, however, I may refer my hon. Friend to the Minister's letter to the chairman of the association—published this morning—of which I am sending him a copy. The maternity home belonging to the association had been inspected on two previous occasions by medical officers of my right hon. Friend's Department in 1921 and 1925.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Health if any Report has yet been received from the Committee set up to deal with prices of building materials; and, if not, can he state when a Report is likely to be presented?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand that the Committee have their Report under consideration, and that they hope to be able to present it shortly.

IRAQ (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT).
Captain BENN: I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the remission by the Treasury without Parliamentary sanction of a debt due from the Iraq Government to the Crown."
Mr. SPEAKER: This does not seem to be a notion which comes under the Standing Order. The announcement of this remission has been before the House for quite a good time. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman directs his point to the action of the Treasury in consenting to the remission without Parliamentary sanction. If it need Parliamentary sanction, it would be illegal, and would have to be dealt with in another way. Should it come in the ordinary course of the duty of the Treasury, the action must be discussed in Committee of Supply, like any other question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises the point of the Parliamentary correctness of the procedure, I ask him to give me time to look into it, and I will do so.
Captain BENN: I take it by doing so—I gladly accede, of course, to your suggestion—I should not forfeit any right which may accrue from the urgency of the matter?
Mr. SPEAKER: If it be incorrect from a Parliamentary point of view, there will be no need for the hon. and gallant Gentleman—I shall do it myself.

FIRST OFFENDERS' DEFENCE BILL,
"to make provision for free legal assistance to all persons who for the first
1622
time are accused of felonies or misdemeanours," presented by Sir ARTHUR CHURCHMAN; supported by Sir Rowland Blades, Mr. Harney, Mr. Duckworth, and Mr. Hayes; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to, Amendments to, Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In presenting the case for this Bill to the House I shall avoid anything in the nature of exaggeration, either of statement or of comment, upon a matter which I think would be sufficiently important to merit the serious attention of the House. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition observed that the Bill raised fundamental questions of local government and of the relations of this House towards local administration. I do not quarrel with that description of the Bill, except that I would rather say the questions at issue affecting local government and the relations of the House to local government are raised rather by the events from which this Bill springs than by the Bill itself. These events constitute in effect a breakdown of the machinery of part of our local government. This Bill is an attempt, not to destroy local government but to save it, and to find a temporary means of restoring the operation of the machinery until more normal methods can be resumed. I think everyone knows that this Bill would never have been brought forward if it had not been for the action of one particular union, the board of guardians of West Ham. Of course, I have had some differences with other boards of guardians whose administration I thought was extravagant but, speaking generally, they have endeavoured to meet the criticism which I thought it necessary to make, and in view of the fact that the Government had announced its intention next year to introduce a general measure of reform of the Poor Law system, by which boards of guardians would be abolished and their functions transferred to other bodies, I had hoped it might be possible by administrative methods to carry on without any legislation of this character until that larger Measure could be introduced, but the action of the board of guardians of West Ham has left me no
  1640
  choice. Perhaps after all, it is as well that Parliament itself should clear up a situation which has really become impossible.
  4.0 P.M.
  As this Bill arises out of the situation in West Ham, it is on the circumstances of West Ham that I am going to base my case for the Bill. I shall have to enter into some details with regard to what has happened in West Ham in order to show the House what has brought me to this position, but, before I do that, I would like to put forward one or two reflections of a more general character. It is our boast that we are a democratic country, and I think it is the fact that we can lay claim to that title with greater justification than perhaps any other nation in the world. We choose our governors by popular election, and, whether it be in national or local affairs, we endeavour to give everybody an equal opportunity of saying who those governors shall be, irrespective of the wealth or the state of the person who makes that choice. In fact, it would not be easy to conceive of any system under which there is a more completely free or unhampered choice given to the people of a country than there is under our system, and I do not think that there is any danger to that system unless the conviction were to grow up that the checks and balances of the system were somehow being upset, that the very intentions of the system were being compromised, and that, in fact, it was working out rather to the detriment than to the advantage of the community as a whole.
  I do not mean to enter into any discussion as to whether it is desirable or necessary that we should have elections for the choice of the bodies who have functions such as those which appertain to boards of guardians to-day, but, in connection with the election of guardians, I want to draw the attention of the House to two salient facts which have a very intimate bearing upon the matter. When we raise money for local needs, we raise it not only on the property of individuals, but also on the property of associations of individuals, and we find that associations of individuals, in the form of limited companies and so forth pay in many cases a large part and in some cases actually the largest part of the rates in particular areas but those who

  1641
  are concerned in these associations of individuals have by reason of the fact that they pay rates no voice or vote in the election or choice of those who are going to distribute the money. That is the first fact. The second is this. Those who are made the recipients of relief and who are unable to support themselves are no longer disfranchised, and they have a voice, and sometimes it may be the deciding voice, in the election of those whose duty it is to distribute relief. Put those two facts together, and I do not think anybody can deny that, human nature being what it is, you have there a very serious danger of political corruption.
  Let me press the point a bit further. It is a favourite argument of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that, after all, all elections are accompanied by promises which are not always performed. Of course, in our Parliamentary elections every party makes promises, some of which are not always performed afterwards, and it is one of the common-places of politics that the party which has not made the promises should describe those of its opponents as bribes, and that the party which has lost the election should suggest that the party which has won it has won it by deluding the community with those promises which have never actually been carried out. These, of course, are not promises of personal benefit, but of reforms, of measures, which are suggested as being intended, and, in fact, likely to confer substantial benefits upon large parts of the electors. But the very fact that after elections these accusations that promises are not being carried out are so frequently made has rendered the electors suspicious, and to-day the Parliamentary voter does not regard merely the size of a promise which is made, but discounts it always by what his opinion is about the likelihood of it being carried into effect. Of course, he makes a slip sometimes, but he always takes the first opportunity afterwards to remedy it. Therefore, I think one may say that, in spite of the alluring character of some of the pledges that are given at election times, there is no danger of corruption in our Parliamentary system as we see it to-day from anything of that kind, and that the elector is perfectly well able to take care of himself.
  1642
  Compare what happens at a Parliamentary election, as I have described it, with what happens at the guardians' election. In a Parliamentary election you have almost invariably a mixed issue. There are a number of points put forward, some of which appeal to one section of the electors and others of which appeal to another section. The policies which are put forward by the different parties are not the same policies. They are alternative policies, and there is, as I have said, always uncertainty as to how far these promises and policies will actually materialise if the party be returned to power. But, in the case of the guardians' election, there is one issue, and that is the amount of relief which shall be given and the way it shall be administered, and nothing is more certain than that a candidate belonging to a party with a definite policy can, and will if that party be returned in sufficient strength to give it a majority upon the board, put his promises into effect and distribute rewards, partly pecuniary and partly in kind, to those to whom he owes his election. I think in such circumstances as that if corruption did not raise its head in elections of this kind we should have to be a nation of saints. Unfortunately, it is common knowledge that, as a matter of fact, these elections are fought and won upon promises of extended relief, that those who refuse to make such promises are accused of intending to stop relief altogether, that people in receipt of relief are allowed to go about as canvassers, and that, in short, there reigns in some parts open and unabashed corruption.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to define what he means by "corruption"?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have made it perfectly clear. I mean that the system naturally tends to set one candidate against another bidding for the support of the electors by promising extra relief. That is what I mean by corruption.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Exactly the same as a Protectionist candidate.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the same. I have endeavoured to show why, in my view, it is very different from general promises which are from time to

  1643
  time made at Parliamentary elections. I say that not only do you have a sort of competition between one candidate and another, but there is even a further sort of competition between one board and another to show which can give the greater amount of relief; and this disease, unless it is checked, is bound to spread right through the framework of local government and will eventually lead to disaster. It does not stop there. Unfortunately, if you once begin upon the degradation of the standard of morality it is very difficult to know where it is going to stop, and we find, where this sort of thing which I have described goes on, it spreads very rapidly in other directions. You find numerous cases of applications for relief on false pretences. You find even that the officers are beginning to be concerned, and that relieving officers go off with funds or make use of gifts in kind for their own purposes. You find that those who have been elected to the responsible post of guardians make appointments the benefits of which go to relatives and friends on grounds which it would be difficult to believe are pure and consistent with their duty.
  This case of West Ham has got to be considered in the light of these general considerations which I have brought before the House, and it is, unfortunately, the fact that there the majority of the board of guardians appear from time to time so to have committed themselves to those whom they describe as the people outside, by which presumably they mean those in receipt of relief, that they take their orders from those who have to receive benefits from them; and they appear to have continued with increasing extravagance their methods until they have run far beyond any chance of balancing their expenditure and their income and have, indeed, brought themselves within sight of bank-ruptcy. Of course, I can see what is the sort of defence which is going to be made for West Ham. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who will move the rejection of the Bill, will tell us that West Ham is a place with a board of guardians actuated by the pure motives, that they have been highly efficient and economical in their administration and that they have a most scrupulous regard for all the checks which experience show to be necessary
  1644
  for the administration of domiciliary relief. He will say that the situation in which the guardians find themselves is due to no fault of their own, but that they are victims of the circumstances of the poverty of their district and the extent of unemployment there and, above all, to the failure of this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—but not, I presume, of the Government which preceded it, to supply a remedy for unemployment. I am not for one moment going to deny the fact that any board of guardians functioning in West Ham would have an extremely difficult task to perform. [An HON. MEMBER: "You will find it so."] I admit that. I say so because they have there a large population, over three-quarters of a million, and a very low assessable value which, of course, means not merely that one penny on the pound on the rates brings in a much smaller sum than it would in a more favoured district, but also that in any period of distress there is a much larger proportion of the people in an area like this who have not more than a small amount of resources of their own, and are likely, therefore, to come at an earlier stage upon the administration of outdoor relief.
  There are, of course, other areas not far away from West Ham which are in that respect similarly placed. There is Poplar. There is, however, this remarkable difference, which in fairness to West Ham should be stated, namely, that Poplar, being within the County of London is able to draw a great part of its expenses out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, which is paid for by other Metropolitan boroughs. Therefore, Poplar has been spared, by reason of that fact, some of the difficulties which have been so acute in West Ham. I recognise that fact, and I do not think that any definition of "necessitous areas" that anyone could think of would ever exclude West Ham from coming within that category. If it was merely that they were spending £500,000 or £600,000 a year more than they can get out of the rates, and they came to me for money, I should, in the light of the circumstances I have mentioned have felt inclined to give them all the assistance I possibly could; but the question I had to ask myself was: Was this great expenditure reasonable expenditure, and were they, as a matter of fact, doing all that honest

  1645
  and conscientious guardians should do to see that value was obtained for the money and that it was not given both to the deserving and the undeserving? That was where my difficulty came in. I could not convince myself of anything of the kind.
  What are the tests which are to be applied in a case of this kind? I have had put into my hands a pamphlet which is called "An Impartial Study of the Facts." I think there is more impartiality on the outside page than anywhere to be found within the pages. In this pamphlet the West Ham Guardians make their own test, in a paragraph which is headed, "A difference of Eleven Shillings a Year." Purporting to take their facts and figures from a paper issued by the Ministry of Health, they find that in the West Ham area the average annual cost per person relieved is £27 11s. 10d. They compare that with Birmingharm, where they find the cost to be £32 2s. 10d., and they find that for all England and Wales the cost is only £27 0s. 10d. Therefore they say:
  "Before Mr. Chamberlain can carry the Measure which he threatens, he will, surely, have to prove that in this annual 11s. lie all the enormities and irregularities which he alleges."
  The figures which they quote are fallacious; they are taken from a document which I think was originally prepared by the Treasurer of West Ham. I am not disputing its correctness, but what I am disputing is the inference drawn from the figures, and I will tell the House why they are fallacious. First of all, these figures include the cost of indoor relief as well as outdoor relief. Everyone knows that the cost of indoor relief is very much higher per person than the cost of outdoor relief, wherever it is. Therefore, before one can make a comparison between one place and another, or between West Ham and the whole of England, we have to have the relative figures of indoor and outdoor relief for various places. What we are concerned with in this case is not indoor relief, but outdoor relief. The figures are very different if we take outdoor relief alone.
  Mr. W. THORNE: These are for those who are out of work.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not talking of those who are out of work only. I am taking outdoor relief as compared
  1646
  with indoor relief, and if we take these figures themselves in West Ham the cost per head per annum is £20 5s. 5½d. for the year ending March last, compared with Birmingham £14 11s. 3¼d. and for England and Wales £15 11s. 9¾d. That at once shows that the test which has been applied in this pamphlet is somewhat misleading. It is misleading for another reason. There are plenty of experts here who will correct me if I am wrong. I want to put another consideration to the House which, again, makes the figures quoted quite misleading. The average cost per person relieved of those to whom you give outdoor relief is not the final test, because in one area, and this applies to West Ham, you have a large number of people given very small amounts of relief every week to bring them up to a scale which works automatically, in sums of 6d., 1s. to 2s. a week, whereas in places where they administer more strictly it is considered that persons who only require 6d. or 1s. a week to bring them up to the scale are not really destitute and ought not to have relief at all. I am informed that, West Ham has hundreds of cases where these small sums are given, and that is what brings down the average cost even to the figures I have given to the House. Those figures are not reliable.
  There is another consideration which must he taken into account in considering whether West Ham is extravagant and that is the proportion of the population who are in receipt of relief. I have here a table which shows the number of persons per 10,000 of the population in receipt of Poor Law relief on the 1st May, that is, before the general strike. The figures are: London—taken as a whole—481; Middlesbrough, particularly a district where there is great distress, 598; Birmingham, 248; and West Ham, 919. I hay, some further figures which are interesting, because they show the difference in the administration of West Ham and the administration in other places. They show the degree to which in West Ham they have pushed the deliberate policy which they have pursued. These further figures show the percentage of persons on the register of the Employment Exchanges who have been marked for disallowance of benefit, but had not actually ceased receiving benefit when the return was made. An

  1647
  investigation was made to see what proportion of these persons were in receipt at the same time of outdoor relief. The figures are very remarkable—Birmingham, 3 per cent.; Liverpool, 9·8; Hackney, 9·8; Gateshead—which, I think, is rather advanced in its ideas—17·6 and West Ham, 55·4. These figures speak for themselves.
  Let me consider another test which is sometimes applied, the test of the scale. A great deal has been said about the scale and about the alleged attempts on the part of the Ministry of Health to impose scales. I say frankly that I do not believe in scales. I think that any automatic adoption or operation of a scale is the wrong way in which to work Poor Law administration. But, of course, it is no doubt convenient to have some sort of a scale, to be taken as a maximum, and within which each case can be treated upon its merits and upon the circumstances which are known to exist. In West Ham, the scale which they have adopted, even though it has been somewhat reduced, is a high scale as compared with other unions. It is considerably higher than that of Greenwich. But what I want to put to the House is this fact, that the scale itself is not the real test of the extravagance or otherwise of the administration. Everything really depends on the way in which the scale is worked. To find out the way in which the scale is worked one has to go to the auditor's report. I do not want the House to think that the difficulty in West Ham is one which has only just arisen.
  Mr. THORNE: It is the West Ham Union and not West Ham.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. West Ham is in the West Ham Union, which also contains East Ham and a number of other areas. I will say the West Ham Union, and if I make a slip I hope the hon. Member will understand that it is not meant as any discourtesy to him. But, as I have said, this has been going on for years. In 1922 the administration of West Ham was considered extravagant. Over and over again it appears in various district auditors' reports which have been received that they have found one thing after another to criticise, and when the board of guardians had "outrun the
  1648
  constable" to the extent that they were obliged to come to the Ministry of Health for assistance, the Ministry itself endeavoured, on most occasions, to attach conditions to the loan with a view of inducing the guardians to reform their administration and put their house in order.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party was not in a majority in West Ham at that time by a long way.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say anything about the Labour party. I was not making any accusation against the Labour party.
  Mr. THORNE: The inference is there.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is drawing his own inference. I am talking about the board of guardians.
  Mr. MARCH: But you had been talking about the election of guardians.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, the guardians, not the election of the Labour party. Hon. Members opposite are in too much of a hurry to put caps on their own heads. I have been careful not to place a cap on anybody's head. I am telling the House what the position is and what is really the justification for the Bill which I am now submitting to the House. I do not want to go through a long list of loans made to the West Ham Union or the conditions which have from time to time been attached to them. Suffice it to say that here they are, a considerable number of them, and every time there has been a struggle between the board of guardians and the Minister of Health when such a concession has been obtained or wrung from them, and the Minister of Health in a desire to avoid open conflict has had to make concessions and give up demands he has made in order that the guardians may be induced to carry on better. The last report of the auditor, which refers to the year ending 31st March, 1925, contains so many comments upon the administration of the guardians that I must ask the House to allow me to make one or two quotations and extracts from it. The auditor says:
  "Generally, it may he stated that relief is granted automatically according to the

  1649
  scale as a minimum payment for 'maintenance,' seldom below it, and often above it for exceptional circumstances. In cases of unemployment relief, the scale is applied without proper consideration of the total income of the household. … In many such cases the payment of relief in addition to the income raises the total means of the family to such high figures as £5, £6 and £7 per week, clearly above the general average of families who are not on out relief. … In several cases such small sums as 2s., 1s. 6d., 1s. and 6d. are given for no apparent reason except to bring the means of the applicant up to scale. … In the cases of single men over 18, these are treated as separate applications and relief given regardless of the income of the household. … In the case of relief to juveniles between 16 and 18 at the juvenile unemployment centres, … 9s. 6d. in cash is being paid where the means of the applicant's household might be deemed sufficient. Old age pensions are being augmented to bring them up to the full scale of 15s. single, and 25s. married, and in the majority of cases there is no attempt to record the circumstances of sons who might be able to pay something. Prosecutions for obtaining relief by false pretences are numerous."
  No fewer than eight cases occurred in the last 18 months of fraud or misconduct on the part of relieving officers. Three of them were prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment, two were dismissed without prosecution, one was censured and put on probation and one was certified as mentally unfit.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Are these relieving officers?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, relieving officers.
  Mr. J. JONES: The hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) runs her own hoard of guardians at Plymouth in order to keep her seat. You start on us, and we will give it back with interest (HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  Mr. SCURR: Can the Minister of Health say how long these officers had been in the service of the board of guardians?
  Mr. JONES: We will have it all out before the night is over.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say, but there is an unusually large number of cases of officers who have been shown to have misconducted themselves. I think the House should hear some of these individual cases—
  Mr. JONES: We have them all here, everyone of them.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —which have been brought to the notice of the guardians by the district auditor. Here is one case. A married woman, living apart from her husband, with two single daughters at home, earning between them £5 12s. 0d. a week, was allowed 25s. a week for four weeks, and 15s, a week afterwards. A single young man, age 21, living with his parents, his father earning £4 a week, was allowed 10s. per week for 20 weeks. A household which consisted of four persons earning £5 5s. per week, was given 15s. per week relief for two weeks, and 10s. per week for 13 weeks. In another case where the income of the household was £6 3s. 6d., a widow with four children, she was allowed £1 for 14 weeks, and her case was not referred to the house committee, though in any case she was over the scale. In another case, a widow with one dependant child, various rates of relief, 20s., 25s. and 19s. were given, though according to the scale it should have been 14s. 6d. a week, and the relieving officer says that she was allowed over scale relief in order to pay off her debts.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: What was her rent?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In another case, a widow with a son at home, earning 45s. a week; she paid 20s. 6d. in rent and sublet for 23s. 6d. She was allowed 10s. weekly by the guardians until the 16th February, and then 5s. for 14 weeks, 12s. for six weeks and 14s. 6d. for six weeks. In a household of six, with an income of £6 per week, the relief allowed was £1 6s. 6d. weekly. In another case the earnings of the houshold which contained seven persons was £5 6s. a week. The applicant was allowed 1s. weekly for eight weeks, and it was then increased to 24s., and then constantly altering.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons in these households were legally bound to support the applicants? Were they uncles and aunts and stepfathers?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is much use the hon. Member trying to make excuses for these cases. They have been shown to the guardians—
  Mr. JONES: Put Birmingham up against it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —and they admitted that there was no possible excuse for them. I will give one more—
  Mr. JONES: Give us Birmingham.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Silvertown wishes to take part in the Debate he had better deal with it as a whole later on.
  Mr. JONES: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the invitation. I will do my best.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One more case—a household of five, in which the income of the householders was alleged as £4 per week. They received 30s. weekly from the guardians, but subsequently it was discovered that the father's wages, instead of being £3 5s., as stated in the books of the guardians, were £10 per week. To give an illustration of the statement made earlier in the Report as to what goes on in connection with cases where there are juveniles in juvenile employment centres, I find amongst the lists given by the district auditor a case where the father of a household of six, with an income of £7 12s., was given 9s. 6d. extra for 14 weeks in respect of his boy who was at a juvenile employment centre. All this is for the period which ended on the 31st March, 1925, and the same thing is going on now. Only recently I received a letter from a firm in East London calling my attention to
  "The reckless and indiscriminate manner in which relief tickets were distributed in West Ham during the strike period. We took five times the normal amount in relief tickets for one week, and wish to emphasise the fact that many of the recipients were given tickets of such high value that they hardly knew what to buy in order to use them up."
  I am sorry to have to put cases of this kind before the House, but I feel it is necessary the House should appreciate the sort of atmosphere which exists in the Union of West Ham. I am going now to give some of the cases which substantiate what I say about the practice of giving remunerative positions to relatives and friends of the guardians. In the case of the appointment of the chief engineer at Silcoats, the assistant engineers were passed over, when they were naturally expecting promotion, for a member of the Labour group of the West Ham Town Council.
  Mr. JONES: He was not a Freemason.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The board of guardians appointed an ex-secretary of the West Ham Trades and Labour Council as clerk of works, on 6th September, 1923, calling it a temporary appointment for three months only. He is now a permanent officer. Never before has there been a permanent clerk of works in the West Ham Union.
  Mr. JONES: Can you find any fault with the qualifications of these men for the jobs they got?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Mr. JONES: We will have all this out if you will allow me later.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Secretary of the West Ham Union Branch of the National Union of Municipal Workers was appointed registrar in June, 1925, over the head of the chief registrar of the department. One more case. A single son of one of the guardians was continually engaged in a temporary capacity in one department or another when married men were still on the waiting list, and this particular guardian had also two other relatives in the service of the board. I think, really, when appointments of this kind are made the onus of proving their qualifications really lie upon those who make the appointments. Let me quote to the House the words of Mr. Killip, who is the vice-chairman of the board of guardians. In December of 1923 he said:
  "He must admi that Mr. Ward was correct when he charged the Socialists with using the guardians' relief for political and personal ends. He regretted to have to say that the way in which some of his colleagues were canvassing the unemployed had become such a scandal that something would have to be done to put a stop to it. He, therefore, supported a resolution that no one individual member had power to alter the relief granted by another member."
  Mr. Killip is not always complimentary to me, but he has a refreshing way now and then of saying what is in his mind. At a meeting of the guardians on l0th June he said:
  "Some of the things that have been done in the name of the West Ham Guardians—well, the least we can do is to be ashamed of them. When you are elected to the guardians you do not go there to give out

  1653
  relief as though you were giving away handbills. … We have been landed in this position by people who have entirely abused their membership of the board of guardians."
  I could not myself say anything more severe than that. Now what is the position? The board of guardians have an overdraft of between £200,000 and £300,000, of which £100,000 was due to be repaid at the end of June. With a debt to the Ministry of some £2,000,000, and rates at 24s. in the £ in West Ham, they came to me and asked for a further loan of £425,000. I told them that in the face of facts such as those I have given to the House, in face of the method of administration in West Ham and the deliberate policy which had been pursued by the guardians there for so many years, I felt that I could not possibly agree to grant a loan for that further sum of money, when I was faced with the position that it was quite possible that the loan would never be repaid. It is now not only a question of protecting the helpless ratepayer; it is a question of protecting the taxpayer too. The result was that I wrote to the guardians, and even then I do not think that I was very severe. In the first instance I sent them no ultimatum, but I asked them to come and say what proposals they could make which would produce a real economy in administration. They said that they would be willing to undertake some reform in administration, but that they declined to alter their scale. Looking at the way in which the scale had been used in West Ham, I felt that that did not offer sufficient prospect of economies, as I wished. I, therefore, wrote to them again, and I will just read the letter, because it disposes of any accusation that I tried to impose a scale on them. The letter says:
  "I am directed … to state in reply to your letter that the terms of the resolution are too vague to enable the Minister to reach any definite conclusion as to the effect of that resolution in securing a substantial reduction of the rate of expenditure by the guardians which is essential. Although the Minister assumes that the guardians have included among the administrative proposals which they are prepared to adopt, proposals which they anticipate will have the effect desired, it is not clear to him that this effect can be obtained without a substantial modification of the scale of relief itself, and of the manner in which that scale is applied; and I am to request that the Minister may be specifically informed of the changes which the guardians
  1654
  propose to make and the estimated saving to be secured by the adoption of each of them. It is, of course, realised that such estimates cannot in all circumstances be precise, but they should be as closely prepared as is possible within the time available."
  That shows that the guardians were invited to make their own proposals for the economies which I think essential.
  Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the scale of relief? He omitted to state what it is in West Ham.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not suggest a scale. The hon. Member knows what the scale is. I can read it if he thinks it necessary.
  Mr. THORNE: A man and wife 19s. a week.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have explained, until I am almost weary of it, that the scale itself is not the thing that matters, but the way in which the scale is applied. That was brought out in the Report which I have just given to the House. The guardians again, no doubt too tied by all their commitments to give way, repeated their previous refusal to alter their scale, and the present situation arose. What is the present situation? Already they have had to cut down the relief, which they had refused to cut down. They have cut it down in the wrong way. They have cut it down all round, and it is the deserving who are suffering just as much as the undeserving. In a comparatively short time. if this Bill or something like it be not carried, relief would have to stop altogether in West Ham, because there would be no funds from which it might be administered. There then is the emergency. What was the Minister to do in circumstances like that? Would anybody contend that it is the duty of a Minister, when be is faced by a deliberate, Prolonged, and repeated maladministration of the kind of which I have given specimens to the House, to go on lending the taxpayers' money without any control over the expenditure of that money? I feel certain that no one would take up that position. Everybody would say that the Minister was not doing his duty, either to the boards of guardians, who in the face of great unpopularity are trying to do their work, or to the ratepayers

  1655
  in the particular district affected, or to the taxpayers of the country as a whole, if he were to put himself in that position.
  Those who come here, who criticise and object to the particular method which we have adopted, at any rate must tell the House what is the alternative method which they have in mind. We shall be very much interested to hear it. I might mention one or two alternatives that have occurred to me, because the House will believe that I have not jumped into a Measure of this kind without consideration, but that I have tried to see all the possible ways in which one could get out of this extremely difficult position. I examined the precedents. One way would be to follow the precedent of the insurance committees, to put an end to the present board of guardians and to have a new election. It is obvious that that would not produce any amelioration. The people receiving the relief would vote in the elections and would naturally vote for those who would say that they were to continue to have relief. There is another method which has already been adopted, and that was the Order for what was known as the Mond scale. I do not think it is any secret to say that that Order was found to be perfectly ineffective, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite made his reputation largely in this House by the speech in which he declared that by rescinding that Order he had rescued his Department from degradation. That may be put aside as of no use.
  Then there is another method, which is to he found in a section of the Public Health Act of 1875, in which the Minister proceeds by mandamus. He first makes an Order, and, if it is not carried out, proceeds by mandamus. That is a very long and cumbersome procedure, and it is not effective. Again, the only result of putting that procedure into practice is that the guardians go to prison and there is nobody left to administer relief. The fourth method would be to supersede the guardians by a superior local authority. Quite apart from the unwillingness of any superior authority to go in and administer relief in West Ham, that is quite impracticable. Therefore, I come to the last method, which is in the Bill. The Amendment says that the method in the Bill "destroys a funda-
  1656
  mental principle of the Constitution." Is that a fact? I wonder whether hon. Members opposite think that this is an entirely new method of dealing with these cases? If they are under that impression, I want to disillusion them.
  The method in the Bill is adopted from a very old Statute, the Education Act of 1870. Under that Act, I think in Section 63, if the Education Department was satisfied that a School Board was not performing its functions properly, it could supersede that School Board and put into its stead appointed persons, exactly on the same lines as are proposed in the first Clause of this Bill. I have made inquiries and I am told that that Section was actually put into operation on a number of occasions. At any rate, the fact that it remained on the Statute Book for over 30 years shows, I think, that there is no danger to any fundamental principle of our Constitution in what I am proposing here.
  But I have not contented myself with the practice under the 1870 Act. I have been looking for something rather more recent than that, and I have found it. Here is a Housing Bill which was presented last year by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), supported by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). I find that among the objects of this Bill, as stated in the Memorandum, was to strengthen the hands of the Minister of Health in the case of default on the part of local authorities. I looked at that Bill with great interest to see what it contained. I found that it stated that where it appeared to the Minister that the local authority had failed to exercise their powers under the principal Act, or otherwise to discharge any duty thereunder, the Minister of Health could make an order directing that authority, within a time prescribed by the Order to carry out such works. Hon. Members opposite in their desire to strengthen the hands of the Minister of Health where the local authority had defaulted were proposing that he should usurp the control of the ratepayers over the disbursement of public moneys, and that he should take upon

  1657
  himself to order them to do what he required, and in default to proceed by mandamus. Is it the mandamus that hon. Members opposite lay stress on?
  Miss LAWRENCE: The difference is that in the one case the local authority continues to function and in the other it does not.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I see now that what she objects to in this Bill is that I am proposing to put in appointed representatives instead of the local authority. If it had been procedure by mandamus, then it would have been in line with this Bill and there would have been no objection. This is a Prevention of Unemployment Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), and supported by such authorities as the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and other distinguished Gentlemen opposite. Let us see what they think. This is a Bill to set up a board and the local authorities are to prepare schemes for the relief of unemployment to be referred to the Board. If any local authority, it says,
  "fail to prepare such schemes or to execute them within the time and in the manner required by the board, the board either themselves or through such Government Department as they may deem appropriate, shall prepare or execute such schemes and recover from the local authority such part of the expense of the preparation or execution of such schemes as the board may think fit as a civil debt."
  That is precisely the same thing. These are not nominees; it says the Board itself is to give authority. What about the fundamental principle of the constitution of local government? If this really be a partisan and misguided attempt to meet the situation, then I think I can claim that it is one in principle which has the approval of some of those who are coming forward to oppose it because it is moved by the party on this side instead of on that side of the House.
  The provisions of the Bill do not require much explanation. In Subsections (1) and (4) it is proposed that
  1658
  where the board of guardians or any Poor Law authority appear to have ceased to discharge any or all of their functions then the Minister may supersede them and put in their places persons who will under Sub-section (4) be remunerated for their services. I will explain that, when this Bill becomes law, it is not my intention to appoint boards of guardians of the same size as those displaced. I propose to put a small number and expect them to give their whole time to the work, and it will be necessary that they should get some remuneration. I also propose under Sub-section (4) to appoint persons of competence to act as an advisory committee to whom the board can refer. The Advisory Committee will be independent persons and will not be remunerated by salary, but of course if they have to travel to West Ham and back that will be considered.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what the remuneration proposed to be granted to these persons will be?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not settled anything at present. Certainly it will not be anything which the hon. and gallant Member will be advised to take exception to.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There must be a Financial Resolution?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, these salaries are not to be paid by the Exchequer.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will you advertise?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I only want to add that the Bill in the last paragraph of Sub-section (1) provides for the election of members of the board who will come into office when the guardians go out; and under Subsection (2) power is given to the Minister to extend, if he thinks it necessary, the appointed time that guardians can hold office and an Order will be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and there will be an opportunity for Parliament to express approval or disapproval. I think I have said all I want to say. Once again I would say to the House that it is with the greatest possible regret that I find myself obliged to bring forward a Measure of this kind. It is a temporary one, for I do not anticipate it will be needed for boards of guardians after a short period of time. I trust

  1659
  it may never be necessary to put it into operation except in the case where the emergency has arisen. As one who is a believer in local government and always desired to extend the functions of local government, I view with the utmost concern a state of things that is bringing the good name of local government down. Here is a state of affairs which, if local government is to be saved, must be put a stop to, and this Bill is the best way in which I think I can do it. I do not desire to take to the Minister of Health any more powers than are necessary for his purpose. If when we come to Committee, there are proposals put forward which in the view of the Government will embody any safeguards that are thought necessary so that no Minister can make an unreasonable use of the power conferred by this Bill, I shall be ready to consider them, but always with this proviso, that they must not be such as will hamstring this Bill or render it ineffective.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of a Bill which, by empowering the Minister of Health to supersede the democratically elected guardians of the poor by the Minister's nominees, destroys a fundamental principle of the Constitution that local government shall be vested in the elected representatives of the people, enables nominees of the Minister to disburse public moneys without any control by the ratepayers who provide such moneys, and is a partisan and misguided attempt to meet a situation arising out of the failure of His Majesty's Government to deal with the problem of unemployment on national lines."
  Before proceeding to an examination of the general principles of this Bill, may I be allowed to tender my congratulations to the Minister of Health for the high standard of public morality that he has laid down for the guidance of the country? Coming from him, it is sure to be a stimulus to that purity of public life, of which we in this country are all so proud. I think that it must have been consoling to the consciences of his supporters to be told there was something different in corruption between voting for a guardian who might increase your scale of relief by 2s. 6d. a week and giving a colonial or judicial appointment to a man who had served your party well. Regarding the temporary nature of the
  1660
  Bill which was so much dwelt on in the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks, I would merely say that any principle in this Bill which is adopted by the House would be a precedent that would be certain to be acted upon by the right hon. Gentleman or anyone of his disposition in dealing with whatever local authority administers poor relief in this country.
  May I say with regard to the Bill that it is more dangerously reactionary than the Eight Hours Bill we discussed last week. No one will have difficulty in seeing that it came from the same stable and is of the same pedigree. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed the House for, I think, about 75 minutes, and I submit that in that time he has done more practical Communist propaganda than the Communist party working in poverty and isolation can do in 75 years. Indeed, he has given that party a much greater boost than even was done by his colleague when he sent its leaders to prison. Anyone familiar with Communist literature knows that thesis after thesis has been written to show that political democracy in capitalist countries is only a toy given to the workers to keep them quiet and obedient, but that as soon as they use that toy to the inconvenience of their masters it will be taken away. We have been told that they would have votes as long as they voted for their master's voice, that they would have local government while they carried out their master's policy, that they would have a Parliament as long as that Parliament did not seriously threaten their master's economic power. And the deduction which the reader was always expected by the author to draw was this—that while the working class of this country should try to capture political power in order to weaken the influence of their masters, they should not rely on it mainly as the means of their emancipation. We on this side have always questioned that reasoning. But what have we to say in future when they quote against us the action to-day of the right hon. Gentleman? Not only Socialists but Liberals have always in this country asked the Government and the people to put their faith in political action, and they have so successfully appealed to the people that there has grown up in this country a system of local government which, I

  1661
  think, in the main, as has been said, rests broadly on the will of the people.
  To-day we are asked to pass a Measure which is a step towards the complete destruction of that system of government. I submit to the House that this is a very serious matter; that to attack the work of a century in political reform, is something that ought not to be done even by this Conservative House of Commons, without the deepest consideration of its probable consequences on the psychology of the country. The paltry excuse which the Minister submits as justification for his act, is not one which any independent House of Commons would accept. He has attempted to justify himself entirely on what has happened at West Ham. Local government in this country was not granted on condition that the locally elected representatives would satisfy a Tory Government. If that had been the basis of our system, it would have been the very negation of democracy. Socialists and Tories differ as to the rights of the poor. We have been appealed to, not merely by people on this side of the House, but by the party opposite, when impatient individuals created trouble for them, to reason with our fellows, to convert them to our point of view, to try to get a majority of our comrades where that majority at the time was against us, and to rely on that constitutional way and on that way only to establish in society the views for which we stood.
  In the local authorities, in the boards of guardians which we are discussing here, and, indeed, in regard to every public authority in this country, that is exactly what has taken place. Labour and Socialist enthusiasts carried on their propaganda. In the course of time they got their majority, and replaced the Tory majority against which the propaganda had been conducted. Naturally, when the people secured a change in the character of the majority they expected a change in policy. If a Labour or Socialist majority were merely to carry out, in continuity, the policy of their Conservative predecessors, there would be no sense at all in making the change. Toryism is Toryism from whatever hand it comes, whether the hand be the hand of a Socialist, or the hand of a member of the Conservative party. I think it not unreasonable, when we allow for differ-
  1662
  ence in views, to expect that the Socialist majority will give greater consideration and more generous treatment to the poor whose affairs they administer than the Conservative majority whom they have succeeded. When a Socialist majority proceed, quite naturally, to give effect to their views, they find themselves confronted by a Conservative Minister of Health. He says, in effect, when they come to him as they must come to him: "If your scale of relief or the manner of administering it"—it really amounts to the same thing—"if your assistance to the poor, under your Socialist administration, exceeds what is given under a Conservative administration, then I will take the earliest opportunity of smashing you when you are compelled to come my way." I refuse to follow the right hon. Gentleman into an examination of the details of the administration of the West Ham Union.
  Mr. J. JONES: We will do so; we have it all here.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no doubt that my colleagues behind me, with their fund of local knowledge, will deal adequately and creditably with that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I will say this in passing. Even if all he has said were true, even if it could be proved up to the hilt, it would not justify this House in giving a Second Reading to the Measure now before us, because this is not a West Ham Measure. This is not a Bill for dealing with Bedwelty. This is a Bill for the gradual destruction of local Government in England and Wales. [Laughter.] observe the hilarity of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. At the close of Question Time to-day he was compelled by the House to inform it that over 60 unions in this country had been forced, through economic necessity, to seek sanction for loans from the Minister of Health. I have beside me here a list of 36 unions, which, since the general strike began, only a few weeks ago, have been compelled to go to the Minister of Health in order to seek sanction for loans. In these 36 cases, the sanction was granted, but in 11 of the cases, before the sanction was given, a reduction had to be promised in the scale of relief that was being granted by the unions concerned.

  1663
  What is the use of submitting that anything which is happening in West Ham justifies this Bill, or sets a limit to the powers of the Minister of Health in his administration of this Bill? Under this Bill, if these 11 unions or any one of the unions had refused to agree to the recommendations or advice or suggestion, or whatever you call it, made by the Minister of Health, then the Minister of Health has power to refuse his sanction and if they did not accept his decision, this Bill would enable him to deprive them of their functions and to set up in their place paid officials of the Ministry from Whitehall. With regard to these 36 unions, in every case they are conforming with Circular 703. I sympathise with the reference which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the difficulties encountered by boards of guardians in this country within the past two or three years, but I submit that the difficulties of the guardians have been largely due to the blunders of the Tories. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, this trouble began with the industrial collapse which took place in 1921. There has grown up in this country a state of affairs which, in itself, is some contribution to the view often proclaimed about the distinction of the classes. We have had what might be almost termed a segregation of the working class. We have many districts that are largely working class camps. We have huge areas from which the rich, who can afford to do so, flee—for residential purposes—as from a pestilence. I do not know much about West Ham or Poplar, but I venture to say that there are no millionaires in West Ham and few in Poplar.
  Mr. J. JONES: If fleas were money, we would all be millionaires.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The working class who reside in areas such as that are used by the other people in order to create their wealth, but they are not good enough for the other people to spend their time among during the period when they are not engaged in industry. The districts most hardly hit by unemployment are, of course, the working-class localities, and the working-class localities, in the very nature of things, are the localities which have the lowest valuation. The Tory Government, in carrying out its national
  1664
  policy, refused to make unemployment a national burden. They allowed people, who had made their money in industrial districts and through the labour of the industrialists in times of prosperity, to escape their just share of the burden during the years of adversity. They threw the maintenance of the poor on the poor themselves. The man who could get outside the necessitous area could escape, almost completely, any substantial contribution to the relief of the poverty that had naturally accrued from the industrial collapse. In 1922, and for some time later, the state of affairs created by that national policy did not cause any alarm. People, particularly those on the other side, with that lack of knowledge which always characterises their dealings with industrial situations, thought the collapse was only temporary, but the collapse continued. Unemployment grew; the difficulties of the boards of guardians and the necessitous areas increased, and so did the indebtedness to which reference has been made at length by the Minister of Health.
  In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to my brief handling of this problem during 1924. When I took office, I found the position had already become serious. Within 10 days after taking up my position at the Ministry of Health, I was called on to deal with the problem of Poplar. It would have been easy for me to have accepted the doctrine of continuity of government, to have blamed my predecessors for the condition of things which prevailed, to have sacrificed or ignored the principles of local government which I have advocated in public life, and to have had a more comfortable time than I and my colleagues had during the first four weeks of our Administration. But with the hearty support of my colleagues, with the enthusiastic approval of my party, I preferred not to sacrifice our principles, but to face the difficulties. I refused to bow to the demand that was made on me to punish the local representatives of Poplar, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, with, I think, some truth, I gained a certain amount of respect in this House, not merely from my friends, but, I hope, from my opponents, for the manner in which I handled that problem.

  1665
  I had also put before me at that time the very difficulties with which the boards of guardians are now embarrassed, and with which the right hon. Gentleman, in, I think, a very foolish way, is attempting to deal in this Bill. I recognised that they were real difficulties, and I promised the representatives of the necessitous areas that at the very earliest moment when my mind was free from the consideration of the Housing Bills that were then my chief concern, I would concentrate my attention on this problem and endeavour to find a solution. I recognised then that the solution would have to lie to some extent in undoing the evils that had been done by the policy of placing a national obligation on the local ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman sneered at the principle of the cancellation of debts, but this principle becomes obnoxious only when you are dealing with your own people. It is not at all an obnoxious doctrine always, when you are dealing with other people, and I had no doubt then, and I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman has no doubt now, that no complete solution of this problem will be found that does not involve at least a partial cancellation of debts. But I recognised, and so did the Government of which I was a Member, that the proper course and the immediate manner of alleviation was by taking national responsibility for the maintenance of the unemployed, and my colleague, the late Minister of Labour, proceeded immediately to give effect to that policy by improving the amount which the unemployed would receive from State and insurance funds and consequently reducing the burden of the unemployed on the local ratepayers of the country.
  The position began to improve immediately we took office. I have been looking up the figures, and I find that in the average number of persons per 10,000 of the population receiving Poor Law relief in England and Wales there was a steady diminution during 1924. I do not want to quote many figures, but let me submit these figures to the House, because I think they are noteworthy and something that enlightens the country on what may be the result of proper administration and careful legislation. For the first quarter of 1924, in the month of March, the month after I took office, the
  1666
  number of persons per 10,000 of the population receiving relief in England and Wales was 319; three months later, in June, that figure had gone down to 297; in September it had gone down to 272; and then a foolish country ousted the Labour Government, and I think this fact is also noteworthy, that from the day the Labour Government demitted office these figures have steadily increased until the present moment. In March, 1925, the 272 had become 285; it remained stationary for the next quarter; in September it had gone up to 315; and in December it had reached the figure of 342. According to the "Labour Gazette" figures, in March of this year it had bounded further to 421, and in the month of May it had gone up to 624. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why!"] I do not want to compare the month of May with the month of September, the last month in which the Labour Government was in office, but I think it is fair to compare the 272 of September, 1924, with the 421 of the month of March, 1926.
  Someone on the other side asked me the reason why. Is not the reason obvious to anyone who is taking an intelligent interest in the public affairs of this country? I could take these figures and show that they are the trail of Tory policy in dealing with unemployment. I could show how the burden on the local ratepayers increases point by point as the burden is taken from the shoulders of the Supertax payers by His Majesty's Government I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts as an authority the editors of the "Poor Law Officers' Journal," but I will read this to the House, because there may be others, at any rate, who will believe that these are not partial or biased people, but that they are those who, being most immediately concerned and interested in administering the Poor Law, are in the best position to give us an impartial judgment. Here is what the editors of the "Poor Law Officers' Journal" say about the present situation:
  "The unemployment figures of the Ministry of Labour (the general strike excluded) are decreasing at the rate of 125,000 a year in England and Wales. The Poor Law figures have increased at the rate of over 250,000. In other words, we have once more ample confirmation of the fact that the Treasury, that is to say, the taxpayer"—

  1667
  I would have almost said the Super-tax payer—
  "is gaining at the expense of the ratepayer."
  Further on they say:
  "The black spots, the necessitous areas"—
  and not merely West Ham—
  "are getting steadily blacker."
  I submit that in these circumstances we should have a great deal of sympathy with those who have had to administer Poor Law relief in this country during the trying years 1922–1926, and the right hon. Gentleman, instead of doing that, has devoted almost 50 minutes of his speech to a denunciation of those who have been grappling with that problem and, I have no doubt, doing their very best—I admit, with a sympathy different from that which would be displayed by the right hon. Gentleman—to bring some little brightness into the darkened lives of those who have been overcome by our industrial difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman, in one part of his speech, made some reference to our donning caps, and he hoped we would not accept caps too soon if we did not think they fitted. I want to submit to him that he has this afternoon put on the black cap and has proceeded to decree sentence of death on a board of guardians, and probably on boards of guardians, in this country, which, instead of deserving that sentence, deserve our greatest consideration, our utmost sympathy, and, in the main, our national gratitude.
  I want to refer again, as I did at the outset, to the important principle of democracy that is involved in this Bill. Democracy here has reached a critical stage in its career. It is held up by a Tory Government; its way is barred; it is told that it must turn back. Up till now, we have erroneously described slow progress or no progress as reaction. We were wrong in so describing it, but we used that description because no progress was the worst we had known, but this Bill is real reaction, and, in view of the industrial circumstances in which it is introduced, it is reaction with a vengeance. To bring in a Bill like this, at a moment when possibly millions of children in this country are on the verge of starvation, children whose parents in very many cases are not directly involved
  1668
  in the miners' dispute at all, to select that time for the introduction of this Measure, is in itself an offence against the good taste of the public life of the country. The right hon. Gentleman dealt at length with what he called the corruption that exists among our local representatives. I have not had the pleasure myself of serving on a board of guardians. but I submit that the type of man or woman that we get to do our work on boards of guardians does not differ materially or morally from the type of man or woman who serves on other local governing bodies of the country.
  It has been my good fortune to serve for 10 or 12 years on two of the largest local authorities in this country, and in both cases I was taking an active, and sometimes an influential, part. I had opportunities of coming into the closest touch with the colleagues who were engaged with me in that work, and I want to say this, that among men of all parties, among women of all parties, I found nothing but a purity of motive, a standard of morality, of which any country might be proud. I have discussed the standard of public morality in this country with representative people from other lands, and I am pleased to be able to say that I have on all occasions found that our public life is the admiration of the world; and for a Minister of the Crown to come forward to-day and, on the evidence that he has submitted to us, to cast reflections on the honesty and the purity of the motives of the people who are in the public life of our country is something which I regret, sincerely regret, apart from the fact that it came from a Conservative Minister.
  Viscountess ASTOR: He did not do it.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am told he did not do it. He is doing it in the most practical manner possible. He has submitted a Bill here to-day which asks us to scrap the voluntary service that you are getting in the administration of Poor Law relief because it is corrupt, because it is untrustworthy, and to replace it by a, body of officials selected by the Ministry of Health. I fear that again we may have to set aside—I hope it will only be temporarily—the battle for economic improvement upon which we have been engaged and to fight over again the whole battle of democracy.

  1669
  I do not know what form that struggle may take, but I know there is bound to be resentment and indignation, deep and wide, at a Bill under which the democratically-elected voluntary guardians of the poor are to be superseded by bureaucratically-appointed and highly-remunerated guardians of the rich.
  Mr. ERNEST ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat told us in one of his phrases that he knew nothing about West Ham or Poplar. That may possibly account for the fact that his speech contained absolutely nothing by way of criticism of the Bill before the House, or by way of reply to the damning indictment of the Minister of Labour in presenting it. Instead of that, he treated us to a little homily as to what a great Minister of Health he was in the Socialist Government, and what the nation had lost by superseding him. As the constituency which I have the honour to represent forms one of the constituent parishes of the West Ham Union, I am glad of the opportunity afforded to me in expressing my views on the Bill before the House, and also to be able to give voice to that strong sense of local approval which has been accorded to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health for his manly and courageous handling of the very delicate situation created by the contumacy of the West Ham Board of Guardians. I am quite sure that we shall hear a great deal about the sacredness of local self-government from the Opposition benches to-day. In the West Ham Union, at any rate, the fact has to be recognised that local self-government has definitely broken down, and that the local service of Poor Law relief is not now administered from the local rate but has to be largely supplemented by loans from the Ministry of Health. I go further. [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I hope the hon. Member will show the usual courtesy in giving a just hearing to an hon. Member making his maiden speech.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I go further, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I say that not only has local self-government definitely broken down, but I assert that we, are getting a mere semblance of local self-government in West Ham under
  1670
  present conditions, because it is a notorious fact that even the Socialist members of the board have had to admit that they have to obey the behest of the local juntas, the trade and labour council, and the unemployed organisation. I suggest that to be dictated to, and to be bullied, in that way by outside organisations cannot be justified, and cannot be called real self-government? In yet another sense I suggest that we—I am speaking now so far as my own constituency at Leyton is concerned—are not getting local self-government so far as Poor Law administration is concerned. For Poor Law purposes the Union comprises half-a-dozen parishes, not mere parishes as the rural member understands them, but half-a-dozen separate and distinct townships. It is often said that a district gets just the government it deserves. So far as we in Leyton are concerned, we suggest that we are not getting the government we deserve. It is dominated by the Socialism of East Ham West Ham and Walthamstow. Leyton, with a population of nearly 150,000 souls, contributes a heavy proportion to the rateable value, and sends but a minor representation to the West Ham Board of Guardians. It is represented on the District Council by 24 moderate-minded men and six Socialists only, and it is represented on the County Council by one Socialist only out of 10 members. Leyton returns to this House two Conservative Members—and stout ones at that—and yet our partnership in the West Ham Union secures to us, so far as Poor Law administration is concerned, a grotesque travesty of representative local self-government.
  When the Minister of Health adumbrated his plans for a revised system of Poor Law administration at the beginning of this year, although there were some of us at Leyton who were genuinely doubtful as to whether the local council was not already overweighted with work, yet we all thought that if the right hon. Gentleman's plan was carried out it would free us, at any rate, from the shackles of West Ham. May I express the cordial hope that those plans for Poor Law reform will very shortly be brought into being.
  It is not often that I go out of my way to give advice to the Liberal party, but

  1671
  I am willing, having regard to the sorry disunion there is in their ranks at the present time, to endeavour to save them from falling into further error. In Leyton we have no party politics in local government. Liberals, Conservatives, and all moderate electors, combine to fight the Socialist menace. How well we work together may be gathered from the figures I have already given of the local Socialist representation in the borough. I should like here to pay a tribute to the Liberal party who there are associated with local government. They are to my mind some of the best types of local administrators we possess. Of course they have a few fads—which are excusable with Liberals! They are, so far as local administration goes, as I say, the best type of men. The advice I have to tender to the Liberal party in this House to-day is to support their local followers, and to see that their action here shall be such that it will not deprive those local followers of what support they now get. Do not, in a word, drive them out of your party by affording support to the Socialist Opposition to the Bill now before the House, because there is not a Liberal in Leyton, or in any parish comprised in the West Ham Union for the matter of that, who does not, I can tell them, support to the fullest possible extent the Minister of Health in his action in relation to the West Ham Board of Guardians in the present Bill. If the Liberal party here are stupid enough to support their Socialist allies in connection with this Bill, it will be a mistake, and I think it is only right that the Minister of Health should know that he has the support I have mentioned. But for this fact I might, and probably should, have kept this advice to myself and watched the remnants of the Liberal party in this House strain at the gnat of self-government and swallow the camel of Socialist extravagance, and I should then have watched with interest the further progress of local Liberal party disintegration with pleasure to myself and profit to the party which I represent.
  The House is always indulgent to those who can speak with actual local knowledge of the subject before it. I think it right, therefore, that I should give a few examples of the extravagances from
  1672
  which we hope to be freed by this Bill. For some considerable time in Leyton the relief committee of the West Ham Guardians dispensed relief on a lower scale than that recognised by the Board. People were kept from want. The local guardians did their duty in relieving real destitution, though they had no desire to be lavish in their expenditure. As soon as this lower scale of relief came to the knowledge of the West Ham Board of Guardians, the local committee were ordered to level up their own standard to that of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has spoken in regard to the action of the boards of guardians during the strike. During the strike many complaints were brought to me that strikers were being relieved by the West Ham Board of Guardians.
  Miss WILKINSON: Hear, hear!
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Moreover, they were men who up to that time had been in constant employment. Therefore, I suggest to the House that it could not possibly have been necessary. I was also informed in several quarters—and I have no reason to disbelieve it—that men were advised to apply for relief to the board of guardians before they drew their strike pay so that they could say, with some semblance of truth, that they had not received strike pay, although they knew full well that they were going to draw the strike pay afterwards This disregard of the earnings of the rest of the members of the family has often led, in the case of the West Ham Union, to the grant of relief where there was no destitution whatever. The slogan of the guardians was "Work or Maintenance for All," and that has led to the disappearance of family responsibility. There have been numerous cases of people living in double tenement houses where the upstairs tenant was living on Poor Law out-relief, while the downstairs tenant, probably a Leyton man with a wife and children to look after, preferred to keep his work and keep his wife and children free from the taint of the Poor Law. Through his rent the latter was contributing to the upkeep of his more opulent and more leisured co-tenant. Real and genuine destitution every man who is a man would cheerfully pay his poor rates to relieve, but

  1673
  originating with Poplar, spreading to West Ham, and, I fear, to many other districts, the practice is not now the relief of destitution—for it should be borne in mind by hon. Members that that is the only proper function of the board of guardians. The desire of the West Ham Guardians has been to level up the standard of living, where there was destitution or not. The Socialists have preached that there is no stigma in pauperism, that everybody has a right to live on public funds.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The manner in which this has been sapping the responsibility of our people can best be illustrated by a case which I have had from the lips of a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians and for which he can give chapter and verse. A widow was living with her son, a motor driver, who fell out of work. For weeks and for months the widow struggled on, parting with small portions of her furniture and even with some of her clothing rather than make an application to the relieving officer. [An HON. MEMBER "Shame!"] Time went on and the conditions grew worse, until real destitution was upon her. At last the neighbours persuaded this poor woman, and rightly so, to apply to the board of guardians for relief, and she was given relief consisting of some amount of coal, something in kind and something in money. That went on for some weeks. Then the guardians discovered that the relief given was not according to their scale, and they raised the money by 7s. 6d. per week. Later the son got work. The idea of parish relief had in the first instance been repugnant to that woman, but what was the effect upon her of accepting relief? When she came to know that through her son getting work she might lose something, instead of showing any desire to dispense with parish relief her one anxiety was to find out how much she would lose. That is how the receipt of Poor Law relief influences people. In nine, cases out of 10, whenever a man puts his hand out for charity his usefulness to the community is diminished.
  Mr. J. JONES: What about yourself—putting your hand out for contracts?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I will not weary the House with further details, but will content myself with welcoming the Bill, though only as a temporary palliative of the evil from which we are suffering. I wish to impress upon the House, and more particularly upon the Government, that the real root of the trouble is not touched by this Bill. The administration of Poor Law relief, either in West Ham or anywhere else, by or from Whitehall, for a long or short period, is not the remedy. The real remedy lies in the repeal of Section 9, Sub-section (1), of the Representation of the People Act, which would disfranchise those who are responsible for electing such boards of guardians as we have at West Ham. The Minister of Health confirmed the absolute corruption which exists there. I have seen it, I know it, and can vouch for it.
  Mr. J. JONES: And you were in it the first time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: A candidate who offers the people of a district the higher scale of relief is bound to gather round him hundreds of anxious workers eager to secure his election to the board in order that they may share in that boundless relief. We can sympathise with the argument put forward when the Representation of the People Act was passing through this House that a person ought not to lose the right of citizenship if compelled through difficulties temporarily to seek Poor Law relief, but no one realised the extent of what was possible under that Section. I have no hesitation in saying that half the Socialism of this country, the worse half, the most repugnant half, would be killed if this particular Section of the Representation of the People Act were repealed. It would leave us with the other type of Socialism, a very decent type, which could be easily combatted, while ridding us of those who would batten and fatten upon public funds.
  Mr. W. THORNE: After the speeches of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. E. Alexander) and the Minister of Health, I think everyone will come to the conclusion that it is about time a Commission was appointed to investigate the charges they made. I think I am justified in saying that the West Ham Guardians have on previous occasions invited investigation of charges made from time to time, and I am sure the

  1675
  present board of guardians would only be too glad if such an investigation were made into these allegations. From One to time attempts have been made to prove the statements about corruption in the West Ham Union, but they never have been proved in any particular, and, as far as I can understand it, the only crime which can be charged against the West Ham Guardians is that they have been very humane, that is to say, they have given relief to the poor on a scale a little in excess of that of Poor Law authorities in other parts of the country. I am not quite sure whether the scale of relief in operation in West Ham is in any way excess of that in Poplar. There may be some slight difference, but there is very little. The scale of relief in the West Ham Union has been reduced, I think, on two occasions. At one time the maximum allowance was 59s., at present it is 55s., but that maximum is granted only in cases where there is a man and wife and six or seven children. Some members of the House will be surprised to learn that the amount of relief given to a man and wife in the West Ham Union is 19s., whereas the amount in Manchester is 20s., and in the Sheffield Union 23s. It is true that in West Ham they give in addition to the 19s. for the man and his wife 5s. extra for each child, but I do not think anyone can say that is in any way extravagant.
  I think the House ought to know, and I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will be able to say it is so, that in granting relief all the income of a family is taken into consideration—the amount received as unemployment benefit, and any sums the family receive from any other source. It is perfectly evident that one cannot always rely upon the statements made by the applicants, but where there is some doubt as to the money coming into a family there is a strict investigation. The 18 charges made by the West Ham Ratepayers' Association some time ago were thoroughly investigated, and if any Member of this House, with an impartial mind, will read the charges and the results of the investigation, he will be perfectly satisfied with the result, so far as the West Ham Board of Guardians are concerned.
  1676
  The affairs of the West Ham Board of Guardians have been a thorn in the side of all Governments for a number of years. I have been a Member of this House since 1906—that is very nearly 21 years—and on more than one occasion their affairs have been before the House. Various suggestions have been made as to how Poor Law authorities can be assisted. I am one of those who have held for a number of years—not for the last 10 or 15 years, but ever since I have been a member of the Socialist party, over 40 years—that all the relief distributed by Poor Law authorities in the country should be a national charge; if not all of it, at any rate the major part, ought to be provided from the National Exchequer. A committee, of which I have the honour of being chairman ever since 1921, has drafted various schemes for relieving the position—not for the purpose of finding a complete remedy, but in order to get a palliative, and schemes have been brought before successive Governments, but they have been turned down. On one occasion when the present Minister of Health was what we call an ordinary rank and filer in this House he was one of a deputation which waited upon the Government asking them to give some relief to Poor Law authorities. He was the chief spokesman of the deputation and expressed the unanimous wish of all the Poor Law authorities, and personally, I think, he made one of the best speeches ever made in support of the plea that some relief ought to be given to Poor Law authorities. What we have suggested for the time being is that as the average Poor Law relief is 2s. 11d., where the Poor Law authorities pay over that amount, 75 per cent. of it should be paid by the central Government. Not very long ago, in consequence of this case being very urgent and because the Prime Minister had been pressed upon this question of necessitous areas, the Government were good enough to set up a Committee to investigate the schemes which had been presented, and that Committee met on the 5th November. A number of meetings were held at which a number of witnesses were examined and various schemes were considered, but they were not in a position to recommend any grant from the Exchequer because they had no authority to do so, and they were only appointed to consider the schemes which had been put forward. If the Parlia-

  1677
  mentary Secretary to the Ministry et Health will investigate the conclusions of that Committee, he will find that they were strongly in favour of some assistance being given to these various Poor Law authorities which are suffering very much from the large number of unemployed in their districts.
  I would like to point out that the West Ham Union consists of eight parishes and not six as has been stated. In three of those parishes, namely, West Ham, East Ham, and Walthamstow, the population has grown something like 100 per cent. during the last 20 years. When I first came to live in West Ham, the population was about 121,000, but, in consequence of the rapid growth of the borough of West Ham, and the population of East Ham and Walthamstow, we now find a very large number of poor people residing in those three particular areas, and the proportion of poor people there is much greater than any other industrial centre in this country. As the Minister of Health has already pointed out, one of our difficulties arises on account of the extremely low rateable value in these areas. If our rateable value was as high as Birmingham, of course we should not be in our present position. I think the population of Birmingham is pretty well on all fours with the population of the West Ham Poor Law Authority, although there may be a few thousands difference. But when we come to consider the rateable value we find that in Birmingham it is £6,000,000, whereas in West Ham it is £3,500,000. Then again the population of Manchester is on all fours with the West Ham Poor Law Authority. The rateable value in Manchester is over £6,000,000. Therefore, it is evident the West Ham Poor Law Authority cannot go on in the way it has been going on.
  As the Minister of Health has stated, the West Ham Poor Law authorities have been absolutely compelled to borrow money from the Goschen Committee, and I believe they have borrowed something over £2,000,000. I want to remind hon. Members that between now and the year 1932 and 1934 the interest and principal which West Ham will be called upon to pay will eventually amount to £250,000, and then it begins to dwindle down. That time is a long way off. The Minister of Health is now proposing to abolish the West Ham Board of Guardians as they
  1678
  are established to-day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also wipe out the debt at the same time, because that is one of our troubles, and that is one of the difficulties the Government will have to face. We are all well acquainted with local administration and Poor Law government, and if the West Ham Poor Law Authority was not called upon to come to the Government for their loans they could snap their fingers at you and pay what scale they liked. It is because they are compelled to come to the Goschen Committee on every occasion they desire to raise a loan that the Government have always insisted upon the scale of relief being reduced. That is now taking place, and when any Poor Law authorities have to go to the Goschen Committee, they always insist upon the scale being reduced.
  What is now being aimed at by the Government- is a scale of relief not to exceed 40s. a week. I am convinced that a man with a, wife and five or six children will find it impossible to live on 40s. a week. It is inhuman, and no Poor Law authority can ever carry out a proposition of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, although the Greenwich Board of Guardians suggested a scale of 40s. 6d. for the purpose of obtaining money from the Goschen Committee, they attempted to carry it out on that scale for two weeks, and they were afterwards compelled on humane grounds to rescind that decision, and, as a matter of fact, I understand they are not carrying out that scale at all. The Poplar Guardians are in a stronger position than they were some time back, but that is in consequence of the efforts of my lion. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the Member for East Ham (Miss Lawrence), who went to prison, and it was because they defied the Government that the law was altered, and that brought about another method of dealing with this problem through the Metropolitan Poor Fund. In consequence of that action Poplar is now in the position of receiving close upon £500,000 every year, and I wish the Government would come along and give West Ham £500,000 a year in the same way. If the Government would do that, the West Poor Law authority would be considerably relieved.
  The proposals which are now being put forward will not afford any solution of

  1679
  this question. Of course, the Government will pass this Bill, and it is like talking to a lot of ferocious animals to talk to some people outside on this subject because they will not take the slightest notice of you. The Government have their majority, but the time will come when this method of dealing with Poor Law relief will have to be done away with, and it will have to be dealt with as a national charge. We have all this destitution in West Ham, because we have a greater working population and more poor people than any other industrial centre in the country. It is in consequence of the poverty we have in front of us in the West Ham area that the Guardians are compelled to come along and ask for loans. I know the Government are going to get this Bill through, and it will become an Act of Parliament, but I would like to warn hon. Members that when the Bill is passed they will be up against a very tough problem. It will be found to be a very expensive job, and, whatever remuneration you are going to give to the gentlemen you are going to appoint to carry on the Poor Law administration, I guess you will have to pay them very handsome salaries. Something has been said about the guardians being corrupt, but I defy the Government to appoint a Committee to investigate this charge. I am sure they would not find one board of guardians which had been corrupt in the ordinary sense of the word. By corruption I mean cases where a man or a woman have received a money consideration or perquisites. Does the Minister of Health mean to tell me that if I should have the audacity to stand as a candidate for the West Ham Poor Law Guardians and I said to the electors, "If you return me I am prepared to give you 40s. or 50s. outdoor relief," that is corruption? If that be so, then every Member of this House is corrupt. What, will hon. Members opposite do at the next General Election. They will try to excel our programme, and they will promise the electors all kinds of things. Do you call that corruption? It is just as much corruption as what the members of the West Ham Board of Guardians have been doing. Hon. Members cannot put their fingers on a single case where the West Ham Guardians have been corrupt.
  1680
  The Minister of Health made various innuendoes about corruption going on, but I would like to know if that is true what the auditors have been doing and why have they not made surcharges? You cannot bring any corrupt charges against them, and because these guardians have meted out humane treatment you are now bringing forward this vicious Bill. All I say to you is, "Get on with the job."
  I wish I could only talk a bit more strongly and more grammatically, but I will leave this question now with my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). I have lived in West Ham since 1884, and poverty has always been with us. People have flocked into our borough for years, and more especially in the docks area, where there are a large number of casual labourers, and that system has gone on for years. When those docks were first established hundreds of thousands of people took up their domicile in West Ham. You may call the West Ham citizen whatever you like, but he is as good as any other citizen, and, although they are poor in West Ham, they have helped to make the wealth of the country, and they have not only earned their pay, but they have made their contribution towards the payment of members not only nationally but locally. I want to tell the Minister of Health to his face that his Bill will not settle this problem. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman would accept the advice which he himself gave on the occasion to which I have already referred when he was the principal speaker of a deputation, and if his advice had been accepted on that occasion we should not have found the West Ham Union in its present position and we should have got some kind of relief.
  In my humble opinion the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health made out one of the best cases I have ever heard so far as necessitous areas are concerned. The borough of West Ham has been a necessitous area for the last 25 years. It was a necessitous area in regard to elementary education, and it has been the forcing ground to bring about reforms for many other localties. Now that we have a majority of Socialist and Labour members on the West Ham Board of Guardians, you are coming forward to penalise them. At one time the

  1681
  majority of the West Ham Board of Guardians were members of the Ratepayers' Association, and even they found themselves in the position we are now in. I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not speak very often, but I do hope that even now at the eleventh hour some way will be found out of this difficulty. If this House is going to try to enforce a scale 40s. 6d., upon the West Ham Guardians they will not accept it. They have been compelled to cut down their scale because they were short of money, but I hope the Minister of Health will represent to the Government the real position of things and ask his colleagues to give us a clean sheet, and wipe out all the debt we owe to the Government. I am convinced we cannot go on paying interest to the amount of close upon £250,000 in the next five or six years. It is impossible; it is unthinkable. Even when the Bill is passed and when the Ministry take on the position, the Minister will find it is one of the toughest problems that ever fie had to tackle in his life.
  Captain HOLT: I was somewhat interested to hear the Minister of Health, in his opening remarks, say that West Ham was a necessitous area and would always remain so, and I should like to endorse some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne), who has just sat down. While I think that this Bill will help the situation as it stands, I am forced to say to the Minister that I doubt very much whether he will be able to collect the money which has already been advanced to the West Ham Poor Law Union area, owing to the very difficult circumstances in which the population of that area, are placed, I should like to deal briefly with the statement in the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, to the effect that the Bill
  "enables nominees of the Minister to disburse public moneys without any control by the ratepayers who provide such moneys."
  The situation, as I understand it, in the West Ham Poor Law Union area, is that to a very large extent the money which is contributed for Poor Law purposes is not controlled by those who contribute, the money. I am informed that between one-third and one-half of the total rates for Poor Law purposes are contributed
  1682
  by limited companies who have no vote, no voice, and no control in the matter, and who, in fact, cannot even be represented by a director or official on the board of guardians.
  Mr. THORNE: The docks are only rated on the same principle as the docks in Manchester.
  Captain HOLT: Quite so. I am not saying that this position is confined to West Ham, but, as the Bill has been introduced, as the Minister told us, because of the situation in which West Ham is placed, I am dealing with that particular locality at the moment. I would further point out that there are undoubtedly many people in the area who do not contribute towards the rates but who have votes, because there are many people who are entirely existing upon out-relief. It is obvious that their rates are paid out of that out-relief, and they, therefore, are in the position of having votes in respect of rates which are paid by someone else. On the question of corruption, I must beg to differ from the hon. Member for Plaistow. I do not think he mentioned, and I do not think anyone else has made, any charge that any of the West Ham Guardians have helped themselves or benefited financially by any of the irregularities in the distribution of out-relief, but I am afraid r cannot accept the very limited definition of corruption which the hon. Member gave, and in that I am, apparently, supported by several members of the board of guardians who belong to the Socialist party.
  The Minister of Health, in his opening remarks, referred to a statement made by Councillor Killip in December, 1923, but I have here a report from the local newspaper which gives a more recent statement by that gentleman. It says:
  "At the guardians' public meeting in February, 1925, Councillor Killip agreed with the Alliance's suggestion to accept the Minister's terms, and said they found people with £4 a week objecting to allowing 2s. 6d. to their parents in relief."
  Again, Councillor Killip, at a meeting of the House Committee in March, 1926, said:
  "Poor Law relief is being abused, and abused right up to the hilt,"
  and Alderman Davis also said:
  "Something must be clone to put a stop to the girls refusing to work and keeping on relief."

  1683
  These are not statements made by the Municipal Alliance, or by those opposed to the Socialist party, but by Socialist members of the board of guardians, and very prominent Socialists too. I should like, if I may, to quote a case which has been given to me of a man who, in 1924, was caught defrauding the guardians. He appeared before the house committee to answer the charge, and put forward the lapel of his coat, in which was a trade union badge which was identical with that worn by the chairman of the committee. Although this was the man's second offence, he was again let off with a caution only. Mr. Walsh, a Socialist member, protested against this, and said that the case "left a nasty taste in the mouth." I am afraid that Mr. Walsh suffered for that. He helped the local Labour party at the last Election, but, although he stood as an independent. Labour candidate, he was defeated by the official Labour candidate. I have been supplied with a great many of these cases, and I may, perhaps, quote another, that of a woman who in December, 1924, had £240, which she said she got rid of in five days, and then she came on relief. She had bought a gramophone for £6 6s. the day before, and while she was on relief she had over £100, which she gave to a man, also on relief, to get rid of.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. and gallant Member read the right-hand side, in reply to that?
  Captain HOLT: I am afraid I have not got it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to give the reply.
  Mr. THORNE: I have got it here.
  Captain HOLT: This is information which has been sent to me. There is another case where a man who, in January, 1923, was proved to have obtained relief by false statements, and was let off with a caution, was again before the house committee in July, 1924, for a similar offence, and was again let off and continued on relief. In another case, a man had been on relief—full scale—since 1922, and was working for the Waltham-stow Council. He was not prosecuted. In another case a man drew unemployment benefit continuously to the amount of £13 in all, and he was not prosecuted. I have pages of cases of this kind, and it appears to me that, while there may not
  1684
  be corruption in the sense to which the hon. Member for Plaistow refers, there is undoubtedly a very great reluctance to deal drastically with these cases of defrauding the guardians, and it appears to me that the ratepayers' money is being wasted in cases of this kind—which I do not think any Member of this House would defend, no matter on which side he sits —that the investigations are not properly carried out, and that, when these frauds are found out, measures arc not taken to deal with them so drastically that they do not occur again.
  Th. Minister of Health said that there had been cases in which relief tickets had been issued on such a scale that the recipients did not know what to do with them. That statement was received with derision by hon. Members opposite, but perhaps I may quote a case which came to my personal knowledge last summer. It was the case of a man who went into a shop kept by one of my constituents, and he had a relief ticket for 16s. He bought out of that ticket a tin of peaches and half a pound of Devonshire cream. There arc many people—I think the majority—in my constituency who are working hard, and very few indeed of whom could afford to spend the money they have gained with the labour of their own hands in making a purchase such as this man made out of his relief ticket. If we turn to the Report of the Auditor, which the Minister has already quoted, we find that it states that
  "Efforts have been made to detect 'trafficking' in tickets, but so far have been usually without result, as apparently the sight of a stranger stops any transactions."
  I have, however, had brought to my knowledge a case in which a relief ticket for 12s. 6d. was actually bought by the representative of a London newspaper for 2s. 6d.
  There is just one other point that I should like to make while I am dealing with the question of the administration of out-relief in West Ham. It is that there is dictation from outside. Undoubtedly a number of Socialist members of the West Ham Board of Guardians vote, not as they think, but as they are ordered to do by the trades and labour council outside. We have had many instances of that. There have been instances of Labour members of the board of guardians being "told off," if I may

  1685
  use the expression, by the trades and labour council for not voting in the way that they have been ordered to vote, and at the next meeting of the board they have turned round and voted as they were ordered. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was very violent on the subject of the Constitution, but I can think of no more perfect example of Soviet rule than the fact that the elected representatives of the people are under the orders of people who are neither elected nor representative. In this connection I may mention that there were some very heated and acrimonious meetings of the board, and the final decision was that the Socialist members should consult those outside. An ordinary person would have been under the impression that consulting "those outside" meant consulting the ratepayers who had furnished the money for the purpose of out-relief, but, as a matter of fact, consulting "those outside" meant nothing of the kind; it merely meant consulting the organised unemployed, who gave their orders to the. Socialist members, and the offer of the Ministry was refused.
  From the examples I have given, I think the House will he able to form a judgment as to the way in which the affairs of the guardians are conducted. I wish to remind the House that the cost of the excessive relief falls very largely upon people who are themselves struggling under very adverse circumstances to gain a living. The excessive rates in the district are undoubtedly hampering trade and creating unemployment. I feel that under this Bill the Ministry will be able to provide adequate and fair relief to those really in need of it, while at the same time checking abuses. For all these reasons, I am very glad to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. J. JONES: It is very interesting indeed to listen to wisdom coming from the mouths of babes and sucklings. Some of us have spent all our lives in the localities which have been attacked to-day. We know the people and have lived with them. Now they have got to have carpet-bagging politicians with an accidental majority imported into the district because of a combination between two so-called opposing schools of politicians, who find themselves accidentally in this House and who are now
  1686
  trying to teach their grandmothers the way to suck eggs. I have in my hand the report of the auditor, upon which the whole of the case against West Ham might be ostensibly built, and I challenge the Minister of Health—we in West Ham are willing to accept the challenge—to compare this with the administration of the Poor Law in Birmingham. I have had some experience of travelling throughout the country, and when I hear the word "corruption" it makes me feel tired. Even in West Ham, before Labour became the dominating political factor, you could not get a job as a school teacher unless you were a member of the Conservative or the Liberal Club, and you could not get a job under our local authority unless-you were a member of the Masonic Club. But corruption only begins when the ordinary worker begins to take part in public administration, and ho gets control of the machinery, and he says, as we are not ashamed of saying in West Ham, "every man who draws the trade union rate of wages from our public authority and works the hours laid clown by the general conduct of our movement shall be a member of the union." Is that corruption? [Interruption.] You know how to intimidate. You are doing it now. Tens of thousands of railwaymen have been intimidated during the general strike. Seven thousand members of our own union—[ Interruption.] They never had you for a leader!
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: It would have been better if they had.
  Mr. JONES: They have followed you up till now. You have had a majority at your disposal for donkey's years. Where are the people now? Are they prosperous? We have only had office for nine months. You have had it for hundreds of years, and the people are not prosperous and never will be, because, as long as the workers have to submit to your domination, you wilt always see to it that you get the best end of the stick. What does this Bill mean? The real policy of the Government is not explained even in the Bill. It is to force down the scale of relief to the lowest possible point, so as to compel people by the sheer force of economic circumstances to accept any job that is offered them, and it is because we in

  1687
  West Ham, Poplar, and other working parts of the country, where we have some political influence, have fought against it that we are going to he put into the pillory now.
  The worst case you can find is a family with an income of £10 a week, and that is made a charge against the members of the boards of guardians. If there is any corruption about it, according to your officer, you have the power to surcharge members of the board under the present law, like you did to Popular, and God help you, you will never get your money back. [Laughter.] It is not a joke from my point of view. What about your belief in publicly-elected representatives? Do you not believe in them? The people in constituencies like mine select a certain number of men and women who do not own property. A large proportion of the guardians are men employed in jobs, some of them working at night, who attend to their public duties in the day time. Some are married women whose husbands are in employment, and they are able to devote the necessary time. They are selected, for good or evil, by a majority of the constituents in the ward they contest. They are sent to the board to carry out their responsibilities as members, and they do it, and all you can bring against us is this beggarly list in a population of a million. In the right Ion. Gentleman's own city you will find more mal-administration than there is in this document from Ms own auditors. I should like to ask, what is an auditor? We know what an auditor is in our trade unions and friendly socieities. We have chartered accountants who audit our books. They come and tell us whether we are right or wrong in so far as our finances are concerned. But these Gentlemen coming from the Ministry of Health are not auditors. They are sent down with instructions to try to find fault with certain local authorities. If you believe in saving your bank balance at the expense of the poverty of the people, it is easy to find fault.
  Major PRICE: On a point of Order. Is it right to impute motives to public officials?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can interfere. There is a well-known axiom about corporations which I need not quote.
  Major PRICE: It was about the public auditors.
  Mr. JONES: I do not say a word about these gentlemen at all. I have had some experience of them, and have always had fair treatment from them. I understand the officers' duty is to audit, and not to pass opinions—not to become a propagandist of a political party, as this document proves they have become. If a gentleman is employed in a professional capacity, he exceeds his duty when he expresses political opinions. This is the best case you could bring against us—the only case you have—and on the strength of this the West Ham Board of Guardians is going to be put in the pillory. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that members of boards of guardians have sons and daughters and brothers and cousins and aunts probably working for the boards of guardians. I wonder if we could say the same about the Government. Do they not appoint their friends to political offices when they get the opportunity? Some people who are sitting on that bench would never be there if it were not for their past donkey work for your party, getting salaries of £1,200 a year when they are not worth 12d. a month. They could not even get up to defend their own Government when the Front Bench was absent. These are the people who charge us with corruption. Most of them are only there because they are their father's son, and some of them would have a difficulty in proving it—[HON MEMBERS "Order!"] There is nothing disorderly in that. I am not attacking any individual.
  We have in our area it population nearly as large as the largest Poor Law area in the country. I do not want to exaggerate, because it is not necessary. The truth is enough. We have the greatest mass of congested poverty of any part of Great Britain under the administration of one authority. Some hon. Members have had experience of charity organisation. I have had the administration of funds where we have had a special investigation, and it is physically impossible to stop people taking advantage of money which can be had for the asking if it can be got by that method. Even your Charity Organisation Society has been taken advantage of by people who are clever enough. They cannot see under the surface.

  1689
  This Bill is not brought in for the purpose it ought to be brought in for. If it was for the reorganisation of our Poor Law system you would find more supporters probably on these benches than upon your own. We all know the overlapping that takes place between various local authorities in matters of this kind. We want to see a real co-ordination and reorganisation in matters connected with the Poor Law, unemployment, National Health Insurance and all these other matters. Why select West Ham? Some of us have been attacked by the extremists in our own borough, because we tried to bring about some kind of arrangement. Now what position are we in? If we go to meet our local people we are told this is the consequence of our attempts to try to bring about an arrangement. Because we tried to get an amicable, democratic arrangement 12 months ago, because we tried to smooth over the difficulties, we are told we are traitors to the working-class movement. They say "You are willing to be reasonable, but these other people are not, and they are coming to take the power out of your hands and disfranchise the electors of West Ham." Why should we be selected? I know all the other places may find themselves in the soup as well as us, but not for the same reason. We have to get our tanning, because our colour is red. We are told we are Bolshevists. We are nothing of the kind. I should like to see hon. Members opposite keep a family on 45s. a week in London. Some Members opposite will pay more than that for one meal.
  We want to know where is the charge against us. On what basis is this Bill built? Surely if the West Ham Board of Guardians have done wrong they can be dealt with under the existing law. But this is not an attack on the West Ham Board of Guardians. It is an attack upon democracy and local administration. We are determined, so far as we are able, to fight the Bill, because no evidence has been produced as to its necessity. The question of corruption can easily be dealt with, because, if you have any individual cases of corruption, why not bring in the people guilty? Some hon. Members who talk here today know more about corruption than I do. We know them in the East End of London. There is an Act now on the
  1690
  Statute Book which gives you the right to deal with corruption. If a commercial traveller offers a bribe to get orders, he is guilty of corruption and can be sent to prison. A member of a. board of guardians can be sent to prison if he does a corrupt act. But you have no, evidence based upon real fact. Therefore, we say this is an excuse for an attack upon the workers in the districts where we have been successful in obtaining to some extent political power. The whirligig of time will bring its revenge. This Government will not last for ever. Another may come along, and a Labour Minister of Health may go to some guardians in the West End of London and say: "Your scale of relief is starvation for the workers in your district. You will have to come up to the, level of West Ham and Poplar, and, if you do not, I am going to sack you and put my nominees in your place." I wonder how you would like your eggs done then?
  7.0 P.M.
  Once you get the law on the Statute Book the Minister has the power to discharge the functions of the publicly-elected representatives and to get rid of them and put salaried people in their place. Time will bring about the inevitable result, and you will not have it all your own way when the last word is said. Therefore, we are opposing this Bill. We are prepared to accept democratic decisions. We have to accept them in this House where we are in a minority. We want you to accept the decision, so far as local government is concerned—that the majority of the people in a district have a right to decide, under existing conditions, what their position shall lm in administering the Poor Law.
  We have not asked the Minister for any money, only to lend us some. Have we not paid back all the money we have undertaken to pay back, both capital and interest? We have paid it back, and we have maintained our responsibility. It is very bad for us that we are Britishers. If we had been Greeks, or French, or Spaniards, you would have any amount of money for us, and, if it had been a sum of £5,000,000, we could have wiped your £5,000,000 off the book and said, "Let us-be pals in future. The Entente Cordiale for ever t" West Ham, being of course a British place, you can do as you like with

  1691
  us, because we are a minority. We have said that we are willing to pay all that we can be made to pay. Nobody else pays more. We are willing to pay all that we are liable to pay. What we are protesting against is that districts like ourselves, segregated as they are, great industrial areas under poverty-stricken conditions, with casual labour almost everywhere, should be called upon to face this burden locally. We are asking that in future it shall he faced nationally and that the whole nation shall bear its proper share. This is not the way out of the difficulty. You can put all the guardians in prison you can put all the members in prison, except the hon. Member for Upton (Captain Holt). Perhaps you will send him as warder in the prison where you send the others and so reward him for the services he has not been able to render to you. We are against this Bill because it assails the principle of local government in this country which, after all, is the basis of all our public administration.
  Mr. HARRIS: It would be unfortunate if it should be thought that this is merely a Bill to deal with one particular district. The discussion this afternoon would give the public outside that impression. The Minister of Health made the whole case for the powers he sought on the position of West Ham. He made it quite clear to the House that that was the reason for these powers. He built up a case for seeking the powers in this Bill on circumstances and instances in that one particular part of London. This Bill goes very much further. It is a Bill giving the Minister very autocratic powers. ft does not even attempt to describe how these powers are to be used. It vests in him the right at his own discretion to supersede the elected members of the board of guardians in any part of the country. It does not limit that right; it does not require that corruption should be proved. It merely limits it by the Preamble of the Bill which speaks of "matters arising out of default." It does not attempt to define what default is. It is a very serious thing to ask this House to vest these powers in a Minister. We have always been suspicious of anything like a Minister of the Interior in this country. We have based our whole organisation of administration on local
  1692
  government. Now we are departing from that principle.
  The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) quite rightly pointed out that these are dangerous powers, and may be used in other directions by future Governments. Just as the Minister is now proposing to use them because he thinks the local authority is sinning in one particular direction, another kind of Government with another kind of bias may attack with these powers a local authority because they are sinning in the opposite direction. This is not the right way to tackle a difficult problem. If there be really corruption and if all the Minister has said be correct—it is an allegation that there is something very near corruption—then the individuals concerned should be attacked. if they are really using their position of trust in order to push their own friends into paid positions, then proceedings should be taken against them.
  This trouble has arisen because of the failure of Parliament, not only this Parliament but previous Parliaments, to deal with this long overdue problem. Everybody admits that our Poor Law machinery is inadequate and unsatisfactory, unpopular and discredited, extravagant and inefficient. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted it. He even went so far as to prophesy that it would not be necessary to use these powers, because at some unspecified date he is going to produce a Poor Law Bill I am a little supicious of his promises to produce this Bill. We were to have a Bill this year. It was supposed to be a very urgent question. I suggest that there would have been adequate time to produce this Bill. Many days were spent just before Easter in dealing with the Economy Bill which might very easily have been spent much better in dealing with the problem of the Poor Law. I am a little afraid that, when the Minister has got these autocratic powers, he may not find the pressure to deal with the Poor Law on large and national lines so great as hitherto. I am not prepared to vest in a Minister these autocratic powers.
  The incidence of the Poor Law does fall very hardly on some districts. The tradespeople and the ratepayers in West Ham and other similar areas are bearing grievous burdens. It is a great handicap to them in their business and in their

  1693
  trade in those areas. It is quite right that something should be done to relieve that burden, but this is the wrong way to deal with it. I am very doubtful whether, even under the benevolent administration of the Ministry of Health, it would be possible to do very much to bring down the rates, because, even with the most careful administration, even with the most cheeseparing policy, by lowering the scale, by eliminating all the uncle-serving, and by limiting relief to all those cases that can be proved to the satisfaction of the officials of the Minister, the burden of rates in districts like West Ham, with the large amount of unemployment that exists will still be a very heavy one.
  The whole trouble is that to the old cumbersome machinery of a Poor Law, which was discredited even before the war, there has now been thrown the extra burden and responsibility of dealing with an immense amount of unemployment. Unfortunately, a great part of that unemployment is concentrated in certain areas. The Minister knows very well that, despite all the unemployment, there are large areas in this country, like the West of England, the West of London and other places, where the amount of unemployment is not abnormal, and where, owing to the high assessable value, the small amount of unemployment that does exist in those areas does not mean an exceptional burden on the rates. Unfortunately, unemployment and poverty are concentrated where the assessable value is low. Poverty goes to where the rents are low; where rents are low, assessable values are low; where assessable values are low, the produce of a penny rate brings in a very small sum of money. That is the difficulty the Minister has to face, and the problem which he has to tackle.
  I am going to prophesy that in the next 12 months, during which the Minister will have had the administration of this district, he will give very little satisfaction to the local ratepayer and will give very little relief except from the National Exchequer which he is not prepared to do on the one hand, this Bill is giving autocratic powers to the Minister; on the other hand, it is not dealing with the complicated problem of the relief of poverty and of unemployment only hope that the Minister will produce his Poor Law Bill. I wish I could
  1694
  see it in a tangible form. We had some outline of a Bill he was going to introduce to deal with the Poor Law last year. It has faded into the background. Do I understand from the shaking of his head that he still adheres to—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was shaking my head at the statement that it has faded into the background.
  Mr. HARRIS: I understand then that the Bill remains in the same form. It would be a great advantage if we could see this Bill. If, instead of spending our time discussing this Bill which gives the Minister autocratic powers, we could give a Second Reading to a Bill dealing with the whole question, Parliament would be discharging its functions more effectively, and the Minister would he occupying his time to much greater advantage. That is what the nation demands: that is what the nation wants. We have at the present time these millions of unemployed, and they are unfortunately increasing. These armies of unemployed are put upon unfortunate local authorities, with no adequate funds to deal with them, and with inadequate powers. I represent Bethnal Green, and it has never been for a moment suggested that the guardians there are corrupt or inefficient. The majority of them do not actually belong to the Labour party, but are independent persons recognising no political authority. They have done their best to discharge their difficult duties; they have tried on the one hand to protect the interests of the ratepayers and on the other hand to deal fairly with these unfortunate people who are out of work and have to seek relief. Even they find, with all their care, with all their trouble, with all their desire to mete out even-handed justice between the ratepayer and the recipients of relief, that their burden is too heavy to carry, that the rates are rising every year, and that the expenditure is much higher than we have a right to demand from a local authority.
  Bethnal Green, too, has the advantage of coming under the Common Poor Fund. It has the right to ask the rich districts of Kensington and Westminster to help it, but West Ham has not that advantage. It has to fight out its battles alone. This is really the issue at stake. It is not a question of corruption or of inefficiency. It is the fact that these

  1695
  poor districts outside London, who have not been bought into the London system are asked to fight out their battles on their own. The Royal Commission was not favourable to the extension of the area of London. It was not in favour of a Greater London scheme; it was not convinced that a case had been made out for that, and it was loth to propose any remedy of that kind; but it pointed out that it was necessary that districts like West Ham should receive assistance from some common poor fund, and recommended London inside the county to assist financially London outside the county. Nothing has been done in that direction.
  This Bill is the wrong way to tackle the question. It is not a remedy. On the contrary, it is a sin against the sound principles of local government and constitutionalism. It is proposed to vest the Minister with autocratic powers to sweep away any Poor Law guardians in the country. This House ought to weigh long and weigh well before it vests those powers in a Minister, unless it has some very substantial assurance that the Government is in earnest in its desires to reform the whole system of dealing with poverty and of making proper provision for tackling the difficult and complex problem of unemployment.
  Captain HUDSON: This Bill is of very great interest to London Members of Parliament. I have at various times had considerable correspondence and conversation with people on this subject of Poor Law relief. There is scarcely a conference of the Metropolitan Unionist Association at which this question does not come up. We have been attacked to-day on one ground particularly, that this Bill for the taking over by the Minister of Health of boards of guardians ender certain circumstances is interfering with local government. That might be so e the Exchequer did not have to find the money for the local government; but it seems to me that he who pays the piper should call the tune, and when, as in this case, up to £2,000,000 has been lent to West Ham by the Exchequer, it can scarcely be called unjustifiable interference because the Government feel it necessary to step in and take over the affairs of the board. I believe that the whole of this maladministration which
  1696
  has been brought against West Ham, and which was previously brought against Poplar, has come about because of the advent of party politics into local government. In the old days, as far as one could gather, party politics as far as possible were kept out of local government. Men and women were not elected on a party ticket. They considered their job as guardians to be to administer to the best of their ability, and they had no party to think of. This change of affairs has come about with the growth of Socialism.
  The Minister of Health mentioned corruption. I gathered from his speech that he was particularly alluding, I may be wrong, to the case, which I believe the Cabinet are now considering, of people who are in receipt of Poor Law relief electing the guardians who are to give them that relief. Whether that may be called corruption or not I do not know, but undoubtedly whenever an election takes place we do hear complaints of certain guardians promising to do various things for people if they are elected. If a Bill were brought forward to disfranchise people who are in receipt of Poor Law relief from electing people who are to give them relief, I would support it. I think I ought to have the support of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). On Tuesday night last, in the Debate on the Coal Mines Bill, he said:
  "For 35 years I have been a local administrator, and during all that. time I have held the view that i a man lied no right to vote public money, or to take part in a discussion of voting public money if some of the money might conic his way,"—[(OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1926; col. 1110, Vol. 197.]
  I admit that that case is somewhat different from the case with which I am now dealing, but my point is that the spirit is the same, because people elect guardians who are going to give them relief. Seeing that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is of opinion that a Member of this House should not vote when he is financially interested, I hope I shall have his support on this point. [interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has no right to interrupt in that way.
  Captain HUDSON: The introduction of politics into local affairs is a bad thing.

  1697
  I have a feeling that some of these local bodies, boards of guardians in particular, have at the back of their minds some idea of trying to make that particular body unworkable, and then they can turn round and say "Capitalism has failed, Socialism is the only thing." On many occasions that argument is used in this House, and I believe that that is one of the reasons that operates in the case of West Ham. They do not seem to mind how much money they borrow, and they openly say that they never see any hope of paying it back. In my own constituency last week we had a by-election for the board of guardians, and I heard continual complaints of the extraordinary statements made during that by-election by canvassers for the Socialist cause. It became so bad that a member of the board of guardians attended the Labour meetings in order to say which statements were true or untrue. I am glad to say that we won the by-election, although by a small majority.
  This business of mixing party politics with local government is particularly rife in West Hans. In the "Times" of 25th June I noticed a remark by Mr. Killip in which he said after the decision of the Minister of Health that he was going to present this Bill to the House, that he, Mr. Killip
  "was going outside and inside the relief stations, if necessary, and would point out to the people that this was part of the considered plan of the Tory Government, which is tottering to its doom."
  I do not think it is part of Mr. Killip's business to go up and down the relief stations in that way. He is supposed to be going there as a guardian and not as a party representative: Although it may be his personal opinion that the Tory Government is tottering to its doom, in which view I do not agree with him, I do not see what that has to do with his business as a guardian. It is not the scale of relief that we object to, but the maladministration of the guardians. We have heard of cases where the family income has been £5, £6 or £7 a week, yet people in that family have been receiving relief. We have had the case, which I particularly noted, of a family receiving up to £10 a week in income, and also receiving relief. These are the reasons why the Bill has been brought in, and not because of some scale of relief which the Minister would not approve. We on
  1698
  this side are always taunted, whenever we back up a Bill of this description or oppose some Socialist Measure, that we are in favour of starving women and children and of starving everybody. That is untrue. There is no country in the world where people are better looked after than in this country; certainly the children. I heard the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) talking about millions of starving little children. That statement is untrue. There are not millions of starving little children. Any hon. Member who takes an interest in his constituency and knows what is going on will back me up in what I say on that point. I hope we shall get back to the time when party politics are entirely cut out of local administration. The present state of affairs is had for the recipients of relief and bad for the country. It is a bad thing, anyhow, that a man should get something for nothing.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
  Captain HUDSON: It is a great pity that people outside are inclined to mix up the question of Poor Law relief and unemployment benefit, which are two entirely different things. Poor Law relief in itself is a bad thing. It is, therefore, all the more necessary for the people who have to administer the relief to see that it goes to deserving eases and that it does not go to people who are not entitled to it. I support the Bill as being an effort to see that that policy is carried out. I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading and that the working of it will be as smooth as I think it will; although hon. Members opposite think the opposite.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to clear up the question of corruption. What I consider to be corruption is this: If I in this House proposed legislation or voted for legislation knowing that that legislation would benefit myself. As I understand it, no such charge as that is made against the West Ham Board of Guardians. No one has charged any single member of that board with getting any personal advantage from membership of that board. Therefore, I think, the right hon. Gentleman used unwarrantable language in talking about corruption. The man who votes for a Parliamentary candidate who promises to give better education to the children of

  1699
  the voter and who says that he will establish scholarships and so on, is no less corrupt, if the other case can be regarded as corrupt, than the man who, hard up and down-and-out, with a family almost starving, is asked to vote for a candidate who, at least, will put him over the starvation period. It is an amazing doctrine for the right hon. Gentleman to come and talk about members of boards of guardians who give jobs to their relatives. I should have thought that any member of the Tory party, having in mind the doctrine laid down by Lord George Hamilton that the duty of the Tory party is to look after its friends, would not have adopted the attitude of the Minister of Health. It is rather late in the day for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about a set of poor people in the East End who may occasionally find a job for one of their relatives. I ask him whether in his experience in appointing men or women to positions he has never been swayed at any time by the fact that it was either a relative or the friend of a relative he was appointing. I would like him to stand at that box on his honour and tell us that he has never appointed to a job any person, capable of doing the job, who has been ever indirectly a relative or a friend. I challenge him to stand at that box and say that he has never done it.
  I say without any reservation whatsoever that in connection with none of the public contracts or the public money that I have had a hand in giving or spending could it be charged against me and not against any of the members of the board of which I am proud to be a member, could it be charged that I or they have feathered our own nests or feathered the nests of their friends. That being so, it does not lie with the right hon. Gentleman, in that superior manner of his, to talk about poor men and women as he did to-day, in regard to many of whom he is unworthy to unloose their shoes. They give time and energy to the work and get absolutely nothing out of it.
  This problem of Poor Law relief and destitution in the East of London is nothing new. It has been investigated over and over again during the past 50 years. After 1870 we had a, period of
  1700
  administration which is beloved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—a strict administration. Mr. Goschen, who was then at the Local Government Board, tightened up things and cut down Poor relief almost to a minimum. People imagined that they were getting rid of pauperism in the East of London, but within a few years London was faced with an increase in pauperism and destitution, and the public conscience was aroused by books written by the late George Sims, "Bitter Crys of London," the late General Booth, "Darkest England, and the Way out," and the late Mr. Charles Booth, who was by no means a Socialist, but one of the finest public-spirited men I have ever met. He conducted an independent investigation into the poverty and conditions of life in South-East and East London, and I recommend hon. Members opposite to read the results of his investigation; they will then understand the problem better and will realise that in West Ham, Bermondsey, Greenwich and Poplar it is not new, but that it is only a little more accentuated now than it was 50 years ago. It is quite absurd to put the blame on local administrators.
  The Prime Minister, speaking in the House the other evening, bade us cast our minds back to the days when the power loom was introduced and displaced the hand loom, and he told us of the terrible misery and suffering which was endured by the workers during the period of transition. The inference was that we must not complain if in these days the workers had to go through the same kind of purgatory. The Prime Minister forgot to tell us that the hardships, the misery, and the deaths from starvation, in the hills and dales of Lancashire and Yorkshire was only made possible by legislation very much on the same lines as the present Bill—namely, the 1834 Poor Law Act, which advocated and put forward, as the panacea for getting rid of destitution and pauperism, a strict administration, by denying everybody any right to relief except in a workhouse and saying that able-bodied men must work at any wage that was offered them or go into the workhouse. The workhouses were made worse than the prisons. You have only to read the novels of Disraeli, of Charles Dickens and of Charles Kingsley, to know how that infamous law was used,

  1701
  and this Bill is intended to be used in order to make men work for whatever wages are offered. They are given no alternative but to crowd into the towns and become the servants of machinery.
  What is the position to-day? West Ham and Poplar and Middlesbrough and Birmingham are suffering because of the War and the economic results of the War. Who is being asked to bear this burden? During the War the workers were told that they would not be called upon to suffer. I have heard Dr. Macnamara tell us in this House about the living wall that stood between the destruction of this country and the Germans, and at this moment there are millions of men and their dependants who are being thrown on the tender mercies of the Poor Law or of charity or of unemployment insurance. The Minister of Health knows as well as I do that in the casual wards to-night throughout this country will be found some of those who formed that living wall, some of those who stood between the governing classes of this country and the destruction they dreaded from the German Kaiser, and all that this country can do as a remedy is to take up this case against West Ham. Last week this House passed a Bill which some of my colleagues—and I agree with them—called a murderers' Bill. The Bill we are considering this afternoon is to safeguard that murderers' Bill. It is a Bill to rob the worker of his last chance of standing up against the hard demands of his employers. Take this away and he has no chance at all.
  What is the defence for this Bill? The Minister of Health knows that there are 60,000 to 70,000 individuals relieved in West Ham each week, and the bulk of those are widows and orphans and children and the sick. The percentage of able-bodied men who are relieved is very small. The same is true of Poplar and Bermondsey. In the main women and children and sick persons form the bulk of the 30,000 relieved in Poplar and the 60,000 or 70,000 relieved in West Ham. And what is the result of that relief? Hon. Members opposite say they are as warm-hearted as we on this side, that they want to do justice to these people, that they do not want anyone to suffer or die. What are the facts? Before the Labour party came into power in these districts the death rate amongst infants
  1702
  was considerably higher than it is now. Take the figures of West Ham, Poplar or Bermondsey, wherever there has been a large expenditure on Poor Law relief, or a large expenditure on public health service, the death rate amongst the children has gone down, and I say that if the Minister of Health gets his way, that death rate will rise again.
  I was much interested to bear where he is going to collect those people who are to administer Poor Law relief in West Ham, whose relations they would be, whose friends they will be; how they will be chosen. I was also interested to hear how they were proposing to administer a scale which does not include rent. I was amazed at the ignorance or effrontery of the Minister of Health on this point. He should know that in comparing relief scales—it all depends on a factor which neither the hoard of guardians or anyone else can govern—namely, the factor of rent. That is the dominating factor in the East of London. If the new guardians set up a scale that does not include rent, it is perfectly evident you will not get any rent. The fact is, the rent will not be paid. You are faced with a disaster in East London, and especially in West Ham just now, but you will be heading for a much greater disaster if you persist in this policy, because widows with their children, and the unemployed man and woman with their children, will not pay rent to a landlord if they have not sufficient to get bread for their families. You will force bankruptcy on these districts.
  If you attempt to administer a set scale of relief you are flying in the face of every canon of Poor Law administration. Poor Law authorities, from the beginning up to the present day, have always held, even Geoffrey Drage, the most dry as dust charity organisation champion in the world, will tell you that you have no right to fix a scale beyond which you will not go. The right hon. Gentleman has not fixed a scale, but he has fixed a minimum, and if you fix a minimum beyond which the Board shall not go, is not that fixing a maximum? You say that a man with five or six children shall not have more than a man with four children. Can any hon. Member keep seven children on the same money as he can keep four We could not do it in my own family, and wherever it is attempted you will drag down the standard of life

  1703
  and interfere with the health of the children. In doing that the right hon. Gentleman is doing something which every Poor Law expert denounces as wrong. An hon. Member has referred to the case in which a family downstairs was at work, and the family upstairs getting relief, and the income of the family downstairs was less than that of the family upstairs. But what he did not tell us was the numbers in the family downstairs and the family upstairs, and what he did not realise and understand is that boards of guardians do not base their allowance as employers do on a standard wage, irrespective of whether there is anybody in the family or not, but in deciding relief has to take account of the necessities of each case, and the more children there are the more money must be paid. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to deny that—the bigger the family the more money must be paid. If wages are so barbarously low that the scale of relief necessary for the well-being of the family is higher, then so much the worse for the employers and their miserable wages. That is what is wrong.
  The right hon. Gentleman challenged us as to our remedy for this condition of affairs. He knows that this Bill is no remedy. The Bill is just an alteration of machinery again. It will do nothing in any way to reduce unemployment or to deal with the problem of casual labour in the East End. It will do nothing to deal with the growing number of women whose breadwinners die early because of the conditions of labour, and so on. There is only one way out of this, and that is Socialism in the last resort. I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is a piece of lunacy to make that remark; but I put it to them, as was pointed out at the end of the investigation of the Poor Law Commission, of which I was a member; that the minority at any rate, and the majority to some extent, agreed that unemployment and the whole problem of unemployment ought not to be left to the Poor Law authorities or the local authorities. I am certain that whatever machinery you put up, in the long run in order to keep people quiet you will have to feed them.
  Lord Derby said that all the provision made at the end of the War to
  1704
  feed people, to increase unemployment payments by relaxing the Poor Law and allowing guardians to pay for rent as they had never been allowed to do before, to give increased scales to the unemployed as never before—he said that all that was done in order to prevent revolution. The men had come home with their guns, and Lord Derby inferred that the governing classes were afraid they might be used in another direction. So you broke down the whole of your Poor Law principles and allowed guardians to do what they had never been allowed to do before. I am as certain, as I am that I stand at this Box, that if you attempt now to deny the men and women and children who are in need of the assistance that they need, you will have exactly the condition of affairs that Lord Derby visualised as likely to take place. Unemployment is not the responsibility of Poplar. Casual labour is not the responsibility of West Ham. The question of the organisation of industry is a national question and can be dealt with only in a national way. The cost of it, instead of being put on the children and women and men who are the victims of this system, ought to be borne by the rich and well-to-do of this country.
  When I hear right hon. and hon Gentlemen talking about something or nothing, I stand here as one who believes that neither I nor anyone else ought to have anything but what we earn from the community or from anyone, that everyone ought to earn his or her livelihood while able-bodied, and that it does not lie with those who support the present condition of affairs to point the finger of scorn at the victims of a system which enables a few to be rich and the many to be poor. No, we want industry to be reorganised, and reorganised on the basis of social service, and then we are sure that instead of having paupers at one end and millionaires at the other who are also paupers, we should have a system of society where there would be neither. When hon. Members say to us, "What do you do at this moment?" I reply that the first thing I would do would be to take the problem of able-bodied destitution away from the Poor Law guardians and local authorities, and make it a national business to be paid for out of national funds.
  Captain MACMILLAN: The speech to which we have just listened is characteristic of the hon. Member's method of approach to any problem such as this. Almost throughout his speech he did not think fit to mention the Bill which is under discussion. He then put forward what he believed to be a reasonable method of Poor Law administration. He was very indignant with the Minister of Health for having suggested that in certain cases there had been some nepotism in the appointment of officers by the guardians, who were anxious to help their own relations. He seemed to regard that as the normal method of government.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean to say that I defended nepotism?
  Captain MACMILLAN: I understood the hon. Member to say that nepotism was an inseparable part of government.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Not of local government.
  Captain MACMILLAN: The hon. Gentleman, in the concluding passages of his speech, made a number of statements which may or may not be true, with regard to the whole question of local and national taxation, but those statements were not relevant to the Bill before the House. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) made a speech of a rather lugubrious character, in which he took upon himself the position of a prophet, and maintained that the passing of the Bill would have most lamentable effects. He also went on to refer to the possibility of a reform of the whole Poor Law. I take it that the object of the Minister in introducing this Bill is simply to tide over the period before the new Bill dealing with Poor Law reform as a whole is introduced. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green seemed to think that the fact that the Minister shook his head when he said that the Bill had faded into the background was an admission that nothing was to be done in that direction. Of course, it is well known that the Bill is going ahead. The fact that it has not yet been introduced does not mean that the Ministry are not actively engaged on a much larger reorganisation than is contemplated or possible in this temporary Measure.
  1706
  The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), in the course of his speech, which was largely directed to a panegyric of his own efforts as Minister of Health and a description not only of all the things that he had done, but of all that he would have done if he had been allowed to pursue his course, also took up What seemed to me to be an amazingly reactionary point of view. He said in effect, "We are changing the whole system of government, because we interfere with the election of boards of guardians, which has gone on and on for hundreds of years. This is a most terrible and fearful example of the revolutionary activity of the Conservative party." We of the Conservative party believe that it is right and proper to conserve those elements of our Constitution which have proved themselves to be of value, but not to be unwilling to change, to give up, to alter and modify according to the circumstances of the day, those elements which have proved themselves to be harmful. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt such a high Tory point of view in face of this problem. He put forward the argument that when members of the community vote for Socialist guardians, it was only fair that they should get the result of what they voted for. He said, in a very telling definition, "Toryism is Toryism," but when he came to describe Socialism words failed him. The part that I understood was that, the electors having voted for extreme Socialist candidates, it is the duty of the guardians to provide them with that profuse and profligate system of management which they had been led to expect.
  Surely the whole of that argument falls to the ground on one question, and one question only? The question is, whose money? If that system could be carried on from the money raised by the ratepayers themselves, there would be an argument for leaving a locality to stew in its own juice. The argument would be that the whole system of self-government tends to make men learn by their mistakes, and it would be quite arguable, even if there were mal-administration in an area, to allow them to go on in the hope that the trouble would finally right itself. But in this case we have to deal with areas which are not able to carry on, not necessarily through their fault, without borrowing money

  1707
  from the Exchequer. Therefore, it seems to me that on the principle of "no taxation without representation" the Exchequer or the Ministry is rightly put into a position by this Bill to check gross abuse. The power which the guardians have is to threaten that unless their conditions for fresh loans are granted the whole machinery of the Poor Law will break down. Up till now the Minister has always been in the position that either he has to consent and see all the proper relief come to an end, or to give in to whatever terms the local authority may favour.
  Under this Bill it will be possible for the Minister in cases of gross maladministration, and more particularly cases of these very large borrowings with their high payments for relief, to exercise some control in the matter. I shall support the Bill. I regard it as a temporary Measure to deal with what has become a great and grave scandal in our public life. I hope that when we are able to deal with the problem as a whole it will be found possible to consider very carefully the whole question of the relations of local and national taxation, that either by the formation of larger areas, or by a reorganisation of our system of taxation, some of the difficulties which undoubtedly accrue in necessitous areas through no fault of their own, may be dealt with radically and permanently. But that is entirely different from the question whether we should at this stage give the Minister powers, which I am sure he has not sought, but powers which are necessary if certain elements of local government are to be preserved from mere wastefulness and profligacy.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I listened very carefully to the Minister's explanation of the Bill. I understood him to say that the sole object of the Bill was to put a stop to the mal-practices which have been revealed in the West Ham Union area. He also made the point, the sole issue that takes place at boards of guardians' elections is the issue as to how much or how little poor relief shall be given to the electors when they apply for it. The insinuation was that the Labour party, particularly, has specialised in the encouragement of promises, in return for votes, of high scales of relief. I have
  1708
  taken an active part in elections throughout South Wales in recent years and I have always discovered as far as our Labour candidates are concerned—and we have a majority on the greater number of local authorities in the South-east polling area—we have made that issue, so strongly emphasised by the Minister of Health, the least important of all. All we have asked for is humane treatment to be meted out to the poor. We have been pioneers in other matters that have been followed in England, Wales and in Scotland, namely, that we wanted a radical reform in the rating of this country, because experience has taught us that the propertied classes control local machinery as they do national machinery and that they always abuse it. Another issue of importance we have always impressed upon the electorate has been the total abolition of the Poor Law system. The Labour movement in this country has done far more to influence public opinion in the question of reform of rating and the abolition of Poor Law than anything else.
  What I cannot quite understand is why the Minister of Health has taken such a long time to take this particular action. He was Minister of Health in 1923, he has been Minister of Health since the formation of the present Government, and the case of West Ham has been public property, due to public misrepresentation in the Press and in Debates in this House, for the last four or five years. Poplar has been up in the same way, and throughout the necessitous areas in this country the same kind of stunt has been used. Why has the Minister therefore taken so long for this action, and why has he taken it at the present moment? We are told that serious defects have been discovered in West Ham. I listened very carefully to the instances given by the Minister himself and I find nothing new in those instances. I have discovered that similar things have happened in every branch of local government for generations past, and the only thing we can say with any certainty is what the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said—that the Civil Service administration in local government has improved and stands second to none in the world in being above suspicion in this direction. The real reason the Minister is taking

  1709
  this action at the present time is because there is a national coal stoppage. That is the beginning and end of his motive. There are some 50 or 60 necessitous areas in the same state as West Ham, and they have been so since 1921. The replies given to-day at the close of Question Time make one realise that these necessitous areas can be classified, geographically, in three groups. There are, first of all, heavy industries. The unions in those heavy industry areas are in great financial distress—Sheffield and Middlesbrough, for instance. All the shipping industry areas —Thameside and Barrow-in-Furness—are in the same boat as West Ham. The coal-mining areas of Northumberland, Durham and South Wales are faced with the same depression. We are suffering from a period of abnormal depression in trade as the after-effect of the great world War, and the Poor Law union authorities hi the necessitous areas are faced with providing some means of keeping people from destitution. The present Government have failed to provide a solution. It is the excessive unemployment we have which explains the position of West Ham and other necessitous areas.
  As unemployment is a national evil, we say that we should apply a national remedy, and the burden of relieving people in poverty due to it should be a charge on the National Exchequer and not on the local rates. The Government set up the Goschen Committee recently to go into this question of necessitous areas, and they rejected what many of us considered was a practical scheme put forward by that Committee. That scheme has been rejected by the Government, and they have failed to provide an alternative. In my opinion, West Ham Union has been picked out deliberately by the Minister of Health as a scapegoat to cover up the Government's incapacity and unfitness to govern. Although they could have taken West Ham years ago for a scapegoat, they neglected to do so, because they want to use this Bill as a lever in every mining area deliberately, and slowly but surely, to starve the miners' wives and children into subjection. That is the sale object of this Bill. It is a national disgrace that any Government should coolly and calmly legislate in this manner. I have had experience of knowing that the screw has been put on by the Minister of Health many months past in these necessitous areas. Since the general strike they
  1710
  have been putting on the screw. They have issued Circular 703, dwelling on the Merthyr Tydvil Judgment given in the Courts of Law when the Merthyr Tydvil Board of Guardians defied the Minister of Health and meted out relief because people were in need of it. The Circular insinuates that that judgment is now the law of the land, and that while boards of guardians can relieve the wives and children of miners who are locked out, they cannot relieve able-bodied men who can get work, whatever the terms offered by the employers.
  The Ministry have encouraged the Poor Law guardians to interpret that ruthlessly. We have boys in the coal mines from 14 to 16 years of age with no voice in the decisions as to disputes. They are as helpless as the wives and children, yet they are not given any relief at all, simply because the Minister has deliberately debarred them by his interpretation of the Merthyr Tydvil Judgment. There is another section of the youth of the mining population of this country who have been affected by his policy. These are the boys between 14 and 16 who have never started to work either in the mines or anywhere else and have never had a chance to get employment because of the national depression in trade and in the mining industry. The great mass of our boys have no other opening in life but mining. They are obviously in the same position as the wives and younger children, and they are being deprived of poor relief. There is serious distress in the coalfields as far as they are concerned. The position of the boards of guardians in the mining areas is more acute even than in the industrial areas because the bulk of the revenue in the mining Poor Law areas is based on the output of coal. For the current half-year, all over the country, they are failing to recover the bulk of the revenue at all. The revenue from April to September next is in sight for revenue purposes. Not until the stoppage is over will the Poor Law guardians in these areas be able to raise the ordinary revenue to meet ordinary relief, much less the extraordinary relief created as the result of the stoppage.
  Let me give an example from South Wales. The Ministry have sanctioned for Bedwelty Union up to date £684,000; Merthyr Tydvil, £275,000; Pontypridd, £210,000. These three unions cover the largest portion of the South Wales coal-

  1711
  field. Collectively they are responsible for two-thirds of the output of coal for the entire coalfield. Pontypridd is in a better position than the other two. Bedwelty has suffered for three years acute unemployment in its coalfields. Merthyr Tydvil suffers in the iron and steel industry as well as in regard to coal. I think the Minister will be the first to admit that while he may have had certain criticisms to offer in regard to administration in these areas, he cannot make any such charge against them as he has raised to-day against West Ham. They are in a very serious plight, and they have got to carry on their relief by means of loans. The normal cost of relief in Pontypridd is about £5,000 per week. At the present moment, even with reduced scales of relief, it is costing them no less than £20,000 per week and is likely to go up by several thousands per week. The last relief they have given is due to a temporary loan of £20,000 sanctioned by the Ministry of Health, but the Minister took advantage of the need for that temporary loan to compel them to reduce their scale of relief to a maximum of 103. per week for the wife of a man who was locked out and 2s. per week for a child. How can the wife of a miner be expected to maintain herself in health, cleanliness and decency on 10s. a week? How can she keep a child on 2s. a week? It is physically impossible and it is a scandal that any Minister should have the power to screw down any Poor Law authority in that way.
  For those reasons I have no hesitation in saying that this is not merely a Ministry of Health policy but a Cabinet policy. The Tory Government reveal in this Bill the same tactics and the same policy as are revealed in the Eight Hours Bill. The object of the Eight Hours Bill is to reduce the miners by compelling them to work extra time. The object of this Bill is to put the screw on the miners, to induce them to accept the Eight Hours Bill and to force them back to extra time and lower wages. It is thought the miners will accept that alternative rather than see their children and their wives gradually starved to death. The Government have made the same blunder in this Bill as they made in the Eight Hours Bill. They will never induce the miners of
  1712
  Britain to work the eight hours proposal and that Bill will be a scrap of paper, as Royal Proclamations have been scraps of paper. This Bill will not force the miners to give way. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the miners of Great Britain entered this coal dispute reluctantly. They have done all in their power to get a reasonable settlement. They now have their backs to the wall. They have fought and suffered many times before, and I venture to predict that unless the Government arrange some agreement, which will give the men a living wage, this stoppage will continue for months.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member seems to be going rather wide of the Bill.
  Mr. JONES: With all due respect, Sir, I conscientiously believe that the sole object of this Bill is to "down" the miners of Great Britain, and I am entitled to that opinion. When the provisions of this Bill and the speech of the Minister of Health become known through the public Press, the majority of miners will hold the same opinion. If the average Tory Members sit idly by and allow to be carried out the policy of the Cabinet in this direction they are not bringing about peace; they are bringing about war. The end will be not a permanent settlement but increased bitterness, as hon. Members opposite sooner or later must realise.
  Mr. SCURR: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Upton (Captain Holt) has left the House, because in the course of his speech he made a statement regarding West Ham to which I desire to reply. His statement was to the effect that a woman who had £240 got rid of that sum in five days and then came up for relief. The inference was that this woman had been receiving relief from the West Ham Guardians, and that no further notice was taken of the matter, and that she went on enjoying the £240 and her relief quite happily. The facts of the case were brought before the General Purposes Committee on 29th November, 1924, and were referred to the Clerk. On 18th December a summons was taken out at the West Ham Police Court under the Poor Law (Amendment) Act, 1848. The case came before the magistrate, Mr. Sharpe, and was dis-

  1713
  missed by him with a caution. I should say that this gentleman is a stipendiary magistrate, and not the ordinary justice of the peace. Before hon. Members bandy charges of this kind across the Floor of the House they ought to investigate the facts and state the facts as a whole.
  I was amused by one argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) to the effect that this was a temporary Measure. It seems to be the policy of the Conservative Government to deal with serious issues by temporary measures. In connection with the great mining crisis we had the Eight Hours Bill which was described as a temporary and permissive Measure. We have now the crisis in regard to the Poor Law and we are asked to vote for this Bill, on the ground that it is a temporary Measure. What are we to say of the intelligence of a Government which can only produce temporary Measures to deal with serious problems? The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, was careful not to disclose what was in the minds of himself and the Government in this matter. What they are concerned with is the fact that big business has not what they consider to be a proper say, in the administration of Poor Law relief. So long as big business is able to impose hours of labour and the price which it pays for labour on the individual workman, that is allright, but the right hon. Gentleman wants to give them further power. The men who suffer under the present system are being protected to a certain extent because boards of guardians are carrying out the law of the land, which lays down that relief is to be adequate. That protection is to be taken away and persons who happen to be directors of limited liability companies who, for their own convenience, have factories and works in these areas, are to be given the power now held by the guardians.
  These large industries themselves have created the problem. If, at the moment, they are meeting with some exceptional expenditure it is their own fault. They only concerned themselves with running their businesses in a way which brought in profit without any consideration for humanity or for the interest of the workers. In the whole East-End riverside area in London—Stepney, Poplar,
  1714
  Bermondsey and West Ham—the problem with which. we are faced is that of casual labour, produced very largely by the working of the great docks there. When the Port of London Authority was created, a. condition was laid down that it should set to work on a scheme for getting rid of the incubus of casual labour in that area. The Port of London Authority has dealt very little with that question, for the simple reason that upon that authority there sit a number of wharfingers. As things are, it pays them to have a reserve of casual labour upon which to draw and, as they are in the majority, nothing is done to ease the problem of casual labour. An examination of the last figures with which the right hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to supply me in answer to a question a few days ago, shows that all the figures of high cost per head of relief in London relate to areas where there is casual labour. Until we grapple with that problem, it is idle to talk about maladministration and huge scales of relief and all the rest of it.
  Then we have had the charge of corruption. We are led to believe that the West Ham body is corrupt. Parliament in 1918 decided that persons who were from that time onwards in receipt of assistance from the Poor Law, ought not to be deprived of the franchise as the result of receiving that assistance. There was no hint of corruption then. I think in the minds of the Government of that day was the idea that there were men who had been serving in various capacities during the War: that there was a bad economic time coining on, and that if they did not give these men the opportunity of exercising the franchise in this way, there might be a great deal more trouble. But to-day, because it is working out as it naturally would work out, and guardians are not going into this matter from the point of view of the estimable middle-class ladies who run the Charity Organisation Society and similar bodies, but, because they are going into it from a soundly practical point of view, they are denounced as corrupt. I happen to be chairman of a board of guardians, and at the present time, for two nights a week, from 6.30 to 11 o'clock, the members of that board sit in relief committees investigating case after case of the applicants who come before them. They are not even con-

  1715
  tented with that, but once every week a further committee, representing the whole of the union, sits and revises those very cases that have been investigated by the relief committees. What better administration can you have than that? It is the same thing that is being done in West Ham, because the same sort of people are doing it, and because they know the lives of the people with whom they have to come into contact.
  When he talked about corruption in West Ham, it might have been better if the Minister of Health had pursued his inquiries a little bit into the antiquities of West Ham, into that particular time when there was no Labour member sitting on that board, but when you had all those people who believed that practically every person who asked for public assistance under the Poor Law was, by that very fact, a rogue and ought to be fined. There had to be an investigation then, and there had to be prosecutions because of transactions with regard to contractors. That was real corruption in regard to the West Ham Board of Guardians, but we do not hear anything of that. Now it is only corruption when poor men, poor women, and poor children are being saved from starvation by their fellows. The right hon. Gentleman started to juggle with the figures put forward by the editors of the "Poor Law Officers' Journal," and he said that really you have to remember that one of the differences was that Birmingham had a greater indoor relief and was pursuing a policy of indoor relief, as compared with West Ham, the consequence being that Birmingham's outdoor relief scale was £14 11s. 3¼d. a week, against West Ham's 20 5s. 5½d., but the right hon. Gentleman also admitted that indoor relief is far more expensive than outdoor relief. Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Government to go back to the policy of 1834, and recreate the Bastilles up and down the country Are we to understand that we are to go on building workhouses all over the country in which to put people? That is the only inference that can be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, because, if we compare various boards of guardians, we can only compare them on their whole administration. It is not merely with oudoor relief that a board of guardians is concerned. It has its
  1716
  institutional poor and its hospitals—and, so far as West Ham is concerned, I suppose Whipps Cross is one of the most creditable of the hospitals of the country —and all of this is being done by the devoted men and women on the board of guardians. Then the Minister comes down and simply insults them by charges of corruption and all the rest of it.
  This is a policy which is being pursued by the Government in reversing completely the policy which was instituted a few years ago, when the central Government was coming to the point of view that our local government needed a little speeding up, and that there was not in a good many quarters a right appreciation of the necessity for carrying out various social services. In 1914 there was introduced in the Budget—I believe the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was then Chancellor of the Exchequer—that system of grants which were given out to local authorities in order, as he said, to stimulate them, so that they might look after the well-being of the community under their care. Now we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming along and telling us, during the Debate on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, that
  "It is the considered policy of the Government to convert the system of percentage grants into a system of block grants."
  We have the famous Circular of the Board of Education, which they have had to withdraw, but they are still working throughout all the education authorities to cut down the grant from the centre to them, and we have also the Minister of Health himself, in his provisional proposals for Poor Law reform, issued in December, 1925, saying:
  "It is further proposed to abolish the present system of assigned revenue grants and to replace the existing grants out of the assigned revenues for Poor Law relief, health services, and unallocated, and the Grants-in-Aid of expenditure on health services, by a system of block grants."
  to be expended at the discretion of the local authority. All that is for the purpose of transferring as large a burden as possible on to the local authorities, a burden which ought to be borne by the nation. Men are not out of work, whether in West Ham, Birmingham, or Glasgow, because of the follies of the municipal administrators or guardians or parish councillors of those places. They

  1717
  are out of work for reasons over which they have no control, as a result of the condition of this country after the great War and the economic consequences which have followed from it, and, therefore, because they are, for the convenience of the employers of labour, grouped into various localities, it is unfair that those localities should have to bear that burden, which ought to be thrown on the community as a whole. Further, it ought to be thrown on the Whole community because taxation in its incidence is much fairer than rating. Our taxation, after all, whether it be direct or indirect, is on the ability to pay of the persons taxed, but when we are collecting rates from people, it is on the particular premises which they may be occupying, and there are numerous anomalies under which even people in business, as well as people in houses, are having to pay too much in their locality by reason of the fact that our rating system is wrong.
  At the present time the Government, through the Ministry of Labour, are tightening up administration in order to throw people off the unemployment benefit and on to the Poor Law authorities. After all, a starving man has got to obtain some means of existence, and if he cannot do so from the local authority, the only result is that in the end there will be rioting, insurrection, and possibly, in the end, bloody revolution. Although the British people are a long suffering people, who can put up with a good many things, there comes a time when, as the Earl of Balfour once said, there is a limit to human endurance, and unless these people are able to get their food and clothes and lodging, you will find that there is a limit to human endurance. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health may not then be in a position to introduce Bills of this kind. He and the class to which be belongs may find themselves faced with a position which under no circumstances do any of us, sitting on these benches or connected with our party, desire to see in this country. Therefore, you have got to relieve this and you relieve out of the local rates what ought to come from the national Exchequer. This is a bad Bill. It interferes with our local government. It interferes with the discretion of the localities. It is ill in its effects in so far as it affects men,
  1718
  women and children, and it is nothing more than cool, calculated, cold-blooded murder.
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: As far at any rate as the conclusion is concerned, the argument addressed to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) was an argument in favour of a national in preference to a local system, though a national system would carry with it certain disadvantages, for instance, a fixed grant, and fixed methods, and a rigid system which would be inevitable. On the other hand, under our present system of local administration we are able to carry out the principles of the original Poor Law, to deal with the matter locally and with full cognisance of the local circumstances. I think no one in face of that would seriously prefer a purely national system in preference to a local system in this matter of the Poor Law. One of the previous speakers challenged the Minister of Health on the ground that he had suggested that the Bill was of a temporary character. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman defended his Bill on the ground that it was of a- temporary character. He explained it was a temporary Measure in view of further reform in the Poor Law that he had in view, but so far from the Measure being a temporary one, it reverts to the principles of the Statute of nearly 100 years ago, a law that has already been referred to, the Act of 1834. The Commissioners who are to be set up under the present Bill are merely the successors of the Commissioners who were appointed under the Act of 1834, with this difference, that those Commissioners have not certain powers of supersession which are to be given to the Commissioners under the present Bill. Tire other Commissioners had very wide powers in view of the circumstances of the time, but they had not the necessity of the present Measure to restore good order and good administration in the localities. It was not judged necessary at that time, and probably was not required because, by the machinery at their disposal, the authorities were able to do all that was needed.
  We all know under the present system the method of control by means of surcharge is quite ineffective. The fact that some of the guardians may have come

  1719
  into the custody of the law for the time being does not relieve the situation. Some of the safeguards of the local authorities in local administration will not be necessary, for the new authority will see that the work is properly carried out. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) drew a parallel between certain administrations and certain places in the London area and certain others, and he drew from this the deduction that where Poor Law administration was most lavishly carried out, that those were the places where you find good conditions prevailing as to the health and welfare of the people. The Division I have the honour to represent presents a direct challenge to that assertion. We are not different in many respects from the place with which the hon. Gentleman is associated. We have a similar population, area and rateable value, but the numbers in receipt of Poor Law relief are different, our rates are very different, and our administration—if I may say so—is also very different. What is the test of this following on the lines of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley? It lies in our favourable rates of mortality. Our death-rate is the lowest or amongst the lowest in London, our infantile mortality rate is exceedingly low; our health services are admirably administered, and I think would bear comparison with any borough in London with regard to the quality of the services.
  It does not require extravagance of expenditure and administration on out-relief to bring about a healthy condition of affairs. Allusion has been made to the question of rent. We know what a difficult question that is. We are building houses and endeavouring to relieve overcrowding, but the rates of a locality have a very great bearing on this matter of rent, for the higher the rates the higher the rent is bound to be. Again, the greater the burden of rates on the local factories, the more difficulty you are likely to have in keeping the industries going. This is the natural sequel to this unhappy cycle of events. Allusion has also been made, and the point was put, that the Minister of Health has challenged the maxim that local affairs produced devoted service to the public by his supersession of the guardians at West Ham. I am well aware that a large
  1720
  number of men and women have devoted their services to the valuable work of local administration. Here, again, nobody is going to suggest that the work has not been done efficiently by a most devoted body of guardians, in, say, a borough like Fulham, and if it is done by the same type of individual all over London why should it be necessary in one district that the administration of affairs be on such a different scale, that if it can be done effectively in one place it should not be possible to find it equally well done and on equally sound lines in another place? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The argument holds both ways, but where you have once started and brought into being a lavish scale of relief, of course it is very difficult to alter it. It is sliding down the slippery slope! These things are much easier to start than to stop, and the longer they go on the more difficult they are to remedy. So we come to the end of all attempts that have been made to meet the difficulty of the particular areas that have been discussed this afternoon, and this is the final effort, the final endeavour to protect and safeguard the local administration. We have really come to a breakdown in the system. The public authority are really defying Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, because they are in their capacity as local administrators under the law of the land. The law of the land is administered by the Ministry of Health, which is the successor of the Local Government Board, as they in turn were successors to the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1834. A body of people here are like an individual. If an individual breaks the law he suffers. It is somewhat more difficult to deal with a body of people. But the only way at the present time is simply and solely from a public point of view to carry out the necessary work on the right lines which they have so far failed to do.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not fair to suggest that the position in West Ham is due to its poverty? If West Ham had a good rateable value, were a rich union instead of a poor one, the Minister of Health could not interfere with whatever scale of relief they choose to give. There is no question of breaking the law, because West Ham has a high schedule, as you insinuate.
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: What I described as breaking the law is failure to comply with the instructions issued by the responsible authority.
  Mr. J. JONES: There is no authority over the board of guardians.
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: For the purpose of my argument it is not a question of whether the rateable value of West Ham be high or low. I can quite understand, from the nature of the place, that it is not as high as other areas; the rateable value of West Ham, for instance, is lower than that of Westminster; West Ham has not got certain local advantages which London boroughs have. But even if it had some other source from which to draw, that would not justify the West Ham Board of Guardians in pursuing a course of extravagance.
  Mr. JONES: There is no extravagance about it. You spend more in a night than we give in a week.
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am not dealing with the question of scales. That has no immediate bearing on the point. It is the administration which is the test—that you should not relieve people who, by the ordinary tests which govern these matters, are not entitled to relief. The function of Poor Law guardians is to relieve destitution. They are not intended to maintain any given standard of living. It is not their business to raise the income of a family from one figure to another just because they think the higher figure is the more suitable. I would like people to have the best standard of living possible, but it is not the function of the Poor Law authority to dispose of their funds with the object of giving expression to their ideas on the subject of the people having a certain social or economic standard; and when their conduct is challenged, because they have failed to comply with the law, they must accept the consequences. That is the sole object of the present Bill.
  I was interested to read in the weekly organ of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) the statement, "No taxation without representation is a sound constitutional doctrine." As one who believes that limited companies which pay rates on their property ought to have some, voice in local administration, it is
  1722
  gratifying to me to see a supporter where I least expected to find one. I had hoped to have the opportunity of introducing a Bill on that subject this Session, but owing to the course of Government business it was not possible for me to do so. If I or any other Member has an opportunity of introducing it on another occasion I trust I shall find support from the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.
  Mr. BARNES: I have only two comments to offer on the speech we have just heard. The first is that, knowing both West Ham and Fulham fairly well, I do not think there is any comparison between the conditions prevailing in those respective localities
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I drew the comparison between Poplar and Fulham, not West Ham.
  Mr. BARNES: Even in the case of Fulham and Poplar I do not think there is any comparison to be drawn. In the second place, the hon. Member accused West Ham of defying the Government—I think I am right there?
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Defying the Ministry of Health.
  Mr. BARNES: And that means defying the Government. I do not think a case can be made out in support of that accusation. I would say it is a case of the Government exploiting the problems of West Ham. In introducing this Bill the Minister said the guardians had left him no alternative except to take this step. If I understand his case aright, the only reason he advanced for introducing this Bill was maladministration on the part of the guardians, and in support of his argument he brought forward a number of cases which he alleged confirmed that accusation of maladministration. Personally, I have never stood for teal-administration in public affairs. I should oppose it whether it came from the Labour party, the Liberal party or the Conservative party. But I think it is necessary to say that if there be any mal-administration in public affairs to-day many of the standards have been laid down by the party opposite. It is no use to say that we cannot, from our experience in a variety of ways, bring dozens and hundreds of cases arising under the administration of the Conservatives for every

  1723
  one that can be brought forward as occurring under a Labour administration. When we were discussing this question about 12 months ago the Minister of Health was invited to take any administrative action he cared in order to prove any of these general allegations. All sections of labour in West Ham would welcome it. The Minister cannot say there has been from responsible Labour opinion in the West Ham Union any effective opposition to any proposals for dealing with any faulty administration.
  I think he has been challenged on more than one occasion to prove his case. Instead of doing it, the Minister and the Department have sought under this pretext—that is what it is, a pretext and an excuse—to upset what so far has been a very important phase of local life in this country. This Bill is introduced ostensibly to deal with the case of West Ham, and that being so we are entitled to ask why the Department are seeking general powers. I venture to suggest they are doing it for this purpose. The Department intend to negative and destroy the advantages that come from Labour administration and Labour successes at the polls. This Bill is not introduced against any board of guardians under Conservative administration. It does not compel a board who are giving people in distress relief on a scale which is below a reasonable standard of living to bring up that scale to a reasonable standard. The whole Bill is designed to frustrate the electors in certain areas who have had the good sense to return Labour representatives. I can speak on this question in more varied aspects than the Minister of Health. I reside in the West Ham union area. I also represent South-East Ham, which is one of the poorest divisions in that particular area. The Minister has dealt with the hardship to trade associations which have large liabilities in the West Ham Union area, who are denied the right of representation. I can speak on behalf of probably the largest trade organisation in that area—namely, the London Cooperative Society, which last year paid rates to the extent of £11,000 in this Poor Law union area. [An HON. MEMBER: "And no Income Tax!"] Every member of this Co-operative Society conforms to the law, and when
  1724
  we have an opoprtunity of dealing with the question of the Income Tax we can fully justify our position.
  9.0 P.M.
  Although the present Government has decided to interfere with local government, it has not had the courage to deal with co-operative societies and the Income Tax in this House. This particular co-operative society has paid in rates in the West Ham Union £10,929. We have nearly 50,000 members resident in this area, and they form, with their families, probably one-fourth of the population. It is all very well for the Minister of Health to build up the case about the trade associations, but that is not the problem. The real problem does not consist of half-a-dozen cases of abuse, even if they exist, because the Minister can deal with them administratively, and he has the power to do so. These cases of abuse are simply being used as a cloak to relieve the Government from the responsibility of shouldering their real burden. What the traders in West Ham area require is that the Government should carry the burden of unemployment. If the Government claim has a grievance that companies, who have factories and property in certain Poor Law areas, are denied voting power because they do not reside in those areas, then we are entitled to make a similar claim on behalf of tens of thousands of people in East and West Ham, Leyton and Walthamstow, who work in the City of London and in Westminster, and have not the right to participate in the government of some of those districts whose wealth they build up. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. I do not intend to allow those cases which have figures so largely in this Debate to obscure the real issue. I am going to give to the House some of the problems of West Ham which the present Bill cannot possibly touch. You may he able to save a few pounds by tightening up the administration, but that is not the object of this Measure. We owe the Ministry over £2,000,000. That is the debt on the West Ham Union. For some years we have been levying a rate of 9s. in the £, and one-third of the total rates in the area are for Poor Law purposes. I do not think there is another parish in the country levying a rate of 9s. for Poor Law purposes, and that does not meet the total liabilities of the area. The cases men-

  1725
  tioned by the Minister of Health do not touch the fringe of the problem in West Ham. The purpose of this Bill, if it is going to reduce the cost of Poor Law administration in West Ham, can only be carried out by cutting down the relief over the whole range of applicants in every direction. If that is the purpose of the Bill, why not have the honesty and courage to state it? The very least we can claim is that Parliament should understand the problem, and it should not legislate on the type of nonsense, misrepresentation, and abuse which has figured in the Press during the whole controversy that surrounds the Poor Law problem of West Ham. Let us see what this problem really is. In the first place there was no rating problem until 1920. This problem synchronises with the date of the great trade slump when the unemployment difficulty arose. Of the 108,000 persons who have been relieved in the West Ham Union, 85,000 of them are insured persons.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Separately insured persons or including dependants?
  Mr. BARNES: Including their dependants. That clearly proves that your unemployment insurance scheme has broken down, because it does not maintain the able-bodied workmen who do not desire to apply for Poor Law relief. If your unemployment insurance has broken down, and is not sufficient to maintain the worker who has been thrown out of employment, you cannot argue that it is a case of political corruption to relieve them. This state of things is a reflection on your own incapacity to organise the industries of this country. Having displaced these individuals by the result of your policy your unemployment scheme cannot maintain them, and they are fastened on to the Poor Law. In West Ham the overwhelming majority of the population are insured persons, and tans of thousands of them are engaged in casual occupations. In this case continuous unemployment has operated for something like five years, and what does that bring in its train? It brings unemployment, which also means poverty, overcrowding, and sickness. The property in this area is mostly one type of houses at a very low rateable value, and there is no other Poor Law union in the country to-day that has collected in rates more than its assessable
  1726
  value per head. In the West Ham Union, for instance, the asssessable value is £4 6s. per head, and yet we are actually collecting in East Ham a rate of £4 17s. per head. I suggest that there is no other Poor Law union in the country where the rates that are being collected exceed the assessable value per head. If that be the case in West Ham, I would ask the House is it fair, is it legitimate, to introduce a. Bill of this sort that does not grapple with our problem at all? Is it fair to do so under the shelter of a few cases which it may be argued represent abuse? I would repeat that all responsible Labour opinion in this area, and the Labour Members of Parliament representing the area, invited the Minister to take administrative action to prove what he has stated so often, and one cannot make a fairer statement than that. A Bill of this kind will not touch the fringe of the problem.
  Let me compare West Ham with London. West Ham is just outside the fringe of London. All the Metropolitan boroughs that represent working-class districts share in the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, but West Ham is denied that privilege; West Ham is denied that opportunity. We are a collection of five authorities, either borough councils or urban district council areas, and to all intents and purposes we are a part of London. Our poverty problem is the creation, not of these five authorities, but of London as a whole. These districts feed the docks, and the docks and the riverside are essential to the whole London community. Because of the conditions that prevail there, these three-quarters of a million people are herded together, as I have said, representing low wages and casual labour, and yet West Ham, for administrative purposes, is not entitled to share in the Metropolitan Common Law Fund. Let us compare West Ham with Bethnal Green. Bethnal Green has the lowest assessable value per head of any borough in London. Its assessable value per head is £4 17s., whereas in West Ham the assessable value is 6s. per head, so we have a more difficult problem in West Ham than the borough with the lowest assessable value in the Metropolitan area. Nevertheless, we have no opportunity of sharing in the relief that comes from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

  1727
  Now let us take the assessable value per head in some of the other boroughs in London. In the City of Westminster it is £59 13s.; in Marylebone it is £24 8s.; in Finsbury it is £14 7s., and in the City of London it is £494 per head. Here, again, I think it is necessary to emphasise the fact that it is our people who live in West Ham, East Ham, Leyton and Walthamstow who travel into the City every day, and whose, labour helps to make the wealth which that assessable value in the heart of the City represents. That being the case, we claim that those areas should bear some of our burden. A penny rate in the West Ham Union amounts to £13,650, whereas the average value of a penny rate for the whole country is £20,000. West. Ham, therefore, is one-third below the average for the whole country. It does not matter at what point or at what angle you compare the West Ham Union with any other part of the country—whether you take the amount we are now raising in rates for Poor Law purposes, whether you take the assessable value per head or whether you take the amount of a penny ratein every direction and from every angle West Ham suffers in comparison.
  I say it is a disgrace to Parliament, it is a reflection on that equity of administration which should characterise the Ministry of Health, that the only action they should have taken towards this distressed area should be, on the basis of one or two malpractices, to begin to override and supersede its method of local government. I suggest that the Ministry should have recognised the burden of this necessitous area, and should have been prepared to make us grants—not loans at a higher rate of interest. In 1928, the sum that will be due for repayment of interest and principal in West Ham will be roughly £450,000 a year. We cannot stand it; it is impossible that this situation shall go on. The next point to which I desire to address myself is the policy of forcing the unemployed on to the guardians. In 1925, the Ministry of Labour recorded for the year a total decrease of 125,000 persons unemployed; but, while the Department's figure for unemployed went down, the Poor Law figure during that year went up by 250,000.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Including dependants?
  Mr. BARNES: Including dependants.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Did the other include dependants?
  Mr. BARNES: The argument of the hon. Member rather suggests that he thinks the dependants of the working man are suspended in the air. They have to be maintained, whether their breadwinner is in work or not. The fact remains that during that period, when the figures of the Ministry of Labour would suggest to the community that trade was improving, that we were becoming more prosperous, the figures in the Poor Law areas were mounting up. West Ham to-day, as I have said, owes a total debt of something like £2,000,000. This Bill will not interfere with that at all; it will not in any way minimise it; but if the Minister intends to use his powers, not for the purpose of tightening up adminstration, but to save money by means of wholesale cuts, I venture to suggest that this Bill will not solve any problem, but will create graver problems. So far, responsible opinion in that area has been anxious to do all it can to get an adequate and reasonable but sufficient settlement of this problem, but if the Minister is going to adopt a policy of forcing on to the ratepayer the responsibilities that are legitimately those of the taxpayer, West. Ham will become a greater problem in the future than it is to-day. A ratepayer has to pay his rates, whether his income is improving or worsening, whether he has any income or not; but a taxpayer only pays taxes if his income permits him to pay those taxes.
  Therefore, on the question of equity, on the question of justice, the problem of West Ham should be borne by the Treasury and not by the people of West Ham. It is no excuse to come here this afternoon and, on the pretext of a problem like that of West Ham, to interfere with the whole administration of local government in that area. I want to ask the Minister to face up to the facts, and, in his reply, to tell us here and now, so that we may know where we are, whether he is going to use his powers to cut down in a wholesale manner the scales that have been paid in West Ham. The majority of Labour opinion in that area is satisfied that these scales are not extravagant. Here and there there may have been abuses, but the scale as a whole is not extravagant. From that point of

  1729
  view, I oppose this Bill with all the strength at my disposal, and I sincerely hope that, instead of adopting this method, the Department at last will recognise and wake up to the problems of West Ham, will wipe away that loan which represents a liability on the district, and will take as a national charge, through the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, the problem of all insured persons. Then West Ham will meet its liabilities, and public opinion will operate in the district to see that we have fair and efficient administration.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member who has just sat down did not, I think, quite appreciate the point of my interruption. I apologise to him for having interrupted him, but I wanted to raise the issues at the moment he mentioned them lie contrasted the decline in unemployment insurance statistics with the increase in the Poor Law statistics. The unemployment insurance statistics relate to unemployed persons exclusive of dependants, and the Poor Law statistics relate to unemployed persons including their dependants.
  Mr. BARNES: I admitted that.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member did not admit it. He seemed to think my reference to dependants was something unkind. It is absurd to make comparisons of that kind, because you are not comparing like with like.
  Mr. BARNES: Surely the hon. Member does not deny the inference of my speech. While the figures of unemployment were going dawn, on the other hand, there was an increase of the charges on the Poor Law, my point being that a great number have been transferred from the Employment Exchange list to the guardians' list.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am fully aware that that is the purpose of the hon. Member's point, because that point has been made in my hearing from the benches opposite a dozen times in the last 12 months, and on three or four occasions it has been my privilege to explain what is the basis of the unemployment statistics. If the hon. Member will obtain from the Vote Office a very interesting White Paper published some months ago he will find that his comparison is of no value whatever. If you
  1730
  are going to make a comparison between an increase on the one hand and a decrease on the other, at least the statistics might refer to the same groups of people. With regard to unemployment insurance the position is this. A decline in the number of persons registered has nothing to do with the number of persons in receipt of benefit. It is a record of the number of persons seeking work, and people register in order to get work and not primarily in order to get benefit —at least in my constituency, and I hope in the hon. Member's—because that is the object of the Employment Exchange. It is only incidentally a place for paying out benefits. If the White Paper is studied it will be found that the influence of the Disqualifications Act, 1924, and the Disqualifications Act of last year on the statistics has been trifling. It cannot have influenced them by more than about 13,000. As a matter of fact a very large number of persons who are registered as unemployed are in receipt of Poor Law benefit because they are not in receipt of unemployment benefit. I have indulged in this explanation because the statement is so frequently made from the benches opposite, and much more frequently outside, where there may not be persons present to contradict them. The hon. Member said there were 85,000 insured persons in West Ham who were in receipt of Poor Law relief because of unemployment. It is not 85,000 insured persons, hut 85,000 with dependants. So that reduces the number of insured to 28,000 or 30,000.
  Mr. BARNES: The proportion remains the same—85,000 in 108,000 cases.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: There are about 28,000 or 30,000 insured persons out of work included in those cases. I imagine the total number of unemployed persons in West Ham is not very much greater than that total. The number of unemployed in Birmingham before the general strike, which is a convenient time to take for a reference, was about 20,000. The sizes of the Birmingham Union and the West Ham Union are approximately the same, so they are convenient areas for comparison. They both contain a population of about a million. The unemployment in West Ham is apparently greater than in Birmingham. It may be 50 per cent. greater. But the proportion of

  1731
  persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in West Ham per 10,000 of the population, again at the end of April, was 923. In Birmingham it was 250, and if you allow for the difference in unemployment it might be in Birmingham 375. So that in West Ham they, are relieving, in relation to the number of unemployed, two-and-a-half times as many people as they are relieving in Birmingham. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the problem."] Precisely. That is the problem, and that problem is the creation of no one else but the Guardians of West Ham. The hon. Member helped me with his statistics because they were the one lot I was trying to get for the completion of my case. What I am trying to show is that in relation to the people who are out of work you are relieving two-and-a-half times as many in West Ham as are being relieved in Birmingham. In other words, you are being two-and-a-half times as generous with the ratepayers' money. Your generosity is not entirely with the ratepayers' money. It has been with money lent you by the Ministry of Health, in other words provided on the security of the whole of the population of these islands, and, having been generous with other people's money, you have now apparently reached the stage in West Ham that you want to escape the liability you have incurred.
  I am going to vote for the Bill with the very greatest possible pleasure. I carry my mind back to 1921, when certain friends of mine—I call them friends though we differ politically—decided that Brixton was more comfortable than Poplar and they sojourned at Brixton for a period, and ultimately the Government of the day, in my opinion, gave way to them and passed the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, which enabled Poplar to draw almost without limit on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. I remember, though I was not in the House, indulging in many discussions on that Bill. I remember the violence, with which I denounced it. It was perfectly obvious what was going to happen. You were going to have in Poplar people in the happy position of being able to provide unlimited funds which they only had a very limited responsibility in finding. The people of Poplar in due course were debauched with this distribution of
  1732
  largesse provided by other people. Before the Illegal and Corrupt Practices Act it was the practice of those seeking election to bribe people with their own money. Our modern Socialists are only a section of the Socialist party, because a large proportion of the Socialist party do not like Poplarism, but that section which likes it has discovered something much more ingenious than bribing people with your own money, that is, to bribe them with other people's money, and that is in fact bribery on the most colossal scale and it has debauched the East End of London and turned decent honest British citizens into cadgers.
  I am very glad the time has come when a stop be generally put to this. I am glad it has come fairly soon because the House must realise that what has been happening is intensely resented by all classes of the community all over the country. The normal British attitude towards Poor Law relief is that it is a thing that ought to be avoided at all costs. I have always held the view that my fellow-countrymen and women have been even a little too extreme in that attitude. They have refused relief when they ought to have had it. That is their normal attitude. If Poplarism and Wesa Hamism and a few other isms go on, the ultimate reaction will be too violent and will carry us too far in the Opposite direction. I rejoice that the Minister of Health has intervened reasonably soon—quire frankly I wish he had intervened a little earlier—to prevent this thing going too far.
  The contrast I have made between Birmingham and West Ham is not the only one that can he made. If you will contrast—and it is really difficult to do it satisfactorily, because the Employment Exchange areas and the Poor Law union areas are not. the same and it is difficult to make an exact comparison—but, if you run through the tables which appear in the "Labour Gazette" showing the people in receipt of Poor Law relief, and run through the other table showing the registered number of unemployed in certain areas, you are forced to the conclusion that some boards of guardians are far more generous—shall we call it? —in their distribution of public funds than others. I know districts where the boards of guardians are very considerably under the influence of the Labour

  1733
  party and where they have not given way to this temptation to distribute public money for the purpose of influencing votes later on. There are also parts where I am perfectly satisfied that the distribution of Poor Law relief is part of the political life of a section of the Socialist party, and I think that form of corruption ought to be brought to an end, and therefore I rejoice that the Minister of Health has brought forward this Bill.
  Miss LAWRENCE: At the beginning of our proceedings to-day I took the rather unusual course of refusing to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to submit a certain table of figures to me in writing. I want to say I did not do that from any desire to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman or to trouble the House with a long answer. I did it in order that the House might have some idea of the scope and extent of the present Bill, because this long list of unions which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is an almost unbearably long list to read to the House, is some measure of the scope of this Bill. Every one in that long list, from Abergayenny to Birmingham, from Birmingham to Chester-le-Street, from Chester-le-Street to Manchester, Merthyr Tydvil, Monmouth, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Neath, Wrexham, and the rest—every one of those are unions which have had to borrow and which may, therefore, very likely appear to the Minister as being unions which are likely to be unable to discharge their duties. The truth is that, the administration of the Minister of Health in the past three or four months has raised an almost general body of opposition among the Poor Law guardians of the country and this business of West Ham is only a smoke cloud to cover a very large, far-extending and thought-out policy. It was a smoke cloud which occasionally grew rather thin. I thought it grew particularly thin when the Minister was driven to read out a sorry record of certain rogues whom the guardians had detected in fraud and had prosecuted and punished. As everybody knows, the ingenuity of human wickedness is so great that the strictest bodies—the Charity Organisation Society itself occasionally—have somebody who gets right away with it. The fact that prosecution has taken place is always a criterion of strict rather than of lax administration.
  1734
  But I do not want to be diverted to this tempting question. Does anybody suppose that if this were a question of dealing with a single board of guardians, Parliament would be asked to spend three or four days talking about it? If, as the Minister has hinted, though he brought no evidence, there have been corrupt appointments, anybody who has been in municipal work for 20 years or so can give a long list of guardians up and down the country who have done time and been in prison for long periods for corrupt appointments. There are rogues everywhere. There is nothing which can be more readily punished by the law. The only objection from the ministerial point of view is that you have got to prove it according to the rules of evidence before the Judges. The Minister said you could not deal with guardians by mandamus. You can go to prison for mandamus, and you can spend long terms in prison. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants capital punishment for the guardians, because, short of capital punishment, there is hardly any punishment you can inflict upon a criminal that cannot be inflicted by process of mandamus.
  I come to another point. The policy of the Minister with regard to Poor Law administration changed violently and suddenly this year. I only take the instance of the West Ham scale, which was up to the minimum of 55s. last autumn. With the general strike the Minister issued his circular. Tie did two things in that circular. He told the boards of guardians not to give higher relief than unemployment benefit in cases which were not strikers. He suggested for the wives of strikers 12s., and for the children of strikers 4s. Those were his suggestions. But where he had the lever of indebtedness he has forced sometimes that scale and sometimes lower scales on the boards of guardians. That has provoked resistance, discontent and deputations from the boards of guardians up and down the country. As a member of the Women's Committee for the Relief of Miners' Wives and Children, I can say that we have had from all the districts concerned very full reports as to the scales of Poor Law relief and as to the action of the Minister with regard to health matters.

  1735
  I have been trying to drag an answer from the Minister of Health on a matter to which I am coming, almost continually since I came into the House. He said that he has advised that it is correct that the guardians should apply the Merthyr Tydvil judgment so as to refuse relief to all males over 14 in colliery districts. Many of these boys have never been employed at all, and I have pressed the Minister to tell me under what possible decision it can be held that people who were never in an industry at all are strikers. He has referred that question to the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers did not attain their present position without having learned a little worldly wisdom. They have not answered that question and I do not believe they will answer that question until the stoppage is over and the weapon is no longer needed. There is another question put to the Law Officers which may perhaps need a little legal consideration. It is this. In the Merthyr Tydvil case the Judge said—and what the Judge said is the law of the land now—that persons who by their own active consent threw themselves out of work might not be relieved. That is the law; but the boys cannot vote. No boy under 16 can vote and most young men up to 18 cannot vote. How can you argue that people who have no voice in calling on a stoppage and who will have no voice in calling off a stoppage have by their own active consent thrown themselves out of work? The men have thrown them out of work exactly in the same way as the stoppage of the colliers has thrown the textile men out of work. I suppose one could go on for ever asking the Minister whether people who have not been in industry are strikers, and perhaps when the strike is over we shall get some sort of answer.
  A great many of the boards of guardians have refused to accept the Minister's dictum on this, and some of them are in this list to which I have referred. Some of the Durham Board of Guardians are relieving people up to 16 and some up to 18, and it is excessively inconvenient to the Minister because they will not listen to his law. Many boards of guardians are refusing to acecpt the scale pressed upon them. You will not find one London board which will put into force a scale no higher than the unemployment pay, and very few in the
  1736
  country, and I do not suppose Birmingham would. I should like to ask how many boards of guardians have written in the last three months protesting. It is a very long list. Some have given way, and the amount of distress caused by those who have given way is almost unspeakable. From that committee of which I have spoken we have continual stories about the actual hunger of the colliery lads. Some districts say they can do nothing, and when we ask what happens to the boys, they say that they are hanging about the children's feeding centres in the hope of getting what is left over. Others say that they can manage one meal a day. Some say, hopefully, "The boys got 10s. last week from the Russian money." Many arc resisting the Minister. It is a very long business to try to deal with the matter by persuasion, circular letter, reduction of loans, etc., and to get a large number of boards of guardians to adopt an entirely new scale in regard to administration.
  The Minister wants a quick and easy way; therefore he has brought forward this Bill, which says that "wherever it appears to the Minister" that boards of guardians will be unable to discharge their functions, he may get rid of them and put in his own paid nominees. "Whenever it appears to the Minister" Could there be a more blessed form of words? You cannot take an appearance into Court. You cannot convince a hard and unsympathetic Judge that something did not appear to the Minister. Appearances are not subject to the law of evidence. The Minister will not have to go into Court to prove the case as he would in regard to maladministration. He can sit in the privacy of his room and conjure up appearances, and in virtue of those ghosts he can take away the rights of the ratepayers. These paid nominees of the Minister will have power to determine what the ratepayer has to pay. According to the Bill, these paid people, appointed by the Minister and holding office at his pleasure, will be able to make out the precept for the district. They will be able to impose upon the ratepayers the rates they will have to pay. There are certain rates which will be difficult to collect.
  Does anybody believe that this is really a West Ham business? Can anybody think that all this machinery is to be put

  1737
  into force in order to deal with one board of guardians i No. What we feel is that it is done because of the partial failure of the Minister's efforts to reduce out-relief generally throughout the country and by that means to bring additional hardship and suffering upon the strikers and those who are out of work, and to reverse the whole Poor Law policy of the last 10 years, which has been towards greater generosity and to remove that little assurance, that little comfort, which is now behind every poor fellow who draws the unemployment benefit and cannot find work. Anybody who looks at this matter must see that this Bill is part of a concerted plan. It is part of the same plain motive which prompted the attack upon the money which was sent for the miners. It is the same motive which is now prompting the general reduction of Poor Law relief. The Minister has taken this step not for the sake of West Ham, not in order to deal with one board of guardians, but to ensure that every board of guardians in the country may, whenever it appears to him advisable, be superseded, and their places filled by his own paid servants, administering as he thinks fit. I do not think that our Amendment is too strong, when we speak of this as a revolutionary Measure. The boards of guardians may be the smallest elected authority in the country, but they are by no means the youngest. They are a very old part of our constitution, and to supersede boards of guardians because in a very large number of cases they are conducting a policy which the Minister dislikes, is, without exaggeration, an attack upon one of the great principles of our constitution.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should have thought that if this were a revolutionary proposal, it is the very thing that would have recommended itself to the last speaker.
  Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of personal explanation. I will not allow that statement to go unchallenged. I am not a revolutionist. I am a democrat clinging, under very great difficulties, to the principles of democracy.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I will make an exception in the case of the distinguished lady who has just spoken, whose speech we all so much enjoyed; but I do not think, if this be a revolutionary proposal,
  1738
  that that is any drawback in the eyes of most hon. Members who sit on the benches with the hon. Member. The proposal is, no doubt, somewhat novel in this country, but it ought to commend itself to hon. Members opposite because it is, to some extent, a bureaucratic proposal. The men who are to take the places of the guardians are to be paid for their job. As far is I understand it, those guardians who are connected with trade unions are already paid by the trade union funds and the political levy for the work they do. They get paid a salary, and they also receive their expenses, and they are paid out of the pockets of our supporters. It seems that it is merely because those connected with trade unions are not appointing these paid men, and that the Minister is going to appoint them, that they object. I suppose the men appointed will be called blacklegs, because they will be taking jobs which are at present held by trade union members.
  Although the proposal in the Bill is somewhat novel, we have to bear in mind that the circumstances are extreme. Even after making allowances for the exaggerations of the Press, who are always getting hold of something striking, there can be no doubt that up and down the country there has been considerable feeling amongst decent working men in regard to cases where a man with a family is getting more out of relief funds than the same man would get if he were working.
  Miss WILKINSON: That is an objection against low wages.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: If a man is to receive wages according to the size of his family well and good. That used to be the case in agriculture, but it has never been possible to work that system in any other industry. I think it is a very sensible principle. It is very unfortunate that so many of the unemployed have large families, because that means a large burden being put upon the rates.
  Mr. BROMLEY: The lawyers do not base their fees on the size of their families.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: They work very hard for their fees. I would remind hon. Members that although the proposal seems somewhat undemocratic, it is not very novel. There is one part of the

  1739
  British Isles for which hon. Members opposite always express admiration. They have no special regard for Northern Ireland, but they have great admiration for the Southern part of Ireland. They think that Southern Ireland is a very fine place. I would remind them that the Free State Government of Ireland have done to the Dublin Corporation the very thing that the Minister is now proposing to do with regard to defaulting boards of guardians. When one asks Irishmen how the Commission is working in regard to the Dublin Corporation, the reply is that they pray God that it will never come to an end. For the first time Dublin really has had a sound and salutary government. The same thing applies to the United States. Democracy is all very well, but it is liable to abuse. With freedom you may get licence as well. It is a very bad thing even when democracy is free to spend its own money, but it is especially bad when it gets an unlimited right to spend other people's money. So long as the West Ham guardians can go on spending as much as they like so long will you have corruption. Anybody can spend as much as they like so long as they are spending their own money, but when you borrow from other people, as West Ham has done to the extent of £2,000,000, then it is about time people cut their coats according to their cloth and not according to other people's cloth. It is like the old Scottish saying, "Its gey and easy cuttin whangs' aff anither man's cheese." That is what this board of guardians insists upon doing, and the Minister of Health very properly is endeavouring to end it.
  If you go to the United states of America you will find that in many places people have got so dissatisfied with the conduct of municipal affairs that they have deliberately placed the administration of municipalities in the hands of one or two Commissions. You will find many towns which have taken this broad road, or slippery slope, whichever you like to call it, and are extremely gratified at the result. Corruption is the same whether you put money into your own pockets or into the pockets of your friends. It is just as corrupt to hand it over to somebody else. In the United States they have handed over all their affairs to Commissions of first-class
  1740
  business men, who look after the whole administration of the town, and those who have done so have found that rates and charges have been reduced and the efficiency of administration enormously increased. The only fault. I have to find with this Bill is that the Minister of Health will have to raise this matter again in 12 months' time. I do not think the West Ham Board of Guardians will be renovated in 12 months. It will take much longer; it will take at least 10 years before they get to the ordinary ideas of how to conduct municipal affairs. One would like to see those who are unemployed or in need of help receive the maximum possible, hut you have to consider that there are hundreds of hard working people who are struggling on, and who prefer to struggle on rather than take relief, who are being taxed in order to pay for these other people. Let me give you a striking instance of this from Scotland; it is an instance of the spirit of the people in the North. Here is a case referred to by the clerk of the Glasgow Parish Council, and is reported in connection with the payment of relief to a woman from the Highlands, a widow with five children. The council made her an allowance of 38s. 6d, a week, not a very big allowance compared with the sums given in West Ham and Poplar. Four weeks later she said she would be happier if she returned to the Isle of Skye among her own people, and she asked the council to send the allowance to her there. The parish council granted the request, and the widow returned. Two weeks later she wrote to the clerk to the parish council asking him to reduce the allowance as there were only two other members of the community who were as well off as she was, one being the local clergyman and the other the policeman.
  Mr. SULLIVAN; What is the date of that letter? You have read it before.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is dated about two years ago. It is a newspaper cutting. You can get all the information of the case from the clerk to the Glasgow Parish Council who is in attendance at one of the Committees of the House. Some hon. Members opposite seem to be annoyed about it because this is a Scottish Highlander and not an Irish Highlander. It is one of the finest letters I ever saw in the Press and I am very

  1741
  proud of my Highland compatriot. If we could only get a little more of this Highland spirit in West Ham and Poplar this kind of Bill would not be required.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I have risen in this Debate for the purpose of ascertaining what the Minister of Health has in his mind in introducing this Bill. Is it an instalment of Poor Law reform? Is it an instalment in the reform of municipal government? Is it an economy Measure? Is it a Measure to improve the moral standard of administration in certain areas? Is it a Measure to enable the Government to recognise more than it has done hitherto its responsibilities for necessitous areas I had questions like these in my mind when I came into the House this afternoon, and I have still those questions in my mind. It is now nearly 10 o'clock, and I am just as wise as to what the Minister means to do by this Bill in relation to these questions as I was when he rose to address the House. He began by making certain reflections upon the electoral roll. He pointed out that the shareholders in companies owning property in places like West Ham, who did not live in West Ham, but who get their profits from West Ham, had no votes there, and he suggested that we ought to return again to the property qualification for voting for hoards of guardians. Up to 1892 that, of course, was the case. He knows perfectly well that up to 1892 the idea which he has expressed this afternoon was actually embodied in the law of the land, and that in voting for boards of guardians property owners had a number of votes scaled in accordance with the property they held up to as many as six, and that was abandoned deliberately by this House because it was an unjust way of distributing votes and electing boards of guardians. If he had that in mind, he does not seek to enfranchise them, but he seeks to disfranchise the whole body of electors for boards of guardians of West Ham and similar bodies. He proposes to wipe the register off altogether, and instead of having a register to have his own will. I should like to have some further light on that subject when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health replies.
  The Minister of Health then went on to discuss the risk of corruption. I think he used a very unfortunate word, because
  1742
  the difficulty he pointed out, which is a real one, has never been associated in the minds of the public with corruption. It is not corruption. It may be a very sound argument that in the creation of local government bodies it is an exceedingly bad principle to make a special body' charged with one purpose and one purpose only, and that purpose the distribution of money. That is one of the reasons why a good many of us have always been in favour of merging the boards of guardians into larger bodies with wider responsibility. But if there is any danger at all it lies, not in the nature of the board and not in the character of the people who are administering. Nowadays it is common for hon. Members opposite to talk about the Socialist party. I am certain that no hon. Member opposite will take any advice that I give him, but really hon. Members would be very much more convincing if before they talked about the Socialist party they would spend an hour or two in reading a few authoritative penny pamphlets on the subject.
  When they talk about the Labour majority on the West Ham Board of Guardians and suggest that that is the reason why, as they say, there is corruption—there is no corruption as they use the word—how do they explain that one of the largest hoards of guardians mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, in the long list that he read out at Question Time to-day, was Sheffield? It is a board of guardians with an enormous debt, and I admit that T was staggered when I heard the figures. It is a board of guardians that has always been dominated by a combination of those very worthy and disinterested citizens, Liberals and Tories, great, solid, independent mid-Victorian models, in combination against Labour, they standing up with mixed colours on the one side, and friends of mine, the Socialists and the Labour party, on the other. And we get defeated; we are in a minority on the board. The chairman of that board is a Liberal, who used to sit on the Treasury Bench as a representative of the Ministry of Transport. He has a majority of people of the same colour as himself, or, rather, of mixed colours, and we are in the minority. Yet that is the board of guardians which took second place in the list for indebtedness. That is not all. The Sheffield

  1743
  Board of Guardians has been the subject of inquiry. The Ministry of Health has been so dissatisfied with what the board of guardians has done that it has sent down and held a special inquiry. I am not attacking the Sheffield Board of Guardians, but I wish that hon. Members would stop talking nonsense about Socialist boards of guardians being extravagant.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sheffield and West Ham share a common hard lot. If the Minister of Health were to send down to-morrow one of the most capable officers on whom he could lay his hands and give him a salary double of that which he gets in Whitehall, give him a staff well selected, well appointed and well paid—if the right hon. Gentleman sent one officer down to Sheffield and another to West Ham, all I can say is, God pity the two Government officials who have to solve the problem of Poor Law relief in either of those places. The right hon. Gentleman provides no remedy in this Bill. He tells us that the new Poor Law Reform Bill is to be introduced next year. The necessitous area is the problem. It is not only an economic problem, but also a moral problem and, it is there that the rub comes in. Will hon. Members visualise the situation? You have a public authority administering the Poor Law, and it is absolutely impossible for them ever to balance their budget. The budget cannot be balanced in this period of bad trade.
  You have people living in the dullest and most depressing circumstances. Those of us who live in different districts can remain alert to the dangers that beset a lax administration of the Poor Law. But plunge yourself into those circumstances, go and live in the mean streets, sit day after day in administrative offices, and at last the bum of human misery dulls all your sensibilities except human sentiment, and you are bound to he affected at the end. When the widow, the orphan, the fatherless, and the poverty-stricken are before you the administration of the law becomes, perhaps, a little lax. And who is going to apportion blame? Put your officers down there, and exactly the same thing will happen. It is the area, the conditions, the masses, the overwhelming
  1744
  human oppression that tells upon the mind of the administrator, when there is not a single break in the black cloud. If you want to face that problem, face it in that way and merge it all into the larger national interests, as has been suggested by my hon. Friends. You are not taking a step towards that by this Bill. As a matter of fact you are making things worse by your action. For years, ever since this Government came into office, what has been the economic tendency of its policy? To save the Exchequer at the expense of the ratepayers. It does not matter where you look. The effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy and the policy of the Minister of Labour has been to increase the difficulties of the Minister of Health and the administration for which he is directly or indirectly responsible.
  I put the question— a very simple one and a very searching one—is the suggestion of the Minister that the necessitous areas have been caused by maladministration? If he says "Yes," then this Bill is of some use; if he says "No," then this Bill is of no use. Nobody can suggest that the necessitous area has been created by maladministration or is going to be made a non-necessitous area even by better administration. I have already referred to Sheffield. It is actually administering a scale prescribed by the Minister of Health, and yet it cannot reduce its indebtedness. Its budget is not balanced, and it is in the same position as West Ham. One of the reasons — the main reason — for the necessitous area is this, that for certain natural causes there is a tendency in our country and in other countries for a segregation of the population. The shareholders to whom the Minister began to refer to as living outside West Ham will not live in West Ham. I do not blame them. But they will not live there. It is perfectly true, as an hon. Member opposite said, that there is a section in the West Ham Union—I think it is called Leyton—where they object to paying rates. They welcome the Minister's intervention. Of course they do, because the necessitous area is created by that sort of life. You get your population segregated and your so-called respectable districts all drawn together and, alongside, the residential district that is not called respectable, and, if it happens to be very poor, the sections that do call

  1745
  themselves respectable object to paying their proper share for which they are responsible. We have got the Metropolitan Common Poor Law Fund which includes the whole area, but it excludes West Ham. Why should it exclude West Ham? You will never solve this problem of the necessitous area which has created the problem in this Bill until your unions represent all the classes, all the interests of which the nation is composed. In other words, you have got to extend the area of your common assessment that enables you to do your duty.
  I would further like to ask: Are you going to cheapen administration by this Bill? I do not think you are. I think you are going to increase the expense of it. In any event, you are going to pay salaries that are not paid now. Are you going to purify administration? The only purification is that which is mentioned by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) who has had experience of this, that you may remove certain mistakes that have been made. Certain of those cases, as hon. Members have pointed out, are not new. They have already been the subject of prosecutions. Some of them have been the subject of inquiry, and they have been the subject of remedy. I venture to say that an officer appointed by Whitehall, or from Whitehall, is just going to make his mistake and provide cases like those read out to us, with the same frequency as boards of guardians. So I doubt if you are going to purify your administration very much. Morally we ought to get a definite reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Does he suggest that the administration requires purification from the moral point of view as well as the merely mechanical? I do not believe it does. I suggest it is an insult to boards of guardians to suggest that it does.
  Let me put another question. Is the Minister going to reduce scales. We ought to know. In a wealthy union the poor may receive scales very much higher than the scales that are going to be imposed on these necessitous areas. Is the practical working of this Bill going to be this—that if you live in the midst of poor people you have got to cut your coat according to your cloth, but if you live among wealthy people—if you happen to have a little hutch in, say, any London
  1746
  Union, the valuation of which is very high —then you cut your cloth according to your rich neighbours? Is that the great proposal the Minister of Health has brought before us in the shape of this Bill? He ought to tell us to what boards of guardians it is to be applied. He cannot expect us to give him a blank cheque. Is he going to apply it to West Ham and West Barn alone, or is he going to apply it to other areas? The House is not a place for Ministers to come and apply for blank cheques. The only place mentioned was West Ham. How many of those boards of guardians read out by the Under-Secretary at Question Time are going to have this Bill applied to them? What is to be the Minister's test'? It is insulting the House to come down and say: "I want to include hoards of guardians in a, Bill like this." What is going to be the test? Is it to be rates? Is it to be percentage of people relieved? The country must know what the Ministry of Health has in its mind when it asks the House to pass this Bill. What is it estimated you are going to save? I suppose we are right in assuming that the first board of guardians in this Bill is West Ham. The Ministry must have gone into the subject. They are not bringing in a Bill before they have made up their minds and come to a conclusion as to what effect the Bill will have on that particular situation.
  We are dealing with this more fully on another occasion, and I promised to give the Parliamentary Secretary a 40 minutes' run, but before I conclude I wish to refer to certain cases which were quoted to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—I am sorry it was in my enforced absense. We say that this is a very serious constitutional change. Ah," says the Minister, "but I have precedents." Has he? Is he sure his precedents are right? The municipal law of this country has been laid down by this House. This House has referred certain duties to the municipal authorities. It has set certain standards for these municipal authorities. It said, for instance, when it started public education, "We decide that school boards shall be established, wherever it is necessary that they should be established. We decide that the school boards, when established, shall provide schools." Then it went on, in view of threats that

  1747
  were offered especially in rural districts and in the more backward areas in the country, to add something. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps more reason for remembering these things than any of us, on account of the very magnificent connection which his name and his family have with this matter, but in Lord Morley's book on "National Education" we can see it all laid out. The Opposition then declared outside "Pass your Education Bill; set up your school boards. We will do nothing; we will not carry out the law of the House of Commons." The House of Commons said "We impose duties and we will see that they are carried out." That is not what it is doing here. Here it is doing exactly the opposite. In the other three cases which the right hon. Gentleman has given there is the same principle precisely set out. The municipalities derive their authority from House of Commons law. For the House of Commons to come in and interfere with the administration in this special way, reducing the liberty of the municipalities to use the power which the House of Commons itself has given them, is a thing which has never been done in the history of this country before. I hope it will not be done now, but I am afraid we cannot help it. There is a very distinct difference between the one and the other.
  The final point I wish to make is this. Is the Minister going to use this Bill for the coercion of boards of guardians in further negotiations about his scales? I am sure he appreciates this point as a good business man and negotiator. He must know perfectly well that, armed with this Bill, he is not only going to have power to take over certain boards of guardians which have misbehaved themselves, but that this Bill gives him a power which he can use in a thousand and one different ways in his dealings with the boards of guardians. Is he aware of the fact that under the general words which he uses to take this power, he can use this power in the way exactly opposite to the way in which he proposes to use it here? That is exceedingly bad legislation. It is a very bad model of a Bill or an Act when one party brings it in to suit its purpose and another party can administer it for exactly the opposite purpose. I do hope, from the point of view of the Constitution, quite apart
  1748
  from your West Hams and your Sheffields and your other boards of guardians, that the right hon. Gentleman will pause very carefully before he lends his weight and his countenance to a type of legislation which is most objectionable indeed, because it is the embodiment of the purest and the simplest and the most unlimited form of partisanship. From the point of view of business, I do not see what good is going to happen from this Bill; from the point of view of the Constitution, I think the Bill is very bad; from the point of view of this House of Commons, I think the Ministers have not given us the information which would justify us in voting for the Bill; and, therefore, my position to-night when the vote is taken will be in the "No" lobby.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has followed the path which practically every speaker against the Bill has followed this evening. He has raised all sorts of diversions, such as Sheffield, the position of other hoards, an attack upon local government generally, but he has failed, I think, as every other speaker who has opposed the Bill has failed, to answer the overwhelming and convincing case which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made for this Bill this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman said that be has been troubled about this Bill and its objects. I will tell him this, that this Bill is an emergency measure, designed, first, to deal with an urgent situation, which has been developing for some time and has now become acute, and, secondly, and with an equally necessary object, possibly to prevent and in any event to circumvent a similar situation, if such should arise in other parts of the country. I am one of those who believe that when this Bill is passed and has dealt with the particular locality which we have discussed at great length to-day, it will probably be unnecessary altogether to put it into operation in other parts of the country. It is true that it is a drastic and exceptional measure, but ray answer to that is that it is to deal with an urgent and a serious situation. In other words, this Bill is not to end local self-government in this country, but is brought in because, in the particular area which we have discussed, local self-government has

  1749
  broken down altogether; and to say, as the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said this afternoon, that this is a step towards the complete destruction of self-government in this country, is absolutely absurd.
  What is the charge that is brought against this Bill this afternoon? It is that the proposals in the Bill are improperly designed so as to deal unfairly with an elected body which is carrying out difficult duties with care and discretion in the sole interests of all classes and sections of the district. That is the case presented by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, with special reference to the rights and duties of a local authority such as that of West Ham at the present. I say that, under our system, which has grown up now for many years, in connection particularly with the autonomy of local bodies in this country, it has always been one of the fundamental conditions that a local body carried out its functions with reference to its financial resources, and if it obtained financial assistance from the State the conditions which are laid down when that assistance is given must be observed. I have been trying to ascertain as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) what it is exactly they complain about in regard to the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The West Ham Board of guardians have come forward again for the advance of a very large sum of money, £425,000. This follows many similar applications. We have been told this afternoon from many quarters that in the judgment of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and one or two hon. Members behind me, that there is great doubt as to whether this will ever be repaid. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put this proposition to the House: that my right hon. Friend has to advance money without any conditions and without laying down any particular line of conduct as to the manner in which this money has to be spent? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has a responsibility to this House for this money? Does the Leader of the Opposition think for a moment that another large sum of money is to be advanced without any conditions whatever in the
  1750
  case even of a local authority that is administering its affairs with great care and discretion? Is that the proposition of hon. Members of this House at the present time? You have only to state it to realise its absurdity. When money is advanced in this way my right hon. Friend is answerable to this House, and he has to assure the House of Commons that that money was advanced on conditions that are fair to all sections of the community.
  What are the particular facts so far as this particular district is concerned It is perfectly true, as has been said, that West Ham is a very difficult area, and has peculiar problems at the present time owing to the fact that a very large number of its inhabitants are from time to time in great need, but it is important to administer an area of that kind with justice to all its inhabitants. There are other sections of the community who arc carrying on industries and trade at the present time under great difficulties, and whose conditions are not improved by the heavy rates in that district at the moment.
  In view of the criticisms which I anticipated might be advanced, I looked up the figures. My right hon. Friend indicated one of the difficulties of the situation so far as the administration of Poor Law relief is concerned. As he said, you have on the one hand a large number of people able to vote at these elections who are directly benefited by whatever relief may be given; and in two districts like West Ham and East Ham you find many public undertakings which have to pay heavy rates without any possible voice in local affairs or right to intervene or to say how that money is to be spent. In the two districts of West Ham and East Ham no less than 38 per cent. of the rateable value is represented by undertakings which have no part or lot or voice in the administration of that area. Whilst it is true that relief should be administered sympathetically, it is equally necessary to have regard, in view of the industrial situation of this district and others, to the burdens which these undertakings have to bear, and in order wisely and fairly to administer the affairs of that district those in authority must conserve their financial resources and have regard to the future.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has asked what is the

  1751
  case we make for this Bill. The case, as I conceive it, is that the West Ham Guardians have themselves brought local government in their district to an end by landing its administration in bankruptcy, and that by their own willful default and neglect. In support of that I would ask, is it true that the financial position in West Ham is such that practical bankruptcy is in sight? I have a statement as to the position in West Ham made not by any partisan hut by the clerk to the Poor Law guardians, who, I think everyone will agree, is in no sense a partisan and who must have considerable difficulties at the present time. He made a statement to the guardians on the 4th June giving the exact position of this particular local authority. He stated:
  "When the Finance Committee submitted their estimates of expenditure in March they based the amount on a call for Poor Law purposes of 4s. 6d. in the £ for the half-year. That was what the Board had adopted as their policy. They claimed, and he thought rightly, that they could not in justice to the ratepayers raise a higher rate than that; 9s. for the year was as much as, he thought, was levied in any other union in Great Britain. When the estimate was made they had to fall back on the now old process of putting down a sum for which they would have to ask the Ministry, namely, £350,000. That had to be increased by £75,000 owing to the cost of the strike. It had been pointed out by the Ministry that the Goschen Committee would not recommend a loan unless the Ministry could give them the assurance mentioned in the document, and that could not be given. If they added £425,000, which they expected to receive, to what they had already had, they would find they had had nearly £2,500,000 on loan, and considering that the rateable value of the union was only £3,000,000, apart from all other loans for ordinary purposes, the position so far as the union was concerned was that they were simply getting to sheer bankruptcy."
  That is the financial position.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Have the Government made any estimate as to how much is going to be saved?
  Sir K. WOOD: I will deal with that point later. What are the facts which have brought this state of affairs about? It is true that the situation is a very difficult one. The district contains a very large number of very poor people, and if that had been the sole position we had to consider, so far as this area is
  1752
  concerned, you would have heard nothing about this Bill. There is, however, over-whelming evidence against West Ham, not from politicians—
  Mr. J. JONES: Where? There is no evidence.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown said to me earlier in the day that he would be dumb if he got an opportunity of making a coherent speech. I found the hon. Member that opportunity earlier in the day before dinner. I hope he will now allow the Parliamentary Secretary to make a coherent speech.
  Mr. JONES: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he raid that there was overwhelming evidence against West Ham, while the only evidence he has produced is that of the officer he has quoted.
  Sir K. WOOD: I will endeavour to give a little further evidence. Evidently the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members are under a misapprehension with regard to the auditor's report. The statement made by the Minister of Health has been described as a flimsy excuse, but my right hon. Friend has by no means exhausted the case against the particular guardians in question. The auditor made a selection from a number of cases and presented them to the Poor Law Guardians of West Ham as an example of the situation showing exactly what was taking place in that district. In regard to the auditor's report itself, as a good many hon. Members have questioned that report and have given many explanations for the cases which have been put forward and cited by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, it is only fair to say that that is not the attitude which the guardians have adopted. The chairman, at a meeting of that Board of Guardians on the 3rd June when this report was discussed, rose in his place and said he
  had before him one hundred cases of relief picked out by the auditor in which there had been allowances for which there was no justification whatever.
  That is the statement of the chairman of this Board of Guardians. They are only instances of the character of the administration which is taking place in this area.' The hon. Gentleman, quite

  1753
  rightly, speaking on behalf of this district, asked what proof there is. I suppose the best proof one can have is the evidence of the guardians themselves, and I suppose the hon. Member will agree that the man who has certainly been the most capable, and who has had an extensive knowledge of what has been going on in that district, namely, Mr. Killip, whose word he will not question, has made a very remarkable statement, a part only of which was read by my right hon. Friend. He has not made any of the excuses which have been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and others this afternoon. He has said that, if you want to know why if is that West Ham has got into its present position, he will tell you; and he told the guardians. He said that it was his honest opinion that their present position—that is, the dreadful financial state in which they found themselves—was due to the fact, not that they were giving what was in the opinion of the Ministry an extravagant scale of relief but that individual members of the board had completely forgotten their duty as guardians, and had been usurping that of the relieving officers. That is a very different explanation from what has been given to-day by hon. Members who are not so conversant with the facts. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the scale of relief which he says has been imposed by my right hon. Friend upon this board of guardians. He is quite incorrect with reference to that. My right hon. Friend invited this Board of Guardians to make a proposition themselves, and I will say this in credit to many moderate Labour members of the West Ham Board of Guardians, that, when this position was put to them, when they were confronted with the position which everyone in this House can see to-day who wants to give a fair judgment on the case, it was actually a Labour member of the board who proposed that another and lower scale should be adopted.
  Mr. MacDONALD: I am perfectly aware that it was a Labour member who did so, but the reference which I made to a scale that had been suggested by the Ministry of Health related to Sheffield.
  Sir K. WOOD: I wanted to deal with West Ham, and I want to say to the
  1754
  right hon. Gentleman that in the opinion of Mr. Killip—who is, I may say, strongly opposed to my right hon. Friend, who has objected right through to the attitude which the Ministry of Health has adopted, and, therefore, cannot be said for a moment to be anything but an opponent of the Ministry—in his opinion there is no question of the scale of relief in this matter; that is not the issue. What Mr. Killip says is that individual members of the board had completely forgotten their duty as guardians, and had been usurping that of the relieving officers.
  Mr. W. THORNE: That is only 100 eases out of 73,000 a week.
  Sir K. WOOD: I know the hon. Member has done his best. The board of guardians disregarded his own advice in October last year. It is quite untrue to say this would be only 100 cases.
  Mr. THORNE: 73,000 a week.
  Sir K. WOOD: I carefully stated, as the auditor himself stated, that it was no question of only 100 cases. This was a sample taken of a number of eases and the board of guardians have seen that the position they find themselves in today is not due to any scal—
  Mr. SCURR: Have any of the 100 cases been surcharged by the auditors?
  Sir K. WOOD:The hon. Member knows that a surcharge is no effectual remedy. My right hon. Friend gave the House particulars of the Auditor's Report for 1925. Anyone would have thought, in view of the difficult position in which the board of guardians found themselves, and knowing the attitude of my right hon. Friend, that, so far as, their recent administration was concerned, we should have seen some improvement. If there had been the slightest sign of improvement, my right hon. Friend and I would have gladly avoided this Bill. It is true, we believe, we may be able to bring forward a far better remedy in our proposals next year than we have in this temporary Bill. What is the last Report of the Auditor who examined into the case for the year ending 31st March, 1926? It has come to my hands during the last few hours. Do you think there is any sense of the

  1755
  responsibility in which these people find themselves? This is what he says:
  "The conditions set out in my last Report in regard to the administration of out-relief still continue,"—
  that is the report my right hon. Friend gave to-day. The auditor goes on to cite, and has handed into the Department, another list of cases adopting exactly the same attitude as those my right hon. Friend has given to the House. I take the very worst case. You find there the board of guardians still persisting in giving relief in a case of a man, wife and three children, rent 13s. 7d., actual income of the household,£7 12s. per week, relief actually allowed, 24s. 6d.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Who is earning the money?
  Sir K. WOOD: Whoever is earning the money, and whatever refinements we may be able to introduce in consideration of a ease of that kind, put yourself in the position of an ordinary working man in West Ham who gets no relief at all, who is endeavouring to bring up a family in decent conditions solely on his own account. When cases of that kind occur, for which Mr. Killip has said with reference to many others, that there is absolutely no excuse for it, the great majority of decent people certainly feel that my right hon. Friend ought to do something.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Who are the people, and what are their ages, who are earning the £7?
  Sir K. WOOD: Various suggestions have been made this afternoon and this evening as to what should be done to meet a case of this kind. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition thinks that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health can leave things as they are. I do not know whether he thinks that the Prime Minister would authorise my right hon. Friend to advance without restrictions another sum of £300,000 in conditions such as these. Various hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that a surcharge must deal with that case. Obviously, it is ludicrous to contend that. Other hon. Gentlemen and I think the hon. Lady the Member for West Ham North (Miss Lawrence) have suggested that a mandamus might
  1756
  meet the situation. Obviously, if a mandamus were put into effect to-morrow, it would make no difference in a case of this kind.
  Another suggestion has been made that there might be an election for a fresh board of guardians. I would like to tell the House this—and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite might have made a few more inquiries if he wanted to support moderate and decent Labour opinion in the district—when we had difficulties with the West Ham Board of Guardians in October, there was considerable division among Labour people themselves. One Labour member of the board of guardians had the courage to propose that in the circumstances—and here I may say, so that there shall be no question of his bona fides, that he was a member of the National Union of General Municipal Workers and of the Silvertown Divisional Labour party—to propose that the Minister's conditions at that particular time should be accepted. What was his fate? He stood for election at the last board of guardians election and, because he had made that very reasonable proposition in the circumstances which then existed, he was called by all and sundry in the district a "baby starver" and as a, consequence he lost his seat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen, and, especially the hon. Lady opposite, apparently, fully support that idea.
  An election is impossible. We are bound in these circumstances to take the, if you like, very drastic course we have taken. The position was very well put by a leading newspaper the other day—not a supporter of the Government, but a newspaper which has taken a very considerable interest and has given a great deal of space to municipal politics—the "Star" newspaper, which said this:
  "The Bill which Mr. Neville Chamberlain is to introduce to supersede the West Ham Board of Guardians and to take over their duties is a measure of rough justice and may have a salutary effect in other quarters. The guardians were elected to perform particular duties on clearly defined lines, and they have chosen to substitute for their statutory obligations a new and extravagant system of relief of their own devising. In their anxiety to do fill; justice to the poor they have altogether forgotten the poor ratepayer who has to foot the Bill, and they have instituted scales of relief which make it more profitable and more comfortable to

  1757
  be unemployed than to work for a living. That is politically anti economically unsound. Extended to the whole country it would reduce us to bankruptcy in a month and the scale of relief would therefore fall because there would be no funds out of which to provide it. The supersession of the board of guardians is a strong measure but it is impossible to suggest that it is unjust and the first persons to approve it will be those ratepayers in West Ham who are not fortunate enough to be in receipt of Poor Law relief."
  Mr. J. JONES: That is a lying statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
  Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Member opposite asked what was to be the position; what were the intentions of the Minister when the Bill was put into operation, and what was the saving that would be anticipated? Obviously, I cannot commit my right hon. Friend or myself to an exact estimate of the saving, but I can say that, in my judgment, when careful and faithful administrators enter upon the administration of West Hare, as they will do within a few days, there will be a saving of a very large sum of money, without doing the slightest injustice to any deserving person.
  Mr. W. THORNE: You cannot do it without cutting down the scale of relief.
  Sir K. WOOD: There will be persons in charge there who will have regard to the interests of the Whole body of people in the district. My right hon. Friend has
  no intention to inflict hardships on the people in the district, but what he is determined to do and what I hope the House will do to-night, is to end a state of affairs which, in my judgment, is a disgrace to local government in this country. In asking the House to reject the Amendment, and give a Second Reading to the Bill, I say that these proposals will not interfere in a single case where guardians in ordinary circumstances would, have carried out their duties reasonably and faithfully, or prevent one deserving individual from receiving that relief in his distress to which he is rightly and properly entitled. But they will, and that is my reason for asking the House to give a Second Beading to the Bill, end an abuse which has too long disgraced local self-government in this particular area, and restore that principle of self-help which ought to be encouraged, that thrifty people should be rewarded and not penalised, and that administration shall be conducted not in the interests of a section, but on behalf of all classes of the community.
  Mr. WALLHEAD Mr. WALLHEAD rose—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move," "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 346; Noes, 130.

  Division No. 318].

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

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

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Albery, Irving James

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Apsley, Lord

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Clayton, G C.

  Balfour, George {Hampstead)

  Brown. Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Colfox, Major Wm, Phillips

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Conway, Sir W, Martin

  Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Cope, Major William

  Bennett, A. J.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Couper. J. B.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Berry, Sir George

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Casele J. D

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

  Preston, William

  Curzon, Capt. Viscount

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Raine, W.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ramsden, E.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

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

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Drewe, C.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Elvedon, Viscount

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Rye, F. G.

  England, Colonel A.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Salmon, Major I.

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l Exchange)

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Fleiden, E. B.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

  Forrest, W.

  Lougher, L.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Gates, Percy

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  McLean, Major A.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

  MacMillan, Captain H.

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Goff, Sir Park

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Storry-Deans. R.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Grace, John

  Malone, Major P. P.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Stuart. Crichton-, Lord C.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. J.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sykes, Major.Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Harland, A.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement

  Harlington, Marquess of

  Murchison. C. K.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Neville. R. J.

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

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

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

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wells, S. R.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  White, Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. D.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Penny, Frederick George

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Pleiou, D. P.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Plicher, G.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  1760

  1761

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Withers, John James

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Wragg, Herbert

  Captain Margesson.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Harris, Percy A.

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W, T.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kennedy, T.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

  Stamford, T. W.

  Clowes, S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clues, W. S.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sullivan, J.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lawson, John James

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Varley, Frank B.

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dunnico, H.

  March, S.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Fenby, T. D.

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  Webb, Rt. Hon, Sidney

  Gardner, J. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

  Paling, W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles

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

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Edwards.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Question put the accordingly "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
  The House divided: Ayes,341; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 319.]

  AYES.

  [11.12 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bennett, A. J.

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Berry, Sir George

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

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

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Blundell, F. N.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Apsley, Lord

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Astor, Viscountess

  Boyd-Carpender, Major Sir A. B.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Broun-Lindsay. Major H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Henderson, Capt.R. R. (Oxford, Henley)

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

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Couper, J. B.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pilcher, G.

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

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Crookc, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Preston, William

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

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'1'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Raine, W.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ramsden, E.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Jacob, A. E.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Drewe, C.

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rye, F. G.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Ellis, R. G.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  England, Colonel A.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Savery, S. S.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Llverp'l, Exchange)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

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

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lougher, L.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Skelton, A. N.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Slaney. Major P. Kenyon

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Luca, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Forrest, W.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Smithers, Waldron

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Gates, Percy

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Macquisten, F. A,

  Storry-Deans, R.

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

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Grace, John

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. J.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Harland, A.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Neville, R. J.

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

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  1764

  1765

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Wells, S. R.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. D.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Withers, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Major Cope.

  NOES.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scurr, John

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

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shleis, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Stamford. T. W.

  Clowes, S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lee, F.

  Sullivan, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lindley, F. W.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thorne, W. (Wed Ham, Plaistow)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Murnin, H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Gillett, George M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gosling, Harry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Greenall, T.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Groves, T.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Windsor, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Riley, Ben

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Hardie, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Hayes.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bill read a. Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow. — [Mr. Chamberlain.]

  EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (REGULATIONS).
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move,
  "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 28th June 1926, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act."
  I think it will be for the convenience of the House if we give more time to
  1766
  the discussion of the individual Regulations, upon which there are, I know, very divided opinions, than to this Motion itself.
  I see that on the Order Paper there are Amendments down in the names of various hon. Members. They deal with Regulations 21, 22, 33 and 34.I quite realise that it is only right and proper that those Amendments should be debated, and I shall, of course, be prepared to deal with them in due course, and to the best of my ability. In view of that I do not propose to make a long speech now, and shall content myself by merely moving formally the Motion that stands in my name.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Henry Slesser.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER Sir HENRY SLESSER rose—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to ask a question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Thurtle—
  Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Are we going to have any opportunity of discussing generally the necessity for continuing these Regulations, irrespective of the particular Regulations that are to be considered?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We did discuss that on Friday. We can perhaps see how long it takes to deal with the Amendments, and see if there be time, after the. Amendments have been disposed of, for the general discussion. But I thought it right to call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser).
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has moved those Regulations en bloc, and that we are not to be allowed to discuss generally the need for them? As I understood it on Friday we discussed an Amendment dealing with the coal mines situation: we dealt with that and that alone. Some of us want to discuss not merely the general policy, but we want to discuss them in detail; to take the regulations one by one. I do not know whether that would be in Order?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the debate which hon. Members desire can take place on Regulation 21, raising important matters. They contain the general question on that Regulation, and practically all the Regulations. That, T think, would meet the point.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is probably right up to a certain point. But we cannot go back on the Regulations. I am sorry to be persistent, but some of us do want to discuss the general policy of bringing forward this proposal.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The House will perhaps remember that the other day I raised the point of the whole of the Regulations being delayed on the ground that the Government ought to take certain steps. I was not then criticising the Government one way or the other in regard to the Regulations, but I
  1768
  raised the question of their postponement. The point I want to put now is that we never reached the stage or the question of delay; it was never allowed to be discussed. We ought, I submit, to be given the opportunity of a general discussion apart from Regulation 21 or 22, as to the desirability of delay in these Regulations.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is the custom when a Motion is moved that it should be discussed in general terms before the Amendments are called.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is very much a matter for the House itself. My only desire is to assist hon. Members to come to the points they wish to discuss. I made certain suggestions through the usual channels, which I thought had been acceptable. I was prepared, on the first Motion, or on Regulation 21 to allow a more general discussion if that would meet the views of hon. Members.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: The point I should like to discuss is the necessity for the regulations at all. Many of us on these benches hold that the necessity for these Regulations has entirely passed away. The country is perfectly peaceful. Although the miners are suffering they are suffering in peace. There is no disturbance of the peace anywhere, and it is an insult to the people that these Regulations should be continued. As a matter of fact, it is asking for trouble.
  Mr. THURTLE: May we understand, if the first Amendment be taken now, that on it we can discuss the general question as to whether all or any of these Regulations shall be imposed now?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That will depend on how hon. Members use the time. I am most anxious to meet hon. Members' wishes, and to give them reasonable opportunities for discussion of all points which they desire to raise.
  Mr. LANSBURY: But, Mr. Speaker, I put it to you that it is the Government who have put these. Regulations down at this very inconvenient hour. We want to discuss the general policy of the Government in bringing them forward at all. If we go to No. 21, I understand you to say it will depend on "how we use the time." I again very respectfully submit that with

  1769
  a bunch of Regulations like this, dealing with an emergency proclaimed by the Government, the. House, and certainly the Opposition, are fully entitled to discuss them, no matter at what hour, and that we ought not at the outset to have to discuss how much time we are going to give to them.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Will it satisfy the House if I open generally on the whole matter now, instead of moving my Amendment? I think I shall be able to say on the general Motion what I should be able to say on the Amendment.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that on that point of Order I must be allowed to say, Mr. Speaker, that you called on the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I understood it, for the purpose of moving his Amendment, and he rose for that purpose. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) really must not arrogate to himself the right of controlling the business of the House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman the right to say that I am trying to arrogate to myself the right to dictate to the House of Commons? Have I not as much right as any other hon. Member to put a point of Order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Every hon. Member has a perfect right to make a suggestion.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw !"
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley does not like the word "arrogate" I withdraw it. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have already called upon the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) to move his Amendment. May I also remind the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley that we had a general debate on Friday, but I think the hon. Member was engaged at a meeting in Manchester.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was here a part of the time.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member had been here he would have known that the Main Question was Debated.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Some considerable time was devoted on Friday to the general questions, but I have now called upon the hon. and learned Member for South-East
  1770
  Leeds to open the debate, without moving his Amendment if he so please
  Sir H. SLESSER: These Regulations, which we are asked to consider to-night, are based on the Emergency Powers Act of 1920, an Act that only allows the Regulations to be put into force if it appears to His Majesty that action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any body of persons on such a scale as to interfere with the supply to the public of fuel or light. These Regulations came into being when the strike was a very extended one and long before the dispute was confined to the existing miners' lockout. Whatever may have been the reasons at that time—to some of us they seemed quite inadequate—for pressing on these Regulations, it is my submission that now that time has entirely passed away. The extreme importance of the matter is that if it is to be held that this particular dispute in the coal industry justifies this alteration in the administration and content of the common law it follows that every time there is a trade dispute in this country the Government will similarly alter the law. Only a month ago the right hon. Gentleman said the Government needed these powers because of the continuation of the situation then existing and he asked the House to pass these Regulations for another month. Since the last time these Regulations were passed we have had a whole month to test, whether there is in this country during the lockout—[HON. MEMBERS: "Strike" and "Lockout"]—I welcome this opportunity of settling once for all whether this is a strike or a lockout. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a stoppage."] A strike is a cessation of labour or a threatened cessation in order to better labour conditions. Nobody would hesitate for a moment to say it was a strike if men left their work in order to better their conditions. In this particular case of the miners it is conceded that the men are willing to work, on the old conditions but the employers are refusing to allow them to work on the old conditions. Therefore this is legally and in fact a lockout and not a strike.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we need waste time on terminology.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I had not the slightest intention of embarking on

  1771
  these elementary legal definitions if I had not been challenged on the point. Perhaps I may be allowed to return to the observations I was making. I was saying that, whatever might have been the position a month ago, when it might conceivably have been argued that a residuum of disturbance was left over from the General Strike, another month has passed, and it is absolutely evident to every fair-minded person in this country that there is not to-day any such state of emergency as requires this special interference with the common law of the country. A most extraordinary situation has arisen in this House when the Government, who, in industrial matters, are always proclaiming themselves individualists, and are so concerned with the freedom of the individual, come here day after day and night after night and ask for more and more powers to enable the State to restrict the liberty of the individual. To-day they have been spending their time in seeking to suppress the local authorities, and to-night they come again to strengthen the power of the State—which, in this connection, is themselves—to alter the old Common Law of this country in order to deal with disaffection, sedition, and the other matters contemplated by these Regulations.
  The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will admit—because, if I may say so with every respect, he is extremely frank in his admissions, and never seeks to colour the facts—that at the moment the country is in a state of complete peace. It is true that, industrially, a large number of persons are out of work. It is true that a large number of people are unemployed, but to say that there is any disaffection or sedition, or that any of these circumstances which could justify the continuation of these Regulations exists to-day, is a statement which it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to make. If that be so, what does it mean? It either means that the Government are now so enamoured of this idea of executive and bureaucratic coercion that they never mean to let this country have its common law again, or it means something rather worse—it means that they cannot trust the operation of the ordinary law, they cannot trust the sense of the ordinary citizen to behave himself ender that ordinary law; and I look upon it as an insult to the people of this country that
  1772
  it should be suggested that it is necessary at this time to have these regulations at all. I do not speak so much of these Regulations which directly relate to the handling of coal as such, though on a previous occasion we did object, and I think with some force, to the fact that the regulation limiting the supplies of coal was being used to extort indemnities from the coal dealers; but I am concerned primarily with these Regulations which interfere with the liberty of the subject, and it does so happen that one of the first of these Regulations which in my submission is objectionable is Regulation No. 21.
  I would point out that., before the present Emergency Powers Act, 1920, although there were many seditious-minded persons in this country, mostly on the benches opposite, it was found quite possible to curtail their seditious exuberances at the time of the threatened Ulster Rebellion without the use of the Emergency Powers Act at all, and, whatever their sentiments were, they were kept in order by the operation of the ordinary law. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of that very apposite passage from Juvenal, "Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?" It really rather sickens us when those who have been concerned in something very like sedition ask us to pass these Regulations.
  With regard to Regulation 21, it is vicious for two reasons. First of all, it deals with the ordinary law in what I submit is an entirely unjustifiable way, and then it adds to the objectionable manner of dealing with the ordinary law a new offence. The first part of this Regulation provides that if any person attempts to do any act calculated to cause mutiny, sedition or disaffection he may be charged and tried before a magistrate, which does not mean even a stipendiary magistrate but any two county magistrates who happen to be sitting on any Bench in some rural area. During the last hundred years there have been very few prosecutions, I am glad to say, for sedition. They have been treated by the Courts as very delicate and difficult matters. Judgments have been given, notably the judgment of Mr. Justice Cave in the Burns case, showing how subtle is the distinction between sedition and proper criticism or correction of the

  1773
  Government, and in those good old days when people still believed in liberty the jury acquitted Mr. Burns. It is a very difficult matter to say just where the line comes where honest and legitimate criticism of Governments and Governmental Institutions ends, and sedition, in the legal sense, begins. It is a matter that requires the trained mind of a judge to direct the jury very carefully lest they make a mistake and come down on the wrong side of the line. Just because sedition, disaffection, and all these Public and State offences have been so difficult to define are so liable to abuse until the coming of this Emergency Powers Act, 1920, the law had always said these matters must go before a Judge of the High Court who would there direct a jury on the nicety and difficulty of the situation. Every man charged with sedition was able to know that he would get a proper and a fair trial, and just like treason and other offences against the State, the law was so tempered to the individual that it was careful to protect him against a sudden rash or prejudiced judgment which might be given by some incompetent magistrate. These Regulations destroy all that protection. It is enough now summarily to charge. There is no grand jury, there is no indictment, there is no consideration before a petty jury and there is no direction of a jury. The whole matter is treated as a police court offence and put in the same category as a man driving a motor car at an excessive speed.
  Quite apart from this particular case, I look with great anxiety on this tendency to treat lightly and as of no account those old rights of liberty which the old Common Law has built up after so many years. Here it is all thrown away. The right hon. Gentleman might say the emergency is such that we need what is practically Martial Law. This is the sort of thing we got from the Defence of the Realm Acts when the country was at war, but now the risk of disaffection and sedition is not such that the Regulations ought to be continued. But observe the difficulty into which the right hon. Gentleman gets if he pursues that line of argument. If there is disaffection or sedition we may assume that it is due to the lock-out. It would be due, I suppose, to some agency which was operating among the
  1774
  people. Directly this lock-out ends, directly any stoppage or strike ends, the right hon. Gentleman is unable under the law to continue the Regulations, so that however great may be the sedition or disaffection he can only use these Regulations if they coincide with period of the lock-out or strike. That shows, in my view, that it was never intended by Parliament that the Act of 1920 should be used in this way at all. I know that the Act says that Regulations may be made for the preservation of the peace, but I do not believe it was ever intended by Parliament that that power to make Regulations for the preservation of the peace should mean that the State should take power to make Regulations to deal with serious offences of a treasonable or semi-treasonable character which are already dealt with by the law. You have, for example, at the present time various offences for which corroboration is required, as in the case of treason. In this case there is no such protection, no such safeguards exist at all. Really, I do ask that the right hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, is concerned for the maintenance of the common law, should object to this bureaucratic interference, and see whether it really is necessary now, two months after the General Strike, to continue these Regulations once again.
  That, however, is only the smaller part of my criticism. Not only- does this Regulation make the offence of sedition triable by a magistrate, but it goes on as the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware—it creates a. new offence, that is greater in extent than sedition itself, There is an offence here for which you could not be indicted at common law The second paragraph of Regulation 21 says,
  "If any person prints, produces, publishes or distributes any document containing any report or statement, the publication of which would be a contravention of the foregoing provisions of this regulation, or if any person without lawful authority or excuse has in his possession, or on premises in his occupation or under his control any sub-document, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations, unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the document contained any such report or statement."
  That is going very much further than the old Common Law for sedition, even in the time when people were most sensi-

  1775
  tive about it, as in the time of Henry VIII. Even at that time it was not considered necessary to have the power indicated in this Regulation. When one reads the old Whig historians, Macaulay or Hallam, one learns how outrageous it was that a man should be deemed guilty of sedition if there was no other evidence except the finding of a document. You will find in Macaulay's "History of England" in the Trial of Algernon Sidney a passage that very point. All the Liberal, Whig and Tory lawyers of the nineteenth century condemned this, and yet it is in this Regulation, giving it the new force of law. It says:
  "If he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the document contained any such report or statement—"
  he has committed an offence. That is simply a form of martial law. It is a condition that is possibly justifiable when you have a country on the verge of insurrection, when you have really turmoil and disturbance—such a Regulation may be justifiable. See how difficult it is to consider these Regulations fairly. Reference was made in the House the other day to a speech by Lord Runsdon, who is the chairman of a certain Conservative Association. He is reported as having said—I assume the report is correct for my point—that the miners were our enemies and ought not to be fed. That was the gist of it. Is that disaffection or is it not? If a miner were to get up in the market place and use the remarks that the mine owners were the enemies of the people and ought not to be fed, surely the magistrate would have no compunction at all in convicting that man. Then I ask, why is not Lord Hunsdon similarly prosecuted under the same Regulation? I do not think it matters what the Noble Lord said. These Regulations do interfere with normal freedom of speech. You do lay yourself open to the suggestion that it has been used against one party and not against another. The restriction should be taken off altogether and people allowed to say what they will; let us rely on the Common Law of the country to bring people to book who really do promote sedition or do other unlawful acts.
  So much for Regulation 21.There are other Regulations which have the
  1776
  same intention, with which my hon. Friends will deal. The intention of this power law is to prevent the clear expression. The curious thing is that under the Act—I remember that it was put in the Act by the Labour party—peacefully to persuade a person to strike is not to be an offence. What sedition or disaffection does the right hon. Gentleman apprehend? Is it not this, that at the back of his mind there is a suspicion that, there is something in the nature of sedition or disaffection about the mining stoppage? What is the occasion which necessitates these Regulations in connection with the present stoppage? When the general strike was on there was discussion in this House and elsewhere as to whether or not the strike was legal. I will not argue that point now, except to say that a thing may be illegal for breach of contract and may not be illegal in the constitutional sense of the word. That does not arise now. We have only left now this bare stoppage in the mines. There is a peaceful population, and it is for the right hon. Gentleman to justify this departure from the ordinary law. It is a very bad example. The day may come when the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends may wish to have certain liberty of opinion. It may be that persons will sit on the Front Bench opposite who will not be as concerned for the sanctity of the common law as I am. There may be a Government of a bureaucratic type; it may be a Fascist or Bolshevist, which wishes to utilise the State to quell opinion, and it could point to the right hon. Gentleman's Regulations as a good reason for preventing him from expressing his opinions, although his opinions might not go as far as the opinions expressed by Lord Hunsdon. It is the effect of these Regulations on public opinion and on opinion in this House that is so bad. They give the feeling that we cannot trust the ordinary law and the ordinary people, and arouse suspicion that somebody in some way is going to break the law. If these restrictive Regulations have any effect they can only have the effect of producing the very disaffection which the right hon. Gentleman desires to see ended. The purpose of the Regulations is well expressed by Bottom, the weaver: their purpose is to
  "Quail, crush, conclude and quell."

  1777
  12 M.
  I appeal to the Home Secretary to say that while certain Regulations for controlling the price of coal may be necessary these Regulations which deal with liberty of opinion and speech and movement are now unnecessary and need not be repeated.
  Captain BENN: I should like to associate myself with everything which the right hon. and learned Member has just said. He has expressed a view for which the Liberal party has always stood in this House. We suspect that the party opposite wish to alter the law relating to freedom of speech. For the unanswerable reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, freedom of speech is itself a great element of safety in the State. The Home Secretary is seeking to restrict freedom of speech. I rather agree with the Prime Minister when he said that the way to meet had opinion was by advancing good opinion, but I have noticed that the Home Secretary in several speeches has indicated an intention of altering the law relating to freedom of speech.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS indicated dissent
  Captain BENN: I will refresh his memory. I am a closer student in reading his speeches than he is in preparing them. In one of his speeches he told his audience that a touch of Mussolism would do them good.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me. A gentleman in the audience interrupted me and I said that a dose of castor oil would do him good.
  Captain BENN: That means that the Home Secretary favours the methods of the Fascists and is not afraid to say so in public. That is a reason for our suspicions of his intentions. In his speeches he has indicated a desire to alter the law and repress freedom of speech, and if he challenges me I will give him two examples. In November in a speech at Liverpool he said:
  "We shall have to consider what things are necessary, and that they may he introduced into Parliament as soon as it meets. If they were going to get a real change in the fundamental doctrines they had to he sure that the country was behind them."
  In the same speech he said:
  "This country had long been noted for its freedom of speech. If they were going
  1778
  to effect a real change in its fundamental doctrines they had to be quite certain that the whole country was behind them."
  What does that indicate but a desire to alter the law as regards freedom of speech? Therefore, we view with great suspicion all these exceptional instruments, which were never heard of before the War, and are quite, unnecessary now, and brought forward by the Home Secretary, who has expressed himself as desirous of curtailing a fundamental doctrine, as indeed it is. To the layman, the case presents itself in this way. If a man is brought before a magistrate ho is apt to be brought before an individual who is biased. In the dining-rooms and drawing-rooms of the upper middle class, when there is a trade dispute, does any one ever assume anything except that the men are wrong I have never heard in such society any view expressed except the view that ex hypothesi the men must be wrong. That is the frame of mind in which people of a certain class approach these things. We see it reflected even in judgments given in Courts of law. Take a significant case—the Pollitt case. What did Mr. Justice Fraser say?
  "It would be a most disastrous thing if this man, admittedly a Communist, did not get, as he was entitled to get, fair justice."
  Although the facts were proved, the persons guilty of the offence—I do not hesitate to say they were guilty—were acquitted. Take the case of the Fascisti and the "Herald" van. What was said by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater)—who, incidentally, was present during Lord Hunsdon's speech with the other hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), and made no sort of protest as far as the newspaper reports show? I quote from the "Times."
  "Sir Vansittart Bowater said their efforts to ho good loyal citizens might be advanced by their joining the police reserve."
  In face of these things, who can doubt that there is a tendency on the part of people in a certain station of life to view a certain class of alleged offence with bias? That is the real danger against which we have to protect ourselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted many seditious remarks and speeches made by the Home Secretary and by others, along the whole fighting front of the Tory party, 12 years ago.

  1779
  They are well known and are not worth requoting. What is worth requoting is the fact that these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen drew a distinction between the sort of sedition which they taught and the sort of sedition alleged against the Communists, or whoever these Regulations are directed at. I came across a very striking passage in a speech at that time by a very responsible Member of the present Government—the Postmaster-General—who was selected by the Prime Minister to be Chief Civil Commissioner. The Postmaster-General took a very active part in the sedition campaign of 1913, like the Minister of Transport, who said the other day that he had buried his revolver in Ulster, but, if the same circumstances occurred again, he would use it again, and he was not ashamed of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the whole case. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that sedition is patriotism for them, but is disloyalty and a punishable offence for others.
  Mr. ERSKINE: The circumstances were very different.
  Captain BENN: Here we have the hon. Member for St. Georges (Mr. Erskine) who does not consider it sedition in- the case of his party. He is too frank a friend of the Government and he does not consider it seditious to set up an alternative Government in Ulster, to drill forces in Ulster, to utter every sort of disloyal expression—
  Mr. ERSKINE: I said the circumstances were entirely different.
  Mr. J. JONES: Go to Marie Stopes.
  Captain BENN: The hon. Member says of course that the circumstances are entirely different—
  Mr. ERSKINE: I do not give a damn for Marie Stapes.
  Mr. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say he does not care a damn for a certain celebrated lady doctor?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It does not seem to me a very choice expression, but I did not hear it. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is generally so careful in his language.
  Captain BENN: On a point of personal explanation. May I say that I do not think my hon. friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) attributed the remark to me.
  Mr. TAYLOR: I rise to say that the observation did not fall from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith.
  Captain BENN: That having been cleared up, I may say that I did not expect the adventitious and picturesque assistance of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Mr. Erskine).
  Mr. ERSKINE: St. George's.
  Captain BENN: St. George's in the West. I am prepared to support my case with a quotation from the Minister selected by the Government to be the Chief Civil Commissioner, the Postmaster-General. I see he is present now. He was an active man and an avowed supporter of the revolutionary movement in Ulster in those days. I am not complaining about that. Personally, I think it is, better, if people use foolish language in the heat of political excitement, to pass it by. As a general rule, the wisest and common-sense course is to leave it alone. That was the course pursued, and I think rightly pursued, towards the Postmaster-General and his associates in 1913. What I am concerned with, however, is the point of bias. To quote the remark he made at that time; be made it at a meeting—I have the quotation—it was a meeting at Bangor. I suppose it was Bangor in Ireland. Mr. J. W. Leggat explained the arrangements made to enable the clan to attend the Balmoral demonstration. The local ladies had agreed to provide the men with sandwiches, and flasks were being kindly supplied by Mr. Corbett. In these convivial circumstances, the Postmaster-General made a speech, and it contained, of course, the usual blasts of sedition common with members of his party at that time. Having made his peroration, he went on to say—
  "He wanted to say this clearly, once for all, that there was a great distinction, and people who used language like that should not forget the difference between the case of a Socialist and the ease of a loyal Ulsterman."
  That precisely is the argument, as I see it, against sending men who have made foolish remarks in public before people who have a class bias. The bias exists.

  1781
  and it is because of that bias that I oppose the particular procedure laid down in these Regulations. I do not believe that the circumstances justify a general continuation of these harsh powers. We had many disputes in this country before the war, and I think I am right in saying that these powers never rested in the hands of the Government. We are not dealing with a general strike to-day, but with a coal dispute. There have been many coal disputes, transport disputes and railway disputes, but in no case was it necessary for the Government to arm itself with these extremely dangerous powers which might be just as well used against hon. Gentlemen opposite as against hon. Gentlemen on this side or their friends. With a view to seeing what is the real danger of turmoil, I have been reading, not only speeches of the Home Secretary and others as to the general good behaviour of the public, but also impartial speeches by the chairman of an insurance company, and this is what he said:
  "It must have produced a steadying effect to read in official publications that insurance companies were covering riot, civil commotion and such like risks, in some cases at threepence per cent."
  Surely if an insurance company, which is there to get business and to make a profit, can offer to cover the risk of civil commotion at threepence per cent., it is not necessary to have 41 Regulations threatening the ancient liberties of the subject.
  Mr. GROTRIAN: The company would not be liable. The community would be liable. The insurance company is running no risk.
  Captain BENN: I do not understand. The hon. Gentleman presumably speaks for insurance companies. Surely he would recommend his company to pay, if they guaranteed to make good any damage?
  Mr. GROTRIAN: Not if they are not liable legally.
  Captain BENN: That throws a sidelight on City methods. The Common Law and the ordinary procedure is quite sufficient to deal with these cases. If hon. Members imagine that people who make foolish disloyal or seditious speeches cannot be dealt with without these Regulations they should read their
  1782
  newspapers more carefully. They will find that almost every week, certainly every month, some person is prosecuted. I give as an example Mr. Guy Aldred, who makes what in my judgment are remarkably foolish speeches, but he is summoned for inciting a breach of the peace. Communists are being brought to court under an Act of 1797 and there-are plenty of Acts of Parliament for dealing with these things. I make an appeal to common-sense and the tradition of the people of this country. It is an appeal from one who disapproves entirely of incitements to sedition whether from Ulstermen or Communists. I submit the common-sense thing for us to do and the thing which is in accord with the traditions of this House is to refuse to right hon. Gentlemen all these powers which are an encroachment on the ancient rights of the subject.
  Mr. THURTLE: I do not know what justification there ever was for these Regulations during the general strike but I am quite certain whatever justification there may have been then there is no shadow of justification for them at present. In my view the continuance of these Regulations is a gross reflection on the character of the British people. One would imagine looking through these regulations that the British people are a very wicked scheming people, prone to sedition and riot, and only to be kept in order by drastic restrictions. The record of the people during the-general strike and since, is a complete refutation of that suggestion.
  It is unfair, not only to the people of this country, but to the reputation abroad of the British people, that we should continue these Regulations and thereby suggest to the world overseas that our people are such a turbulent, riotous kind of people that even during the course of a coal lockout we can keep them in something like peace and order only by the imposition of these very drastic Regulations.
  I suggest that there is a very much stronger reason indeed why we should not continue the Regulations. If you consider their character, you are bound to come to the conclusion that the kind of emergency with which they are intended to deal is one very different from that which obtains now, and in order to establish how remote these Regulations are

  1783
  from existing state of emergency, I propose to review a few of them very briefly. I take, first of all, Regulation No. 1, which gives power to the Government to take possession of land. As the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) remarked, certain of these Regulations may militate just as strongly against hon. Members opposite as against hon. Members on these benches, and this particular Regulation is likely to militate much more strongly against Members of the Conservative party than against Members of my own party, because, if there is a land-owning class in this House, it is to be found in the Conservative party. In any case, what reason is there for the Government, in the course of this peaceful coal lockout, to take powers to take possession of land? I suggest that there is no reason at all, and why should a sensible House of Commons give the Government such a power?
  Then there is a Regulation dealing with the taking over of road transport. Has anyone noticed during the progress of the lock-nut that there has been any need whatever for the Government to take possession of road transport? So far as I can see, the Government are not lacking in road transport in the least, and I am certain that, if the Government realty did want road transport, they would find sufficient owners of road transport among their own supporters to get all that they required. It is, therefore, totally unnecessary for them to utilise this particular Regulation. Another Regulation which is also totally unnecessary, and which shows how entirely remote these Regulations are from the situation as it confronts us to-day, is Regulation No. 5. which takes power to direct the traffic on highways. Has anyone noticed any particular difficulty, while the coal lock-out has been on, in regard to the traffic on highways? I submit that since the General Strike came to an end there has been absolutely no difficulty whatever in that respect. So far as any reasonable person can see, there is no likelihood whatever of any such difficulty arising. If that be the case—if it is not the case I hope some hon. Member opposite will get up and contradict me—there is absolutely no reason at all for this particular Regulation. Again I ask the House, why should we be hemmed in, as
  1784
  it were, by so many supervising Laws and Regulations; why should another be fastened upon us?
  There is one Regulation that really is most immoral. I cannot understand what could have prompted the Home Secretary to include this. It is No. 6 which gives to the Minister of Transport power to grant to every person a licence to drive a motor car during the period for which the Proclamation or emergency powers are in force. I trust someone will explain this. I, like my hon. Friends here, are open to conviction, and I should like to hear the reason or justification for the insertion of this Regulation. If a case can be made out for it, then, speaking for myself, and also, I think, for the Members of the Party, we will very gladly withdraw our opposition to that particular regulation. Regulation 11 puzzles me. It is one which gives the Board of Trade power to commandeer shipping. There is no lack of means for the transport of commodities from one part of the kingdom to another. Since the general strike there has been no difficulty whatever. Therefore there seems no need for this power over the loading and unloading of cargoes or for water carriage. Are the Government expecting future difficulty in this respect? Do they think they will be unable to get ships by appealing to the shipowners and therefore under the necessity of seeking for powers? Until we can be persuaded of the need for this, there is no necessity, we believe, forpassing it. I go on and find another most extraordinary Regulation, 13A. This deals with the question of moneys sent to this country from abroad. It gives the Home Secretary certain powers of prohibiting the bank, or the person, by whom the moneys are to he administered, to have them transferred or other-wise to deal with them. What is the reason for such a regulation as that? Is it seriously suggested that working class comrades of other countries, seeing the acute distress, bordering on stavation, in this country, are to be prevented from sending moneys to mitigate that distress? Will the House of Commons take up that brutal and inhumanitarian attitude, or will it not?
  I submit that the Home Secretary, in introducing this Clause, is doing something contrary to the good sense and best feelings of the British people. I do not

  1785
  believe that the British people as a whole wish to see the miners' wives and children starved into submission. There is someone in a position of great eminence who has given a lead to the people in that respect, and has indicated that it would be entirely undesirable if the miners had to give way and submit to injustice because of the starvation of their wives and children. I believe I am speaking within the facts when I point out that the great bulk of the people of this country, so far from resenting money coming from abroad for humanitarian purposes, welcome it. The Home Secretary, in his attitude towards this money from abroad, does not realise what is the real nature and spirit of working-class solidarity. There are thoughts in the minds of the working classes of all countries which are not dreamed of by people like the Home Secretary—there is a great conception of international working-class solidarity which forgets distinctions of race and language, and overlooks frontiers, and sees only the fact that the working class of one country is engaged in a very similar struggle to the working class of another country. Strange though it may be to us who have strong national feelings, it is a fact that many of the working classes of this country feel they have more in common with the working classes in Russia than with some of their own nationals. I feel I have a great deal more in common with the Russian miners, who have made their modest contributions to keep the women and children of the miners from starvation, than I have with the noble Lord Hunsdon. If the Home Secretary were ready to consider the wishes of the great mass of people of this country in regard to this Regulation, he certainly would not ask the House to pass this Regulation—No. 13A.
  Then I find there is another Regulation—No. 17—dealing with the question of motor spirit. It says "The Board of Trade may by order prohibit or regulate the sale, supply, delivery, or use of motor spirit, and require any persons owning or having the power to sell or dispose of motor spirit to place the same at the disposal of the Board or of any person authorised by them."
  I do not understand that there is any shortage of motor spirit in this country. So far as I can gather from things I have heard said in this House, there is an excess of motor spirit at the present
  1786
  time. I believe there is a great deal of motor spirit coming from Russia which is not very welcome to the die-hard supporters of the Government, and indeed there are ample supplies from America, Persia, and other sources. Therefore there is no shortage whatsoever, and there is no prospective shortage of motor spirit. I would like the Home Secretary, because there is no Amendment dealing with this particular regulation on the Order Paper, when he gets up to reply to this general discussion to state what is the reason he has that it is necessary to take powers to deal with this question of motor spirit. If he puts forward a convincing argument, and shows that it is necessary for the Government to take these powers, then I am sure the House will not offer any opposition to this particular regulation.
  Then we come to an extraordinary Regulation which shows, if anything can show, how remote these Regulations are from the actual situation. It is the Regulation dealing with the question of illegal drilling. It prohibits the public from indulging in unlawful drilling, and it is Regulation No. 23. I think the House is entitled to get some explanation from the Home Secretary as to the genesis of this particular Regulation. I heard all sorts of wild and incredible stories about what happened during the general strike—and there is great capacity for imagination on the part of some people to tell stories about the general strike—but I have never heard it suggested by the most imaginative, and even the Home Secretary has never suggested, that there has been any kind of unlawful drilling in this country during the past two months. The Fascisti may be drilling now, but it is not that kind of drilling with which the Home Secretary wishes to deal. If he has a soft section in his heart I am sure it is for the Fascisti. I would like him to give the House some solid reason far introducing a Regulation like this. I am sure he is familiar with the history of the French Revolution, and remembers the stormy days of the Convention and the critical days of the Terror. If he throws his mind back to that period, and considers the kind of regulations the Committee of Public Safety thought fit to introduce, he will not find anything so ridiculous and so far fetched as this Regulation dealing with unlawful drilling. There are a number of other

  1787
  Regulations which call for similar comment, but I will leave these to be dealt with by my hon. Friends later on in the discussion. I will conclude by saying, as I began, that these Regulations which I have referred to have no justification whatever in fact, and there is no reason at all why the House should pass them. The situation in the country at the present time does not warrant their being passed, and there is no likelihood of the situation in the country changing in the near future so as to make them necessary. For these reasons I am quite convinced that we on this side of the House are fully justified in opposing them, and that we are reflecting the wishes of the great mass of the people in the country when we object strenuously to the whole of these Regulations being continued.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to put one or two points—points which I raised on the first occasion when these Regulations were passed, and when the Attorney-General was in charge. I then raised the question of Regulation 20. I may say that I do not want to raise here anything that will be raised at a later stage, but on this Clause there is no definite Amendment on the Paper. I wish, if I can, to confine myself to the portion of the Regulations which have not been dealt with by Amendments. The House remembers that during the stoppage of work, known as the General Strike, I raised this question of Regulation 20, and I want to raise again that passage dealing with "known character." The Home Secretary will remember that I raised the question of who was a person likely to be proved a "known character." I am pleased to see the Secretary for Scotland in the House, because he is responsible for these Regulations quite as much as the Home Secretary, for in every one of the Regulations when the Home Secretary is involved that is also to be taken as meaning the Secretary for Scotland.
  In Scotland—and I think the same applies in England—you have already more than ample power to deal with known characters in the criminal sense. At the moment in Scotland, if a person is convicted a certain number of times for being a criminal and committing criminal offences, that person can be
  1788
  dealt with under the Prevention of Crimes Act in a more summary fashion than these Regulations allow. Therefore, if the law of England allows the known criminal to be dealt with by a lengthy sentence, it follows that these Regulations are not meant to deal with the known character in the criminal sense to which I have referred
  Having regard to that I want to ask the Home Secretary what is really meant by "a known character?" It cannot be a criminal, for you already have more powers to deal with him than is asked for in these Regulations, so a known character must he a person who has a relationship to the dispute now going on. The only thing I can think of is that a known character is a man or a woman who is an active trade unionist and can be punishable under this Regulation No. 20. I want to submit that the term "known character" ought not to include as those who commit a crime an active member of a trade union, such as the secretary or chairman of a branch of a trade union. He has as much right to be proud of his connection with the trade union movement as the Home Secretary has with his connection with his colleagues in the Cabinet. A person may approach the neighbourhood of a mine or the place where the manager of a mine resides and he can be arrested under the Regulations as a known character because he is an active trade unionist and placed in gaol having committed no offence at all. I suggest that this is not a desirable state of affairs.
  Then I want to refer to a Regulation already referred to by the previous speaker—that dealing with the granting of motor licences. So far as my knowledge goes, I understand that this regulation has never been actually put into practice, but I want to submit to the House that already the country is suffering not through too few motorists, but through too many. It is a crime that we are giving out licences to drive motor vehicles so easily without giving the Home Secretary power to refund it to any person without proper investigation or capacity to drive.
  Now I turn to the general aspect before us. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) says that persons convicted under these Regulations are

  1789
  apt to go before biased magistrates. The Secretary for Scotland knows that in the big towns in Scotland, whether for good or ill, local government is now run on party lines. It may be our fault or not, but in places like Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, you have now got in the town councils the Moderates and the Labour people. The Moderate is merely a new name for the Conservative, and there you have the Council run by a party. In Scotland the appointment of what you term judges is by the magistrates, and very often a person appears before the magistrates. In the great majority of the cases the predominant people on these local bodies are Conservatives, who appoint magistrates of their own political complexion. I have no complaint to make against them. If we had the majority we would appoint a Labour majority, but these magistrates are men before whom the people convicted would appear. In Edinburgh and Glasgow the magistrates are appointed by Tories who could not, even if they tried, have a neutral mind in regard to these matters. But even take the case of the Sheriffs in Scotland, where the case is not so bad. No one will deny that to-day, owing to the development of political democracy, Sheriffs and judges are appointed in most cases, not because of their knowledge of law but, generally speaking, because of their political influence. Take people like the judges—the Lord Justice Clerk for Scotland was appointed because of his services as Secretary for Scotland. It was his political services more than his knowledge of law that led to his appointment. The same thing applies in regard to the Sheriffs. We are asked to believe that men and women who are alleged to have committed offences under this Regulation can have a reasonable or a proper trial under conditions of this sort. During the general dispute many men were arrested and tried, and almost all of them in Glasgow and Scotland were men who had never committed any particular offence before, but had done so in the heat of the moment. They were imprisoned for these alleged offences. I am going to suggest that placing these general regulations in the hands of sheriffs who start with a bias and into the hands of magistrates and even of judges of the Court of Session who
  1790
  almost always start from a political bias against the men is giving them far too great a power.
  I want to ague this last feature. When the Message of His Majesty was before the House I made an appeal on that point. I want to-day to appeal to the Home Secretary that we ought at least to delay this matter. We have the coal dispute going on it has been going on for a great many weeks. In 1921 you had a dispute lasting 15 weeks, and during that' time you never needed those regulations, and, mark you, it was a very much worse time because, as the Home Secretary will admit, every day that you were nearer the War you were living at a time when because of the War passions were more easily inflamed. Yet in the 1921 dispute during the Coalition Government, during the Government that had the name of being one of the worst and most corrupt Governments of its day—certainly it cannot be the worst, this is the worst—it earned one of the worst names, but yet with a Prime Minister like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for 15 weeks during the 1921 dispute not a single one of these Regulations was required. Further than that, although the main Act that gave the Home Secretary the power to evoke these Regulations was passed in 1990, and, if my memory serves me right, the Coalition Government a year before that dispute, of which the Home Secretary was a Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that is at least one crime that he has escaped. But even he was one of its supporters for a period. The Prime Minister was one of them, and even during that time—Lord Birkenhead was one of the Members, the Foreign Secretary was a Member—and yet all those Members then, who were die-bards of a very mixed type, even they never needed to evoke these Regulations during the 1921 dispute.
  Take the present dispute, here you are in the 9th or 10th week of it. Go to any part of the country, whether it is Scotland in the north, or Northumberland, or down in the Forest of Dean in the south, go anywhere you care, and the remarkable thing is not the riot or the sedition but the absolute calm and peacefulness wherever you go. I think myself

  1791
  that the tragic feature of it is not the disturbance, but the peace of it. It seems to be how calmly men and women see each day their dwelling places being sold off, as they are being sold off, the bits of furniture, the children in some cases not getting the clothing they need, and the thing that amazes me is not the trouble, but the absolute calm under which the people can go on. Here is the Home Secretary now, coming with these Regulations and giving his friends the power to suppress and imprison their political enemies. That is the meanest thing of all. I think that where you do not raise political issues as when a man commits a burglary you can very often get justice in this country. But I do not think that where it raises a definite political issue you can get anything like justice. Most of your Judges, and in Scotland most of your Sheriffs, are appointed because of political services. Here is the Home Secretary invoking these Regulations which give to his political friends this power. In addition to starving the miners, to-day they took the power of refusing them relief. Last week they took the step of giving them an hour of additional labour. The question of sedition is very intimately bound up with this. What I think might be sedition, might to the Home Secretary not appear to be sedition at all. In my own view, the time is past for these Regulations. I think the Home Secretary ought to use his influence not to have these Regulations passed. I say that the time has come in this coal dispute when we ought to declare an armistice. We did that with Germany during the War. We ought to declare for the status quo, allow the miners to go back and see if they cannot come to some arrangement. That would be a wise and statesmanlike policy. That would appear a much better move than this method of using the club, and I hope the Home Secretary will not only justify these Regulations, but will also show to the House of Commons some real reason why he should seek these powers; and particularly I ask him to direct his attention to Regulation 20 which defines "a known character" as no other person than a person connected with the labour movement or a trade union.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member for
  1792
  Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) into the suggestions he made for the conclusion of the coal stoppage. My duty is to deal here to-night with the Regulations. The hon. Member eulogised the country and the way in which no trouble had taken place, no riots, and no prosecutions, or anything of that kind.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not say there had been no prosecutions. I said the amazing thing up and down the country was the quiet and peace. Unfortunately there have been prosecutions and there always will be while you are there.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept the hon. Member's suggestion that the amazing thing is the peace throughout the country, but then he went on to say that I am asking that these Regulations should be put in force. He seems to forget that these regulations have been in force for nine weeks throughout all this period of quiet. He might in his speech not only have eulogised the country but also the Home Secretary who has had these powers for nine weeks. He says that I am going to take these political powers to prosecute my political enemies. He proved in his own speech the peacefulness and quiet of the country during the nine months. I accept that not only as a testimony to the country—
  Mr. THURTLE: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Regulations had been in force for nine months. He surely made a mis-statement.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is always so accurate. I meant nine weeks. The hon. Member for Gorbals has raised the same point with regard to "a known character." In regard to that question, I can really only make the same explanation to him that the Attorney-General made to him in May last. It means that he is a man of a criminal character. For instance, taking the same suggestion that the Attorney-General took: Suppose a man is found at night on a railway bridge with a crowbar in his hands and he is accused under these Regulations of being there to commit an offence. The Regulation says he must be "a known character." They might go into Court and say of him that he has been prosecuted

  1793
  and convicted before for pulling up a railway line. He is a known man for that reason—that is "a known character"; he is quite a man of a criminal disposition.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Home Secretary excuse me. The Attorney-General never said he had been convicted before. If he had said that, I would have accepted it, and would not have raised the point. The Attorney-General never agreed that a man had to be convicted first before he was a known character. He totally denied that he had to be convicted before.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have the Attorney-General's speech here on column 478, and I have been reading it. He says:
  "Previous convictions of acts of violence you certainly may prove. The question might be whether the man had gone there for the purpose of destroying or setting fire to a railway or building, or whether he had gone there for some perfectly innocent purpose. The fact that he was a man who had been previously guilty of trying to wreck railway trains or setting fire to buildings would be relevant. The only object of this provision is that, inasmuch as it would not be otherwise clear whether his known character as proved'—which means as proved in the court—was to be admissible evidence, this Regulation puts this point beyond doubt. It does not mean that if you prove a man is a known criminal, therefore he must Fe convicted." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6 May, 1926; cols. 478–9; Vol. 195.]
  All it means is that you may adduce the fact that he has been caught at the same trick before, and, although he has not set fire to the wood of the railway this time he is a "known character," and it may go before the court that he was attempting to do it. That is the answer the Attorney-General made. There is another answer, and that is to refer the hon. Member to the hon. Member below the Gangway, because these Regulations are the Regulations of the Coalition Government.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: But they never invoked them.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree. The Regulations were passed in 1920, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Premier. They were not enforced in the coal stoppage of 1921 and they were not enforced in 1924. But all these Regulations—if the hon. Member will take the trouble to look it up he will see—were
  1794
  passed in the House of Commons in 1921 and I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) should make an attack on the Regulations because he was in the House at that time and was a loyal supporter of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. Whether he is to-day I do not know.
  Captain BENN: It is a matter of small importance, but the Home Secretary must know that during the whole of the Parliament of 1918–22 I sat on that bench doing my best to prove that it was one of the worst Governments that had ever existed.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then I shake hands with the hon. and gallant Member. We appear to agree in that particular as to 1921. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) has referred to the earlier Regulations. Regulations 1 to 3 refer to food and were not put into use during the past month. But they are in the interests of the consumers in this country and only the other day I heard a question in the House when someone on the benches opposite was proposing that the President of the Board of Trade should prevent profiteering. These are the Regulations that give me necessary power.
  Then Regulations 4 to 9 relate to the control of Transport by road, rail and canal. They have not been used during the past month but they are valuable, and if the hon. Member read them carefully he would see that there is no ground for the complaint which was contained in the main point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith—that there is infringement of the rights of the free subject. They are regulations necessary at a time of great difficulty but which are to be carried out for the benefit of the people as a whole. [An HON. MEMBER: "If they are unnecessary why have them?"]—I did not say they were unnecesary. I said we have not used them during the past month. But if they are used, they will be used in the interests of the whole community; in the interests of the consumers, not against the miners or anything of that kind.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Why not keep them in perpetuity?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have sometimes thought it might be desirable. I do not want to bring a Bill into this

  1795
  House which would offend hon. Members, but certain of these Regulations have nothing in them which, if hon. Members would read them carefully, they would find unacceptable. Regulations 10 to 13 establish a prohibition on the export of coal. In the interests of the whole community it was desirable that we should as far as possible, keep as much coal in the country as we could in the interests of the railways, electric light, gas works and so forth. Regulation 13A is a restriction put on money coming from abroad. We had a big Debate on that a fortnight ago. I quite frankly say that is a new Regulation passed at my instance in order to give me powers to find out what communications of a financial character there were between Russia and this country, or Russia and the Trades Union Council or the Miners' Federation. I say it is desirable that we should know what was coming from Russia. I do not think the hon. Member of Shoreditch called it his spiritual affinity or his spiritual home as has been said on a previous occasion, but he said he cared more for the friendship of the Russian miners than for some Noble Lord—Lord Hunsdon I think.
  I am going to say, on behalf of the community, that if they or any other people are getting money from Russia we are entitled to know it, and it is in the interests of the country that I should know it. The Government have decided, and I think wisely, not to prohibit the importation of money for the wives and children of the miners, but, at the same time, it is desirable that should know when it does come, and from whom it comes.
  This Regulation I shall certainly ask the House of Commons to confirm as believe it is not only desirable but essential when there are financial communications of this kind passing between a country—I do not want to raise the Russian question over again — which takes a different view of matters politically here than that taken by His Majesty's Government. It is desirable that His Majesty's Government should be in possession of the fullest information in regard to these actions.
  Regulations 14 to 16 restrict supplies of coal and enforce economy in the use of lights, which is most desirable in the
  1796
  interests of the community, and to make stocks of coal go as far as they possibly can. Regulation 15 enables the Government to limit the use of lights, and it has been used in the last month. We have had to stop some of the flaming advertisements in London. Forty-eight cases of infringement of coal directions and use of light have been reported during the month. I shall be pleased to give any information I have in my power as to the working of the Regulations. Regulation 17 regulates motor spirit. It is quite true that there is plenty of motor spirit in the country. At the same time it is highly desirable, as it may be the only alternative form of transport were the supply of coal to cease altogether, that without having to come to the House to make arrangements to enable us to take control of motor spirit. Then under Regulation 20, mentioned by the hon. Member for Gorbals there have been 28 prosecutions undertaken in the course of the month. On the whole, there have been very few prosecutions indeed during the month, and I hope as the months roll on, however long the coal stoppage may take, we may have as peaceful a time as we have at the present moment.
  But I will deal with the immediate argument raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). The hon. and learned Member referred to the Common Law. The old Common Law has been altered a good deal. The Trade Disputes Act, of which the hon. and learned Member was a strong supporter, altered the Common Law very much. If he is going to take his stand on the Common Law, then he must eliminate those Statutes which cut across the Common Law principle. The hon. and learned Member turned to Regulation 21 relating to sedition, and he quoted the second Clause, which I admit was not in the Regulations of 1921. The hon. and learned Member dealt with, the wickedness of prosecuting a man because he had in his possession, in his pocket, a document containing wrongful statements unless he could prove that he did not know and had no reason to think the document contained any such report or statement. But he did not go on to read the next sentence—
  "or that he had no intention of transmitting or circulating the document or distri-

  1797
  buting copies thereof to or amongst other persons."
  I will show where this Regulation came in. We all remember the lying statement published by certain small rags during the general strike that some of the Guards had mutinied. We did find the document in the handwriting of a particular person in his possession. He was the originator of that statement, and he was prosecuted and convicted. But I still think that if he had been able to prove, under this provision of this last sentence, that he had no intention of transmitting or circulating it, he would not have been convicted. He was in possession of an untrue document for the purpose of transmitting and circulating it in a period of grave anxiety. It is rightly named as a criminal act, and the man who did it was very rightly convicted.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I was saying we are not in that condition now.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite true that we are to-day in a peaceful state but these Regulations are largely a matter of protection. They were as I have said, in force all through the fifteen weeks of this trouble in 1921. It is quite true they ware not used to any extent. They have not been used to any extent during the last month. [An HON. MEMBER "How many prosecutions?"] There have been 28 prosecutions under No. 20 and 40 prosecutions under No. 21. There have been no prosecutions under the earlier Regulations and I think with no prosecutions under the late ones—none under 22, 23, 24 and 25.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is that during the past month?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, during the past month. It does show the peaceful character of the population during this month and I claim on the other hand the moderation and the fairness with which these Regulations have been carried out. No action has been taken under 22; no meetings prohibited during the last month.
  Major CRAWFURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether there have been any prosecutions under 15?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No prosecutions have taken place yet; 48 cases of infringement of coal direction or restric-
  1798
  tion of light have been reported during the month. I put it to the House as a matter of necessary precaution in all this trouble. These Regulations have been put in force; they are being used very much less and I hope they will continue to be used very much less. I hope they will not be necessary. But do not let the House forget that there are people who are trying to stir up trouble. I do not want to say anything of a controversial character, but Mr. Cook devoted one of his speeches—Lord Hunsdon has been quoted and I am going to quote Mr. Cook—Mr. Cook only last week quite definitely stated that if an attempt were made to open the mines the Home Secretary might take his blacklegs or his military, but no single man would go down the pits.
  Mr. BATEY: Was he answering a speech of yours? You invited him to say that.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not know I had any influence upon Mr. Cook at all. That is the reason why I want these Regulations.
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. The Home Secretary has just told us that he wants the Regulations for the possible prosecution of Mr. Cook. I desire to ask you whether the Home Secretary is entitled to take advantage of his position here, as he has done on earlier occasions elsewhere, to create prejudice against Mr. Cook should he happen to be prosecuted.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be desirable not to mention any names where a question might possibly arise later on.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just made a statement which is quite definitely untrue.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring to the hon. Member's statement as "untrue." Has it not been ruled that he is only entitled to say that it is incorrect.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I hope all hon. Members will follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), and use Parliamentary expressions.
  Mr. BECKETT: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to a Member of the House in that way some few months before he was sent to prison?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will substitute the words "utterly incorrect." I did not say that the person whose name I have given was to be prosecuted. If the hon. Member looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see what I was saying.
  Captain BENN: I remember the gross offences under this head which the Home Secretary has committed before.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was going to warn the House that the reason why these Regulations are necessary is that in the event of advice of anybody being followed by unfortunate men in the country, and their being led into riots to prevent men going down the pit, these Regulations would come in useful, and they will be used.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman quoted this gentleman textually when he says that the miners should not go down the mines, or did he say they would not go down the mines?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not his speech by me. If a question is put down to me to-morrow I will have the speech. I think I have given a quite accurate description of the speech which was made.
  Mr. BATEY: What did you say in your speech?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do you want to know? I said in my speech that any man—and I repeat it here to-day in the House of Commons—that any man who desires to work will receive the fullest possible,protection of His Majesty's Government and the whole of His Majesty's forces. [Interruption.] I have said that, I hope it will not be necessary to use these Regulations more than they have been used. I have explained why I want them, and the hon. Member will gather why we want them. They have always been granted to the Government of the day during periods of emergency. They were granted in 1921 and in 1924, and they were granted early this year. I now ask, not for fresh Regulations, but to have them renewed for another month.
  1800
  I may have to come at the end of this month to renew them again for another month. Having regard to the way in which they have been carried out—
  Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentleman says that these Regulations were passed in 1924.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A state of emergency was made in 1924. The Regulations were coming forward, and the strike collapsed.
  Mr. STEPHEN: The Government nearly collapsed at the time.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not a Member of the Government at the time; it was the hon. Member's own Government. I have tried to keep my temper under provocation, and I hope that hon. Members will now, having received this explanation of the reason why the Government desire these Regulations, allow us to get on with the discussion, so that we may close the Debate at an early hour this morning.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Home Secretary has been asked to-night to justify the continuation of these Regulations, and I submit that he has done nothing of the kind. In fact, if he has accomplished, anything at all in reply to the speeches from this side of the House, he has undoubtedly convinced most of us that he is a very dangerous Gentleman indeed to have these Regulations in his hands. Not only are these Regulations very dangerous instruments in themselves; they will unfortunately be in the hands of one of the most dangerous statesmen of the day. I want to test the Home Secretary on his own showing. These Regulations were brought forward by him several weeks ago and I suggested then—and I will put his actions to the test to-day—that the issue of the Regulations in themselves was not really the thing that mattered; that what really mattered was—and what matters now—is the administration of the regulations by the local authorities and our benches of magistrates. Now let us see what has already happened. The Home Secretary was perfectly right in saying that he does not prosecute anybody; what he is doing by the issue of these Regulations is to invite some of his political friends to prosecute his

  1801
  political opponents. That is exactly what is happening.
  If I wanted to give a classical example of how these Regulations are enforced, I could give one from my own Division. No one has yet mentioned the provisions of Regulation 26. The Home Secretary will find that Regulation 26 gives him power to transfer police from one area to another. I take it that there ought to be very good reason for such transfer. In the Westhoughton township for illustration, with a population of about 15,000 inhabitants, there has been no difficulty of any kind—there has been no disorder, no attempt at riot, no seditious speech of any kind, though I have spoken there. In spite of all this calm, we have in the township of Westhoughton a large force of extra police, and, strange enough, they are billeted in the local Conservative Club.
  That cannot be an indication that all is fair and square and above board. I submit that that is an offence to the people of Westhoughton. It is really an offence to their intelligence. I do not know how much profit will accrue to the Tory party from their billeting; but apart from party bias at all it is wrong to billet police on the premises of any political party.
  These Regulations, I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman, are after all only the culmination of several attempts on the part of the Government to bring the people of this country under the control of the Home Secretary. Nobody has yet mentioned the two ominous Circulars which were issued and which led up to these Regulations. I have here Circular 636 issued from the Ministry of Health and the other from the Home Office. Neither of the Circulars bears the name of any Cabinet Minister. The persons who signed these documents are distinguished civil servants, but they have appended their names thereto presumably on behalf of the Government of the day. It would be much better if the Home Secretary had himself fathered this document entitled "Intimidation and Molestation," and not used the name of a civil servant to cover a document which actually comes from the Home Secretary himself. These two documents contain the whole spirit of the Regulations we are now discussing. I would therefore like to get some more enlightenment on the subject. The Home Secretary told us that
  1802
  26 cases had arisen under one Regulation and 40 cases under the other, and he used the argument that as the 40 cases had arisen during the last month or so he required the continuation of the Regulation. Do I understand that the 40 cases arose during last month, or did they arise prior to last month, the prosecutions taking place during last month? I think that is a very vital point.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The prosecutions were instituted last month and some of them were for offences before that.
  Mr. DAVIES: I think that very important, because everything the Home Secretary has told us to-night warrants us in asking that the House shall not give its sanction to the continuance of the Regulations. It is quite possible that every one of the 40 cases were offences committed prior to last month, and all that happened was that the cases were tried last month. If that assumption be correct, and there is good ground for believing it to be so, there is no justification whatever for the continuance of these Regulations.
  One of the strongest objections we have to the Regulations, apart from that given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is, that there is no doubt at all that without the issue of these Regulations the chief constables of the land would do their duty quite well. I submit, however, that they took it for granted, when these Regulations were issued, that it was the desire of the Home Secretary and his Government that they should do something extraordinary in spite of the fact that nothing extraordinary transpired in the localities. I think too that the Home Secretary, by the issue of the Regulations, gave an incentive to the chief constables of the land because if these Regulations were not in force, and exactly the same offences were committed, they would not get the same number of cases of offences that have been brought within the Regulations.
  Another complaint we make is this—that under these Regulations one offence may be committed in one town and a similar offence committed in another. In the first case the magistrates are sensible people, representing may be all political parties, and there was no conviction regis-

  1803
  tered. In another town, however, for exactly the same offence, men have been sent to gaol for three months. Surely there is something wrong in such a state of affairs. I will give a case in point. The police arrested five young people in Openshaw, Manchester, because they dared to have a printed statement in their possession that the working class organisations of this country ought to come to the aid of the miners in their dispute with the employers. That was all. They were taken to Court under these Regulations, but the magistrate declined to convict, and actually rebuked the police for bringing the cases forward. In the neighbouring town of Salford a man was brought into Court for possessing exactly the same document and, so far as I remember, he was sent to prison. I say, therefore, that in their operation these Regulations have proved to be unequal and unfair. After all, in the administration of justice it is not sufficient that the magistrate should feel that he is administering justice. The offender must also feel that he is treated in a proper manner. He must feel that although he has committed an offence, the penalty inflicted upon him is that which justice demands and is not that dictated by bias and prejudice arising from political animosities. I want to carry my point a step further, and with this I sit down. The Home Secretary, I think, has received more than one deputation asking him if he will be good enough to remit some of the sentences that were imposed under these Regulations. I do not know whether I am right or not, but I very much doubt whether he has made any remission in any single case.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member asks me, I will tell him at once. I have reduced some sentences. I have remitted others.
  Mr. DAVIES: It just depends, I suppose, on who represents the Division. He has not remitted the Horwich sentences. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is political bias."] The Home Secretary has done one great service this morning. He is always frank; he is brutally frank. He has told us one thing that will always stand to his credit or otherwise. He has told us he would very much like to see these Regulations made permanent. I hope he will not have the power to do that
  1804
  for very long. I hope we will soon have another Government to sweep them away. [An HON. MEMBER: "What a hope"!] I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman is not helping the cause of justice by asking us this morning to continue these Regulations in operation. All the necessity for them has passed, as he himself has proved. I say, therefore, that he has not justified his case in asking for the continuation of these Regulations, and we shall do all we can, however long it may take, to oppose the Regulations and try and prevent their continuation in the hands of the present Home Secretary.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire to move, in line 2, after "1926," to insert the words "other than Regulation 21."
  In the course of the discussion tonight—
  Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. There are some of us who have waited all night wanting to get into the discussion on the whole of the Regulations. We are going to be cut out, especially after the speech of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: In the course of the discussion to-night many of us have waited for the Home Secretary to give an adequate defence—
  Mr. SHORT: There is no need for you to get up to move at all.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am within the knowledge of Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BATEY: It is not cricket.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have no desire whatever to interfere with the right of my fellow Members to address the House, but, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, I waited for you for the time to move this Amendment.
  Mr. SHORT: You were not here when we made these arrangements.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I was here throughout the discussion and have not missed one single minute of the discussion. I was going to say that the House has awaited the statement from the Home Secretary as to why this particular Regulation has been included for the approval of the House to-night. It appears to me that the Home Secretary

  1805
  has in some measure mis-stated the facts in regard to the reason why the 1921 Regulations were in fact carried. If I remember aright, there was the threat in 1921 of a general strike, just as we had this year when these regulations were carried. That general strike did not materialise in 1921, though it is perfectly true that the regulations were kept in being. I submit that the Regulations, therefore have been carried on each occasion to deal with a special circumstance, an exceptional occasion, and in my submission, as in the submission of others of my hon. friends, the exceptional circumstances have passed. We have now returned very largely to the normal condition of the country. There still remains, of course, the mining crisis, but from the point of view of the conditions which actuated the framing of these Regulations, I submit that there has been a substantial change. In the particular Regulation with which we are now concerned we are confronted with an attempt to interfere with what some of us regard as a legitimate expression of opinion upon public questions. What is the fact as it now obtains? The subject under discussion mainly in the country at this moment is an economic subject, economic conditions, and it is when the country and the public generally comes to discuss economic questions that people's sentiments and people's tempers are apt to he somewhat heated. But in spite of that, in spite of the fact that it is the economic issue which has been before the country for the last nine weeks, the Home Secretary himself, as indeed the Prime Minister himself on a previous occasion, have both been compelled to admit that, on the whole, the conduct of the mass of the people of the country has been exemplary in every respect.
  Since this economic issue is one that touches almost every homestead in the country, it is therefore in the highest degree essential that the Government should do nothing that would interfere with the right of the private individual to express his criticism of the Government's action at any particular moment. Even normally, when economic conditions are under discussion there is enough material abroad for the creation of bitterness, for the accentuation of antagonisms between one side and the other. But when the
  1806
  Government of the day uses exceptional legislation such as this in order to hamper and restrict the expression of private judgment upon public questions the inevitable consequence is the creation of further suspicion and the engineering of far greater antagonism than need be the case. I ventured, when discussing these Regulations last, to ask the Home Secretary to tell us how many prosecutions had taken place under this particular regulation in various parts of the country. He was forced to admit even then, more than a month ago, that comparatively speaking even in the mining areas there were comparatively few prosecutions having regard to the density of the population in those areas. I ask the House to bear this in mind, as I did on that occasion. This is not the first mining crisis we have had by a long way in this country. I venture to assert with some assurance, knowing as I do mining communities that the miners of this country are as law abiding a community as any other section of the community in the country. Therefore, in the carrying on of this special legislation, this special set of regulations, now, it makes one feel that they are specially directed against one particular section of the community who, I suggest, are as law abiding as any other. There is another portion of this Regulation which I would submit is extremely hard. Ever since Milton wrote his "Areopagitica" the right of the Government of the day has been accepted by most people as an elementary right of criticism, and at a time like this, when the government of the day is every hour, rightly or wrongly, laying itself open to the charge of taking sides in the dispute, and, naturally, it is highly regrettable that these Regulations should be kept on the Statute Book, where they excited indignation and exasperated public opinion.
  There are two or three people who will be involved in the application of this particular Regulation. There are, first of all, the police. There are large areas in the heart of the mining districts of this country where the Chief Constable of that particular area, being a person of moderation, being a person of discretion, being a person who is circumspect in his outlook, so conducted affairs in his area that not one single prosecution took place within the area under his control. I give a case in point.

  1807
  In the City of Cardiff I believe there were extremely few, if any, prosecutions at all. In the County of Glamorgan, on the other hand, there were quite a number; all that arises from the difference in the mentality and outlook of the two chief constables. The one has a sort of patriotic feeling that he is not doing the patriotic thing unless he is prosecuting people whom he regards to be hot heads or extremists. On the other hand, the circumspect chief constable says, "Oh, let them blow off steam," and he allows them to speak in the public park, to deliver themselves of the burden of their message, and he feels that having done so, no harm is done anyone. I submit it would be a good thing for the Government to have taken a similar line and allowed people as much latitude as possible to express themselves upon these subjects without interfering unduly with their liberty. Similarly with the magistrates.
  We have had a discussion already, and on a recent occasion in regard to this question of "known character." The Home Secretary will not be able to deny, I think, that in the course of the last eight or nine weeks, the fact that a man was known to belong to a Communist organisation was stated in Court as if it were a statement of a heinous offence, and that was accepted as being a contribution to the knowledge of the magistrate was to the character of the person so prosecuted. When these people have appeared in Court, over and over again, we have had obita dicta from the magistrate here, there and everywhere, up and down the country, concerning Communism and other subjects of public discussion—statements utterly irrelevant to the issue, utterly unnecessary and indeed, doing nothing except proving the political bias of the person sitting for the moment upon the magisterial bench. What actuates these people, I submit is this: it is not that they want deliberately to do the person prosecuted a personal injury, only they have a sort of feeling that the Government of the day expect it of them, as a patriotic act, to punish these people who are regarded as being somewhat extreme in these days of industrial crisis. I submit to the House therefore that from the point of view of political ex-
  1808
  pediency, from the point of view of preserving industrial peace, from the point of view of avoiding the development of political, personal, and social antagonism it would be worth while abandoning these Regulations. But far more would it be worth while for another reason. Because it is infinitely better for the State to run the risk of having some few dozen people expressing unpopular opinions rather than that the State should embark on the dangerous practice of limiting public discussion which is the inalienable right of every citizen. Therefore on the ground of the desirability of preserving liberty for the individual, and indeed on the ground of temporary expediency, I submit the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I want to address myself to the Secretary for Scotland in regard to what is happening under these Regulations in Scotland. We have had certain figures given to us to-night by the Home Secretary, and I would like to get from the Secretary for Scotland the corresponding figures for Scotland. The Home Secretary told us these figures were for England and Wales. I am hopeful that the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give me the corresponding figures for Scotland. It. seems to me, from what I have heard, that the situation in Scotland has been pretty much similar to that in England. I do not know with regard to the action of the Minister in giving something of an amnesty to people concerned because so far as I can make out, if I am right I think the figures I have already been able to get show that the Secretary for Scotland was able to take a merciful view in about five cases. I myself brought several cases before him and was disappointed that he did not take a more sensible view with regard to them than was the case, and I hope we shall get a figure from him to-night for the first month of these Regulations and then for the second month. I also want to say in that connection that I was disappointed that the Home Secretary was not a little bit more accurate in his statement. I am sorry he is not here. He stated to-night that there were no meetings prohibited during the last month. Well, I myself have been unable to get an opportunity of hearing the Member of Parliament that represents my district—the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklat-

  1809
  vala). A meeting that he was to address in his constituency has been prohibited. I take that instance because I want to protest here on the Floor of the House against this action of the Government in prohibiting a Member whose views are not Conservative from being allowed to address his constituents.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the bearing of this on the Amendment.
  2 A.M.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am taking it that, seeing the discussion on the general question was cut short, although some of us had waited long to speak on various points, I should not have been drawn up in this fashion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite possible that hon. Members may have difficulty in discussing all these Regulations together. I have no objection, but in guiding the discussion the House cannot arrange it both ways. If that be the desire in this instance, I will allow the widest discussion to cover the general point.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I gather from my comrades on these benches that we would much prefer the general discussion to continue, and then with regard to the Amendments that they should be taken without discussion.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
  Mr. PURCELL: On a point of Order. I think, Mr. Speaker, you might let us know exactly how we stand on this point.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather for hon. Members to tell me what they want than for me to tell them. I am quite willing to allow the continuance of the general discussion, but they cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May we take Regulations 21 and 22 together? That would give us pretty wide latitude to discuss practically everything that we object to in this part of the Regulations.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite prepared to adopt that suggestion.
  Mr. PURCELL: I hope my hon. Friends will not do that. If you limit me to Regulation 21, I cannot get to 13A.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I understood that 13A would be taken after 21.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with Regulation 13A, but, apparently, it is the desire of the House to discuss the Regulations as a whole. I will not stand in the way of that. If hon. Members desire to do so, the best way would be for the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) not to second the present Amendment, and then the discussion can proceed on the widest basis.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The only point is that supposing we go on for a certain time on a general discussion, it is open for the right hon. Gentleman to move the Closure. As long as it is understood that the Closure will not be moved, then I think it is all right. I am only wanting that no one shall be closured out of discussing any one of these particular Regulations that they may wish to discuss.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter at my discretion in which I must make up my mind beforehand. I take it that it is really the desire of the House to continue the general discussion.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish it to be made quite clear. if this Amendment is not seconded and so falls to the ground, you continue for some time the discussion upon the general Motion, which will allow hon. Members to discuss each individual Regulation at their own sweet will, that you will not allow Amendments subsequently to be moved dealing with the individual Regulations.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I said that Members cannot have it both ways.
  Captain BENN: Will not this deprive us of our right to put quite detailed and specific points on the Amendments that are on the Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken. My desire is to meet the general sense of the House. I think they would desire a general discussion, and then take the Regulations separately.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I was referring to the statement of the Home Secretary that there had been no meetings prohibited,

  1811
  and I was protesting against that information. A meeting was prohibited, and I was debarred from the opportunity of hearing the hon. Member for North Battersea, who is my Member in this House of Commons. It seems to me from that very fact that these Regulations are being used to bar an hon. Member of this House from addressing his own constituents. That in itself is a sufficient argument to show that these Regulations should not be reimposed. I just wonder if one could draw the deduction fairly from the fact that as this action has been taken there is going to be, or at least there is the possibility of, the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland carrying this policy out on a wider scale. We in Glasgow have already had, not under these Regulations, but previously, difficulties with regard to free speech, and to-night or this morning I want to enter a vigorous protest against the action of the Home Secretary in this respect.
  It is true, no doubt, that the Conservative candidate in that division will be fairly active in the meantime. If a General Election is not far off, as appears to some people to be very probable, for I do not think the miners are going to be forced into the position the Government evidently contemplates, and if the miners do not give way and that leads to a General Election, then this policy of repression on the part of the Home Secretary is possibly going to result in the electorate acting somewhat in the same way as it did on the last occasion. I dare say the Government could win another election if they clamped down the propaganda of their political opponents—
  HON. MEMBERS: As you did the Press.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I would point out to hon. Members that I did not clamp down the Press; unfortunately I had not that power. I am quite willing that you should have your Press on conditions. I am dealing with the present time, not with any past action on the part of certain trade unions. I am dealing with the action of the Home Secretary and this Government and the way in which they are acting in order to shut out their political opponents from getting
  1812
  an opportunity of expressing themselves. Regulation 21 hits already been used most unfairly with regard to creating disaffection. If someone on the Home Secretary's side of the House makes a speech which is quite obviously provocative—if Lord Birkenhead or the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a speech which is grossly unfair in its terms, and provocative so far as the mining community is concerned—if a statement is made concerning the leaders of the miners by those Members of the Government and it leads to disaffection, then there has been no evidence on the part of the Government of taking action in that respect. But whenever anything is said contrary to the opinion of this Government, not in any way in opposition to the constitution of this country, but some criticism of the present Government, then it is no doubt regarded by the Home Secretary as seditious. What will be called "seditious" depends upon the point of view of the individual, and if one takes, for example, what the Home Secretary thinks seditious in the various documents included in this Communist collection then there is hardly a Member on this side of the House—not even the most moderate—who would be safe because the Home Secretary has got the most perverted idea of what is sedition. I would like him to give me information as to those meetings which are being prohibited.
  I want to get some sort of assurance that this is not another step being taken by the Government to make it impossible for its political opponents to have a square deal and to prevent them having an opportunity of putting their views before the people of this country. We have had various illustrations in other countries—in the development of Fascist regulations in the various countries on the Continent—of the way in which Parliamentary institutions have been thrown overboard as well as the various rights enjoyed in this country. It seems to me that we are possibly tending in the same direction, and that the extraordinary zeal of the Home Secretary in regard to these Regulations is simply marking such a step in this country. It has been said that he is very frank. I have heard one Member describe him as "stupidly honest" in his declarations. I am inclined to agree with that sometimes;

  1813
  at other times he is possibly not just as frank. I would like him to give some little information regarding this action taken in shutting down a Member of this House from expressing opinions. I would like a guarantee that there is to be no attempt to shut clown any other Member in expressing his opinions and criticising the Government.
  There is one other point I want to make. I do not think the record of the Government in the handling of the industrial crisis has been honest and straightforward. I think that, there has been an extraordinary amount of equivocation on the part of the Government in the handling of the whole situation. Now that the Government has definitely allied itself with the coal-owners I am more concerned now about these Regulations than I was even two months ago. They have put on the Statute Book this Eight Hours Act, and it seems to me that if the Government were really sincere and honest in their dealings they would be willing to throw overboard these Emergency Regulations during this month. H it is true that there is a tremendous disposition upon the part of the miners to get back to work, and that it is only their leaders who have been misleading them, and that they are anxious to work eight hours, as we have been assured in the House that the great majority of the miners are—that they wish to hurry back to their work—there is no need for this extraordinary legislation to-day. If the Government is acting on the assumption that there is widespread disposition on the part of the miners to get back to work there is no need for these Regulations. I fear the Government know there is going to be no such widespread desire on the part of the miners, and that the desire exists only in a very small number here and there, and that these Regulations are going to be put into operation even more blatantly and callously than they have been. We get nearer, possibly, to what has been in the mind of the Government if we recall that they were taunted by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) some 11 months ago with a reference about "cold steel." The way in which the Home Secretary speaks and the general tenor of his address to the House, suggested to me that we are come
  1814
  to a more brutal epoch in this struggle, and, as a member of the Labour party, I want to protest against these Regulations. I hope I aid going to get an answer from the Home Secretary, if he has heard what I have said, in spite of the strange sounds from below the Gangway.
  Mr. PURCELL: What I want to say as regards these Regulations is that the continuance of them was quite to be expected. The attitude of the Government all the way through has not been in the direction of settling this dispute or getting an amicable settlement. It has been in the direction of assisting the coalowners to force the miners back to work under conditions which would be regarded by the labour movement in this country as highly detrimental. So I say, because of that, it was to be expected that their continuance would be asked for. I do not think any one of these Regulations assists in keeping the peace. On the contrary, they are provocative, because, as I have seen in many places, policemen who are friendly with the local agents are now separated from them. In many cases the police in a district were extremely friendly for many years with all the workmen in the district, but now that Regulations of this kind have been sent out broadcast, it naturally influences what people in the district call aloofness of the police, and there is, in my view, the position now created that the Regulations have become provocative where there was no provocation at all, and in Many instances there would be no bad feeling except for the existence of these Regulations. The right to search cannot be regarded as a thing that will be helpful in maintaining peace in a district. When people who are locked out know the possibility of being searched by certain people they naturally become suspicious of them, and it becomes provocative.
  I do not want to use my time up on that. I wish to use it for Regulation 13A, because I think the Home Secretary is highly mistaken as to the information he can get with regard to this matter. I am hopeful the Russians will send millions more money to this country. I not only hope they will send that money but that we shall be successful in raking up tremendous sums of money from the American continent, and I hope we shall

  1815
  decide within the next few days to send a delegation with the object of securing the maximum amount for the miners. What I want to say is that I hope we shall succeed in getting the full measure of support from the working classes of the world. I am not concerned, or very little concerned, whether the money comes from the Government of Russia or any other Government. We have no complaint on our side in regard to that. We have no right to complain even against the Soviet Government in view of the fact that we printed rouble notes in this country and printed a newspaper in this country for Russia. In addition to that we sent enormous quantities of khaki to the counter-revolutionaries, the cost of which was borne by the taxpayers of this country. We did worse than that. We printed posters in this country saying that if people in Southern Russia would go on the side of the Wrangels and Denikins we would see that the Vodka saloons were opened. Many of the members of this House were Members of the Government at that time. I do not say the Home Secretary was in the Government at that time.
  Mr. DIXEY: I would like to know whether we are entitled to have a complete discussion on Russia at this time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think Regulation 13a may have some application to Russia. That, I take it, is the case.
  Mr. PURCELL: I take it the Home Secretary said his desire was to know what was coming from Russia. Otherwise I would not have raised the matter. I hope we shall send representatives to other parts of the world to get money, but I also say we have no complaint against Russia any more than a complaint against Mexico or the United States. In the case of Russia I say we have less to complain of in that regard because of the fact that we spent £120,000,000 of British taxpayers' money for the purpose of destroying Russia, and by the very same people who purchased arms in Germany for the use of Ulster—the party opposite. I can quite understand why they object to money coming from Russia. The very man who did their dirty work at the last moment was executed in this country, namely, Sir Roger Casement, who was the emissary and was a traitor on either side as far as I can gather. I understand why
  1816
  people in this country oppose money coming in. I welcome the money because if it assists us to beat the mineowners I should be glad to get money from anywhere. That is our attitude. But what I want to get at is that by this Regulation the Home Secretary or the Government think they will prevent the money coming into this country. I do not think they will do anything of the kind. The same means that are used for getting money out of this country when it suits the purpose of the Government can be used on occasions of this kind to bring it into the country. I am bound to confess I have had to bring in money for the trade union movement, and I suppose we can resort to these means again. Because of that I oppose this Regulation in common with other Regulations. P want to say in a general way that the whole of the Regulations, including even the eight-hour proposal, which will soon he an Act of Parliament, together with the reconstruction Measure that is being promoted, cannot get us out of the present difficulty. Though I still believe that every effort we put forward should be in the direction of assisting the miners to win this dispute, yet I am bound to confess that the ineptness and want of foresight seems to be on the side of the Government of the day. Seriously, I am surprised that some one has not been able to indicate the proper course to deal with this matter. Nearly every dispute where politicians have interfered has been a very bad thing for the industry. That is what is the matter with the coal dispute. I have never been able to understand why some one from one side or the other has not tried to arrange a round table conference to try to hammer out what would be a satisfactory settlement. My own view is after long experience in regard to these matters—
  Captain P. MACDONALD: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member the right to discuss the coal situation at this point?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That really is not in order to-day, except as a helpful suggestion. I am reluctant to interfere, but I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue it.
  Mr. PURCELL: I submit that here we are discussing questions that arise out of the coal dispute. Of course, if it is not in order, I must drop it. But here we

  1817
  have all these Regulations designed for the purpose of helping some one in connection with this dispute. If you like, they are helping the Government in this dispute. But if there were no dispute, you would not want them. What I am urging is that something should be done to end the dispute.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly should not take exception to a single sentence like that. All I meant to say was that the hon. Member should not pursue that line on the present occasion.
  Mr. PURCELL: I must bow to your ruling. I think the Government are making a great mistake in continuing Regulations of this kind because what they are doing, as far as the organised workers of this country are concerned, is in a sense provoking them to disregard many of the Regulations and getting people into trouble who certainly had no intention of getting into that position at all, and then that is used against them for further strengthening these Regulations. I oppose them on these grounds. As I said on a previous occasion, I shall do all I can to render them nugatory, and I shall do all I can to show that they are designed for preventing the miners from getting what they desire, and to further strengthen and back up the mineowners against, the miners, and I hope that they will he broken down as speedily as possible.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: As I had the opportunity of taking part in the general Debate last. Friday I do not intend to detain the House long now. But I should like to draw the attention of the House to the particular Regulation which rather points out, the intention of having such extraordinary legislation at the disposal of the Ministers and also the methods of using them, apart from the general principle involved. First with regard to the new Regulation introduced, No. 13A, with regard to moneys from Russia. Let me again take the parallel. Here are two sides to a dispute. Arising out of a disagreement, they enter into a struggle. On the one hand, the coal miners say to the coalowners: "If you disagree with us and are not prepared to give us our fair terms we are not ready to give you the supplies of coal for your commercial purposes and consumption." On the other hand, the
  1818
  coalowners go to the miners and submit that if they are—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I. was pointing out with reference to Regulation 13A that the miners, according to their right, are saying to the owners that they would cease to supply them with the necessary amount of coal. The mineowners, on the other hand, say: "In order to make you surrender to our dictation, we shall hold back your food supplies, practically threaten your very lives and the lives of your dependants." Foreign countries like America or Germany can send, their coal to the mineowners and the coal merchants, and that is considered a patriotic act—the legitimate assistance given to the coal merchants and to the mineowners by supplying to them coal from outside this country. On the other hand, when the miners are deprived of their livelihood and their means of purchasing food, if their friends and the friends of their class supply them with money from abroad, then that is wrong. This clearly shows the Ministers of the Crown are not holding the balance of justice, but are seeking revenge on the miners and supporting the mineowners in their unrighteous attack on the miners. The new Regulation makes it perfectly plain that if the miners hold back the coal from the mineowners and coal merchants, any foreign merchants should be allowed to provide unlimited supplies, but if the coalowners hold back the sources from which the miner purchases his food, and the miner receives money from abroad then that is an act of treason and must be stopped. I further draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the manner in which he is cutting across the whole system of banking. T fail to see that there should be any distinction drawn between foreign money and home money. How can it he right to use home money for a certain purpose and wrong to use foreign money for the same purpose? It is also a great puzzle to understand which is home money and which is foreign money. I think most of the wealth earned by the British people is originally foreign money and afterwards becomes home money.

  1819
  I do not see, if the Home Secretary really is seeking powers to hold the balance of justice, why he should not take hold of the wealth of the wealth owners of Britain who are employing their wealth deliberately for the purpose of crushing the miners. We had an instance of it last week. There had been glowing advertisements from some impartial gentleman telling all about the coal. That is a fair example of how British wealth owners are here using their wealth for the explicit purpose of creating a prejudice against the miners and of breaking the peaceful atmosphere in which the miners are facing the situation. Why is the Home Secretary not worried about that use of money with a definite object of hurting and injuring one side in the dispute? So I am objecting to. this Regulation on the general principle, not that it is against gold or money or assistance coming from Russia —that in itself is a notorious bias in the mind of the Home Secretary—but on the principle that the same Government which is allowing assistance from abroad in the shape of coal to one side in the dispute is also trying to corner the other party to the dispute in a way in which they are not entitled to do.
  Then I come to Regulation 21, and I do so because it is likely to cause sedition. I would say, again, that the Conservative party and the Home Secretary are entitled to display their mentality to the best of their ability, but to talk of sedition and seditious intentions and seditious methods in 1926 is not only to display terrorism but it is also falling back on what. I may call a baboon mentality. Does it really come to that; to tell the human mind that, after all the progress we have evolved, any educated, sensible person in 1926 should go out and say: "I am afraid of sedition; I am afraid of you inviting other people to go wrong," as if other people had not got the sense to discriminate between right and wrong, and as if the Ministers of the Crown have the monopoly of judgment, and anybody who disagrees with them is a weak-minded person, who desires to incite? If they incite the working classes, then it is inculcating democratic principles, but when anybody wants to take up the cudgels on behalf of the working classes with a view to putting an end to the
  1820
  present state of affairs, then it is said to be sedition. What is sedition? It is not a scientific fact but a mental notion. As a speaker has pointed out, as the situation stands, every magistrate comes from that particular type of man who is haunted with the same cause—the law of sedition. It is all mental interpretation. If you go to the public masses and tell them to follow you, and you are trying to get opinion for a new thought, you are supposed to be sowing seeds of sedition; and if you go and cultivate as insistently and vigorously a doctrine, asking human beings to follow you back on some old-age superstition, then it becomes a virtue.
  Coming to Regulation 22, I ask the Home Secretary not to take offence if, at certain parts, I would hypothetically put to him the case in its worst aspect, in its worst possibilities. The Regulation is put forward very humourously:
  "Where there appears to be reason to apprehend"—
  Everything makes each stage more indefinite than the previous stage. It might as well read:
  "If there appears to be reason in the opinion of unreasonable head.''
  They would apprehend because of their nervousness or blind prejudice against the working classes. You pretend to apprehend when you do not apprehend, and if you do apprehend it may be the sign of a decaying moral something in you rather than a fault on the other side. Then the Regulation goes on
  "that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting or procession will conduce to a breach of the peace and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police, or will promote disaffection, it shall be lawful for a Secretary of State, or for the mayor, magistrates, or chief officer of police"—
  I think the remedy is a very simple one. If the Home Secretary will order the police not to go near any meetings or processions organised by the working classes of this country there will he no undue demand on them, no disturbance of the peace, and no apprehension in the mind of anybody as to what might happen, because nothing will happen. But here you are putting a string of words together in order to find an excuse and in order to give an appearance of law to what you are doing. I will now refer to an incident which has

  1821
  been already mentioned. There was a. meeting announced in my constituency for last Friday. The meeting was to take place at 7 o'clock, and about 5.30 the organiser of the meeting received this notice from the Commissioner of Police, Sir William Horwood:
  "I William Thomas Francis Horwood, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in pursuance of Section 22 of the Emergency Regulations, 1926, and in accordance with the expressed authority of the Secretary of State, do hereby prohibit a meeting announced to be held 'by the Communist party at the Latchmere Baths on 2nd July, 1926."
  There was another letter received a few minutes later from the Town Clerk of the Battersea Borough Council. It was addressed to the Small Hall, Latchmere Road Baths, and ran:
  "I have just received intimation from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the meeting which you are proposing to hold at the above hall to-night has been prohibited under the Emergency Regulations 1926."
  That was signed by the town clerk. In the first place, if I may correct the Home Secretary, I will point out that, the Regulations we are discussing to-night have not yet been passed. So neither the Police Chief Commissioner or the Home Secretary or the tows clerk would have stopped the meeting under these Regulations that we are discussing to-night, hut which we have not sanctioned.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Regulations under the Act are good for seven days without being passed. They are now being continued.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Am I to understand that this meeting was stopped in anticipation of the Regulations which we are now discussing being passed at the beginning of July?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What was the date?
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: The 2nd July.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That meeting was stopped under these Regulations. The Act of Parliament is good for seven days.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: There was this advertisement in the "Daily Herald":
  "Saklatvala in Battersea to-night at 8. Small Hall, Latchmere Baths. Meeting of
  1822
  sympathisers of Communist Party. Roll up early."
  I dare say that the writing of advertisements is an art which was taught to us by the Conservative party. There was nothing very extraordinary about the meeting, and under the peculiar circumstances in which we are working it was quite obvious to anybody. In the first instance, responsible authorities like the police might have easily inquired that in the small hall of Latchmere Baths permission is granted only for 200 persons. It was a small hall taken for a small meeting. It was no sort of public meeting where even the police could have the excuse that they might think there was reason to apprehend an assembly of persons who would burst out into a formidable revolution which the whole of the Army of this country would not be able to quell in time. They make no inquiry why this meeting was held, why it was called, the purpose of it or how the apprehension arose. They merely came a couple of hours beforehand to say this meeting shall not be held. The worst pretence put forward was that an undue demand would be made on the police. There was an unduly large number of police parading the streets to see that the meeting did not take place. That was a wanton waste of public money. I will not tire the House, but the position as arose is this. It has become quite notorious that a very large price is put, not on my physical head, hut on my political head in my constituency and any Tory gentleman who will oust me and win back the constituency for the Conservative party will have a niche as a saviour of the Empire. There is a great amount of activity displayed and this activity is riot always along the right lines from my point of view: but perfectly right lines from the other people's point of view. About the end of March and April it was becoming evident that I should take necessary steps to have my organisation tightened up and put in proper order, and that feature has been well known to our local Conservative friends. By the end of April there is disturbance arising out of the Liverpool Conference resolution in the Labour ranks and one has to appeal under such circumstances to such members of the Labour movement who are sympathisers with the Communist

  1823
  movement. In these circumstances we were contemplating holding a series of meetings asking friends in the Labour movement who have no prejudices against the Communist party to come and strengthen my political organisation. That was the meaning of a small meeting of sympathisers to be called together. There was nothing to indicate that this meeting was going to be a large demonstration which would get out of hand, and that there was likely to be trouble. I do not know why the Home Secretary prohibited this meeting, but the fact remains that it was prohibited. Information came to hand that according to instructions every meeting that is called by the Communist party will be prohibited.
  Mr. HANNON: These Regulations are not intended for Battersea only. They apply to the whole country. Is it not a little too much of the personal note?
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: It was only applied to Battersea. They are used to suit the political convenience of the Tory party, and they are not applied in an impartial manner to the whole country. The local police informs me that they are going to prohibit and suppress every meeting that I am going to address. There is a democratic understanding as far as-I am concerned—it is a definite pledge which I have observed and kept—to at least once a month render an account of what has gone on in Parliament. I do not see why suddenly all such meetings of a general character —which in the past in no single instance have put any strain upon the police — should be prohibited. That shows the great. danger and the great temptation that we are putting in the hands of a Home Secretary, who has confessed himself rather weak in that direction and prone to yield to temptations when they overwhelm him. I put it quite seriously that if these sort of Regulations are passed there is a tendency to make some use of them, and when the tendency is existing the general inclination is not to use the Regulations in a case which really and genuinely seems likely to respond to the conditions laid down, but to use them in a case where the Home Secretary or his subordinate officials think on the whole it
  1824
  will be a popular thing to do, and there will be no unpopularity coming out of such and such a situation. There is the other point which I wish to submit to the House very seriously. We hear very often about the administration of justice and the public administration of justice carried out in Britain on a cleaner basis as compared to the administration of justice and law in many other countries.
  3.0 A.M.
  I do not for a moment believe that Britain has preserved a certain amount of freedom from corruption, and from undesirable practices in the administration of the law, because the people of this country are heaven-born or divinely directed; it is because the general practice and system of the law is arranged so as to make the opportunities for corruption, and temptations for it, few and far between. It is only by these disciplinary measures that we arrived at a standard not of perfection, but very near perfection, as you might say. It is this kind of law that I suggest might easily take you back to the undesirable types from which you have come out with an effort. What would be the effect when members of certain parties are at the mercy of local police to strengthen their Parliamentary position, or weaken it? It is not merely the higher authorities who are concerned. There are, after all, subordinate servants, and they are human beings. It is this sort of law which leads to corruption. A Member might go to a Government official and give him dark hints that he would be a good friend to him if he suppressed a meeting of his rival. There is reason to apprehend that there is danger that he will do the good turn and hope that it will not be forgotten. These are the things that ultimately lead to corruption and actually poison public life altogether as they have done in other countries. We cannot claim that we are immune from it in this country because we are Anglo-Saxon. We know that from America, where they have not been able to preserve complete purity against corruption. I submit that the whole of these Regulations, numbers 21 and 22, are of a dangerous type, and that they really bear no relationship to the present dispute, or the present position. There is nothing in the existing laws that would not enable the authorities to cope with any deliberately planned mischief, and

  1825
  especially with sedition and public meetings. The ordinary laws are quite elastic enough, and this Clause, if carefully looked into, can only be called into requisition for the purpose of abusing power rather than using power.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is probably not conscious of it, but I must remind him that he is repeating himself very frequently.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am not opposing these Regulations with the ordinary argument that they are not necessary. I further claim that the bringing in of these Regulations is a menace and danger to the constitutional progress and development of this country, and to the stage at which we have arrived in keeping the administration of justice free from corruption. I also repeat emphatically my objection to the whole of these Regulations.
  Miss WILKINSON: My object is to bring before the House some cases that have been brought to my notice, and the way in which this legislation actually works. It is perfectly possible, when you are discussing these things in the leisure and decorous atmosphere of this House, to think that there is nothing very serious in these Regulations; that they may be useful, and that it does not matter if they are not. One can get into the habit of giving the Government powers like this without realising what they are actually like, when they are put into operation not by the Home Secretary, or the Under-Secretary, but by the local police, and, still worse, by the magistrates, who have shown themselves in many districts completely prejudiced and acting with political bias, and the bias dictated by their own pecuniary interest. I have, through the Class War Prisoners' Aid Association, come in contact with a number of these cases, and it has astonished me the number of magistrates who are themselves coal-owners, or large employers of labour, who have not hesitated to take their places on the Bench and to deliver judgment in cases when their own property was concerned, and certainly where their own interests were concerned. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but I think he will hardly deny that there is a number of cases. It is the custom in this country to give the
  1826
  magistracy into the hands of the local gentry, and there is case after case where men and women have been prosecuted, fined, and even imprisoned for little more, or anything more, than would, in ordinary eases, have been considered peaceful picketing. I have cases in Peterborough—all men concerned in trying to persuade other men who were drivers of omnibuses and other vehicles not to work. Had this been a purely local strike, this would have been considered peaceful picketing. They are now imprisoned for periods from six weeks to three months. I have other cases too which give some idea of how these things work. In a London street there was picketing going on during the general strike and six girls came out—I can give the Under-Secretary the name of the street and the girls concerned came out of a local clothing factory. They had no concern in the dispute whatever, but when they came out there was a fuss going on in the street and they became interested spectators. The police made a raid on the street and arrested people right and left, one of them being a woman. She was brought before the magistrates and remitted three times. There was not a jot or tittle of evidence against her to associate her with what was going on in the street, but she was lectured on her trade union activity—she was a. member of the Tailors' and Garment Makers' Union—and she was fined £5. That is a case which would not have occurred but for this emergency legislation when people are tried in a general atmosphere of panic.
  I will take another case. One of the things that are disturbing decent people at the present time is the growth in the activity of the secret police in this country. Many of us who have thought ourselves private citizens have been astonished to find we have been honoured with the attentions of these gentlemen. I have had to bring a case of this kind to the notice of the Home Secretary. When you get people trying deliberately to get others to trap themselves under the Emergency Regulations, the country has a right to he suspicious. May I give an instance. In Northumberland or Durham, I think it was Durham, the chairman of the Urban District Council was a very active worker in connection with the dispute. He was a miner. He

  1827
  was accompanied by the miners' official, who went into the local public house by himself and met his friends as usual. I imagine this House is not going to take a teetotal attitude. The chairman of the Urban District Council, who was a strict teetotaller, did not enter the public house. The miners' official was engaged in conversation by a man who was in the public house and who cleverly led him to make certain statements. I must admit he foolishly brought in the Chairman of the Urban District Council to bear out what he was saying. [An HON. MEMBER: "What, the teetotaller?"] I am not aware that he partook of alcoholic refreshment. The result was that without any specific charge except that of sedition both of these men, responsible people, one of them a highly responsible person elected as a local government representative and the other a miners' official, were imprisoned. One would suppose that, hon. Members would feel somewhat shocked at the regrettable fact that these men are now in prison instead of treating it as the subject for joking. It has caused more bitterness and dissatisfaction than almost anything that has happened in the area. One can go to case after case. Over 2,000 men and women I understand are now in prison under this Emergency Powers Act, many of them for offences of the most trivial character. But what is stiill worse is that many of them, obscure persons, were imprisoned for offences which are nothing like as serious from the Government point of view as the offences for which people were imprisoned in the general strike.
  I made a particular point of repeating in public the remarks made by obscurer persons who had been sent to prison for these same remarks. Nothing was done because Members of Parliament were concerned, but obscure members of the Transport Workers' Union or the National Union of Railwaymen were treated differently, and everything was done to intimidate these people. That is the kind of thing that happens when you get panic legislation of this kind. I think everybody will admit that there never has been a country that has gone through such a period of great crisis with such quietness as this country, and no thanks to the Home Secretary and his immediate officials. Whatever provocation has
  1828
  been given has been given by the Home Secretary, but in spite of that the trade unionists have remained wonderfully quiet, and have conducted their case with dignity and reserve. I would remind hon. Members that this is not something that will continue in the face of provocation, such as the statement we had from the Home Secretary before the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) was put into gaol. Apparently, the Home Secretary regards it as part of his duty to prosecute people, but I suggest it is not his duty to go out of his way and look for offences, or employ an army of spies such as is employed in connection with the mining dispute, and then expect that people will put up with it. Making speeches in this House is like talking to a stone wall. It is talking to a stonewall majority. If there was a democratic majority in this House, one would think they would hesitate before giving the Home Secretary, who is liable to lose his head, such powers as those contained in this emergency legislation.
  Mr. BECKETT: I listened very carefully to the statement made by the Home Secretary, and to the statements made by his supporters on the benches opposite, and I am still at a complete loss so far as the statements made on the other side of the House are concerned to know why they are supporting this legislation to-night. But I am at no loss in being able to give my own reasons for the re-introduction of these proposals. The two miners' officials who were mentioned by the last speaker are both men living within a very short distance from my own constituency. These men are having plenty of time for reminiscences. These two men, one of whom is a member of the executive of the National Labour party, after they had been arrested on the trivial faked-up offences which the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has adequately revealed, were brought to Gateshead for their trial and tried before a bench of magistrates which included Sir Alfred Palmer, one of the largest coalowners in our district. At a time when feeling was running high in the coalfields, as it is at the present moment, to arrest men, rightly or wrongly, for what the law may consider too active a part in this dispute, and to have them tried by the people they are fighting, is tantamount to altering the rules of cricket so as Jack Hobbs

  1829
  is to decide whether he had his leg before the wicket. I had hoped after the Amendment that would have corrected this that I would have got in to speak. It is surely totally unnecessary when the State, rightly or wrongly, takes an active part in this dispute, and arrests people who are fighting according to their lights on one side of the dispute, to have them brought into Court and tried by people on the other side of the economic war.
  It would be better for people interested in the coal industry not to act in their capacity as magistrates in cases arising out of this dispute. It seems to me that that would be such an elementary proposition of decency and fairplay that hon. Members on any side of the House might accept it as a fair and honourable suggestion. But after the last speech of the Home Secretary, I feel it is almost impossible to expect fair play in this country. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated himself on his moderation after having put so many people in prison for taking what is considered to be too active a view in the interests of their class. Most of it is done, according to the Home Secretary, under Regulation 21. I have seen just a. little of this Regulation at work because, like the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough, during the general strike I found the general public much more useful to appeal to than my colleagues in the House of Commons. I have seen the results of this constant policy of suspicion and of watching and of creating offences and doing everything, possible to make offences in Newcastle, during the general strike, I saw the special police on their duties. The accounts of the riots and troubles in Newcastle were very much exaggerated, but there were riots and anyone who saw the way in which boys hardly out of school, dressed in the most unsuitable manner, were swaggering about the streets with special constables' amulets on their arms could only wonder that the workers of Tyneside showed so much discretion and gentlemanliness.
  We have the further Regulation, which is very dangerous indeed, with regard to the employment of outside police. That is probably the worst thing you can possibly do in any industrial area if you want to avoid any considerable trouble. In my own constituency, the
  1830
  largest industrial constituency in the country, we went all through the general strike without any trouble and without a scratch or brawl of any kind. But three days after the general strike was over, we had a demonstration held in the town. Police were imported from other districts and at once we had trouble and two policemen and other people were hurt. That was purely because the police in our own town and the chief constable of the town understand the people with whom they have to deal and the people understand them and can get through the biggest demonstration or procession without the slightest trouble. But as soon as you get strange police in who do not understand the temperament of the people you get trouble and all these things happening. We have also suffered under Regulation 22. We have had our processions banned and stopped. It reads most absurdly:
  "It shall be lawful for a Secretary of State, or for any mayor, magistrate, or chief officer of police who is duly authorised by a Secretary of State—"
  to ban any procession for any reason he considers likely to cause trouble. I would suggest, as moderately as I can, that however efficient and however capable for many things a great number of the mayors and magistrates of our towns are, they are riot so free in many cases from class bias and class prejudice that they can be relied on to be the sole arbiters of whether a procession is likely to lead to disorder. You have also the right to search. If I make a speech in some street corner or hall and a policeman is listening and understands as little as some Members of this House, then, if he does not like what I say, he goes away and represents that a seditious speech has been delivered and the police come and search my house If your houses were searched, even a Tory Member, there would be found in those houses specimens of literature that could easily be dubbed revolutionary literature. I take it that Conservative or Liberal Members of Parliament who wish to understand the cases they have to make in argument and debate will do the same as most of us do on these benches and read the literature on the other side in order to meet their case. If that is clone on the other side of the House, there are

  1831
  very few of us who could stand the kind of search for revolutionary literature which many of those men and women now imprisoned happened to have in their homes. [Interruption.] I know there may be some Members who never read anything, but I am speaking for the majority of us. And then we get in the final phrase of the Home Secretary's speech a remark which really makes you think—and if there is one Member on the benches opposite whom I think less biased by personal interest it is the Home Secretary; in many things I think he is a very charming person. This is more than I can say for many of his followers. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the "Under-Secretary?"] The Under-Secretary has shown in this House a certain sense of what is called cricket, and that is why I am surprised, or shall be surprised, if he has his own way, if he remains entirely deaf to our plea that where miners are had up for illegal actions in this dispute they shall not be tried by mineowners but by more impartial people. That seems to me to be cricket, and I hope it will appear to the Parliamentary Secretary in the same way. But to revert to my speech when I was reminded by hon. Members opposite, and I am obliged to them, of the very obvious virtues of the Parliamentary Secretary, I would rather deal, if I may, with the end of the speech of the Secretary of State himself. In that speech he showed himself, as he shows himself in every public utterance, and has done before by any previous utterance in this House, entirely lacking in every sense of public decency. To the mind of any man not entirely biased it is positively indecent for the Secretary of State to speak of a man one day and say his fingers are itching to arrest him and then clap the man in prison the next. It is positively indecent to speak of a man who has a greater reputation among the masses of the people of this country than anyone who speaks on the benches opposite—[Interruption.] Well, go to the country and see; this is a thing which can only he proved when you Gentlemen opposite give us a chance. Provocative things are said every day by prominent leaders on your side, and to get up here and threaten the greatest trade union leader
  1832
  this country has seen for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name name!"] It may be news, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may just mention this subject—it may be news to many Members to know that a few months ago a poll was held by a Labour paper, with a certain number of labour leaders and trade union leaders, to decide who were the twelve most popular leaders in the labour and trade union movement.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member had better not continue his anecdotes.
  Mr. BECKETT: I am sorry; I was diverted from the strict subject of the argument, but I was brought to it by the fact that the Home Secretary to-night informed us that he wanted these Regulations passed in order that he might be able to imprison a man who has been pronounced again and again one of the 12 most trusted and popular leaders in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name, name!"] I would say this, as I am sure Mr. Cook would say it—that he would rather have the respect of one workman than he would have the respect of the whole of the Conservative Members of this House. Finally, we get a suggestion—a continual suggestion—from those unfortunate individuals who have to make speeches instead of zoological noises from the benches opposite. We get continual suggestions from them that it is very unfair of Members on these benches to continually accuse the Government of being partial, biased, and solely acting with one side in this dispute. The other night one gallant Gentleman on the other side came to me and said, "I will flog you within an inch of your life."
  Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. Is it in order to tell another anecdote?
  Mr. BECKETT: I shall be quite content, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to speak in accordance with your discretion. This is not an anecdote. This is an account of the behaviour of one of the hired bullies of the party opposite.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see what that has to do with the Debate.
  Mr. BECKETT: If the hon. Gentleman opposite will wait I will tell the House what it has to do with it.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it in order to refer to hon. Members as hired bullies?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It might be in order or it might not.
  Mr. BECKETT: And all this proves that these Regulations are part and parcel of a continual campaign by the party opposite, which makes the country as a whole disbelieve their continual assertions that they are fair-minded and impartial. It is not a bit of good, while you go on passing the kind of legislation you are passing now, to threaten to flog Members who tell the truth. That has nothing to do with the case. What Would have far more effect in convincing the country of your good will—because they do not have to sit opposite you like we do and may believe you have some—would be if the Government, instead of making verbal assertions, would give us some kind of solid proof that they are in earnest in their desire.
  The best way that they could do that would be by the withdrawal of these Regulations, which, except for the doubtful virtue of enabling the Home Secretary to impress Mr. Cook, have nothing whatever to be said in their favour. If, as has been said earlier in the Debate, it was the slightest use of appealing to the chivalry or ordinary decency of the party opposite, we should see that the workers in this dispute are already sufficiently handicapped. You have the money, you have the Press, you have a great majority, and you have every advantage, electorally and industrially, on your side. If you have any kind of case at all you can well afford not to go ahead with the unfair political instrument which these Emergency Regulations grant you, and you cannot do anything else but substantiate the charge we have made in this House that you are legislating solely in the interests of the people who draw money out of coal and minerals.
  Mr. BATEY: I am going to oppose these Regulations, and I want to do so as a miners' representative. I believe these Regulations are aimed at the miners. No miner has spoken to-night, and that is the reason why I am speaking. As a matter of fact, there is no one else they can be aimed at this month nor last month, and why the Government should select the miners for their bitter hatred, is one of the things I cannot understand. Why the Government
  1834
  should use their strong power to oppress the miners is beyond my comprehension. The Prime Minister said during the general strike that the miners should have a square deal. Well, this is not giving the miners a square deal. This is really an insult to the miners, and I want to submit that the conduct of the miners during the dispute in 1921 and in other years was such as not to warrant the reimposition of Regulations like these. The Home Secretary to-night in his speech never attempted to justify these Regulations. As a matter of fact, the Home Secretary's speech justified the Opposition in opposing these Regulations as strongly as ever they possibly can. Had the Home Secretary been here I should like to have asked him this—as to how long he means to continue these Regulations. We have had these Regulations continued for one month. The hon. Members on the other side do not expect the coal dispute to end in a month. If they do, then I think they are under a delusion. In my own county we have some thousands of men who have been locked out for the last 12 months, and I am quite certain of this, that you will not find these men ready to go back to work as Members on the other side seem to think. Unless the Government does something differently than at present, these people will be in the lock-out at the end of this month and at the end of next month. What is the Home Secretary going to do at the end or beginning of next month. It is reported in the Press that the House is likely to rise before the end of this month. If the House rises at the end of this month or before the end of this month, what is he going to do at the beginning of September. Oh, I can well imagine hon. Members on the other side being quite willing to be recalled from their holidays to come to the House of Commons for the purpose of voting again to re-impose these Regulations upon the miners. It seems to me that the Home Secretary, if he is justified in having these Regulations this month, then he is justified in having the Regulations next month and the month after. It seems to me that the Home Secretary has two things in mind in re-imposing these Regulations. The first thing he has in mind is this. On Wednesday we are going to he asked to vote money for the purpose of bringing

  1835
  blackleg coal into the country, coal purchased by the Government.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: On a point of Order. Is it right that the hon. Member should refer to working men in other countries as blacklegs?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait until Wednesday to debate this question.
  Mr. BATEY: I am quite willing to wait until Wednesday for the Vote of the money. I am using it as an illustration to show what is in the mind of the Home Secretary in imposing these Regulations to-night.
  Sir H. SLESSER: May we be allowed to have the Debate without constant interruption?
  Mr. BATEY: I am glad the Home Secretary has returned. I hope that he has had a good breakfast, and that he will be able to enjoy the Debate. [Interruption.] I am not in the least objecting to the interruptions, but they are wasting time. What I was saying was for the benefit of the Home Secretary, and I want him to hear. I want to repeat it for his benefit. I was saying that there were two things in the mind of the Home Secretary in his action in desiring to re-impose these Regulations.
  Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has admitted that he is repeating just what he told us five minutes ago. He says he is doing it for the benefit of the Home Secretary, but is it in order to repeat what he has already said two or three times?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order to repeat.
  Mr. PALIN: Is it not in order when a speaker is asking a definite question for information, and the person who has the information is not in at the time? Is it not in order to repeat the question when the Minister referred to returns?
  Mr. BATEY: I was endeavouring to read the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and to show that there was reason to believe that he had two objects in view in re-imposing these Regulations. One of these is that the Government is going to buy coal; is going to bring in
  1836
  coal which is blackleg coal. [Interruption.] If you do not want the Home Secretary to hear, I do. I was saying that the Government was going to bring in blackleg coal, if it possibly can, for the purpose of defeating the miners. One of the things that naturally will arise is this: That the miners in order to defen themselves will try to prevent blackleg coal being imported. Naturally the miners will try to get the transport workers and the railwaymen not to handle coal. [Interruption.] Now that I am on my feet I am in no hurry. I think the Home Secretary will understand the line the miners will take. It is natural for them to do everything they possibly can to prevent coal coming in. Is it the intention of the Home Secretary when he has reimposed these Regulations to say that if the miners attempt to persuade the transport workers or the railwaymen he will deal with the miners under these Regulations? I believe that is one of the objects in the mind of the Home Secretary in pushing through these Regulations. I think the other idea in the mind of the Home Secretary is this: He succeeded last week in pushing through this House the Eight Hours Bill, and he did it in the expectation that once that Bill has become an Act of Parliament the miners will rush back to work. If there is any intimidation it will come from the friends of the other side, it will not come from our friends, the workmen. We never find intimidation necessary. In past years we have always had to fight against the intimidation of the owners, whom you are backing at the moment. You have got the impression that the miners will rush back to work, and is it your intention in getting these Regulations that you will be better able to protect the miners from those who do not go back to work? The Home Secretary, in his speech to-night, dealt with the leader of the Miners' Federation. The leader of the Miners' Federation, the right hon. Gentleman said had made a speech, and the Home Secretary inferred that the leader of the Miners' Federation had said something that would almost bring him within the four corners of these Regulations. The speech that was delivered by the official of the Miners' Federation was a speech delivered in answer to the Home Secretary himself. The first person guilty in that respect was the Home Secretary, and

  1837
  not the official of the Miners' Federation. The Home Secretary used these words:
  "Any man who wanted to work would receive the protection of all His Majesty's Forces."
  4.0 A.M.
  It is two or three weeks since the Home Secretary made that speech, and I want to ask him if he has had to protect anyone since? Was there a rush into the pits by blacklegs; has he found that there has been such a big demand on the part of the blacklegs to go to the pits? As the weeks and the months go on he will find it. Unless the Government are prepared to do something different from what they are doing at present, it may develop into years. The Home Secretary up to the present time has found no great desire since he made his speech on the part of anybody to blackleg the miners in spite of the protection offered to them by the Home Secretary. I am objecting to these Regulations, because we have an experience of them. These Regulations have been in force eight weeks, but I wonder if the Home Secretary can tell us how many miners have been arrested within the last four weeks in order to make these Regulations necessary to-night. I could well understand the Home Secretary coming to the House last month to get the Regulations, because of the experience of former months, but I cannot understand the Home Secretary coming for them this month, because last month, so far as I am aware, there was not a single miner arrested. If that he so, these Regulations are totally unnecessary.
  We also oppose these Regulations because they make it so easy to have men arrested and tried and convicted and sent to prison during their enforcement. These men have never been in prison before, and some of the men, we believe, were unfairly sent to prison. We believe that if they had been tried before an unbiased bench of Magistrates they would not have been sent to prison. Some of them were sent to prison with the coalowners in the chair on the magisterial bench. They were not only sent to prison, but had a lecture delivered to them by the coalowners. That is what you can expect from the Tories. I come from a county which is a large mining district. There we have scarcely any representation on the magisterial bench. We have only 30 Labour men on
  1838
  the magisterial bench, and against that number we have 300 reactionaries.
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Are objections as to the magistracy allowed on this Debate?
  Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that it is within the right of hon. Members of this House to comment upon the political opinions of magistrates?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should confine himself to what is actually part of the Regulation. These questions can be brought before a higher Court of Judges.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Is there a shadow of evidence against the impartiality of any magistrates?
  Mr. BATEY: I hope you will not lay any blame upon me—
  Mr. ERSKINE: Am I not entitled to an answer? There is no shadow of evidence against the magistracy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a question for me to answer.
  Mr. BATEY: I hope you are not going to lay any blame on my shoulders for this discussion on the magistracy. What I was pointing out was this that under these Regulations it is so easy for men to be arrested and tried and sent to gaol in cases where there is no justification. We believe they would not have been sent to, prison if it had not been that the magisterial bench was composed of members of the opposite party.
  Mr. WRAGG: If these eases were obviously so unjust, why was appeal not made?
  Mr. BATEY: They did not have the money to pay for an appeal. I was arguing that in the big mining district it is a big disadvantage when people have to be tried in local courts. When our men have got to be tried before men opposed to them, then these Regulations become to us a very serious matter. Seeing that hon. Members are not in a hurry, I want to deal with two or three of these Regulations. I want to ask the Home Secretary if it is necessary to have Regulation 18? It is a very short Regulation, and it reads:
  "It shall be lawful for the Postmaster-General to direct that telegraphic messages

  1839
  of such classes or descriptions as he may prescribe shall not be accepted for transmission."
  May I ask the Home Secretary whether that Regulation is really necessary to-day? Is it fair? Suppose, for example, the Miners' Federation decides to send out telegrams to each of the mining districts not to resume work under the Eight Hours Act and the new terms posted this week by the Mining Association. The Postmaster-General can refuse to allow those telegrams to be sent. It is putting far too much power in the bands of the Postmaster-General to give him such power as that. There is another Regulation, No. 26. It deals with the importing of police from one district into another. We had an experience up in Durham County of the importing of police during the general strike. Near my own division there was a baton charge.I believe that —[Interruption].
  Mr. J. JONES: You know more about a bacon charge, some of you.
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that under Standing Order 19 an hon. Member is not allowed to use statements produced in the House before. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) is repeating what has been said before.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: Further to that point of Order, is it not a fact that we are discussing these Regulations afresh?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a question of previous Debates at all. There has been a good deal of repetition. Standing Order 19 states that a Member must not repeat his own arguments or arguments used by other Members.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Was not the hon. Member referring to a specific baton charge near his own division, which was not referred to to-night by any other Member?
  Mr. SPEAKER: My remark was a general one. There has been a good deal of repetition. I will bear what the hon. Member has to say.
  Mr. BATEY: I was rather surprised that that point was raised because this is the first time I have raised the matter. I draw attention to this Regulation simply for the purpose of referring to that baton charge. It was made near
  1840
  to my own division.I believe there would have been no trouble if it had not been for the imported police brought into Durham county. One cannot understand the Home Secretary clinging to this Regulation now that the general strike is over and only the miners' lockout in existence. If there had been the slightest need for this Regulation with the idea of putting police from one district into another district, then I should have understood it, but in my opinion it is one of the Regulations which the Home Secretary need not think about. With regard to the Regulations about prohibiting money from abroad, I feel strongly that this Regulation is here for the purpose, as the Home Secretary said to-night, that he could get to know what money was coming from Russia or any other country to the miners. I believe that if he could get the power he would gladly use this Regulation to prevent the money coming for the miners. Although it is coming for the purpose of helping to feed miners' wives and children, the Home Secretary and the Government would prevent it coming if they dared. I think this is a dangerous Regulation to put into the hands of the Home Secreary, because if he can get the least excuse to stop the money coming from Russia or any other country he will do so. I would accept this money coming from Russia, and as much money as ever Russia could send, in order to feed our wives and bairns. I would accept money from Germany and Austria, or from wherever it might come. I would take all the money—[Interruption]—yes, I would even take it from you, and it is going a long way when I would take it from Tories. There is another Regulation, which I would have been glad to support if I thought the Government would use it. It is Regulation 14, which is one of the best in the whole bunch. But it is too good for the Government to use. It says:
  "The Board of Trade may take possession and may from time to time, as may be deemed expedient, relinquish and resume possession of,"
  and then in Section (d) it continues:
  "any plant, machinery. … as may be deemed requisite for the purposes of maintaining the supply or distribution of coal."
  I take it that they could take possession of the coal mines. That is a good Regulation, but it is too good for the

  1841
  Government to use. It is the one Regulation they ought to use. The Eight Hours Bill is no solution. The Government ought to take possession of the coal mines and work the coal mines because the owners will not do so. I can not understand why the Government are so bitterly opposed to the miners and are using their strong power to oppose the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not!"] They are not? Why, during the general strike I sat here and heard hon. Members opposite say, "If it was not for this general strike we would have sympathy with the miners." But since the general strike they have not shown the least sympathy with the miners. Everything the Government is doing—and every Member of the Conservative party is responsible for the Government's actions—everything that
  the Government is doing is to oppress the miners and push the miners further down. I want to ask the Home Secretary as to whether that is a wise policy on the part of the Government. You may do it and succeed, but as sure as ever you do it there will come a time when you will wish you had not, and you will be full of regrets for the position you have occupied and the policy you have pursued towards the miners of the country.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 320.]

  AYES.

  [4.20 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D

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

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Balniel, Lord

  Grace, John

  Penny, Frederick George

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Percy, Lord Eustace {Hastings)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Pilcher, G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Harland, A.

  Preston, William

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R,

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Radford, E. A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R I.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth Kennington)

  Raine, W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Ramsden, E.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Rye, F. G.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Couper, J. B.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Huntingfield, Lord

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

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Crookshank,Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  Lamb, J. O.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lougher, L.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Edmondson, Major A. J

  McLean, Major A.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Merriman, F. B.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Withers, John James

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pucisey and Otley)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wells, S. R.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D T.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Major Cope and Captain Margesson

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

  NOES.

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

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

  Scurr, John

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, Rt, Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thurtle, E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lansbury, George

  Wallhead, Richard C

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Dennison, R.

  Lunn, William

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Dunnico, H.

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gillett, George M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Question put accordingly, "That the Regulation made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated 28th June, 1926, shall continue in force, subject,
  however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act."
  The House divided: Ayes, 181 ; Noes, 64.

  Division No. 321.]

  AYES.

  [4.30 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cunliffe. Sir Herbert

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Albery, Irving Jumes

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

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

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Bainlel, Lord

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hopkins. J. W. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Bourne, Captain Robert Crott

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Braithwalte, A. N.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Fermoy, Lord

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lougher, L.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

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

  Christle, J. A.

  Goff, Sir Park

  McLean, Major A.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grace, John

  MacMillan, Captain H.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.

  Greene. W. P. Crawford

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Couper, J. B.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

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

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

  Harland, A.

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sandernan, A. Stewart

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Wells, S. R.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Pllcher, G.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Preston, William

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Radford, E. A.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Raine, W.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Withers, John James

  Ramsden, E.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Wragg, Herbert

  Remer, J. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ropner, Major L

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  NOES.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thurtle, E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lansbury, George

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley. F. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Dennison, R.

  Lunn, William

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Dunnico, H

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gillett, George M

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson end Coine)

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

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

  Scurr, John

  Resolved,
  "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 28th June, 1926, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act."

  HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  "The remaining Orders were read, and postponed."
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Five o'clock a.m.

ROYAL NAVY.
  HONG KONG.
  HONG KONG.
  SINGAPORE BASE (FEDERATED MALAY STATES CONTRIBUTION).
  SINGAPORE BASE (FEDERATED MALAY STATES CONTRIBUTION).
BRITISH ARMY.
  DRY CANTEEN, BERE ISLAND.
  DRY CANTEEN, BERE ISLAND.
  MENTION IN DESPATCHES (EMBLEM).
  MENTION IN DESPATCHES (EMBLEM).
  MEDICAL CORPS, DENTAL CORPS, AND VETERINARY CORPS
  MEDICAL CORPS, DENTAL CORPS, AND VETERINARY CORPS
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  ROYAL AIR FORCES (ATTACHES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCES (ATTACHES).
INDIA.
  SEAMEN, BENGAL (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  SEAMEN, BENGAL (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
EDUCATION.
  PROVISION OF MEALS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  PROVISION OF MEALS, STAFFORDSHIRE.
  EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
  EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (CONTROL, CARLISLE).
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (CONTROL, CARLISLE).
  NORTHERN ELAND LAND ACT.
  NORTHERN ELAND LAND ACT.
  FRANCHISE (WOMEN).
  FRANCHISE (WOMEN).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC, GREAT WEST ROAD (PROSECUTIONS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC, GREAT WEST ROAD (PROSECUTIONS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER.
  MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
AGRICULTURE.
  LAND CULTIVATION (CONVERSION).
  LAND CULTIVATION (CONVERSION).
  BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  ARABLE DAIRY FARMING
  ARABLE DAIRY FARMING
  LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS.
  LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS.
  CREDITS.
  CREDITS.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
  ROYAL MINT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  ROYAL MINT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  PRISONS OFFICERS' PENSIONS (EXTENDED SERVICE).
  PRISONS OFFICERS' PENSIONS (EXTENDED SERVICE).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS.
  EASTERN AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES' OFFICE.
  EASTERN AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES' OFFICE.
  MASAI INQUIRY (REPORT).
  MASAI INQUIRY (REPORT).
  KENYA (NATIVES).
  KENYA (NATIVES).
  CEYLON (POLL TAX).
  CEYLON (POLL TAX).
COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  FACTORS AND MERCHANTS.
  FACTORS AND MERCHANTS.
  OWNERS AND DIRECTORS.
  OWNERS AND DIRECTORS.
  COTTON IMPORTS.
  COTTON IMPORTS.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTORS).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTORS).
  TRANSPORT, NORTH AND EAST LONDON.
  TRANSPORT, NORTH AND EAST LONDON.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, SADDLEWORTH (FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT, SADDLEWORTH (FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS).
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (WITHDRAWALS).
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (WITHDRAWALS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Its object, as your Lordships are certainly aware, is, by way of an exceptional or emergency measure, to permit in certain mines, where it is adopted, one hour's more work to be done per day. The method by which that object is sought to be accomplished is as follows: Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, the Eight Hours Act, it was provided that in any mine where the owner or the manager so desired one hour's more work might be done in the day on not more than sixty days in the year, and when the Seven Hours Act was passed in 1919 that exception was left alive. The Bill simply provides for striking out the words "on not more than sixty days in any calendar year," the result being that after this, wherever the manager or owner so decides, one hour's more work than the normal seven hours can be worked in that mine, and eight hours will be for that mine the normal hours of work per day.
It is, perhaps, worth noting that we do not go quite back to the 1908 position. Under that Act you could work for certain periods and under certain restrictions for more than eight hours. You could work

743
for nine hours per day for sixty days in the year. That provision will not be re-enacted; a miner will only be able to work for eight hours per day. The only reason why I call your Lordships' attention to the form of the Bill is that it is made quite clear, even on the form of the Bill, that the rule of seven hours is not interfered with as a general rule; but for the five years period, in order to meet this emergency, one hour more is to be allowed in those mines in which this Act is adopted. I suppose that will be in the greater part of the mines. The Bill, therefore, is exceptional in its nature and it is temporary and permissive in its operation. It is sometimes spoken of as if it interfered with some other settlement of the coal dispute. That, of course is not so at all. All other methods of settling the dispute will remain open in exactly the same way as they are at this moment. There is no interference with any form of negotiation that may take place. It is, if I may so put it, an emergency exit that is being provided for the deadlock that has occurred. As in the case of a public hall where there is an emergency exit, it does not interfere with the normal exits. The parties remain in exactly the same position as they were in before, but this additional exit, in order to deal with this special emergency that has arisen, is provided if it becomes necessary to use it.
Your Lordships are quite familiar with the problem that has arisen, and I do not need to spend any time in describing it to you. Broadly it is this. Under the conditions that have arisen and the course of trade that has occurred the great majority of the collieries of this country could not be worked under the old conditions except at a loss. I think the figures which are adopted by the Commission and which have been since re-published in another form show that if nothing were done with regard to either hours or wages, in Northumberland, of every 100 tons produced, the whole would be produced at a loss; in Durham, 97 tons would be produced at a loss; in South Wales and Monmouthshire, 90 tons; in Scotland, 88 tons; in Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire, 71 tons; and in the Eastern districts, 47 tons. That is the broad economic position, and it is, unfortunately, probably true, as I understand the expert view on the subject,
744
that there are some mines which, whatever is done, will never pay and will have to be closed. I certainly am not one of those who regard that eventuality with a light heart. It means throwing a large number of men out of work; it means an addition to the already grave, if not overwhelming, problem of unemployment that confronts the country.
It is hoped—and the Government warmly entertain the hope—that a great number of the mines may be made more profitable undertakings by measures of reorganisation, such as those recommended by the Commission, which the Government propose to adopt. But, with regard to those mines, it is quite evident that the reorganisation must take time and as the Commission put it, extremely well I think, there are two problems: there is the problem of what is ultimately to be done with the coal industry to put it in a satisfactory position, and there is the problem of what is to be done immediately in order to prevent complete disaster to the industry at this moment. They say—
"We have recommended a series of constructive measures, which we believe will have, in the aggregate, a large and beneficial effect. But time is needed to bring them into operation. The witnesses who appeared before us on behalf of the Miners' Federation, to present the case in favour of nationalisation, fully recognised that if that were the policy to be accepted it also would require considerable time before the great changes of organisation which it involved could be effected. Meantime the economic difficulties that now prevail would have to be met."
It is that part of the problem which this Bill seeks to deal with.
That being the problem, what were the alternatives open to the Government? They could, of course, have proposed to Parliament a renewal and continuance of the subsidy. Probably it would have had to be an increased subsidy. That proposal was very emphatically rejected by the Commission, and, I think, rejected on very good grounds. As a matter of fact, it would be almost impracticable at the present time, in view of the great stringency of the national finances, to come to Parliament and ask for a fresh subsidy for this industry. It would mean the expenditure of millions upon millions of money, because unfortunately the period for which it would have to be enacted would be necessarily indefinite, and it is in itself a very unfair proceeding

745
to ask—because that is what you would be doing—the other industries and the other taxpayers in the country to support one industry by means of a subsidy. Apart from the obvious and immediate difficulties of that policy, it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon the danger that a precedent of that kind would create. It would be impossible, if a subsidy were to be granted to this industry, to refuse a subsidy to any other industry that at any time got into difficulties and came to Parliament. Therefore, the Government rejected the policy of a subsidy, apart from some small and very limited payment which they offered, in order, to use a phrase employed the other day, "to ease the bump," to ease the immediate difficulty of the transition period; but, as a practical and definite remedy, they rejected the subsidy.
What remained? You could have gone on as before. On the figures that I have given that would have meant evidently that a large number of mines would not be able to go on at all. There would have been an immense increase of unemployment—500,000 or 600,000 men at the least would have been thrown out of work—and it would have meant a very large rise in the price of coal, which would have affected the prosperity and, indeed, the existence of a great number of other industries. I think we are all agreed that that policy was also impracticable. Then there does not really seem to me to be any other policy left, except to reduce wages or to lengthen hours, in order to deal with the immediate difficulty—I am not, of course, dealing with the ultimate remedy.
I understand from the Notice Paper that the noble and learned Viscount opposite [Lord Haldane] is going to follow me, and therefore it is only fair to read to him what he has no doubt had read to him on more than one occasion—his own view on this subject a fortnight ago. Speaking at Harrow on Friday, June 18, he is reported to have said: —
"He expected the coal mine owners would have to concede a good deal, and he thought the miners would have to concede something. He did not want to see them concede it in the way of wages wherever that could be avoided. He would rather see them work a little longer—half an hour or three-quarters of an hour at the face—if the effect of that would enable the pits to be worked on an economic basis, so that a standard wage could be paid and the pits carried on
746
instead of being closed and hundreds of thousands of miners joining the ranks of the unemployed."
That is the case for the Government's Bill and I am only glad to have the support, at any rate as far as I know at present, of the noble Viscount for that policy. Your Lordships will no doubt have seen also the very interesting letter which Sir Josiah Stamp wrote to The Times the other day, in which he explained that in his judgment it was more economic and more likely to be successful from an economic point of view, and better from every other point of view, to lengthen hours rather than to reduce wages. I do not say that that is right or wrong, but in the face of those and many other weighty opinions of that kind it seems to me quite clear that the Government were right and would not have been doing their duty if they did not free this method from the difficulties that exist in legislation on the Statute Book, so that at any rate it could be tried.
What are the objections that are made to this proposal? Undoubtedly—I do not desire in any way to shirk the fact—the Commission preferred reduction of wages to the lengthening of hours and they gave their reasons for it. They were powerful reasons. Nobody likes lengthening hours or reducing wages. You can make a very strong case against either proposal. The question is, how are you to keep the industry going? I must say that I cannot help feeling that the economic case against lengthening hours has been in some respects exaggerated. As I understand it, the main case is that it would increase the production of coal and therefore the glut of coal, and reduce the standard of living, not only in this country but elsewhere, because it would add to the difficulty of the industry, which, according to that theory, is that more coal is being produced than can be used. I think that is a fallacy. It depends, if I understand it rightly, upon this theory—that there is a fixed, unalterable demand for coal of so many thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of tons. That is not at all the case. There is an absolutely unlimited demand for coal. It all depends upon the price at which you can furnish the coal. If you were in a position to sell coal at 6d. per ton you would be able to sell as much as you could possibly get from

747
any source. The demand entirely depends upon the price that you have to ask for the coal. A good many economists believe that a reduction in the cost of production, which will be possible by an increase of one hour in the working day, will so stimulate the demand as to make it possible to maintain the wages and recover the prosperity for most, if not all, of the mines in this country. That is the case for this Bill.
But it would be a great mistake to take this Bill as the whole of the policy of the Government. It is only a part of its policy. Meanwhile, the reorganisation suggested by the Commission and embodied in another Bill before Parliament, which I hope your Lordships will have an opportunity of considering before long, will proceed and the policy of the Commission will be carried out. It is quite true that on one point the Government have been compelled to abandon the proposals of the Commission; that is with reference to the nationalisation of royalties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that since that proposal was made and since the Government accepted the conclusions of the Report, a great many things Save happened, great losses have been incurred and the Government do not see their way to recommend at this moment a very large expenditure, or at any rate the very large draft upon the credit of the country, which would be involved by the nationalisation of royalties, which they do not think would, of itself, be of any assistance to the industry. I am able to quote again from that mine of wisdom, the Harrow speech, in which the noble Viscount said that a great many people had been disappointed that no proposition had yet been made to buy out royalties. He said that there was something there that he wanted them to reflect upon—that to do it would require £100,000,000. I am bound to say that in that case he did not drive the conclusion absolutely home, but it is quite evident that he thought that £100,000,000 was a very large sum to pay for what is really a purely doctrinaire advantage in the purchase of royalties.
Then there is one other point upon which the Government have not yet determined their policy, and that is the question of the recommendation by the Commission of municipal trading. As
748
to that I will only say that the Government are considering it very carefully and that no doubt they will arrive at a conclusion as to what would be the best method they can recommend to Parliament of dealing with the difficulties which are pointed out. Beyond that, broadly speaking, they make no change or modification in the policy recommended by the Commission. I know it is said, and perhaps with truth, that even if all the measures of reorganisation recommended by the Commission are carried out it will make a very little difference to the prosperity of the industry. Perhaps I am unduly sanguine, but I cannot help thinking that a good deal may be done. It would not be in order for me to discuss it at any length, but I believe there is a strong case for the amalgamation of mines in certain cases, and I believe that such an amalgamation may mean a considerable saving in the expenses of working the mines. I am certainly attracted by the proposal which the Commission put forward with regard to selling agencies. There, again, I think something material may be done, and something, though perhaps less, may be done in the direction of working facilities.
But personally, I look with greater hope to another section of the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission point out more than once with great force that one of the great difficulties and evils from which the industry is suffering is the want of cooperation, the suspicion and the separation between the classes engaged in the industry. I have no personal knowledge which enables me to say how far the Commission are right in that diagnosis; but I recognise that when they point to the charges made on both sides—the charge on the one side, which after investigation they found to be baseless, that the men are engaged in making the industry a failure in order to prepare the way for nationalisation, and the charge on the other side, that the owners are deliberately concealing their profits by tortuous methods in order to keep down wages—when they find charges of that kind made on each side, both of them according to the Commission—and, as far as I know, rightly, according to the Commission—quite baseless, that does show a state of feeling which it is difficult to believe can be consistent with the smooth working of the industry. It

749
does appear to me that the waste involved in such a state of feeling must be prodigious. There are not only the actual strikes, disputes and stoppages of work, but, unless all those engaged in the industry are really working and doing their best to make the industry a success, there must be a tremendous waste of time, of energy and of capital. I certainly look to measures for improving that state of things as the most hopeful, from an economic point of view, of any measures of reform that can be introduced.
The Commission make two proposals. One is for the establishment of pit committees—which are analogous, I suppose, to the Whitley Committees that have been established in other industries with a very large measure of success—that shall consist of representatives of the employers and of the workers and shall have carefully denned, and no doubt carefully safeguarded, powers of making recommendations and suggestions as to the more smooth working of the industries in the mine. They make a further proposal of a rather tentative character for establishing, or encouraging the establishment of, systems of co-partnership in the working of the mines. The actual proposal the Commission makes is necessarily of a rather limited scope, because it only applies to those mines which make considerable profits. The Commission suggest that a certain proportion of the profits should be returned to the workmen in the form of shares in the mines.
I welcome all those suggestions and I say, speaking for myself, that I believe there is no reform that is more likely to produce really valuable economic and psychological results than the adoption of some system—I do not attempt to define it—which will more closely associate the workers in the success of, and responsibility for, the working of the industry. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes I should like to remind you of the one instance in which such a system has been tried in the working of a coal mine in this country. It has been tried, of course, in a number of other industries with, in many cases, great success. But in 1865 it was tried in a coal mine in Yorkshire and in very remarkable circumstances. It was a coal mine which belonged to a
750
gentleman called Briggs and up to 1865 it was the scene of constant disturbance, dispute and difficulty. The whole industry was carried on under conditions of considerable difficulty, but those difficulties were particularly acute in the case of the Briggs mine, because Mr. Briggs was the president or chairman, or at any rate an official, of the Coal-masters' Association. His life was threatened and I am not sure that an actual attempt at assassination was not made upon him. I find this kind of language used about him in 1865—
"All coal masters is devils and Briggs is the prince of devils."
Another man said:—
"If Mr. Briggs only had horns on he would be a very devil."
I cite this phrase only to show your Lordships the condition in which the industry was in 1865.
At that time Mr. Briggs determined to establish a system which we should now call a system of co-partnership. I will not trouble your Lordships with details of it, but the miners were to have a share in the profits and a share in the direction—that is to say, they were to be allowed to appoint one director out of every five. The system lasted until 1875, when it came to an end, for reasons which do not affect the argument that I am presenting to your Lordships. In the meantime it did an immense amount of good. It entirely changed the atmosphere of the mine. The same gentleman who had described Mr. Briggs as a devil, three years later said—
"The scheme Has done a vast amount of good; it has destroyed a vast amount of ill feeling."
The miners worked much mare readily and much more successfully. The economic results were at least as good as the psychological results.
I remember that a striking story is told in reference to it. As your Lordships are aware, the timbering of the mine is a very important operation, and it is of great moment not to waste timber. After this system had been adopted the miners would take elaborate pains to prevent the waste of timber and, as they saved a bit of timber, they would remark, "That is so much on the bonus that is paid to us." When the scheme came to- an end it had entirely changed the whole atmosphere of the mine and,

751
when Mr. Briggs died in 1881, an address was presented to his widow, in which the miners spoke of him in terms of the warmest affection and admiration, showing that the whole atmosphere had been completely changed. I cannot help hoping that, not only by anything that the Government may do but by what the industry may itself do, something of that kind may be worked out, some new spirit may be devised and created in the working of this industry. It is for that reason that I venture to recommend the policy as a whole to your Lordships' House.
After all, what is the alternative? I observe that the Leader of the Opposition in the other House, Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald, when he was asked what his alternative was, said that it was not the business of the Opposition to have a policy; that was the business of the Government. There is some truth in that, but, if an Opposition rejects every proposal that is put before them, with great impartiality and with equal emphasis, I think we are entitled to turn round and say, "If you reject everything, what is it that you suggest?" There is, of course, Mr. Cook's celebrated jingle, "Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day." These jingles are fashionable. I suppose they have their good points, but I confess that I never heard one which seemed to me so utterly destitute of any practical statesmanship as the jingle in question. Purely negative, it leads nowhere. It makes no suggestion.
On Saturday morning the Trades Union Council published a manifesto—a long manifesto. It was mainly taken up with violent denunciations of the Government. The Government were said to be organising a ring to starve the miners and their women and children. They were said, I do not quite understand on what occasion, to have revived the attack on Russia, which, in some way or another, was thought to be a symptom of a gravely reactionary frame of mind. I confess that that is not exactly the way in which I should describe recent events connected with Russian policy. They were told that their only object was to destroy the trade union movement. Well, my Lords, I do not know whether I hope or whether I do not hope that the authors of that manifesto believe nonsense of that kind. If they believe it they must not only think
752
very badly of the moral character of the Government, but must think them exceptionally stupid as well. I looked through that manifesto for a constructive suggestion, and what was it? They recommended the constructive solution of the mining problem embodied in the Labour movement's own proposals. That was the only constructive suggestion that I found in that document. What are the Labour movement's own proposals? What does that suggestion mean? How does that bear on this particular difficulty, the difficulty of keeping the industry going until you can apply remedial measures? What are the proposals of the Labour movement in that respect? I am not aware of them. I imagine they mean nationalisation. That is the thing they have generally put forward.
Again, I turn to my great mentor in this controversy, the noble Viscount, and I find that in his speech he said this about nationalisation: —
"He had always thought that the mines lent themselves to nationalisation, but it was a very difficult proposition and he was not by any means sure that if the State owned the mines they would be able to run them profitably. He thought the State would find itself involved in a loss because the State never managed quite so well as private individuals any enterprises of that kind. He thought himself that before they committed themselves to a proposition of that kind they had better look closely into it, to see if they could not get the same results more effectively by cheaper means." I do not know whether there is a Shadow Cabinet in the Labour Party, but, following recent precedent, I should be afraid the noble Viscount might find himself omitted from that Shadow Cabinet in the near future. I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said about nationalisation. But even if he and I are wrong about it, and even if it would be a good thing to nationalise the mines, it does not deal with this situation at all. It does not deal with the difficulty with which we are now faced of how to keep the mines going until remedial measures can be applied.
Against that kind of policy I venture to set before your Lordships the policy of the Government, of which this Bill—I repeat it—is only a part. It is an essential part, because before you can apply these remedial measures you must get the industry going and you must get the dispute settled. In order to achieve that result the Government reject no plan.

753
They shut the door on nothing. Whatever proposal can be made for settling the dispute the Government are prepared to consider. It is said on very good authority that it may be that a settlement of the dispute can be found by these means. They would surely have been quite false to their duty if they had not made such a means possible by an amendment of the Statutes of the country. Whatever the means are, whatever the proposals may be, the Government are ready, and the Prime Minister is ready, to resume that work of mediation and negotiation which was stopped by the General Strike and to exert his matchless power of sympathy and of sincerity in order to bring to an end this unhappy difficulty and dispute. It is because I do very earnestly commend to your Lordships this measure as an essential part of the general policy of the Government that I ask you to read this Bill a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had given Notice to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Viscount has spoken in his usual conciliatory and courteous tone and he has reasoned his case up to its conclusion. It is in the conclusion that we find most definitely what he is aiming at—conciliation and co-operation between miners and mine owners. That is what he desires. That is what I desire, too, and I am going to submit to your Lordships reasons for thinking that the fatal objection to this Bill is that it makes, and will continue to make, conciliation and co-operation almost impossible. It is, as nearly as possible, the worst step that could have been taken for securing that settlement of which the noble Viscount has spoken. I am one of those who admire the character of the Prime Minister. I think he has shown himself most desirous, most genuinely desirous, of averting this unhappy conflict. He has gone to all the lengths he felt strong enough to go, but, unfortunately, he has not been alone and he has been overwhelmed by the sons of Zeruiah. The Bill, as I shall show presently, is, in effect, a complete surrender to a proposition which has been throughout that of the coal owners. The Prime Minister, as the result of long deliberations and
754
very varied negotiations, has come out with this Bill, which, instead of being a settlement even on some of the alternative lines suggested in the Royal Commission's Report, is a settlement on the traditional lines of which we have been hearing for a great many months past.
The noble Viscount alluded to a speech I made at Harrow at a Labour meeting some three weeks ago. To every word of that speech I adhere. I have never found it a good thing, when addressing a meeting, to say anything but what seems to one the truth. I spoke what I believe to be the truth about this situation and I am prepared to say it over again to your Lordships now if it be necessary. I have never thought either of the parties to this dispute reasonable people. The coal owners have their own point of view, an eight-hour day—really an eight-and-a-half-hour day—and on that they have insisted without looking to the right or to the left. The miners were equally obstinate and determined. I remember a very eminent man of business—one of the most eminent men in the world, now dead, and a noted negotiator—saying to me: "I have negotiated a great many difficult things, but I have never succeeded in a negotiation without being ready to give something. The secret of successful bargaining is to be ready with something which you are going to give as well as to take." Now the miners would not give anything. I think that was a mistaken policy on their part, but that does not affect the question of what ought to be our attitude towards this Bill.
First of all, let me make quite clear what the Bill is, with a little more amplification than the noble Viscount did. Before the year 1908 there was a most acute struggle between the miners and the coal owners about the hours of labour. There is no doubt that the conditions of life of the miners had been wretched conditions of life. I know something of their way of looking at things because for 25 years I represented a constituency that was, in part, a mining constituency. I have gone down and looked at the pithead villages in the northern counties of England and I have seen the miners having to live under conditions where you could not bring up any decent human being—at least, one would have thought not; but such is the character of our

755
people, such their resolution, that they managed to carry on. But they found that some of the conditions rendered a decent standard of life impossible, and chief among these were the very long hours. In Northumberland and Durham that was greatly changed for the better by the two-shift system, which enabled the hours of labour to be divided between two sets of men. It did not help the unfortunate women who had to cook their food, keep their houses and provide baths for them, and who consequently had no day of rest except Sunday, and that in a very broken fashion. But the men themselves, under a two-shift system, were better off than those in the rest of England and Scotland, where there was only a single shift and where the hours, though they varied very much, were sometimes very long.
In 1908 the Miners' Federation had become so strong that it was able to insist upon different conditions. It is customary—I have heard it even in this House—to abuse trade unions as if they were unmitigated nuisances. So they may be. They are sometimes unreasonable in their attitude, but, in the main and on the balance, it is the trade unions that have done more for the working classes than any other institution. They have raised the standard of life, and I have known great employers when setting up a business to ask whether a good trade union could not be established in the neighbourhood, because without it they did not like to go on and because it provided the only way of securing collective bargaining with the men. It has proved to be a very effective and safe way. In 1908 the Miners' Federation, which had grown in strength under the impulse of this great movement for collective action, was able to persuade Parliament to pass the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which provided an eight-hour day. While that Act was passing through Parliament an Amendment was introduced to the effect that the day was to be reckoned from the first cage down to the last cage up, with the result that on the average half an hour was added to the time during which the miners who had not been in the later cages had to remain under ground. That Bill established, therefore, an eight-and-a-half hour day.
Then came a further inquiry. The miners were growing in power, political
756
and social. They were being educated as they had never been educated before, and all sorts of means of education other than those with which we are commonly familiar were spreading amongst them. There was what is called adult education for the grown-up youth, and there ware colleges where instruction was given and where they organised their own education. The result was that after 1908 came a very great strengthening of feeling among the miners that something better was wanted. There was also, unfortunately, an immense amount of friction with the coal owners.
Next came the almost tragic circumstances which led to the appointment of the Sankey Commission. That Commission has been, I think, altogether unduly criticised. It proposed that there should be a preliminary period of three years in which various remedial measures should be put into operation and, if at the end of that time they had turned out satisfactory, they proposed a scheme of nationalisation. Whether nationalisation is right or not—there may be a good deal to be said for it, but we are not considering it just now—there has been no attempt to realise that preliminary period of investigation which was to show whether the miners and the mine owners could be brought together. Pit committees figured very largely in the matter, but they were only one among a multitude of arrangements that were introduced. The Government of the day took up the Report of the Sankey Commission so far as to pass the Mining Industry Act, 1920. In the middle of that Act appeared Part II, which embodied a great many of the recommendations which the Sankey Commission had made. Unfortunately, the miners, who were quite as much to blame as the coal owners, and the coal owners in their turn, united in rejecting Part II and, owing to an unfortunate section, as I think, in Part II, they were able to throw it out, and it lapsed and never became law. The result is that we have had none of that preliminary period of trial asked for in the Sankey Report and authorised by the Act of 1920.
Then another thing happened. Everybody was anxious to avert a strike. They did not succeed in averting it, and there was a very severe strike owing to the strained relations between the coal

757
owners and the miners. A business committee was appointed, presided over by Sir Arthur Balfour, who is well known in industrial matters, and they made a recommendation that the hours might well be seven instead of eight. They even said that the hours might possibly be reduced to six, but that there ought to be a period of inquiry before that conclusion was reached. Your Lordships will find an account of that Committee and of the Report that they made in the Coal Commission's Report. That was a sanguine view. At that time the coal industry had become prosperous again. Presently, it ceased to be prosperous, but the Act had been passed which provided for a seven-hour day plus one winding time—that is to say, a seven-and-a-half-hour day upon the average—and that is the law as it stands to-day.
This brings me to the present situation. Prices dropped and markets were restricted owing to post-War conditions, and the result was that both the mine owners and the miners found themselves in great trouble. An economic crisis of the first order arose in the coal trade. I have never thought that either of the parties to the dispute was unreasonable in the case that was made. The coal owners said that the conditions that had supervened were conditions under which it was impossible to work the coal industry at a profit, and various suggestions were made for remedying this. One of those suggestions was that the hours should be lengthened—not that more coal should be produced, but that the same amount of coal should be produced with fewer hands. That was one view. The other view was that a variety of sweeping changes should be made which it was thought would in the end make things better. That was the view of the miners. I dare say that both of them pressed their views unreasonably, threw them, as it were, at each other's heads, without coming together and talking the thing out. It was just one of those cases where the one thing that could have saved the situation was that some influential body should come in and adjust the bargain between them.
The Government granted a subsidy, and then appointed the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925) and waited for its Report. When the Report came I have no doubt that the Government found the
758
situation a very difficult one. We have debated that in this House already, and I am not going back to it. I only say that the one thing that could have been done to save the situation was not done, and that is the establishment, somehow—I am not sure how it could have been done, and I am not concerned to say now—of some contact between the coal owners and the miners, in the way of the suggestion of an intermediary to bring matters to a head between them, and to get them discussed. But what happened? The only result was that the Government, finding that their efforts at getting the parties to talk had proved a failure, in the end introduced the policy of this Bill. What is the policy of this Bill? I have described it to your Lordships. It would restore the old eight-and-a-half-hour day and go back on all that has been won for the miners by the action of then Federation in the matter of hours. It may be that something had to be done, and that some concession had to be made about hours. I have never cut that out in anything I have said, and I never will. The only justification for that concession, however, could have been, not its desirability in itself, because it was going back on the great policy which had done so much to win better conditions of life for the miners, but, first, that if acceded to it would save the industry, and, secondly, that it would avert the cutting down of wages.
To me the most important thing we can have in view is the maintenance of the standard of life of the miners. Of course, that implies that the industry must be made to work. You cannot keep them going in mines that cannot be worked economically. But observe; this: the coal industry is one in which things have gone up and down, and have gone up and down from two causes—namely, the failure of foreign markets and the depression of trade generally and the low price of coal which is connected with it. That is not a phenomenon of an enduring character. It may go on a long time, but it is not of necessity of a permanent character, and I should have said that the essentially reasonable view to take was to proceed upon that footing and introduce a temporary measure. That does not mean five years. There is a clause at the end of this Bill which says it is to be in operation for five years. For five years you call upon the

759
miners to go back to the condition of things from which they only emerged after a struggle in 1919, and you undo the work which was accomplished for them by the action of their Federation and by public opinion. You give the go-by to the Report of Sir Arthur Balfour and his colleagues.
I say that that is a wrong way to proceed in a matter of this kind. What you ought to have done, somehow—I cannot tell you how, and it is now very difficult—was to have brought the miners and mine owners together. They can be brought together. The noble Viscount gave an account of Briggs's colliery, and I was informed not a great time ago by one of the most eminent—perhaps the most eminent—of living representatives of the mining industry, that he had been to see a group of collieries in Lancashire which was so humanely managed, with direct contact between the owners and the miners, that he said he did not believe the whole force of the Federation would be sufficient to bring the men out. There is a great deal too little of that spirit to-day. There are—I know some of them—admirable coal owners, who make the concern of their men and of the wives and families of the men, their own. They look after them and help them in every way and are ready to discuss anything with the men.
There are, however, others with whom nothing can be discussed because they take the view—I am not blaming them, except as intellectual blunderers—that everyone is free to do what his business suggests is the most prudent course. It is an intellectual blunder to think that by sheer force and discipline you can keep yourselves upon relations with your miners. You cannot. You have to know them. You have to come in contact with them and discuss things with them, as you would if you had pit committees, and other things, which were thrown away in 1920. Well, we have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. If the policy adopted had been a policy of bringing the men and the employers into contact, I believe it is a policy which at one time could have been accomplished. Later I admit there were very great difficulties. The opportunity, however, may come again, and my great objection to this Bill is that it is the very worst way of giving a chance for that opportunity to recur. You are laying down a
760
rigid standard for five years, and it is most objectionable to the men because it recalls what has happened in the past, and recalls it bitterly. I have no doubt that many of the coal owners—probably most of them—will be wise and do all they can in the way of wages, but to say to the men, "You have got to work eight or eight and a half hours—"
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Noble Lords have not read the Bill. If they will read the Bill they will find that it repeals the proviso in the Act of 1919, and goes back to the state of things in 1908, with the result that the eight-hour day of 1908 is restored, plus winding time, and that is eight and a half hours. The point is this: That the Government have so contrived that this new system can be put into operation at the sweet and uncontrolled will of the owner in any individual mine. If the Government had said they brought in a Bill which, in the case of a mine individually scanned and found to be incapable of production economically, excepting with a certain lengthening of hours, put that mine in the hands of an authoritative and independent body, representative neither of owners nor of employed, and that in that mine for a limited time you might have an extension which need not have amounted to eight and a half hours, but should be just as much as would enable the coal to be got at that reduced price which follows when you do not have to employ an enormous number of hands—well, that would have been a proposition of a wholly different kind. It would have been the very antithesis of the Bill which is now brought forward by the Government, with its vast majority in the House of Commons and a majority still more vast in this House.
This Bill will be passed, and I should be glad to think that it solves the situation, because I hate the situation as it exists at the present time, but I know something of the people concerned and I shall be surprised if it does produce the amelioration that is looked for. I have no doubt there are a good many employers who will say: "Oh! you need not work eight or eight and a half hours." I have no doubt there are a good many who will say that there are pits in the middle of England, and in Eastern and Southern Yorkshire, that

761
you can work at a profit even on a seven-and-a-half hour day, as at present, and at the same rate of wages; there are a good many pits to which that applies. There are other pits which, I am afraid, no change of hours or wages will enable the mine owners to work economically. Well, these mines had better disappear. But there is a great number of mines on the margin where the conditions are varying, and where the conditions might have been varied and adapted to the circumstances of each particular mine and its economic necessities.
That is not what this Bill does. You are introducing something quite new, something, too, which was not your only alternative, because the Coal Commission's Report pointed out two alternative ways of dealing with hours and enabling more hours to be worked, but without increasing the number of hours worked in the week. They said it was well worth considering whether it was not better to work five days a week for eight hours, because, they said, they were informed that 40 hours worked in that way is at least as good as 42 hours worked over six days. By distributing the hours of work differently, by calculating by the week and not by the day, you could have given the miner his holiday just as well as by the way you are proposing, and in a way which the Royal Commission seemed to think economically more efficient. That was one fashion in which they suggested it could be dealt with.
Then they earnestly pressed that negotiations should be entered into for multiple shifts in other parts of the country besides Northumberland and Durham. I know that in South Wales there is a great objection to multiple shifts, probably largely because the men are not accustomed to them, and do not understand them; but in other parts of the country there is not the same objection. I should have liked the Government, in the course of these negotiations—which I admit would have been difficult, but which were possible negotiations—to have taken up with the men those two questions of the redistribution of hours in the week and of multiple shifts. What is the chance of doing that to-day? You have brought in this Bill, you have waved your flag in the face of the men, you have marched on the side of the coal owners, you have given the coal owners their Bill.
762
No doubt the Government will set to work to do what it can with the Report, but the Bill that they have already introduced to deal with the Report is a very meagre Bill. I am glad to hear from the noble Viscount that it is proposed to add to it, and to deal with matters in another way, but the whole situation requires to be dealt with very thoroughly if your dealing with it is to be any good, or to have any effect. It is essential that the coal mining industry should advance. There are directions in which it is advancing, but it will take a long time. There is low temperature carbonisation: that may be a very important thing for the prosperity of the coal mines, but it is not yet a commercially profitable proposition. It is going on, and I hope it will prove to be so; we ought to work at it all we can. Then, if the Government's Electricity Bill passes, you will get either the same amount of electricity for a good deal less coal, or a great deal more electricity for the same amount of coal. That, again, will be a help, because it will put more power of production into the hands of the British workman. These are only two illustrations of a dozen others which I could enumerate of progress which could be made in the coal industry. My point is that there is room for progress in the coal industry, and that such progress is essential if the coal industry is to be put upon a proper basis.
You are dealing to-day with a very different miner and a very different democracy from those you had to deal with even in 1908. The franchise was extended in 1918, and now it is, for all practical purposes, universal. There is developing a very strong public opinion, a public opinion that is stronger than Parliament, or Kings, or the Acts of Parliament which it shapes, or anything else, and the indications are—I never like these outbursts of public opinion; they come, too quickly and too violently; but the indications are (and this is what concerns mo) that the Government is putting itself in peril of such an outburst. It is for the reasons which I have ventured to lay before the House that I think that it is a most unfortunate step to pass the Bill as it is before Parliament at this moment, and it is on these grounds that I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months")— (Viscount Haldane.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it has come to my knowledge since this Bill was put down upon the Paper that a notice has been issued summoning members to this House upon the ground that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party have united to defeat the Bill. I have not seen such a notice, but, if it has been issued, I think it is a very regrettable fact. The truth is that this is not a question that can be illuminated by the coloured light of Party politics. It cannot be regarded merely as a trade dispute, it is a great national question, and it must be looked at from the national standpoint, and not from any more limited point of vision. Further, this Bill has to be regarded not merely from the point of view of what it will effect immediately in the hours of this industry, but from that of the way in which it will be received by the people of this country, and I think it would be a most deplorable fact if it were thought, as the noble Viscount said, that it was a definite act-taken by the Government in support of the mine owners in their quarrel with the miners. If I so regarded it I should most unhesitatingly oppose it with all my power. Moreover, I do think that it-ought to be considered as in its very essence a temporary and a partial expedient, and that it should not be regarded—and I am sure the noble Viscount who introduced it did not wish us so to regard it—as a complete solution of the difficulty.
Of course, we are dealing not merely with a very difficult problem, but with an extraordinarily difficult class of people. The miners are some of the finest citizens in this country. Their courage, their loyalty, their patriotism are beyond all dispute. But they live, probably owing to the hardships and the limited conditions of their lives, in rather a narrow land, and it has often seemed to me that they are not able readily to look outside the boundaries of their own craft. As are the men, so are the leaders. Mr. Herbert Smith is a man whose courage, whose sincerity nobody can possibly question. He is anxious to be just, but he is very hard indeed to persuade. He is
764
difficult to bend, but he is impossible to break. Meanness, cowardice, treachery or any of the slanders that have been most unjustly issued against the Prime Minister in reference to this Bill will find no lot or part with Mr. Herbert Smith, and I agree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down that it would have been well if it had been possible to attempt to explore some avenue by which he could have been induced to bring into stock his great knowledge and his entire and single-minded devotion to the industry in which he has spent his life. That has not been able to be done and the Government have been faced with this situation.
Are they going to allow this absolute deadlock to continue, or are they going to take some steps? We all know what has happened. In 1923, owing to the occupation of the Ruhr, the coal-mining industry in this country proceeded once more to revive. In 1924 there was one of these perpetual disputes and the miners were then asking that there should be an alteration in the rate at which their wages were fixed, with the details of which I will not trouble your Lordships. In the end that was conceded and the dispute that arises to-day is as to whether or not wages should be taken back to 1921 or whether the hours should be lengthened and so enable the 1924 wages to be received. That, in a single sentence, is the real quarrel.
The Commission that sat investigated this matter with great pains, made, of course, a most valuable contribution to the history of the question, and concluded with recommendations. They decided against the proposal that this Bill embodies. I wonder if they were right? Their remedy consisted in a scheme for unifying and amalgamating the mines, for extending scientific research and, associated with that, a possible reduction in wages. Apart from the question of the reduction in wages the whole of those other recommendations were nothing but dreams and visions of the night. Nobody imagines that by unifying or amalgamating, so far as the Government can unify or amalgamate—I am utterly at a loss to understand how they can do it—you will, within any measurable distance of time, enable an industry which at this moment is as to 73 per cent, of the total number of pits running at a loss, to become a profitable concern. Had the

765
Report been adopted in its entirety, had attempts been made to reduce wages while these schemes were being brought into operation, and had the reductions remained in force until those schemes were brought successfully into operation, the reductions would have remained for a very much longer period than five years. People may look forward to the prospect of the position being relieved by scientific research. But with all the illimitable possibilities of its future performance scientific research is barren of any immediate results. You can never tell when scientific research is going to succeed and it is certain that it should persist with all the power possible; but to rely upon scientific research to deal with this situation within a measurable period of time is to rely on something upon which no reasonable man would rely.
What is the situation in which we find ourselves? The industry as it stands, with its present conditions of hours and wages, is bankrupt. Are you going to allow it to remain in that state, or what are you going to do? There are several proposals; let us look at each of them. You may nationalise the industry and that, no doubt, is what the men desire. That is rejected by the common sense of the electorate of this country. They will not listen to it. You may then, if you like, subsidise the industry. That is unhesitatingly rejected by the Royal Commission for reasons that appear to me to be unimpeachable. What is left? Hours and wages. Are you going to reduce the wages or are you going to give the possibility of extending the hours?
Let me ask those of your Lordships who think that wages might profitably be taken as a means of escape from this difficulty to consider for a few moments the wages that were paid in many of these districts in 1924, when the present arrangement was substituted for the one to which a return is asked. This is the finding of the Commission that then sat. In the districts of Lancashire, North Staffordshire and Cheshire it is shown that of the day-wage men who worked the full number of days that the pits were open twenty per cent, received between 35 s. and 40 s. a week, and 67 per cent, of the total earned between 30 s. and 50 s. In the case of the pieceworkers, 14 per cent. earned less than 40 s. and 37 per cent. ranged between 30 s.
766
and 50 s. In South Staffordshire the limits of 30 s. and 50 s. covered 64 per cent, of the day-wage men and 39 per cent, of the piece-workers. Those were typically bad districts, but they are the very districts in which it is necessary that something should be done if the whole of the pits are not to close. When it is borne in mind that those are the wages you have to deal with to-day with the cost of living at something like 69 per cent, over what it was in 1914, is there any person who can contemplate with any satisfaction a solution of this difficulty by asking the men to return to those conditions?
I believe that the mine owners themselves realised at that time that those wages were inadequate and it was in their anxiety to restore wages, or to lift wages to a level that would enable these men to live a decent life, that they introduced the scale which is the subject of the present dispute. I know it is a very easy thing for someone who has never had to undergo the hazard and the hardship of a miner's life to suggest that he should live longer shut out from the sun; but I say that had it been my lot so to be placed and had I been asked to choose between keeping my family on those wages and working longer underground, I should without hesitation have chosen the longer hours, and though I know how hateful this must be to men who have struggled from generation to generation to improve their lot and to gain a little leisure, none the less I cannot help thinking that it must make some appeal to those men who, beyond all other men, are devoted to their homes.
If that were to be the end of it I should feel very uneasy; and I would respectfully ask the Government to consider whether there is not some other means by which a solution may be reached. Although any scheme that anyone puts forward is always open to criticism and to the obvious observation that it is put forward without such an intimate knowledge of the industry as would cause it to carry weight, I would most respectfully beg them to consider this. I do not think that ultimately it will ever be possible to escape from the difficulty of this situation without some further help from the State. That I believe to be certain. Now is it not possible to do this? The mines that do

767
not pay and some of the mines that never can pay are known in the Mines Department and I believe they could make a schedule of them almost at once. Would it not be possible to subsidise that limited class of mines for a limited period of time so that the wages they pay might be lifted up to the proper level with the provision that a certain number of those mines should be removed from the list year after year so that the subsidy would gradually work out and everyone would know which were the mines which would have to be closed?
Some mines have got to be closed and there must be some notice in advance in order to give the men the opportunity of transferring their labour elsewhere. The real solution of this problem, if it could be put into operation, would be in concentrating all the energy, all the labour, all the capital and all the skill that now runs to waste in some of those districts, on those large and partially developed rich districts that run through Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. That can never be done except gradually and such a scheme as I suggest is a gradual means by which it might be accomplished. Whatever it cost the State it would be an abundant recompense that in the end you were able, through this machinery, to shift your labour little by little from the places where it is not wanted and where it can never be profitably used to the places where it can be profitably employed. I know the many difficulties associated with the problem. I know how hard it is to get men to move, how difficult it is to tear up the roots and associations of a man anywhere, but if the men knew in advance that for certain, in certain mines, this subsidy was going to be withdrawn and that at the end of a definite time that mine was going to close, I think it would be possible to effect such transference.
I know people think that miners are sometimes addicted to taking leisure that they are not entitled to and there is a great complaint often made about their absenteeism. But if you look at it you will find that even at the worst the percentage of absenteeism does not amount to more than a fortnight in the year. Is it too much for men engaged in this work to ask that they should have a fortnight's holiday in each year allotted to them and that they should have payment during that fortnight, as obtains in many other industries? Such a gesture on be-
768
half of the coal owners would meet with the warmest response from the coal miner and would go a very long way to ease the difficulty of the present situation. The unfortunate thing about this country is that instead of it having been braced by the experience of the War to a stronger and a sterner effort than it made before, it has become slack and the demand for leisure is found everwhere. When I was called at the Bar every Judge sat throughout the whole of the building from half-past ten till half-past one on. Saturday and now none do. I am not saying that this claim for leisure is not well-founded. I am not complaining, although I do say that when you ask men working as miners to work longer, the very first thing you ought to do is to set the example of working longer yourself. I think that is true all through. It should be true in the Civil Service and everywhere else. So far from the conditions of the present moment permitting this laxity of industry—it does not—if this country is going to be saved there is a call upon all that they should work their utmost, whatever their work may be.
If this Bill were final I should hesitate a long, long time before I supported it. I do hope that everybody will recognise not merely its temporary character but the assurance of the Government that it is only a partial palliative. If we could only get past this blank barrier of prejudice and ill-feeling we should have gone a long way. If we could only make these people understand that though we are far removed from the fields of their industry, we do realise something of the hazards and the hardships of their life and that we do sincerely desire, notwithstanding the form of this Bill, that a larger leisure and a richer life should be secured for them and for all people engaged in industries, we should have gone a long way. It is because I trust the Government, believing that this Bill has a limited operation and that it is nothing but an immediate effort to restore the fallen fortunes of a great British trade, that I am prepared to pass it.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I have some hesitation in speaking to your Lordships after the three speeches which have just been delivered by noble Lords who are accustomed to speak in this Assembly on any subject, but I have been so largely

769
connected with this industry that I ask to be allowed to make a few observations. I listened with great pleasure to what noble Lords have said and when the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down was speaking I wished that he would take charge of a, large mine. I feel sure that he would find that the difficulties the owners have to contend with are very much greater than ho realises. I must protest, too, against one thing that he said, and that was that there is a bitter feeling between the miners and their employers. I can assure your Lordships that so far as Northumberland and Durham are concerned, there is the very best feeling between the miners and their employers; there is a mutual respect which is not exceeded in any other industry in the country.
What has been, to my mind, the great difficulty is the increased cost of production. It is the increased cost of production that has created the whole difficulty that we have had during the last three or four months. For fifty years the industry has given a supply of coal on moderate terms to all the various industries of this country. It has exported coal in competition with every other country and it has held its own. It is only during the last few years that any great difficulty has occurred. We have had our troubles, we have had occasionally a strike, but we have always been able to get a settlement and I cannot help thinking that if the Government had left the miners and the coal owners to bear their own burden they would have had a settlement, probably before this time.
What has prevented it to a large extent is, in my view, this. The whole question has become a national one, and it has become a national question because the Government have been dealing with the question of wages, instead of with those who pay them. All the difficulty that we have now in the various pits has been caused by this becoming a national question. Look at the different districts. There are not two districts where the working conditions are exactly the same. The mines which supply local industries and do not export are able to nut their increased costs upon the consumer, but those mines which depend upon the export trade are in a very different position. Having to compete with foreign producers they are unable to get a higher price than foreign competition will allow.
770
Whatever has been said in the course of this debate, the Government have adopted part of the only policy which, in my judgment, is likely to bring a satisfactory settlement. But the Government have not fully taken note of the coats which have been placed upon the industry during the last few years by Parliament. Those costs have had a good deal to do with the present position.
There has been talk about the great subsidies that have been paid to the coal trade, and other industries have complained, very bitterly and properly, about them, but you must not forget this point—that the coal industry was the only industry in the country that practically received no excess profits. I should like to know how much those excess profits would have amounted to. Taking the view that they would have been calculated by the same method as in other industries in the country, I am not so sure that the excess profits which have been received by the Government out of this industry alone would not have paid all the money which has been talked about so much as having been given by the coal subsidy. Take the Seven Hours Act. What effect had that? It increased employment by 250,000 men in the industry, but the product of the mines, instead of going up in proportion, has gone down. What does that mean? It is a very simple calculation. Calculating £2 a week for 250,000 men you have half a million pounds a week or £26,000,000 a year, and £26,000,000 is 2s. a ton upon 260,000,000 tons.
But that is not all. I have not the particulars for the whole trade, but I can give you figures taken from my own books, as to increased costs which we have had to meet which were not contemplated and which are not paid' by our competitors abroad. In rates and taxes in 1914 we paid £34,930. In 1925 we paid £148,255. In national health and unemployment insurance in 1914 we paid £8,740. In 1925 we paid £59,483. To the welfare fund we paid nothing in 1914. In 1925 we paid £18,268. With the exception of the welfare fund, these taxes are paid by the whole of the industry of the country. I am certain that when 1926 comes to be recorded it will be found that there was a very large increase in rates and taxes. Then, what happens with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a time when all the industries of the

771
country are almost in bankruptcy and struggling with great efforts to carry on? Take all the large industries in the north. You have the Consett Iron Co., Vickers, Armstrongs, all losing hundreds of thousands of pounds and many of them with enormous overdrafts at the bank. Yet we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing in a Widows Pensions Bill, which costs our concern £43,000 this year and means, I have no doubt, a corresponding amount of money for industries throughout the country.
The fact is—the Government may take it as a fact or not—that the Government are not doing their duty in avoiding the curtailing of all this expenditure. I sometimes wish we had a man like Mussolini for a month. When he says a thing must be done it is done. These taxes are practically killing the industries of the country and I think it is due to a considerable extent to that fact that we are in our difficult position at the present time. We have to pay these taxes, which represent something like 3s. to 3s. 6d. a ton. We have no control over these taxes. These are costs we cannot deal with. We are obliged to pay them. If we had this 3s. or 3s. 6d a ton the export districts could fight the world. I do think it is most important that the Government should take that into consideration. Of all the schemes they have got, the best scheme would be that they should cut down the enormous expenditure which is taxing our industry to death. Instead, the only course that has been adopted by the Government is to extend the hours.
You cannot get more out of an industry than the price which you get for your product will allow. At present this fight is not a fight between the owners and the workmen. It is a fight between the workmen and the economic law. Until they begin to realise that I am afraid they will not listen to proposals for increased hours and reduced wages. I am certain that a large proportion of the collieries throughout the country cannot go on unless they get an eight-hour day and some reduction of wages. In Durham we said we wanted an eight-'hour day and a 10 per cent, reduction—that is, to take off the 10 per cent, given in 1924—but we find that in saying that?we offered too good a set of terms. We should still lose very heavily if those terms were accepted.
772
People talk about pits being closed, but many people have no idea what that means. In the County of Durham all the interests of the County depend upon the coal produced from the various mines. Think of the enormous debts we have in Durham for schools, for health, for all sorts of things in connection with public work. Who is going to pay these debts, or the interest upon them, if you close the mines, which are the very highest rated concerns in the county? The same thing holds good in every other mining county. I should be very sorry indeed for the poor property owners who are left if one half of the collieries in the County of Durham and the County of Northumberland were closed owing to not being able to carry on at a profit. When the miners begin to realise that they are going to have their pits closed, I hope the rank and file will have more sense than their leaders and will be prepared, when they know the actual facts—which I think the owners must put before them very clearly and distinctly—to try to meet the owners so that the business can go on as it has been accustomed to go on. But even then, I am afraid many of the pits will find their trade has gone for some time. All the large contracts that used to come to Durham and Northumberland, to Yorkshire and many other places, from abroad, have been taken by our competitors, and we shall not be able to get them back for some considerable time. When you change the channel of a trade it is like changing the channel of a river. I am afraid there will be a great struggle to recover our position as the greatest commercial and trading country in the world.
So far as Durham and Northumberland are concerned, and probably some other districts, it is quite possible that if they got a reasonable reduction of wages they would not exact the eight hours. When you come to deal with the question of district settlements, I think we shall probably find that our men would be more inclined to this arrangement when they understood the situation, and I believe that they would try to meet us. The noble and learned Viscount below me complained of the arrangement being rigid. It is absolutely necessary that it should be rigid to some extent, but it is not altogether rigid, for each district has the right to discuss the question of hours with the employers and, if the men

773
are not satisfied, they will not give way. The fact that both sides have to decide for themselves will enable those districts which cannot pay high wages without having some lengthening of the hours to make special terms in the locality for the benefit of the whole district. I think it is a mistake to allow the Bill to remain in force for only five years. When you alter the hours in the mines many arrangements have to be made and it is a long time before they work satisfactorily. If, at the end of five years, you take away the power given in this Bill you will find that you are creating great difficulties and that you will have to go through the whole thing again. I hope that, when we reach the Committee stage, the limit of five years will be eliminated so that any arrangements arrived at may become permanent. I cannot see why this limit is introduced and I do not think that the miners will find any great advantage in the fact that an arrangement is made for five years.
I have had many years' experience of coal mines—probably more than anybody else in your Lordships' House—and I have been very much interested, and sometimes amused, by the various recommendations that are put forward, sometimes in the form of letters in the important newspapers from clergymen, lawyers and professors of the various Universities dealing with the principles of this dispute. I have often been amused at their ignorance of what goes on in the mining industry. I feel quite sure that coalowners and miners alike are disposed to listen to any suggestion that may be of real advantage, but we have to depend upon ourselves to come to any settlement that is likely to be a permanent and satisfactory one. I still hope that as time goes on we may come to an arrangement and that both miners and owners will do their best to bring back prosperity to the coal trade. Many of our pits are old pits and there are all kinds of customs in these mines which are most difficult to alter. The men are very conservative an3 resist changes, but I do hope that, when we emerge from the present trouble, both miners and coal owners will be ready to get rid of these old-fashioned customs which both restrict output and prevent the miners earning as much money as they ought to earn. I am quite certain that as time goes on, without nationalisation, you will find
774
prosperity returning to the coal trade. I am very optimistic in regard to that point, though I am pessimistic at the immediate outlook. I cannot think that a great industry like this, upon which so much depends, will die.
It is true that some of the mines will not pay. I listened with very great interest to the noble and learned Viscount who spoke before me, and particularly to his reference to unprofitable pits. I think it is very unwise to make up your mind to close pits that do not make profits, provided that they pay their costs. Coal producing is a fluctuating business. Sometimes you lose a good deal of money in one year, the next year you make it up, and so it goes on. But surely it is a good thing to work that coal rather than to leave it in the mines to be lost for ever. Surely it is a good thing to give the men employment in working it. I am all against the closing of pits unless the owners themselves find that the coal is almost exhausted and not worth working.
In the course of a few days we shall receive a Bill dealing with the recommendations of the Coal Commission. I recognise that the Report of that Commission was a fine literary product, but I cannot see in it any solution of our difficulties. I am afraid that the outstanding result of its recommendations would be to reduce production. The noble and learned Viscount below me said that miners ought to have a fortnight's holiday with full pay. I scarcely think he knows what that means. To begin with, I think that the miners of this country have more leisure than almost any other class of worker. A fortnight's pay would mean £120,000 a year to my company. How we are going to get that additional £120,000 a year I cannot tell, but, if you are paying £60,000 a week and you give a fortnight's holiday on full pay, I think you are adding unnecessarily to the cost of production. I believe in paying a man well for what he does, but I do not believe in paying people wages when they have not earned them.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I do not intervene in this debate because I am in any sense of the term a coal expert. I have the honour of knowing a great many coal experts in both camps and I

775
have never found that two of them agreed in either camp. I have studied the Report of the Commission very carefully, and notably Chapter XIII in that Report, which deals with the subject of hours, and I am going to try, so far as I can, to put to your Lordships the point of view of many of the miners with whom I am acquainted, without indulging in any suggestions with regard to a general scheme. After all, the Party to which I have the honour to belong has had its scheme before the country for a good many years. The proposals of the Labour Party in regard to coal have been debated in the House of Commons.
The effect of this Bill upon the miners generally, and certainly upon those with whom I am acquainted, has exceeded any expectations that I ever formed on the subject. I do not remember at any time in my limited experience of public life a measure that has created more bitter resentment than this Bill. The attitude of the men towards it, as I understand the matter, is something like this. The measure to which you are asked to give a Second Reading to-day in their opinion gives a weapon to the owners, and the owners, being human, will naturally use that weapon. It restores to the owners a power which the miners after years of conflict took from them, and which they regard as the most cherished of their gains after those years of conflict. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of the Bill spoke of it as being permissive only. I am sure no man who is accustomed to work with others, and to being in charge of them, does really believe that this Bill gives a free choice to a free man. The position of any miner seeking employment, when he goes in search of a job, will be that he will be asked to accept the provisions of this Act before he will have a chance of getting that job. He does not exercise a free choice. He acts under restraint. He is no more a free man in that connection than is a soldier in the presence of the enemy. He is not a slave, but in that particular connection he is not free.
Again, among other excuses which have been made for this Bill—because I have not yet heard a word in its defence; it is considered a sort of makeshift; it is not praised, but it is excused—it has been said that the Bill is temporary only. To
776
a miner, five years at the rate things are moving now is a very long time. A great deal of evil may happen in those five years. Many miners may be ruined in health. And the alternative on which such stress has been laid! The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said what has been said so many times before, that if he, an energetic, able man, were offered the alternative between longer hours or a reduction of pay, he would unhesitatingly plump for longer hours. I submit that those are not the alternatives offered to the miners. They are not offered the alternative between the present hours and a lower rate of pay and longer hours and the same rate of pay in nil mines. As I understand the matter, and I read carefully the offer of the owners in the newspaper to-day, some men in specially favoured mines, by working these longer hours, may get the same pay, and in a very few cases may get a very little more, but the large proportion of the men are asked not only to work longer hours but to take lower rates of pay—lower rates in any case, but a smaller amount of actual cash received at the pay-desk at the end of the week.
Therefore, I do not think it is to be wondered at that these men, who are a worthy element in the population, are exasperated. They say: "You are asking of us very considerable sacrifices, in order to enable the Government and the country to redress a state of affairs in the coal industry for which we are not responsible." Has any one in all these investigations blamed the miners for the deplorable condition of the coal trade? I have read the Report through and through, and I cannot find the least hint of that accusation being made against them by the Commissioners, or indeed by any of the witnesses who gave evidence. They say: "Why should we make these sacrifices? We certainly are not responsible," and they add: "And no other Party to this transaction, either the Government or the owners, are being asked to make comparable sacrifices."
I heard an argument put forward in this House, to-day, similar to the argument which was put forward in another place, and something to this effect: "This Bill has got to pass because there is no alternative to it. It is the fault of the Labour Party. It is the fault of the miners. You do not come forward with

777
some alternative and better suggestion, and in default of that we have got to pass this Bill." I repeat what I have said already. Our alternative suggestion is before you. The miners, in my opinion, made a great tactical error in not accepting the recommendations of the Report. I am inclined to think that if all the recommendations of that Report had been remembered, if they had had a guarantee that the Report would be acted upon in regard to its many recommendations, a very different attitude on their part would have been taken up. I will go this far. That Report represents to me much more than I have ever expected to get from a Conservative Government. I believe it was Mr. Cook himself who said that it gave the miners 70 per cent, of what they wanted. It certainly recommended measures of re-organisation so wide in scope that I was amazed when I read and heard the announcement of the Prime Minister, to the effect that the Government would accept that Report, conditional on the other two parties doing likewise.
There is, of course, the interim period to be bridged over, even if the Report is acted upon, and again the reproach is hurled at the Miners' Federation that, with a view of bridging over that interim period, they have no proposition to make. I do not think that is quite so. As I understand the statement of the Miners' Federation, what they want is a continuance of the subsidy during the interim period. The subsidy has been rejected by the Government because the Report was against it. I am sure all of your Lordships have read Chapter XIII of that Report. It may have been emphatic against the subsidy, but it was much more emphatic and less ambiguous, against the very measure that is before the House to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, speaking on the subsidy, said that he thought it had been worth while because it had given us that enlightening document, the Report. Personally I thought the subsidy was to be recommended for many other reasons. I looked upon the mining industry under the existing system as being like a broken limb. I looked upon the subsidy as being a splint applied to that limb. I am not prepared to say that I think the subsidy, or the splint if you will, was applied scientifically; it may or may not have been right to apply that splint in that
778
particular way, but, having once applied it, surely it is the worst form of surgery to remove the splint before the bone is set. That is precisely what is happening at the present moment.
There are many things to be said in favour of that subsidy, and when people reproach the Miners' Federation they forget what has been proved by the economic facts of the situation since the subsidy was applied. The talk about the subsidy being a sum taken from other industries in this country and given as a sort of generous gift to the coal industry seems to me to fly in the face of economic facts. It is an admitted fact, for example, that the cost of manufacturing steel during the subsidy period fell by just under 3s. a ton. Did not the steel industry benefit by that subsidy? It is calculated that it benefited to the tune of £16,000,000 sterling. Then, again, the subsidy took 137,000 men off the unemployment register. In the course of nine months that represented some £5,000.000. There is a great deal to be said for the subsidy as a solution of our immediate difficulties, as an "emergency exit" from our present difficult situation, to use the expression of the noble Viscount opposite, but I cannot see what there is to be said in favour of this Bill.
Let me outline to your Lordships as briefly as I can what it seems to me will be the effects of this Bill. I will begin with the immediate effects, and I can find no better words to describe them than the words used by a member of the Conservative Party in another place, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck. He, though a Conservative, described this Bill as a disastrous policy, and said that it would tend to prolong the strike. A great many of your Lordships have dealt with miners when they have been soldiers. I have. I have never met a more obstinate set of men, and I am quite prepared to corroborate what Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck says from my soldier experience of the miners, and to assert that the only effect of this exasperating measure in the immediate future will be to prolong the strike. I think, if I am not mistaken, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck represents a constituency which includes a great many miners.
Consider the ultimate effects of this Bill. The noble Viscount did not refer

779
to one point to which I thought he would refer in his speech, I mean the reactions of this measure in foreign countries. I have never heard anything but a negative answer given to the argument put forward by opponents of this Bill which says that if you prolong the hours over here you will find that in Germany, in France, and in Belgium an equal, if not a greater, prolongation will take place. The only answer that I have heard to that was given in another place. It was to the effect that if that grave emergency did arise then this Bill could be repealed easily and with great rapidity. It is as though the Government in this matter were leading their great battalions up a hill, having all the time a fixed determination to lead them down again. These counter-marches are very dangerous things, especially downhill; in warfare they often degenerate into routs. But that is surely the weakest defence of any measure that has been submitted to Parliament—to say that it could be easily repealed and with great rapidity. I must admit that the noble Viscount put up a better case for his Bill than that, but the spokesman of the Government to whom I refer is a very authoritative Cabinet Minister.
In my view, perhaps the gravest defect of this Bill is the effect that it will have on subsequent negotiations. I do not, needless to say, join in all the attacks on the Government of a personal kind. I am prepared to admit, and I am proud to admit, that every member of the Government probably does earnestly desire peace. One member of the Government said last week that they were hoping for national negotiations. The phrase struck me as being curious. I welcome it. That is just what I want and what the Labour Party wants. But what I submit is that when you have got this Bill on the Statute Book, if you ever do, it will postpone negotiations, and it will postpone the introduction of those measures of reorganisation which are essential to put the industry on its feet, because, while this Bill remains, when it becomes an Act the first preoccupation of the miners will be to get it repealed, and they will put everything back for that. They will insist all the time, in season and out of season, on the repeal of this Bill, and to my mind
780
it will always constitute a very serious barrier to negotiations if it is passed.
I am not speaking as a coal expert, but I have just listened to one, and to a proposition from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. I should like to have heard whether it is not a fact that if this Bill becomes law as time goes on the position of the bad mines, bad as it is at present, is bound to become worse. I have heard that point of view put forward by people who are experts, who say that the mines in the districts which are already what one might call fifth-rate districts would tend to become much worse by the operation of this Bill, unless indeed, as was suggested, they fall out of business altogether. There is the tragedy of unemployment on an enormous scale before us. And that tragedy, it seems to me, must be accelerated by the operation of this Bill.
The last effect which I see of this measure—and in many ways I think it is the most serious—is the effect on the minds of the men. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in my limited public experience I have never known anything like the present bitterness of spirit. Here are these fellows, some million of them, bitterly resentful, and if the right rev. Prelate will forgive me using such an expression, what we used in the Army in the old days to call "bloody-minded." A bloody-minded man meant in the Army a man who felt he was suffering from injustice and in whose mind something was rankling all the time. There is no officer who has had to deal with men but realises that there is "nothing doing" with such a fellow until his sense of injustice has been removed. I ask noble Lords who are present whether they really believe that you will get more out of a million or three-quarters of a million disgruntled, discontented, almost desperate men in an eight- or eight-and-a-half-hour day than you would out of those same men in a seven-hour day if they worked with a decent spirit? It is against human experience to suppose that you will really get economic results out of this Bill in view of the spirit that it will provoke.
I suppose the Government can win this fight. I have not the least doubt that in the end they may be able, by the most cruel means and without meaning to be

781
cruel—that is the tragedy of it—to break the spirit of the men. Various phrases have been used describing what might happen. It comes to this—that the men would lose their loyalty in their despair, that they would dribble back to work, that sonic mimes might open and that in the end the Government would be able to say: "We have broken this strike; we have won a victory." They would have won a Pyrrhic victory. As sure as there is a sun in heaven, after that victory the struggle will be renewed. They may win another victory. I think it was at Asculum that Pyrrhus said: —
"One more such victory and we are lost!"
I do not like to think either of this victory or the next victory. It seems to me that if we have victories of that kind they will be won amid the ruins of British bade and in conditions which no one cares to; contemplate. That is the danger of the situation.
In my brief experience of this House I have always found that noble Lords give one a fair hearing, that they are open-minded, and are men of the world. They do not think about the electorate so much as people in another place. They vote and act as they think best. We have the power in this House to prevent the passage of this or, indeed, any other Bill, unless it is a Money Bill. We seldom exercise that power, as I read history, and for a sufficiently good reason. The majority of Bills that come before your Lordships represent a strong current of popular opinion. It would be highly imprudent and foolish to oppose a strongly expressed popular opinion. But is there any popular approval of this Bill? I have talked to all manner of people about it ever since its introduction and I have never met a single man or woman who was an out-and-out advocate of the Bill. Many people make excuses for it. Many people say that it is the only makeshift that is available, but no one is enthusiastic for it. On the other hand, it has many bitter enemies. Many people who are not necessarily sympathisers with the Labour Party or with the miners—though sympathy with the miners is a considerable factor in our lives and in the situation—feel that the Bill is both futile and dangerous, almost criminal, because of its consequences. Therefore, I submit that in
782
this particular instance we have an opportunity of rendering a service to our country. I believe we shall be acting in the best interests of the nation and according to the best traditions of this House if we refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I will riot follow the noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down into what I regard as an unfortunate speech. He has stimulated, if he could possibly do so, the miners of this country to reject the provisions of this Bill under which I believe peace and prosperity for them can be found. I propose to deal first of all with the provisions of the Bill as I see them at the present juncture. I am looking at the Position from the point of view of one who has heard and prepared and taken part in presenting cases before four Commissions—the Sankey Commission, the Buckmaster Commission, the Macmillan Commission and the recent Royal Commission. Lord Buckmaster's intervention this afternoon reminded me of an incident that occurred when Mr. Evan Williams read, before the noble and learned Lord's Commission, an extract from one of Mr. Cook's speeches in the country in which Mr. Cook had said deliberately: "So long as other nations"—I have not his words, but this is the effect of them—"work longer hours in their mines and have worse conditions than the miners of this country I admit we cannot maintain a seven-hour day in this country." Mr. Cook was present and did not deny having said it, but he admitted that he had a different object to serve, or words to that effect, when he made use of that expression.
We are in a very much worse position to-day than we were in when the Buckmaster Commission sat. We have to face a position in which no constructive suggestion is made by any of the men's leaders as to what can or possibly might be done with a view of finding a way out of this impasse at which we have arrived. There is really no alternative proposal excepting the one of a subsidy, which the Royal Commission has turned down. However, the noble Lord who has just spoken advocated, apparently, a continuation of, and offered a justification for, that subsidy at the same time as he was advocating certain other recommendations of the Royal Commission.

783
With regard to the subsidy, we, as representing the shareholders in the colliery enterprises of this country, have been asked over and over again to go to the Government and endeavour to secure and help the economic position with a subsidy, and we have steadily declined to do so. There is now no alternative because, after all, unification, which Mr. Hartshorn has been examining in another place, is a policy which only means, in so many words, restriction of output and the closing down of un profitable collieries. If you unify profitable and unprofitable collieries no sensible Government or individual or group of persons who own collieries will continue to work an unprofitable colliery when they have a profitable colliery working alongside it. And it would mean throwing hundreds of thousands of men out of work if that policy were to be pursued.
There is the other alternative of nationalisation, which has also been put forward. That is turned down in the Report of the Royal Commission. Surely, when every country that has tried nationalisation has had to abandon it, we would be foolish if we were to adopt it in this country. We did try it more or less during the War and after the War and, in the first quarter of 1921, this country lost £7,000,000 in running the coal industry apart from those who were engaged in that industry and it was handed back, after the cessation of operations in the following autumn, to the owners to carry on.
There is one other specific—reorganisation of the industry—recommended in the many suggestions of the Royal Commission. That word "reorganisation" rather reminds me of the word "coordination" that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, used to use so often in reference to the Education Act when it was being discussed in the House of Commons. Coordination was the great theme that we constantly heard then. Since the Coal Commission Report we have heard nothing—or very little else—except "reorganisation of the industry." What I have to say about reorganisation of the industry is this. Those who are in it are doing their utmost to reorganise it in every possible way. They are taking every opportunity they can to adopt every appliance and method of mining that has
784
been adopted in any part of the world. and are resorting to research and to every invention that can be devised for the industry. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, indicated to your Lordships, these things cannot be done at once and they do not deal with the present situation.
Therefore, we are driven back to this position, that the industry is losing money, and that not only in the export districts. At the end of last year 97 per cent. of the coal raised in Durham was raised at a loss, 100 per cent. in Northumberland, 90 per cent. in South Wales, 88 per cent. in Scotland, and 71 per cent. in Lancashire and Cheshire, while 50 per cent. of all the other collieries were losing money. Since then matters have become very much worse. If your Lordships will allow me I will give you the figures of the losses per ton, excluding the subsidy, that were made by the collieries of this country during the month of April—the last month the collieries were at work. The losses per ton were: 3s. 6d. in Northumberland; 3s. 7d. in Durham; 2s. 3½d in Scotland; and 3s. 1d. in South Wales. The average loss, taking the United Kingdom, was 2s. 1¼d. per ton, with the added 3d. on the ascertained figures of the joint accountants. There was not a single coal-mining district that in the month of April produced coal at a profit. We were losing at the rate of £2,000,000 a month. There is the evidence before the Royal Commission which has not been refuted.
It was pointed out to the Royal Commission, by all our mining experts jointly, in connection with the working of the coal seams in this country, that there could be secured by the provisions of an eight-hour working day, an average reduction of 2s. per ton in working costs, varying from 1s. 6d. in Northumberland to 3s. in South Wales. Surely it is to the advantage of the workmen themselves (and they are not fools) to exert themselves a little longer underground than to accept a reduction of wages. The equivalent of this average 2s. is a reduction of 1s. 9d. per shift that they work—in other words, the average man working at the face instead of getting 13 s. will be only receiving 11 s., and all the transport hands, instead of getting 8s. on an average for their work, will only be getting 6d. per shift.

785
I should like, if I may, to refer to two paragraphs of the evidence placed before the Coal Commission by practical men and mining engineers of this country. In one case the evidence is to the effect that a return to a longer working day will assist towards the industry being placed an a sound financial basis, more to the advantage of the worker than he realises. There would be an enormous advantage to the country in stimulating the consumption of coal in large dependent industries and increasing the volume of foreign trade, upon which the prosperity of the community so vitally depends. The owners go on to say that after exploring all prospects of improvements in various ways, an extension of hours is the only one which offers immediate, certain and substantial relief. They are convinced that only by longer and more sustained effort can the first step in sound restoration be found. They urge the question of hours and work upon the community and the country.
Sir Hugh Bell, writing to The Times a few days ago, indicated that the wages that were paid to the adult men employed by the firm of Dorman, Long&Co. in the County of Durham amounted, in the fortnight ending April 24, to 10 s. 10 d. per shift—that is, to £3 2s. 10 d. a week. That rate of wage in the County of Durham is very similar to the terms which we are now offering for an eight-hour day. For the piece-workers Scotland is offering £2 17 s., Notts. and Derbyshire, under the minimum, are offering £3 17 s. to piece-workers, and in Durham we would be paying almost exactly the same figure that Sir Hugh Bell was paying to his workmen in the fortnight ending April 24—namely £3 2s. 0d—making a money allowance for free house and coal which the pieceworker would receive. The lowest paid men under our offer would receive at least 10 s. per week more than the more or less skilled agricultural labourer working in the vicinity of the collieries in the County of Durham and working longer hours. It seems to me that the men, with the offer of these wages before them, should be ready to make the sacrifice that is required to help the industry by bringing down the cost of production so that the collieries may be reopened.
Mr. Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons last week, alluded to the fact that it is necessary for 145 transit
786
hands to be employed for every 100 men working at the face of the coal under the seven-hour day. It used to be, and it should be again, 114 transit hands to every 100. Your Lordships will see in that way what a reduction in cost would be secured if this Bill came into operation. I want your Lordships to realise also that there is another reason why the men are able in the collieries of this country to make this necessary sacrifice in order to bring the collieries back into work. They are at present being paid a higher rate per hour than any other class of worker in the community. In the building trade the semi-skilled men and labourers receive Is. 3d. per hour; the tram and gas workers, 1s. 1½d.; the railway men, 11¼d. to 1s. 0½d., according to their trade, and while those engaged in shipbuilding and agriculture now get, I think, about 9d. per hour, the men in the mining industry have been getting ls. 3·3d. per hour. Among the skilled trades the rates per hour are: The skilled hewer, 1s. 10½d.; the engine driver on the railways of this country, 1s. 9·8d.; the skilled men in the building industry, is. 7·9d.; and engineering fitters, 1s. 2·4d. Therefore, in comparison with the skilled trades as well as the unskilled there is a higher rate paid per hour in the collieries of this country than in any other industry.
I say quite definitely that I believe the men can afford to make a sacrifice to meet the situation when you compare their pay with the pay of other workers. Thus we are again driven to the hours or wages question because there is no other item in connection with working costs with which we can deal. I want to point out to your Lordships that in my judgment this constant trouble in the coal industry is attributable to this one great fact: that in the production of the article a greater percentage is paid for wages than in the production of any other article. The percentage in wages in the coal industry is over 70 per cent. The result is that there is no difficulty whatsoever in good times in satisfying the men by giving an increase. When it comes to a depression in the industry the men dislike a reduction and, as they are a well-organised body, and the percentage on the cost, of production is such a very large amount, owing to the wages being so great an item, there has been constant and increasing trouble

787
since there were negotiations with the Miners' Federation and the practice of settling wages in districts was changed.
The average cost of production during the last year, 1925, was 18 s. per ton. Wages amounted to 12 s. 9d., statutory contributions in connection with compensation, health, insurance and welfare 9½d., which together make over 70 per cent. of the 18 s. Other items of cost are: royalties and local rates, 10½d; timber and stores which are required for the safety and efficiency of the mines, 1s. 10½d.; coal and power costs, 3d. That leaves for items over which the mine owners have control 1s. 5¼d., to cover administration, clerical expenses, depreciation of plant, renewals of plant, direction and management. It is noteworthy that, although there is always a strong outcry against the item of directors' fees, the highest percentage in any year in connection with directors' fees has been 43 d. per ton. In none of these items is there any room really for a reduction in cost, and if we are to open our collieries and recover our trade we are driven back to the question of wages or increased production per man per shift by working additional hours.
May I say one or two words in connection with the men's position? It seems to me that at the moment the men are suffering from an excess of loyalty to their unions. But we ought to recognise that of the 1,190,000 men who are supposed to be working or capable of working in the collieries of this country only 750,000 are members of the Miners' Federation. There are a large number of men whose voice is not directly proclaimed by the present leaders of the Miners' Federation. I believe that the leaders have not altered their position. I think it is only necessary for me to refer once more to a statement which Mr. Cook made just after the settlement arrived at by securing a subsidy from the Government in July last, when his passions ought not to have been inflamed. In a speech at Chesterfield after this subsidy had been secured by the Miners' Federation from the Government, Mr. Cook said:
"The fight is only just beginning. An armistice has been declared, but make no mistake about it, the issues during the next nine months are far greater than a mere wage issue. We miners have got to concentrate our interest on the whole industry,
788
because it is going to be ours. I believe solely and absolutely in Communism. I am proud to be a disciple of Lenin."
I refer to that speech because it seems to me that his attitude when speaking as a member of the executive of the Miners' Federation on May 11, when he said there was to be no reduction in wages and that they stood firm against any compromise on hours, wages or national agreements, indicates that the position of the men's leaders really has not changed.
But I believe that the spirit which has animated the men in supporting Messrs. Smith and Cook and their executive in the "not a cent. off the pay, not a second on the day" policy is on the wane. The policy no longer secures the same confidence and trust which it formerly possessed. The men are asking themselves: "Are We justified in spending our collective and individual savings in remaining out of work? Are we getting an adequate return for the policy which the trade unions have been adopting on our behalf during the last four years, in which we have been out of work for six months? Are we justified in supporting a policy by which we have lost £75,000,000 of wages? "The men are saying to themselves:" We pay a shilling to our trade union every week. Are we getting for that shilling a week an adequate return in services rendered in connection with the money we have been paying year after year to our trades union They are feeling that disappointment is the result of the outlay.
It has been suggested to-day by Lord Buckmaster and others that there is a quarrel between the miners and those who are called the mine owners, but whom I prefer to call the representatives of 152,000 shareholders in the colliery companies of this country, many of whom are very poor people who can ill afford to go without some return upon their savings. These individuals are not fighting the men, but the men are fighting and resisting economic laws and they are realising that the more they resist economic laws the worse those economic laws become for them. They are realising that by producing wealth they will bring down the cost of living and their earnings will go further, and also that every day the strike goes on there is less possibility of the same generosity being shown by the shareholders in colliery

789
companies in connection with the pay that they are anxious to give to the men.
We are losing trade every day. It will be seen from the Returns that in the month of May the export of coal from Germany to the countries which we previously supplied has increased by 653,000 tons compared with the normal quantity. This coal has gone to our customers in different countries. There is every prospect that the figure will be very much increased this month. We know that Swedish railway contracts have been made fey 223,000 tons. These contracts generally come to us, but have now gone to Silesia, and prices have been obtained up to the end of the year. Exactly the same thing is happening with regard to the Danish railways. We have lost the order and the Danes tell us quite frankly that we have not been asked for quotations because they know that we shall be unable to supply them. In that way our trade has been vanishing and, whenever we get back to work, it will be a surprise to the men to find what little prospect there is of immediate trade, at any rate in the exporting districts.
I believe that the men in Scotland, who are perhaps more logical than those in this country, are saying among themselves—at any rate, I am so informed—that they regard an eight-hour day as irrevocable, and they are likely to accept the position. I believe that many other men in different parts of the country take exactly the same view. I want to emphasise the point that this Bill is permissive, just as the Bill that provided for a seven-hour day was permissive. There are collieries in the County of Durham, from which I come, that never worked the full seven and a half hours, and, if this Bill passes, I say quite candidly that there are a large number of collieries in the eastern part of the County where the limited amount of pit room will make it impossible for two or three years for the hewers to work eight hours a day, even if they want to do so. There will, of course, be a demand for the transit hands to work for eight hours because in that way costs can be reduced.
Finally, I should like to protest, if I may, against the charges of incompetence that are constantly being made against those who are and have been carrying on the coal industry. Merely because these
790
disputes have occurred between the workmen and what I regard as the economic position, it is thought that the collieries must have been badly managed. Mining engineers in this country are, I believe, as good as or better than those of any other country. It is true that the amount of coal produced is not anything like what it is in America, but the levels in America, the absence of faults in their coal seams and the height of the seams, make it possible for the Americans to obtain as much as 9 tons per man per shift out of their collieries, whilst in this country we are not getting one. These figures stagger us, and I know of three deputations that in the last few weeks have been across to America in order to find out whether anything can be done in this country to help output: that we are not doing. I believe that our mine managers and our salesmen are equal to those of any other country or of any industry.
In regard to safety, if I thought that this Bill was going to produce more accidents, as has been suggested by some of the miners' representatives in another place. I should perhaps hesitate to support it, but the figures do not justify any such statement. Looking at the average deaths during the ten years 1907–17, when an eight-hour day was in operation, I find that there were on the average 1,200 deaths each year. In 1923 and 1924, under a seven-hour day—these are the two last years of which I have statistics—the deaths numbered 1,247 and 1,201—that is to say, there were fewer accidents than in some of the years when seven hours a day were being worked.
LORD OLIVIER: Have not the numbers of the men gone up?
LORD GAINFOI1D: No doubt the numbers of the men have gone up, and accordingly I say that the proper way to look at the matter is from the point of view of the number of accidents per million tons, having regard to the number of men employed. You will find that in 1914 there were 4·37 deaths for every million tons, and in 1924 there were 4·36. I admit that there is no way of being satisfied whether longer hours or shorter hours produce the greater number of accidents, but, a large number of mining engineers believe that a longer working time at the face is conducive to greater

791
safety, because it gives the men a little more time to look after proper timbering and to take the necessary precautions than when they are hurried and are working shorter hours. It ought to be remembered that most of the deaths which occur in the mines are not due either to lengthening or shorthening of the hours. The fact is that 44 out of 262 deaths occur in connection with haulage roads—that is to say, a great number of these accidents take place as the men are going to or from their work and not in the working places. I wanted to say a word in connection with the number of conveyors, coal-cutting machines and matters of that kind, to refute the charge that we are behindhand in the management of our collieries, but I will not trouble your Lordships with those points now.
I should like to say a word in conclusion in answer to a point of real substance that was made by Lord Buckmaster. I did not know that the noble and learned Lord was going to speak, but he suggested a scheme by which what he calls the uneconomic collieries should be thrown out of existence gradually, with a view to replacing them with the more economic collieries that are being developed in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. My reply is that there is always a process by which uneconomic collieries are going out of operation. The fact that during the last depression something like 500 collieries have been closed down shows that this process is going on. But it is not nearly so simple a proposition as the noble and learned Lord thinks. Let me give one illustration from a coalfield with which I am connected in South west Durham. That coalfield produces the best small soft coal in the world for the manufacture of the coke required by blast furnaces. That coal possesses qualities of freedom from sulphur, phosphorus and ash which enables the best kind of coke to be produced. Those collieries are to-day losing money and, if they are going to be closed down under a time notice such as the noble and learned Lord suggested, it will mean that a lot of our national wealth will be permanently destroyed.
Why is there depression in that district? It is clue to our shipbuilding yards not being in operation. When shipbuilding ceases in this country there is
792
no demand for plates, and the figures that I gave the Royal Commission the other day were these: There are 525 blast furnaces in this country. In 1913, before the War, there were 337 in blast, while at the end of last year there were only 167. That indicates the state of the iron and steel industry. Prices have had to be reduced for the coal sent to blast furnaces in the form of coke, to enable even those to continue and a certain amount of shipbuilding to take place in this country. When that industry revives again a, demand for coal will arise in South-west Durham. It would, therefore, be deplorable that under a scheme such as is suggested the whole of that district should be closed down permanently and national wealth abandoned.
I have been associated with the miners all my life. I have represented them for many years in two different constituencies, one a mining constituency in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and another a mining constituency in Durham. Five different times I have been returned by the miners of a district in Durham to represent them on the County Council, and I think I understand the miners, and I recognise their feelings in connection with a proposal of this kind. I have the greatest admiration for their qualities of heart, of loyalty, of sound thinking powers, and I believe that the miners when they think over the position in the next week—I hope it may be only days—will see that the best thing they can do is to accept the economic position. Under this Bill shareholders are offering the best terms which the industry can afford, with no profit in sight for most of the owners. They are taking a risk with some hesitation, but they are anxious to do their part to secure a resumption of operations, and by accepting such terms as can be offered under the provisions of this Bill the miners will, I trust, do their part to restore the industry to prosperity, in which they will be the very first to share.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I hope you will pardon me if I venture to detain you for a very few minutes at this late hour, but I wish to put before the Government a point of view and to make a suggestion to the Government. I need not remind your Lordships that a respite from industrial strife was purchased a year ago by the payment of a subsidy. At the cost of the

793
subsidy we have obtained the Report of the Samuel Commission. The Report of the Samuel Commission contains things which are highly unpalatable, not only to the miners and the owners but also to the Government. If there is one thing about that Report which I think is certain, it is that for lack of anything else public opinion is clinging to the Report as the one hope of settlement. After due consideration the Government announced that, distasteful as some of the provisions were, subject to the other two parties accepting, they were willing to do their share. The owners also, reluctantly I I have no doubt, ultimately agreed to accept the Report—to their credit be it stated.
Most unfortunately the leaders of the miners, the Miners' Federation, have never accepted the Report. I suppose it is the most tragic failure of leadership in the whole history of trade unionism. That is the point which we have reached to-day. Owing to that refusal of the miners' leaders the Government have been driven to take action in another direction, mad it is for that reason, because the Government have got to move, that I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill. But what we have to consider is exactly how it is hoped that this Bill will bring about a settlement, and I think it is important that we should realise what is the miners' point of view on this subject, because what we want is a real and lasting settlement, which is going to give us peace not only in the coal industry but in every other industry in the country.
I think it is hoped that this Bill will work in two ways. It will work in one way in the form of longer hours, which is what the Bill provides for. I am not discussing the merits of it, but that is a point on which the Commission, to which public opinion attaches importance, was unfavourable. At the same time it is a point on which the employers have always been very emphatic, and therefore it is inevitable that it should meet with the hostility of the miners. I am not discussing the merits, but stating facts. Again, there is another consequence, which I think it is hoped in some quarters the Bill will have. It will enable employers to offer such wages that in certain districts men will agree to go hack to work in defiance of the
794
leaders of the Federation. In the result, therefore, it will have the effect of giving district settlements. Your Lordships do not need to be reminded that district settlements are a point on which the miners have been most emphatic in opposition, and if I understand this aright, it is for the reason that if you have district settlements it is obvious that you will be liable from time to time to have district strikes.
If you have one district striking while another district is at work it will always be within the power of the owners to break a strike by importing coal from the neighbouring district where the people are at work. That happened in Lanarkshire some thirty odd years ago I do not remember it, but I believe the strike was beaten by importing coal from Ayrshire. I cannot think it right that such a weapon should be in the hands of employers, even if they were as wise, every one of them, as the Angel Gabriel—and all of them are not as wise as the Angel Gabriel. There are good employers and bad employers, and it is unnecessary to stress the point that if there had never been any bad employers there would never have been any need for trade unions. I put it that way because I want to understand why it is that the miners are showing such hostility to the Bill. I am apprehensive that if you have a resumption of work through the operation of this Bill it will not be a settlement of the dispute but a breaking of the strike, and nobody wants that. Not a member of this House wants to get a settlement through a breaking of the strike. I know it is the last thing that the Government want, and I was impressed by what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said about a better spirit in industry.
If you have merely a breaking of the strike you will have the Samuel Report on the scrapheap, with all the other Reports, and you will never have the miners listening to any Inquiry again, nor will public opinion support it. In those circumstances I believe the Government ought to do a small thing which will show the country clearly where they stand. Let the Government take this Bill through every stage except the last, and before the Royal Assent is given to this Bill let the Government pause for a day or two days and make a final offer

795
of the Report to the Miners' Federation. I believe that the Miners' Federation were moving in the direction of a concession on wages, and I believe there is a possibility that that offer, if it were repeated, would now be accepted. If it were you would have achieved a lasting settlement, which would be reflected not only in the coal industry but in all industries. If it were not, then the Government could never be accused again of having come down on the side of the owners.
The main obstacle to that course, I think, is the proposal in the Report for the State acquisition of minerals, and it is an obstacle. The financial state of this country obviously is a very great objection to anything which will involve such an expansion of credit. Even if no cash were required—and I do not think it would be; I have no doubt the purchase would be by some system of annuities—one cannot get away from the fact that it would mean an immense expansion of this country's credit, and, with the conversion schemes which must lie before the Government in the next few years, nobody knows better than I do that the one important thing is to keep credit as narrow as possible; that is to say, not incur any greater indebtedness than is necessary. But the noble Viscount, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that this purchase of the royalties would only give us a purely doctrinaire advantage. With great respect, I must say I do not think it is fair to brush it aside in that way.
Take one sentence from the Report of the Commission:—
"We are convinced that any unbiased inquiry could not fail to lead to the conclusion that the private ownership of the minerals has not been in the best interest of the community."
They state why with an overwhelming wealth of argument. The economic case is overwhelming: it is not merely a psychological, it is an economic case. Of course, I know that the Government intend to amend the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, but the Commission say that the essential thing is to get the minerals into one hand. So it is not quite right to say that it is only a doctrinaire advantage, for the economic circumstances are overwhelming. If that is the case, if we were able
796
to afford that ten weeks ago, surely with all the advantages in mind that we should get from a lasting settlement it cannot be too much now once more to make the offer, and, if need be, make the effort to find the necessary finance. It is for that reason that I venture to beg of the Government to pause before they put this Bill on the Statute Book. They will have forged their weapon, but let them hesitate to use it, for, in my opinion, if that weapon has to be used it is an end to a hope of a lasting settlement. The country to-day is asking itself: "Has the Government come down on the side of the owners, or has it not?" If the Government make that offer the country will know that the Government is still holding the scales evenly, and I believe there will still be hope that the prayer of the Prime Minister will be realised, and that we shall see peace in our time.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in venturing to intervene at this late hour I will not attempt to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, but I should like to say that if we are to get at a proper statement of the position to-day, it is not fair, in giving the wages of the miners, to take merely selected cases from prosperous firms, without giving alongside of them selected cases of men who are receiving very, very low wages. The noble Lord talked of high wages; I could tell you of pay sheets which I have actually seen of men receiving 32 s. 6d. a week. If the noble Lord had wanted to be fairer he might have taken the average wage of the country, which is round about 50 s.; but even then we have to. remember—and this was said to me by a miner—"These averages are all very well, but some of us in the low-paid districts find that it is very easy to starve on an average."
The one ray of a hopeful spirit that has been shown in this debate on the other side of the House was contained in the last. speech by the noble lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but he must forgive me for saying that, even if such an offer is really made, we should regard it with the very deepest suspicion. He makes his proposal on the assumption that the Miners' Federation is the only body that has not accepted the Report. It is perfectly true that the mine owners have given their verbal acceptance of it, but within a week of giving that accept

797
ance they tried to go back upon it by suggesting district agreements, while in their last offer to the miners on April 30—your Lordships will remember that it was made exactly an hour and a quarter after some of the lock-out notices had commenced to operate—they included the proposal for an increase of working hours, which was directly contrary to the Report. So much for the mine owners' acceptance of the Report.
But what about the Government? They also said that they would accept the Report: but did they? On that night of April 30, which all of us will remember for a very long time, why was it that negotiations broke down? I submit that it was for a very simple reason—that the Government threw over the Report. What was the question that was put to Mr. Herbert Smith on that evening? "Will you of will you not accept a reduction of waged?" Mark you, this was before starting negotiations with the Government. Now, what does the Report say on that? The Commissioners' very first recommendation is this:—
"Before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry, it shall be definitely agreed between them that all practicable means for improving its organisation and increasing its efficiency should be adopted, as speedily as the circumstances in each case allow."
Was that done? Not a bit of it. But now we have other evidence of the Government's insincerity in the acceptance of the Report. They have put certain suggestions before the nation. They put them forward after the General Strike in the form of a Government Memorandum. You would have thought that if they were really convinced that a settlement along the lines of the Report was the only possibility they would have stuck to the Report, but they did not. They dropped out two of the most important recommendations—the recommendation which was mentioned by the noble Lord for the nationalisation of royalties, and the recommendation to allow municipalities to undertake the selling of coal in order that the consumer might obtain coal at a more reasonable price than he can at the present time.
We listened in the speech of Lord Gain-ford to a defence of the mine owners. He told us how he wished emphatically to protest against the charges of inefficiency that have been made against
798
them. Your Lordships must forgive me if I am rather general, but we have to remember that after all this Bill arises out of a general situation and is a solution for a general situation. There has been trouble in the coal industry for long years before the War. Since the War we have had no less than four national inquiries into the state of that industry. What was their verdict? Did it bear out what the noble Lord said? Not a bit of it. Perfectly clear and definite came the answer of each of those Commissions, particularly of the last two, that whereas the miner was working satisfactorily the whole organisation, particularly the business organisation of the industry, was hopelessly inefficient. The noble Lord must forgive me if some of us prefer the evidence of four national Inquiries to his allegations.
Turning to the Bill, it has been suggested that it is a permissive Bill which will enable mine owners and miners to agree that in certain pits longer hours should be worked and that along those lines it will be possible to discover a settlement of the existing dispute. Will that really bear analysis? I pass over for the moment the suggestion that the Bill is permissive. It is certainly a very one-sided form of permission to say that owners and managers are permitted to institute an eight-hour day while the miners are not permitted to resist it. But let us pass over that. Did the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill really succeed in disposing of the case that the Commission made out against an increase of hours? I do not think he did. We know the statement, indeed the noble Viscount mentioned it to your Lordships, that an increase of hours in the mining industry by one hour a day would lead to an increase in the production of coal of something like 30,000,000 tons, and that this, taken in conjunction with the fact that the real trouble in the coal industry to-day is that there is too much coal, not only in this country but in the world, was merely going to cause more trouble and increase the number of unemployed in the industry by something like 130,000. The noble Viscount said that this was not so, and that if it. Was possible to decrease the price of coal it should be possible to sell more abroad. I regret that I have not been able to get hold of the figures I have on that point in time to present them here, but

799
I think that we are at present selling our coal abroad at a ridiculous increase of prices compared with the pre-War period. Prices have gone up extremely little.
This question of the increased consumption of coal is deeper than that. To begin with until the coal industry is able to reorganise itself and to make, perhaps, other use of its products it is bound to suffer for some time from competition in other quarters. But let us assume for a moment that the proposal of the mine owners and of those who have now joined them, the Government, is correct and that it will decrease to some extent the cost of production of a certain amount of coal in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has already pointed out that that merely means that other countries will be driven to follow suit. Let us give the Government all its points and assume that by driving down the miner both in hours and wages it will be possible to cut the cost of the production of coal by something like 2s. or 3s. a ton: what does that mean with the industry organised as it is to-day? It means nothing.
We all know that in July last the loss per ton all over the country was round about 3d. If the industry can be taken as a whole we have to admit that the suggestion of the mine owners is at least an economic one and would have a certain economic effect. But the industry is not organised in that way to-day. It is not a hit of good trying to cut down the cost of the production of coal to a flat rate all over the country as the industry is organised to-day. At the present moment 42 per cent. of the collieries are earning a profit; they do not want a reduction of cost. There are 58 per cent, of the collieries running at a loss varying from 3d. to 7s. or 8s. a ton. What earthly use is a reduction of 2s. or 3s. a ton to collieries that are already losing 3s., 4s., 5s., 6s., 7s. and 8s. a ton? Therefore, as the industry is organised to-day the proposal of the owners and the Government does not attempt to point towards any settlement of the trouble.
But those figures surely show us a way out and a constructive way out of the difficulty. Between April and July last year the Government failed to take any steps to settle the dispute that then existed. They let it go until the last
800
minute and then had to pay a very large sum to purchase the peace that they might have had beforehand by negotiation. They paid over £20,000,000 for that peace, and what did they do? They spent seven or eight precious months in carrying out an Inquiry which was unnecessary seeing that there had already been three national Inquiries. During that period they could have been active in reorganising the industry. I speak quite hypothetically, but let us assume that a Labour Government had got itself into the same position last year, what would have been their way of dealing with it Surely it is obvious. The noble Lord could not tell us; it is far too constructive a policy for a member of the Mine Owners' Association. Let us suppose that the loss per ton was 3d. all over the country or £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year. If it was necessary to commit the country to spending £20,000,000 in order to purchase peace, it might have been spent on reorganising the industry or in giving it a chance of being reorganised; but they did not do that. They let matters go again until April 30, and then they actually had the folly to allow the mine owners to make their final offer after the lock-out notices had begun to operate. Many shifts had stopped working at 12 o'clock that day.
At the present moment there is no basis for a settlement and it is the task of the Government to establish a basis of reorganising the industry. That basis has to be a national basis. The industry has to be reorganised on national lines. It is all very well talking about this pit or that pit not paying and this owner or that owner not being able to make profits. Of what account is that to the nation? All the nation cares is that it gets its coal and that the men employed in the production of that coal should have a decent standard of livelihood.
The noble Lord said that we had no programme. That is untrue. We have represented to the mine owners and to the Government for years that it is possible by reorganising the industry, by unifying it under national ownership, to put it on a paying basis. If the Government feel that that would be committing it to Socialism let it adopt some other method of unification. We have represented for years that it is possible by unification and reorganisation to put

801
the industry on a basis on which the loss which existed in July could be very largely wiped out, without resorting to measures, such as those for driving the miner back to the position in which he was formerly. It has been said more than once in this House, and it has been said repeatedly in another House—I do not apologise for repeating it—that it is perfectly possible for the Government, by continuing to throw their weight behind the mine owners, to beat these men down and to drive them back to work longer hours for reduced wages, but what will the state of the industry be in the next few years, and what will the state of the nation be? You will have to pay for it. I believe that if the Government do this, they will have to pay for it. The time will come when they will stand at the bar of public opinion and I believe, on this issue, that public opinion is behind the miners, because they know the miners' case is a national one.
I appeal to the Government to look at this matter from the national point of view, from a fair point of view. We have a very idealistic Prime Minister in whom, at one time, I believe the great bulk of the Labour Party had considerable confidence. What did he tell us during the General Strike? I would like the noble Lord who replies for the Government to state how he reconciles "the matchless sincerity of the Prime Minister" with a statement such as this:—
"I wish to make it as clear as I can that the Government is not fighting to lower the standard of living of the miners or of any other section of the workers."
That is the message that was broadcast during the General Strike, and now the
802
very first proposition that the Prime Minister puts forward for dealing with the difficulty is that the hours of the miners should be increased. I should like the noble Lord who replies for the Government to tell us what it is that the Government really do mean and where they really do stand, whether they are really pretending to be holding an even balance. I think we would all be very grateful if the Government would clear our minds on that point. We find it impossible to-day to believe that they are holding the scales evenly. We see nothing in their attitude that proves that they are doing so, and we intend to offer the most strenuous opposition to the steps that they are now adopting for dealing with this situation.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.—(Lord Daryngton.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I think it would be most reasonable that the debate should be adjourned now. I hope I shall have the assistance of your Lordships in bringing the debate to a conclusion before dinner to-morrow. I understand that will probably be to the convenience of your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned till to-morrow accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The VISCOUNT PORTMAN—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Referred to the Examiners.
PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on June 17 and 23 last discharged, and Bill committed for to-morrow.
HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday, July 13.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday, July 21.
RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Thursday next.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Thursday next.