Sitting of 8 July 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

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

    WIDOWS' AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS.
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Minister of Pensions whether in any circumstances the widow and children of a man who died of his war disability are eligible for pension, or allowances from the Special Grants Committee, if the marriage took place after the origin of the disability or the man's discharge from the Services?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): It has always been a principle of the Pension Warrants that the responsibility of the State should be limited to the man's family obligations as existing at the date of contraction of the war disability. Clearly, therefore, no pension or allowance can be granted, either by the Ministry or the Special Grants Committee, where the marriage took place after the man's discharge or demobilisation. This must also be the normal position where the marriage took place before discharge, but after the man had been removed from duty on account of the fatal disability, but very exceptional cases of this kind would be specially considered.
    Mr. OLIVER: Do I understand that the Minister means by that reply that if a
    2230
    man marries after his disability, he only does so at the risk of placing his wife at a greater disadvantage than would have been the case had he not joined the Army and fought for his country?
    Major TRYON: The responsibility of the State is limited to the man's family obligations at the date that he contracted the disability.
    Mr. OLIVER: Is not the responsibility to the man and to the man's wife, and if the man's wife is to be treated in this way, is she not at a disadvantage as compared with one who has married a civilian?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman go to show that this man is penalised because he was a soldier in the British Army during the War?
    Major TRYON: No. It shows that, he was fully compensated according to the Warrant for the disability he incurred during the War.

    ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (MORRIS JONES).
    Mr. WOMERSLEY(for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE) asked the Minister of Pensions if he will make a grant to Private Morris Jones, No. 1,375, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 258, Bolton Road, Small Heath, to cover the cost of frequent renewal of trousers, caused by the wear and tear of the artificial limbs supplied by the Ministry after amputation?
    Major TRYON: I am unable to trace any application of this nature from the man. I may say that the continued improvements in the type of limbs supplied has reduced the extent of wear to clothing to a minimum and that the rate of pension in the case of limbless men has been fixed specially high to cover all ordinary consequences of having to wear an artificial limb. I am, however, having this case investigated to make sure that there is no defect in the limbs supplied that would cause abnormal wear to the man's clothing.

    FATAL ACCIDENT (CADBY HALL).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the death of Joseph Floyd, who was killed by being

    2231
    caught in a revolving shaft whilst working at Cadby Hall, W.; and whether the shafting had been fenced in as laid down by the Factories Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir, I have received a report on this case. It would appear that the shafting was not fenced as required by the Act, and I have authorised proceedings being taken against the occupiers for the offence.
    Colonel DAY: In view of the number of accidents which have happened in this way lately, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his inspectors to take particular notice of this sort of thing in different factories?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer I have given shows that they do take particular notice. I think in this case they have taken particular notice and reported the matter to me, and I have authorised a prosecution.
    Colonel DAY: How did the accident happen if they took particular notice? Should not the shafting have been properly fenced in before the accident and not after?
    Mr. SCURR: Does the right. hon. Gentleman think that he has sufficient inspectors in that area?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said more than once that I am not satisfied that I have sufficient inspectors, and I hope that when the Factory Bill passes into law we shall have a further staff of inspectors.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it the practice of the Department to inspect a new factory before it is put into operation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

    CONDEMNED PERSON (CHILDREN'S VISIT).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a child, six years of age, was permitted recently to be taken to Strangeways Prison, Manchester, to see his mother on
    2232
    the eve of her execution; and why, as this is the second execution of a woman in England during the last three years after 15 years without such executions, he has departed from the previous practice of the Home Office in this respect?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. There has been no departure from the Home Office practice in this matter.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why, for 15 or 20 years, no such execution has taken place, and now there have been two during the last three years? Were these crimes fewer during that 15 years than they are now?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There has only been one such case since I have been Home Secretary, and it is a very disagreeable duty to have to deal with these cases. There has only been one case of a woman in which I thought it absolutely essential that the law should take its course, and that is the only one since I have been Home Secretary.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the case that there has been a greater disposition not to grant reprieves since the present Home Secretary has been in office?
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Questions with regard to advice given to the Crown are not permissible.

    SOUTHWARK, CONVICTION (WILLIAM JONES).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and subsequent conviction of Mr. William Jones, 3, Wagstaffe Buildings, Sumner Street, Southwark; whether he is aware that Police Constable 478, M Division, Charles Hutchings, who declined to give evidence in support of the sergeant who effected the arrest, but who was not called upon to give evidence either for or against the prisoner, has been fined, reprimanded, and transferred as the result of disciplinary proceedings taken against him; that the police constable has resigned rather than submit to the alleged unjust treatment; and

    2233
    whether, in view of the effect of police evidence upon which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, he will consider the establishment of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to inquire fully into this matter, on the ground that it is one of definite and urgent public importance?
    Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that since the arrest of William Jones in Sumner Street, Southwark, on 8th May, for an alleged offence under the Emergency Powers Regulations, and for which, on police evidence, he was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, Police Constable Charles Hutchings has resigned from the Metropolitan Police rather than submit to disciplinary action taken against him for matters arising out of his protest against the manner of the arrest of, and the evidence given against, Jones; and whether, in view of the issues raised in respect of both the constable and the convicted man, and in order that there shall be no question of a miscarriage of justice in either case, he will authorise the whole matter to be inquired into by a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am inquiring into the case referred to in this and the following question, and shall be obliged if the hon. Members will put the questions down again next week.
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman then be in a position to say anything about the necessary legislation for giving this appeal tribunal—which, if it has not been definitely promised, has at all events been many times spoken of—with the object of preventing cases like this arising?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will postpone his supplementary question until I have completed my inquiries.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the officer I have referred to have an opportunity of being heard at the court of inquiry, and will the inquiry be without prejudice to his case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member had better allow me to
    2234
    make my own inquiries first, because the question involves a great deal of detail, and I want to be satisfied on this question before I give an answer.
    Mr. HADEN GUEST: On what day shall I repeat my question?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This day week.

    SPEED LIMIT (GREAT WEST ROAD)
    Captain BRASSasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the average width of the road on that part of the Great West Road where the Metropolitan Police trap was operating recently, when 243 persons were summoned for exceeding the speed limit?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Fifty feet, Sir.
    Captain BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is really a reasonable place to have a trap where 10 cars at least can go abreast?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When local authorities complain of excessive speed of cars on any road under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, it is my duty to call the attention of the police to the complaint I have received, and it is their duty to take such steps as they think proper.
    Captain BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a police trap where the police are hidden stops people from going fast?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not essential that the speed should be moderate just where the roads are wide, because of the temptation of cars overtaking and so leading to accidents?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are arguments, and the only question here is the width of the road.
    Captain BRASSasked the Home Secretary how many of the 243 persons recently trapped on the Great West Road were summoned for driving to the danger of the public; and how many, for merely exceeding the statutory limit of 20 miles an hour?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The 243 persons recently proceeded against were summoned as follow:

    For two offences alternatively, namely, exceeding the speed limit, and also for driving at a speed dangerous to the public

    232

    For exceeding the speed limit only

    11

    The results of the summonses are: Convictions for driving at a speed dangerous to the public

    11

    For exceeding the speed limit

    139

    Cases not yet heard

    93

    Captain BRASS: Do I understand from that answer that the people who have exceeded the speed limit were prosecuted for two offences?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that a man may be driving at a speed greater than is allowed by law, and may also at the same time be driving at a speed dangerous to the public.
    Colonel DAY: Will the Home Secretary give instructions that where people are stopped in these traps, the officer shall show them where the traps are, so that they can verify the distances?
    Mr. R. MORRISON: In view of the very large number of prosecutions the law does not seem to have any deterrent effect upon excessive speed, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of introducing legislation to increase the penalties?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman or the police know of any motorist who habitually drives within the speed limit?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think my hon. Friend has got a good many of us into a difficulty over that question, but in these cases I am informed by the police that the speed limit was very considerably exceeded.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he will discourage the Conservative party from making these reflections upon the officers of the law?

  HOUSING.

    HOUSES COMPLETED, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the total number of houses completed in Great Britain in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1926?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The total number of houses completed in England and Wales during the year ended 31st March, 1926, was 173,426— 106,987 with State assistance and 66,439 without State assistance. As regards figures for Scotland, I would suggest that the hon. Member should address a similar question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is that number larger than the number for the previous 12 months?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; considerably larger.

    ENFIELD.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding in the Enfield district; and what action is being taken by the local authority concerned to overcome the existing housing shortage?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the need for houses in the Enfield district. The local authority have obtained my approval to a scheme for the erection of 609 houses under the Housing Act, 1923. Of this number, contracts have been arranged for 563, and 221 have been completed. The local authority have also undertaken, so far, to pay subsidy in respect of 171 houses to be built by private enterprise.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House whether any subsidy will be granted after October next?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not the case that the overcrowding in the Southern districts is far greater in proportion than it is at Enfield?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    FINSBURY, SHOREDITCH, AND HOLBORN.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Minister of Health the number of dwelling-houses pulled down in the boroughs of Finsbury, Shoreditch and Holborn during the year 1925, and the number of new dwelling-houses erected?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Borough.

    Number of dwelling houses pulled down in 1925.

    Number of new dwellings erected.

    Finsbury

    Nil

    Nil

    Shoreditch

    16

    59

    Holborn

    13

    25

    HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING ACT.
    Mr. GROTRIANasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the recent decision in the case of Northwood and another v. the London County Council; and whether he intends to take any steps to mitigate the hardship caused to persons whose lands and premises are acquired compulsorily under Section 46 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1925, under such circumstances as those in the above decision of the High Court?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to this case. The question of legislation to amend in some respects Section 46 of the Act of 1925 has been receiving my attention, but I am unable to make a statement in regard to the matter at the present time.

    POLICE (COUNTY AUTHORITIES).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health what progress is being made by county authorities in England in arranging to build houses for their own police, and thus lessen the housing shortage in the villages?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A number of County councils are carrying out schemes for the provision of police cottages both in connection with subsidy schemes and otherwise. I will have particulars of both classes got out and will send the information to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would it be possible to give the same powers to the Commissioner of Police in London, as there is the same difficulty in London of getting houses for the police?

    UNEMPLOYMENT, GOLBORNE (POOR LAW RELIEF).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that approximately 200 unemployed men have to walk each week from Golborne to Atherton, a return journey of 10 miles, for the purpose of seeking relief from the board of guardians, and whether he can take any steps to mitigate this hardship while the present condition of unemployment lasts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the facts are as suggested in the first part of the question. The guardians have arranged that relief for the men's families shall be paid immediately after the men have appeared before the Relief Committee, thus avoiding a second weekly journey, and since this system has been introduced no complaints have been received.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether any instructions have been given to boards of guardians to make the granting of relief conditional on the recipient undertaking to repay the amount granted; whether he is aware that Golborne residents, when applying for relief, have been asked to sign an agreement undertaking to pay back the relief granted and empowering his employer to deduct sums up to 5s. per week from his wages and hand the same to the collector of the guardians; and, if not, will he inquire why this is being done and issue instructions that every recipient of relief, before signing such an agreement, be informed that the signing of it is not compulsory for the purpose of receiving relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The question whether relief should be given on loan is a matter for the decision of the guardians themselves. In the case of the Leigh Union, I am informed that the recipients are asked at what rate per week they are prepared to repay the relief, and ordinarily sign

    2239
    an agreement such as is suggested. The ordinary rate of repayment is 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week, and the Clerk to the guardians has no knowledge of any case in which the rate is more than 2s. 6d. per week. I see no reason to interfere with the manner in which the guardians are exercising their discretion.
    Mr. YOUNG: Was the right hon. Gentleman informed that one recipient was refused because he would not sign this agreement?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I was not informed of that.

    SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Minister of Health the amount of cash in the Fund formerly known as the Lascar Fund at the date of transference, and the amount now standing to the credit of the Fund; and how many pensions have been awarded to aged seamen since the date of the transference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the governing body of the Seamen's Pension Fund, formerly known as the Lascar Fund, that the amount of the Fund taken over as at 30th June, 1918, was £108,658 12s. 5d., and at 31st December, 1925, the total amount of the Fund was £657,347 8s. 11d. The number of pensions awarded up to 31st December, 1925, was 2,097. The Report of the Governing Body for the year 1925 will, it is anticipated, be published in the course of the present month.

    BRENNAND MILL, BURNLEY (FAULTY CLOTH).
    Mr. T. SHAWasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which the owners of Brennand Bill, Burnley, required a weaver in their employ to purchase a piece of cloth as an alternative to dismissal; whether he is aware that His Majesty's inspector of factories has expressed the opinion that the firm's action was a breach of the Truck Acts; can he state why the firm has not been prosecuted; and whether he has any further statement to make on the matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received a report from the chief inspector of factories. It is clear that the firm were guilty of a breach of the Truck Acts, but as there was considerable fault on the part of the worker I contented myself with cautioning the firm, who have undertaken that the offence shall not be repeated.
    Mr. SHAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the fault on the part of the worker, and whether it was a breach of the law?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The worker had been making faulty cloth. The matter has been referred to the trade union concerned, and I think the course I have taken has met with universal satisfaction.
    Mr. SHAW: May I ask whether the inquiry was conducted before a Court, and whether the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors have instructions to see that the law is observed?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not in every case that a prosecution takes place. In this case the offence was a first offence. A caution has been administered, and an undertaking has been given that the offence will not be repeated. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if it is repeated a prosecution will follow.
    Mr. SHAW: That, if I may say so, does not answer the first part of my supplementary question. I asked the Home Secretary whether the investigation in which he says the worker was proved to be at fault was conducted before any legal authority, or who conducted it?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My Department.
    Dr. WATTS: Is the Home Secretary aware that Lancashire people are always glad to buy a piece of damaged cloth, which they can get at very low rates?

    DEMONSTRATIONS, BOW AND BROMLEY.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many processions of the unemployed have marched from the Bow and Bromley Division of Poplar to take part in demonstrations held in Trafalgar Square

    2241
    or Hyde Park during the past three years; on how many of these occasions did disorder or riot take place; how many persons were arrested and charged with offences; and is he now in a position to inform the House of the nature of the evidence which led him to consider that the proposed demonstration on 11th July would lead to disorder?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would be difficult without much research to give the details asked for in the first part of the question, but I readily admit that the demonstrations to which the hon. Member refers have been on the whole orderly. There have, however, on occasions been breaches of the peace, and the demonstration proposed was prohibited under the Emergency Regulations on the ground that there was reason during the present emergency to apprehend that it would conduce to a breach of the peace, and thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the evidence on which that decision was arrived at, and, further, is it not the fact that the Bow and Bromley Division has been for years one of the most peaceful and law-abiding Divisions in the country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that I act upon the advice and representations to myself of the Commissioner of Police, who is responsible. If he assures me that he apprehends a breach of the peace, I act on that. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I will, if he desires it, pay special attention to Bow and Bromley, and see what the result is.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way to create disorder is to prevent the holding of public meetings; and will he give to the House and to the people in Bow the evidence on which the police have told him that they are too dangerous to be allowed to hold a meeting?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The police have not told me anything of the kind. The police came to me and stated that in their opinion this was a demonstration which was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. They are responsible. If,
    2242
    however, the hon. Member says his people are law-abiding, I will endeavour to see whether they can hold meetings. I do not desire to prohibit meetings, or anything of that kind.

    PROBATION OFFICERS.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of making it a condition of the employment of the agents of voluntary societies as probation officers that they should not be required to take part in the collection from private charity of that part of their emoluments which is received from the voluntary society?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree that such a practice as that referred to would be very undesirable, and, while I do not anticipate that under the new conditions it will continue, I shall be prepared if necessary to take steps to discourage it.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take, whether by the appointment of inspectors or otherwise, to secure that grants from public funds shall not be paid to any probation authority which is not efficiently performing its duties under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Probation Grant, which will only be payable in respect of approved expenditure, will be carefully administered by the Children's Branch of the Home Office, with the assistance of the financial officers and the probation and other inspectors attached to that branch. It is not at present proposed to appoint any additional inspectors.

    COMMUNIST PAPERS.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the heading given by him as Statement of Expenditure, to Document No. 26, on page 58 of the Communist Papers published by his Department, is not a correct description of such a rough memorandum of some estimate; and if he will take steps to correct the same in any future editions?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will suggest a more appropriate note to describe the nature of Document 26, I shall be glad to consider it. Perhaps the addition of the word "contemplated" would meet his wishes
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask who is responsible for the headings to these documents? For example, there is one alleging participation by Arcos, which is not borne out by the document. Who is responsible for that?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Secretary of State is responsible.
    Captain BENN: May I ask whether there are documents, other than those published, to support the veracity of that heading?
    Commander WILLIAMS: Might not the Home Secretary also look through some of the various Liberal publications?
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Blue Book containing the Communist Papers is now out of print, and that the public are awaiting the second edition; and whether he can say what was the number of the first edition printed, and what is the reason for the delay in the production of a further supply for the public?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Owing to unexpectedly heavy demands, I regret that this publication was out of print for a short time last week, but copies are now available. The first edition was of 2,500 copies.
    Captain BENN: Will the headings that were inserted on the authority of the Home Secretary be substantially altered in the document?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say.
    Mr. RILEY: Is there a profit out of the first edition of the book, and what use will the right hon. Gentleman make of it?
    Mr. McNEILL: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will some measures be adopted to see that the Government description will be made more accurate, and would the Government be prepared to reduce the price
    2244
    and make a public edition if the Communist party are prepared to take over a certain number?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware of any inaccuracy in the publication.
    Colonel DAY: How many will the second edition comprise?

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Minister of Health the number of pensions which have been awarded to widows and orphans up to the end of June?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the end of June the figures for England, Scotland and Wales were 148,897 widows' pensions covering, with children's allowances, about 420,000 persons and 13,505 orphans' pensions.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: How does that compare with the Estimate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is considerably less than the Estimate we had originally been given of the number, but the claims are still coming in.
    Mr. TAYLOR: What is the total number of applications?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not give that without notice.
    Mr. B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making some further provision for the many exceptionally hard cases?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that on the Paper.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received the resolutions passed by the Association of Approved Insurance Societies at the annual conference on 4th and 5th June, 1926, requesting the Government to abolish the means limit in every case under the Old Age Pensions Act, and to establish the principle that insurance under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act shall be open to all persons on equal terms; and will he introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to these principles?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received the resolutions referred to in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
    Mr. TOWNEND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to extend the period in which voluntary contributors can take advantage of the scheme, in accordance with the reply he gave on 30th March to a question in my name?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY (for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE)asked the Minister of Health what amount has been saved in rates during the first six months of the operation of The Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and how much, approximately, he is expecting will be saved in rates during the next six months by the operation of that part of the Act giving full old age pension irrespective of means?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to returns which I received from boards of guardians in England and Wales in respect of the period to 27th March last the direct saving to the poor rates by reason of the grant of pensions and allowances under the Contributory Pensions Act was at the rate of £1,768,000 per annum. When account is taken of the saving in Scotland, the total figure may be taken at approximately £2,000,000 per annum. As regards the second part of the question, I expect that there will be a further substantial saving but materials are not at present available on which a reliable estimate can be based.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Does the Minister desire to effect further savings in the rates by an additional tax on wages?

    GOLBORNE (MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether his approval has now been given to the appointment of a medical officer of health for Golborne, Lancashire; and whether the gentleman appointed has the Diploma of Public Health qualification, in conformity with the terms of the advertisement when candidates for the position were sought?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have informed the council that, as the candidate selected
    2246
    by them does not possess the requisite qualifications, I am not at present prepared to give a sanction to his appointment, which would enable them to obtain repayment from the County Fund of one-half of the salary of the officer.

    FRENCH DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the subsequent political changes in the French Government, he is in a position to confirm that Great Britain would receive, during the current financial year from France, the sum of £4,000,000 on account of the French War Debt, as promised in April last by M. Péret, the then French Finance Minister?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have no doubt whatever that the promise given to me by M. Péret in the name of the French Government will be duly fulfilled.
    Sir F. NELSON: May we. understand that the promise is absolutely conditional?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: When a promise is definitely made by a responsible Minister of a foreign Government, one has every reason to believe it will be adhered to. That is certainly my hope.

    "BRITISH GAZETTE."
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will issue a complete and detailed statement of the expenditure and revenue in connection with the publication and distribution of the "British Gazette"?
    Mr. McNEILL: In due course an appropriation account will be presented for the Emergency Services Vote, which includes this service. The account will be subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who will report thereon to Parliament.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will that report contain the number of copies issued?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    RATES AND TAXES.
    Major GLYNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total sum paid in rates and taxes on offices used by Government Departments within the Metropolitan area, and how many such offices are leased; and what is the total sum paid in rent?
    Mr. McNEILL: A sum of £635,000 was paid during the last financial year in respect of contributions in lieu of rates to the rating authorities in the County of London on account of premises owned or hired by the Crown. The Crown does not pay taxes. The annual sum paid in rent in respect of 559 hired or leased premises in the Metropolitan area is £483,000.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why does not the Crown pay taxes?
    Mr. McNEILL: Because taxes are paid to the Crown.

    MAIDSTONE TAX OFFICE.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works whether he has been able to acquire better accommodation for the purposes of the Maidstone Tax Office, especially since it is officially admitted that the present accommodation is defective from the point of view both of the public and of the staff?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: Premises in which better accommodation for the Maidstone Tax Office can be provided are at present under consideration with a view to their acquisition.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that recently a Belgian was fined at Crewe Police Court for allowing foreign meat-wrappings to come into contact with live stock on his farm; that the defendant imported bacon from the Continent, the wrappings of which were the subject of the charge; that he had mixed imported bacon with the pigs' food on his farm;
    2248
    and that as a result of these acts there has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the district; and if he will now undertake to revise the existing prohibition so as to make it applicable only in reference to bacon imported in wrappings and pigs with hair on?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware that a man was fined £15 at Crewe for allowing wrappings in which bacon had been imported to come in contact with swine. The Order infringed was the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order of 1925. This Order was designed to prevent wrappings of all imported meat (beef, mutton, bacon, etc.) from being brought into contact with British animals. Foreign meat and bacon may itself be free from disease but, because it is packed in places receiving live animals, the wrappings may become contaminated after the meat is packed. Had this Order been obeyed, it is possible that the outbreak at Crewe would not have occurred. I, therefore, see no reason to modify the existing prohibition on the entry of fresh carcases into this country from the continent, but I intend to give the widest publicity to the conviction at Crewe in order to call the attention of stock owners to the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order of 1925.

    MEAT PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give the official prices for Scotch short sides, English long sides, Argentine chilled hind and fore quarters of beef, Scotch mutton, New Zealand lamb, the two grades of veal, and the two grades of pork for the first Thursday of the week in 1924 in which the Royal Commission on Food Prices commenced their public sittings and for the first Thursday in July, 1925, and for the first Thursday of July, 1926, respectively; and if he will show the percentage increase or decrease as between the period at which it was felt necessary to hold a public investigation into alleged profiteering in the meat trade and those ruling at the last of these dates?
    Mr. GUINNESS: With the hon. Members' permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the required particulars.
    The following statement gives the official prices in London on the dates mentioned

    —

    Thursday, December 11th, 1924.

    Mean.

    Thursday, July 2nd, 1925.

    Mean.

    Thursday, July 1st, 1926.

    Mean.

    Percentage Increase or Decrease at 1st July, 1926, December compared with 11th, 1924.

    Beef —

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Per cent.

    Scotch Short Sides.

    8

    0

    8

    8

    8

    4

    7

    10

    8

    6

    8

    2

    7

    4

    8

    4

    7

    10

    — 6·0

    English Long Sides.

    5

    8

    6

    6

    6

    1

    6

    0

    6

    10

    6

    5

    5

    6

    6

    4

    5

    11

    —2·7

    Argentine H.Q. chilled.

    4

    2

    4

    8

    4

    5

    5

    0

    5

    4

    5

    2

    4

    10

    5

    4

    5

    1

    +15·1

    Argentine F.Q. chilled.

    3

    2

    3

    6

    3

    4

    2

    5

    2

    9

    2

    7

    2

    10

    3

    0

    2

    11

    —12·5

    Mutton—

    Scotch mutton

    9

    0

    9

    8

    9

    4

    8

    4

    9

    4

    8

    10

    7

    8

    8

    8

    8

    2

    —12·5

    Lamb—

    New Zealand

    8

    4

    9

    0

    8

    8

    7

    4

    8

    4

    7

    10

    6

    4

    7

    0

    6

    8

    —23·1

    Veal—

    English, 1st grade

    6

    8

    9

    4

    8

    0

    6

    4

    8

    4

    7

    4

    7

    4

    9

    8

    8

    6

    +6·2

    Eng. best.

    Eng. fat.

    English, 2nd grade and 3rd grades.

    4

    8

    5

    8

    5

    2

    5

    4

    6

    0

    5

    8

    6

    0

    6

    8

    6

    4

    +22·6

    Pork—

    Eng. bobbies.

    Eng. bobbies.

    English best (under 10 st.).

    7

    0

    7

    4

    7

    2

    6

    0

    6

    6

    6

    3

    9

    0

    9

    6

    9

    3

    +29·1

    English best (10 to 15 st.).

    6

    8

    7

    0

    6

    10

    5

    8

    6

    4

    6

    0

    8

    4

    9

    0

    8

    8

    +26·8

    English best (15 to 20 st.).

    6

    0

    6

    8

    6

    4

    5

    10

    6

    0

    5

    11

    7

    10

    8

    6

    8

    2

    +28·9

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of applications to county councils and county borough councils from ex-service men and others for land for small holdings waiting to be dealt with on 31st March, 1926?

    Under the Land Settlement Scheme Councils were required to give preference to ex-service men, with the result that, since the War, very few civilian applicants have been provided with holdings. By a decision of the Government in 1920 the preference was limited to ex-service men who applied for holdings before 1st December, 1920. The required information is as follows:

    —

    Approved but not yet provided with holdings.

    Awaiting interview or standing over.

    1.—Number of applications from Ex-Service men:

    (a) Made before 1st December, 1920

    2,526

    771

    (b)Made after 1st December, 1920

    1,316

    3,291

    2.—Number of applications from civilians

    2,770

    4,173

    6,612

    8,235

    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the total additional acreage
    in the question for various classes of meat:
    Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member' permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    Following is the reply
    of land acquired by county councils, borough councils, and the

    2251
    Ministry of Agriculture, respectively, from 1st January, 1925, to 31st March, 1926, and the number of additional tenants settled upon such land by the respective authorities?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The area acquired by county councils during the period stated was 697 acres, and the number of holdings provided on such area 57. No land was acquired by councils of county boroughs or the Ministry, but 884 acres of land previously acquired by the Ministry for farm settlements and let on lease as ordinary farms came in hand, and an area of 696 acres was divided into 22 small holdings, the remainder being added to existing holdings.
    Mr. RILEY: Is the amount of the land referred to likely to be at all adequate to supply the applicants who are waiting?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, certainly not; and that is why we are proposing to make further legislative provision for the supply of holdings. The hon. Member's question covered the period at the end of the ex-service men's settlement scheme which we are now winding up.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: When are we going to get this legislation which is going to present an opportunity to thousands of these men who are anxious to get on the land?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I hope we shall introduce a Bill in a week or two.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Should we not get the Bill a little quicker if there was more order on the other side?

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (BUILDING).
    Mr. PALINasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give figures showing how much agricultural land has been taken for building purposes from the area returned as agricultural land between the years 1900–1914, and 1914–1925?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I am not in possession of this information.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONES (NEW INSTALLATIONS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Postmaster-General in which
    2252
    exchange areas outside the London district and the Hull district there is a delay of more than three weeks in installing new telephones; and in which areas are applicants informed that their orders cannot be extended owing to shortage of plant?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The extension of the telephone service is proceeding in all districts, but although every endeavour is made to forecast future developments, in a certain percentage of streets or areas the demand from time to time temporarily overtakes the supply, and occasionally extensive works, such as the laying of a new main cable, are necessary and involve a delay of some weeks. The list of areas in which there is a shortage of telephone plant therefore fluctuates from day to day, but every endeavour is made to overtake arrears as speedily as possible.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any delay through lack of capital at the disposal of the Department?
    Viscount WOLMER: I suppose if the Government had an unlimited amount of money we could supply everyone with telephones at a very reduced rate.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the service remunerative?

    LETTER POSTAGE, CANADA.
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the inland penny letter rate, which came into force in Canada on the 1st July, is also to apply to Canadian letters to the United States and Mexico; and whether he will enter into negotiations for a similar reduction from three to two cents per ounce on Canadian letters to Great Britain?
    Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am making inquiries as to the conditions under which this arrangement has been made and will communicate further with the hon. Member.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Could not letters be carried more cheaply from Canada to Great Britain than from Canada to Mexico?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, I think they could.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is not this a form of Imperial Preference?

    CANADA (IMPORTS FOR GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade the per-

    The following statement shows the aggregate values of the Imports for consumption into the Dominion of Canada during each of the years 1923, 1924 and 1925, and during the first three months of 1926, together with the values of the Imports recorded as of United Kingdom origin in each period, and their proportion to the respective totals. Similar information for later periods has not yet been received.

    Year.

    Total Imports for Consumption.

    Imports for Consumption from United Kingdom.*

    £

    £

    Per cent.

    1923

    193,617,177

    33,121,509

    17·1

    1924

    180,712.114

    33,294,212

    18·4

    1925

    184,320,362

    33,562,770

    18·2

    1926 (Jan.-Mar.)

    63,515,000

    10,592,367

    16·7

    *Including Imports of Irish Free State origin prior to 1st April, 1924.

    ARMS AND AMMUNITION (MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Prime Minister if he will give the figures for the latest year available of the total amount of arms and ammunition manufactured in this country for all the fighting services; and the amounts manufactured under private and Government firms, respectively?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.
    Captain BENN: Are we not under a pledge in the Covenant of the League of Nations to see that the private manufacture of arms ceases?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so.
    Mr. SMITH: Cannot we possibly have any figures?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My answer is that it has never been the practice to give the amount of ammunition and arms manufactured in the country, because it
    centage of the import trade of Canada done by this country during the years ending 31st December, 1923, 1924 and 1925, and for the six months ending 30th June, 1926?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer contains a table of figures, and the hon. Member will, perhaps, agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    is considered to be rather detrimental to the national interests.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the League of Nations has indicated that the private manufacture of arms and ammunition should cease, and is it not therefore desirable that the practise of refusing to give these figures should cease?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If the Prime Minister is not in a position to give the full figures, can he give the proportions manufactured by private firms and by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider a question of that kind if it is put down.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the Prime Minister say how, if every Government adopts that view, it will be possible to ensure any reduction in armaments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Quite frankly, I cannot follow that reasoning.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If the League of Nations lays down certain limitations of armaments, how can we ensure that

    2255
    that limitation will be adhered to if every Government keeps its manufacture of armaments secret?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

    INDIA (POLITICAL AND TRADE CONDITIONS).
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any indication as to the prospects of the House having an opportunity of debating the political and trade conditions of India before the end of this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The selection of the subject for discussion in Committee of Supply rests with the Opposition, and I have no power to say which Estimates shall or shall not be considered.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the Prime Minister not think that the absence of any Debate on Indian affairs during a whole Session must have a bad effect in India?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should have thought that there was sufficient interest in this House in India to have a discussion on it.
    Colonel APPLIN: Will the Prime Minister give the same consideration to his own supporters in a matter of great importance like this that he gives to the Opposition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is evidently not aware of the custom of this House. The choice of subjects on Supply days always rests with the Opposition, whatever Government be in power.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the Prime Minister remember that there was a glaring omission in regard to India in His Majesty's Speech at the opening of Parliament, and that if that is followed by a complete absence of discussion of a subject affecting a country where people have not ocmplete self-government, it will be misunderstood?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.
    Mr. R. SMITHasked the Prime Minister if the Government hold the view that a settlement of the present mining dispute is still to be had on the Commission's Report if the miners would accept it as interpreted by Sir Herbert Samuel in his memorandum?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The settlement of this dispute, as I have reminded this House on previous occasions, must depend primarily and mainly upon agreement being reached between the mine-owners and their employés, and the only answer that I can give to a hypothetical question of this character is that, if the miners submit any possible basis of agreement for meeting the existing conditions of the industry—whether on the lines of the Royal Commission's Report or in any other way—I have no doubt that it would receive the fullest consideration from the mineowners as well as from the Government.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the important statement which the Prime Minister made at the conclusion of his speech last week, will he answer the question in the terms I have suggested, so that we may know definitely what he means?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the reply gives a perfectly satisfactory answer. The moment any communication is received from those who have authority to speak, it will be considered.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the mine-owners have as yet expressed their willingness to go back to the Report, and to accept its recommendation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have had no communications with them for a long time therefore I cannot say.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why all his questions are directed to the miners accepting or otherwise the recommendations of the Report, when the mine-owners are equally involved?
    Mr. SUTTON: May I ask the Prime Minister, seeing that he stated in this House that the coalowners and the miners are unable to settle this matter

    2257
    and that only the Government can settle it, whether he does not think it is time the Government began to settle the dispute on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government did their best to settle, but were not successful in their efforts. I do not think I ever said that the Government alone could settle the dispute. The Government cannot settle in the absence of agreement on both sides.
    Mr. SUTTON: Is the Prime Minister not aware that, a few weeks ago, when he made his statement in this House, he admitted that this matter could not be settled by the two sides, and that they as a Government would have to settle it? Will he do so on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission?
    Mr. BATEYis the Prime Minister aware that the Durham coalowners published their terms yesterday, which mean an increase in the hours of the coal hewers of from one to two hours, and in the hours of the surface workers, two hours, and a reduction of percentage from 110 per cent. to 89 per cent.—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question on the Paper.

    COAL TRIMMERS (REGISTRATION CARDS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that coal trimmers unemployed owing to the slackness of trade resulting from the coal stoppage are unable to get a registration card for work on the docks apparently for no other reason than that they are coal trimmers, although they were previously supplied with these cards; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): My attention had not been called to the circumstances mentioned in the question. If the hon. and gallant Member will indicate the ports he has in mind, I will have further inquiry made. In any case, however, the registration of dock workers is usually under the control of a local joint committee of employers and workpeople's representatives whose decisions are not subject to review by the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the Minister of Labour aware that there is a competition between two different unions to secure this work for their members?

    MINERS AT WORK.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give figures of the number of coal miners at work now or on the nearest convenient date?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. About 400 mines, employing about 11,000 men, are at present at work, practically all of them very small.
    Mr. PALING: Are these all safety men?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: I cannot say.

    HOSKINS AND SONS, LIMITED, BIRMINGHAM (Mr. N. CHAMBER-LAIN'S DIRECTORSHIP).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Health is still a director of Hoskins and Sons, Limited, Trinity Street, Birmingham; and, if not, when the Minister of Health resigned his directorship?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, the second part does not therefore arise. I may say that the company in question is a private family concern, and therefore comes within the class which by the general practice of the last twenty years has been excluded from the rule that Ministers should resign directorships on entering office. The practice was first laid down by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman in answer to a question on 20th March, 1906, in the following words:
    "The condition which was laid down on the formation of the Government was that all directorships held by Ministers must he resigned except in the case of honorary directorships, directorships in connection with philanthropic undertakings, and directorships in private companies."
    This was reaffirmed on the 28th March, 1917, by Minute of the War Cabinet, and has been the practice of successive Governments since 1906
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his opinion in this matter has not changed, in view of

    2259
    the fact that this particular company has enjoyed and is enjoying contractual relationship with the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge of the transactions of that particular company, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement at the usual time by permission of Mr. Speaker and the House.

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (POLICY HOLDERS' COMPLAINTS).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints from policy holders have been received by the Industrial Assurance Commissioner during the last 12 months; how many of these cases are disposed of; and how many still remain to be dealt with?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have been asked to reply. 2,632 complaints were received by the Industrial Assurance Commissioner during the 12 months ended 6th July, 1926. Of these, 2,480 have been disposed of or adjourned pending further information, and 152 cases remain to be dealt with.

  RUSSIA.

    EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade the sum total value of Russia's exports and imports for the half-year, October, 1925, to March, 1926; and how these totals compare with those for the half-year, October, 1924, to March, 1925?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to information published by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the value of the imports and exports during the half year ended March, 1926, was: imports, £39,996,000; exports, £32,709,000. During the half-year ended March, 1625, the corresponding figures were: imports, £225,681,1100, and exports, £25,444,000.

    GERMAN GUARANTEE.
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German Reich and State Governments, with the object of consolidating economic relations with Soviet Russia, have undertaken to give a 60 per cent. guarantee on deliveries of German goods to Russia, on
    2260
    two to four years' credits, up to a total of;300,000,000 marks; and whether His Majesty's Government intend taking any steps to negotiate a similar agreement with the Soviet Government with the object of finding additional employment for the engineering trades of this country?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 5th July to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell).
    An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to stop the financing of German trade in Russia?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir that would be quite out of my province.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIRMAN'S DEATH (MOTHER'S PENSION CLAIM).
    Mr. HORE-BLEISHA)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the parents of Leading Aircraftsman R. R. Germain, who lost his life in the air disaster at Hendon in April last, have received a sum of £22 4s.11d. in settlement of the late airman's estate; and whether, since the late airman made an allotment of 10s. 6d. a week to his mother, he will consider awarding her a pension based on the amount that she received weekly from the deceased airman?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, if the reference is to an accident at Henlow. As regards the second part, the deceased airman's mother has been sent a form of application for pension for completion and on its return her claim will be fully and sympathetically considered.

    TECHNICAL POSTS (Ex-SERVICE MEN).
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of Clause 45 of the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee and its subsequent endorsement by the Southborough Committee and the Government, what action he proposes to take to ensure its fulfilment with respect to the appointment of temporary ex-service men

    2261
    in the Civil Service to posts of a technical or semi-technical nature, in accordance with Clause 7, Order in Council, 10th January, 1910, or the appropriate machinery that may replace it?
    Sir S. HOARE: The machinery to which my hon. Friend refers is indicated by paragraph 45 of the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee as appropriate to cases where an individual ex-service man possesses the requisite technical qualifications for a particular appointment. In general, the technical work at the Air Ministry is in large blocks involving the employment of considerable staffs for whose establishment the alternative method of special limited competition provided under paragraph 45 has been invoked, but the procedure referred to in the question has been utilised in 50 cases.

    HENDON PAGEANT.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the approximate number of those who attended the Air Force display on Saturday last; and what sum of money was raised for the charities concerned?
    Sir S. HOARE: I regret that the information requested by my hon. Friend will not be available until the returns of tickets sold have been received from the agents, Royal Air Force units, etc., and

    —

    Year ending 31st March.

    —

    1926.*

    1924.

    1921.

    1914.

    1913.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Salaries, travelling expenses, and other administrative expenses

    3,520,516

    3,186,288

    3,552,012

    517,069

    382,110

    Payments to associations and Local Education Authorities for administration of Unemployment Insurance

    105,310

    68,879

    47,568

    —

    —

    Stationery, printing, etc.

    967,000

    51,543

    164,148

    28,591

    40,332

    Premises (rent and capital expenditure)

    967,000

    348,610

    865,774

    151,504

    220,352

    General Post Office}

    967,000

    290,455

    249,177

    75,721

    90,196

    Rates

    967,000

    59,773

    26,014

    15,632

    10,105

    Miscellaneous services rendered by other Government Departments}

    967,000

    160,256

    26,014

    15,632

    10,105

    †Superannuation (accruing liability)

    246,316

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Total cost of Employment Exchange Service.

    4,839,142

    4,165,804

    4,904,693

    788,517

    743,095

    *Estimated.

    † A charge under this head was made for the first time during the year ended 31st March, 1925, in pursuance of Section 6 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924. The previous practice was to charge the proper proportion of superannuation allowance actually paid.

    the accounts have been made up. It seems certain, however, that the attendance was a record one.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: If I put the question down in a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me the information?
    Sir S. HOARE: I will try to get the information by then.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Labour the cost of the Employment Exchanges for the year ending the 31st March last in respect of salaries, travelling expenses, stationery, and rents and rates of buildings, each separately ; and the corresponding figures for the years 1923, 1920, 1913, and 1912, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Details of expenditure precisely on the lines asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend are not available. With his permission, however, I will circulate a Table showing the cost of the Employment Exchanges, branch employment offices, divisional offices, the headquarters of the employment and insurance department and the Claims and Record Office, Kew, taken together.
    Following is the table promised:
    The figures given include the appropriate proportion of the cost of other Departments of the Ministry of Labour and of other Government Departments rendering services to the Employment Exchanges. In comparing the recent cost with the pre-War cost, it is necessary to bear in mind that the number of persons insured for unemployment insurance is now 11,500,000 as compared with 2,350,000 in 1913–14, the rate of unemployment has been well over 10 per cent. against about two per cent. in 1913, and the amount of unemployment benefit disbursed has been over 40 millions sterling per annum as compared with £493,022 in 1913–14.

  TRANSPORT.

    FOOTPATHS ON NEW ROADS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that his refusal to make grants towards the construction of new roads and towards road improvement schemes unless footpaths are provided forces county councils to provide these paths in places where they consider them to be unnecessary; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will in future leave it to the local authorities to decide as to the necessity of these paths?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Having regard to the ever increasing volume of vehicular traffic on roads, in making grants to improvement schemes I require that due consideration should be given to the safety and convenience of pedestrians. The necessity for footpaths must vary widely in different localities, and I attach full importance to the views expressed thereon by the highway authorities.
    Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not a fact that the Ministry has refused grants to the Devon County Council for new construction and their trunk road schemes unless these paths are made in places where they are not wanted and will never be used, thereby adding 10 per cent. to the cost of construction, and does he not think that county councillors who know their districts are better judges than officials in London?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The only objection taken is in connection with one short section of road. My policy is that, except in quite rural areas in the country, or where there is grass, where large reconstructions are taking place, footpaths should be provided.
    Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration putting decent footpaths on new roads, such as the new Romford Road?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question down.

    ROAD FUND (FINES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport what was the total amount paid into the Road Fund as the result of fines levied on motorists during the past year; and how many driving licences were suspended?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The total amount of fines levied on motorists and paid into the Road Fund during the financial year 1925–26 was, approximately, £165,000. There are no figures available as to the number of driving licences suspended.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the number of police engaged in this work and the time for which they are engaged?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That question should be addressed to the Home Secretary.
    Colonel DAY: Is that the complete sum of money paid in fines by motorists during the last 12 months.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, certainly.

    GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL (LAY MEMBER).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what was the object in appointing a lay member on the General Medical Council?
    Major HENNESSY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): It would be contrary to practice to disclose the grounds upon which the Privy Council advised His Majesty to make the recent appoint-

    2265
    ment. No doubt my hon. Friend is acquainted with the public discussion which has taken place in connexion with the constitution of the General Medical Council.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether the appointment of a lay member signifies any change in the policy which the General Medical Council adopted towards Dr. Axham?
    Colonel HENNESSY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Arising out of that question, may I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware—
    Colonel DAY: Do not read it.
    Mr. ERSKINE: I am not reading it. May I ask if the hon. and gallant Member is aware that Dr. Collis, a registered medical practitioner, is now acting in the same capacity as Dr. Axham acted in times gone past to Sir Thomas Barker?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question seems to involve an individual, and may carry an implication which is not plain to me at the moment. For that reason, I should like to see the question in writing.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member if it is not the case that the purpose of appointing a lay member to the General Medical Council is to abate the autocracy of the medical profession and dilute the fanatical trade unionism with which they are possessed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to try to shed some of the adjectives in his supplementary questions.

    IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps it is proposed to take with regard to those British ex-service men who were transferred without their permission from the British Civil Service to the Irish Free State, Civil Service and who have been ranked as civilians, placed first on the list of retrenchment, and are not permitted recompense for loss of position as in the case of the British Civil Service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I would refer my hon. Friend to Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement, Article 7 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, and Articles 77 and 78 of the Irish Free State Constitution, which secure to all civil servants transferred to the service of the Irish Free State all rights which they may have possessed prior to such transfer.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: I have some little knowledge of the articles of the Treaty in question, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Free State are observing their obligations in regard to English civil servants, and will he use his authority to see that they get common justice?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no reason to assume that the Free State are not observing the terms of the Treaty.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: If I can give the right hon. Gentleman numerous instances, will he promise to investigate them and see that justice is done to these men?
    Mr. AMERY: I shall be glad to consider any case which the hon. Member sends to me.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHIPWRIGHT APPRENTICES (PAY).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the discrepancy between a recent Admiralty Order reducing the pay of naval boy shipwrights at present serving in His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, on their entry into His Majesty's Navy and the statement made in the House on 18th November, 1925, to the effect that naval shipwright apprentices who were already serving on 4th October would, on their joining the Royal Navy, remain on the old scale of pay; and whether, seeing that before these reductions were announced these shipwright apprentices had already signed attestation forms, were over the age of 18, and were borne on the books of H.M.S. "Pembroke" as naval ratings and serving time for pension, he will make it clear how they are affected by these orders?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am not aware of any

    2267
    Admiralty Order conflicting with the statement made in the House on the 18th November, 1925, and that statement still represents the intention of the Admiralty.

    OBSOLETE SHIPS (BREAKING-UP).
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the need of employment of shipyard workers and also economy of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, he will partition out the obsolete ships, etc., which are to be broken up to the various shipbuilding ports round the coast, or if disposed of to one or two firms that such disposal shall carry a condition that their breaking-up shall be partitioned out as suggested, thus to provide employment in the various centres instead of, as now, in one or two localities alone?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The obsolete ships referred to will be sold with due regard to the prices quoted and to the state of unemployment in the various shipbreaking areas. With regard to the last part of the question shipbreaking of obsolete naval vessels is being carried on at numerous ports and is not confined to one or two localities.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Major Glyn.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I put— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman desire to put a supplementary question?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, a supplementary to question 66. I desire to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it would not be more economical and more in the national interest, with these old, obsolete ships if, when the non-ferrous metals are removed, they were filled with concrete, sunk, and used for harbours around our coasts for the fishermen, who urgently need them—as breakwaters?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems more concerned about making suggestions than seeking for information.

    EFFECTIVE LIST (REMOVALS).
    Major GLYNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships it is proposed to remove from the effective list during the current financial year; and whether there will be any changes in the
    2268
    ships belonging to or attached to the naval forces of the Dominions, and, if so, what?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the reply is somewhat long and contains a number of names, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The reply is as follows:
    The following 20 ships will be removed from the effective list of the Royal Navy during this financial year:—

    "Ajax."

    "Sikh."

    "Thunderer."

    "Tarpon."

    "King George V."

    "Sable."

    "Agamemnon."

    "Raider."

    S/M "L.9."

    "Retriever."

    "Radstock."

    "Redgauntlet."

    "Satyr."

    "Telemachus."

    "Sorceress."

    "Sharpshooter."

    "Sabrina."

    "Stork"

    "Truculent."

    "Rapid."

    As regards ships belonging to or attached to the naval forces of the Dominions, the only changes which can be foreseen at the moment are the sale of His Majesty's Canadian Ship "Aurora" and the two Canadian Submarines "C.H.14" and "C.H.15," which is contemplated by the Canadian Government. The two new submarines for the Australian Navy may possibly be finished in time to be commissioned during this year, but it is impossible to give a definite reply on this point at the moment.

    MUSIC-HALL POSTER, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. DENNISONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the Birmingham police authority in removing a poster advertising a certain music-hall artist; and on what grounds did the Home Office, on being consulted, approve of this action being taken?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The artist in question improperly, but without wrongful intention, displayed a portion of a Treasury Note on an advertisement. The Birmingham police very properly called his attention to it; the advertisement was withdrawn and the artist admitted that the police were right and that he was wrong.

    STREET ACCIDENTS (TRAMWAY AND HORSE TRAFFIC).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary how many accidents were caused last year by tramway and horse traffic, respectively; and what was the number of individuals killed and injured in such accidents?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: According to the police returns of street accidents in England and Wales, 105 fatal and 5,154 non-fatal accidents were attributable to tramcars in 1925, and the corresponding figures for horse-drawn vehicles were 191 and 5,079, respectively. The returns do not give the number of persons killed and injured, respectively.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to take the Finance Bill— completion of the Report stage.
Tuesday: Supply, Ministry of Health Vote.
Wednesday: Supply, Post Office Vote, until 8.15; Ministry of Transport Vote, until 11 p.m.
Thursday: Supply, the Vote will be announced later.
Friday: the Business will be announced later.
If time permit, on any day next week, progress will be made with small Bills on the Paper.
The following Notice of Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of the PRIME MINISTER:
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill and on the Report of Supply [7th July] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Mr. THURTLE: Before this Motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that it contains three separate Questions, and I wish to know whether the House has a right to divide upon all these three Questions?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion contains only two Questions, namely, that Government business should to-day have precedence of Supply, and the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule. If it is desired, I could put these two Questions separately.
Mr. THURTLE: I take objection to the Motion being put as one Question.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will put the Questions separately.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 130.

Division No. 339.]

AYES

[4.3 p. m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Braithwaite, A N.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Brass, Captain W.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive

Clayton, G. C.

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.

Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

Briscoe, Richard George

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

Brittain, Sir Harry

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Astor, Viscountess

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Cooper, A. Duff

Atholl, Duchess of

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

Cope, Major William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Couper, J. B.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Balnlel, Lord

Bullock, Captain M.

Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barclay-Harvey, C. M,

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Berry, Sir George

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Bethel, A.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

Betterton. Henry B.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

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

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Dawson, Sir Philip

Blundell, F. N.

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

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Boothby, R. J. G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Drewe, C.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Chapman, Sir S

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Ellis, R. G.

Elveden, Viscount

Jephcott, A. R.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

England, Colonel A.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Rye, F. G.

Erskine, lames Malcolm Montelth

Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

Salmon, Major I.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Falls, Sir Bertram G.

Lamb, J. Q.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Falls, Sir Charles F.

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

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

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

Fielden, E. B.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Finburgh, S.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Shepperson, E. W.

Forrest, W.

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

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

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Loder, J. de V.

Skelton, A. N.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lougher, L.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Smith, R. W. (Aherd'n & Kincidlne, C.)

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Lumley, L. R.

Smithi-Carington, Neville W.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Smithers, Waldron

Gates, Percy

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Macintyre, Ian

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Macmillan, Captain H.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Greene, W. P. Crawford

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Macquisten, F. A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Grotrian, H. Brent

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

Templeton, W. P.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

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

Malone, Major P. B.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Hanbury, C.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Tinne, J. A.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Tryon, sir Edmund Russborough

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

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

Waddington, R.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

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

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Warrender, sir Victor

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Murchison, C. K.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Watts, Dr. T.

Hills, Major John Waiter

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

Wells, S. R

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

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

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

Nuttall, Ellis

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Holt. Capt. H. P.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Pennefather, Sir John

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Howard, Captain Hon, Donald

Penny, Frederick George

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

Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'I'nd, Whlteh'n)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wilson, n. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Perring, Sir William George

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Hurd, Percy A.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Womersley, W. J.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

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

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

Radford, E. A.

Wood, sir. S. Hill (High peak)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Raine, W.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Ramsden, E.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

Remnant, Sir James

Jacob, A. E.

Rentoul, G. s.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Rice, Sir Frederick

Major Major Harry Barnston and

Colonel Gibbs

NOES

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

Compton, Joseph

Grundy, T. W.

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Ammon, Charles George

Dalton, Hugh

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

Attlee, Clement Richard

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Day, Colonel Harry

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Dennison, R.

Hardie, George D.

Barr, J.

Dunnico, H.

Harney, E. A.

Batey, Joseph

Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Harris, Percy A.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Brlant, Frank

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Hayday, Arthur

Broad, F. A.

Gardner, J. P.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Bromfield, William

Gibbins, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Bromley, J.

Gillett, George M.

Hirst, G. H.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Buchanan, G.

Greenall, T.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Cape, Thomas

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Charleton, H. C.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Collins, dir Godfrey (Greenock)

Groves, T.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

2272

2273

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Taylor, R. A.

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

Potts, John S.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Purcell, A. A.

Thurtle, E.

Kelly, W. T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

Tinker, John Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Riley, Ben

Townend, A. E.

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

Ritson, J.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Kenyon, Barnet

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Varley, Frank B.

Kirkwocd, D.

Sakiatvala, Shaperji

Vlant, S. P.

Lansbury, George

Scurr, John

Wallhead, Richard C.

Lawrence, Susan

Sexton, James

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Lawson, John James

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Lee, F.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

Lindley, F. W.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Lowth, T.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Welsh, J. C.

Lunn, William

Sitch, Charles H.

Westwood, J.

MacLaren, Andrew

Smillie, Robert

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

March, S.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Wiggins, William Martin

Montague, Frederick

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Morris, R. H

Snell, Harry

William., T. (York, Don Valley)

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

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Murnin, H.

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Windsor, Walter

Oliver, George Harold

Stamford, T. W.

Wright, W.

Palin, John Henry

Stephen, Campbell

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Paling, W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Sutton, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

Motion made, and Question put,
"That the proceedings on the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill and on the Report of Supply [7th July] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the
Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 130.

Division No. 340.]

AYES.

[4.12 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Clayton, G. C.

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

Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

Astor, Viscountess

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Atholl, Duchess of

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Conway, sir W. Martin

Harland, a.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cooper, A. Duff

Henry Harrison, G. J. C.

Bainlel, Lord

Cope, Major William

Hartington, Marquess of

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Couper, J. B.

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

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

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

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Bethel, A.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Betterton, Henry B.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

Dalzlel, Sir Davison

Hills, Major John Waiter

Blundell, F. N.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Dawson, Sir Philip

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Holt. Capt. H. P.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Drewe, C.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Braithwaite, A. N.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Howard, Captain Hon, Donald

Brass, Captain W.

Ellis, R. G.

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Elveden, Viscount

Hume, Sir G. H.

Briggs, J. Harold

England, Colonel A.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Brittain, Sir Harry

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Hurd, Percy A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexnam)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

Falls, Sir Bertram G.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Falls, Sir Charles F.

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Flelden, E. B.

Jacob, A. E.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Flnburgh, S.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Forrest, W.

Jephcott, A. R.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Gates, Percy

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Chapman, sir S.

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Leigh, sir John (clapham)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Pennefather, Sir John

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Penny, Frederick George

Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Loder, J. de V.

Perring, Sir William George

Templeton, W. P.

Looker, Herbert William

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

Lougher, L.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Lumley, L. R

Radford, E. A.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Reine, W.

Tinne, J. A.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Ramsden, E.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Rawson, sir copper

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Macintyre, Ian

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Vaughan-Morgan, col. K. P.

Macmillan Captain H.

Remnant, Sir James

Wallace, Captain D. E,

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Rice, Sir Frederick

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

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Ropner, Major L

Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.

Macquisten, F. A.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Warrender, Sir Victor

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Rye, F. G.

Watts, Dr. T.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Salmon, Major I.

Wells, S. R.

Malone, Major P. B.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Margesson, Captain D.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Moose, Eyree, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

Shepperson, E. W.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

Wise, Sir Fredric

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Skelton, A. N.

Womersley, W. J.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, West)

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

Smithers, Waldron

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Nuttall, Ellis

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

Colonel Gibbs

NOES.

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

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

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Ammon, Charles George

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Potts, John S.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hardie, George D.

Purcell, A. A.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Harney, E. A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Harris, Percy A.

Riley, Ben

Barr, J.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Ritson, J.

Baley, Joseph

Hayday, Arthur

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scurr, John

Briant, Frank

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sexton, James

Broad, F. A.

Hirst, G. H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Bromfield, William

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Bromley, J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)

Buchanan, G.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sitch, Charles H.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smillie, Robert

Cape, Thomas

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Cluse, W. S.

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

Snell, Harry

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Compton, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kennedy, T.

Stamford, T. W.

Dalton, Hugh

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

Stephen, Campbell

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kenyon, Barnet

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Day, Colonel Harry

Kirkwood, D.

Sutton, J. E.

Dennison, R.

Lansbury, George

Taylor, R. A.

Dunnico, H.

Lawrence, Susan

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, E.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lee, F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lindley, F. W.

Townend, A. E.

Gardner, J. P.

Loath, T.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Glbbins, Joseph

Lunn, William

Varley, Frank B.

Gillett, George M.

MacLaren, Andrew

Viant, S. P.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

March, S.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Greenall, T.

Montague, Frederick

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

Morris, R. H

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Murnin, H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Groves, T.

Oliver, George Harold

Welsh, J. C.

Grundy, T. W.

Palin, John Henry

Westwood, J.

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Paling, W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

2276

2277

Wiggins, William Martin

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Windsor, Waiter

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Wright, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I desire, with your permission, to make a short personal statement in connection with a question asked to-day by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I had not intended to make any such statement, seeing that up to the present, so far as I know, no charge has been made against me, either in this House or outside. But I observe this morning that a statement has been widely circulated in the Press that I was to make a statement of this kind, and, if I failed to make a statement, it seems to me that I should be placed in an intolerable position, since it might be thought that I desired to evade something, or to keep something back. I understand that for some weeks there have been experts employed, I do not know by whom, or at whose expense, to search the records of Somerset House, and the files of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," in order to see whether anything could be found that could be used to discredit His Majesty's Ministers. [Interruption.] It is difficult, in the absence of any express charges, to know what I am to reply to, but I will assume three possible charges which may be made. I would like to make a short statement upon each. First of all, there is the charge, implied I think in the question of the hon. Member—who seems to be rather a specialist in this kind of thing. [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that a statement made at the end of Questions must be confined to non-controversial points. I have already refused, from another quarter of the House, a matter which I thought did not comply with that condition. It is because it would lead either to debate, or to something which could not be completed without debate, that that Rule is in force.
Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: How, Mr. Speaker, can it possibly be a non-controversial statement when it is challenging a. Minister's honour?
Mr. THURTLE: Further on that point of Order. If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of the nature of the charges
2278
that are to be formulated against him, had he not better wait until such charges are formulated before making a statement?
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is controversial, then, according to that statement.
Mr. SPEAKER: The House has always, as a matter of courtesy, listened to a statement of this kind from whatever quarter it comes. We had one only a few days ago from the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). The House always affords that courtesy. The Rule is that these statements must be personal statements, and must not raise matters which will necessitate debate. A Debate, if there are personal charges, can only take place on a substantive Motion properly tabled.
Mr. ERSKINE: What was actually said by the Minister which conflicted with your ruling, Sir?
Mr. SPEAKER: I thought it would be best at the beginning, anticipating what might possibly develop in the House, to lay down the rule which has held for many years—for many hundreds of years.
Mr. DUFF COOPER: On the point of Order. May I submit that it is quite impossible for Members of His Majesty's Government to wait, for these charges to be formulated, since not one Member of the Opposition has had the courage to formulate any charge? They have confined themselves solely to insinuations which they cannot substantiate and do not dare to—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter with which I am not dealing. All I say is that a Minister, like any other Member of the House, is entitled to make a. personal statement, but that personal statement ought not to involve any attack on any other Member of the House. That is the rule universally applied by the Chair.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In completing my statement, I will endeavour to avoid anything which is not absolutely necessary for the purpose of personal defence. I assume that the first charge

2279
is that, being a member of the Government, I have retained a directorship I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown convincingly that in retaining the directorship of this private and family concern, I am acting in strict accordance with what has been the practice of Governments for the lass 25 years. But in a newspaper I find, in the issue of 7th July, the following statement, which seems to imply a further charge:
"In the Debate on a Motion calling attention to the fact that relations of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had large interests in concerns which receive contracts from the Government, on 10th December, 1900, the principle that no Minister ought to hold investments in companies which derive their profits largely from Government contracts was generally agreed to."
That is in direct contradiction of the facts, as anybody will see who refers to the Debate in question in 1900. It is a curious fact that in that Debate, which took place 26 years ago, this identical company was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was, at that time, seeking to persuade the House to accept an Amendment to the Address. It was quoted by him in a speech in which he dilated upon it with much sarcasm. It was then said in reply to him by Colonel Milward, at that time Member for Stratford-on-Avon, that the firm of Hoskins and Sons was mainly the business of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. The Amendment was defeated by a large majority, and it never has been laid down or agreed in this House that no Minister should hold shares in any company which might from time to time have contracts with Government Departments. It would not be in order for me to enter into the merits of that general position. I merely state that that is the fact.
I think there is a third charge, which is more personal and seems to suggest that I may have used my position as a director of this particular company to obtain contracts from the Government. May I then say, Sir, that for many years I have taken no active part whatever in the administration of this company. I do not know, I do not ask what contracts they have. My connection with it is simply that of a trustee for the family
2280
interests which arc concerned, and I cannot say now whether or not the company holds contracts from any Government Department. What I do know is that at the time when I was actively concerned with the company, dating from its formation in 1897, the business which it did with Government Departments formed only a trifling proportion of its whole turnover, its business being concerned mainly with shipping and shipbuilding companies and, as far as I am aware, there has been no change in that respect since.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I am aware that it would not be in order to debate the explanation which has just been made to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will say with your permission, Sir, that on the issue which has been raised and on the questions that have been submitted it can only be said, so far as this House is concerned, that if any charges have been made they have been made by way of trying to obtain information in the way that is proper in connection with the carrying on of the business of this House. There seems to be a suspicion that we are afraid on this side to make the charges in the proper way—that is in the way that is considered proper by hon. Members opposite—and in view of that, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will afford us at an early date an opportunity for this matter to be fully discussed.
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course any time the right hon. Gentleman desires to put clown a Motion, we shall be pleased to afford time, or the matter can be raised on another occasion without putting down a Motion.
Mr. HENDERSON: I consider this matter to be of such great public importance that I wish to intimate to the House that we will accept the offer of the Prime Minister and table a Motion for debate.
Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask for information? In the event of a Minister of the Crown making very serious allegations against Members either of boards of guardians or other bodies, and refusing to investigate those charges, is there any remedy inside this House? [Interruption.] Never you mind. You shut your mouth.
HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"
Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. It was drowned by a disorderly interruption. Hon. Members, I hope, will restrain themselves. It merely distracts attention from things that really matter. In the last few weeks, I am aware that Members have been under a considerable sense of strain, but that very fact ought to lead them to greater restraint. They are dealing with great national issues, and these are only obscured by the behaviour of some Members of the House in the last two or three weeks. I make a strong appeal to Members to remember the duties which are entrusted to them.
Mr. HARDIE: I wish to ask for your ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker. In the present circumstances, when the whole House has agreed to a Debate upon the conduct of the Minister, may I ask your ruling as to whether it is competent for that Minister to continue to represent the Crown until that Debate is over?
Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly it is.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Coal Mines Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ilfracombe) Bill, without, Amendment.
Port of London Bill, with an Amendment.
Mid-Nottinghamshire Joint Railways Bill,
Rhymney Valley Water Bill,
Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; to enact provisions for the health, local government and improvement of the said city; and for other purposes."[Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords.]

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 1.—(Proceedings on default by board of guardians.)
  Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "Where" to insert the words
  "after inquiry by a Select Committee of the Commons House of Parliament."
  I profoundly disagree with the principle on which this Bill is founded, and think it in every way a bad Bill; and, beyond that, on looking at this Clause 1, find that it proposes to enact that
  "Where it appears to the Minister of Health…that the board of guardians for any Poor Law union have ceased, or are acting in such a manner as will render them unable, to discharge all or any of the functions exercised by the board, the Minister may by Order—
  do certain things. I do not think the Minister will say I am misrepresenting him when I say that this Bill has been put forward with reference to the alleged default on the part of the West Ham Board of Guardians. That is the real reason for introducing this Bill. We heard what the Minister said on Second Reading regarding the alleged defalcations of that board.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Not defalcations—default.
  Mr. SCURR: The alleged default of that board. I understand there are no allegations against the board in regard to their administration of their hospitals or other institutions or their schools. The only point at issue arises over the administration of out-door relief. I have been credibly informed that on previous occasions the West Ham Board of Guardians have endeavoured to meet the Minister on various points of difference which have arisen. I think I am right in saying that he required them to appoint additional officers to investigate the cases of persons receiving relief, and, as a result, some 60 persons were appointed
  2292
  for the purpose, at a cost to the union of £240 a week. These investigators go all over the union. They are not under the direction of the superintendent relieving officer, they are a quite separate staff, doing separate work, at the request of the Ministry. In that case the board have endeavoured to meet the Ministry.
  The position is that there is a dispute between the Minister and the West Ham Board of Guardians—and it may be some other boards of guardians—in regard to administration. It is a case of there being two parties to a dispute, one party making certain allegations, which may or may not be justified, and the other denying those allegations. Under this Bill one of those two parties, the party making the charges, is given power to supersede the persons against whom the charges are brought. That seems to me to be a very bad principle in every sense of the word, to introduce into our legislation—that if a Minister feels that a certain body over which he has certain powers are not discharging their function properly he may supersede them. We say the charges made by the Minister ought to be investigated by an impartial authority, and that it is absolutely wrong that it should be left to those making the charge to decide whether the charge is true or not and then to take action as a result of their decision.
  In the Amendment I am putting forward we propose that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should investigate any charges which the Minister deems it to be his duty to make. No one will say that a Select Committee of this House is not an impartial authority. On the Second Reading the Minister of Health put forward certain views about corruption in administration, views as to excessive out-relief and so on. The charges he made were rebutted from this side of the House. The Minister may say that in his judgment they were not sufficiently rebutted. We, on our side, say we do not think the Minister made out his case. If this Bill passes, the Minister has only to say, "In my judgment this board"—any particular board —"is in default, and therefore I will supersede it with my own nominees." Before we invade the province of local government in that way, before we take away from the electors those people whom they have elected to do certain

  2293
  work in a certain way and who are faithfully carrying out their election pledges, there ought to be an impartial investigation to ascertain whether those persons are discharging the functions they have undertaken in accordance with the law, or whether it is only his political prejudice against them that is causing the Minister to act.
  All we can see in the action of the Minister is political prejudice directed against a particular board which, if it had been in some other area, would not have been in such financial difficulties as it is. Moreover, the financial difficulties arise because, in our judgment, the Government of the day have not assumed their rightful responsibility in respect of those people who are out of work. If the Government of the day had a really national system of administering unemployment benefit, and made that unemployment benefit adequate for persons out of work, the West Ham Board of Guardians would not be in their present position, and other boards of guardians, in similarly-situated areas, would also not be in difficulties. Therefore, we had the Minister saying, in effect: "Because there is a board of guardians attempting to do its duty, a duty which has been thrown upon it, because of the default of the Ministry, the Ministry shall have the power to say that that board is in default and is to be relieved of its functions." It is unjust in every sense of the word, and I, therefore, put forward the suggestion that, if we are to have such legislation, and if some board is to be superseded, there should be a real judicial inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Such a Committee would give the opportunity for the Minister and his officials to state their case against the board, and then for the board to rebut that case with evidence, and then the Committee, sitting, as a Select Committee always does, as a judicial and impartial authority, moved not by the animus of political bias, but by the evidence laid before it, would be able to say whether or not the case against the Board was made out. Before the Minister is allowed to be both accuser and judge, as he is under this Clause, I think the question ought to be referred to an impartial authority.
  Mr. JOHN BAKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so, for reasons other than those given by the Mover, and as I am going to say some things that might be considered offensive to the Minister if they were taken as having personal application, I wish to assure him that that is not my intention, because I have used similar words about another Ministerial office, occupied by another Gentleman, on another matter. I object to this Bill, and I do not believe that any single individual should have the power for which the Minister is asking here. If, as he stated, when introducing the Bill, there is such rottenness and corruptness among a whole group of people as he alleges to exist on two particular boards of guardians, what would it be if we gave the administration to one individual, without proper check or supervision? It is he alone who is to say: "I do not agree." I do not think any person should have that power, and I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment, because it tends to prevent that of which he himself complains. He has had supervision over these boards of guardians and has failed to keep them in order, and I submit that it would be wiser if he had a body such as is suggested in the Amendment, to whom to report these guardians, than if he acted on his own initiative, and said to them: "Get out; I am putting in somebody who will do as I tell them." That is what it amounts to, and that kind of statement is going to way with every Minister and with every change of Ministry.
  The right hon. Gentleman said some very rude things about me and my colleagues when he introduced the Bill, because I have been advocating now for over a quarter of a century that the standard of relief should be raised. It has now got to a point where he says that this has not only got to stop, but that the standard of relief has got to be lowered. He and I differ. Let us change places to-morrow, and I shall be sacking the boards of guardians who do not live up to my standard just as he will want to sack those who live beyond his standard. Where shall we get to? That will establish such a state of chaos in the administration of the Poor Law that it could not be carried on in a reasonable manner. The right hon. Gentleman says that I am corrupt and

  2295
  that all those who say they want work or maintenance are corrupt. We go out to the street corners at election time, and say: "If you people want proper treatment before a board of guardians, elect men and women from your own class who know your troubles and your needs and who have sympathy with you, and then you will have a better chance of getting reasonable treatment." The Minister, because he does not agree with that viewpoint, calls it corruption. I am recalcitrant and unashamed, and I am going on, and I hope to see the day when there will be nobody in this country holding the view that the right hon. Gentleman holds as to what is a sufficient amount of relief to give to a fellow citizen and a fellow Christian.
  With regard to the charge of extravagance made by the Minister against two boards in particular, I am old enough to remember the time when it was thought sufficient, by boards of guardians composed of middle-class ladies and gentlemen in this country, to give 2s. 6d. a week in relief. No person at that time could get 21 meals for 30 pennies, or a week's shelter for 30 pennies, unless he was fortunate enough to have friends or relatives who would give him accommodation. How those people existed, I do not know. It has been a continuous fight ever since to try to get this Christian community to recognise its duty to its fellows, and not only has it failed up to now, but we now have a Minister who wants to go back. Does he want to go back to that 2s. 6d? He will say "No"; but if you get further Ministers of his type, they will want to go back to the 2s. 6d. If I may use an illustration which occurred in this House not many days ago on another matter, to emphasise my point, I would refer to the hon. Member who quoted some paper from the Front Bench about the wages of miners in 1828. Is that the point to which we are going back in Poor Law relief, the point where the man who did not get enough wage, based upon so many loaves of bread a week, had a right to apply to the guardians and get an extra loaf? I am not willing to go back to that kind of thing, and the Minister can call me corrupt and use all the offensive terms he can imagine. He can, if he likes, sit up all night and make a whole pile of terms, and when he
  2296
  has done, I will laugh at him. I want to go forward, but this Bill is not going forward, but backward. It is giving power to individuals that those individuals ought not to have, whether they have a name the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman who holds office now, or a name the same as mine.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The two hon. Members who have supported this Amendment have addressed themselves rather to the general principles of the Bill than to the particular point to which the Amendment is directed, because it is not relevant, I submit, that on this Amendment we should discuss whether or not the administration of the Board of Guardians in West Ham is corrupt. The point here is whether it is desirable or necessary that no Order should be made under the Bill except after inquiry by a Select Committee of this House. I cannot accept the account given by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) of what the Bill enables us to do. It does not enable a Minister to say to any board of guardians: "I do not approve of the way you are acting." He has to be convinced that they have either ceased to perform their functions or are acting in such a way as to render them unable to function. In respect to the West Ham Board of Guardians, we were faced with an emergency. At the present time they are only giving 75 per cent. of the relief which was being given a little while ago, because they have not very much money, but there will come a time, unless some other events take place, when there will be no money, and that is exactly the contingency that I desire to avoid
  What would be the effect of passing this Amendment? It. would mean that no relief would be given in West Ham after the funds of the present board were exhausted until the Select Committee had investigated the circumstances and made a Report. If I may say so, I think both hon. Members have lost sight of one rather important point in connection with this case. Some time ago there was a difference of opinion between the Minister of Health and the Poplar Board of Guardians. In that case, the Poplar board issued a pamphlet in which they pleaded guilty and were proud of it, but in this case the guardians admit that they are guilty, but say they are ashamed of it.
  Mr. J. JONES: We will listen to that later on.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the hon. Member will listen to it now. I quoted words, on the Second Reading of the Bill, used by the vice-chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians to that effect.
  Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. Was not that a personal expression of opinion during a debate in the board room and not an admission by the board generally of anything wrong?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Here are the words of the vice-chairman which I quoted. For the moment, I cannot lay my hand upon them, but he said in effect that things had been done in regard to which the least they could do was to be ashamed of them.
  Mr. GROVES: The words in question are in column 1652 of your own speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not need to repeat the words. They were not challenged. That was the opinion, not of an individual, but of the vice-chairman of the board. The chairman of the board himself said he had before him a number of cases of relief in which there had been allowances for which there was no justification whatever. In this case the charges are admitted by the board. The inquiry has already been held by the auditor, and the result of the auditor's report has been published.
  Mr. J. JONES: This is a new interpretation of local government law.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The auditor's report has been made, and the members of the board have not challenged it.
  Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. In a previous case in West Ham, when a number of Liberal and Tory Members were sent to prison, there was a public inquiry held. Why not on this occasion?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. JONES: No, but it is a fact.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In these circumstances, it is absurd to suggest that there should be a further inquiry.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is no defence and it is no explanation. He began by giving his view of the Amendment in relation to the first words of the Clause. He said the principle was that, if the Minister of Health was of opinion that a board of guardians had ceased to carry out its duties, he might take steps to suppress it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The words are
  "that the board of guardians for any Poor Law union have ceased, or have acted in such a manner as will render them unable"
  to discharge their functions.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That is still more a matter of conjecture. If the Minister thinks the Board is likely to be unable to carry on its work, he proposes to take the serious and drastic line of suppressing that local authority for the time being. He says that, if we accept this Amendment, West Ham is going to starve. But, surely, it is possible to have a limited inquiry and for the Ministry of Health to empower the board of guardians to borrow a limited sum for a short time, while the matter is being investigated. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no need for an inquiry because the chairman and the vice-chairman have admitted that they are guilty. But that is not the point. The point is, be they guilty or not, whether the right hon. Gentleman ought to take the serious step of destroying the boards of guardians for the time being. Our position is that such a decision ought not to rest with the Minister. The point is whether the guilt of the chairman and vice-chairman is of such a kind as to warrant the right hon. Gentleman putting this Bill into operation and destroying an organ of local government. It seems to us to be a very reasonable request to make that this power of suppressing a board of guardians should not be exercised until this House has had an opportunity of examining the whole situation. We do not think this House ought to take away the rights of local government, but, if the Minister will persist in this Bill, surely we are asking nothing unreasonable in suggesting that before such a step is taken the matter should be referred to a Committee of this House, and that, on the findings of that Committee, the right hon. Gentleman should take action or no action, as the case may be.
  Mr. GROVES: I want to support this Amendment in a quite dispassionate manner. I submit that the points and the details which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted in support of the drastic supersession of the boards of guardians have been given him by his political supporters in the West Ham Borough. I submit that the controversy in West Ham has been carried on very largely by information, which is sometimes published and sometimes is not, by the leader of a political party which is opposed to the majority of the guardians, and whose name is Mr. Ward. If the right hon. Gentleman in this House is going to pay special attention to what political partisans offer in evidence, in particular cases, of persons who are relieved in West Ham Union, I do not think it is a great thing for a Minister to do. The Minister has emphasised that the board of guardians has ceased to perform its functions, and I respectfully submit that that is not so.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that the guardians have been acting in such a manner as to make it impossible for them to continue.
  Mr. GROVES: The Minister is already commencing his work in West Ham. To-day at relieving stations there were strangers, official persons, obviously part of the machinery of supersession, and I submit that it is wrong that any such steps should have been taken before this Bill became an Act of Parliament. The Minister referred to certain cases of abuse of relief, and he said there are 100 cases. I think we have about 27,000 families to relieve in the union. Is it reasonable to take this action because you get 100 cases of abuse out of that number?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health made it clear on the Second Reading that the 100 cases were not all the cases that could be found. They were the result of a test examination taken by the auditor.
  Mr. GROVES: If a man has stolen one article surely it is not fair to assume that he has stolen six. If you have some cases out of 100, surely it is not fair to assume that all the others are the same, and it is not fair to assume that, because 100 people have done certain
  2300
  things, all the others of the 27,000 have done the same. I submit that the circumstances in West Ham do not warrant the Minister's direct action. The hon. Member for Upton (Captain Holt) perpetrated the usual fallacy of arguing from particular cases to general principles. He said that somebody got a relief ticket for 16s., and had the audacity to purchase for the money a tin of peaches and Devonshire cream. What if they did? Assuming that that took place. I protest against arguing as if that kind of thing were general. We do not say that all the people in our borough are perfect. You would not get all the people perfect in Woolwich. The whole of this argument is based on two propositions: first, the alleged abuse of relief, and, secondly, the bankruptcy of the unions.
  I know that we cannot argue the general question of Poor Law relief, but I submit that you should have had an impartial inquiry by a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the auditor's Report. I think it is true that during the very critical period when unemployment has been mounting up, when the people have been driven on to the Poor Law, auditors have come to West Ham, and examined accounts and made reports. But only recently has the administration of the Union been regarded by the Minister as inimical to the general good. I am amazed that today the Minister should hint that people in receipt of poor relief should not have the right to vote for Poor Law guardians. Who are we to look to if we cannot look to our popularly elected people to save the citizens from starvation in their own area? That is the bedrock principle of Poor Law relief, the prevention of destitution. No one has said that the scale paid in West Ham, with the exception of the small proportion of cases which have been referred to, is extravagance. If you compare it, of course, with that paid in certain other areas where they have not the same regard for the welfare of the poor people, you get a comparison that is unfair to us. If it is worked out, an able-bodied man gets about 11s. a week. If that can be assumed to be extravagant, I hope hon. Members opposite will tell us what they think is a reasonable amount of money per week for able-bodied persons to live on.

  2301
  Then you have to deal with the question of the family. A man and his wife before the intervention of the Minister only had 19s. per week between them to live upon. There has been some objection and the West Ham Board of Guardians were ordered to cease to give just that additional 5s. to old age pensions. I am very annoyed personally about that and I think it is the worst thing the Minister could have done. People have lived to the age of 70 and just get that money that can keep them in decency and West Ham gives them this additional 5s. That is much cheaper than these poor men and women going into the workhouse for the rest of their lives. Those are the circumstances. I hope the head shaking of the Minister does not mean that he is denying my statement, because it is being done. People were elected to carry out this detail. These guardians grant 5s. in addition to the 10s. a week old age pension. I say the statutory officers, the relieving officers, have refused to obey the instructions—I do not mean the verbal orders—made by the elected representatives of the people.
  5.0 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is straying rather far from the Amendment.
  Mr. GROVES: I was just trying to prove that the action of the Minister was such that in the circumstances of the moment we are warranted in asking for the special intervention of a Select Committee. I think the administration in these circumstances is liable to get out of the hands of the people. I want the Minister to say why the work has been commenced of taking the administration out of the popularly elected people. With over 30,000 people on relief, it is a marvellous thing that only 100 people should have been referred to as taking advantage of the circumstances. The people in our borough are not only law-abiding and well-wishers of the community but they have acted as decently and as well as any citizens of the community could have acted. I cannot see the end of the Minister's precipitant act if he thinks he is going to send an army of officials down to West Ham to take charge of the offices. He is smiling. Does he deny that they are there? I was in the relieving station myself this morning, and I was invited to go to see them. I
  2302
  did so. I might say that they brought their own typewriters. The work must be done, and I trust the Minister will realise that the appointment of a Select Committee will assist him and give the people in West Ham an opportunity of bringing to his notice the fact that when we have ourselves discovered cases of abuse it is true to say that West Ham guardians have hauled these people up before the magistrates and had them sent to prison or compelled them to pay the money back. We have done all that could reasonably be expected. After all, this is still a free country, and the action of the Minister will be doing a thing that will cut right across the freedom of this country.
  Mr. RYE: I agree that this is a pretty drastic Clause and gives very wide powers to the Minister, and in the ordinary way I should have hesitated to support the Bill, but when one considers that in the latter portion of the Bill there is provision by way of safeguard, I do not think that we are entitled to consider that the powers given to the Minister are too wide. In Subsection (2) it is provided:
  "An Order made under this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House within 21 day after the Order has been laid before it presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may he annulled His Majesty may by Order in Council annual the Order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, or the making of a fresh Order.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the hon. Member realise that the Order to which he refers is only an Order after the Minister has exercised his discretion?
  Mr. RYE: I fully appreciate that that is so.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the hon. Member's point that there is a safeguard in this House for the Minister's first action with regard to the West Ham Board of Guardians?
  Mr. RYE: The Minister has a full discretion to exercise his rights if he is of opinion that a case is made out. My point is that if he has done so without adequate reasons, it is open to any Member of this House to raise the question in this House and ask the Minister to

  2303
  give his reasons for coming to his decision. It will be open to any Member of the House to prove that it was an unreasonable action on the Minister's part. If, as a fact, the Minister had not had adequate reason, it is obvious the safeguard would be put in force and the Order made to supersede the guardians would be rescinded by Order in Council. That, I think, is the real safeguard. Personally, I cannot think any Minister would ever exercise these drastic powers except for good and sufficient reasons. It is inconceivable to suppose that any Minister holding the responsible position he does would do anything to put an end to the functions of the boards of guardians unless they were aware of must ample and sufficient reasons for doing so. At all events, if the Minister were to make a mistake—let us put it at that —or wantonly took action, there is this safeguard in Sub-section (2). In my opinion that is quite sufficient safeguard for anyone.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report. Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I am going to move to report Progress. The Hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has made a definite statement in this House to the effect that certain officials from the Minister of Health's Department are now operating in the borough of West Ham before this power has been given to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health shook his head and said he knew nothing about it. That same statement was endorsed by the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, in consequence of these two knowing nothing about what is operating in West Ham and that Government officials are down there operating—
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Directly I heard the statement of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) we made inquiries, and so far we have no knowledge whatever about it. The statement, as I understand it, is that the hon. Member for Stratford has seen some strange faces down there at West Ham, but so far as my Department is concerned we know nothing about it.
  Mr. J. JONES: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's innocence and all his smiles, I do not altogether fathom what he means. Some of us are acquainted with the district and know that there have been officials there. We know some of them. I came in touch with some of these officials. Some of their names have already been mentioned as the officials who are going to take over from the board of guardians. They are going to be paid for it. Some of us have worked from early in the morning till late at night at this job, and you refuse us even a shilling lunch. The report has come that these gentlemen are going round almost assuming the authority not yet given to them. Perhaps you think you can play that game with us, but we have a few cards up our sleeves that we can play yet. There is such a thing as an all-in strike, and some of us are overseers and have to levy the rate.
  Sir K. WOOD: It is suggested to me that, as the audit is now taking place in West Ham, perhaps the strange faces may be those of the auditors.
  Miss LAWRENCE: May—
  Mr. JONES: Sit down; I am speaking. I am asking if these auditors are there. It is on these auditors' reports that you have made up your case.
  The CHAIRMAN: The point on which I allowed this Motion to be made was whether there are persons in West Ham sent by the Minister in anticipation of the passing of this Bill. It must be confined to that point.
  Mr. GROVES: I said that they ought not to be there without the Minister's knowledge. In reality they are the bailiffs. That is what this Bill means. I did not like to make this protest as to who they are this morning, but I think they should be stopped until the King gives his assent to this Bill.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has actually made the appointments of these officials and, if so, will he tell us their names and then we can see if they tally? Can he make known to the House whether these persons have been informed that this is to be their job?
  Sir K. WOOD: The Committee may take it from me that none of our officials have gone down to West Ham.
  Mr. B. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman finds on inquiry that these people are there without his authority, will he take the necessary steps to secure their removal?
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided. Ayes, 121; Noes, 245.

  Division No. 341

  AYES

  [5.17 p.m.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

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

  Hardle, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scurr, John

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smillie, Robert

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Hudson, J. H, (Huddersfield)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Bromley, J.

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

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kennedy, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lansbury, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Townend, A. E

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawson, John James

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, F.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw vale)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lowth, T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lunn, William

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dunnico, H.

  March, S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Greenall, T.

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley).

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Albery, Irving James

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

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

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Dawson. Sir Philip

  Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Drewe, C.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Balniel, Lord

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Berry, Sir George

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Bethel. A.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fermoy. Lord

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Flelden, E. B.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Finburgh, S.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cope, Major William

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Couper, J. B.

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

  Ganzonl, Sir John

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

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Gates, Percy

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

  Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Goff, Sir Park

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macintyre, I.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Grace, John

  McLean, Major A.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

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

  Grouse, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

  Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

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

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Harland, A.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Harney, E. A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

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

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Sueler, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Templeton, W. P.

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

  Murchison, C. K.

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

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

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Neville, R. J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Waddington, R.

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Pennefather, Sir John

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

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Wells, S. R.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Pete, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Radford, E. A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Ralne, W.

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

  Kinloch, Cooke, Sir Clement

  Ramsden, E.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Locker, Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Lord, Walter Greaves.

  Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Lougher, L.

  Rye, F, G.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Salmon, Major I.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bowyer.

  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Miss LAWRENCE: I desire to remind the Committee of the title of this Bill. It is not the West Ham (Extermination) Bill—it is the Board of Guardians Default Bill. It is a general Bill dealing with unions all over England. The last time we discussed this question I asked that a list of those unions who had borrowed money should be read to the House; and a very illuminating dialogue took place between Mr. Speaker and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Mr. Speaker—speaking of this list—said:
  "Are these all affected by the Bill which is about to be discussed?"
  and the hon. Gentleman answered, "Yes, Sir." That list includes some of the
  2308
  most important industrial centres, and the Measure we are now dealing with provides that every one of those boards can be superseded by the Minister of Health. At first it was suggested by the Minister that this question should be referred to a Select Committee, but the Minister replied, "West Ham cannot wait," and that an inquiry was necessary because West Ham had pleaded guilty. Some seven or eight of us sprang to our feet crying, "When?" We were then told that the vice-chairman of the board, speaking in debate, had said that he thought that some of these cases were indefensible. The argument is that because the vice-chairman said that some of the cases were very bad, that Wrest Ham has pleaded guilty; and that because West Ham has pleaded guilty you need not inquire into any other cases.

  2309
  That was the only argument in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The question is whether the existence of all boards of guardians is to be subject to the discretion of the Minister; and he defended that policy on the ground that the chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians said that some cases were very bad. Then, as a further defence, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) said that there were safeguards, because, if the Minister wished to supersede a board, an Order would be laid on the Table of the House and could be discussed. It is very comforting to know that you are to have an inquest after the execution, but it is not very much good to the corpse.
  Mr. RYE: The inquest can be held at a very early date. It can be held the day after the Order has been made; it is not necessary to wait 21 days.
  Miss LAWRENCE: The Bill says:
  "An Order made under this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliamen as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House within twenty-one days after the Order has been laid before it presents an address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be annulled"—
  and so on. You have, then, 21 days, and you have first to find a day for debate. Supposing that any one of these boards of guardians were brought to an end at this time of the year, what possible chance should we have of getting a day for debate in the House? And if we did get a day, I cannot, greatly as I respect the House, imagine a worse court of inquiry for such a matter. The question whether or not a board of guardians is likely to be in default is a matter which needs detailed proof, and something like a jury—something like a trial in Court. It needs to be gone into by a body of persons furnished with the necessary information. It is notorious that the House of Commons is not a place for detailed inquiry into facts; that is shown by the fact that we have Committees. The floating population of this Chamber never can settle down thoroughly to discuss facts of this nature; they are facts which, from their very nature, need investigation by a Committee. Now I come to my final point, namely, the policy and the plan by which the Minister is going to be guided in dealing with these matters. I notice that,
  2310
  among the crimes in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman read out to the House, this very horrible one is included:
  "Old age pensions are being augmented to bring them up to the full scale of 15s. for single and 25s. for married people."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Lady finish the quotation?
  Miss LAWRENCE: It says that old age pensions are being augmented to bring them up to the full scale of 15s. and 25s. That is the crime. Then comes the aggravation:
  "And in the majority of cases there is no attempt to record the circumstances of sons who might be able to pay something."
  It is described as a bad thing in itself to raise the pensions to the terrific scale of 15s.; and it also says that there ought to be a proper inquiry into the circumstances of sons. Then I am a little unhappy as to the attitude of the Minister with regard to democracy. A very great deal has been made of the fact that people on out-relief are likely to vote for out-relief. Everyone knows, however, that even in West Ham—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is getting rather wide of the question whether there should be a Select Committee.
  Miss LAWRENCE: With all due submission, I am trying to show that the purpose for which each of these Orders is made ought to be ventilated before a Select Committee. If we can conceive of a Minister having in his mind a definite policy of bringing down out-relief to supersede democracy—I do not say it is so, but if you could have such a Minister—it would be very undesirable to place in the hands of the Minister powers which ought to be the subject almost of a judicial decision. My argument is that you cannot safely trust to the executive itself, or to one Minister of the Crown in particular, the difficult duty of discriminating when you ought to get rid of elected representatives; and I thought I was right in saying that the Minister now has shown a distinct bias against democracy in his speech. I hope that that is not disorderly. I was going to say that the persons on out-relief are very greatly outnumbered by the rest of the population—by seven to one in West Ham, by 10 to four in other cases—and you cannot say that, if the rest of the population

  2311
  strongly disapprove, their votes will be overborne by those of the recipients of out-relief. To adduce that argument at all shows a bias against democracy. One case that the Minister gave was most distressing. One of the guardians said that he was a supporter of the Minister, and wanted to follow the Minister. He stood for re-election, and West Ham never sent him back again.
  Sir K. WOOD: He was a Labour guardian.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Yes, but he did say that he approved of the Minister. I know that the people of East Ham and West Ham are so far misguided that they do not trust people who support the policy of the Minister; but to use as a serious argument against democracy the fact that, it may be, in Barrow, or Newcastle, or Birmingham, or where not, people do not support the policy of the Minister, seems to me rather thin. My desire that this question shall go to a Select Committee is rather strengthened by the attitude the Minister took in speaking on the matter last Monday. I submit, therefore, that the question whether West Ham is in the wrong or not, whether it has pleaded guilty or not, is a very narrow foundation for saying that in no case will there be inquiry by a properly selected Committee before supersession takes place. I say that in the case of a vast number of boards in important industrial centres, for the local administration of which we have great respect, this Bill gives the Minister power to supersede any of those boards at his own unfettered discretion. That, we say, is too great a power for any Minister to have without proper confirmation and inquiry by the House of Commons, and I very much hope that when an answer is given we shall have a little more about the constitutional point, and a little more about the general powers—which are what we are discussing—and a little less of enlargement upon the particular case of one board of guardians which is serving as a scapegoat.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I desire to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). The real cause of this Bill, the Minister said, was some slight corruption in the Borough of West Ham in connection with the board of
  2312
  guardians. I want to say unhesitatingly that the highest standard of commercial morality is not entirely on the other side of the House; I suggest that the standard of commercial morality is just as high on this side as on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher!"] I think we can give them a few points in that direction. Many charges have been made against the West Ham Board of Guardians, and that is the reason why this Bill has been brought forward. As a matter of fact, if the Minister of Health had done his duty there would have been no need for this Bill at all. I think he has neglected his duty. I would remind the Committee that last year the Ministry had charge of the West Ham Union for three or four weeks, and I am convinced that if those gentlemen who were administering Poor Law relief in West Ham then had found any corruption going on, it would have been reported to the Minister at the time. If at that time he thought that there was a great deal of corruption going on, and that the West Ham Board of Guardians was not doing its duty, why did he not take action then, and not allow the matter to drift on for about 12 months?
  In the course of these Debates the Minister of Health has said that at the present time the West Ham Board of Guardians have been compelled to cut down the scale of relief by 25 per cent. That is due to the fact that there is very little money. The Minister of Health has refused to grant any more money at all to the West Ham Board of Guardians. Therefore, they have to rely on the money they have collected from the various local authorities that comprise the area, and in a very short time there will be no money at all for relief of any kind. I understand that the bankers have been authorised not to allow any further overdraft, because, on the last occasion when a deputation went to the Ministry of Health, the only money they would grant was £100,000 to carry on with for the time being. The result has been that they have been compelled to cut down the scale of relief by 25 per cent. I am convinced that, if the West Ham Board of Guardians would now agree to cut down the relief to the extent of 25 per cent., this Bill would be withdrawn to-morrow, because what the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are after is to make the boards of guardians cut

  2313
  down their scales of relief all over their areas to a maximum not exceeding 40s. If that is the position, and if, when the Minister attempts to take charge of the Poor Law authority in West Ham, he attempts to cut down the scale of relief to a maximum of 40s.—which will mean that a man and his wife with six or seven children cannot receive any more than 40s.—then I am convinced that there will be very serious trouble, not only in West Ham but in many other parts of the country.
  I support this Amendment because, if a Select Committee were appointed as it suggests, then, if it were known that there were any defaulting boards of guardians, or any form of corruption in the slightest degree, the guardians concerned would be summoned to appear before the Select Committee, which, as hon. Members know, would be selected from the various parties in the House. There would be an investigation, witnesses would be called and examined, and I say unhesitatingly that, if any corruption is found in West Ham or in any other place, I shall be the very first to try and get it stopped. I have never sought election to a board of guardians because I should be too sympathetic. Everyone knows, or should know, that the sympathies of members of boards of guardians who have been through the economic mill, as many of us have, must be deep-rooted and they must be more sympathetic to the poor people they represent than those who have never been through the trouble we have been through ourselves. I admit that there has been a very big improvement in the method of dealing with poor relief compared with what there was many years ago. When I was six years old there were four of us, and what my mother got was one loaf and one shilling. That was a very inhumane system. It is more humane to-day even than it was pre-War, because, pre-War, the amount was limited to about 10s., but no one can say there is any extravagance even now. You cannot find any Poor Law authority that is giving less than 19s. for a man and wife, the same as we give in West Ham, and in some cases they give 23s., and in some 24s., but when the West Ham Poor Law Authority are dealing with children our scale is very much higher than in any other part of the country. If I were a member of the
  2314
  West Ham Board of Guardians my sympathies would be with the people, and I think I should be prepared to give them the full scale of relief. No one in West Ham can receive more than 25s., and then there must be a man and wife and about seven children. All forms of income are taken into consideration.
  When the last deputation went to the right hon. Gentleman's Department 18 suggestions were submitted to them. They went back and reported, and I am not quite sure whether you were altogether satisfied with the replies given to those suggestions. I think they met you in every particular and I do not think you have any objection on that point. Even now you can appoint any Committee you like. A Committee chosen from the three parties could make a thorough investigation into the scale of administration. If you can find out that there has been any maladministration, if the guardians have been making any profits out of their position or receiving any perquisites or anything of that kind, I shall be with you every time, because we believe in purity of government as much as you do. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment it will give him every opportunity and it will take a good deal of responsibility off his shoulders, because it simply means that unless it is accepted, the Minister must appoint his own men. Whether the guardians will have a chance of rebutting the charges which have been brought against them I am not in a position to say, but it appears to be dangerous to give the power to one individual, whether a Minister or anyone else, to select certain gentlemen to administer relief, more especially in West Ham, and if there was a Royal Commission to investigate the methods of relief throughout the country I am not sure that Birmingham could not be roped in for maladministration. I am quite convinced that the sympathies of working-class representatives must be more deeply rooted than those who have not been through the same difficulties.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have treated the Amendment as seriously as it should have been treated. The Minister has simply said the reason for not accepting it was that the West Ham Guardians could not carry on.

  2315
  That argument has been thoroughly exploded. Last year he administered the union of West Ham without any authority whatever from this House, and only through the goodwill of the guardians he was let off and did not have to come to the House to be indemnified for doing what he had no business to do. If we had a Select Committee, part of their investigation could be as to what advantage there was during the period the Minister took charge and what advantage the ratepayers gained through that administration. I think that part of the Minister's activities ought to have been investigated and dealt with by the House long before now. I do not think that in dealing with even a board of guardians he has any right to act like a small Mussolini and without any authority from Parliament take over the functions of a directly elected body. Then before the Bill or anything like it is passed we ought to have an investigation as to what it is that has moved the Minister. I understood on Monday that the chief reason was that there was a corrupt motive on the part of the electors and that that, of course, would react on the elected person, who would have to satisfy the person who elected him by giving him relief which was not justified. I think all dockyard Members and all who represent Government employés are in a similar position, and some of us would like to bring evidence before such a Select Committee to, prove that dockyard Members are intimidated in that way.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is neither in Order on the Amendment, nor on the Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was looking in the book and it seemed to me we might be able to frame the terms of reference to the Select Committee in such a way as to cover the whole question of corruption.
  Viscountess ASTOR: This is a case of municipal corruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. J. JONES: You are a liar, if you say so.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it really in order for an hon. Member to compare a dockyard Member with a board of guardians which has been proved corrupt?
  Mr. JONES: You are a liar! [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I will not withdraw.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
  Mr. JONES: I apologise to the Noble Lady and substitute the term "terminological inexactitude."
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know why anyone should get excited about this. We want this Select Committee in order that the charges on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his Bill may be investigated and dealt with. When the Noble Lady says people have been proved corrupt, where is the evidence? The right hon. Gentleman quoted something that was said by the Chairman of the West Ham Board, and in order to refute our arguments on this side he puts up the pamphlet of the Poplar Board, "Guilty, and Proud of it." We also plead guilty to the fact that in dealing with 10,000 cases a week we might occasionally be had, as even this House might be had by someone who deceived it. We do not say we are people who can always know what is in each other's minds and when we are dealing with a very large number of poor people to whom 6d. or 1s. something of consequence we may perhaps be deceived. But the real crime of that is not with the individual but with that sort of system of society which makes it pay poor people to tell a lie in order to get a paltry 6d. We want this investigated by a Select Committee. We do not think it is good enough to take West Ham and make it a sort of chopping block as it has been made here.
  This is not a Bill to deal with West Ham only. It is to deal with all boards that the right hon. Gentleman thinks may get themselves in difficulties. Another point the Committee ought to investigate is the action of the right hon. Gentleman in putting them into difficulties. He can always land a board into difficulties if he wants to. He can say: "You shall not have any more money. I will not sanction any more of your loans." But I am certain if a Select Committee was set up to investigate the administration of the Poor Law in necessitous areas where loans are necessary the House would be surprised at the purity of administration of all those

  2317
  boards. The Parliamentary Secretary cited a case the other night where there was a family income of £7 a week. I think that is a case a Select Committee ought to go into and put all the facts on the Table. The notorious Mr. Cooper thought he investigated us in Poplar by running through our establishments. He put up a case where someone had been getting £4 a week, and asked, "Does anyone imagine that this man will ever go to work again?" The House of Commons was deceived over that case which was flung across the Floor, and thought that everyone in Poplar got £4 a week, and also that this particular man would never go to work again. As a matter of fact he only had the relief for one week, and was back at his work again, and he had a family of 10 children to maintain. I asked the hon. Gentleman to tell us the particulars of this £7 case, and he refused. If we could get before a Select Committee we should have all these cases investigated in a proper manner. We want a Select Committee because, frankly, we do not trust the right hon. Gentleman or his assistant. It is true that this is a question of political principle. You believe in starving the people. We believe in preventing their starvation.
  Viscountess ASTOR indicated dissent.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is no good the Noble Lady shaking her head. It shows her ignorance of social conditions. She is the most ignorant Member in the House about social conditions. For a wealthy woman to be always interfering when the conditions of poor people are discussed, is simply disgusting.
  6.0. P.M.
  The genesis of this controversy is the question whether poor people are to be adequately relieved or not. When it was a question of the men coming home from the War, you gave them almost all that they were pleased to ask for. We want a Select Committee to go into the matter and to be able to investigate it by questioning the right hon. Gentleman as to what exactly is in his mind. In the East End we believe that what he has in his mind in regard to the able-bodied is that he is going to attempt to cause the men who are out of work to live on the miserable pittance that they get from unemployment insurance. I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parlia-
  2318
  mentary Secretary to deny that. Is it not a fact that they intend to do their best to forbid and stop boards of guardians from giving any assistance to men who are on the Employment Exchange? We have heard such a rumour. Before such a principle can be laid down, this House ought to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the whole conditions.
  It is no answer to say to us that the case is proved. There has been no investigation. When we are told that 100 or even 1,000 cases have been investigated, all it means is that there is a different standard of relief set up by boards of guardians from the one which the right hon. Gentleman thinks ought to be set up. Hon. Members opposite believe in democracy when democracy does what they want it to do, but when democracy does something different, they want to abolish it. Before it is abolished in the case of boards of guardians, there ought to be a Select Committee set up. I hope the Committee will carry our Amendment.
  Sir BEDDOE REES: I have no intention of discussing the merits of the West Ham case. I have got sufficient data to judge of that case; but this Bill goes very far beyond West Ham. In confers powers upon the Minister of Health which will have to be used with great care. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment in some form. There are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill. A Select Committee is a very complex proceeding, and the Minister would be compelled to wait a very considerable time before he could get the findings of a Select Committee. Even that is better than nothing. I would not mind a judicial inquiry; but I do think that there should be some inquiry before the Minister acts under the powers given in this Bill. The only safeguard, so far as I can see is that which says:
  "An Order made under this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House within twenty-one days after the Order has been laid before it presents an address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be annulled."
  There is an Amendment on the Paper making that positive, reversing the order, and providing that the Order is not to be put into operation until it has received

  2319
  assent by Resolution of this House. If the Minister can tell us that he will accept that Amendment, I should be satisfied, but without some safeguard I do not think we ought to let this Bill go. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy us, because we are very apprehensive. We believe that he is taking powers which are unprecedented, which strike at the very root of what we believe to be democratic government, namely, powers to suppress a popularly-elected representative body. If he is to take action of that sort, it should be done after the fullest inquiry, and this House should, at least, have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Unless we can have some satisfaction on that point, I shall vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. J. JONES: In so far as we are concerned as representatives of part of the West Ham Union area—which has unfortunately been designated as West Ham, much to our disadvantage—we court full inquiry. West Ham Union is the largest Poor Law area in the country, including eight different townships. The name of West Ham has been advertised to such an extent, before and after the event, that we have had a great deal of discredit cast upon us because we happen to come from West Ham. In addition to any other claim, I happen to have been a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians in the past when some friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite were sent to gaol for corruption. Of six men who went to gaol, five of them belonged to the party opposite. One of them was a member of our party, but he was expelled a month before his trial took place because they discovered that he had been doing things he ought not to have done.
  The Minister of Health deliberately went out of his way in introducing this Bill to make corruption the basis of his case. He has power, if he elects to do so, to single out those who have been guilty of corruption. He has power to send his inspectors to every committee. Some of them have been there already. I remember that Mr. Oxley was a regular attendant at the meetings of the board of guardians and of the different committees. In a radius such as ours, with a population of 1,250,000, it is impossible to deliver all the relief at one station. We have to sub-divide the work, with the
  2320
  result that we have 15 relief stations in the West Ham Poor Law area. The consequence is that we have to sub-divide the work amongst members of the board.
  What is the gravamen of the charge? The charges are epitomised in the report of the auditor, which has been issued. He has picked out 100 cases during a period of three years. During those three years we have had an average, taking the industrial troubles through which we have passed, of more than 25,000 cases a week to deal with, in eight to 15 relief stations. We challenge any court of inquiry or any committee of investigation. This is the worst report that could be made against us. The gentleman, evidently, went down to West Ham with instructions to pick out cases, and he picked them out. Out of the whole of the cases there are really only two cases. I challenge the House to appoint any committee they like. Leave us out of it, call us as witnesses if you desire. On the basis of the charges in this report, if the West Ham Board of Guardians are abolished, you will be committing one of the grossest acts of treachery towards democracy, if this is all the evidence that can be submitted and if these are the worst cases that can be found.
  The allegation has been made that members of the Board had relatives working for the Board. Good God! What a crime! Relatives of Ministers have high office in the government of the country. I remember that one of them some years ago went to gaol for seven years. He was a relative of a Minister of the Crown at the time. If we examined now the list of those who hold high office under the Crown, it would be found that they include the political sons or orphans of the storm from the last election. Those who did not secure seats are now, in many cases, County Court Judges, simply because of services rendered to the party. In the last honours list we find that the chairman of a Conservative Association has been made a baronet. These gentlemen receive honours, and the next day their names appear in the list of a board of directors who want some money from the public. The guinea pig then becomes a prominent person, because his name can be depended upon to get money out of the mugs. That is not corruption, but if a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians has

  2321
  a son who applies for a job under the Beard, and he gets it, he becomes a criminal because he happens to be that man's son.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman, "Is that your charge of corruption?" If so, other people have been doing that for years. In the past, no-one of the working classes could even apply for a job, never mind get it. Since Labour became a dominant factor, this sort of thing has been discovered to be corrupt, simply because we give the worker a chance which he never had before of filling jobs which he had never been able to do before, because he happened to be a workman. Talk about square pegs in round holes! In so far as we are concerned, we will take the document upon which the evidence is based and put it before any Committee. Call it a Select Committee or any other Committee. Give us a chance of defending ourselves, and allow us to put other people in the pillory. Let us have a chance of putting the Birmingham Board of Guardians on the mat. They are paying, on the average, 11s. a year more than we pay in West Ham. Of course, they are not extravagant! They belong to the holy of holies! Your name is Chamberlain, therefore, you cannot do wrong, but if you belong to our crew down in West Ham, you are a criminal before you are tried.
  All we are asking for in this Amendment is that we shall have fair play; that the Court shall not be held in Hell, with the Devil as the presiding magistrate. I am quite frank about it. It is a case of our being at the mercy of one man. If I was fighting for the principle for which he fights, I should say, "Take this Bill for all it is worth." Our turn is coming, and we shall have a Minister of Health, and we shall say to the reactionary boards of guardians throughout the country, "Come up to the level of the progressive boards in the matter of relief. You are not paying enough. You must treat the people as human beings." I went to a board of guardians once, when I was a much younger man than I am now. I had a wife and two children. The scale of relief then was 1s. a day and a loaf of bread for each child, but before you could get the relief you had to break a quarter-hundred-
  2322
  weight of stone or pick a quarter of d pound of oakum. Different times have come. We have altered the Poor Law, wherever we have had an opportunity. There is more humane treatment now.
  I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman wants to go back to those old days, I would not make such a charge against him. I would not charge him with that, bad as he is, but I do charge him with this, that the principle of his party is that they want to force the scale of relief down below the standard of wages of the ordinary unskilled labourer, so that no longer will it be possible for boards of guardians to give a scale of relief which will enable the man to refuse a sweating job. The slogan which we have heard on platforms in the East End of London is that no man ought to receive so much relief as would give him more than the unskilled labourer gets when he is in employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Exactly. That is what I wanted to hear from hon. Members opposite. The Poor Law is to be used to help the employer to force down wages. That is the only question at stake, and that is the secret of this Bill. Those boards of guardians which refuse to help the sweating employer of labour to get cheap labour are to be put in the pillory, but those who are prepared to do the dirty work of the employers will get the benediction of the right hon. Gentleman and they will have money to help them in their campaign. We have to come to him because we are poor. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bankrupt."] Some of you have been bankrupt, and you are better off after your bankruptcy than we are when we are well off. We ask that some Committee should be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman can settle for himself what sort of a Committee it shall be, but we do ask that some Committee shall be appointed to inquire into the charges made against us, and if Labour members of the board of guardians are found to have been corrupt, or have done something for which they are liable, then we will not back them up, you can send them to gaol. The Government have all the power they want under the existing law without bringing in this Bill, which is in the end an attack on the standard of life of the people of this country.
  Mr. HARNEY: I know nothing of the details of the West Ham case, but judging from the speeches we have heard during this Debate this seems to be a very drastic action to take in connection with a half-proved offence. If we assume that everything that is alleged has gone on at West Ham, is it really any justification for a Bill of this character? I do not think the Committee fully appreciates the far-reaching powers given to the Minister by this Measure. They are to be brought into operation because of a single case out of the numerous boards of guardians in England, and are to be put into operation against one of our oldest institutions. The Bill provides that where it appears to the Minister of Health that the board of guardians for any Poor Law union have ceased, or are acting in such a manner, as appears to the Minister, to render them unable to discharge at or any of their functions of the board, then the Minister can simply wave his land and tell them to clear out. He can put in his own nominees; his nominees can be kept there for 12 months. If he thinks fit the Minister can extend that period for six months, and, if necessary, he is entitled to pay advisers to put his nominees right. That is what is proposed in this Bill.
  I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would do anything sinister, but he is not the only Minister of Health we shall have in the future. What is meant by the phrase "appears to the Minister" that a board of guardians is unable to discharge any of its functions. A board of guardians has many functions. Can you pick out any one of these functions and say that a board of guardians is incapable of discharging that function? Can the Minister say that a board of guardians have put themselves in such a position that makes it likely, in his opinion, that they will not properly discharge that function? This Bill enables the Minister of his own sweet will to say to the West Ham Board of Guardians, or to any other board of guardians in the country, "I do not like the cut of your clothes, or the shape of your hair, clear out" There is nothing to prevent it. You have the expression, "Where it appears to the Minister" If he turned out a board of guardians contrary to the public opinion of the whole community and he was brought to Court on a mandamus it would be sufficient for
  2324
  him to say that "it appears to me—I may be a fool; I may be a crank—but it appears to me"; and that would be final in a Court of Law. Is it fair because of some sense of annoyance, rightly or wrongly, which the Minister may feel in reference to the conduct of the West Ham guardians, that he should force a disability on one of the most respected and ancient institutions of this country? I have heard no justification for it. It has been said that all the Government are going on is some 100 cases out of some hundreds of thousands. The Minister of Health says that these 100 cases do not represent all the cases. That may be, but is it necessary to pass such legislation as this without any inquiry? The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was very indignant indeed that he should be charged with corruption, and he threw out a challenge to bring the charge before a proper tribunal. He asked whether it is right that the Minister, who takes a view opposed to that of the hon. Member for Silvertown should have the power, of his own sweet will, to say, "It appears to me, and that is good enough. All you fellows are corrupt, and, therefore, I will supersede you, put in a board of guardians of my own, keep them there for 12 months, extend the time if I choose, and if I find my board of guardians utterly incompetent I can then charge the taxpayer with the cost of advisers to help them to do the work."
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that this Bill has a far more general application than to the case of West Ham. It is a menace to other boards of guardians which operate in South Wales, and it is for that reason that I take part in this discussion. In the course of his remarks last Monday the Minister of Health indicated that there were ample grounds on which to justify this Bill. There is, in his view, a considerable amount of corruption, as he says, in the West Ham Union area, and presumably we are to accept that as a justification for applying these extreme powers to all other boards of guardians which happen to fall under the ban of his displeasure in the future. We have had a fair answer from the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) on that point. Surely the law of the land is strong enough to deal with any corruption. If the Minister is in a position to assert

  2325
  that this corruption is very widespread then it is up to him, it is his duty, to take whatever steps the law provides to arrest these corrupt practices and vindicate the morality of local government. But if, on the other hand, as seems to be the case, the measure of corruption which the Minister is able to prove is indeed very small and limited, then I ask what justification can there be for taking the tremendous powers in this Bill in order to deal with a very limited amount of corruption in a particular part of the Metropolis of London.
  If my assumption is correct, if this so-called corruption is limited to one particular area in London, or to one particular board of guardians in London, is it fair to invest the Minister with powers and authority which will enable him to deal not merely with this particular board of guardians which he alleges is corrupt, but with all the other boards of guardians throughout the country? I resent very much the implication conveyed by the speech of the Minister, that one of the justifications for introducing this Bill is the presence of corruption in local government. We all know the real reason why this problem has become so acute in various parts of the country. The Minister appointed a Committee to inquire into the burden of certain areas known as necessitous areas, and in the course of their remarks they indicate that it is obvious that the main burden, the exceptional and abnormal burden, now borne on the shoulders of the Poor Law authorities, is created by the exceptional unemployment in this country. The West Ham guardians are quite aware of this. They acknowledge it, and, knowing that this is the reason for the exceptional burden, they have submitted to the Minister and his Committee a scheme whereby this exceptional problem and burden might be mitigated to some degree.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is making a speech somewhat too wide in scope. The question now is whether this matter should be considered by a Select Committee.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not want to go outside the Rules of Order in the slightest degree. I am trying to point out that so far from there being anything in
  2326
  the nature of corruption at all, a considerable degree of the problem is one which concerns all boards of guardians throughout the country, and it can be dealt with in another way than by vesting the Minister of Health with the exceptional powers in this Bill. In order to limit the autocracy of the right hon. Gentleman I am going to support the Amendment that a special Select Committee shall be appointed to inquire into the matter. I was arguing—if I am still in Order—that the exceptional problem arises from the exceptional measure of unemployment in the country, and that, therefore, if there is a fault to be attached to anybody on account of the immensity, or the intensity, of unemployment, the fault lies with the right hon. Gentleman himself in so far as he has failed to come to the help or the assistance of the authorities.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, going somewhat outside the scope of the Amendment.
  Mr. JONES: I desire to keep in order, and I shall leave for the present that particular point; but I would like to submit that a responsibility rests with the Government, and because of that, the Minister ought not to ask for the exceptional powers involved here. What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest to deal with this particular disease in local government? He wants exceptional powers. He wants to be able entirely to suspend—not entirely to abrogate—but to suspend the powers of the boards of guardians for a period of time. It is the right hon. Gentleman himself who makes this demand. What is the criticism made against those of us who call ourselves Socialists? Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we put forward schemes from time to time which tend, at least in respect to some of them, to an increase of bureaucracy in this country. Surely there cannot be a more blatant attempt to increase bureaucracy in this country than is contained in this particular Clause? That, in the case where we have duly-elected local authorities actually conducting their functions in a normal way, the right hon. Gentleman, who accuses us of excessive love of bureaucracy, proposes to remove these local bodies? What he says in effect is:
  "I am a monarch of all I survey,
  My right there is none to dispute."

  2327
  That is exactly the position. There is a determined advance on the other side along those lines—
  Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman making a Second Reading speech?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to argue that the powers of the Minister should be limited.
  Mr. JONES: That is precisely the point I am trying to make, and I think it is for the most part apprehended by hon. Members. The point I was making is this: the Minister of Health desires to have the power to remove from his path the boards of guardians who fail to come up to the standards that he sets before them. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to have powers to deal with local authorities in default why not—I am not concealing the point that we think he ought not to do anything at all to interfere with the rights of local governing bodies in the matter—but if he is to interfere why not take steps to have a re-election of the board of guardians?
  Sir K. WOOD: It has been explained before that that would not be practicable.
  Mr. JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to intimate now that he will accept this Amendment, I need not say anything more on the matter. I would submit that there is another danger that arises from this proposal. We are told quite frequently from the other side that there is a great danger of depressing the spirit of the local electors in various areas, and that the great need of the time is to keep up a more intense interest in local government affairs than is now the case.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting beyond the scope of the Amendment. Perhaps he will confine his remarks to the question before the Committee.
  Mr. JONES: Quite so. The point I desire to make now is this: If the right hon. Gentleman takes these powers, then the consequence will be that the local electors in the various areas will say to themselves: "Why should we worry, and come to the assistance of the State in local affairs. If things go wrong, the Minister
  2328
  interferes on our behalf; he will take the matter under his control, and we need not worry at all." I submit to the Committee that this would engender a false confidence among the electors in the Poor Law areas, and will be doing a very great disservice indeed to the principles of democracy. Surely what has been suggested is strictly à propos to the question before the Committee at the moment.
  May I put a further question? What is going to be the effect of the vesting of this authority in the right hon. Gentleman? Not very long ago, I think the week before last to be precise, the Poor Law guardians of the Pontyprid area suddenly discovered that they were unable to pay out Poor Law relief. There was a hue and cry, and the members of the Welsh section of the Labour party had a special meeting to discuss the matter. We were told that this area, which comprised a huge population, a population of about half a million, was in this desperate position, that the guardians had no money whatever to pay out in relief—quite temporarily, I admit. That board of guardians had already agreed with the Minister to reduce its scale of relief by a certain amount. What will be the consequence in that case of the alteration to Poor Law guardians, if any authority is confronted with this frightful impasse? The right hon. Gentleman will in future be able to go to the various other boards of guardians in South Wales, and say that Pontypridd had agreed with him, and that Merthyr must now agree, that Neath must now agree, and that the various other Poor Law guardians must accept the same standard! Suppose any one of these boards of guardians proves itself to be rather somewhat recalcitrant in the matter, what will the Minister say? He will say that Clause 1 of the Bill gives him the power to interfere in the matter because the board of guardians
  "have ceased, or are acting in such a manner as will render them unable to discharge all or any of the functions,"
  and so on. The right hon. Gentleman will use this particular Clause, as I suggest, harshly and unjustly, to bring undue pressure to bear on those who are in charge, and endeavouring to discharge local government functions honestly, decently, and efficiently. In order to prevent that occurring we have moved this Amendment, and have suggested

  2329
  that where there is a local governing body alleged to be in default, that before the Minister exercises his arbitrary and dictatorial powers in this way the thing should be submitted to a Select Committee of this House, and that in that way—even though we have to concede for the sake of argument the point that the right hon. Gentleman has a right to remove the duly-elected persons from their office—in that way he will be still re-connecting—if I may use the expression—another duly-elected authority so as to keep the democratic element in connection with local government work. For these reasons, I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Major CRAWFURD: As one who represents a portion of the West Ham Board of Guardians' area I naturally have a very great interest in this Bill, because all through the country the West Ham Board of Guardians action has been quoted on both sides. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a special responsibility to satisfy, if he can, those who do represent areas within this particular Poor Law district. But I have risen to ask him, or his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, if it is possible before the Division on this Amendment takes place for either of them to give an answer to the question which was put to them, I think, for the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Bristol (Sir Beddoe Rees). He pointed out that there was a later Clause which would affect the making of an Order, and he suggested that that Order should lie on the Table before being put into operation and not afterwards—in other words, that the matter could be questioned before the Order was made. That seems to me to be important, because, whatever else you are dealing with under this particular Clause, you are going to enlarge the arbitrary and autocratic position of the Minister in a way that has been very well put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney).
  What, however, I want to direct the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to is the fact that in Clause 1 he is taking powers to suspend the operations of the boards of guardians for a charge that may be quite unspecified. The language is vague:
  "Acting in such a manner as will render them unable to discharge"—
  2330
  to prevent them carrying out their work. Therefore, the effect of this Bill is that, for an unspecified charge against a popularly-elected body, you get the arbitrary action of the Minister. Whether you are right or whether you are wrong—and I think the question could be much better argued without any reference to any particular board of guardians—is not that a very serious thing to do? All the Amendment does is to suggest that a body responsible to this House, which is also a democratically-elected body, should be able to take a decision before the Minister's Order is put into effect. I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give a little consideration to this. Walthamstow has recently suffered under another decision taken by a Government Department, the effect of which is that the whole district is being put under a kind of ban because of the action, or alleged action, of certain members in this district.
  The only justification—I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong—of the action of the right hon. Gentleman will be this: that in a particular district this democratically-elected body, the board of guardians has failed, in other words that democracy itself has failed! I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will give some satisfaction to the people in the district—who do not support the particular people that we represent—in other words, it would give some chance of democracy succeeding in the future in that district, if he would allow some sort of inquiry to be made, so that the facts could be arrived at, the charges could be made, and if possible proved, and so justification shown for arbitrary action of this kind. It is in the interests of the other inhabitants of these districts, and in view of the effect up them and their position of decisions of this kind, that I urge the Government to give very careful consideration to this proposal, and if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept this Amendment I hope he will be able to accept a later Amendment which will have the effect of enabling discussion and a decision in this House to precede any such Order.
  Mr. HARNEY: Does this Clause provide only for the laying on the Table of the Order referring to the extension

  2331
  of the period or does this provision apply to the original Order made? It seems to me on the reading of the Clause it only applies to the Order for the six-months period.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: The fate which has overtaken the West Ham Board of Guardians is one which may overtake the board of guardians for the district which I have the honour to represent, because that area is, like many others, labouring under such disadvantages as those which we have had exemplified in the case of West Ham. We are passing through an abnormal period and we cannot say what the effect of the present dispute is going to be. It is extremely likely that unemployment will remain with us in an accentuated form for some time. There is likely to be a continuance of poverty and it is certain that, under such conditions, boards of guardians will find a tremendous strain placed upon them. I am sure that will be the case in Merthyr Tydvil. They are finding the strain, even at the present moment, and if this Bill be passed without this Amendment it will be open to the Minister at any moment to sweep down upon them, take over their functions, appoint his own officials and run the place as he thinks fit. That is too great a power to he placed in the right hon. Gentleman's hands.
  I will try to keep within the bounds of order, but I must point out the reason why this Bill is necessary is because the Government have neglected their own pledges and their own duties in dealing with the question of necessitous areas. Had that been done, much of the existing trouble might have been obviated. There should be a frank inquiry of a public character into the conditions obtaining in any of the unions that come under the ban of the Minister before he is allowed to take the action proposed in the Bill. Even on the merits of the case presented for this Bill, what is happening is far less a matter of corruption than of genorosity on the part of those who, themselves, have felt the pinch of poverty. I do not believe for a single moment that it can be charged definitely or in any legal sense that there has been corruption on the part of the West Ham Board of Guardians. If it is corruption to say to a person, "We propose to treat you
  2332
  with common decency," then, of course, the West Ham Board of Guardians is corrupt, but it must not be expected that all boards of guardians, now or in the future, are going to take the views held by boards of guardians in the past. You cannot expect that boards of guardians comprising numbers of working people are going to adopt the same point of view as that of previous boards of guardians and are going to exercise their powers in a punitive spirit. Working people are not going to regard poverty or unemployment as a reason for punishment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member started very well by saying that he was going to try to keep within the bounds of order, but I think he is now going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not wish to stray from the point. Because certain action is likely to be taken, I think there is every reason why we should have a public inquiry into all cases of this kind instead of giving the Minister the arbitrary power which is sought in this Bill. I hope the House will recognise the monstrous nature of the claim that is being made—that the Minister can of his own free will over-set boards of guardians in various parts of the country and take over their functions, without any overriding power of any kind. It is a proposal which the House of Commons ought to reject with all its power, and I hope those hon. Members who represent constituencies where the boards of guardians may find themselves in a tight place owing to the present depression, will join in rejecting the Bill and in insisting that such power as this, should only be granted after the case has been inquired into by a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
  Sir K. WOOD: I wish to reply to one or two of the questions which have been addressed to me in the course of this discussion. Many of the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee are in the nature of attempts to reverse the decision at which the House of Commons arrived when this Bill was given a Second Reading. The case then put forward by my right hon. Friend was that in relation to one particular board, an exceptional situation has arisen which called for exceptional powers

  2333
  and, on the evidence which was tendered to the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend and myself, the House by a large majority agreed that exceptional powers of this kind should be given to the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your own party."] Well, that is the way in which we govern our country and, therefore, I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I do not combat once again the arguments which were used against us and develop once again the case which we made on the last occasion. I only recall, as far as the general nature of the Bill is concerned, one statement which I made on the Second Reading as to the intention of this Bill and the reason why it was drawn in such wide terms.
  "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 case, to circumvent, a similar situation if such should arise in other parts of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1926; col. 1748, Vol. 197.]
  I do not think any hon. Member would desire us to bring in a Bill for dealing only with one particular board of guardians so that if the same circumstances were to arise in connection with another board of guardians we should have to bring in another Pill to deal specially with that case also. Obviously this Bill must be drafted in general terms and must be made applicable to any case which may arise. Criticism has been offered as to the wide terms of this particular Clause and I was asked if we were going to accept an Amendment later on, which would prevent the Minister from proceeding to deal with other cases, as suggested in the Bill, unless the particular matter came before Parliament. We shall not be able to accept that Amendment.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Why?
  Sir K. WOOD: We shall discuss it no doubt when the Amendment comes up. Obviously in cases of this kind the Minister must be able to deal immediately with such situations. The immediate proposition before the Committee is that before the Minister can make an order to supersede a board of guardians a Select Committee of the House of Commons should inquire into the case. It would be a most remarkable proceeding if you adopted that course in the present case of West
  2334
  Ham. This week they are nearing the end of their financial resources. I suppose in a few days time those resources will have come to an end. Is it suggested while this is going on, that a Select Committee which might sit for weeks, should be set up to inquire into the matter? What is to happen to the finances of West Ham in the interim?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Lend them some more money.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman suggests we should lend them more money. That is a nice proposition. Apparently the hon. Member expects the Minister of Health to advance to the West Ham Board of Guardians another large sum of money without any conditions at all, or if the West Ham Board of Guardians refused to accept the conditions of my right hon. Friend, they are still to have the money and they are to have it all the time a Select Committee is sitting which may be for months and months. All that time my right hon. Friend is to be lending the money of the State under conditions which he does not recommend himself, and yet he is to be responsible to the House of Commons for the money he is so lending.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They would have a right to it.
  Sir K. WOOD: It is obviously an impossible position and one which cannot be seriously considered. The suggestion is ludicrous on the face of it. As my right hon. Friend reminded the House, the proposition of the Amendment is not one which the Labour party themselves have made in their own Measures. There is no suggestion in the Labour party's Measure in respect of default by a council in regard to housing, where they authorise the Minister to make an Order that there should be a Select Committee upon it. The same remark applies to the Labour party's Unemployment Bill. I do not, however, rely upon these examples for my case this afternoon. I may tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Clause follows very largely the wording of Section 63 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 which has been put into operations when various school boards have defaulted. Obviously, when you are dealing with an exceptional case of this kind, you must have a drastic remedy, and I admit this is a drastic remedy, but if the

  2335
  Minister makes any mistake in any action which he takes under this Clause, he will be responsible to the House of Commons for it, and, obviously, if action is to be taken in connection with another board of guardians and if hon. Members consider it to be improper action, they will have the right to challenge the decision of my right hon. Friend in the House of Commons. As they know, they can get a very early date on which to make their challenge—not perhaps if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who wanted to make the challenge by himself, but I am referring to the big body of opinion of hon. Members opposite. In the circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree that in a case of this kind we must give the Minister such power as is laid down in this particular Clause. Such power must, of necessity, be given in a case like West Ham where money is being constantly borrowed for so long. If this particular board of guardians were existing on its own resources of course there would be no necessity for the Bill. There would be no question then, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would appreciate, of the local authorities ceasing to function.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will you tell us where you find that?
  Sir K. WOOD: I will read the Subsection, which says:
  "where it appears…. that the board of guardians have ceased or are acting in such a manner as to render them unable to discharge all the functions exercisable by the board."
  Major CRAWFURD: Did that phrase of the hon. Gentleman mean to convey cases where guardians had come to the end of their resources?
  Sir K. WOOD: The first phrase is: "Where… the board of guardians have ceased." That is to say, have ceased to be able to carry on because they are not able to operate their functions.
  Mr. HARNEY: It does not say pecuniarily unable. It says "unable."
  Major CRAWFURD: That is exactly what I meant when, in the course of my
  2336
  remarks, I said the charge was unspecified. If, as the hon. Member now tells me, it was only instances where they have for financial reasons become unable to act, that is a different matter. It does not say so.
  Sir K. WOOD: if the hon. Member can conceive any other case in which they would cease, I cannot. Therefore I say to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that, so far as this matter is concerned, there is no necessity either to get prior sanction from this House or to intervene by setting up a Select Committee.
  Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Gentleman has said that "unable" is necessarily confined to not having money; suppose all the guardians were in prison, they would be "unable" Suppose a guardian was, in the opinion of the Minister, not sufficiently intellectual or competent.
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not think an hon. Member with the experience of my hon. and learned Friend would bring that forward. There would be some other Section of the Statute for what is to be done in a case of that kind.
  Miss LAWRENCE: if they do not cover cases of default where no such financial considerations came in, how did the Board of Education come in?
  Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say as to that. At any rate, no Poor Law union which has ceased to function and is acting in such a way as to render them unable—
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: How can the words "or acting in such a manner" contemplate, according to the hon. Member's argument, the possession of funds, where they have no funds?
  Sir K. WOOD: That is exactly the West Ham case—
  "or acting in such a manner as to render them unable to discharge all the functions exercisable by the board."
  What they are doing in West Ham is that they are acting in such a manner and refusing to comply with the conditions which have been made. They are acting in such a manner as to render them unable to discharge any or all of their functions. I think, if hon. Gentlemen will look at this particular Clause carefully, they will agree with the statement that I have made. I say that there

  2337
  is no necessity to interpose any question of a Select Committee or to get the approval of the House before that Order is made.
  Major CRAWFURD: May I put this question to the hon. Member? According to his interpretation of Clause 1, the Minister cannot proceed on any charge of corruption.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think my right hon. Friend made it clear on the Second Reading of this Bill that the reason why we were bringing in the Bill was owing to the fact that the West Ham Board of Guardians, through various reasons, one of which was maladministration, had put themselves in such a position that they were unable to discharge all or any of their functions.
  Mr. BARNES: The best reason we can have on this side for our Amendment is the defence of the Parliamentary Secretary. He has offered to us explanations that have already been seriously challenged in various parts of the Committee. It is because we do not consider a Minister or a Department should have these powers of superseding the local government in vague phrases of this sort that we have put forward our Amendment. This Amendment is designed for the express purpose of ensuring that a Select Committee of this House, composed of Members of all sides of the House—an impartial tribunal—shall first ascertain the facts before the Minister can use these powers. One cannot conceive that the powers sought under this Bill will be sought for any other reason than partisan purposes. It is most obvious that powers of this description, vested in the Minister, acting for a Government will only be used against their political opponents. They can only be used against political opponents. Let us take the issue involved in this Amendment and this Bill. The Amendment of course desires to remove the power which the Minister takes under this Bill. Let us consider the case on which the Minister is asking for this power. It is the case of a Labour board of guardians in conflict with the views of the Conservative Minister of Health. Labour guardians' policy and their scales are built up on broad social views. They have certain social conceptions as to how a scale
  2338
  should be built up for Poor Law purposes, whereby the community in its corporate capacity renders itself responsible for the citizen in his individual capacity. The Conservative view of that social responsibility is entirely different from the Labour view of social responsibility. Therefore there is bound to be a considerable divergence as to what scale should actually operate. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary was not, in that instance, building his case up on the alleged corruption in one or two cases. He eventually came down to defend his position against the question of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) on the financial position. The financial position of the West Ham Board of Guardians is not due to either half-a-dozen, a dozen, or a hundred alleged cases of corruption whether political or anything else. The financial position of the West Ham Board of Guardians is due to the mass of poverty in West Ham, therefore we consider—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting beyond the scope of the Amendment.
  Mr. BARNES:What I was endeavouring to point out was that the Parliamentary Secretary used the words that the board of guardians would cease to carry out their functions because their financial resources would come to an end.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be discussed at this point.
  Mr. BARNES: Our Amendment is designed to enable Parliament to ascertain the whole facts of the situation in any local government area where the Minister proposes to exercise these powers, so that Parliament shall have the facts before they give the Minister permission to exercise them. Therefore I submit that the argument I was endeavouring to use is very essential to the Committee before it decides whether it shall accept this Select Committee or give the powers direct to the Minister. Another point which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned was that this emergency, which they are now seeking powers to cope with, has been developing for some time. That is an additional reason why the Committee should accept our Amendment. I am satisfied that if, 12 months or two years ago, we had had powers whereby a Select Committee

  2339
  could have investigated the facts of the West Ham situation, we should not have had a Bill of this description before the House, but the House would have renewed the national obligation towards local areas of that description. As a matter of fact this question about financial resources when the guardians of West Ham cease to function or carry out any of their duties, is not a recent one. It dates, I think, from about 1921 to 1922, before we had a Labour majority on the West Ham Board of Guardians. If the Minister will accept this Amendment, long before a local situation becomes acute, and represents acute conflict between the local board and the Ministry of Health, you would have power to establish a Select Committee of this House and could ascertain the facts of the financial administration, the conditions of the locality and exactly what the problem is. In all fairness no Member opposite could say he is conversant with the situation in West Ham. Members are conversant with the flood of misrepresentation through the Press of this country and from the Minister himself. That is the most regrettable thing in the situation. The Minister is thoroughly conversant with the facts, and he knows perfectly well that our situation is not due to malpractices or to the guardians abusing any of their functions. The Minister knows that our difficulties result from a set of circumstances which are quite abnormal and beyond the control of the residents in that particular locality. When an apparent conflict is developing between the Minister of Health and a board of guardians it is far better both for Parliament and for the ratepayers in the district that there should be an impartial investigation, so that there may be an assurance that the powers of local government are not being taken away from that locality for political motives.
  The introduction of this Bill assumes that the West Ham Board of Guardians have failed. I say, as one of the public
  representatives of that district, that they have not failed. The Minister has advanced no justification for his statement that they have failed. He has queried the purity of their administration in certain directions, but he has not made out his case that the guardians have failed. If our Amendment were carried a Select Committee would establish whether, in fact, the West Ham Board of Guardians have failed to carry out their duty or not. I hope the Minister will, on further reflection, accept this Amendment, because it will relieve him of the charge that we can now legitimately level against him that he is using political power, given to him for national purposes, in order to destroy the advantages that come from a Labour administration in a local area. I can conceive of no more retrograde step than the passing of this Bill. I should not welcome it if a Labour Minister of Health were to seek to over-ride the desires of any local community which in a constitutional and fair way had decided to have Conservative administration locally. Here we have a Conservative Government, with a majority obtained by very questionable tactics at the last General Election, using their powers to enforce their views upon a poor area like the West Ham Union, in the East End of London, whose difficulties have arisen because the Government will not discharge their social obligations to the poor. On top of that failure, this attempt to obtain Parliamentary powers to over-ride the efforts of these people to give themselves a measure of social justice is the most despicable use of power to which wealthy people can descend.
  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 Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 132.

  Division No. 342.]

  AYES

  [7.20 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Atkinson, C.

  Bethel, A.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Albery, Irving James

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

  Balniel, Lord

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

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Berry, Sir George

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C.M.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Bridgegeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Ralne, W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ramsden, E.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

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

  Remnant, Sir James

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Ropner, Major L.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cassels,.J. D.

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Illffe, Sir Edward M.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Faraham)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sassoon, Sir Phillip Albert Gustave D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Savery, S. S.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lamb, J. Q.

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lane Fox, Col Rt. Hon. George R.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Slaney, Mahor P. Kenyon

  Cooper, J. B.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Looker, Herbert William

  Smithers, Waldron

  Conliffe, Sir Herbert

  Lord, Walter Greaves

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Lougher, L.

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lumley, L. R.

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Strickland, sir Gerald

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  McLean, Major A.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Drewe, C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchelf

  Ellis, R. G.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elveden, Viscount

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Waddington, R.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wells, S. R.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville, C.H.

  Finburgh, S.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairympie

  Forrest, W.

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

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Williams, Com C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury)

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gates, Percy

  Murchison, C.K.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Withers, John James

  Grace, John

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Nield, Rt. Hon. sir Herbert

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Harland, A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Penny, Frederick George

  Major Coped and Mr. F. C.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Thomson.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  NOES.

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

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Buchahan, G.

  Davision, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston

  Cape, Thomas

  Dennison, R.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Duncan, C.

  Barr, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Dunnice, H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Compton, Joseph

  Garro-Jones, Captain G.M.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Cove, W. G.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Briant, Frank

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Gillett, George M.

  Broad, F. A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Gosling, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  2342

  2343

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

  Lee, F.

  Snell, Harry

  Greenall, T.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lowth, T.

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Grenfell, D. r. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Stamford, T. W.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Stephen, Campbell

  Groves, T.

  March, S.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Grundy, T.W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Sutton, J. E.

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.

  Morris, R. H.

  Taylor, R. A.

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

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.

  Thorne W. (West Ham, Plaistow

  Hall G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil

  Murnin, H.

  Thurtle, E.

  Hardle, George D.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Harris, Percy A.

  Palin, John Henry

  Townend, A. E.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Paling, W.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Viant, S. P.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon., Stephen

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring

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

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Riley, Ben

  Webb, Rt. Hon, Sidney

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

  Ritson, J.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Westwood, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Jones, J.J. (West Ham, Silvertown

  Scurr, John

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Dr. J.H. (Lianelly)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Kennedy, T.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Wright, W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smillie, Robert

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe

  Lawrence, Susan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 230.

  Division No.343.]

  AYES

  [7.28 p.m.

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

  Hardie, Geroge D.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro'

  Harris, Percy A.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ritson, J.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South

  Scurr, John

  Broad, F. A.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Bromley, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown

  Smillie, Robert

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Cove, W. G.

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

  Snell, Harry

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale

  Lansbury, George

  Stamford, T. W.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stephen, Campbell

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lee, F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dennison, R.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Duncan, C.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Lunn, William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gillett, George M.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Townend, A. E.

  Gosling, Harry

  March, S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Graham,, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Montague, Frederick

  Varley, Frank B.

  Greenall, T

  Morris, R. H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Grenfell, D. r. (Glamorgan)

  Murnin, H.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Groves, T.

  Palin, John Henry

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

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Welsh, J. C.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Westwood, J.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Windsor. Walter

  Mr. A. barnes and Mr. Charles

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Wright, W.

  Edwards.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Galbraith,.J. F. W.

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

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

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Gates, Percy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Gates, Major R. G. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Penny, Frederick George

  Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

  Grace, John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Perring. Sir William George

  Atkinson, C.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Radford, E. A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Grotrain, H. Brent

  Raine, W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ramsden, E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Harland, A.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Berry, Sir George

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bethel, A.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Rice, Sir Fredrick

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Headdlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rye, F. G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bowyer, Captain. G. E. W.

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

  Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hopkins, A. (Lancastere, Mossley)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Savery, S. S.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

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

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

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Jacob, A. E.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Skelton, A.N.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Jephcott, A. R,

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Kidd J. (Linlithgow)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Captain Henry Douglas

  Smithers. Waldron

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chamberlain, Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Lamb,.J. Q.

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Lodor,.J. de V.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Looker, Herbert William

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lord, Walter Greaves.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lougher, L.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cockerill, Brigs General Sir G. K.

  Lowe Sir Francis William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Conway, Sir W Martin

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  Couper J. B.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  McLean, Major A.

  Tryon, Rt Hon. George Clement

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Waddington, R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Maltland Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Makins, Brigadler-General E.

  Wells, S. R.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Drewe, C.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Williams, Coin. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Merriman. F. B.

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

  Edwards, J. Hung (Accrington)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Ellis, R. G.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Withers, John James

  Elveden, Viscount

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wornersley, W. J.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Morrison- Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Murchison, C. K.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wragg. Herbert

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Finsburgh, S.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Forrest,. W.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Major Cope and Mr. F. C.

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Thomson.

  Sir B. REES: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "Where," to insert the words
  "at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight."
  It is obvious that the point of the Amendment is to limit the period of the operation of the Bill. In introducing the Bill, the Minister of Health told us that it was the intention of the Government to introduce next year a very comprehensive Bill dealing with the reform of the Poor Law. If that be so, there will be no necessity for this Bill after next year, and we think it would be a very useful thing indeed to limit the period of its operation to the 1st January, 1928. The Bill does not apply merely to West Ham. If it did, I would not have much to say about it, because the general consensus of opinion is that the West Ham case, so far as the Government are concerned, is completely made out, and I am in general sympathy with the Bill. I voted for the Second Reading on the understanding that it was intended to deal only with West Ham, and any other similar board of guardians which might act in the same way, but the scope of the Bill is very much greater than that, and the discussion has shown the purposes for which this Bill may be used.
  In Italy, there is a similar power to replace a communal council by the appointment of a commission. It was only intended at the beginning to use it in one or two cases, but it has been growing and growing until the power is almost completely in the hands of the Commission. In this country there must come reform of the Poor Law and of the incidence of local rating, and all that, I understand, is going to be dealt with next year by the Government, but this Bill offers a very easy way out of a very difficult situation, which any Government might be tempted to use, and so shelve this comprehensive Bill that is promised for next year. Therefore, we think the Government, if they are really serious in their promises and intentions, ought to accept this Amendment. I see no reason at all, if they intend carrying out their proposals next year, why they should not say at once that they will limit the operation of this Bill to the 1st January, 1928, and if, for any purpose, they have
  2348
  then been unable to carry their other legislation, they could ask Parliament to renew this Bill for a further period.
  Mr. GILLETT: In rising to support the Amendment, I wish to say that I do so on the ground of limiting the period of operation of the Bill, because I feel that the whole foundation of the Bill is opposed to the fundamental principle that bases the whole of our political and municipal life, and that is that there should be no taxation without representation. Therefore, the sooner we can return to the normal state of affairs in regard to any of these guardians, the more satisfactory it will be. There is a second reason, and that is that the speech which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us just now modified the Bill, to my mind, to a very considerable extent. He told us that it does not apply unless, practically, a union is bankrupt. I understand that is the intention of the Bill, though I must say I thought the scope of it was larger than that. It seems to me that it is inequitable between different unions, and on that ground we ought to have the period shortened, because if we had one union that was doing exactly the same things in regard to what is termed corruption as the Minister has suggested is going on in West Ham, the Minister would have no power against that union so long as it was wealthy enough to go on paying its way. He only has power if a union is poor, and then, under this Bill, he can come in. In other words, it is going to be inequitable as between a wealthy union and a poor union on a question such as that upon which I understand, to a large extent, the Minister has based his reason for interfering in the affairs of West Ham.
  My third reason is that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out that legislation was going to take place in regard to the Poor Law. There is no doubt that there is a great case for dealing with the whole problem of London government, and one of the things that seems to have been constantly overlooked in regard to West Clam's position is that West Ham should really be within London, and that it is West Ham's misfortune that it is not a part of the County of London. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is considering a Bill dealing with the

  2349
  government of London. We are dealing with a position in London that is quite unique and quite different from that of any other great city, and West Ham happens, by an accident, to be outside the district that it ought to be inside. That is the root difficulty of West Ham. If West Ham had been in the County of London in the last 20 or 30 years, ever since the county was formed, its financial position to-day, quite apart from any question of policy, would have been very different. The Poplar Union has virtually, to a certain extent, escaped from its difficulties because it is in London, and although I know its debt is considerable, it is not in the same position as West Ham. [Interruption.] I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that they owe nothing in Poplar.
  Mr. LANSBURY: London owes it.
  Mr. GILLETT: At any rate, the Poplar Union is better off simply because of the accident that it is in the County of London.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not clear how the hon. Gentlman links his argument with the limit of time.
  Mr. GILLETT: I believe it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to deal with London government. I want the time to be short, in the hope that by the time this limit has been reached the right hon. Gentleman will have introduced his Bill and the problem of West Ham will be alleviated. I do not know why West Ham is the only union mentioned, because the Bill is obviously concerned with other unions, but it does not seem to me to be fair that one union like West Ham is to be penalised while wealthier unions escape.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment.
  Mr. GILLETT: I was only dealing with a question arising out of London government. My reason for supporting this Amendment is that I think the principle is vicious that you can take control of a local authority, and that the people who have to pay the taxes will have no say in how the money is expended.
  Mr. MARCH: I desire to support the Amendment. I think the Minister should
  2350
  accept it, because he has told us that this is only an emergency Bill until he brings in his larger Measure. This Bill may in time apply to other boards, and we may be in an awkward situation. I see the Minister smiling, and I know he is thinking of Poplar. We would not like to be out of it. We always like to be in trouble with the Minister because he is so genial when we go to meet him. The Bill in due course might apply to Poplar. The guardians are always defaulting when they do not carry out what the Minister wishes. He is a Mussolini in this matter. Although he has tried to lead the House to believe that he does not desire to fix the amounts that poor people are to receive, his only desire is to tell the boards of guardians that they must reduce the sums. These boards would not have been placed in their present position but for abnormal circumstances of unemployment and casual labour. When people come to the Minister to borrow money he says there must always be an alteration. It seems to me that the Minister and his supporters think that the longer people are on Poor Law relief the less they want, but it is the other way about; they want more.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how the hon. Member connects this with the Amendment.
  Mr. MARCH: It is connected with it on the question of time. The longer we delay in finding employment for people the longer we will have them on poor relief. They do not want to go there for the sake of going to the board of guardians, but because they want to exist.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is directing his argument against the whole Bill. He cannot discuss the whole Bill; he must keep to the Amendment.
  Mr. MARCH: I will not get outside your rulings, but I want to say that, if this Bill is to go on, the worse it will be, and if we get an alteration of the Bill the better it will be.
  Miss WILKINSON: One of the reasons why this Amendment should be inserted is that we are living in a time of abnormality. We are suffering from bad trade,

  2351
  the effect of the War, and the effect of the financial policy of the Government. It is absolutely essential to consider a time limit in connection with this Bill. We have spoken entirely of the position of West Ham. I represent an area that has escaped the attention of the Minister so far, but he must admit it is one of the most necessitous areas in the country. With invincible optimism we regard this period as abnormal. We feel that if the Minister would only allow time for these economic conditions to work themselves out, there would be no need for this Bill. We cannot help feeling that Middlesbrough is likely to be one of the unions to receive the Minister's attention. We do not consider it is fair that the Bill should be rushed through in this way. We think the electors should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was necessary to rush it through, to deal with an emergency, but it is not as though this problem had happened yesterday. Why is there a necessity for this Bill? Why is this essential fabric of our Constitution, the fabric of local government, to be hurriedly torn up by the Minister because he wants to deal with this board of guardians? You cannot isolate West Ham from the other necessitous areas. You may pass panic legislation dealing with West Ham, and the Minister may find himself in an infinitely greater difficulty. Harassed members of boards of guardians who live in these districts and who find queues of people waiting for them in the morning may resolve to throw their responsibilities on the Minister and tell him to put in his representatives and see what sort of a mess they will make of it. We are really asking the Minister to look before he leaps into a dark chasm. We are told by the Minister that we are to have not merely this Bill dealing with local government in London, but that he is proposing an essential reform of the whole Poor Law. Surely it is putting the cart before the horse to deal with the problem in the particular way proposed by the Bill. Hard cases, as any lawyer will tell you, make bad law, and dealing with patchwork legislation in this panic fashion is only bringing the law into contempt. I think the Minister of Health sees the West Ham Guardians round his
  2352
  bed at night, with caps in their hands, demanding more money, and he is passing this Bill to set his mind at rest. I do want to ask the Minister to take time and to give further consideration to this Bill, and not to have it rushed through in this way.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who has just sat down did not seem to distinguish clearly between the arguments for delaying the Bill and the arguments for bringing it in and passing it quickly. The hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), who moved this Amendment, alluded to something I said on the Second Reading with relation to the Measure for Poor Law reform which the Government had announced its intention of introducing next year. It is perfectly true that I pointed out that the effect of that would be to make this Bill a temporary Measure. This Bill deals with guardians, and when there are no longer any guardians there cannot be any reform of them. This ceases then to be a Bill ipso facto. It ceases to operate and expires. We are asked to name a date on which this Bill expires, and that seems to me not only unnecessary, but undesirable because it is not possible to say on what dates boards of guardians will cease to exist. Since that is so, naming a date in this Bill would expose us to the risk of a gap between the time this Bill comes to an end and the time when boards of guardians come to an end. I am afraid therefore that I cannot accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) spoke of no taxation without representation. That is just what we had in mind in connection with the case that has given rise to this Bill. West Ham is now spending a great deal more than it can extract from the rates. In order to obtain money it comes to the Ministry of Health to get a loan from the taxpayer and not the ratepayer, but the taxpayer has no control over that money. The basis of this Bill is that if the authority lends boards of guardians that money it is necessary that they should lay down conditions under which that money should be spent.
  Mr. GILLETT: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman only applies pro-

  2353
  vided that it is certain that West Ham will never repay the money.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the taxpayer is going to lend that money to someone else and that money is not properly secured, the taxpayer must take whatever powers he can to see that it is secured. It is not a question whether a union is poor, but whether a union is carrying on with the money of someone else. Hon. Members opposite do not like the Bill, but the particular Amendment before us was justified by the hon. Member who moved it, not on the ground that it was such a Bill that you should put some limit to the time it would operate, but that as there was to be a time limit it should be put down in the Bill. My answer is that we do not know what that time limit will be.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman bases his argument on the fact that he cannot name the date now when the boards of guardians will come to an end. But he also assumes that at the end of 18 months, under the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), the economic situation will be still so serious that there will be a substantial number of boards of guardians who cannot pay their way.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not saying that you did, but that you implied it. The right hon. Gentleman says he must have the powers in his hands until 1928, but he implies that boards of guardians will not be able to pay their way at that time. Indeed, it is a certainty in his mind. I suggest that if the Government's intentions with regard to unemployment policy are going to leave this country 18 months from now in such a state as we are in to-day they might keep their Bill as long as they like. This at least is a confession of the Government's incompetence to deal with this big problem. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not at all certain that boards of guardians might by that time have ceased to exist. I would like to be quite sure that there is no intention on the part of the Government to carry these proposals forward under the new Measure. On this side of
  2354
  the Committee we do not look on this Amendment with any enthusiasm. We are going to support it, although we are running the risk of being misrepresented as accepting the view that this Measure ought to last 18 months. It is an attempt to destroy local government, and it should be at least limited in its time. I hope other hon. Members will be willing to recognise the very reasonable nature of this Amendment, moved by an hon. Member who supported the Bill on the Second Reading and believes that the Measure ought to be strictly limited in its duration.
  Mr. GROVES: I was specially interested in the right hon. Gentleman's references to West Ham's incapacity to meet its obligations with regard to Poor Law. I do want to say that the reason that we cannot meet these obligations is because the unemployment problem is out of all proportion to the generally accepted view of destitution. We are now levying a rate of 10s. in the £ only for Poor Law purposes. It is true that we as a Poor Law union could not stand an additional strain in that direction. I conclude by impressing on the Minister that the burden in our area is shouldered by the union, whereas it ought to be shouldered by the country. We are bearing a national responsibility on our shoulders and are coming to the Minister for a loan. There you have it in a nutshell. I shall support the Amendment, but I just wanted to emphasise this point, that with regard to West Ham we are where we are because of the industrial conditions of the country. We did what we could to solve the burden following the great problem of unemployment. We ought to get from the Minister a greater degree of, shall I say, compassion.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: How many millions worth?
  Mr. GROVES: We only ask for money in proportion to the volume of the obligations imposed on us. We have accepted that burden whether it was right or wrong. Having accepted the burden and realised that its demands are greater than the shoulders of the locality can bear, we cannot go anywhere else than to the national representative, that is to say, the Minister of Health. Following the observations he made in his speech,

  2355
  I want to say that we in West Ham are where we are because of the national obligations we have accepted.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I want to thank the Minister for his most illuminating speech. It has thrown a flood of light on a subject that was very much obscured. In his speech on Monday he began by saying that this was a mere temporary stop-gap Measure, and that, 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, he had hoped it might be possible to carry on without any legislation of this character, until that larger Measure could be introduced, but that the action of the board of guardians of West Ham had left him no choice.
  Then he concentrated his attention on West Ham. Three-quarters of his speech was on West Ham, and he said that the Bill would not have been introduced if it had not been for West Ham. This question of law reform has been in the air ever since 1909, and successive Governments have promised Measures. Some of us felt very happy and encouraged, but when it comes to saving, "Put into your Bill what you put into your speech," it is quite a different matter. We have been told that 1928 is about the date when we might expect any serious legislation in regard to the Poor Law, but, being too busy to introduce the Poor Law Bill and to return the Poor Law, the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with this emergency Measure. The right hon. Gentleman took the high constitutional ground that in the case of West Ham the money comes from the Government, and therefore the Government ought to have control. I come back to the list, of boards of guardians which were read out to the House, and every one of them will come under the "sound, constitutional doctrine" which the Minister of Health has enunciated. Every one of those boards in that long list have borrowed money, and the Minister's speech clearly foreshadows that he intends dealing with every one in that list exactly as he proposes to deal with West Ham.
  2356
  The Minister has admitted what I put to the Committee before that this is a general Bill to deal with the general principle of the Poor Law, and to bring these other boards down to the scale which the Minister of Health wishes to see imposed. Somebody will have to make the precepts, and the persons who will make them will be officials paid and appointed from Whitehall. The Minister of Health has told the Committee that this Bill is necessary in order that sound principles of democracy should prevail, but why should poor West Ham be made the scapgoat for everybody else? I think we are now standing at the beginning of the bankruptcy of local government, and when the Minister of Health insists that powers like these should be made permanent and not temporary and should go on until the Government find it possible to introduce a reform of the Poor Law then the situation is very bad indeed.
  Sir B. REES: This Measure deals with one of the fundamental principles of local government, and my contention is that if you are taking such extreme powers as those contained in this Bill it should only be done for a limited period. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he will meet us if we agree to a compromise and accept a period of 18 months.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his Department has already gone to the Poplar Board not upon the question of a loan but in regard to the question of raising the loan on the proceeds that come from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and they have in fact been told that the borrowing powers which they have enjoyed they are not now going to enjoy, and that the Minister of Health intends to impose certain restrictions on the scales of allowances. Our board of guardians has met to-day to agree to a reduction of £20,000 and this had to be done before the Minister would allow them to borrow money, which I contend they are entitled to borrow in anticipation of what they will receive from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
  The board cannot claim more than they are entitled to under the scale laid down by this House as to what shall be charged on that fund. I want to know if that is consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the reason why he must pull them up is because they are

  2357
  not paying back their loans, and he thinks they have gone so far that any further loans would be unsafe. I am not putting these points for the purpose of obstruction, and I will try to put them more scientifically. The reason the right hon. Gentleman has interfered with West Ham is because he considers the repayment is unsafe and he must take care of the taxpayers' money. I wish to point out that before this Bill has become law someone in his Department has informed the Poplar Board that in future the Minister of Health does not intend to do what he has done before, that is to allow them to borrow on the security of London what the Act of Parliament has prescribed that they can do.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not surprised at the attitude of the Minister in regard to this Amendment. It is very clear that he does not want any time limit. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that next year a Poor Law Bill was going to be passed, of course he would accept this Amendment. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman realises that "there's many a slip' twist cup and lip," and he is afraid that the Bill which has been announced might not be passed, and so he wants to retain this Bill for as long a period as he possibly can. The Government may be changed or modified, or there may be such a run of events that the right hon. Gentleman's Government may even not find time for a Measure dealing with the Poor Law. Therefore, what he wants is that this Bill may remain on the Statute Book for as long as he is likely to need it. This is part of a deliberate campaign and policy to
  save the money of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. There is no use compromising on time; it is a sheer question of a deliberate policy in the East End of London to club the poorest of the poor, and, if the Minister is allowed to do so, he intends to develop that policy also in Birmingham and in Glasgow. It is no use appealing to him for social justice or social equity; he intends to carry out this policy in a brutal and hard-hearted fashion.
  Sir B. REES: May I ask for a reply to my question?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only reply to the hon. Member that I see no necessity far putting in a time limit, and, as I have already pointed out, I do not desire to have a gap, the effect of which might possibly be that the powers given to the present Government might be denied to its successors. I do not know why hon. Members opposite desire to commit themselves to a course which might have that effect. It appears to me that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in the Debate on the Second Reading, if this Government were to be given these powers, their successors at least should have them.
  Mr. MARCH: We had an idea that, if the right hon. Gentleman accepted a limit of time, he would get on with his Bill a little quicker.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 114 Noes, 177.

  Division No. 344.]

  AYES.

  [8.29 p.m.

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

  Duncan, C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, A.

  Gillett, George M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Barr, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Kennedy, T.

  Batey, Joseph

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Broad, F. A.

  Greenall, T.

  Lansbury, George

  Bromley, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lowth, T.

  Cape, Thomas

  Groves, T.

  Lunn, William

  Charleton, H. C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Cluse, W. S.

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

  March, S.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Montague, Frederick

  Cove, W. G.

  Hardie, George D.

  Morris, R. H.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Murnin, H.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Palin, John Henry

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Paling, W.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Dennison, R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Potts, John S.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Snell, Harry

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Welsh, J. C.

  Riley, Ben

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Westwood, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Scurr, John

  Taylor, R. A.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Townend, A. E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wright, W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Smillie, Robert

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Perring, Sir William George

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Radford, E. A.

  Atholl, Duchess of

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Atkinson, C.

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

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ramer, J. R.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Harland, A.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Berry, Sir George

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bethel, A.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Rye, F. G.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Savory, S. S.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Kidd J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lamb, J. O.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Couper, J. B.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lord, Walter Greaves.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Thornton, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Tryon, Rt Hon. George Clement

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Drewe, C.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Waddington, R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Watts, Dr. T.

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

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wells, S. R.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Leotard, W. Lindsay

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fielden, E. B.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Finburgh, S.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Withers, John James

  Forrest, W.

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wragg, Herbert

  Gates, Percy

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grace, John

  Penny, Frederick George

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord Stanley.

  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after the word "union," to insert the words
  "(a) have persistently failed to grant adequate relief to destitute persons; or."
  In my opinion, this is one of the most important Amendments on the Order Paper, because if you analyse the Bill from top to bottom there is only one object that the Minister has in view, and that is to penalise democratically appointed boards of guardians for granting too much relief to destitute people. The object of the Amendment is to give additional powers to the Ministers also to penalise boards of guardians who do not pay adequate relief. I come from a constituency where we have boards of guardians who look at the question of the destitute people from a very inhuman standpoint. The district I represent is linked up with the Abergavenny Board of Guardians. The mines and steel works in that district have only worked about 18 months since 1921. Therefore, seeing that the village is dependent entirely upon the steel works and the five mines in the district, the misery and poverty are indescribable. These people, therefore, have to appeal to the Abergavenny Board of Guardians, on which there are large number of Tories quite as reactionary as the present Tory Government. They pay a maximum of 32s. per week. It does not matter whether you have one child or six, the maximum is 32s. They even do worse than that. During the present lock-out the miners have been compelled to apply for parish relief. If a miner receives 5s. from his federation or from a public charity, that is taken into consideration in granting the relief. If the Minister paid more attention to boards of guardians who pay inadequate sums than he does to West Ham, he would be doing far more justice to these poor destitute people. I took this matter up with the Parliamentary Secretary. He was very kind and courteous, and he made his investigation, and this is the reply I received:
  "As regards paragraph 2, it is their duty to take into account any payment of strike pay or other means of subsistence which are available, whatever may be there source."
  We say that is very unjust and unfair, and we are therefore proposing this Amendment so that the Minister will have the power to deal with these recalcitrant guardians in exactly the same way as he proposes to deal with the West
  2362
  Ham Guardians. Very shortly we shall be on that side of the House, and we want to put the contents of this Amendment into operation. We will not spend as much time with West Ham as we will with the people who do not pay adequate relief. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment from the standpoint of fair play and will give us the chance of dealing with these people who refuse to pay adequately. I do not believe I am asking too much if we ask that these people who are destitute should be sufficiently fed, adequately clothed and properly housed. Even under the relief given by the Abergavenny Guardians nothing is given towards rent or clothes. We are very dissatisfied with the action of the Minister in dealing with guardians who treat applicants for relief in such a mean way. These men are in queues, not only at the Employment Exchange but at the office of the board of guardians. Although they are the real wealth producers of the country, they are appealing for something to keep body and soul together. Last Saturday in the "Daily Mirror" there was a picture of queues in London waiting for a prospectus, with a view to investing £2,000,000. In my district we have a queue of the real wealth producers of the country, seeking for something with which to feed the hungry folks at home, while in London we have a queue of those who live on wealth looking for a prospectus in order to invest their money. I appeal to the right, hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, so that we shall be able to deal with these people—
  Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK Ron being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to move, "That Black Rod be not entertained here this evening," owing to an abuse of power in another place.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went; and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926.

  2363

  2. Execution of Diligence (Scotland) Act, 1926.

  3. Coal Mines Act, 1926.

  4. Glasgow Education Authority (Juvenile Delinquency) Order Confirmation Act, 1926.

  5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ilfracombe) Act, 1926.

  6. Abertillery and District Water Board Act, 1926.

  7. Connah's Quay Urban District Council Water Act, 1926.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
  Again considered in Committeee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: As I was about to say—
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. I want to know whether it is in order now to raise a question in regard to a considerable disturbance which took place in another place just now?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order.
  Captain WALTER SHAW: Is it in order, Mr. Chairman, for an hon. Member to raise a question on the Motion which was made that Black Rod should not be admitted?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order in Committee on this Bill.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to raise another point of Order. When Black Rod is coming here and is announced, and when it is moved that he be not admitted, is there nothing that can be done—
  The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise here. When the usual information of Black Rod's approach is given by the Sergeant-at-Arms, it is the duty of the Chairman to vacate the Chair for Mr. Speaker, and until Mr. Speaker again leaves the Chair, the Chairman has nothing to do with the proceedings.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would move then that you vacate the Chair now—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order. Mr. Griffiths.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will move then that the Sitting be adjourned, in order that—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a Motion I cannot accept.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have it on the highest authority that it is the correct procedure to move that you vacate the Chair, in order that Mr. Speaker—
  The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not in order. When Black Rod gives a summons to this House to go to the House of Peers, the Chairman of the Committee on a Bill has no duty in regard to that except to vacate the Chair, and make room for Mr. Speaker. Therefore, no point of Order can arise. Mr. Griffiths.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: This Amendment which I am moving will enable the Government to deal as drastically with boards of guardians which are not progressive as the Bill now enables the Minister of Health to deal with boards of guardians which are progressive.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the proceedings of this Committee to continue without interruption when one hon. Member of this House has violently assaulted another hon. Member during the progress of hon. Members to the House of Lords?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly in order; otherwise anyone who wishes to suspend the proceedings of the Committee would proceed to assault another hon. Member.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is an incitement to violence on your part. You should never have put that into anybody's head.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Griffiths.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS rose—
  Mr. BROMLEY: May I ask for your guidance, Sir. Do I correctly understand your ruling on the point just raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), that it is in order for any hon. Member of this House violently to assault another hon. Member?
  The CHAIRMAN: What I said was that if an assault was committed by one hon. Member on another, there is no reason why we should not go on with our business.
  Mr. HUDSON: On that point of Order—
  The CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling.
  Mr. HUDSON: On a further point of Order, Mr. Hope. The question I desire to put is this: Considering that a violent assault has been made by one Member upon another—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]—the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Roy Bird) upon the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner)—can I move, "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept that Motion. Mr. Griffiths. [Interruption.]
  Mr. GRIFFITHS rose—
  Mr. PALING: May I ask whether, in view of the unprecedented character of what has just happened, and in view of the ruling you have given, you can give us any advice as to the best method of bringing this question up for discussion?
  The CHAIRMAN: My business is to conduct the proceedings here, and not to take any cognisance of what happens outside. Mr. Griffiths.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is another indication of how generous we are. [Interruption.]
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: In putting forward this matter—
  Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: On a point of Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" "Chinese ham!" "Ching-Ching!" and Interruption.]
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: On a point of Order. May I ask whether you cannot give us any advice on this matter? Might I ask whether it would be possible for the Leader of the Government or some other right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of their view of this matter?
  The CHAIRMAN: It would be quite out of Order for any Minister to do so.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have been trying to deal with the situation during a time of partial employment—between 1921 and the present year. If you analyse the present Bill, you will see that its object is to penalise and also to discharge democratically-elected guardians because they have paid out too much money in the relief of destitute people. The object of the Amendment is to give additional powers to the Minister to discharge reactionary guardians who refuse to pay adequate relief.
  Referring to Blaeravon and the Abergavenny Board of Guardians, may I say that in the district the workmen themselves, without asking the employers to contribute to the unemployed, themselves contributed £ 41,000, and so saved the rates, which would have been called upon to contribute that money to those in need. There was a list read out by the hon. Member for East Ham which really astonished everybody who was in the House, and heard it. I trust now, after what I have said to the Minister, in reference to the Abergavenny Board of Guardians, which has the lowest amount of relief in the whole country, that he will accept the Amendment, so that those who are destitute in the district may have justice done to them.
  Mr. GROVES: I beg to support the Amendment. I have much pleasure in doing so. As the House knows, we desire to insert words which will allow of adequate relief to destitute persons. We want the Minister to take action against unions that persistently refuse to grant adequate relief to destitute persons. Apparently, from what we have heard, there are, perhaps, 40 boards of guardians who have been in default in their duty of relieving destitution. They have spent the amount of money they have got from the rates and have been compelled to get on their knees to the Minister of Health in order to carry on their work. We find the Minister taking action against the West Ham Guardians because they have been giving what some think is adequate relief in cases of destitution. But that is the reason we are moving the Amendment. Hon. Members know that in the post-War condition under which the industrial areas

  2367
  have been, those concerned have been inundated with applications from able-bodied men who before the War were working people, men who in our boroughs contributed to develop the wealth and greatness of our country. I think it is as well to realise, after all is said and done, how the matter stands. Those who work in West Ham, that great East End area, have contributed largely to the wealth and development of the country.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee relates to boards of guardians who have failed in their duty to grant relief to destitute persons, and the hon. Member's argument about the West Ham Board of Guardians does not seem to apply to that case.
  Mr. GROVES: I was only giving it as a comparison. West Ham has been accused of granting adequate relief, and I have been pointing out the amount of relief paid in West Ham compared with the amount paid elsewhere. I was showing the difference there is between sense and the lack of sense, in order to give the Committee an opportunity of realising which side is right. I always try to obey the Chair, whoever is in it, but I think that right and wrong, adequacy and inadequacy, are relative terms, and you cannot understand what is adequate without discussing what is inadequate.
  The CHAIRMAN: If West Ham Guardians fail in their duty to grant adequate relief to destitute persons, they will come under this Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment referred to unions which had so failed in their duty, and that was in rrder.
  Mr. GROVES: I will endeavour to keep in order. We are protesting against the attempt of the Minister to put West Ham into the position of having to give inadequate relief.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can do that on Second or Third Reading, and perhaps on some of these Amendments, but not on this particular Amendment.
  Mr. GROVES: I shall not get a chance on the Third Reading, and I did not get a chance on the Second Reading, but I will not take an undue chance on this Amendment. I am willing to address my
  2368
  remarks to the condemnation of those boards of guardians which do not grant adequate relief, and I am sure that if the people in those areas are as poor and have been out of work as long, as the people in West Ham, the attention of the Minister should be drawn to the fact that in this Kingdom there are Poor Law unions not so attentive to their duty as the Poor Law union with which I am associated. I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) who mentioned certain Poor Law areas where the total amount of relief granted for a whole family was about 30s. a week. We can only speak from experience and our experience in West Ham was that when we granted a maximum of 45s. a week, to keep a man, wife and family, where there was about 5s., 10s. or 12s. a week of rent to be paid—humorous as it may appear, and out of order as it may be, experience proved that this was not adequate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to trifle with the Committee.
  Mr. GROVES: I do not wish to trifle with the Committee. I am merely trying to adapt myself to the degree of mirth which seems to prevail in the Committee, and I am also trying to fit in arguments which are sensible and true and are very serious in the circumstances of the moment. I do not want to be the victim of the general mirth. I only want to point out that there are Poor Law unions which are not paying a scale of relief that can be considered adequate. The Minister by accepting this Amendment, ought to make use of his powers under this Bill to compel guardians who are proved guilty of neglecting their duties, to apply themselves to the needs of the poor and grant adequate relief.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask you, Sir, whether it is in order upon this Amendment to discuss what is adequate relief?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.
  Mr. GROVES: Then why did you interrupt me?
  Sir K. WOOD rose—
  Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. When only two speeches have been made on an Amendment of this

  2369
  character, is it in order for the Government representative to reply before certain other points of criticism can be raised to which a reply is required. The custom is growing of replying at once from the Government Front Bench, and then other speakers make criticisms to which no reply at all is given.
  The CHAIRMAN: He can answer when he likes.
  Sir K. WOOD: I rise to reply to the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken and if any further points are raised which deserve a reply that reply will be given later. [Interruption.] I am sure hon. Members would not wish for a reply on points which do not deserve a reply. The point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) and the point, which is, I understand, his ground for moving the Amendment, is that in the particular area with which he is associated, the board of guardians took into account the fact that some people who applied for relief and who were concerned in the present industrial dispute, had various sources of income and deductions were made on that ground. This Amendment in no way interferes with the position in that respect. The board of guardians there, just as the boards of guardians in other parts of the country, must have regard, under the Merthyr Tydvil judgment, to any income of which the applicant for relief may be in receipt. Therefore, the object of the Mover is not met by the Amendment. The suggestion which is now being made is, as will be appreciated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, exactly contrary to all the arguments which have been used in the course of this Debate. Hon. Members opposite have put it to the Committee several times that boards of guardians ought to be given their own discretion, that there ought to be no interference with them, that they are elected bodies, and that no Minister ought to intervene in any way. Now, it is suggested that in the particular circumstances indicated by the Mover, there should be intervention. So far as the circumstances mentioned are concerned, if it were a case simply of the legal effects of the Merthyr Tydvil judgment—
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Merthyr Tydvil judgment rests on a High Court decision
  2370
  or on a decision of the House of Lords, and whether it is absolutely binding upon his Department?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; it is binding on the Department and on boards of guardians generally.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Where was it given?
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not know whether it was in the House of Lords or the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. J. JONES: You ought to know.
  Sir K. WOOD: The general effect of a decision in any Court, against which no appeal was lodged, is binding at the present time. No hon. Member would suggest that the Merthyr Tydvil judgment is not binding. It certainly is binding. I believe it was given by the Court of Appeal, but the fact that it did not go to the House of Lords would not be a reason why it is not binding upon every board of guardians and upon my Department.
  Miss WILKINSON: If a judgment is given by the Court of Appeal in a certain case, does that judgment stand whatever Acts of Parliament may be passed?
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is quite right there. If we brought in an Act of Parliament to reverse or vary the Merthyr Tydvil judgment, and had it passed by both Houses, of course that judgment would he varied or upset by whatever this and the other House did, but as it is the judgment remains.
  Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. It is a well-known fact that these other boards of guardians against whom these judgments are given are not in a position to pursue cases to the higher Courts because they are under the authority of the gentlemen who are now making the excuses. We cannot go to law without their permission when we have exceeded the money they are prepared to lend us. Now they are making the Merthyr Tydvil judgment not a reason but an excuse.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, but if the hon. Member likes to give way—
  Sir K. WOOD: I am always desirous of answering such questions as I can. I do not think the hon. Member is right in

  2371
  suggesting that my Department has prevented the boards of guardians taking any case they desire to any Court in the country. The Merthyr Tydvil judgment has been a matter of discussion for some time, and as far as I am aware no board of guardians or body connected with questions of that kind has sought to dispute that judgment in Court.
  Mr. JONES: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the Merthyr Tydvil Board of Guardians is just one of the authorities that is in the financial cart, as West Ham is.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. JONES: It is a point of Order. It is a point of Order on the matter of the judgment. It is, absolutely.
  The CHAIRMAN rose—
  Mr. JONES rose
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not interrupt. If the Parliamentary Secretary has concluded his reply for the moment, he may do so, but it is not a point of Order.
  Sir K. WOOD: I still say that variation of the Merthyr Tydvil judgment will not be at all advanced by the Amendment which has been proposed. The Merthyr Tydvil judgment will remain, and this particular Amendment has no bearing upon it. My second point is that the argument addressed by hon. Members opposite that you must not interfere with the Poor Law guardians must apply equally to the proposals they have been making at the present time. Finally, I want to say this. As far as this Bill is concerned my Department has seen no necessity for an Amendment of this kind and therefore I cannot ask the Committee to accept it to-night.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Our view is that where a board of guardians is not carrying out its statutory duties, it is not asking for anything which is unusual to ask that there should be some machinery for enforcing the duty upon the guardians. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to certain Bills that have been introduced by the Labour party as precedents for his action, he failed to
  2372
  realise that in those cases we were not going to supersede local authorities, but were mainly proposing steps whereby the State should, in default of local authorities carrying out their duties, carry these duties out on behalf of the local authorities. This Bill is quite another thing. It smacks of a repressive movement against boards of guardians who, perhaps, may be generous. If this Bill is to be robbed of a certain class consciousness which is obvious in the argument which has been used from the other side, it will be perfectly fair to say, if a board of guardians through excessive generosity, cannot make ends meet, it is to be superseded, so also you will supersede the local authority that does not carry out its special duties. Surely that is not an illogical attitude for us to take? The hon. Gentleman says that, as far as he knows, boards of guardians are carrying out their duties in a satisfactory way, and there is no need for an Amendment of this kind. Not in his opinion, but we should be the first to argue that the Minister of Health will never lift his finger to ensure that boards of guardians give adequate relief, but is always willing, and, indeed, anxious, to prevent any local authorities from becoming more generous than he would desire them to be. It seems to us only fair that, if the Minister is going to take those enormous powers into his hands, he ought at least to use those powers for the fuller enforcement of the law as well as against those people who have, perhaps, been too enthusiastic in carrying out their duty. Therefore, with a view to giving this Bill balance and making it a fair Bill, which will tell against all local authorities who exceed their duties or do not carry out their duties, an Amendment of this kind should find its place in the Bill. Although I have not lost hope of it, I trust that the Government will see their way to meet what is a very modest Amendment and which will give the Bill a fairness which at the present time it does not possess. As the Bill stands now, it shows that the Government are not concerned with the well-being of the poor, but that they are only concerned with the reduction of expenditure, and it would get rid of that feeling we all on these benches have about this Bill that it is intended as a repressive Measure.
  Miss WILKINSON: In supporting this Amendment, may I point out to the Minister how difficult it is on a matter of this kind, which is very real and substantial, if, after a couple of speeches, the Minister gets up and indicates the attitude of the Government which leaves those of us who wish to raise points in the position of feeling that the whole of the Debate has become unreal. I want to urge upon the Minister that whatever his views about the rest of the Bill, this is an Amendment which might very well be accepted by the Government. If the Government realised the feeling there is in the country that this Bill has been dictated by political bias against political opponents, they would welcome this Amendment as showing the country that they wish to act impartially wherever guardians are failing in their duty, either by giving excessive relief or by giving inadequate relief. I know the Minister will say that if a board of guardians are giving inadequate relief, or even have persistently failed to grant relief at all, that, at any rate, keeps them within their financial competence, and that he has no concern with them; but we ought to consider not merely the finances of boards of guardians, but also the position of the people asking for relief. That may be a novel point of view to urge on the present Government, but it is necessary for us on these benches to call attention to the fact that guardians are supposed to give adequate relief, and that if they do not that they are failing in their duty, and that if they persistently refuse to carry out their duty a Bill of this kind would be a very useful weapon in the hands of the Minister.
  There are boards of guardians in this country—a growing number—who are refusing to give any out-relief at all to single women or to middle-aged women, offering them only "the house." This is a very serious matter, especially for young women, because it means, practically a sentence for life. The Minister shakes his head, but what is the position of these young women who, as is so often the case now, are refused unemployment pay and go to the guardians? In hundreds of cases they are told they cannot have outdoor relief but must go into the workhouse. The woman goes there with her box, or perhaps she has sold her box with her clothes in it, or, perhaps,
  2374
  again, as in some pathetic cases I know, the box is held by the landlady as security for rent. When she goes into the workhouse—if she goes into the workhouse not as a casual but into the workhouse itself—she cannot get out unless she obtains her discharge on some chance of getting work. In the workhouse she is robbed of all initiative and robbed of the means of getting out and getting help. Many of the guardians take her in to use her as an unpaid servant, and that is the end of it. This is a serious matter, also, for many middle-aged women who cannot get unemployment pay, although they have paid their contributions for years. They have been given their standard benefit and when that is finished they are turned off, and there is literally nothing for them. In cases where boards of guardians persistently refuge to grant outdoor relief or, as in some cases, will grant no relief at all, the Minister ought to take very stringent action.
  There are boards of guardians also which make almost impossible demands on those who come before them. Some action is needed there. They actually tell the people who come for relief that they must sell their furniture before they can be granted any outdoor relief. Then there are boards of guardians which cut down relief to the very last point. There again the Minister ought to be able to take action. Again there are guardians of the type who are concerned in deterring people from coming. Women have told me they would rather go to prison than go before a board of guardians, so insulting are the questions asked them, and so complete is the questionnaire they have to face. I know the Minister will say that these are not questions which concern him, that this is purely a financial Bill concerned with dealing with one type of emergency. If the Minister does say that and refuses to accept this Amendment, he justifies all that we on this side of the House have said about its being a political Bill, about his being concerned with dealing with his political opponents and not concerned in seeing that guardians do their duty efficiently, only concerning himself with reducing relief to the very smallest possible amount.
  Major CRAWFURD: I think the question raised by the Amendment is a simple one, and perhaps the right hon. Gentle-

  2375
  man or his colleague, if they think fit to answer any of the questions so far raised will give an answer to me. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in replying to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, relied largely upon what he asserted to be an inconsistency between their attitude now and at a previous period of the afternoon. I do not know whether it was in his surprise over that that he forgot to answer the question raised. The action taken by the Minister with regard to a certain notorious case which is not to be mentioned in discussing this Amendment is, I understand, that he will not advance further sums of money except under conditions which, in effect, lay down a maximum standard of relief. The question I would like to ask is, "Is there any statutory or administrative rule which lays down the minimum standard of relief?" If there be, surely a provision ought to be put into this Bill to deal with the guardians who fail to reach the minimum as we propose to deal with those who exceed the maximum. That seems to be the simple point raised by this Amendment.
  Miss LAWRENCE: The Parliamentary Secretary made a statement which filled me with perplexity. I understood him to say that, under the Merthyr Tydvil judgment, all sources of income must be taken into account. Did I hear that aright?
  Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Under the Merthyr Tydvil judgment all sources of income are to be taken into account. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the general law!"] Oh, that is the general law of the country! That is quite different. I understood the hon. Member to invoke the help of the Merthyr Tydvil judgment on that point. The Merthyr Tydvil case had nothing whatever to do with the point, nothing in the world. All the Merthyr Tydvil judgment said was that if a man refused to work he could not be relieved, nor if he threw himself out of work by his own act or consent. So there was a pure evasion of the point raised! It is a point which causes many people acute distress. Under the Merthyr Tydvil judgment a striker cannot be relieved, but his dependants may be. His wife gets 12s. a week in some places and 10s.
  2376
  in others, 4s. for children in some places and 2s. in others; but there is no relief to the man. Nevertheless, if the man chances to earn 5s. some boards of guardians deduct from the wife's relief the 5s. he has picked up. That is altogether unbearably cruel. The wife's relief, under the instructions of the Minister, is not to be more than 12s., and with his approval, and under pressure by him on several boards of guardians, it has been reduced to less. The relief to the children in some cases is very small indeed, down to 2s., and yet if the man who has nothing whatever gets 5s., that 5s. is to be deducted from the wife's relief.
  That is the position that the Minister takes up, and that is abominably cruel. He made no answer to it except to say that under the general law of the land you have to take the breadwinner's income into account in assessing the wife's relief. Where the wife's relief has been restricted by the Minister, and the man has no relief at all, under the Merthyr Tydvil judgment, to deduct arbitrarily any 5s. that the man gets out of charity is, to my mind, very cruel. The Minister will not accept an Amendment to the effect that it is his duty to see that relief should be adequate, but I would remind the Committee that the Minister was expressly asked in this House if it was not his duty to see that relief was adequate. He replied: "That is not my duty; it is the duty of the guardians." That is No. 1 indication of his attitude, and I will give No. 2. Circular 703 suggested as a maximum for relief that it was not to be higher than unemployment benefit, and everywhere you can see the same attitude, in the refusal to recognise the duty of seeing that adequate relief is afforded, and the insistence on maximum scales, but not on minimum scales. It all goes to prove that the Minister's object is to keep down the money and not to exercise the greater and more important duty, the duty implied in his official name, to see that relief is adequate. We are getting bit by bit really to grips with this question, and the House is beginning to see what is really involved in this Bill. It is the determination to cut the boards of guardians down in their scales of relief. Circular 703, the right hon. Gentleman's answers to questions, and this Bill are

  2377
  all parts of one considered and thoughtout policy, and that is why this Bill is arousing so much indignation in the country.
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not think it is quite appropriate to discuss Circular 703 now, except to say that if hon. Members will look at it they will see that one of the first statements in that Circular is that the guardians must have regard to the position which faces them at the present time, not only in regard to their financial responsibilities, but to see that they carry out their duties properly. There is no Statute which lays down or suggests that we should prescribe their scales of relief, except in the sense that it is the duty of the guardians to relieve destitution. That is really the test, but my right hon. Friend has laid down certain scales for guidance. That does not void the statutory duty of guardians to relieve destitution and of necessity examine the more particular cases. I think that is really the legal position, and whatever the scale of relief it does not void the duty of the guardians in regard to relieving destitution.
  Major CRAWFURD: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and I understand it is not an exact maximum that the Minister lays down, but will he answer the further question as to whether the Minister or his predecessor has ever laid down a minimum?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, I do not think it is the duty of the Minister to do that. It is a matter for the guardians, faced as they are with the statutory obligation of relieving destitution.
  Major CRAWFURD: I understand that the statutory obligation of the guardians is to relieve destitution, but the obligation of the Ministry is to see that they do their duty, and how can the Ministry see that they do their duty unless there is in the Ministry some standard laid down as to what is the relief of destitution?
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Member states the position of the Minister too high. It is not the duty of the Minister to overlook the boards of guardians, and to see that they are doing their duty in that sense. They are under a statutory obligation to relieve destitution, and if that is not done, there are
  2378
  certain rights, which are from time to time maintained in the Courts, on behalf of various people to see that they do that. There is no right or obligation on the part of the Minister, and it would be a usurpation of functions if my right hon. Friend endeavoured to lay down a minimum scale.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: You usurp functions in one case; why not in another?
  Sir K. WOOD: In answer to the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd), that is the legal position.
  Captain BENN: This Amendment seeks to make one of the grounds of default on the part of the guardians a failure to grant adequate relief. Perhaps it is unnecessary, because the Bill says that in certain cases the Bill shall operate when they have ceased to discharge their functions. Is it the view of the Government that guardians have ceased to discharge their functions if they do not grant adequate relief? It is very important to have an answer to that question, and that the Government should make up their minds about a minimum scale, because they are here proposing to become guardians themselves.
  Sir K. WOOD: No. The Clause says that the Minister may, in certain circumstances, appoint certain persons to constitute a board in substitution of the existing guardians.
  Captain BENN: What sort of autonomy will such a board have? Who are to pay their wages? Will they draw their wages from the Ministry of Health? Is it to be supposed that they are representatives of the ratepayers? I do not think so. Does the Minister consider that boards of guardians have ceased to discharge their functions if they fail to give adequate relief?
  Sir K. WOOD: This board of guardians will be in exactly the same position, so far as their duties and functions are concerned, as the elected boards of guardians.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Are they to be under no control by the Ministry and subject to nobody's criticisms? If they were an elected board, the electors could tear them from their seats, but the Minister is to appoint them and to renew

  2379
  their lease of power and to pay their wages.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: They are to act as the Minister's agents.
  Miss LAWRENCE: They will act as the Minister's agents so far as cutting down relief is concerned. The Minister has said that it is a matter for the guardians, whether the people starve or not.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Lady that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) had risen to ask a question before she spoke.
  Captain BENN: I should be the last to seek to curtail Debate, but I was asking a question. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in the considered judgment of himself and the Minister of Health, a board of guardians are guilty of failure to carry out their functions if they do not pay adequate relief?
  Sir K. WOOD: The answer which I have already given is that there is no statutory obligation on the guardians, in the phrase of the hon. and gallant Member, to pay adequate relief. Their obligation is to relieve destitution, and this board will be in exactly the same position as other boards of guardians.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a question of dissolving the existing board, not of what the new one will do.
  Captain BENN: The question is whether we are to insert some definition of what a failure to discharge these functions is and the Amendment proposes that it should be defined as a persistent failure to grant adequate relief. I submit that the question of what is adequate relief is perfectly relevant. It is useless for the Minister of Health to say that that is not his business, but the business of the guardians to decide. That would be a perfectly adequate reply if the guardians were to remain an independent body, but, once they have become a body created by the Ministry of Health and under their orders, it is obviously necessary for the Ministry to decide and proper for us to ask what is the minimum scale of relief they consider adequate. Supposing there is a board which does not pay an adequate scale of relief, would the Ministry consider themselves able by this Bill to make an order to make them pay more?
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. WALLHEAD(seated and covered): I desire to raise a point of Order. I rose to speak before the Division was called and I believe the Standing Order says that the voices are not collected until both sides have raised their voices "Aye" or "No."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 208.

  Division No. 345.]

  AYES.

  [10.2 p.m.

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

  Duncan, C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dunnico, H.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gardner, J. P.

  Kennedy, T.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlilery)

  Gillett, George M.

  Lansbury, George

  Barr, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawrence, Susan

  Batey, Joseph

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton

  Lawson, John James

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Greenall, T.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne

  Lowth, T.

  Broad, F. A

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Bromfield, William

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Bromley, J.

  Groves, T.

  March, S.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Morris, R. H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Caps, Thomas

  Hardle, George D.

  Murnin, H

  Charleton, H. C.

  Harney, E. A.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Owen, Major G.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Palin, John Henry

  Cove, W. G.

  Hendersn, Right Hon. A. (Burnley

  Paling W.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)-

  Potts, John S.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Riley, Ben

  Dennison, R.

  Jones, J J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Ritson, J.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfemline

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Stamford, T. W.

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

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Scurr, John

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox

  Welsh, J. C.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Taylor, R. A.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Thurtle, E.

  Williams, T.(York, Don Valley)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Townend, A. E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Smillie, Robert

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wright, W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Viant, S. P.

  Snell, Harry

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.

  Barnes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts,Salisburry)

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gates, Percy

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Atkinson, C.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Grace, John

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Balniel, Lord

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Guiness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Bethel, A.

  Gunston, Caption D. W.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harland, A.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington

  Radford, E. A.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Raine, W.

  Bowver Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Brass, Captain W.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Reld, D. D. (County Down

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Broun Lindsay, Major H.

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

  Ropner, Major L.

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Buckigham, Sir H.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Rye, F. G.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

  Salmon, Major I.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cassels,.J. D.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Savery, S. S.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  James, Lieut.-.Colonel on. Cuthbert

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  King, Captain Henry Doughlas

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

  Cope, Major William

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Skelton, A. N.

  Couper, J. B.

  Knox Sir Alfred

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lamb, J. Q.

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

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cralk, Rt. Hon Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Lord, Walter Greaves

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lougher, L.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Dalziel. Sir Davison

  Lumley, L. R.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Anges

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Macintyre, I.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Drewe, C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Edmodson, Major A. J.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Maitlans, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Waddington, R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wells, S. R.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple)

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Forrest, W.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  2382

  2383

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Womersley, W. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Wood Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Stanley.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Wragg, Herbert

  Withers, John James

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BARNES:
  In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word "have" to the word "of" in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words "acted contrary to the law in the discharge"
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of order.
  Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word "ceased," to the word "to" in line 10.—[Miss Lawrence.]
  Captain BENN: I do not think an Amendment such as this can possibly be passed without some comment. If it is a serious Amendment, it deserves a serious reply from the Government Bench. It is proposed to leave out from the word "ceased" in line 8, to the word "to" in line 10; that is to say, that the anticipation to default ranks equally with actual default. This will make a very serious difference in the power of the Minister. He came down to this House and assumed the power to supersede a board of guardians, not only when they cease to discharge their functions, but also when they appear to be incapable of discharging their functions. Now it is proposed in this Amendment to prevent him acting in cases where guardians are only likely to be incapable of discharging their functions. It is inconceivable that the Government are going to accept this Amendment. If they are, I am very pleased to hear it, but it will certainly make a fundamental change in this Bill. But suppose they are not going to accept it and are going to act in a case where they anticipate some reason that default may take place, then, surely, they should say in this Committee stage some few words for the justification of the second of the powers they seek to take. The Minister of Health told us earlier in the Debate that a certain Amendment could not be accepted because this Bill had to deal particularly with the West Ham case. That may be so. I do not know. I should have thought, if you were going to deal with that in a Bill, you would
  2384
  have done so by an ad hoc Bill. That would certainly have limited the ambit of the Bill, and hon. Members from other parts of the country, like myself from Scotland, would have had no occasion to intervene.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It does not apply to Scotland.
  Captain BENN: I know it does not, but the Scottish Board of Health may wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman's example. He said this Bill applied particularly to West Ham. If that be so, what is the meaning of the anticipatory powers contained in these few words, applicable to where it appears they have ceased to exercise their powers, or, as he informed us, will shortly be unable to continue to exercise their powers. If this be an urgent Bill, intended to deal with the West Ham case, I submit it is not necessary for the Minister of Health to arm himself with general powers, and that it will not be necessary to bring in a general reform of the Poor Law if this Bill provides him with the necessary powers so to evade the intentions he has avowed. It may be that we have no power to compel the Minister to answer, and I may be simply a voice crying in the wilderness, but, at any rate, I maintain the elementary, but rapidly disappearing, privilege of addressing the Committee. That being so, I respectfully submit that this Amendment, which strikes at the root of the Bill, having been moved, the Committee have a right to expect the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Health to give some reply, and explain why the Government intend to resist this Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down says that this Amendment strikes at the root of the Bill. That is in fact the effect it would have if this Amendment were carried, because we should be in the position that the machinery contemplated by the Bill would only come into operation when the functions of the guardians had actually ceased, and people would not be able to get any relief whatsoever.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain why the hon. Member for East Ham (Miss Lawrence) contended herself with formally moving this Amendment. We feel very strongly about the Amendment, but we also feel that, however eloquently we may plead, the Minister of Health is quite impervious to all that we can say or do. We have, therefore, decided upon some half dozen of the most important Amendments, and we propose to move them formally, and make our protest in the Division Lobby. We shall leave over some three or four important Amendments for a short discussion to-morrow, and we hope the remainder of the day will be given up to the Third Reading. As far as we are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman by the usual method of a Closure, will be able to secure the
  Third reading of this Bill before the close of to-morrow's sitting.
  Captain BENN: I should have thought that it was not necessary to apply this brutal gag to an Opposition that was so meek and submissive as only to move their own Amendments formally. If Amendments are put down on the Paper, I submit that we are entitled to have an explanation from the Government. With regard to the explanation which the Minister of Health has just given, it merely proves that the words "have ceased" will be unnecessary, because, as be has explained, he must act in anticipation.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 118.

  Division No. 346.]

  AYES.

  [10.20 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Albery, Irving James

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Drewe, C.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Atkinson, C.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Elveden, Viscount

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Barclay Harvey, C. M.

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Berry, Sir George

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Bethel, A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Betterton, Henry R.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Blundell F. N.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Craft

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Finburgh, S.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Forrest, W.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Loder, J. de V.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Gates, Percy

  Lougher, L.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lumley, L. R.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

  Grace, John

  Macintyre, I.

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Merriman, F. B.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Harland, A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Cope, Major William

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

  Murchison, C. K.

  Couper, J. B.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

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

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

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

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

  Nuttall, Eills

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eillis

  Oakley, T.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Savery, S. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Pennefather, Sir John

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

  Waddington, R.

  Penny, Frederick George

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

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Perring, Sir William George

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Skelton, A. N.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Radford. E. A.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Raine, W.

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Smithers, Waldron

  Winby, Colonel L.P.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Withers, John James

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Story-Deans, R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wragg, Herbert

  Rye, F. G.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Lord Stanley and Captain Mar-

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  gesson.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  NOES

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardle, George D.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Harney, E. A.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Smillie, Robert

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hudson, J.H. (Huddersfield).

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snell, Harry

  Briant, Frank

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kennedy, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lawrence, Susan

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lowth, T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Montague, Frederick

  Wallhead, Richcard C.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale

  Morris, R. H.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Murnin, H.

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Oilver, George Harold

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dennison, R.

  Owen, Major G.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Duncan, C.

  Palin, John Henry

  Westwood, J.

  Dunnico, H.

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Gillett, George M.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Purcell, A. A.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Groves, T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mr. Hayes, And Mr. Charles

  Grundy, T. W.

  Scurr, John

  Edwards.

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

  Sexton, James

  Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "to" in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words "make provision for the election of other persons."—[Mr. Greenwood.]
  Mr. BRIANT: It would be very strange if this Amendment were put to
  2388
  the Vote without a word being said on either side. I understand it is intended to suggest that, instead of leaving it in the hands of the Minister, the electors shall have an opportunity of selecting other representatives. Considering the immense scope of the Bill and the almost incoherent way in which it has been

  2389
  framed, it seems to me extremely advisable that before any autocratic action is taken by the Minister the electors should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion themselves. In the end reform will only come through votes. I do not know what the Minister proposes to do, and what he considers to be the functions of boards of guardians. I have had many years' experience on a board of guardians, and I know that the functions are of a very varied character. However able and sympathetic a Minister may be, it will be very difficult for him to decide what functions they have failed to exercise. The functions of a board of guardians include the giving of adequate relief. Does this Sub-section mean that, without any consultation with the members of a board, the Minister can decide either that they are not giving enough relief or that they are giving too much, and that they are consequently unable to discharge their functions? Does it mean that if they have not given enough assistance for the sick poor that he can take their functions out of their hands? If and when a Labour Government comes into office, the late Minister of Health might, and in all probability would, act in an entirely opposite direction from that adopted by the present Minister of Health.
  For the protection of the Government itself, the electors should be allowed to express an opinion. The only method that can be successful is the education of the electorate and by giving them an opportunity to exercise their opinions, rather than the adoption by a Minister of autocratic powers. I hope that the Committee will consider this Amendment seriously, because if we do not carry the Amendment it will place not only the West Ham Board of Guardians, but other guardians, at the mercy of the Minister. He will be able to interpret the slipshod words of the Clause in any way he likes. I could suggest 30 ways in which a board of guardians might omit to discharge their functions. The adoption of the Clause in its present form places in the hands of the Minister powers far too autocratic, and we ought to have safeguards. I hope we shall have some explanation of the Amendment from the supporters of it, and also some explanation from the Minister of his point of view.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The subject of this Amendment was touched upon in the Second Reading Debate. The situation that we contemplate by the words proposed to be left out is a deadlock which might occur, because the result of the election might be practically the same. In that event we should find ourselves after the election in exactly the same position as before the election. That is why we seek the powers which are here given.
  Mr. J. JONES: I support the Amendment.
  Major COLFOX: Has not the hon. Member already sufficiently—[Interruption.]
  Mr. JONES: I am speaking on a totally different Amendment. I am speaking in support of a new election. The right to supersede a board of guardians is part of the Bill, but it is only a temporary right. The Minister admits that there should be a new election in the intervening period but after the present period the West Ham Board of Guardians or any other board—West Ham is only the stalking horse—may be affected. Does he suggest that he should have permanent powers to nominate his own paid board of guardians, with their paid advisers? That is what this provision means. We in West Ham, whatever and however the right hon. Gentleman may have his board of guardians' election, shall return Labour men and Labour women. They will be ordinary working men and women who will be returned. We want to know how this provision is to be carried out, and when. Are you going to carry on for ever, or until this Government lasts, which will not be for ever. This Amendment limits the powers of the Minister. Local authorities will have to find the money for this relief. Some of us have been on these local bodies, and do you think we are going to find money for you? [An HON. MEMBER: "Brotherly love!"] Yes, brotherly love. You will have to find the money, which you have never done before. We have bad to foot the bill up to now, and you will have to foot the bill in future.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: You will have a strike of ratepayers in West Ham.
  Mr. JONES: We shall have more than that, we shall have a strike of rentpayers.

  2391
  Although you have all the power, if you treat us decently, we will treat you decently.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going beyond this Amendment.
  Mr. JONES: I generally go beyond everything, Sir. The object of this Amendment is to limit the power of Mussolini. The Government have no right to put aside the Common Law of this country. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he dare not make this a permanent Measure, but he is to have the power of appointing boards of guardians. The same right hon. Gentleman refuses to allow working men and women, who cannot afford to sit on public bodies, a shilling a day for lunch when they are working from 10 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock in the evening; and he is going to pay his little pigs. Who are they going to be? We know who they are. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, I do. I can give you the names of some who are already proposed—retired civil servants, who have already got pensions. We have a right to put a limit on the power of this Birmingham potentate. The little idols made in Birmingham have hitherto been sent abroad, and it is time we kept this little one at home and limited his capacity for mischief. We demand that these powers should be limited. I do not want to use any threats. [HON. MEMBKRS "Hear, hear!"] No, I am not so capable as some hon. Members opposite, whose shirts have been washed oftener than mine. I can only say that in the course of events Labour may sit on the bench opposite, and a Labour man be Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the present Minister of Health, whether then he would be prepared to concede to that Labour Minister the same rights that he now claims for himself: that is, the right to say who shall administer the public health and the Poor Law? Is he prepared to admit that? No. I am sure he would never admit it.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman—I ask him this question quite frankly—that when he asks the overseers in West Ham to see that the money is collected for Poor Law administration, from their
  2392
  point of view having no control—does he imagine that they are going to levy a rate for him? It will not be merely the board of guardians that he will have to supersede, he will have to supersede the borough council. The boards of guardians will not be the only people in trouble. He will have the overseers and the county council who will also be in trouble. The powers asked for by this Bill mean, not only superseding the board of guardians or the local authority, it will mean superseding the ratepayers and the authorities throughout the country. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite quite comprehend what that means? I am one of the overseers in West Ham. We have not yet discussed the matter, because the rate has not yet been levied, but supposing those concerned come along and say we have got to pay money for these nominated officers, these non-elected people, without any responsibility to the people—that we have to find money for them. I am one of those who say that we are not going to do it.
  You are not, therefore, merely raising the question of the boards of guardians; you are raising the question of the whole of the local government of this country, whether you like it or not! Consequently while we may be wrong we have to-day made you a good offer and invited you to put us to the test. The Parliamentary Secretary represents Woolwich, but the council there is not the rating authority. We are a county borough in West Ham. We are the rating authority. Woolwich gets the benefit of the Common Poor Law Fund of London. West Ham gets no benefit. Other parts of the country do not get any benefit. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, are the Government prepared to face the issue of dislocating and disorganising the whole of the local government in this country? If they are let them say so. We are moving that the power of the Minister should be limited. The limitation of the power of the right hon. Gentleman means an end to his political existence.
  Mr. MORRIS: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that all that is contemplated by this Clause is to deal with the situation in a deadlock which has arisen, does not carry us very much further. Who is to determine when a

  2393
  deadlock has arisen? The situation in West Ham is not the only situation that can possibly arise, and who is to determine under this Bill when boards of guardians have ceased to function, or when they are not properly performing their functions? Occasion may arise which are totally different from the present situation, and the Government ought to ask themselves seriously whether this proposal does not carry them much further than they contemplated. Assuming that a Socialist Minister of Health came into office, and that a Conservative hoard of guardians in the West End of London declined to spend according to the scale determined upon by the Socialist Minister, and that the Minister then declared in that situation a deadlock had arisen—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question has been decided earlier in the discussion on this Clause.
  Mr. MORRIS: This is a serious invasion of the democratic rights of the nation and of the present constitutional method, in circumstances the result of which the Government cannot have fully contemplated. If a Minister of a different complexion is to have the power to determine what is a deadlock, merely upon political grounds, the temptation will be very great.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All that has already been decided.
  Mr. MORRIS: The Minister proposes to do away with the electoral method and to appoint a new body. Does he contemplate that the new body he is
  going to appoint will be any more effective than the previous body which has been unable to carry on under the former method?
  HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
  Mr. HARRIS rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
  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 Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. HARRIS(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Owing to a disorderly noise on the opposite side of the Committee, I could not hear the Question put. I submit respectfully that the Question ought not to be put unless it is audible to the Committee.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is my fault.
  Mr. HARRIS: Is it not right that, before the Question is put, there should be order in the Committee so that Members may hear? I do not know what is the Question that has been put.
  Captain BENN(seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I ask whether you will say what was the Question put?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 99.

  Division No. 347.]

  AYES.

  [10.49 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Curtis Bernett, Sir Henry

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Atkinson, C.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Dalzlel, Sir Davison

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Bainiel, Lord

  Cassels, J. D.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Berry, Sir George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Bethel, A.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Drewe, C.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cope, Major William

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Couper, J. B.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Falls, Sir Bertram G.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Flelden, E. B.

  Finburgh, S.

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)

  Forrest, W.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Lord, Walter Greases-

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lougher, L.

  Savery, S. S.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Lumley, L. R.

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

  Gates, Percy

  McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macintyre, I.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Grace, John

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

  Harland, A.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

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

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

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

  Templeton, W. P.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Oakley, T.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Waddington, R.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hume-Willlams, Sir W. Ellis

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

  Penny, Frederick George

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wells, S. R.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

  Ralne, W.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Jacob, A. E.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Wise, S, Fredric

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Remer, J. R.

  Withers John James

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Kennedy, T.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rye, F. G.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Salmon, Major I.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Bowyer.

  NOES.

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

  Gosling, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Barnes, A.

  Greenall, T.

  March, S.

  Barr, J

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Montague, Frederick

  Batey, Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murnin, H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Groves, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Owen, Maine G.

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Paling, W.

  Bromfield, William

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Buchanan. G.

  Hardie, George D.

  Potts. John S.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Harney, E. A.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Harris, Percy A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ritson, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Crawford, H. E.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Scurr, John

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sexton, James

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Dunnico, H.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Shepherd. Arthur Lewis

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Smillie, Robert

  Gillett, George M.

  Lowth, T.

  Smith. H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  2396

  2397

  Snell, Harry

  Varley, Frank B.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Stewart, J. (St. Roliox)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Windsor, Walter

  Sutton, J. E.

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

  Wright, W.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Thurtie, E.

  Westwood, J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wiggins, William Martin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Townend, A. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Mr. Morris and Mr. Briant.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'appoint such' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 116.

  Division No. 348.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p. m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Albery, Irving James

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Finburgh, S.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Atkinson, C.

  Forrest, W

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Merriman, F. B.

  Balniel, Lord

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Gates, Percy.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Berry, Sir George

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Bethel, A.

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Grace, John

  Moreing, Captain A, H.

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

  Grant, Sir.J. A.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Guinness, Rt. Hon, Walter E.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir L B.

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

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. [Cambridge,

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harland, A.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Oakley, T.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R.I.

  Harvey, G (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Peering, Sir William George

  Cassels, J. D.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Pato, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Radford, E. A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Raine, W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Remer, J. R.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Ruggles Brise, Major E. A.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Rye, F. G.

  Cope, Major William

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Savery, S. S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Loder, J. de V.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Drewe, C.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lord, Walter Greaves

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Laugher, L.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Elveden, Viscount

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

  Macintyre, I.

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Waddington, R.

  Withers, John James

  Storry Deans, R.

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Womersley, W. J.

  Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

  Watts, Dr. T.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wells, S. R.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Wragg, Herbert

  Templeton, W. P.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wilson, R. R (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Bowyer.

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Harney, E. A.

  Scurr, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Sexton, James

  Barr, J.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G, H.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Briant, Frank

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smillie, Robert

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

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

  Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lindley, F. W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lowth, T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Trevetyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Varley, Frank B.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Morris, R. H.

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gillett, George M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  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.—

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

  Ritson J.

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. J. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "such," to insert the word "qualified."
  In view of the arrangement that was made earlier in the day, and also in view of the general discussion that is being held at length covering the point in this Amendment, I will only formally move it.
  Captain BENN: I wish to make it perfectly clear that Members sitting on these benches have not been consulted as to this Amendment, and are therefore not bound to observe the terms of the
  arrangement. I would like to know what is the objection to the insertion of the word "qualified." It seems a useful thing that any person who is acting in this capacity should be qualified, and I should like to know what objection the Minister has to it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The objection is that the word is obviously unnecessary.
  Question put, "That the word 'qualified' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 230.

  Division No. 349.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

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

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Batey, Joseph

  Ammon, Charles George

  Barnes, A.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Barr, J.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sexton, James

  Bromley, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cape, Thomas

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

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smillie, Robert

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, H, B. Lees (Keighley)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snell, Harry

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stamford, T. W.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lawson, John James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Duncan, C.

  Lunn, William

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dunnico, H.

  Mac Laren, Andrew

  Taylor, R. A.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  March, S.

  Thurtle, E.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Montague, Frederick

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Townend, A. E.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Varley, Frank B.

  Graham, D. M (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Owen, Major G.

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

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Palln, John Henry

  Welsh, J. C.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Paling, W.

  Westwood, J.

  Groves, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, Dr J. H. (Lianelly)

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

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Salter, Dr, Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Atkinson, C.

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Balniel, Lord

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Drewe, C.

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

  Bethel, A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Blundell, F. N.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Fielden, E. B.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Finburgh, S.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Forrest, W.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gates, Percy

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Loder, J. de V.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Grace, John

  Looker, Herbert William

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Lord, Walter Greaves

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Lougher, L.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  McDonnell, Colonel Han. Angus

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Macintyre, Ian

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Harland, A.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Cope, Major William

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Couper, J. B.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  2402

  2403

  Merriman, F. B.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Templeton, W, P.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Waddington, R.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

  Wells, S. R.

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

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

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Oakley, T.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Skelton, A. N.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Withers, John James

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Womersley W. J.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Radford, E. A.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Raine, W.

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Storry-Deans, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Remer, J. R.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Bowyer.

  Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "three."—[Mr. C. Edwards.]
  Captain BENN: Will the Minister accept a shorter period than 12 months? The right hon. Gentleman has already explained that his intention is to bring in a general reform of the Poor Law, but he says that he must in the meantime deal with the West Ham Board of Guardians. I would like to know what
  objection the right hon. Gentleman has to taking three months instead of twelve?
  Sir K. WOOD: Twelve months is the maximum period, but as the hon Member will see if he consults the provisions of the Bill, the Order can be revoked and a more limited period can be taken.
  Question put, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause.'
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 102.

  Division No. 350.]

  AYES.

  [11.20 p m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fielder, E. B.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Finburgh, S.

  Albery, Irving James

  Chartoris, Brigadier-General J.

  Forrest, W.

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Atkinson, C.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cope, Major William

  Gates, Percy

  Balniel, Lord

  Cowper, J. B.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Grace, John

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

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Bethel, A.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Brass, Captain W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Harland, A.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Drewe, C.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Edmondson. Major A. J.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

  Elveden, Viscount

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

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

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Skelton, A N.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Murchison, C. K.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

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

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hume Williams, Sir W. Ellis

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

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Oakley, T.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

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

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Jacob, A. E

  Owen, Major G.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Raine, W.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Looker, Herbert William

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Lord, Walter Greave.

  Remer, J. R.

  Waddington, R.

  Lougher, L.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Ropner, Major L.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Macintyre, I.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wells, S. R.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Russell Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rye, F. G.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  MacRobert Alexander M.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Withers, John James

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Savery, S. S.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Wragg, Herbert

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Bowyer.

  NOES.

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Harney, E. A.

  Scurr, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smillie, Robert

  Briant, Frank

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

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

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Townend, A. E.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Varley, Frank B.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Morris, R. H.

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

  Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words
  "(2) Appointed guardians shall during their term of office present to the Minister at intervals of not longer than six months a report of their work and the manner in which they have discharged their functions, and the Minister shall as soon as may be present each report to Parliament."—[Mr. R. Richardson.]
  Mr. BRIANT: The Clause remits power to an unknown body of persons, whose names may not even be divulged and who may give any scale of relief they like, perhaps the lowest possible, and the public will know nothing whatever about it. A great many Boards of Guardians do not even admit the public to the gallery and those who apply for relief may be given a lower scale under this than any other part of London. The least the House ought to ask for is that there should be some means of knowing what is done, particularly when one remembers that it is quite possible for a Board of Guardians to be defeated at one election and the whole of their places filled by other guardians who are elected, and if the Minister chooses he can appoint guardians in the place of those elected and carry on their work. I am very anxious that administrative power shall not pass into the hands of people whose names are not given to us, and apparently will not be given, and who will give any male or no scale of relief at all. At least we have a right to ask that a report shall be submitted which will give some indication as to the work of the Board. It is reasonable that the Amendment should be accepted and that West Ham should not be kept in the dark as to what happens.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the names will not be known. The names will be in the Order. Therefore the House will know who are the appointed guardians. There will be no difficulty in finding out what the Guardians are doing. It will be possible to put down a question, and the Minister will be able to answer. The Guardians will have a tremendous amount of work to do, and I would not like to add to their difficulties by insisting upon formal reports from them, as suggested by hon. Members opposite.
  Major CRAWFURD: The names of the guardians are not the most important
  2408
  matter. We hear very little of what they are to do. It is not only a question of making a report, but of this House having an opportunity of knowing what actions are being taken by these guardians, and whether they are discharging their functions any better than the people they have replaced. One hon. Member has made reference to those of my party who live in West Ham. What he alleged may or may not be true, but whether it be true or not, one of the most important things we have to take into account is that whatever happens to these boards of guardians, the happenings should be made public. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government are doing an extreme thing in taking away the functions of an elected body, and putting them into the hands of a nominated body. When that is being done, under the control of the Minister, it is reasonable to ask that the House should be kept informed of the results of the experiment, and that periodical reports should be made.
  Mr. GROVES: I object to the members of a party who have been absent nearly all day, and who could not find tellers in favour of their own Amendment, coming here now, and, with so much unction, appearing to father the opposition to the Bill. I wish to restate that in the opinion of West Ham, the people who gave information to the Minister, and who have led the campaign against the relief we give in West Ham, belong to the Liberal Party.
  Captain BENN: The trouble we are in to-night arises from the fact that the Government took a whole week to discuss the Eight Hours Bill, and did not give sufficient time for discussing this Bill. I intend to discuss the Amendments, and to say what I think. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Minister to appoint functionaires of his own to cut down the relief that is given in certain districts. All that this Amendment does is to ask that the Minister's servants shall not work in secret. It is said that their names will be given, but there is nothing in the Bill to that effect. They will meet in secret, and there is nothing in the Bill to compel them to admit the public; and now the Minister refuses the perfectly just demand that they shall make periodical reports of their meetings. I do not desire to take up the time of the

  2409
  Committee, but there are such things as the merits of a proposal. The reply of the Minister is utterly inadequate. He has made no reply. It has been a derisive reply. What is the use of putting questions to the Minister? I wish there had been time to put all the aspects of this case before the Committee, but it is clear
  that the Minister is not only determined to carry out this bureaucratic procedure, but to do so in secrecy.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 218.

  Division No. 351.]

  AYES.

  [11.37 p.m.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smillie, Robert

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snell, Harry

  Briant, Frank

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thurtle, E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Crawlurd, H. E.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Morris, R. H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

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

  Duncan, C.

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Westwood, J.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonhy, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Groves, T.

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Hayes.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scurr, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Forrest, W.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

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

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Albery, Irving James

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Gates, Percy

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Goff, Sir Park

  Atkinson, C.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grace, John

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cope, Major William

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Balniel, Lord

  Couper, J. B.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Genston, Captain D. W.

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

  Conliffe, Sir Herbert

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

  Bethel, A.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Harland, A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Drewe, C.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

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

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

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

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

  Smithers, Waldron

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

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Oakley, T.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

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

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

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Jacob, A. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Lamb, J.Q.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Raine, W.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Looker, Herbert William

  Remer, J. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Waddington, R.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Ropner, Major L.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Macintyre, I.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wells, S. R.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rye, F. G.

  Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Manningharn-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Withers, John James

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Savery, S. S.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Mitchell, sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wragg, Herbert

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

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Skelton, A. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Captain Viscount Curzon and

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Captain Bowyer.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Amendment proposed: In page 2, to leave out lines 7 to 9—[Dr. Salter.]
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 87.

  Division No. 352.]

  AYES.

  [11.46 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Galbraith. J. F. W.

  Albery, Irving James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Gates, Percy

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grace, John

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Atkinson, C.

  Couper, J. B

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Balniel, Lord

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Bethel, A.

  Daiziel, Sir Davison

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Harland, A.

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Drewe, C.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Brass, Captain W

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Elliot, Captain Walter E

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Elveden, Viscount

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Forrest, W.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Nicholson, O (Westminster)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Oakley, T.

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

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

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Owen, Major G.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Raine, W.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Lord, Walter Greaves

  Remer, J. R.

  Tryon Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Lumley, L. R.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Waddington, R.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Ropner, Major L.

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Rye, F. G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Merriman. F. B.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Withers, John James

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Savery, S. S.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

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

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

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

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

  NOES.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertitlery)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bafey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Briant, Frank

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Bromley, J.

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thurtle, E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cruse, W. S.

  Kennedy, T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Varley, Frank B

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Viant, S. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Welsh, J. C.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Morris, R. H.

  Westwood, J.

  Duncan, C.

  Murnin, H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C

  Dunnico, H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, Dr. J. H (Lianelly)

  Gillett, George M.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J (Jarrow)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ritson, J.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Scurr, John

  Hayes.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  TRADE UNIONS AND FOREIGN WORKERS.
  TRADE UNIONS AND FOREIGN WORKERS.
  LONDON UNIVERSITY.
  LONDON UNIVERSITY.
  EXCHEQUER GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  EXCHEQUER GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
AGRICULTURE.
  CATTLE MARKETS CLOSED.
  CATTLE MARKETS CLOSED.
  PIG OFFALS.
  PIG OFFALS.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FRANCE, BELGIUM, AND HOLLAND).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FRANCE, BELGIUM, AND HOLLAND).
  CROP-DRYING, SCOTLAND.
  CROP-DRYING, SCOTLAND.
  EGGS (PRICES).
  EGGS (PRICES).
ALIENS.
  DEPORTATION ORDER (ANTON OPULSKY).
  DEPORTATION ORDER (ANTON OPULSKY).
  RESIDENTS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  RESIDENTS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  CANCER APPARATUS.
  CANCER APPARATUS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  BAKEHOUSES (DERMATITIS).
  BAKEHOUSES (DERMATITIS).
  WAR PENSIONS CLAIM (EX-STOKER W E. G. DAY).
  WAR PENSIONS CLAIM (EX-STOKER W E. G. DAY).
  OMNIBUSES, LONDON.
  OMNIBUSES, LONDON.
  ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT (WAGES INQUIRIES).
  ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT (WAGES INQUIRIES).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN'S MEALS, PENKRIDGE AND HUNTINGTON.
  SCHOOL CHILDREN'S MEALS, PENKRIDGE AND HUNTINGTON.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, IMMINGHAM, LINCOLN AND GRIMSBY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, IMMINGHAM, LINCOLN AND GRIMSBY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.

  DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which appears in my name on the Paper. I think there are adequate public reasons why your Lordships should accept the Motion.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

MID-NOTTINGHAMSHIRE JOINT RAILWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BERMONDSEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (STREET TRADING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make a few remarks of a general character about this Bill, which is

921
strongly opposed by the National Association of Street Traders, a large and important body, and a good many other street traders have signed a petition against it. It is only fair to say that a considerable number of street traders signed a petition in its favour. As your Lordships are well aware these street traders are not a wealthy body and it is entirely beyond their power financially to enter a formal Petition against a Bill or to incur the heavy expense of employing Parliamentary Agents and Counsel to oppose the Bill. Therefore, it was necessarily considered in the Committee of the House of Commons without their having an opportunity of being heard by the Committee or of putting their views forward.
I need hardly remind your Lordships that, as a class, street traders are an industrious and hard-working portion of the community, who do a valuable service by keeping down the price of foodstuffs and other articles, especially in the poorer neighbourhoods of London, and it has been found by a Parliamentary Committee which sat to consider the matter of street trading in 1922 and published an important Report, that these street traders supply an important public want, particularly in the poorer neighbourhoods to which I have already referred. I need only add that since the War their numbers have been largely increased from the ranks of ex-Service men, who, for various reasons, have been unable to return to their original employment.
There are many provisions in this Bill to which the street traders take objection. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with the details of those objections because the main and chief objection to the Bill, as I think, is that, while it cannot be disputed that proper control of street trading is necessary, it is absolutely essential in the interests of the public and of the street traders themselves that, subject to some local variations, there should be uniformity throughout the twenty-eight London Boroughs. There ought not to be a large number of separate Boroughs bringing forward Bills, of which the present Bill is the first instalment, dealing piecemeal and in a varied fashion with street trading in each Borough separately. I confess I shudder at the thought of the expense that would be thrown upon the
922
funds of these Boroughs if a dozen Borough Council Bills, dealing piecemeal with this subject and possibly in a, manner inconsistent with each other, were brought into Parliament, entailing the enormous expense of each Bill being promoted and carried through Parliament separately.
The question of the desirability of uniformity was considered by a very
strong Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Office. That Committee reported in 1922 and decided that, broadly speaking, uniformity was necessary. The Committee sat for thirty-three days and examined fifty-two witnesses, including representatives of different Government Departments, the Police, the Borough Councils and street and other traders, and they made a series of recommendations of which I will mention only one or two. They recommended unanimously that a general code of Regulations governing street trading, a draft of which they submitted at the end of their Report, should be made by the Home Secretary to apply to the whole of the Metropolitan Police District. And they went on to recommend that the different local authorities should be given statutory powers (and this is of importance) subject to the-approval of the Commissioner of Police, to do various things each in their own Borough, such as, for instance, to select the places for street trading within the Borough, taking care not to disturb any existing street market; to issue licences to street traders and to exact a small fee for them; to allow particular pitches for a limited period, and to make by-laws not inconsistent with the general Regulations.
This Bill, to a large extent, ignores and violates the recommendations I have mentioned, more particularly that which advises the formation of a general code of Regulations for London. On this I need refer only to one further point. There is now, as I understand it, before the General Purposes Committee of the Standing Joint Committee of the London Boroughs a resolution which was passed by the Lambeth Borough Council, urging that a Bill should be promoted on the lines suggested by the Departmental Committee applying to all London Boroughs. I am informed and I believe that it is correct, that this proposal is likely to receive favourable considera-

923
tion. When I am told, as I gather from some of the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons, that eighteen of the London Boroughs have expressed approval of this Bill, the importance of their action is gravely diminished by the fact to which I have just refered. In those circumstances there appear to be considerable reasons for not passing this Bill into law.
On the other hand, it would, perhaps, seem a somewhat drastic step to ask your Lordships to take to reject this Bill or Third Reading after the promoters have been put to the expense of passing it through Committee of the House of Commons. Your Lordships will not forget what I have already mentioned—namely, that the street traders who objected had, owing to poverty, no opportunity of bringing forward their objections and making their voice heard. Nevertheless, I think it would be a strong measure to ask your Lordships to reject the Bill on Third Reading now. There is one other point and it is this. The promoters are willing, in pursuance of a pledge which was given on their behalf in the House of Commons on May 13 last when the Bill was being discussed, to accept the insertion in the Bill of the clause which stands in my name on the Order Paper. That clause indicates a general approval of the principle of uniformity in dealing with this matter. That being so and in those circumstances I do not propose to ask the House to oppose the Third Reading, and if the Third Reading be passed I shall move the new clause standing in my name.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am somewhat astonished at the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, because in the first place he advocated the rights of street traders and rather argued against their being dealt with at all.
LORD DANESFORT: No.
LORD JESSEL: Well, my noble friend said that they had had no opportunity of being heard and that they were a deserving body of men who were going to be harmed by this Bill. Now it appears that the noble Lord objects to this Bill not so much because it may harm street traders but on account of
924
want of uniformity of legislation for London as a whole. Therefore the noble Lord wants to penalise the street traders not only in one Borough but in the whole of London. I do not think that is a reason for throwing out this Bill. May I point out that it has been the invariable rule and practice in London for many years for separate Boroughs to bring in separate Bills, not on questions affecting London as a whole, but on matters that affect their own localities. Only this Session the big Borough of Hackney brought forward a Bill, which was seven days in Committee in another place and which had many provisions that might or might not be adapted to the rest of London. When it came to this House not one word was said against it and it received the Royal Assent.
Why is Bermondsey singled out? Bermondsey has only followed the usual procedure, which, as I say, has been practised for many years. Westminster has done it on two occasions. Bermondsey, however, is singled out for chastisement. Why? Bermondsey is not a Borough for which, from a political point of view, I have any great regard. It is represented by the members of the Party opposite and its Borough Council is as Red as these Benches. May I point out further that this Bill has received the blessing of eighteen of the Borough Councils of London at the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee. As a matter of fact, I think Bermondsey is very much to be congratulated on having brought this thorny question to a head. In the first place, the Metropolitan Borough Councils asked the London County Council to bring in a Bill and I recall that in this House my noble friend Lord Onslow brought in a Bill dealing with street trading on behalf of the Government. That Bill was dropped.
Now, at last, Bermondsey has made an arrangement with its street traders which has lasted for the past nine months and under that agreement they consider that the whole system of street trading in the Borough has worked in a very satisfactory manner. Yet, because Bermondsey has had the temerity to lead in the van of progress in this matter, it is to be penalised. I cannot see any harm in this Bill. What is the position? Here we have a great congeries of big cities. Bermondsey itself has a population of

925
120,000 inhabitants and a rateable value of more than £1,000,000. My noble friend who led the attack on this Bill represented a very important City for many years—with a slight lapse on one occasion, which we: all regretted—with a population of 84,000, yet he comes forward and denies to these immense Boroughs, these immense cities, the right which they have had since 1899 of promoting legislation on their own behalf.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? I am really doing nothing of the kind. I do not deny in any shape or form the right of a Borough Council to legislate in a proper manner for itself. The point that I made was that street trading is something which extends to every part of London and that there should be uniformity in legislation.
LORD JESSEL: I dare say, but the Bermondsey Council have agreed that when the London County Council introduce their Bill these powers shall lapse in a General Bill. For twenty-five years or more this question of street trading has been agitated in London. When a Bill was brought forward on the question of combined drainage and when Hackney presented their solution, why did not my noble friend come forward and say that the limitations in the clause which he is going to move should be applicable to Hackney? There are certain things required in Westminster that are not required in other Boroughs. My point is that these Boroughs have done very great service in bringing these matters forward. They are not averse, and never have been averse, when general legislation is passed from falling into line with it, and I do protest against the idea that a Borough is to be penalised because it has been able to find a method of solving a great problem and has been enterprising enough to be in the van of progress, which is for the benefit of London. I think the House would be well advised to give a Third Reading to this Bill.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, this is an important matter and I am glad that the noble Lord has drawn attention to it. At the same time, I am equally glad that he has not put down a Motion for rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. The noble Lord speaks
926
on behalf of many street traders who, he tells us, are opposed to this Bill, but it is fair to say that they did not deposit a Petition against the Bill cither in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House, no doubt for the reason which the noble Lord gave. Therefore, this Bill, so far as the Committee Stage is concerned, passed through both Houses as an unopposed Bill, subject, of course, to the usual criticism from Government Departments, with whose procedure all your Lordships are familiar. The noble Lord laid stress on the desirability of uniformity. I agree with him and I am glad that the Amendment of which he has given Notice is accepted by the promoters, as being as satisfactory to them as it is to the noble Lord.
Having said that, I would only add one sentence. In one way I think this is an ideal piece of private legislation. Your Lordships will realise what has happened. The Bermondsey Borough Conned, realising that here was a problem to be dealt with, got into touch with their street traders and initiated a system without any Parliamentary authority by agreement with all concerned. That system has been at work for some months in Bermondsey and has been found to be a success. The Borough Council, therefore, have come to Parliament to put it on a much more powerful footing—to give it legal sanction by being authorised by law. I think that if all parties all over the kingdom did that a little more often we should get through our work much better and more expeditiously.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, after Clause 22, to insert the following new clause:—
". If within five years from the passing of this Act an Act shall be passed (in this section referred to as 'the general Act') embodying general legislation dealing with the control of street trading for all the Metropolitan Boroughs or all the Metropolitan Boroughs other than the City of London the provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect on and from the date on which the provisions of the general Act become operative and the general Act shall have effect in the borough Provided that any licences granted under the provisions of this Act and in force at the said date shall notwithstanding anything contained in this section continue to be valid until the expiration of the period for which such licences were granted or renewed and shall

927
for the purposes of the general Act be deemed to have been granted or renewed under that. Act Provided also that any by-laws made by the Council under the provisions of this Act and in force at the said date shall continue to have effect and be enforceable until the expiration of three months after the general Act shall become operative but no longer."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after all I have said already, I do not think it will be necessary to add anything in explanation of the clause which I now move. That clause has been agreed to between the Borough Council and myself. They very properly, if I may be allowed to say so, gave me a pledge to accept it. Perhaps I ought to read the clause:—
"If within five years from the passing of this Act an Act shall be passed (in this section referred to as 'the general Act') embodying general legislation dealing with the control of street trading for all the Metropolitan Boroughs or all the Metropolitan Boroughs other than the City of London—"
which, as your Lordships know, is in a special position—
"the provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect on and from the date on which the provisions of the general Act become operative and the general Act shall have effect in the borough—"
That is the Borough of Bermondsey—
"Provided that any licences granted under the provisions of this Act and in force at the said date shall notwithstanding anything contained in this section continue to be valid until the expiration of the period for which such licences were granted or renewed and shall for the purposes of the general Act be deemed to have been granted or renewed under that Act provided also that any by-laws made by the Council under the provisions of this Act and in force at the said date shall continue to have effect and be enforceable until the expiration of three months after the general Act shall become operative but no longer."
The object of this proviso is to avoid having a gap between the time when this Act ceases to be operative and the time when the General Act is passed and becomes operative.
Amendment moved—
Clause 22, page 8, line 32, after Clause 22, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Danesfort)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned, to the Commons.

TEIGNMOUTH ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Peel, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 8th of June last be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILLOM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Peel, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 10th of June last be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.].
The Amendment proposed by the Committee made.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after Article 12, to insert the following new Article:—
For protection of London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.
13. The provisions of sub-divisions (1) to (8) and (12) of the Article of this order of which the marginal note is "For protection

929
of London and North Eastern Railway Company and Midland and North Eastern Railways Joint Committee" shall also extend and apply for the protection of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company as if the word "Company" where used in the said sub-divisions included the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.
The noble Viscount said: This clause was agreed to after the meeting of the Select Committee and I understand that it is entirely acceptable to all parties, including the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, after Article 12, insert the said new Article.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHHORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to amend and supplement statutes.
(2) The provisions contained in this Act with respect to the making of statutes by the Commissioners and to the proceedings to be taken with respect to the making and approval thereof in connection with statutes made by the Commissioners, and, subject as may be provided by any statutes made by the Commissioners, to the effect thereof after approval shall, with the necessary substitutions, apply to the making of statutes by the University and to the proceedings to be taken in connection with, and, subject as aforesaid, to the effect of, such statutes
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "with respect to the making and approval" and to insert "after the making", and, near the end of the clause, before "and, subject as aforesaid ", to insert "Statutes made by the University." The noble Earl said: These two Amendments that stand on the Paper in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Balfour are purely drafting Amendments. They in no way affect the substance of the clause or of
930
the Bill. If these Amendments are accepted subsection (2) of Clause 6 will follow as closely as possible the wording of Section 7 (3) of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1923, which dealt with these matters in relation to those Universities. It is thought that these Amendments will make the clause a little clearer.
Amendments moved—
Clause 6, page 4, lines 36 and 37 leave out ("with respect to the making and approval") and insert ("after the making").
Clause 6, page 5, line 1, after ("with") insert (" Statutes made by the University ").—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Provisions as to incorporation of colleges and schools in the University.
7.—(1) No statute, made under this Act shall alter the incorporation in the University of the colleges known respectively as University of London, University College, and University of London, King's College, or the vesting, disposition, or management of any emoluments, endowments, trusts, foundations, gifts, offices, or institutions in or connected with either of those colleges so far as those matters are or have been regulated respectively by or under the University College, London (Transfer) Act, 1905, or the King's College, London (Transfer) Act, 1908 and no such statute shall provide for the incorporation in the University of any school of the University or other college, school, or institution; but if at any time it is agreed between the University and the governing body of either of the first mentioned colleges that it is expedient that as respects that college any such alteration as aforesaid should he made, or if at any time it is agreed between the University and the governing body of any school of the University or other college, school or institution that it is expedient that provision should he made for the incorporation thereof in the University, then, in any such case, it shall be lawful for the University and the governing body jointly to make application to His Majesty in Council for a charter in that behalf, and any charter which His Majesty in Council is pleased to grant upon any such application shall have full effect notwithstanding anything in any Act of Parliament or in any previous charter, deed or other instrument whatsoever.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Provided always that no Statute may be made under this Bill affecting any institution which was existing on 1st January, 1925, except with the consent of its governing body."
The noble Earl said: The noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, was good enough on Second Reading to say he would consider the point which I have raised and I have put down this Amendment with a view to carrying out what I understood to be his wishes as expressed in the debate on the Second Reading. Your Lordships will see that it will exclude existing colleges from the operation of this Bill and it follows as closely as may be the words which were used by the noble Earl himself. In these circumstances I hope His Majesty's Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 5, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD ASKWITH: I desire to associate myself with my noble friend who has moved this Amendment. This Bill is founded upon the Report of the Committee which dealt with the University as a whole and also in certain respects with the incorporated colleges and schools. I happen to be Chairman of the Governors of the Royal Holloway College and we viewed with some apprehension what might happen under this Bill with regard to our privileges and position. Clause 7 deals with certain colleges of the University and says that Statutes affecting them shall not be altered at all. That is perfectly reasonable. If any Statutes are to be altered it should only be by agreement with the particular colleges. In other respects the clause also applies to new colleges and they may only be incorporated by agreement. But what about colleges already existing? There is certainly in Clause 4 a provision with regard to them, but that clause is confined to cases where Statutes were made not being Statutes of the University. There seems to be a gap, for Statutes might be made which would affect the colleges and schools. I am aware that the noble Earl the Lord President, on a previous occasion, said that this Act will not affect existing colleges and I hope he will repeat that assurance.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): I am not quite sure that the two noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment have been dealing with the same subject-matter. As I understood
932
the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, he was anxious about the internal status of the theological colleges and in defence of his Amendment, he made an appeal to the Government, based, as I understood him, largely upon some words that I used in reply to the most rev. Primate on the subject of these theological colleges. But I think my statement must have been misunderstood. What I pointed out was that the Committee were dealing in that section of their Report with the future additions to the University. There was nothing in the recommendations to which the noble Earl referred that, so far as I am aware, could possibly be interpreted as involving a threat or the possibility of a threat to the theological colleges that now exist. If noble Lords who have the Report in their hands will look at page 56 they will see that paragraph 10, which was the paragraph relied upon both by the most rev. Primate and by the noble Earl opposite, refers only to the admission or read-mission of an institution as a school of the University. It deliberately excludes, therefore, from its purview any of these subordinate institutions in the University that are already in existence. Their rights, so far as I can see, are in no way touched or threatened by anything in the Report or by anything in the Bill.
I need not remind your Lordships that the whole tradition of the University of London is to leave questions of religious controversy severely on one side. The University, as such, has nothing whatever to do with any theological question. It is not prejudiced against theology, but it does not conceive it to be part of its duty to deal with any particular religious denomination and, through all its history, it has never dons so. The theory and the practice have been in absolute conformity one with the other, and I cannot believe, that there is the slightest danger that the whole of this long tradition, rooted as it is in the history of the University, will suffer any change by any legislation that is likely to be proposed by the Commission. There is nothing either in the constitution of the Commission or in the history of the institution with which the Commission has to deal that suggests that they are suddenly going to take up a hostile attitude towards the religious teaching in the colleges and schools which are part

933
of the University and which are themselves devoted to a particular form of denominational religious teaching.
That is the broad theory. If you look at the actual words of the Report, you will see that the powers given to the University of making conditions with regard to these matters are distinctly excluded with regard to existing schools. Where, then, I ask the noble Earl opposite, is the changer against which he desires to guard? There is no suggestion of any such danger and there is nothing in the constitution of the Commission which would suggest that the danger is a real one. I cannot help thinking that this is a wholly illusory danger to which your Lordships need not pay any anxious attention. If it is really felt that, with regard to the future of the colleges or with regard to any of the present colleges, some safeguard in regard to religion is required, I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government have no objection to it. The words proposed by the noble Earl are, as I think he will see, quite inadmissible. They run as follows:—
"Provided always that no Statute may be made under this Hill affecting any institution which was existing on 1st January, 1925, except with the consent of its governing body."
That would in practice entirely paralyse any recommendation the Commission might make with regard to the reform of the University.
If you deal with the institutions of the University you must inevitably have some effect, direct or indirect, upon the fate of the constituent colleges. The whole object of this Bill is to improve the position of the constituent bodies. They do the teaching work of the University and it is their prosperity which is chiefly necessary if the internal side of the University is to carry out the functions which we all desire to see it exercise. The notion that you are going to reform the University without in any way affecting the constituent colleges is evidently illusory. It means that anything that may be proposed by the Statutory Commission will have to run the gauntlet of every one of the colleges and receive their approval, because everything you do for the University as a whole must have some influence upon the educational elements, of which the University is composed. In
934
those circumstances I am sure that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment in its present form, but if he seriously thinks that there is any possibility of the Statutory Commission, either now or hereafter, dealing in an inimical spirit or, indeed, dealing at all with the internal affairs of the religious colleges, I shall be very glad to consult with him as to the means by which that, as I think, wholly illusory and imaginary danger can be avoided.
That, of course, is quite a different question from the question raised by the noble Lord who spoke last. That question regarded a particular college which fears that its position—not its existing position, but its future position —may be less favourable than they would like to see it under the new Bill. I suggest to the House that you must leave to the Commission the determination of which of these schools of the University are or are not to have direct representation. The schools of the University number thirty-eight. It is quite impossible, of course, that the thirty-eight could all be represented. It may be that the number contemplated by the Report of the Committee is too small and that, without making the representation too large and unwieldy to work in practice, some other college may properly be added to the number already suggested by the Report of the Departmental Committee. On that I offer no opinion. It seems to be emphatically a thing within the discretion of the Statutory Commission, and I think your Lordships would not be well advised if you were to take into consideration Amendments to the Bill dealing with particular institutions, adding here and there some alteration in the general scheme of the Departmental Committee, seeing that the Statutory Commissioners, who have to draw up the constitution of the new University, have ample power to obtain the necessary information, to weigh the necessary information, and to come to a decision, so long as they keep within the general scope of the Departmental Report.
In these circumstances I would suggest to my noble friend who spoke last that the interests of Holloway College are sure of a fair hearing, and that he would not be well advised, in my judgment, if he were to try to decide a question on the floor of this House which is plainly more properly to be left to the Statutory Com-

935
mission which this Bill asks the House to appoint. I think I have dealt adequately with these two distinct lines of, I will not say attack but commentary and criticism, and in these circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed on your Lordships' attention.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I rise only for a moment to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has just said. I speak with pretty long experience of London University Statutes, and also as head of one of the existing institutions in question and a-s visitor of another, and I should be very sorry indeed if this clause went forward as it stands. It would paralyse the work of the Commissioners, and make it impossible for them to do a number of things for which we are looking. I think it would be infintely better to take the Bill as it stands, which restricts the powers of the Commissioners to the substance of the plan in the Report, and enables them to survey the whole field and to deal with it in the only way in which it can be dealt with. As to what outside colleges should come in, that is a question only to be decided by the Commissioners after examining the evidence, and it is impossible to decide the question of Holloway College on the floor of this House. It will be difficult enough for the Commissioners to decide it and I should be sorry to take upon myself the task of anticipating what their decision should be.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Those for whom I am speaking will be grateful to the noble Earl, the Lord President, for the sympathetic way in which he has replied. I can see clearly that there has been a misunderstanding in the matter. In the debate on the Second Reading the noble Earl said:—
"So far as existing interests are concerned, I am quite unable to see how the least peril threatens any of the institutions on whose behalf the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl have spoken."
In those circumstances it is quite clear, on the surface at any rate, that the Amendment which I move goes no further than those words, but in view of what has been said by the noble Earl I will not press those words, but will withdraw them, and I shall be very glad if I may have an opportunity of consulting with the noble Earl, the Lord
936
President, as to some other form of words which will completely cover the point. I can assure him that if he will be good enough to consult me he will not find me at all difficult to deal with, but ready to accept any form of words which really meets the point he suggests.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, but I should much regret to leave either him or the House under a misapprehension as to what really did happen on the Second Reading. I think that if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the most rev. Primate based his appeal to me entirely, or mainly—I thought entirely on paragraph 10, on page 56 of the Committee's Report. I think if he will look at my speech he will then see that I deliberately based my reply on paragraph 10. I dealt, in other words, only with "the conditions governing the admission or re-admission of an institution as a school of the University." It was a question as to admission or re-admission. It was those conditions which raised the fear of the most rev. Primate and, I thought, raised the fears of Earl Beauchamp. I attempted to allay those fears then and I again do so, by pointing out that paragraph 10 referred only to the conditions governing schools which came into the University in the future.
Therefore it had no reference to the numerous important and very valuable religious institutions which I think the noble Earl on that occasion enumerated to your Lordships, in which the interests of various Christian denominations are dealt with. I think it really is a total misapprehension of what I said. Obviously it is, if he will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT. He will see that I was not touching upon the existing religious institutions, but I was pointing out that paragraph 10 only dealt with the future, and that there was nothing in it which could imperil in the slightest degree, or need cause the faintest tinge of anxiety to, any of those interested in the maintenance of existing institutions. I think there is no room for apprehension on their part, and I beg the noble Earl, though it is a matter of personal inconsistency, which really is of no importance, that before he makes suggestions that there is any change required in my reply

937
to-night as compared with my reply on the Second Reading, he would carefully read what I said on the occasion of the Second Reading.
LORD ERNLE: As I was the first Chairman of the Committee on whose Report this Bill is founded and was actually in the Chair when Holloway College came and gave evidence, I should like to point out that I think the whole of this discussion is founded on a misapprehension. There are two things. There is incorporation in the University and there is admission of a school or college to the University. The whole of Clause 7 refers to incorporation. There are two colleges at present incorporated in the University and it is to the incorporation of any other school or college which wishes to be in closer relation with the University that the whole of Clause 7 applies. To put in there this very much wider Amendment which is proposed by the noble Earl and supported by the noble Lord, is to put it in a place where it has no real connection, and as far as I know there has never been any question of refusing to continue the admission of Holloway College and its inclusion among the constituent bodies of the University. Holloway College has never asked, and is never likely to ask, for incorporation, which is the whole subject-matter of Section 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 12 [.Powers of entry and sampling]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE) moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out ''thereof," and to insert "of the county or county borough in which the said premises are situate." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment in order to make the meaning clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out ("thereof") and insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Prohibition against disclosures.
16. If any inspector or official sampler discloses, except for the purposes of proceedings for alleged offences, any information obtained by him in or in connection with the exercise of his powers under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out "or official sampler." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause, I may remind you, is intended to afford some protection to manufacturers against a public officer making use of information, acquired during his visit to a manufacturer's premises, to disclose trade secrets to the detriment of the manufacturer and for the benefit of his rivals. I propose to leave out the words "or official sampler" because, in fact, no official sampler has any right of entry on the premises of a manufacturer.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, leave out ("or official sampler ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: IS the noble Lord quite certain that the omission of these words will not affect the protection which he says it is intended to afford? Is this the only place in the Bill where the words "official sampler" occur?
LORD BLEDISLOE: No, they occur in many different parts of the Bill. This is a very simple point indeed. An inspector has the right to enter a manufacturer's premises for the purposes of this Bill, but an official sampler has no such right. It was by inadvertence that these words were originally included.
EARL RUSSELL: But would it do any harm to leave them in? Is it not a fact that the official sampler may become possessed of knowledge which it is undesirable that he should divulge?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to look into that between now and the Third Reading, but I think as a matter of fact that the fears of the noble Earl are not well founded. However, if the

939
Amendment is accepted now, we can, if necessary, reinstate the words on the Third Reading.
EARL RUSSELL: In that case I will not oppose the Amendment now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "except," to insert "to persons acting in the execution of this Act or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is, I think, a little more substance in this Amendment. On reconsideration of this clause it is considered that it possibly goes a little further than was originally intended. I am moving to insert these words for this reason. There are a certain number of public officers who have the right to enter trade premises for other purposes than for those of contemplated legal proceedings. By way of illustration, I may mention that an officer might be asked by the Ministry of Agriculture to inspect a register of marks, such as is provided for in lieu of the detailed description under Clause 4 of this Bill, in order to ascertain whether that register contains an accurate definition of the trade mark. Obviously he should be entitled to do that without any risk of being fined for doing so, it being in the ordinary course of his official duties.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, after ("except") insert ("to persons acting in the execution of this Act or")—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that this goes far beyond any drafting Amendment. Personally I am not satisfied with the explanation he has given. I think the words which he proposes are altogether too general, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. If, before the Third Reading, any special case such as he has suggested can be brought forward I should not object to putting such words in to meet the case. But if the words are once put in in this general form the protection which it is intended to give the manufacturer as regards nondisclosure may very easily become a dead letter. I am sure the noble Lord does not desire that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I understand from the noble Lord that he feels that these
940
words go further than is necessary in order to secure the purpose in view. If that is so, perhaps he will allow me to consult with him before the next stage of the Bill, and in the meantime, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: That is quite satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21:
General provisions as to legal proceedings.
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this Act may, subject to the provisions of this Act as to the consent of the Minister, be instituted by the person aggrieved or by the council of a county or county borough, and in any case where a sample has been taken by an inspector appointed by the Minister, may be instituted by the Minister.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), after "county borough," to insert "or with the consent of such council by an inspector appointed by such council." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides for a third person being authorised to prosecute. As the clause stands it is only the aggrieved person, or the county council, or county borough who may institute these proceedings. I propose to ask your Lordships to permit such prosecution to be instituted by an inspector appointed by such council. It will be very cumbersome and expensive if in all cases—and some of them may be very trifling—it is necessary for the county council to take proceedings either through their clerk or through a solicitor to deal with these matters. It would be much easier to allow the county council to prosecute through one of their own inspectors who has been properly authorised by the county council. The whole responsibility of the county council would be retained, and there could be no objection to such an official acting. I am sure that members of your Lordships' House who are members of county councils will agree with me that this is a very necessary Amendment in order to make the procedure simpler and less expensive for the county council.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I understand from my noble friend that the County Councils Association feels rather strongly on this matter. Personally I see no objection to the words he proposes to insert, and therefore I am prepared to accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after Clause 26, to insert as a new clause: —
"Application to Northern Ireland.
.—(1) This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland subject to the following modifications:

(a) The regulations made by the Minister and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall apply to Great Britain only:

(b) References to the Minister, and to the Minister and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland acting jointly shall be construed as references to the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland: Provided that the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in-lieu of appointing; a separate advisory committee may in making regulations to be laid before the Parliament of Northern Ireland, act on the advice of the advisory committee appointed for Great Britain:

(c) References to the Treasury shall be construed as references to the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland:

(d) References to the Government Chemist shall be construed as references to the Chief Agricultural Analyst, for Northern Ireland:

(e) The reference to the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be construed as a reference to article thirty-eight of the schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order 1898:

(f) The expenses of a council incurred in the execution of this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council, out of the county fund as a county at largo charge, and in the case of a county borough, council, out of any rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1913:

(g) References to Parliament and to His Majesty shall be construed respectively as references to the Parliament and to the Governor of Northern Ireland, and the reference to twenty-one days, occurring in relation to regulations laid before Parliament, shall be construed as a reference to the period prescribed by subsection (1) of section 4 of the Rules Publication Act (Northern Ireland), 1925.

(2) For the purpose of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act, in its application to Northern Ireland, shall
942
be treated as if it had been an Act passed before the appointed day for the commencement of that section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this clause is to make this Bill applicable to Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland have particularly asked that this Bill shall apply to Northern Ireland and have agreed this particular clause with the Home Office. I ought, perhaps, to explain that in one sense it raises something in the nature of a constitutional question. This is a purely domestic matter and being a domestic matter it is not a Reserved Service under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. But there is a special reason here for departing from the usual practice. The bulk of the fertilisers and feeding stuffs used in Northern Ireland are either imported direct from England or else are controlled by selling agencies whose headquarters are in London, and it is obviously desirable that there should be some uniformity of regulations as between the farmers, let us say, on the other side of St. George's Channel and the manufacturers and agents on this side. This is the main reason why we are taking this somewhat unusual course in asking you, with the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland, to accept a clause which deals with a non-reserved Service under the Government of Ireland Act.
I ought to point out that this clause substitutes for the specified British authorities corresponding authorities in Northern Ireland and I would particularly draw attention to subsection (1) (b), which provides that instead of appointing a separate Advisory Committee who shall advise the Government in making Regulations for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland may accept the advice of the Advisory Committee set up under this Bill for the purposes of Great Britain. The main object, of course, is to avoid expense and to secure the uniformity to which I have referred. I ought, perhaps, to refer to subsection (2) because Section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, provides that the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not have power to repeal or alter the provisions of any Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the appointed day, and your Lordships will notice that this sub-section provides that, for the purposes of this section in the

943
Government of Ireland Act in its application to Northern Ireland this measure shall be treated as if it had been an Act passed before the appointed day for the commencement of the section. The whole object of that is to enable the Government of Northern Ireland to repeal this measure if they think fit to do so in future in order to meet their own domestic requirements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an explanation and has informed your Lordships that he is taking a sort of constitutional leap, I gather, in imposing this Bill upon Northern Ireland. He has got the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland, but even that seems to me to be a little dangerous because Governments in power do not always permanently represent the electorate and I do not quite know whether, if you get the consent of a Government to the Bills we might pass in this country, that would always involve the consent of the people. The point I want to make is this. As this Bill is a good and useful one cannot the noble Lord obtain the consent of the Free State as well and make the Bill applicable to Ireland as a whole? It seems to me the noble Lord would create a very useful precedent if he could get the Free State to consent. Perhaps he will consider that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Earl is suggesting something which is absolutely beyond my competence. But may I remind him that under the Government of Ireland Act it is clearly within the competence of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to pass an Act or even to insert a provision in another Act applying to Northern Ireland without any right on their part to object to it. In this particular case they have approved, and we have left them a loophole to repeal this provision by their own domestic legislation if they so desire.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has given your Lordships this explanation because I should be extremely sorry if the slightest doubt was ever raised that Northern Ireland was still part of the United King-
944
dom and subject to the laws that may be imposed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, if it thinks proper. Your Lordships need only be reminded of one fact to see how clear that is. Northern Ireland sends representatives to the Imperial Parliament and is very proud of sending them there. So far as I can see; it will be a very great advantage to Northern Ireland to have exactly the same law in relation to these matters as this country, and I have not the faintest doubt that this step will be welcomed by the Government of Northern Ireland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
Short title, commencement, repeal and extent.
(4) This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to omit subsection (4) of Clause 27. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to ask the indulgence of the House to move a manuscript Amendment. By an inadvertence the words still remain at the end of the Bill: "This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland." In order to be consistent I ask your Lordships to permit me to move the omission of those words.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 6, leave out subsection (4). —(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of law as to necessity of re-election of Ministers.
1.—(1) In subsection (1) of section one of the Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919, the

945
words "and if such acceptance has taken place-within nine mouths after the issue of a proclamation summoning a new Parliament" shall be deleted and the said section shall, as from the passing of this Act, have effect as if the said words did not form part of the said section.
(2) The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved, to leave out "as" ["as from the passing of this Act"] and also "the passing of this Act "and to insert" and after the next General Election." The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment that stands in my name is designed to give effect to an objection which some of your Lordships may remember I took when the Bill passed its Second Reading in this House. I expressed my approval of the principle of the Bill, but I pointed out that it appeared to me extremely undesirable that the Bill should be made applicable to the present Parliament, and that objection, I think, is founded upon a principle which I hope will find favour with your Lordships. As it is, the Bill is obviously intended to grant relief to Members of Parliament who are elected to the Government. I have always thought that it was a very sound and very salutary rule that Parliament should never pass remedial measures affecting the members who themselves vote upon them.
This is not a Bill that affects people outside, except in so far as they know that their representatives will be able to become Ministers without going to the country again. This Parliament was elected with the certain knowledge that, except within the limited period of nine months after the General Election, every person who was promoted would be compelled to submit himself again to the electorate. The Bill takes away that right from the electorate and confers upon all members of the House of Commons the privilege of entering the Government without passing through the ordeal of a by-election. I submit that that is wrong. It is perfectly true that on one occasion—I think it was with regard to payment of Members—the House of Commons did pass very important remedial legislation in its own favour. I do not think it was right. I think the right course would have been to have
946
passed the provision and made it applicable only to all subsequent Parliaments. I believe the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, thinks that I was a party to it, but he will find out that he is wrong and that I was not a party to it.
I remember that I have always been greatly impressed with the argument brought forward by Sir Edward Clarke that, apart from the merits of the thing, the rule should be in force and should remain. All rules, however strong and however beneficial, sometimes necessitate exceptions. I want to know what is the reason for the exception in this particular case. Why is it that the Government is so anxious to persist in their Bill of granting relief to the present Members of Parliament? I suggested on the Second Heading that there were occasions in the life of every Parliament when there were secessions from one side to the other and that that occasion had undoubtedly arisen at the present time. Some secessions have taken place and it may even be possible that others are contemplated, because I notice that at least four or five people who profess and call themselves Liberals, but who certainly have not been led in the way of truth, invariably vote with the Government when any question arises on which the House is dividing. Supposing that these people seek to regularise their position and to do what I think they ought to do—go straight over to the other side—and the reward of their fidelity is some small place in the Government, which at any rate may encourage others—
LORD WITTENHAM: Plenty more are coming over.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That may be so, but the more there are coming over the more important my Amendment will be. I trust the noble Lord appreciates that, otherwise he would not have interfered. That being so, I submit that there is special reason at the present time why you should not protect people who go into the Ministry from the ordeal of facing their constituents. It is a very different thing when you have a member of a Party who has been returned to support that Party entering the Ministry of that Party. After all, ho can say: "My people have returned me as a Conser-

947
vative and as a Conservative I am now promoted." But when you cross over to the other side and say: "I am entitled to be made a Minister without facing the electorate," I think that is unfair.
The noble Viscount may very well say: "But that is what will happen in future Parliaments.'' I agree, but that is no reason why this Parliament should confer upon itself this protection. You may think that this is a small precedent, but small precedents, if followed, very often lead to great evils. You cannot be sure that you are always going to have Governments as steady as the present one in charge of affairs in this country. If you have others who are voting themselves protection and privileges, what answer are you going to make when they say: "But you did the very thing in your Bill and that notwithstanding the fact that it was objected to and that people pointed out that it was contrary to constitutional practice." I am utterly unable to understand why the Government are insisting on maintaining the Bill in its present form and not doing what would cause them no difficulty whatever—accepting my Amendment and saying: "Well, we do not think that this should apply to the present Parliament and we are prepared so to legislate." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out the first ("as") and leave out ("the passing of this Act") and insert ("and after the next General Election").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY): The noble and learned Lord who moved this Amendment has expressed his wonder why the Government resist it. He asks: What would they lose by accepting the Amendment? He does not seem to think that the Government are ever moved by any motive except what they may gain or lose by a particular course. I am sure he does not really think so. We are governed in this particular matter by the principle involved, but before I say a word or two upon the principle, may I make one or two observations upon the precedent? The noble and learned Lord has most candidly admitted—and he is always most candid in debate—that there are precedents and he reminded your Lordships of the case of the Payment of Members Bill.
LORD CARSON: It was not a Bill; it was a Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It ended in an Act of Parliament which gave it force. I suppose it was in the Appropriation Bill; at any rate it was a legislative act. The noble and learned Lord says that he does not approve of it. I shall show in a moment that that Act stands on a very different footing to the present proposal. I would remind him that it is not the only precedent and that there is a precedent directly in point. There is the Act of 1919 under which, for the first nine months of a Parliament, the rule does not apply and Members becoming Ministers have not to seek re-election. In point of fact that Act was originally introduced to cover as wide a ground as the present Bill, but it was modified in its passage through Parliament, as your Lordships were reminded on the Second Reading. But, although it was modified, the fact remains that that Parliament enacted that for the first nine months Members who accepted office should not have to seek re-election.
That is the very principle which, according to the noble and learned Lord, was a great breach of constitutional practice, because it made a change in the conditions binding Members of Parliament that applied to that Parliament itself. That consideration did not, however, restrain the Parliament of that day from passing that Act, which deals with precisely the very subject-matter that your Lordships are dealing with this evening. It is a precedent directly in point. I have not looked at the debate, but I should be very much surprised to find that the noble and learned Lord raised the point which he now makes when the Bill was going through. I forget whether he was a member of this House or of the other House at the time; he has been a member of both Houses and he has always, I know, commanded the greatest attention when he has arisen to address either House of Parliament. I do not think he made any protest and yet, according to him now, this was a gross breach of constitutional practice. The precedents are dead against the noble and learned Lord, as well as the principles.
What else did the noble and learned Lord say? He said there was a very

949
special reason—he certainly said so on the Second Heading, and I think he also said it just now—why his Amendment ought to be introduced and that was because of the migratory habits of certain Liberal Members of this Parliament. I may tell the noble and learned Lord that there is no sinister conspiracy on the part of my right hon. friend or of any of his colleagues to put any migrant into the Government, it may be that hereafter there may be reasons, of which I am not aware, why some migrant, of whose name I have not the least notion, may be found so adequate and competent a Minister as to call for his appointment to the Government. There is no such prospect as far as I know at the present moment. May I say that it is not a good thing to argue great constitutional changes, whether they are good or bad, upon personal grounds'? Let us leave that out of the question altogether.
I turn to what is after all, the substance of the matter. What the noble and learned Lord is trying to maintain in this particular case—although he joins with us in abandoning it in the general case—is to give the electorate some control over the appointment of Ministers. That is quite wrong. I would beg the noble and learned Lord to realise that it is quite wrong. That, indeed, is a very dangerous precedent. The electorate have supreme power in this country, but they have to exercise it in a particular way. The method
which is laid down by the Constutition is that they should elect Members of Parliament, not that they should elect the Government. That is not their function, as I ventured to point out to your Lordships on Second Reading. The appointment of the Government rests with His Majesty, advised by the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is indicated by the majority, not of the electorate but of the members of the House of Commons sitting in Parliament. That is the constitutional principle. The noble and learned Lord asked me to approach this subject upon the high ground of principle. That is the principle. The electorate have nothing to do with the appointment of particular persons to be Ministers of the Crown.
I come back to the fundamental reason for the passage of this Bill and I do not think it was better stated, or could be better stated, than by the noble and
950
learned Lord himself. The noble and learned Lord, on Second Reading, said:—
"I cannot see why the Prime Minister's judgment should be biased and restrained in considering, not whether a certain man is the best man to appoint, but whether the man that he seeks to appoint has a safe seat."
That has nothing to do with this Parliament or another Parliament. That is a general statement which applies to every Parliament, including this Parliament. Why should the noble and learned Lord think that a Prime Minister in a future Parliament ought not to be restrained but that this particular Prime Minister in this Parliament ought to be restrained? The argument is a general one. If it is good at all it is good universally. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he has been a little misled by what I may call the "migrant" argument, and that that was present in his mind so that he forgot that consistency which generally characterises every argument which he submits to your Lordships' House.
I do not think, if I may say so, that the noble and learned Lord has made out a case of any kind whatever. This is not a question of the privileges of Members of Parliament as he suggested to you. The payment of Members was an advantage to Members of Parliament and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that if exception is to be taken on the lines which he has advised, it might very properly have been taken to that particular Act of Parliament. But this has nothing to do with the privilege of Members. The point is, how are we to get the best Government, and if it be true, as we agree, that the existence of this rule does militate against having the best Government, then by all means let the change be made by this Parliament and this Government just as it should be made by a future Government and a future Parliament.
LORD WITTENHAM: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, referred to the payment of Members of Parliament. He was in another place at that time. It was one year when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was Prime Minister. It came forward on the Estimates. It was not in the form of a Statute at all. I should like to know as a matter of curiosity whether the noble and learned Lord, Mr. Buckmaster, as he then was, voted with his Party, or

951
whether he took the view that it ought to be embodied in legislation and postponed perhaps until another Parliament. Leaving that for a moment, I want to explain my own attitude. I voted against the Second Heading of this Bill for two reasons. First of all, I thought it ought to have been a Government Bill, whereas it was brought forward as a Private Member's Bill. For some reason or other it was caught up at a late stage in the House of Commons and turned into a Government Bill and we find it as such in this House. I wondered what was the question of high principle, because I suppose the Government would not have taken it up if it had not been a question of high principle. I have never got to the bottom of that yet.
As I remarked on Second Reading, politics are so much a question of expediency. The noble and learned Lord voted for the Second Reading. He and I were in opposite camps then. To-day he wants to amend the Bill, and I want to make the best of a bad thing. I am not going to pursue my antagonism either by supporting his Amendment or any other Amendment. Having had to gulp down the principle—we were in a small minority on Second Reading—I think we had better try to make the best of it. Why on earth should not this Government, as the noble Marquess has said, have the benefit of this Bill, which, doubtless, will be turned into an Act? I cannot see why not. Why should they wait?
The noble and learned Lord, if he will allow me to say so, has always taken, both in the House of Commons and in this House, in the best sense of the word, a high line. But I am afraid that in this matter he has deviated rather from that high line. It was clear, and he would not deny it himself—here is where policy comes in—that the political motive was uppermost. When friends fall out there are no bitterer enemies. Already that splendid Party, as I remember it in the House of Commons—splendid in strength —has fallen utterly to pieces. There is very little of it left. Those that are left are quarrelling with each other. Now the noble and learned Lord is pursuing with rancour those who have left the torn umbrella of the Liberal Party and found safety with our Party. Why should he
952
not let them alone? They have gone away from him; they will never return.
"I shall go to him, but he shall not return to mo."
The noble and learned Lord may follow them. Do let him leave them alone in peace. This is one of the reasons why I disagree with the noble and learned Lord: that instead of putting it on the high motive of Parliamentary propriety he has reduced it rather to a personal question.
EARL RUSSELL: I propose to adopt the advice of the noble Marquess and to avoid as far as possible, as he suggests, any personal question. There is, of course, in this Parliament a very notorious instance of a Member who, having promised his constituents that he would resign if called upon, when called upon to do so did not resign. I am not surprised to learn from the noble Marquess that the Party of the gentlemen of England is not going to welcome that Member into the Cabinet.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I referred to no particular persons.
EARL RUSSELL: I think he said that he would have no migrants, so far as he knew. I am not surprised that his motto is "Non tali auxilio nec non migrantibus istis." So far as that is concerned, that would go a long way to prevent my supporting the Amendment that has been moved. I find myself, not for the first time, shocked by the iconoclastic principles of the noble Marquess opposite and the way in which he is prepared to overthrow long-established constitutional customs. Of course, when a Government has repealed the Statute of Uses I suppose that one must not be astonished if it proposes to repeal a much more modern Statute of Queen Anne, but this has been the law for a long time. I think it is perfectly true that the original reason for which it was passed does not exist any longer, but it is still to some extent the case that it is not unreasonable to give the electorate a chance of saying whether they wish a particular person to be re-elected or not when appointed Minister. Once you have whittled it away with the nine months proposal it is rather difficult to avoid doing the rest, but I am surprised, nevertheless, that the noble Marquess should not accept this Amend-

953
ment, because the present Parliament has not a very long time to run and I think it would make the Bill rather more gracious and rather less suspect if it were passed with this Amendment. I should have been glad if he could have seen his way to accept it.
As I say, I am one of these people who very much dislike change and are very much shocked at the changes that are proposed. I suppose that I shall have to try and bear it. The noble Marquess has held out to us a prospect of a Government superior to all possible Governments that we have thought of before, a Government in which an invitation may be extended to any distinguished migrant from any Party at any moment and which, without being a Coalition, is apparently to draw its Cabinet, at any rate, from all Parties; and perhaps the prospect will make up for this Bill. I regret, perhaps more as a matter of sentiment than as a matter of business, that the Act of Queen Anne should be repealed, but I can feel the force of the argument that it is not the best ground for selecting a Minister that he has a large majority rather than that he is the best possible man to select.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I will only say a few words to explain why I cannot accept the explanation of the noble Marquess. I agree as to the precedent, set with regard to the payment of Members. I think it was a bad one. Lord Wittenham suggested that I supported it. I think he will find—though it is difficult now to charge one's memory exactly—that when the Bill was passed I was not in the cold shadows of Opposition but in the cold shadows of the constituencies and was not in the House of Commons at all.
LORD WITTENHAM: I am sorry.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not speak with certainty, but that is my recollection. None the leas, it was a bad example and, when the noble Marquess seeks to reinforce it by that which happened
in 1919, I must say that I am a little astonished. I do not want to speak ill of the Government of 1919 because it is dead, and that seems to me to be a good reason and, I may add, the only reason why I should refrain. But I feel quite certain that, if this fact had been present to the minds of the noble Marquess and myself when it was my great pleasure to sit by his side on those Benches and criticise that Government, we should have raised precisely this Amendment. The reason why it was not done was because it was not realised.
I agree entirely that what the noble Marquess calls the personal view is a small ground upon which to base objection to this Bill. I referred to no persons, but only to groups, and I say that nothing has been urged in answer against the main argument that this is a Bill which is intended to give relief to Members of Parliament and that the persons relieved are those who are there to-day. It is very difficult to charge one's memory exactly, but I remember this principle coming up for consideration in a different form atone time or another, either by discussion or Resolution, in another place, and it was always provided that it should not apply to the then existing Parliament. It may have been that this was in order to secure support for it, but at any rate the existing Parliament was excluded. I cannot see why a Bill of this kind should be made to operate for the men who are already there and who, it must be remembered, have been returned to Parliament by the constituencies with the knowledge that if any one of them were appointed to the Ministry his constituency would have the right to consider his re-election. I am sorry that I cannot withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Whether the word "as" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 79; Not Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Normanby, M.

Halsbury, E.

Iveagh, E.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Liverpool, E.

Abingdon, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Airlie, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Bradford, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sutherland, D.

Denbigh, E.

Mayo, E.

Derby, E.

Morton, E.

Exeter, M.

Eldon, E.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Northbrook, E.

Onslow, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Powis, E.

Blythswood, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Yarborough, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Jessel, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Joicey, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Churchill, V.

Danesfort, L.

Merthyr, L.

Haldane, V.

Darling, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

de Mauley, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Newton, L.

Novar, V.

Dynevor, L.

Oriel, L. (V Massereene.)

Sidmouth, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Rayleigh, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Elphinstone, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ernle, L.

St. Levan, L.

Annaly, L.

Erskine, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Armstrong, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Askwith, L.

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

Somerleyton, L.

Atkinson, L.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hanworth, L.

Wharton, L.

Barnard, L.

Wittenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Arnold, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Parmoor, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Beauchamp, E.

Bethell, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Carson, L.

Strachie, L.

Russell, E.

Charnwood. L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Clwyd, L.

Thomson, L.

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Treowen, L.

Ullswater, V.

Gainford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly, and Amendment disagreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add the following new subsection:
"This Act shall not apply in the case of a person appointed a Minister who has changed his Party since he was last elected to Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: I do not think this Amendment requires much explanation. It merely seeks to exclude from the operation of this Bill those persons appointed Ministers who have changed their Party since election. I submit that there is no authority for including them in this Bill. I am sorry that some people seem to think that this Amendment is directed against an individual, but I can assure your Lordships that it is not. "With regard to Lord Darling's suggested Amendment to my Amendment, whereby he proposes to substitute "political principles" for "Party," I submit with great respect that that would be rather too vague. You can ascertain very easily whether a man has changed his Party, but it is not so easy to ascertain whether he has changed his principles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection. — (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: This is a very different Amendment from the one with which we have just dealt. I voted against Lord Buckmaster's Amendment because I thought it was an Amendment which gave an advantage to the Liberal Party and denied it to the Conservative Party, but I am in favour of this Amendment, and if Lord Bertie goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. Let us see what this Amendment aoes. It deals not with one Party but with all Parties. The Act of Queen Anne was introduced to prevent corruption. Unless we had an Amendment of this sort what would happen? A Government happens to be in power, and in the first nine months it appoints a number of Ministers. After it has been in power a year or a year and a half it does not get on very happily, and it has not a very large number of supporters who are fit for office. It looks around and it sees certain members eager for office, but who happen to hold different political opinions. The Whips go and suggest to those members that if they find, on con-

957
sideration, that they rather agree with the principles of the Party in power, instead of the principles in support of which they were returned, they can have office.
By this Bill as it stands you are going to facilitate that sort of thing. You are going to allow a man who is returned as a Liberal to become a Conservative and to take office under a Conservative Government, or a man returned as a Conservative to become a Labour Member and gain a place in a Labour Government. If the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bertie is accepted it would be necessary for the member in question to go back to his constituency. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute "political principles" for "Party" in the proposed Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said: It seems to me that this Amendment itself requires some amendment before it should receive your Lordships' approbation. To me it appears that the mere fact that a person deserts his Party may be nothing against him. I should be sorry if it were, because I know so many people—at least I have seen them—who have done it. But there are occasions when a Party deserts all its avowed principles, and the Party remains, and, if there be only one person left true to his principles, why should he not change that Party? He is described in those beeautiful words
''Among the faithless, faithful only he."
He really is a kind of minor Athanasius. Why should he be selected for persecution? It has been written in a book—I do not know whether it is in your Lordships' library—that
"In affairs none are consistent except tins dishonest."
That may be an over-statement, but the apparently inconsistent may be thoroughly honest, although not transparently so.
It would take me too long if I were to attempt to give, even from recent history, instances of thoroughly inconsistent politicians. But I will not condemn them; in fact, the maxim that I have ventured to quote to your Lordships is their justification. I would therefore deal very tenderly with people who
958
change their Party—not because I have changed my own, or mean to. I would try to ascertain whether these people who are regarded as aspirants for immediate office are people who should be trusted because they have not really changed their political principles, although they have changed the benches on which they sit. I think my noble friend is too severe. Here are these people and they have left the Inferno of Opposition and would desire to enter the Paradiso of office. My noble friend says: "No, before you can do that there is the Purgatorio; you must go into that and stew there for the duration of the Parliament." That seems to me to take an unduly severe view of what is, after all, a, very venial fault, and may be, in fact, a virtue.
It is not so long since, by a sort of decree of Olympian Jove himself, the Socialist Party was told to take office. I can imagine, when he heard this, the attitude of the noble and learned Viscount opposite. It recalls to my mind at once the words:
"Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken,
Or like stout Cortes when with eagle eyes
He stared at the Pacific, and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise."
And then they settled down on the Treasury Bench. Should we regard them as men who have changed their principles? No. I decline to regard them as anything of the sort. Their political principles were there all the time, but they had concealed them. There are those who say we should not regard with favour wolves in sheep's clothing. No,
but the proper time to condemn the wolf is not when he takes off sheep's clothing and reveals himself to be really a wolf. I have a respect for him myself, and say that he has not changed his political principles, he has not changed his nature. He has only thrown off something which became inconvenient in the particular circumstances. And therefore why should these people be debarred from taking office unless they have really changed not only their Party, which they may have done for excellent and estimable reasons, but their political principles, too?
I am aware that it would be a difficult investigation on which, if my Amendment were passed, somebody would have to embark. How the Prime Minister

959
would find out whether a person who has just crossed the floor of the House has changed his political principles, how he would find out whether he had any principles at all—I confess I cannot tell. But this is a great assembly, and I would only ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment to my noble friend's Amendment, and then let the Prime Minister, when he is considering whom to appoint, solve this question, perhaps with the help of a Committee of both Houses. Before I move the Amendment, however, I will ascertain whether it is acceptable to the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I gather that my noble and learned friend does not move the Amendment, and I am not altogether surprised.
LORD DARLING: Unless the Government really desire it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble and learned friend is a very humorous person, and also a very poetical person. I am afraid I cannot compete with him in poetry, and I do not propose to try to compete with him in this particular vein of humour, which seems to me to take up a good deal of your Lordships' time. I am afraid that when I saw the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, I did not really approach it in perhaps as serious a vein as I ought to have done. I do not know whether your Lordships really wish me to deal seriously with it.
It is very evident that if you put in an Amendment of this kind you would have to define what a political Party was, and I think in these days that would be extremely difficult. For instance, I see opposite my noble friends of the Liberal persuasion, if I may use that ambiguous phrase. I do not know whether they have got one Party or two now. And then there are the noble Lords opposite. Quite recently the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Haldane) was drummed out of the Labour Party by his friends in the House of Commons. I did not notice that he looked very depressed afterwards, but undoubtedly that was the case, and I am quite sure that it would be very difficult to say whether Mr. Wheatley and Mr. Thomas belonged to the same political Party. They certainly agree on hardly anything, and I imagine that the
960
task of definition would be beyond the skill of even our most accomplished Parliamentary draftsman.
If this Amendment had any operation at all the only thing it would do would be to promote the practice of government by Coalition. That would bring everybody in and a man need not even be a migrant to be absorbed into a Coalition Government. I am sitting on a Bench next to one of my most distinguished colleagues who was also a most distinguished member of a Coalition Government and, therefore, I shall not say what I think about Coalitions, though I imagine your Lordships know pretty well. We have spent, I think, almost enough time on this Amendment and I am afraid the Government cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: After what the noble Marquess has said and his having threatened us with a Coalition Government, I do not desire to persist in my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading is promoted by the Post Office with the object of empowering them to acquire lands and erect buildings in three different Boroughs—Blackpool, Swansea and Doncaster. The reason why the Post Office wishes to obtain these powers is that these boroughs have developed so much of late and show such signs of developing still further in the future that the powers are necessary to enable the Post Office to increase the postal and telephone facilities in those places. At this late hour and with other business still awaiting your Lordships' attention I will not go into the details of the measure, but if any noble Lord desires further information I have full particulars as to how these powers are going to be used and I shall be happy to

961
tell him what I can. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should be obliged to the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill if he would make a somewhat fuller statement and give us some idea, if he can, of the amounts which are likely to be involved in compensation under this Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should like to call the attention of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill to Clause 3, which provides that there shall be no extra allowance for any improvement or alteration made after November 20, 1925. Was this Bill deposited as a Private Bill with plans and notices of the property proposed to be acquired, or what is the reason for that particular date? Otherwise, the date seems now to be rather far back.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a Committee point, surely.
EARL RUSSELL: It is hardly a Committee point, is it? I want to know the reason for that date at this stage.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry to intervene again, but might I ask the noble Earl for a reply I Mine certainly was not a Committee point but a point of great principle.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this Bill has been to the Examiners and has followed the usual course of a hybrid Bill. I think noble Lords may be quite satisfied that there is nothing irregular about it. If the noble Earl wishes to ask a special question as to the reason for the appearance of this particular date in the Bill I will see that the information is given him at the next stage of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: It started as a Private Bill, I suppose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, it is a hybrid Bill.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, among the particulars with which I have been furnished there is nothing as to the amount of compensation. I understand,
962
however, that all Petitions in opposition to the Bill—and I believe it was opposed in its passage through another place—have been withdrawn and that agreements have been arrived at between the Post Office and all those who opposed it. I understand that there is now no opposition and that the Bill will probably be referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills; otherwise it would go to a Select Committee of your Lordships House.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, that is not the point. I want to know what sums are involved, and that is the question which I put. I am sorry the noble Earl is not able to give us any information on that head. It seems to me to be very germane to the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I do not know the exact procedure but this Bill follows, in fact, the course of a Private Bill. In another part of my life I have opposed Bills of this kind. They come before a Private Bill Committee in the ordinary way, and the question of cost is never discussed there because it evidently would be very prejudicial to the subsequent procedure if there was any discussion as to what amount of money the Government were likely to have to give for sites which they were trying to purchase. I am sure we should be happy to give any information we could, but it would evidently be very difficult to furnish any kind of sum without giving an indication to the parties from whom we are going to buy land what amount we are going to give for it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I was Chairman of the Estimates Committee in another place, and it was my experience that the Post Office was extremely extravagant. On a great many occasions I have objected to Post Office Sites Rills because the Post Office generally gave a great deal too much in compensation and spent a great deal too much on buildings. Therefore, I hope that later on we shall have some explanation which will assure us that the money will be spent with some regard for the taxpayer.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, if those with whom I am associated on this Bench have not placed a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of this Bill on Third Reading it is not because of any want of strength in the opinions they entertain about it. We set down such an Amendment on the Motion for Second Reading and there we discussed the reasons which make us object to the Bill in its entirety. I will not recapitulate those reasons, but I am going to draw attention to a circumstance of gravity in its bearing on this Bill which emerged during the discussion and which led the Government itself to pause and, I think, to get into a mood of considerable nervousness. The intimation came that the Yorkshire coal owners would not conform to the standard scales of wages which were supposed to have been accepted by the rest of the coal owners. Very properly that was a matter which came as a shock to the Government and the Government actually put off the stages which they had intended to ask for as regards the Bill in order that that might be cleared up. Has it been cleared up? So far as the Yorkshire coal owners are concerned, I do not doubt that they will carry out what they have said, but that docs not touch the real difficulty—the difficulty which we indicated in our speeches on the Second Reading and which I will indicate now.
The Government certainly ought, as soon as they found that that was a real source of danger—and, indeed, they ought, to have done it, as we indicated, before—to have taken the Bill out of the category of being a Bill which was to come into operation whether the miners liked it or not, which was to send them back to the old eight-and-a-half-hour system which they used to have before 1919. The Government should have taken power to suspend the operation of this measure by Order in Council, or in any other way they liked, so long as it gave them control over the proceedings in each mine and
964
group of mines as well as in the mines as a whole. I say that with the greater emphasis after the incident to which I have referred. But what occurred? The Government are gambling. The Government are playing for the miners going in. Frankly I do not know whether they will or not. I am certainly not in a position to say they will and I am not in a position to say they will not. They know themselves and the Government do not know. According to the newspapers there is not the least indication of the miners accepting the Bill and the situation which it creates at the present time.
In these circumstances, with the Bill in the form that it is now in—a Bill reserving to the Government no control over the situation, not enabling them to deal with the coal owner who is acting unjustly, not putting it in the Government's power to deal with groups of mines in particular districts, still less with the mines as a whole—what is the position that the Government may have to face? We may have a series of sporadic strikes—strikes not in every mine, strikes where the men feel themselves, wrongly or rightly, outraged by terms which may be put upon them. And what assurance have we that that will not happen? I have looked at the announcements of the coal owners. They have announced wages for three months ahead, sometimes for six months, but generally for the shorter period. When that time elapses, what then? The men are at their mercy. It is very easy to talk of a coal strike as a thing that passes away quickly, but it does not come without inflicting immense damage on the industries of the country and it is not a thing as to which you can predict what its duration will be. I say that in those circumstances the Government have been very wrong in not keeping in their hands power by means of which they could control the action of the coal owners in the future, if coal owners act in an unreasonable way.
Coal owners are only human. They are not there for philanthropy; they are there for profit; and so long as they make their profit in a reasonable way all is well. But sometimes they do not make their profit in a reasonable way, and that is what has led to a good deal of the disturbance that there is at the present time. Here we have this Bill, by your Lordships' fiat about to pass

965
into law, with all the consequences which it may entail, with the perils, industrial and social, which it may well bring with it, and with no instrument in the Government's hands by which in the future they can control the situation. It is not easy to go back on a measure of this kind after you have once passed it. It is not easy to deal with a situation for which you have made no provision. I can only say, speaking with the deepest seriousness, that I do not think I have been present on an occasion which I more regret than this, when the Government, despite the warning they have had, despite the situation which has sprung into view, have failed to keep in their bands any power by which they might deal with what may be lying immediately before them.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I submit, with all respect to your Lordships' House, that since the Second Reading of this Bill a new situation has arisen which calls for some discussion. It cannot be discussed in another place, and your Lordships' House is the only place where it can be discussed. That new situation is, of course, this incident in the Yorkshire coalfield. Even before the Bill was on the Statute Book certain mine owners posted rates of wages which were described by two members of the Government as "profoundly unsatisfactory." That was done before this Bill had passed through your Lordships' House. It was an anticipatory measure on the part of the coal owners. If such things happen in the green leaf, what is going to happen in the future? After all this Bill, though advocated as temporary as well as permissive, is going to operate for a period of five years. I think it may be claimed for the Labour Party that it not only foresaw but it also foretold something of this kind, though I do not believe anybody in that Party ever expected that what has happened would happen quite so soon.
When I heard the decision of His Majesty's Government the other night in this House I must say I was profoundly gratified. I felt like a man who has been standing by watching a conflict between the powers of darkness and the powers of light within a certain body and from that announcement it looked to me as if the powers of light had won a victory. It seemed to me a magnificent
966
move on the part of the Government to hold up the Bill. They exerted thereby a pressure on the owners which dismayed them and, so far as I can see, they did perhaps the finest thing a Government can do—insisted so far as possible on justice being done to both sides in a controversy. I was lost in admiration of the Government and I did hope that they would persist, I did not put their action on the low ground of Party politics. Not at all. I cannot better describe their action than as a victory for the powers of light. The threat that this Bill would not pass brought the coal owners in the West Yorkshire field to their senses. I doubt if there has ever been a more sulky letter than the letter of those owners saying that they would come into line.
The noble Viscount who has been piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House declared, if indeed he did not complain, that the Government could not insist upon conditions as between the two parties in this coal dispute, that the Government could only act as a mediator, could only suggest methods of compromise, could try and bring the two parties together, but in point of fact had no real power at all. That, unfortunately, will be the case when this Bill is passed. I submit that while this Bill is in a state of suspense the Government can do what the noble Viscount regretted they were unable to do—at least I gather that he regretted it. He declared that the Government were impotent and that is, surely, a very disagreeable confession in a matter so vital to the national welfare as this. He said, "We have no power." I submit that the Government have a very real power at this moment, but if this Bill passes for the period of five years, Heaven only knows what will happen in the minefields this day nine months, what conditions will be imposed, and then the Government, having forged this weapon, will find themselves impotent to prevent one party to this controversy using it.
I listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on this subject. It seemed to me that if some modification of the Government's programme was possible, it was on those lines that it could best be made. I also agree with

967
my noble Leader, Lord Haldane, that something in the way of amendment which would give the Government powers of discrimination hereafter is absolutely essential for the just working of this Bill. It is not too late to remedy this evil. We have had a sharp lesson during the last few days. We have seen what might happen and what I am much afraid will happen if this Bill becomes law as it stands. This is an age-long conflict between owners and men. It is a conflict; it is no good disguising the fact. Everybody knows that certain owners are very popular with their men, even beloved by them, but radically and fundamentally there is strife between these two parties and it is likely to go on in a far more bitter form. I give the Government every credit for the best intentions when they first brought in this Bill, but, to go back to my first point, I submit that in the last few days we have had a lesson which has absolutely transformed the situation and that in common justice to the men, with this lesson before our eyes, we should amend the Bill both on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Haldane and with due regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Viscount makes his reply on behalf of the Government I would like to say one word. In the first place, I would like to thank the noble Viscount for the kind and courteous way in which he dealt with the suggestion I made on Second Reading. One of the objects which I had in mind in making that suggestion was that the impartiality of the Government should be made patent by a proof which could not be contradicted. It so happens that that object has been achieved in a rather different way by the events of the last few days. The intervention of the Government in the matter of wages has gone a long way to make it clear, if proof were needed, that they are holding the scales level.
But it possibly may also have had another consequence. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord opposite describe that intervention as a victory for the light, but unfortunately all the noble Lords on that Bench, perhaps, are not quite of the same opinion. Some of them
968
at all events have rather suspicious minds. I refer to the comment of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on the suggestion I made on Second Reading. I believe that suspicious minds throughout the country have made the suggestion that this intervention in the matter of wages is evidence that the Government have, in fact, some kind of responsibility for the wages which have been offered in the coalfields by the owners. My understanding of the situation is different. As I see it the Government are merely doing their best to act as umpire and have no responsibility whatever for the terms which may have been proposed. It is simply because I think it is highly-desirable that we should know where we stand in that matter that I venture to ask the noble Viscount if he can throw-any light on that point.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I venture to think there has been a little misapprehension about this incident of the Yorkshire owners. The point is simply this: that the Yorkshire owners—I am not judging them, or saying whether they were right or wrong, or had any justification for what they did—made an entirely fresh proposal which was not one which had been discussed or considered—namely, that the ratio of division of proceeds should be varied from that which had been settled, I think it was in 1924. That is to say, instead of the proceeds being divided in the ratio of 87 to the miner and 13 to the employer it should be 85 and 15. The Government did feel that it was a very unfortunate thing that an entirely new suggestion of that kind should be made at the last moment. It was with reference to that proposal, and that proposal only, that the Government thought it right to say that they desired further time to consider the situation if that proposal was going to be persisted in. The moment that matter was brought to the attention of the owners they said, in the letter which was read in your Lordships' House, that they recognised in the circumstances that it would be right not to persist in that proposal.
But in taking that action, I venture to say quite definitely to my noble friend behind me, the Government did not propose to accept any responsibility one way or the other for the general rate of

969
wages that was going to be offered. That is a matter which they think must be settled between the parties, as it always has been settled, and it is quite impossible for the Government to fix rates of wages either in that or in any other industry. That is not the purpose or the object of the action which the Government took. I confess I am a little, startled that there should be any suggestion that the Government should take any such action as that. I have always understood that the Labour Party were vehemently opposed to compulsory arbitration in wage disputes. That may be right or wrong, but if there is to be compulsory arbitration it is evident there must be compulsion on both sides. The noble Lord now speaks as if it were right that there should be some means of compulsion on the owners, but quite wrong that there should be any means of compulsion on the miners. I do not think that he will consider, on reflection, that that is a fair suggestion to put forward.
I venture very respectfully to protest against the line of argument which noble Lords have adopted. The noble and learned Viscount said that this was a gambling proceeding. I really do not quite know what he means. This is an effort to bring the coal dispute to an end. It is an offer, a suggestion of a further means which may be tried for that purpose. We have tried every other means—
LORD ARNOLD: No.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Well, that is our view. We have made every other suggestion that we could make for three months past and, having made these suggestions and all of them having failed, we thought it right that this new avenue should be opened towards a solution. I do not know why that should be called a gamble. That is the whole object of the Government's action. It is not taken in the least with a view to coercing this side or that, but merely with a view to opening one further method of bringing this dispute to an end. I know that it is the, practice outside, but I regret that it should be so in this House, to treat these people, as the noble Lord who has just spoken treated them, as being essentially opposed to one another and enemies of one another. There is no hope of industrial peace on those lines. The
970
coal owner may be, as the enemy of Mr. Briggs said, "a very devil"; but coal owners are not perfect fools and they cannot desire a perpetual continuance of strife with their employees. Of course it is madness and destructive of the whole of their interests if it is to be thought thru they are moved by no other or higher motive than that. They all desire peace and it is a matter of profound regret that, both sides desiring peace, as I cannot doubt that they do, they should yet be unable to come to terms and make peace for themselves.
All that the Government can do is to help in every way towards that end. I do not think that we should be helping if we were to assume that one side or the other was going to act unfairly and that therefore we were to retain or reserve some means of coercing one side, particularly as it would be an entirely one-sided operation. I beg noble Lords opposite to try to get into a better state of mind, to try and assume that this is going to lead to peace, and to use their influence with those who pay attention to them, if the miners pay attention to anybody, to preserve a peaceful attitude and to come to a settlement of this dispute. The Government are prepared to use all their influence with all sides and all parties with that object, and I venture to think that the best thing to be done now is to pass this Bill without further delay and to see whether this avenue will load to peace, though the other avenues unfortunately have not done so.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I always listen with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount opposite. He told us that this was a gamble on the part of the Government, and that he did not know whether the miners were going in or staying out. That has been pretty well hinted at by the noble Lord who spoke just before the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill. The noble Viscount spoke of perils. Yes, there are perils, serious perils, and I wonder if the Labour Party and its representatives on that Bench have thought of the perils that this country has to go through in the industrial districts where there is no coal; if they have thought of the miserable conditions in Middlesbrough and other places of which we have heard. Let me add this.

971
All the speeches that we have heard from the other Benches lead only to one thought in my mind, and that is that so long as they support the miners in their attitude and encourage them to stop out they are encouraging a system of anarchy. It has been stated quite clearly in another place that they are out for that. I am sorry to say that I have seen anarchy at work and it is a terrible thing. I do not think that your Lordships realise what living in a state of anarchy is. I have lived under it and seen it in practice; it is the most horrible thing that you can ever see. We all know that, whatever the Labour Party may say in another place, it is what they say outside that really matters to the people whom they address. They wish to create confusion in this country, and there is no use in blinking that prospect, The hand of peace has been held out by the Prime Minister throughout, and the noble Viscount has appealed to noble Lords on the other side of the House to bring about peace if they possibly can.
Let me draw attention to a pronouncement issued the other day by the Labour Party. It consists of twenty-three instructions issued by the Third International of Moscow to the British Communists, and the twenty-third and last of these instructions runs as follows:—
"Agitate for a change of Government Demand 'Down with Baldwin, the defender of capitalists Long live a real Labour Government.'"
This has never been denied by anybody, even by the late Labour Prime Minister, and I wish to know if noble Lords opposite agree with this exhortation which was issued two or three weeks ago by the Labour Party. I am not going to trouble your Lordships any longer, but I hope that I may make one suggestion to those gentlemen and noble Lords who own coal mines. Let them got out in the open and speak to the miners themselves. Do not take a hall and speak to them there, but go out and speak to them and tell them exactly what the state of affairs is, what their leaders want them to do and what it will lead to. That will have a great deal more effect then any inside meetings, and the best time to do it is at the luncheon hour. If they do that they will be listened to with respect and with care. Your Lordships may think it
972
rather impudent of me to make such a suggestion, but I have had to do it myself and to talk even to men who were a great deal more wicked than the English miners. They have gradually come to the conclusion that order is the best thing and that anarchy is a bad thing.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will be as patient with me as we draw near the dinner hour as the noble Lord's friends are at the luncheon hour. I was very glad to hear from the Bench opposite some statement at least as to their view of the present situation. I have not said anything on this Bill before. It is not because I have not felt very strongly about it, however, and I should like first to tell the House what is my own view of the Bill and its effect, and, in the second place, to say a word upon what I understand to he the view and the belief of noble Lords opposite, and to make an appeal to them. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that this Bill is a gesture and an offer of peace by the Government. It is the most ill-received offer of peace that I have ever known of, for from the moment that this suggestion was made opinion among the miners has hardened in every possible way, and the strike has been embittered.
I think it is fair to say that up to that moment the head of the Government, Mr. Baldwin, was looked upon as a man who really was passionately in favour of industrial peace, and passionately doing his best to achieve it. Rightly or wrongly, the moment this decision as to hours was adopted the view taken by the miners, and by the rest of the labour world, was that Mr. Baldwin had come down on the side of the owners. Whether that view is rightly taken or not, it does not make for peace, and will not make for a shortening of the struggle. It is suggested that the effect of this Bill is to give another opportunity for arriving at a settlement by an extension of hours instead of a reduction of wages, or a smaller reduction of wages. That may be perfectly true, but there was no demand for that solution on the part of one of the parties. Only the owners demanded, and clamorously demanded, that solution, and the Government would, I think, have had their good intentions more credited, and more believed in outside, if they had coupled with what is really a concession

973
to the owners' demand those steps towards the reorganisation and improvement of the coalfields which are recommended by the Coal Commission.
The Government said at one stage that they accepted the Report of the Commission; that is, if the other parties accepted it. I am not saying for a moment that the miners' conduct has been at all wise in this matter, or that they have always adopted the best method for arriving at a compromise or negotiation, or indeed that they have not sometimes asked the impossible; but I am inclined to think that it would have been possible to get the acceptance by both parties of the Report of the Commission if the matter had been approached reasonably. There was a remark made by Mr. Baldwin during the passage of the Bill in another place which was seized upon as suggesting, and apparently meaning, that that possibility was still open. Unfortunately that was not developed, and the Bill has been hurried on, and I rather understand that we are now asked to believe that the expression was merely one of good will and not one of desire to go back to the Report of the Coal Commission.
It has been said that the Bill is permissive. There never was such an abuse of words. You are saying to the men, "The law will not prevent your working more than seven hours," but the terms which the owners are going to present to the men are terms of eight hours, and what it means is this: "if you do not accept those terms you do not get any work." That is hardly permissive. It is permissive to the extent that if the owners do not ask for eight hours the men can work seven, but if they ask for eight hours the Bill is only permissive in the sense that you say to the men: "You either take the job or you starve." It is also said that the Bill is going to help the miners because the actual money wage which they will receive is going to be less reduced. I do not profess to understand the finance of the coal-mines, but it does appear to be the fact—I think all speakers admit that it is the fact—that a large number of the coal-mines, as at present run, are uneconomical and do not pay.
One remedy, of course, is longer hours or lower wages. Another remedy is reorganisation. Well, what I under-
974
stand is suggested by the Royal Commission is that both remedies should be tried concurrently—that sacrifices should be made by the men on the understanding that the owners put their house in order. Yesterday, when the Bill was being discussed, I heard a speech from a mine owner on the other side, who addressed the occupants of this Bench and said the mine owners were tired of being told how to manage their own business. We have no wish to interfere with the business of the mine owners, but it has been presented to us time after time by industrial disputes and by strike disturbances, because, apparently, they cannot manage their own business, and to complain because the country and the Government have been at last compelled to intervene seems to be a little audacious. They got short shrift from the Royal Commission, and they appear to get rather short shrift from the Prime Minister in some of the correspondence. I do not think they can come here and say: "Here we are, commercial people, running a commercial enterprise so extremely well that it is impertinent for you to talk about it." Such a line is indefensible.
Those are my feelings about this Bill, and I want in conclusion to make an appeal to the Government. Lord Cecil of Chelwood said it was not for the Government to fix wages. Be it so. But the Government do apparently consider that they have some right, and even some duty, to put pressure upon the owners in certain circumstances, as to the terms to be offered. So apparently some sort of responsibility is admitted. How were they able to put that pressure upon the owners? By the very fact that this Bill was not upon the Statute Book. When this Bill passes will they not have sacrificed, once and for all, that weapon? If the Government are serious—and I credit them with the best intentions, and with really believing the case they put forward—if they are serious in saying that they want to hold the balance fairly and do not want the owners to change the percentages or other conditions of work in a way which is unexpected and unlooked for—if they are prepared to intervene and prevent that, will they not insert an Amendment in the Bill to retain that power? That is a question which really requires an answer.

975
If the Government thought proper during the passage of this Bill to impose terms upon certain Yorkshire coal owners, why have they not the right to keep that power in their hands? I am not prepared to think so meanly of the Government as to suppose that their only reason is that they cannot afford a few days' delay in the passage of this Bill. That would hardly be a reason creditable to a Government which says, and I suppose thinks, it is doing all it can for industrial peace in this matter. I therefore ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of this House, whether the Government will not even at this last moment propose an Amendment of that character to this Bill. It would go a considerable way to restore faith in the Government, which has been entirely destroyed by the course taken in this matter, and it is perfectly obvious that their intervention, advice and suggestions cannot be useful and fruitful if one side has entirely lost faith in them.
Your Lordships know perfectly well that, rightly or wrongly, the miners are convinced that the Government have come down on the side of the owners, and mostly I cannot blame them for thinking that. I am sure the noble Marquess does not take that view, and I am sure that that is not in his mind, but it is the feeling which exists, and therefore I ask the Government: Cannot you do something to remedy it by putting an Amendment in the Bill and retaining some power in your hands? Let them consider the position. The Bill passes, and is put upon the Statute Book, giving what you are pleased to call a permissive eight-hour day. Terms have already been posted in some of the coalfields, as if this Bill had already passed, and with complete contempt for this House and its power of revision. At the end of the comparatively short period fixed in those terms what will the coal owners be free to do? They will be free to impose longer hours with shorter wages, and there is nothing to stop it except a fresh strike.
We are all concerned. The last noble Lord who spoke read some extracts from Moscow, which I confess did not interest me. It is not a source from which I take my inspiration—or my terrors. What are we all concerned with? We are all concerned with industrial peace and prosperity in this country. It is not only His Majesty's Government who have
976
that in their concern. Very few of us, and I think none of us in this House, are out for revolution. Of course, the noble Marquess would be the last person to taunt us with anything of that sort. But we are honestly trying to help His Majesty's Government not to go too far wrong and to make the situation too impossible. I do appeal to what a noble Lord has called the better feelings of His Majesty's Government. I ask them to think over this matter and see whether at this moment they will not insert an Amendment which will give them some control over the future of this Bill rather than have to introduce another Bill to suspend it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not intend at this late hour, when your Lordships are anxious to come to a decision, to make a speech, but it would not be courteous to a noble Earl for whom I have a great regard if I did not respond to the appeal which has just been addressed to me. The noble Earl has tried to impose upon the Government the responsibility of fixing all the conditions of employment in the coal industry—because that is what his speech really amounted to. There is a tremendous difference between an intervention such as took place in the course of the passage of this Bill, where conditions were sought to be imposed which were profoundly unsatisfactory, in the opinion of the Government, and taking the responsibility of all the details of the conditions of the industry and of the wages in the industry. We cannot, of course, accept any such responsibility.
I should have thought, however, that the fact of that intervention to which the noble Earl (has referred would have restored his confidence, and the confidence of the miners, in the complete impartiality of His Majesty's Government. I hoped—not that that was the reason of our action—that one of its consequences would have been that men of good will, like the noble Earl, would have been convinced of our good faith. He must trust the Government. I know he does not agree with us but that is the Constitution of our country—he must trust the Government, and the Government have the power always to propose to Parliament any measures which they think fit. That is the ultimate resource

977
and that is the only resource to which the noble Earl can appeal, or which the Government can use.
There is one other observation of the noble Earl's to which I should like to make reference. He said that ho was convinced that if an effort had been made the parties could have been got to accept the Report. Why does the noble Earl think so We tried our hardest. The Prime Minister did everything he could. As a matter of fact, I myself was present at what may have been the last effort which was made, and I heard the actual question put to the Labour leaders—"Will you accept the Report, including its effect upon wages, whatever that may be?'" "No." What more could we do? We did out utmost, and now we are still trying our best to restore peace, and, as my noble friend behind me has said, this is another effort so that no opportunity shall be missed, no effort spared, that lies in the power of His Majesty's Government to produce peace in the coal industry.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with one remark of the noble Marquess, and that is that the one object I hope we all have is the restoration of peace. It is only from that point of view that I wish to say a few words. As the Bill now stands, and having regard to what happened in the Yorkshire coalfield, is it in the least probable that the miners will consider the Bill as a kind of olive branch which might possibly lead to a peaceful solution? I am perfectly certain that the noble Marquess himself would come to the conclusion, if he thought it over, that that is not really in accordance with either human nature or human probability. I very much sympathise with the view that if you want a friendly feeling you might get it in the same sort of way that you get it at Geneva, that is to say, you might have a peace policy and a League policy, as was pointed out by Mr. Clynes the other day, in order to bring these industrial disputes to a peaceful end. Is it possible that you could expect a movement in that direction by pressing forward a Bill of this kind in its present form? Everyone knows that the Government are pressing forward this Bill in its present form without any provision whatever for the protection of the miners.
978
It is just the sort of Bill that is likely to raise the maximum of antagonism and friction and to give the least chance of a settlement.
What took place in South Yorkshire the other day showed—and I do not blame the Government in the least for it—that there was no security under the terms of this Bill that the only alteration would be in the hours of labour. My own view is that that is a tremendously serious matter, which goes down very deep into the social standards of the workers. But what we are asking for now is that, having knowledge and notice of an act of this kind, the Government should assent to the proposition that, if their intentions and desires as regards this Bill, as expressed constantly in this House, are not carried out, they should provide themselves with a suspensory power. What is the objection to that? I do not hold the view, to which the noble Marquess referred, that any Government can interfere in all the details of a business transaction. That is a matter between employers and employees. I presume that on a subsequent occasion we shall have the opportunity of discussing what their ideas of reorganisation are.
How does this Bill stand? What guarantee have the miners of peace if they assent to these prolonged hours of labour Nothing can be more terrible than unduly prolonged hours of labour in such an industry as that in which the miners are carrying on their daily work. I have often noticed in the noble Marquess's speeches, both in this House and outside, that he has very properly dwelt on the necessity of creating a good feeling. I look upon that as more or less the kernel of the whole business. If you are to have satisfactory conditions you must in the long run depend on the good feeling between employer and employed. The noble Marquess himself has pointed out, very soundly and properly, that in many country districts where you do not have the industrial conditions that exist in the mining industry, it has been possible to create a feeling of that kind, which has gone a long way to solve working class difficulties. In the same way the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has pointed out one or two directions, particularly in the direction of co-

979
partnership, along which, if you have good feeling, you could probably carry out a peaceful arrangement as between the miners on one side and the mine owners on the other. You cannot do that under this Bill as it stands, and I think that is admitted all round.
But why should not there be a suspensory clause, so that the miners should be protected against this Bill being used to their detriment, except so far as they come to agreements on the question of the number of hours? If the noble Marquess himself was attempting in any way to create good feeling between himself and those in his employment, I am sure he would take the very action that I am urging the Government to adopt in connection with the Bill. Of course he would. He would say: "I do not want to coerce you; it is not my object to force you to do what in your hearts you detest. But I think the longer hours are necessary"—I assume that is part of his case—"and I will see that you are protected against any imposition being placed upon you in other directions by the power which the mine owners will have under a Bill of this kind." I feel sure that that would be his action and that what I say has his sympathy.
I am aware that this is a Government matter. Then why should not the Government bring peace (because that would be the result) into this great industry by retaining a suspensory power which should only be used on occasions when they thought that a wrong use had been made of the provisions of the Bill? That is a very simple question. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is in his place at the moment, but I listened with great interest to the speech he made yesterday afternoon. It must have occurred to everyone who heard that speech that the mine owners intend in their own financial interests to run this Bill as far as they can. That is what came out of what he said. That is wrong.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Divide!
LORD PARMOOR: It is very easy to say "Divide"; but on a great social issue of this kind this House ought to listen with the greatest patience. Nothing, I think, can be more derogatory to the dignity of this House than to seek to get an early Division on a
980
Bill dealing with a great social question of this kind which affects the whole standard of living of the working classes of this country. We may not be able to convince noble Lords, but surely they will have the decency to listen to what is being said about a great question of this description. I know it is not the view of the noble Marquess. He has not attempted to intervene in an unseemly way, and I am certain that I have his sympathy in what I am saying. I know that he would desire a peaceful solution and we have suggested from our side of the House how that may be brought about. I beg the noble Marquess, if possible, to reconsider the answer he has given and to insert in the Bill a suspensory clause which would further peaceful negotiations in this great national industry.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that it is only with the greatest diffidence—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Divide !
EARL DE LA WARR: If your Lordships prefer the sounds of your own voices, I am perfectly prepared to stand here and listen to them. It is only with the greatest diffidence that I rise at this late hour to address your Lordships. It is however, because we consider on this side of the House that the Bill which the Government seek to pass is full of the most pregnant meaning for the future of this country that I do so. I cannot help noticing somewhat of a contrast between the attitude of some of your Lordships and the appeal made by the noble Viscount speaking on behalf of the Government. He appealed to noble Lords on this side of the House to assume peace.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Divide!
EARL DE LA WARR: If your Lordships are not even willing to listen to the case of the miners how will it be possible for us on this side of the House to assume peace, and what guarantees have we before us for assuming peace? Are we not being asked to burn our boats by allowing this Bill to go through without further delay? After all, what is it that is offered us in return? Absolutely nothing. We are told that there is a form of agreement between the Government and the mine owners that something

981
like 50 per cent. of the districts shall not make any reduction in wages. There is another way of stating that case. If we were feeling rather less charitable towards the Government we might put it that there was an agreement between the mine owners and the Government that on the passage of this Bill there should be a reduction of wages in 50 per cent. of the districts. How, then, can you expect the miners to regard this Bill as anything but a declaration of war?
But it is worse than that. The offers put forward by the mine owners are only temporary offers; they are offers only for three months. So the position is that the miners are to be expected to go back to work on an eight-hour day, 50 per cent. of the districts suffering wages reductions and the other 50 per cent. offering the same wages as before for three months. Then, having got the men back and knowing that it is not always as easy to get men out as to keep them in, the coal owners are doubtless trusting to the hope that they will be able to force whatever terms they wish upon the men.
During the debate on the Second Reading I ventured to ask the noble Viscount who spoke for the Government one or two questions. I was unable to get a reply and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall repeat those questions. I believe they are fundamental to the whole case for this Bill. After all, what is the case for the Bill? As far as I can remember, and I have listened fairly patiently to the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, there has been hardly any attempt whatsoever on the part of the Government to demonstrate stage by stage by economic argument exactly how it is possible to benefit the industry by reversion to an eight-hour day. Not at all, and that is not the case. The case has been this: "The miners are so hopeless that they will not accept anything; they have no counter proposals to put forward; they will not agree to the Report, and we can only put the Report into operation with the agreement of both sides."
With your Lordships' permission I will attempt to deal as briefly as possible with those three points. With regard to the point that the miners have not accepted the Report, that is made first of all as a charge, and can only be con-
982
sidered a charge against the miners if it could be definitely established and proved, as has never been done, that the other two parties to the dispute, the Government and the mine owners, had accepted the Report in all sincerity. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, said with very great heat, interrupting the speech of my noble friend behind me, Lord Arnold, that the mine owners have accepted the Report. Does that statement really bear one moment's analysis? If they accepted the Report why did they, within one week, make an attempt to go outside the Report by endeavouring to go past the Miners' Federation and make arrangements in the districts. That was a direct breach of the Report and even the Government had to admit it. The mine owners departed from the Report further than that. I will ask your Lordships to cast your minds back to the final terms they offered to the Miners' Federation on April 30. What were those terms? I will not give them in detail, but will put them as briefly as I can as it is getting so late. The terms were these: A reduction of wages plus an increase of hours.
For the moment we are not arguing the merits, we are discussing whether the mine owners ever really accepted the Report or whether they did not. What does the Report say on this question?
"We are unable accordingly to recommend the acceptance of the main proposal of the Mining Association for a return to the 8½ hour day."
Then they sum up that chapter of "Hours" in the following words, on page 179:—
"The important objections to an extension of working hours would remain unaffected."—
They have been discussing various suggestions—
"Extension of working hours at this time of depression is not a natural but an unnatural way of reducing costs and meeting the immediate difficulty."
That is very clear—
"Extension of working hours at this time of depression is not a natural but an unnatural way of reducing costs and meeting the immediate difficulty."
Nothing could be clearer than that. They go on—
"On the other hand, looking away from the immediate difficulty to the time when

983
the various measures which are proposed for reorganisation of the industry shall have had their effect, we see no reason why the standards of living and leisure already won should not be maintained."
As the main charge against the miner appears to be that he has not accepted the Report, can your Lordships now honestly complain that that really is a charge at all?
On the contrary, admitting that the miners have not accepted the Report, the mine owners are in exactly the same or a very much worse position. And what about the Government? We are told the Government accepted the Report. Will that statement bear analysis? The noble Marquess the Leader of the House referred to certain negotiations that took place on April 30 and to a certain question that was put to the Miners' Federation by, I think, Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister. This is a point on which I have endeavoured twice before to obtain an answer from the Government. I can only hope that perhaps I may have more fortune to-night. He asked the Miners' Federation a question. I venture with very great humility to suggest that the version I will give of that conversation is the more correct one. I have always understood that the question that was put to the Miners' Federation was this: "Will you or will you not admit a reduction of wages?" That question may seem perfectly reasonable, but are we quite sure that the Government had any right whatsoever to ask it, and afterwards go on to make it their main charge against the miner and constantly state that one of their main reasons for introducing this Bill was the fact that the miners never accepted the Report?
Let us see what the Report has to say on this matter. I think your Lordships, however prejudiced you may be, will have to admit, when you hear the first part of the recommendations of the Commission, that there is a very good reason why it has been impossible to obtain a reply from the Government on this question. What is it that the Commission say?
"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. The measures to these ends which we consider practicable are
984
stated in the preceding chapters of this Report and will be summarised in the chapter that follows."
Your Lordships will have noticed these words:
"Before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry."
I ask your Lordships to look at this matter in a fair and unprejudiced manner. Can you honestly say—and I challenge the Government to deny it—that the Government did not on that evening of April 30 throw over the Report?
There is another reason which the Government have given for introducing this Bill. They have told the nation repeatedly that they could only apply the Report of the Commission if it was agreed to by both parties to the dispute. Surely that introduces an entirely new conception of Government—that the Government, even when dealing with a great national industry such as the coal industry, are unable to come forward with national proposals and to treat that national industry as a national concern. I do not think that the Government's statement that they could not apply this Report without agreement by both parties will bear analysis any more than their other statements. If agreement is really so very essential, why is it that ten weeks or more after the beginning of the strike they have produced this Bill? If they had sat down in Cabinet Council for a fortnight on end they could not have found a more provoking or more controversial Bill. They knew all along that, whatever the attitude of the Miners' Federation is on wages, it is doubly adamant on hours.
Before I pass on to reorganisation and the steps that we believe should take the place of this Bill, there is one other question which I asked the noble Viscount on the Second Reading to which I should be very grateful to have an answer and not only I. It is a matter, I believe, that is of vital concern to the whole nation. The noble Viscount in his speech on Second Reading referred to the matchless power of sympathy and sincerity of the present Prime Minister. Many of us on this side of the House have felt up till quite lately that, however much we disagreed with the Prime Minister in general views on political questions, we could at least say that we

985
regarded his honour as unassailable. There are many of us still willing and anxious to be convinced that we are wrong in having changed our opinion, as we have done, and if the noble Viscount could give me an answer to this question I think it would do much to clear up the feeling of doubt that exists in our minds. The Prime Minister, during the period of the General Strike, was naturally very anxious to obtain the confidence of the workers, to reassure them and to make it quite clear that they were wrong in seeing in this struggle a direct attack on the standard of the life of the miner. He therefore broadcast a certain speech in which he said:—
"I wish to make it as clear as I can that the Government is not fighting to lower the standard of life of the miners or of any other section of the workers."
Would the noble Viscount reconcile that statement with the terms of the Bill which is before your Lordships?
The noble Viscount, in his reply on Second Reading, attacked the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, for having blamed the Government first and foremost for having delayed action in dealing with the whole mining dispute that started in April of 1925 until a crisis was forced on the nation, a crisis which could not be dealt with in the space of the few months that the Government thought sufficient; and then said he contradicted himself by making the charge against the Government that this particular step was far too strong a step. The noble Viscount, in effect, said:—"Surely this is a contradiction. The noble Earl first complains that we took no steps whatever and then he complains that we have taken steps." The noble Earl was perfectly right in his contradiction. That is exactly what has happened. The Government did shirk the issue the whole of last year right up to the end of July. It shirked the issue again right up to April 30 of this year, and now at last, driven by panic into taking some sort of action, they commit the folly of taking action that could do nothing but prolong—and prolong, to some of our minds, almost indefinitely—the conditions in which the country finds itself to-day. Now, some of us are making a last-minute attempt, a last-minute appeal to the Government to realise what they are doing, to come to their senses and see
986
that there is another way out. But they will not. It has sometimes been said that there is no man so obstinate as the really weak man, and that saying cannot help having an appeal, not only I think to the Labour Party but to many people in the country who have hitherto sympathised with the Government.
There was one further point which the spokesmen for the Government have urged as a reason for introducing this Bill. It was this: that there was no alternative, that there was nothing else to do, and that certainly, the noble Viscount said, no sort of alternative had been proposed from the Labour Benches. He gave us the credit, I remember, of having put forward nationalisation of the coal industry, but he dismissed that as being generally accepted in your Lordships' House to be an inefficient way of dealing with industry. I would like to ask your Lordships this: Do any of you imagine that if the coal industry was being run to-day and had been run during the last few years under Socialism, under national control, that a single one of your Lordships sifting over there would have given that system as many chances as private enterprise has been given in the control of the coal industry? Of course not. In 1919, after the first Inquiry had declared the industry in its business organisation to be scandalously inefficient, there would have been such a protest in your Lordships' House that it would have been difficult for any Conservative Government, at any rate, to have stood up against restoring the coal industry to private enterprise.
What then are our immediate proposals? What would we do if a Labour Government was in office and in power at the present moment? Of course we have to admit that any action that had to be taken now would not be nearly so easy of being brought to a successful conclusion as it was a year or more ago. You cannot for over a year do what the present Government have done, neglect opportunity after opportunity for dealing with the situation, and then expect suddenly to turn round and find exactly the same situation which faced you before, by your handling, you had aroused all the passions that exist to-day. I think one of the saddest things that faces us to-day is that the

987
spirit of war is rampant, not only in the hearts and minds of men who usually call for war but in the minds of those who have always been known to be men of peace.
The road may be more difficult and longer, but still it would be the same road. There is only one road for dealing with this problem, and that is the road of reconstruction and of building up a new industry. To hear some of the most distinguished members of His Majesty's Government speaking and to read their speeches in the country one would almost begin to believe that all this trouble arose from a sort of combination of the natural original sin of the British working man backed up by Russian gold, but I do not think that the more intelligent of your Lordships need reassuring on that point. You know perfectly well that the reason why we are in the present situation is that the men who at present control the industry have failed lamentably to carry on that industry in so efficient a manner as to provide the nation with coal at a decent price or the men who are employed in that industry with a decent standard of livelihood.
We are told that the Labour Party has no constructive proposals. If the proposals of the Labour Party, which have been before the country for years, had been put into operation when they were first asked for, there would have been no crisis to-day. I would ask those of your Lordships who believe that the Labour Party is acting in some spirit of obstruction in opposing this Bill and that they have no other proposals, to buy a small pamphlet entitled "Coal and Common Sense," which summarises the proposals of the Labour Party on this question. We are told that it contains pure theory. Is that fair? If your Lordships go through the constructive-proposals of the Royal Commission you will find that their Report, while omitting many of our suggestions, is based on the Labour Party's proposals. Some of your Lordships, most notably the coal owners, the noble Lords, Lord Joicey and Lord Gainford, who have apparently left the House, told us what they thought of reorganisation. As one listened to the speeches of those coal owners, one began to realise why it is that the coal industry to-day is in a state of turmoil and why it is that it has never been possible either
988
for the mine owners or the nation to persuade these men to reorganise the industry. They have no faith in reorganisation and they have told us so.
Let us for a moment admit their contention. There is no need to admit it, for we have the Reports of no less than four national Inquiries behind us in making our contentions. Let us admit that Lord Joicey and Lord Gainford know more about it than do the four national Inquiries and that the miner really does overrate the value of reorganisation. Does that absolve the Government from blame for having thrown over the Report and having given up the problem? No one who has studied the problem seriously would say that their Reorganisation Bill is going to effect anything serious. Does it really justify them on throwing over the Report? As I see it, the Government have told us that it is not their business to interfere and to enforce agreement. Very well; let us admit that they are right. But surely this makes it all the more important for the Government to attempt to remove the psychological barriers to a settlement. They know perfectly well that, rightly or wrongly, the miners are convinced that the whole future of their standard of living is bound up irrevocably with the reorganisation of their industry. Was it not, therefore, the obvious course for the Government to start right away as soon as the Commission reported and say to the two parties: "I do not care what you think. Here we have a national Report for which we paid over £20,000,000. We are going ahead to put it into force and we are not going to insist as a condition of putting that Report into force that the miners admit before entering into negotiations that they will undergo reductions in their standard of living." I think that is the way in which the Labour Party would have attempted to deal with the matter, and that is the way in which I am going to appeal to the Government even now to deal with it.
What are the proposals? There is the nationalisation of royalties. That is a proposal that has been in the Labour Party programme for years and has now been adopted by those who were appointed by the nation to inquire into the industry. It was adopted temporarily by the Government and then thrown over. Then there is amalgamation of the mines

989
in the various districts. They are to come together and be organised very much more efficiently from the point of view of production and cutting down overhead expenses. Then there was another point which was dealt with by the Commission, and which perhaps explains why the miners did not jump at its Report as quickly as the Government would have liked. I refer to the unification of the industry on a sound national basis, the better organisation of production, the better use of carbonisation and electricity, better sales, the establishment of a central selling agency for the export trade and the giving of powers to the municipalities at home to sell coal at reasonable prices, thus ensuring that, so far from the price to the consumer being kept up, by keeping up the standard of living for miners, it would actually be reduced by increasing the efficiency of marketing and cutting out countless dealers who stand between the consumer and the producer at the present moment.
After all, this last point is not anything very new. Municipal trading is not a new principle. Every day in your Lordships' House we have before us Bills assenting to various municipalities taking over new trailing powers, but unfortunately the Government, having in their first enthusiasm for the Report pledged themselves to introduce this measure, have now on mature thought decided that it is not necessary. On the question of unification it has been argued or implied that the unification of the coal mines may be all very well as a business proposition, or by itself may be all right for a commercial trust on a profit-making basis, but it will make it easier for a Labour Government to nationalise the coal industry when they come into power. That may be so, and in our opinion it is so, but your Lordships really must face this question and ask yourselves whether you are serious in the contention that all economic progress is to be held up because of the bogey that the Labour Party may use it for the nationalisation of industry. Surely that is a fence which sooner or later your Lordships have got to take. If it is really true that the coal industry of this country by unification would be put into a position to perform greater service to the country, are your Lordships really going to stand out against this necessary reform on the ground that later it may lead to nationalisation?
990
We believe that these proposals of ours are practical constructive proposals, able to be put into operation at once. We believe that they would transform the industry and give the miners confidence of prosperity, if not now at any rate in the future, and therefore change his outlook on the present situation profoundly, and also offer a definite practical alternative to the suggestion contained in this Bill. We implore the Government, and we make this last appeal, to go forward in building up this great national asset of a prosperous coal industry, and not to go backwards in the direction of breaking down the advances already made in the social condition of our people. We believe that the Government's policy is at once an economic folly and a moral crime, and that if they persist in adhering to it, it can produce nothing but destruction.
We believe that there is a way out of the present difficulty. Lord Balfour of Burleigh made a suggestion on the Second Heading, and I notice that certain words with which I followed him were taken by a
noble Lord as showing that the Labour Party was not willing to adopt or pay any heed to Lord Balfour of Burleigh's suggestion. I would be very sorry if any words of mine were taken to mean that, because if I were in a position to make a proposition I would make very much the same proposition as Lord Balfour of Burleigh made. But I would want to qualify it and to go further than he did. We do, as he does, ask the Government to delay this Bill until they can approach the Miners' Federation again with an offer of a return to the Report, and not only the Report but the Memorandum which followed. We want more than that. We want them to put into operation all its proposals, and when we say "all" we mean not only the nationalisation of royalties, not only the municipal selling of coal, and other proposals which they have now thrown over, but, what is even more important, that they should no longer insist, as they have clone all along, that the Miners' Federation shall tie their own hands before entering into negotiations.
The first recommendation of the Report, which I have read to your Lordships, admits the fairness of this claim, and until the Government have taken this step I maintain that they can never

991
claim that they have ever really accepted the Report in its true sense. Surely the Prime Minister, even at this late hour, can come forward and show us that he is still master in his own Cabinet, and that his idealism is a real factor in the Government of this country. Platitudes such as those to which the country has been treated for the last year or two by the Prime Minister, are no longer of the slightest use. We are up against facts. Let him give us action, and action based on that spirit of peace and good will and conciliation of which, in the past, we have always heard so much. Let him withdraw the Bill or postpone it, and make another attempt to settle this question on the lines of common sense and sanity, and by a real constructive policy.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before this Bill goes to a Division I feel it my duty to put certain considerations before your Lordships, most of which have not yet been raised in regard to the various issues. The situation changes so rapidly from day to day, and from hour to hour, that in many respects it is now completely different from what it was even two short days ago, on the occasion of the Second Reading. A great deal has happened since then which I feel it my duty to put before your Lordships. I also feel it my duty to ensure that it shall be on the records of this House, because in my opinion this is an historical night in the annals of the House of Lords, and we want to have on record certain things which can be quoted in the controversy which we know will come, and is already beginning. We want to be able to say that these things were said and that it is of no use saying that things were not made as clear as they could be in the limited time at our disposal. That is why my colleagues and myself have felt it our duty to make the contribution to the debate which we have made and which we are making.
In the first place, I desire to deal with a very important constitutional point. I am glad that the noble Viscount (Lord Cecil of Chelwood) is coming into the House, because I am really dealing with words that he used in the debate. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will be good enough to give me his attention. Apparently not. Well, so be it. But I
992
am going to quote various things. I have given him warning, and it is a matter of indifference to me whether he listens to me or not. But he did lay down on Tuesday a most amazing doctrine. I use that word most advisedly and deliberately.
Let me briefly remind your Lordships of how that came about. I pointed out that there is no mandate for this Bill. There cannot even be the vestige of a mandate, because it was never as much as mentioned on any platform at the last Election, and I say therefore that your Lordships, if you are going to fulfil the usual function associated with a Second Chamber, ought to reject this Bill because there is every reason to believe that, if it were submitted to the people, it would be defeated by a large majority. I quoted the words of the noble Marquess opposite. I must repeat one or two of them in order to make the point quite clear. I pointed out that he had laid down the doctrine that it was the duty of your Lordships' House to ensure that measures which were passed were in accordance with the will of the people, and that if there was doubt about it your Lordships should, in effect, reject them. He said:—
"We have grave economic difficulties, there is great Labour unrest, there is great industrial change, there is great mechanical development, and there is every element which might lead to a momentary majority passing legislation which did not represent the wishes of the people. All that we ask is that by its personnel or its powers—for I am not going to pronounce upon it—or by a combination of both there shall be in the Second Chamber sufficient authority to prevent hasty decisions from doing permanent harm to the country. If people have made up their minds after the matter has really been put to them, after they have had time to consider it, by all means let it be as they desire."
I quoted that, as, of course, I was quite entitled to quote it, because it is so extremely apposite to the present situation. And what did the noble Viscount say in reply? He denounced me in very violent language. Since I came to your Lordships' House I have in various ways been obliged to revise my opinion of it, and that process was carried a step further two days ago. The noble Viscount used astonishing language. He is a distinguished servant of the Crown, he belongs to a family with great political traditions, and he used language in

993
regard to the highly proper constitutional argument I had advanced which was more suited to the street corner than to a deliberative Assembly like your Lordships' House. I suggest that it does not conduce to the traditions or to the dignity of the House to use language like that.
He practically suggested that my argument was scarcely worthy of a sane person. He said:—
"The noble Lord stated that my noble friend who lends this House had laid down as a principle for its conduct that it ought to reject any Bill if it is not sure that the country desired that Hill. I am quite sure that my noble friend never said anything of the kind, and I cannot imagine that anyone outside of a lunatic asylum would ever commit himself to such a proposition."
Then he said—
"That is to say that, however well your Lordships think of a. Bill that is before the House, however satisfied you are as to its principles, if you are not satisfied that the country approves of the Bill, that Bill must be rejected. That has never been put forward as a rule of conduct in any quarter of this House. There is only one rule that your Lordships can follow for the advantage of the State and of your Lordships. That is to do what is right with every proposal that is made to you.''
I do not think that that represents the constitutional position.
I have discussed this matter with a great constitutional authority and he tells me—and it certainly agrees with my own view—that that statement is contrary to the doctrine upon which the House of Lords has from time to time
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
founded its own defence for its actions and for its existence. Just let me analyse what the noble Viscount said, and see what it really means. I am, of course, throughout speaking of Bills of importance. I am not speaking of minor Bills, I am not speaking of Private Bills. There may, for instance, be minor Bills such as a Bill for looking after ancient monuments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rise to a point of order. It is quite obvious what the noble Lord and his friends are trying to do. It is an abuse, of the traditions and the privileges of this House. I move that the Question be now put.
Moved, That the Question be now put.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: I rise to speak on that Motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question cannot be debated. I have put the Motion, That the Question be now put.
LORD ARNOLD: I protest as strongly as I can against this precedent on this Bill. I have most convincing arguments to advance. I am giving reasons why this Bill should be held up, and I protest as strongly as I can.
On Question, Whether the Question shall be now put?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 4.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Erskine, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Churchill, V.

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

Salisbury. M. (L. Privy Seal.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gainford, L.

Inchcape, V.

Hanworth, L.

Sutherland, D.

Novar, V.

Joicey, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Merrivale, L.

Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Newton, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Liverpool, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Barnard, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blythswood, L.

St. Levan, L.

Morton, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Powis, E.

Darling, L.

Southwark, L.

Dynevor, L.

Treowen, L.

Allendale, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

NOT-CONTENTS

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

Parmoor, L.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
[* See debate on "Procedure of the House." July 14, 1926, column 1117.]
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Criminal Appeal (Scotland),

Execution of Diligence (Scotland),

Coal Mines,

Glasgow Education Authority (Juvenile Delinquency) Order Confirmation,

996

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ilfracombe),

Abertillery and District Water Board,

Connah's Quay Urban District Council Water.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Tramways Provisional Order.

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (STAFF SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON ELECTRIC AND METRO POLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COM PANIES BILL.
  The King's consent signified, and Bills reported with Amendments.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BURGESS HILL AND ST. JOHN'S COMMON GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Company;
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Grays and Tilbury Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.