Sitting of 14 July 1926

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr.SPEAKER in the Chair.
COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900,
Copy ordered, "of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. McNeill.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Port of London Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ashton-under Lyne Extension) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ealing Extension) Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the agreement entered into between Great Britain and Italy regarding the opening up of Abyssinia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The hon. and gallant Member will find the text of the agreement in Command Paper No. 2680.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the House have an opportunity of hearing a fuller statement from the Foreign Secretary and discussing this matter before any conclusive arrangement is arrived at?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If either of the Opposition parties on one of their Supply days desire to discuss this Vote, I am sure my right hon. Friend will facilitate their wishes.
  Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrangement has been come to between the British and the Italian Government by which the British Government will support all the requests of the Italian Government for concessions?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will only read the agreement, I think he will find the answer to his question.

  CHINA.

    ANTI-BRITISH BOYCOTT.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the negotiations for ending the trade boycott of Hong Kong?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The opening of negotiations for the ending of the trade boycott has been fixed for the 15th July.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask who the British negotiators will be?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question. I cannot carry the names in my mind.

    PORT OF WUCHOW (CLOSING).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the British senior naval officer at Wuchow closed the Port of Wuchow to Chinese shipping for 10 hours on 24th June last; whether this step was taken after consultation with His

    383
    Majesty's Government; whether a demand for an apology and for compensation has been received; and what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am awaiting a report from the Commander-in-Chief. As soon as it has been received, I will let the right hon. Member know.

    CANTON GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty s Government has yet resolved to recognise the Government of Canton as the de facto Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to a reply returned to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) on Monday last.

    BRITISH TRAWLERS, ICELAND.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received the Report of the firing upon the British steam trawlers "Thomas Thresher" and "Abroria" by a Danish gunboat, on the 8th May, whilst fishing outside the territorial waters off the coast of Iceland?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Consul at Reykjavik has been in communication with the Icelandic Government on this matter, but it will not be possible to clear it up until the return from Greenland of one of the gunboats patrolling the Icelandic coast at the time.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there has been any result from the representations made to the Icelandic authorities regarding the penalties inflicted upon British trawlers for offences against the law relating to the stowage of fishing gear in Icelandic territorial waters?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am happy to state that a Bill passed by the Icelandic Alting amending the Act of the 8th May, 1920, has now received the assent of the King of Denmark. The effect of this Measure is to add a new
    384
    paragraph after Article III of the above Act, in the following terms:
    "If it is evident from all circumstances that the vessel has neither fished inside the territorial waters nor made any preparations for this purpose, the case may be settled by a caution where first offenders are concerned and by fines from 400 to 1,600 gold Kroner in case of repeated offence."
    His Majesty's Government have expressed to the Danish Government their gratification at this change in the law, and at the readiness of the authorities concerned to give consideration to their views on the matters with which it deals. I trust all engaged in the British fishing industry will do their best to observe the Regulations of the Danish and Icelandic Governments.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I, on behalf of the fishing industry express my deep thanks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"!]— to the right hon. Gentleman for the great trouble which he has taken in this matter.

    TURKEY (ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES).
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of- State for Foreign Affairs when the Report of the Commission for the assessment of damage suffered in Turkey may be expected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): All possible steps are being taken to expedite the work of the Commission, but it is not yet possible to state by what date a Report if any may be expected.
    Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information how far progress has been made?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, I am afraid I cannot give any information on that point.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Does the Commission meet weekly or monthly?
    Mr. McNEILL: I must have notice of that Question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMS.
    Mr. BROADasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His

    385
    Majesty's Government has replied to the questionnaire on the private manufacture of arms sent to the Governments by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on 9th January, 1926; and, if so, what were the terms of his reply?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The reply is too long to read, but I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can this be circulated in the OFFICIAL
    REPORT?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is rather too long for printing. If the hon. and gallant Member desires, I will place a copy in the Library.
    Mr. BROADasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the preliminary draft Convention on the Private Manufacture of Arms, Munitions and Implements of War which has been drawn up by the Committee appointed by the Council of the League of Nations for this purpose has been published and is available for examination by Members of the House of Commons
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The draft which was drawn up merely as a basis of discussion has not been published.
    Captain SENN: Is it the view of the Government that the private manufacture of arms is undesirable, and should be brought to an end as set out in the Covenant of the League?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that arises on this question.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the decision of the Naval Committee at Geneva, in connection with the question of disarmament, that, for the purpose of comparison, tonnage should be the only test, irrespective of the type of ships concerned, cuts across the principles laid down at the Washington Conference; and will he state whether, if this decision is confirmed, it will have any bearing upon the naval programme of this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, this
    386
    majority decision of the Naval Sub-Committee dealt only with the methods of comparison of naval armaments. Pending the consideration of other questions by the Sub-Committee and the conclusions of the Preparatory Commission and the holding of a Disarmament Conference, the naval programme cannot he regarded as in any way affected by the decision mentioned.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what safeguards exist for minority views in the experts' preliminary investigation as to international disarmament; and whether the three conferences are proceeding along lines approved of by the British representatives?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: All minority reports have to be forwarded to the Preparatory Committee, and will necessarily be taken into consideration by that body when framing its own report Any country which may dissent from the opinions expressed in that report will be able to state its views before the conference when the latter eventually meets, and to reserve its liberty if ultimately it still finds itself in a minority. As regards the second part of the question, the British representatives on the Military and Air Sub-Committees have agreed subject to one or two reservations, to the reports adopted by those sub-committees. The British representative on the Naval Sub-Committee associated himself with the minority report signed by a number of his colleagues.

    BAKERIES (NIGHT WORK).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether the international organised employers have submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice the question as to whether the International Labour Organisation is acting outside its competence in dealing with the extension of the prohibition of night work in bakeries to employers; and, if so, can he say whether a. decision has been reached and the terms of such decision?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): At the request of the governing body of the International Labour Office, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations has submitted to the Permanent Court of

    387
    International Justice a general question as to the competence of the International Labour Organisation to propose legislation which would affect personal work by an employer. I have no information yet as to the decision of the Court.
    Mr. DAVIES: May we take it that the British Government are adopting a neutral attitude on this very important point?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Obviously the British Government ought to await the decision of the Court.

    RUANDA-URUNDI (LEG1sLATIVE ORDINANCE).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Ruanda-Urundi is mandated territory under the League of Nations; and whether legislative ordinance, No. 52, conferring powers upon the resident to compel natives to perform work in connection with plantations and other undertakings carried on for profit has the consent of all signatory Powers?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the consent of the Signatory Powers of the Treaty of Versailles is not required. The Permanent Mandates Commission have asked the Belgian Government for further information regarding the Ordinance to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. AMMON: Have the other signatories any say in a matter which is imposing slavery on these people? The Ordinance says that, if they do not do the work to the satisfaction of the Resident, he can send them to penal servitude.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In the first place, I express no judgment on the merits of the Order. That is not really strictly necessary for the purposes of the information the hon. Member desires. It is not for the signatory Powers to deal with this matter, but for the Council of the League of Nations, if they think proper, to call for a report from the mandatory Commission.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the general treatment of native labour under the mandatory scheme since 1919, and does he not think it would help if we had a fuller statement?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to answer without notice.

    TANGIER (INTERNATIONAL POLICE FORCE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any further statements with regard to the alleged scandals in the Tangier police force; and what progress is being made with the inquiry into the alleged irregularities?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The administrator has informed the Assembly that the police officer primarily concerned will be brought before a disciplinary Court. Steps are being taken by a British member to procure the convocation of a further meeting of the Assembly to discuss the question.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
    Mr. B. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many cases of imprisonment and ill-treatment of British subjects in Soviet Russia out of the number referred to in Lord Emmott's Interim Report, 1920, were taken up singly with the Soviet Government in 1922; who were the individuals affected; and how many of them have since received compensation, and what amount?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Two of the cases referred to in Lord Emmott's Report of 1920 were taken up with the Soviet Government in 1922—those of Mr. Charles Davison and Mr. Joseph Martin. Mrs. Davison has received £10,000 from the Soviet Government as compensation for her husband's death.
    Mr. PETO: May I infer that in the other case nothing was received?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN:Yes, Sir.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will press the claims submitted to the Claims Department on the 13th June by Miss Olga Charnock, a British subject and a member of the staff of the British Consulate in Moscow, who since the 4th August, 1918, has suffered front paralysis produced by the shock of her father's arrest by Cheka agents in Moscow on that date?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Miss Charnock's claim will be presented to the Soviet Government together with other claims registered with the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade as soon as a suitable opportunity offers.

    JAPANESE NAVY (CRUISERS).
    Mr. AMMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the calibre of the guns arming the 7,000-ton and 10,000-ton cruisers respectively, recently built by Japan?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The 7,000-ton and 10,000-ton cruisers will both have 8-inch guns.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Is there any connection between the shipbuilding referred to and the reopening of the Singapore base?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no connection at all.
    Mr. AMMONalso asked the First Lord whether he is aware that cruisers of 7,000-ton standard displacement have recently been built by Japan; and whether, having regard to the difference in cost as compared with 10,000-ton cruisers, he will consider in his building programme that the cruisers shall not exceed 7,000 tons displacement?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 24th June, the Japanese Government laid down two cruisers of 7;100 tons displacement in 1923 and two more in 1924. One of these cruisers has since been completed. Since then, four cruisers of 10,000 tons displacement have been laid down, two in 1924 and two in 1925. In the circumstances and having regard to our own needs, there appears
    390
    no reason for modifying the projected programme of construction outlined in Command Paper 2476, which allows for the builling of two types of cruisers of 10,000 and about 8,000 tons displacement respectively.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has given are a very great modification of the projected programme he gave in the Return of Fleets to this House?
    Mr. BRIDGMAN: I am not aware of that. What figures?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The number of the Japanese cruisers is much less than the number foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman in the case he presented to Parliament.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PENSIONS CLAIMS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men invalided from the Service in 1925 and denied pensions on the ground of non-attributability appealed to the Admiralty against the original decision; and in how many cases was the decision modified?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the 9th June on this subject [OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 1463] and to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth on the 10th February last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 1030]. Particulars as to the number of men who appeal are not recorded.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what causes the Admiralty attributes the fact that 95 per cent. of those invalided from His Majesty's Navy are denied pensions on the ground of non-attributability, seeing that every one of these men has passed a severe test of physical fitness on entering the Service?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A disability is not regarded as attributable to the Service when it is due to ordinary conditions of service such as might equally have arisen had the invalided rating been engaged in

    391
    a civilian occupation, or when it is due to conditions of health that are normally constitutional in origin. Every officer or man is subjected on entry to a thorough physical examination, but from time to time disabilities of an obscure or latent character are bound to escape detection. Moreover, the mere passage of time may produce a condition of health which, although it does not necessarily unfit a man for civil occupation, renders him unsuited to a fighting service where the highest state of physical fitness is required, and his invaliding then becomes necessary. I would remind the hon. Member that pensions are granted in non-attributable cases where the invalided man has a certain minimum period of service.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling on this subject, and does he not consider that the fact that every sailor has to pass a very high standard of physical fitness ought to give him some ground for appeal in eases where he is invalided shortly after joining the Service?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He has an appeal to the Board. The question is engaging my attention, and I would like to look into it a little further before giving a final reply.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (Boys).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain the method and the procedure followed whereby boys are entered into employment at His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Boys are entered in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, as apprentices, storehouse boys or yard boys. In accordance with the Dockyard Regulations, apprentices and storehouse boys are entered by competitive examination, yard boys by nomination. Registers of boys who are candidates for entry in the Dockyard are kept by the local officers, who are responsible that due care and strict justice are observed in granting entries. Preference is given to the sons of men who have lost their lives, or who may have been permanently disabled, or who have served meritoriously in the service of the Crown.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Seeing that such a high standard of selection is made, could the Admiralty see its way to give some guarantee to these boys that they would not be dismissed from employment after having undergone such a strict test?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid that that is impossible.

    ROYAL NAVAL BARRACKS (COMMAND).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the command of the Royal Naval Barracks is given for a definite period of years, or if all Admiralty appointments are to be based upon a two-year rule?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Appointments in command of Royal Naval Barracks are normally for two years, but this length of time is liable to be modified according to the exigencies of the Service or through unforeseen circumstances, such as the date of an officer's promotion. Admiralty appointments generally are of varying length according to the circumstances of the case. No change in the present length of appointments is anticipated.

    SPECIALISED SERVICE.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether service in command of destroyers and submarines is to be considered on an equal footing with specialised service, such as gunnery or torpedo qualifications, for promotion to commander; and if honours awarded for service in action are considered when such selections are made?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TYPEWRITERS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour how many typewriters are used by the clerical staff in his Department, and how many of these typewriters are of British make?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of typewriters in use in offices of the Ministry at 1st June, 1925, was 969. None of them is of British make. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right

    393
    hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and gallant Member for the Basingstoke Division on 22nd February.
    Colonel DAY: When the present typewriters are worn out, will the right hon. Gentleman replace them with British machines?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the answer I have mentioned, he will find in it much of the information that he requires.
    Commander WILLIAMS: How many of of these typewriters were ordered in 1924?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: None of them, so far as I am aware.
    Colonel DAY: How many were ordered previously by the Conservative Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that he will have regard to the Brighton speech of the Prime Minister with regard to this matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I always have regard to any speeches of the Prime Minister.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the question put down by the hon. and gallant Member indicate that the Labour party at last appreciate that it is advisable, to buy British goods?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future all typewriters in his Department will be of British make?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should certainly be prepared to ask the proper Department to have regard to British makes, provided that they are sufficiently good, as I have no doubt they would be.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does this not show the necessity for the safeguarding of industries?

    NATIONAL WHITLEY COUNCIL (STAFF SIDE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour what is the present constitution of the staff side of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service; how many members of the staff side are non-civil servants; whether the council is working
    394
    now that the joint consultative committee have withdrawn from membership; and whether it is proposed to reconstitute the council so as to ensure that all members of the staff side shall be civil servants and free from control or dictation by outside organisations, and that the powers and functions of the council shall be limited to bona fide staff matters?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not yet in a position to add to the replies I have recently given to questions on this subject.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the Government consider rescinding the resolution enabling non-civil servants to represent the associations?
    Mr. McNEILL: I must respectfully ask my hon. and gallant Friend to believe that when I say I have nothing to add, am speaking the truth.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the Irish Free State passed a regulation to that effect, so that there should be no interference or tampering with the Civil Service?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

    BOARD OF TRADE (IMPERIAL TRADE).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any staff in his Department continuously engaged in dealing with the problems arising out of successive Imperial Economic Conferences?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: These problems are dealt with by the appropriate Departments of the Board as part of their ordinary duties.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (MONTHLY LIST).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost of publishing and issuing the monthly list of Government publications; how many are printed each month; and how are they distributed?
    Mr. McNEILL: The cost of publishing and issuing the monthly list of Government publications is about £900 a year. An average of 4,125 copies per month is

    395
    printed. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate particulars of the distribution in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars referred to:
    The distribution is as follows:

    No of copies.

    Members of Parliament

    615

    Government Departments

    437

    Colonial Governments and their London representatives

    256

    Municipal and local government authorities

    128

    Public libraries

    155

    Foreign Governments and foreign universities

    38

    Retail customers of Stationery Office sales offices at home and abroad

    1,859

    Booksellers at home and abroad

    472

    Total

    3,960

    In addition to the regular monthly distribution set out above, 200 copies of the June and December lists (which are cumulative) are sent to British Consuls abroad.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Minister of Labour if any of the Employment Exchanges in important streets have been sold or let, as recommended by the Estimates Committee's Report in 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The recommendations of the Estimates Committee in this connection involve in moss cases a considerable outlay of money, and the limited sum available in the estimates is nearly all earmarked for other urgent requirements. Action has been taken, however, in two cases and nine other cases are under consideration; the remaining cases, numbering probably less than 20, will be dealt with as opportunity arises.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the names in the two cases where action has been taken?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly; Bolton and Kendal.

    INSURANCE (SHIPS' STEWARDS AND COOKS).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour what is the position of men employed as stewards and ships' cooks who have been paying unemployment insurance and have been disallowed unemployment benefit on the ground that their employment did not come within the category for such benefit?
    Sir. A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question of the insurability under the Unemployment Insurance Acts of men employed as stewards and ships' cooks on privately-owned yachts has been referred by me to the High Court for decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(1) of the principal Act. Pending the decision of the High Court the cases of men referred to cannot be proceeded with.
    Captain MACDONALD: In view of the long time that has passed since these cases were put before the right hon. Gentleman, will he take steps to see that a decision is reached, in view of the fact that it is affecting employment during the present yachting season?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As to expediting the procedure in the High Courts, I cannot lay any representation before the competent authorities with regard to the judiciary?
    Sir B. FALLE: Will the arrangement apply to the men on the great liners as well as to those on yachts?

    BELTING OFFENCES.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the comment made by the magistrates at the Western Police Court, Glasgow, that the majority of the 131 men, whose ages ranged from 16 to 65, who were tried and convicted of gambling were receiving unemployment pay; and what action he intends to take to see that in the case of married men the unemployment benefit is paid to their wives and children?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have seen a Press report of this case, and have caused inquiries to be instituted, so far as the payment of unemployment benefit is concerned. As regards the second part of the question, I have no authority

    397
    to pay benefit to any person other than the insured contributor or his duly authorised deputy.
    Mr. PENNY: In fairness to the British taxpayer, will the right hon. Gentleman consider withdrawing, or at least reducing, the amount of unemployment benefit paid to unmarried men who are convicted of gambling while in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It would mean legislation. I have yet to ascertain exactly what number of these 131 persons who were convicted of being gamblers were in receipt of unemployment benefit.
    Mr. PENNY: If the right hon. Gentleman does find out that the facts as stated are correct, will he endeavour to introduce legislation?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the attitude of the Government changed towards this form of amusement since the introduction of the Betting Tax?

    CIVIL AVIATION (GARAGES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of garages built for privately-owned aeroplanes; arid what steps are being taken in this regard by his Department with a view to popularising privately-owned aeroplanes of the Moth variety?
    Captain Lord STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, so far as I am aware the only case of the kind referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is one in which a garage has been built to take six small folding aeroplanes. As regards the second part, I am not sure what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but on the assumption that he is referring to facilities provided for the accommodation of privately-owned aeroplanes, the answer is that this class of aeroplane can be housed at Government civil aerodromes on payment of the usual scale of charges, which amount for the Moth type to 2s. 6d. for a night's accommodation, with ls. landing fee or£ 10s. per month.
    Colonel DAY: Is any staff kept at the first garage for repairs to these aeroplanes?
    Lord STANLEY: I must have notice of that question.
    Colonel DAY: Are they not lock-up garages?

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (INSURANCE).
    Mr. HARRISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now give any further information upon the subject of special insurance facilities for other ranks in the Royal Air Force whose duties necessitate their presence in; aircraft?
    Lord STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. The question is still receiving the close attention of the Air Ministry, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a further statement on the subject.
    Mr. HARRISON: Will the Minister, in his consideration of these insurance facilities, take into account the question of extending them to cover "third party risks," in view of certain recent accidents?

    AFGHANISTAN (AIR FORCE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present strength of the Air Force of the Afghanistan Government in machines and men; what is the increase compared with 1923; whether the training and development of this force is under native direction; and, if not, what is the nationality of those principally responsible for advising the Afghanistan authorities in the matter?
    Lord STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. As regards the first and second parts of the question, the present strength of the Afghan Air Force is understood to be approximately 12 machines and 36 men, nearly all the men being Russians. These machines represent a net increase since 1923, when, although there were a few machines in Afghanistan, they were unairworthy, for which reason they are not included in the figures for present strength here given. As regards the last part, the force is commanded by an Afghan, but Russians are advising in regard to training and development.
    Sir F.HALL: Is not this a menace to the peace of India?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord cannot be expected to anwer that question.

  BROADCASTING.

    LICENCE FEES.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether the 2s. 6d. taken by his Department out of each 10s. received for a wireless licence includes anything other than the cost of collection , and, if so, will he say to what the surplus is applied?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The whole of the revenue from wireless licence fees is paid into the Exchequer. The sum payable to the British Broadcasting Company is provided by Parliament and is charged upon the Post Office Vote, which also bears the cost of the issue and renewal of licences, the detection and prosecution of defaulters and general administrative control and accounting.

    WAVE LENGTHS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether any change has been proposed in the wave lengths of any existing stations for the purpose of broadcasting; and has he any propositions for any material alterations in the technical regulations?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Company have recently been authorised to make certain alterations in the wave lengths of several of their stations to meet the changing conditions caused by the extension of broadcasting in neighbouring countries. They have also been given authority to conduct certain experiments, but no material alteration in their system of stations has yet been decided upon.

    POST OFFICE (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether there remain any appointments under his control which are not open to ex-service combatant officers or men on the ground
    400
    that, though in good health, they have not the physical strength or height necessary to fulfil their duties?
    Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: An ex-service man is given preference for Post Office employment wherever possible, but it occasionally happens that a candidate does not reach the required standard of physical fitness—modified, I may say, in the case of disabled ex-service men—or is below the minimum height fixed by definite Regulations.
    Captain GARRO - JONES:Does
    "physical fitness" include the questions of lack of height or physical strength, as opposed to actual ill-health?
    Sir W. MITCHELL- THOMSON: In certain cases it may involve both or either.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter this afternoon on the Post Office Vote.

    UNITED STATES (RUBBER AND TIN IMPORTS).
    Sir F. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the value of rubber imported into the United States from 1st January to 30th June, 1926;
    (2) the value of tin imported into the United States from 1st January to 30th June, 1926?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I regret that figures later than those for April are not yet available. During the four months ended April, 1926, the recorded value of the imports of crude rubber into the United States was £51,563,000. Imports of tin during the same period were valued at £7,157, 000.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Lard H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the policy of the Government offers little hope of a speedy settlement by agreement of the mining dispute, the Government will announce its intention of accepting the Report of the Royal Commission and ail that it implies?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bald-
    win): The position of the Government in relation to this Report has been stated in this House on several occasions, and I cannot attempt to restate it within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty at the Aldwych Club on 9th July represents the policy of the Government in respect of the coal industry, particularly with regard to the adoption of district and even pit settlements?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend informs me that in the speech referred to in the question he was expressing his own views on the subject of the alleged failure of private enterprise, and in his reference to the risks of excessive centralisation did not profess to he laying down any policy on behalf of the Government. The Government's view is that the extent to which various agreements should be national or local is primarily a question for the coalowners and miners to settle between them, and in this connection the hon. Member will recall that the necessity of having regard to the different capacities of different districts and of varying settlements accordingly, to which my right hon. Friend referred, was irecognised by the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry.
    Mr. LAWSON: Do I take it that the Government do not stand by a national agreement or national minimum terms?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, the hon. Member must not infer anything of the kind. I said in my reply that this question of agreement must depend on negotiation between the two parties and, in spite of what is so frequently said on those benches, we are not taking sides in this matter.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Prime Minister see that members of his Cabinet., in making these statements, will make it clear that they are not voicing the opinion of the Government, but their own individual opinion?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the first Lord of the Admiralty did make that clear, and is this not substantiated by everyone who was present and heard the speech?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How can the Prime Minister say that the Government have no part in these negotiations, in view of the millions of money which have been spent and of the Government's interference already?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I only said that these are matters primarily for settlement between the two parties.
    Mr. LAWSON: If an important Minister expresses an opinion of that description what becomes of the theory of Ministerial responsibility?
    Mr. LEE: Has the Prime Minister any information to prove that there is a likelihood of the owners and the miners agreeing at all?
    Mr. LAWSON: May I put it to the Prime Minister, if an important Minister of the Cabinet can express a private opinion about an important matter of this description, what becomes of the theory of Ministerial responsibility?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I answer the hon. Gentleman? My private opinion, which I expressed and which I have just as much right to express as anybody else, in no way was that there should not be any national agreement, and if the hon. Member had read a complete report of what I said, he would have seen that I said nothing which was in conflict with the Commission's Report.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman said—and this is in italics—that "it was impossible to get a national formula which would fit every coalfield in the country"?
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Are we to understand quite clearly that the right hon. Gentleman expressed his own private opinions and was not expressing the opinion of the Cabinet, although he was selected by them only a day or two before, in order to voice their views tin this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must correct the last statement. The right hon. Gentleman was not selected to deliver this speech.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I said he was selected by his colleagues here to express their views in this House on the same subject.
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question.

    WAGES AND HOURS, DURHAM.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the terms posted by the Durham coalowners include an increase from eight to 10 hours a day for the surface workers; and whether this is in accordance with the assurances the owners gave him?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. My information is that the surface hours proposed by the mineowners in Durham are 49 per week.

  GENERAL STRIKE.

    MILK POOL (PAYMENTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused to dairy farmers by the delay in paying for milk supplied to the milk pool during the general strike; and whether he can state when payment of these accounts may be expected?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) on 22nd June, a copy of which I am sending him. Farmers' accounts are being settled rapidly, and it is hoped that they will be finally disposed of shortly.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not the case that a promise was made that this matter would be settled by the end of June; and is not great hardship being caused to farmers who are not getting the money which is due to them.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I understand they are being rapidly settled in the Eastern district—at the rate of about 100 per day—which is big work, as many of them do not always submit their accounts in quite a clear fashion.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter affects the Western districts, as well as the Eastern?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, I am aware of it, and we are doing our best.

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, ST. MARGARET'S, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that Colonel J. W. Pringle, who was appointed to inquire into the fatal railway accident which occurred at St. Margaret's, Edinburgh, on 10th May, reported that after the accident had occurred railwaymen on strike, trained and normally employed on breakdown work, were asked by others who were loyal to the company to assist in clearing the debris and rescuing passengers, and they refused to assist, he will introduce legislation to make such conduct a punishable offence?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. Sir John Pringle refers in his report to evidence given at the Inquiry on this matter, but I do not consider that legislation would serve any useful purpose,
    Mr. PENNY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this inhuman conduct conforms at all with "peaceful picketing"?

    "BRITISH GAZETTE" (DISTRIBUTION COST).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £16,000 allocated as the cost of producing the official organ known as the "British Gazette' includes the cost of its distribution by motor car and aeroplane; and, if so, what sum has been allocated for payment of this transport?
    Mr. McNEILL: No allowance is made in this Estimate for the cost of the aeroplane service, which was regarded by the Air Ministry as taking the place of experimental and practice flying, and it was only practicable to earmark an expenditure of £450 on motor car distribution as definitely on the service of the "British Gazette." The bulk of the distribution was carried out by volunteers receiving free petrol only.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that in making out a table of profit and loss for this great journalistic venture something should be shown for the cost of distribution?
    Mr. McNEILL: That is a matter for the Auditor-General.

    BERMONDSEY (SLUM CLEARANCE).
    Colonel VAUGHAN - MORGANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the difficulty which has arisen with regard to the London County Council slum clearance scheme in Bermondsey, by reason of the refusal of the tenants in the slum area to accept new accommodation in Southwark provided by the London County Council on the ground that the scale of Poor Law relief in Bermondsey is greater than that given in Southwark; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to deal with this difficulty?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Controller of the Household): This particular difficulty has not been brought to the Minister's notice but, as my hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps aware, the question of co-ordination of Poor Law relief in London is one of the elements the Minister is considering in connection with his scheme of Poor Law reform.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture if any animals exhibited at the Royal Show at Reading came from a restricted area; and, if so, whether the animals had started for the show before the restriction was made?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Certain animals from the Staffordshire infected area were exhibited at the Royal Show. The movement of the animals to the show took place before the restrictions were imposed. As soon as the Restriction Order was issued the animals were removed from the show ground to other premises for isolation and detention.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there has been no continental meat sent to Smithfield Market since 4th June; that recently foot-and-mouth disease broke out again in Colchester, Chelmsford, and Cheshire coast districts; and if he can state why Dutch meat cannot be imported in the same way as Argentine meat is imported?
    A second hon. Member rose to ask tide mine question.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first two parts is in the affirmative. The importation of fresh meat, from Europe has been prohibited because conclusive evidence was obtained that foot-and-mouth disease had been introduced into this country by the carcases of pigs from the Continent. As I have already explained, there is no evidence that frozen meat such as that coming from the Argentine is the means of carrying infection.

  INDIA.

    CURRENCY.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Under-Secretary of state for India, whether he will represent to the Government of India the undesirability of any interim period between the publication of the Currency Commission's Report and the announcement by the Government of India of what part, if any, of the Commission's findings they propose to submit to the September session of the Legislative Assembly for legislative sanction; and is he aware that any such interim period may conceivably produce violent fluctuations in Indian exchange?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My noble Friend the Secretary of State fully realises the importance of the considerations referred to in my hon. Friend's question.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. JOHNSTON (for Mr. ROBERT YOUNG)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the statements made at the last Conference of the International Labour Organisation with regard to the superiority of labour conditions in India over those in Japan and China, the Secretary of State will suggest to the International Labour Organisation that a conference on this subject should be held between the representatives of India, Japan and China, similar to the conference recently held in London between certain European Powers, to consider the question of labour conditions and, in particular, of the hours of labour?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend will transmit the suggestion to the Government of India, for an expression of their views.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the Noble Lord aware that India is the only country in the world which honoured its signature at the Washington Convention, and that India is subject to extraordinary competition from a country which has refused to honour its signature?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am aware of that most important fact, though I cannot accept the statement entirely in the form in which the hon. Member made it.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Why not?
    Earl WINTERTON: For reasons which it would be impossible to explain in answer to a question. I sympathise entirely with the point of view the hon. Member put, but that is quite a different matter from doing what the question asks that the Government of India shall do, that is, to be responsible for suggesting that these friendly foreign Powers should take part in a conference. The matter is receiving the consideration of the Government of India and is also under the purview of the International Labour Bureau.

    MOTOR-CAR PARKING, LONDON.
    Captain GAR-RO-JONESasked the Minister of Transport the total present cost of administering the car-parking Regulations in London, including the provision of the paper forms authorising a motorist to park his car; and upon what fund this cost falls?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Captain Hacking).I have been asked to reply. The administration of these Regulations does not appear to involve any cost to public funds. The cost of printing the tickets and notices to date has been more than covered by the receipts from the advertisement which is printed on the back of the tickets. Such police supervision as is required is provided in conjunction with other duties, and does not involve any calculable additional cost. The licensed messengers employed at some parking places are not paid from police or other public funds.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If that is the case, would it not be desirable to extend the parking facilities?
    Captain HACKING: That question should be addressed to the Ministry of Transport?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It was addressed to the Ministry of Transport.
    Captain HACKING: Yes, but the part that was addressed to the Ministry of Transport ought to have been addressed to the Home Office.

    PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICAN LOAN GUARANTEE BILL.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the East African Loan Bill will be introduced?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I hope that the Financial Resolution to the Palestine and East African Loan Guarantee Bill will be tabled in the course of the next few days.

    BRITISH WEST INDIES AND VENEZUELA.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received representations from Trinidad regarding the surtax of 30 per cent. imposed by the Venezuelan Government upon all goods imported into that Republic from the British West Indies; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any steps with a view to its removal?
    Mr. AMERY: I have not received any recent representations from Trinidad, but the matter has frequently engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government I am, however, not in a position to make any statement' in regard to it.

    TRADE STATISTICS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken with reference to a resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923 which contained a recommendation that British trade statistics should be published in such a form as would help the development of inter-Imperial trade, and that a detailed scheme to this end should be submitted to the Governments of the Empire for their consideration?
    Sir B.CHADWICK: The co-ordination of the trade statistics of all parts of the British Empire is a matter which involves extensive and detailed investigations, and I regret that it has not yet been possible to formulate the contemplated scheme for submission to the other Governments.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Will this matter be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I could not hear the hon. Gentleman.

    POOR RELIEF, GLASGOW.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS- MORGANasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the Glasgow Parish Council have been compelled to raise the rate by Is. 6d. for next year; that the estimated expenditure for able-bodied relief this year is £1,424,000, as compared with £1,293,263 last year; that the council has refused relief to miners' wives and children; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour)I am aware that Glasgow Parish Council, in the exercise of their discretion, have decided to increase their poor rate this year by the figure stated. I understand that the parish council have adopted this policy in order to avoid the accumulation of debt. I am informed that the estimated expenditure on able-bodied relief for the current year is £500,000. It is not the case that the parish council have refused relief to miners' wives and children. The parish council have arranged to supply food as required in destitute cases at feeding centres. In the circumstances, I do not see that further action on my part, as suggested by the hon. Member, is called for.
    Mr. PENNY: Is this increase due to the increase of gambling in that area?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this alleged gambling took place in a constituency represented by a Conservative Member?

    ALIEN WAITERS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Home Secretary the total number of waiters of alien nationality in London and in the United Kingdom?
    Captain HACKING: I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Census Reports for 1921, which contain a summarised statement of the occupation of aliens in the United Kingdom.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
    Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE (for Major TASKER)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to document 33 in the recent Blue Book on Communist Papers, wherein it is stated that there are 11 known members of the Communist factory group employed in the Kidbrook Air Force Works; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in the matter?
    Lord STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. The matter is under consideration.
    Mr. B. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information as to the names of members of the Russian Communist party Polit-Bureau, who are also members of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics' Council of Peoples' Commissaries and Labour organisations which have been in communication with Communist organisations in this country as disclosed by Blue Book [Cmd. 2682]?
    Captain HACKING: With my hon. Friend's permission,I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. PETO: Does the information which the hon. and gallant Gentleman will circulate, as a matter of fact, show that these various bodies are completely interlocked, one with another, so far as their personnel is concerned?
    Captain HACKING: It shows quite clearly their interconnection.
    Following is the reply:

    STATEMENT showing the common Personnel of the Soviet Government and certain Communist and Labour Organisations in the U.S.S.R.

    Russian Communist Party Polit-Bureau.

    Presidium Central Executive Committee U.S.S.R.

    U.S.S.R. Council of Peoples' Commissaries.

    Communist International Executive Committee.

    Red International of Labour Unions Executive Committee.

    All Russian Central Council of Trade Unions.

    Kalinin

    Kalinin

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Kamenev

    Kamenev

    Kamenev

    Kamenev

    —

    —

    Stalin (Secretary).

    Stalin

    —

    Stalin

    —

    —

    Tomsky

    Tomsky

    —

    —

    Tomsky

    Tomsky

    Rykov

    —

    Rykov (President)

    Rykov

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Sokolnikov

    Sokolnikov

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Chicherin

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Krassin

    —

    —

    —

    Zinoviev

    —

    —

    Zinoviev

    —

    —

    Bukharin

    —

    —

    Bukharin

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Losovsky

    Losovsky

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Piatnitsky

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Dogadov

    Dogadov (Secretary)

    Uglianov.

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Uglianov.

    Dzerdzinsky

    —

    Dzerdzinsky

    —

    —

    —

    Rudzutak

    Rudzutak

    Rudzutak

    —

    —

    —

    Petrovsky

    Petrovsky

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Trotsky

    —

    Trotsky

    Trotsky

    —

    —

    NOTE.—The above information is believed to be accurate, but it is given subject to the reservation that changes may have been made in Russia of which I am not aware.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member (Mr. W. Thorne) in order in requesting two Members to ask his questions for him?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I could prevent him if he was not sure that they would both be present.
    Mr. PENNY: Is it possible to ask either of those gentlemen whether they were commissioned by the other hon. Member to ask the question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I assume that hon. Members carry out the rule which I have laid down on this point.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT (SUGAR BEET).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of assistance which has been given to sugar-beet factories under the Trade Facilities Acts, and the detailed figures in each case of such assistance?
    Mr. McNEILL: No new guarantees have been given beyond those set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Duckworth) on the 15th April last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    MISS GERTRUDE BELL.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him Private Notice, whether he can make any statement with regard to the death at Bagdad of Miss Gertrude Bell?
    Mr. AMERY: I greatly regret to inform the House—to many of whose Members she was personally well known —that Miss Gertrude Bell, Oriental Secretary to the High Commissioner for Iraq and Honorary Director of the Antiquities Department of the Iraq Government, died at Bagdad on Sunday night.
    By her premature death, hastened by many years of unsparing work in a trying climate, we have lost not only a most valuable public servant, but also a re-

    413
    markable and indeed unique personality. Her intimate knowledge of the East enabled her to render exceptional service to the British Forces during the operations in Mesopotamia. Since then, her profound sympathy with the Arab people and her strong faith in their future, played no small part in shaping the policy of mutual confidence and co-operation upon which we have based our setting up, and subsequent support of the Iraq State. That State, on whose behalf she worked with such devoton, has passed through many initial difficulties and anxieties. She lived just long enough to see it emerge from them all with a fair hope of future strength and prosperity. In one sense at least she was thus happy in the moment of her death.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take the Second Reading of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, and other Orders on the Paper.
Motion made, and Question put:
"That the Proceedings on the Land Drainage Bill [Lords] and on the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Bill [Lords], 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, 272; Noes, 700.

Division No. 367.]

AYES.

[3.36 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

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

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Huntingfield, Lord

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Hurd, Percy A.

Albery Irving James

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

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

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Jacob, A. E.

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

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

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Astor, Viscountess

Dawson, Sir Philip

Jephcott, A. R.

Atholl, Duchess of

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Eden, Captain Anthony

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Barclay, Lord

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Elveden, Viscount

Lamb, J. Q.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

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

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

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Bennett, A. J.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Betterton, Henry B.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Luce. Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Fielden, E. B.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

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

Blundell, F. N.

Fraser, Captain Ian

MacIntyre, Ian

Bourne. Captain Robert Croft

Frece, Sir Walter de

McLean, Major A.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Brass, Captain W.

Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Ganzonl, Sir John

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Briggs, J. Harold

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel.

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Brookiebank, C. E. R.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Malone, Major P. B.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Goff, Sir Park

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Margesson, Captain D.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Grace, John

Marriott, Sir J. A. R

Burman, J. B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Meyer, Sir Frank

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

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

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

Hammersley, S. S.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hanbury, C.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Nall, Lieut, Colonel Sir Joseph

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

Christie. J. A.

Haslam, Henry C.

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

Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hawke, John Anthony

Neild, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Nuttall, Ellis

Clarry, Reginald George

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Clayton, G. C.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Penny, Frederick George

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Cope, Major William

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Couper, J. B.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Pielou, D. P.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. K.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Preston, William

Streatfield, Captain S. R.

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Radford, E. A.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Ramsden, E.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Sandernan, A. Stewart

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Wolmer, Viscount

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Titchfieid, Major the Marquess of

Womersley, W. J.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Shepperson, E. W.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

Waddington, R.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Skelton, A. N.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Major Hennessy.

NOES.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Paling, W.

Ammon, Charles George

Hardie, George D.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Harney, E. A.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Potts, John S.

Barr, J

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, G. H.

Riley, Ben

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Briant, Frank

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sexton, James

Broad, F. A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Buchanan, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Cape, Thomas

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snell, Harry

Compton, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Dalton, Hugh

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kenyon, Barnet

Townend, A. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kirkwood, D.

Viant, S. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

Lawrence, Susan

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dennison, R.

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duckworth, John

Lee, F.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Livingstone, A. M

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

Fenby, T. D.

Lowth, T.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lunn, William

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gibbins, Joseph

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

Welsh, J. C.

Gillett, George M.

Mackinder, W.

Westwood, J.

Gosling, Harry

MacLaren, Andrew

Wiggins, William Martin

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

March, S.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Greenall, T.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Montague, Frederick

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

ELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Groves, T.

Murnin, H.

Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles Edwards.

Grundy, T. W.

Naylor, T. E.

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

Palin, John Henry

Question put, and agreed to.

VISITORS.
Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether your attention has been called to statements in the Press that certain hon. Members of this House showed a party of American visitors over the House of Commons on the morning of Tuesday, 13th July, and allowed them to sit on the benches; that one hon. Member occupied the Speaker's Chair, while another hon. Member addressed the visitors there assembled; and whether you propose to prevent any recurrence of such an incident?
Mr. SPEAKER: My attention has been called to certain reports. I have made inquiries, and find that it is not the case
416
that anyone placed himself in this Chair; nor is it correct to state that anything in the nature of a mock debate took place.
At the same time, I must remind hon. Members of the regulation to the effect that a visitor must not take a seat in the Chamber, and ask them to see that it is strictly observed.
I am reluctant to put any new restrictions on a privilege which Members and visitors value.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: May I ask whether it has been considered, with a view to the comfort of Members generally during the mornings, that the rule which applies on Saturdays could not be applied to the other weekdays?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has a suggestion to make, perhaps he will let me have it in writing. I should want to see what that involved.
Mr. STEPHEN: Is there any harm done by a member of the British public sitting in one of the unoccupied seats, when the House is not in Session?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the existing rule is adequate.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether in this case there was any intentional disrespect to the House?
Viscountess ASTOR: Gould I explain to the House exactly what happened?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have been careful to avoid, in what I have said, any note of censure. I have corrected certain statements, which I find have no foundation. Unless the hon. Member thinks what I have said is inadequate, it would be better to leave the matter there.
Colonel DAY: Is it riot a fact that on many occasions Members—
HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL FEES.
Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish imprisonment for arrears of industrial school fees."
This may be considered a large order It is not, however, the intention to give it general application. May I explain that the intention of the Bill is to deal with the position of the casual labourer, a casual of the casuals, who depends upon picking up an odd hour's work or an odd day's work, and whose total work does not mean, under normal conditions, more than two-and a-half days a week. The position of this unfortunate man in the industrial world is that in order to supplement his scanty living, his wife is compelled to go out charring; his children, who are of school age, are allowed to go into street trading, and by that means contribute towards the living of the household. The wife being away, and the children uncared for, they play truant. The parents are reported to the Education Committee, and summoned to attend before the Committee. They have a strong objection to attending to undergo what they consider, and in some cases
418
rightly consider, the inquisitorial examination there. The result is that an appeal is made to the magistrates, and to the lay magistrates in particular. I would not object so much if it went in some other direction. The lay magistrates very often are not very sympathetic in regard to these matters.
As a result of the prosecution, an order is made, the children are taken away from the parents and sent to an industrial school. Thus their earnings in street trading—a most iniquitous but in this case a necessary evil—are lost to the family. An order is made by the magistrates for the payment of 1s. or Is. 6d. a week towards the maintenance of the children. The man has no money with which to pay. The result is that a warrant is issued against him, but he does not appear at the police court. These people are ignorant of the law. They do not go to the police court, and as a result the case goes by default. It is carelessness, but it is not so much carelessness, as fear and want of knowledge. A warrant is made out against the man, he is arrested, and taken to prison. He comes out of prison. He goes back to work. As soon as the intimation is received by the police officials that he is back—usually the police officials are sympathetic, but the warrant is there and their duty has to be done—the warrant is hanging over his head all the time, and he may be rearrested.
Let me give a typical ease and one which came within my own experience as a magistrate. I confess that at the risk of disobeying the law I refused in this particular case to sign an order for the man's arrest. It was during the Boer War. This man went through the Boer War. While he was there the arrears accumulated. He came back and as a reward for his heroic conduct on behalf of his country he was arrested, and sent to gaol. The wife and children went to the poor-house. It cost the Poor Law authorities 35s. a week to keep the wife and children, and it cost the Government 17s. a week to keep the man in gaol; this in order to collect the arrears which had accumulated at the rate of 1s. 6d. a week. The worst feature of all occurred when the man was discharged from prison. I brought the matter before the City Council of Liverpool, of which I am a member. The Poor

419
Law authorities hired a taxi-cab, put the family in the taxi-cab, drove them to the gaol gates, and dumped them down in front of this poor unfortunate devil, and told him that he must find a home for them. The home was broken up and the furniture sold to defray the expenses. I submit that the present system, which inflicts such penalties upon a poor man of that character who is not responsible for his economic environment, and who could not possibly meet the demands made upon him, requires some consideration and alteration.
If this Bill is fortunate enough to receive a Second Reading I would suggest that the same system be adopted in these cases as is adopted in ordinary civil cases in the County Courts, namely, that there should be a periodical revision of them, so that the man should not have a warrant hanging over his head and be snapped up as soon as he gets a job, but should be given time to recoup himself. Even if he gets a full week's work his money is mortgaged for expenses previously incurred. Many men to-day are becoming so callous that when the time comes for the warrant to be put into operation—the warrant has been running for 12 months, sometimes—they go to the police station and callously give themselves up to serve their time, thus making them chronic jailbirds all the year round. If there could be periodical revision of the cases, as in the case of the County Court, by the County Court Judge, who is usually a man of more humane judgment than the ordinary great unpaid magistrates, it would be very much better. If that could be done, much of the hardship would disappear. Under the existing conditions these poor unfortunate men vainly search for employment and they do not earn enough to keep body and soul together, and there seems to be no prospect before them except to die in the workhouse, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the poet:
"Rattle his hones
Over the stones,
He's only a pauper
Whom nobody owns."
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sexton, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Gibbins, Miss Wilkinson, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Hayes, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Purcell, and Mr. Lees-Smith.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL FEES BILL,
"to abolish imprisonment for arrears of Industrial School Fees," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 2nd August, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Moneylenders Bill): the Lord Advocate.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  Secretaries of State Bill,
  Re-election of Ministers Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to
  Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords],
  Trent Falls Improvement Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the sale of fertilisers and feeding stuffs." [Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill [Lords.]

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL,
  "to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919," presented by Mr. GUINNESS; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [15th ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27. POST OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £33,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[NOTE: £21,000,000 has been Toted on account.]
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should, as is customary, say something by way of introduction to this Vote. I always feel on these occasions—and the position is not wholly unfamiliar to me—rather like the chairman of a company presenting the report and accounts at the annual meeting of the shareholders; and the comparison is not, perhaps, inapt, because the Post Office is certainly the largest commercial undertaking in the country, and probably is one of the largest commercial undertakings in the world. In these circumstances, we ought to have a comprehensive report of its work, but that is almost impossible within a reasonable compass of time, and it is more difficult, because I entirely agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday as to the constitutional position in regard to these Supply Days. The maxim. "Redress before Supply," is a good and sound one. These Supply Days ought to be given up mainly to hon. Members, and, therefore, in what I am going to say, I will try to be as concise as possible. In the first place, I propose to talk about the finance of the Post Office; then to deal, in some little detail, with the more salient points affecting the postal, the telephone and the telegraph services; then to say something about broadcasting; and lastly, to offer some observations upon the subject of Imperial Wireless.
  432
  With regard to finance. If hon. Members will look at these Votes they will see a summary upon page 43; and I would say, in parenthesis, that this Vote has a very convenient index at the end of the volume, which is sufficiently compendious to make reference to the various subjects in the Vote comparatively easy. On page 43, the salient point which first reaches the eye is the comparison between the net estimated expenditure of this year and the net expenditure for last year. The figures are £54,600,000 this year and £53,805,000 last year, a net increase of £795,000. The gross increase of £2,000,000 is set off by a corresponding reduction of £1,000,000, a net increase, without taking into account Appropriations-in-Aid, of £1,000,000. That increase is due, in the main, to two causes: in the first place to the growth in the development of the telephonic system, and in the second place to the normal growth of Post Office work. The increase in the telephone system accounts for about £1,200,000, and that is divided, broadly speaking, between increases in the engineering staff and increases in the operating staff, and a considerable increase in the amount which has to be set aside in order to meet annuities chargeable arising from the fresh debt incurred during the year. The postal growth is chiefly to be found under Subhead A, "Salaries and Wages." Apart from the ordinary incremental increases, which account for a certain part of the increase, the increase is due, as I said, to the normal growth and development of the postal service. I am not going to pretend, no one in this position could pretend, personally to have investigated all the details of the staff increases. No single human being could do it. All one can do is to apply certain broad tests, and so far as one can be satisfied by applying these broad tests, I am satisfied that the increase in the cost of this staff is fairly commensurate with the growth in Post Office business.
  4.0 P.M.
  It is unnecessary for me to give a certificate of character to the staff of the Post Office, quite unnecessary. But although it would be invidious to select any one section for special mention, I would like to say one word about the work done by the girls in the telephone service during the general strike. In the general strike a great deal depended, in fact, everything depended, on the main-

  433
  tenance of communication by telephone. We knew that it was going to be difficult to secure the attendance of operators at the exchanges in the great cities, and particularly in London, because many of them live and have their homes on the fringe of London; and it was necessary to make the most elaborate arrangements beforehand for their conveyance to the offices. Even with those arrangements, it was not a pleasant business for the girls to have to come up to the centre of London to undertake their work; but, so well did they turn up, that the percentage of absentees the very first morning of the strike was comparatively trifling, and during the remainder of the strike the percentage of absentees was less than the normal percentage of sickness. That is a most creditable fact, and I think I ought to give it special mention.
  4.0. P.M.
  While I am satisfied as to the efficiency of the Post Office staff, I sometimes wonder whether the staff are equally satisfied as to the efficiency of the Postmaster-General. I had some words last year with my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on the subject of the claims for certain wage increases which were put forward by some sections of the staff, and I had to say then, as representing the taxpayer, that I could not admit the justice of those claims and that, if it was desired to pursue them, they must be taken to arbitration before the Industrial Court. In the case of two of the organisations in the Post Office, that course has been followed. Those claims are now ripening for hearing before the Industrial Court, and I do not propose to say a word about them, because they are in a sense sub judice. I have thought it my duty, again as representing the taxpayer, to present counterclaims for reductions in certain grades, and all I wish to say about the counterclaims, in view of any possible misconception in regard to them, is that they are not designed to affect any present members of the various classes of Post Office servants. Any reductions that are accepted by the Arbitration Board will be applicable only to new entrants into the various classes, whether those new entrants come from outside or from different classes in the Post Office service.
  The balance of the £2,000,000 gross increase which the Committee will see in the Vote is due to a number of various
  434
  causes. As to £150,000, it is due to wage concessions awarded by the Industrial Court to non-clerical supervising grades and sub-postmasters; as to £115,000, it is due to employers' contributions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and as to £175,000, it is due to the automatic growth in pensions payments.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I was rather encouraged to hear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the counter-claims for reduction, and that any reductions would apply to the starting pay of new entrants. I wonder whether he would give us a little more information on that subject before he goes on.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope, in the course of a very few days now—very soon, indeed—to be in a position to communicate the details of the counter-claims to the other parties to the arbitration. I am not yet in a position to do so, because they are not adjusted, and I think it would be more courteous if they were first communicated to the other parties rather than that they should be made public in any other way. I hope, however, in a very few days—perhaps by the end of the week—to have the counter-claims sufficiently adjusted to give them to the other parties; and they will then, I suppose, come on to be heard by the Industrial Court some time in the autumn. I said that £150,000 of that increase was due to wage concessions awarded by the Industrial Court, £115,000 to employers' contributions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and £175,000 to the automatic growth in pensions payments. I might perhaps just say, with regard to that last item, that it reflects the consequences of the enormous growth in the Post Office which took place in the 'eighties and 'nineties of the last century. The people who came in then are just beginning to go out, and, in consequence, the number of pensions has increased and will, for the next few years, go on increasing. On the other side of the account, there is a reduction of about £1,000,000, and that is due in the main to two facts. In the first place, this year you have no charges falling on the Vote in respect of what are known as the Sutton judgment payments, the arrears of war bonus payments; and in the second place, there is

  435
  a considerable decrease in the amount of engineering material which it has been necessary to purchase.
  I said that I felt rather like the chairman of a company presenting the report and accounts for the year, but I am bound to add that, if any chairman or directors put their names to accounts like these and presented them to a company as giving a true picture of the commercial conduct of a business during the past year, they would be very lucky if they got off with five years' penal servitude. That arises, not from any fault in those who keep the accounts, but from the very character of the accounts themselves. It arises from the fact that we persist, no doubt for good reasons, in keeping all our national accounts upon a strictly cash basis. These accounts, these Vote accounts, therefore, solely concern themselves with cash transactions and take no account of liabilities incurred and not paid and no account of revenue earned but not received. They take no account of work done for any other Departments of the Government; they contain no provision for depreciation; and they contain no allowance for pension liabilities which are accruing. When those facts, which are only a small selection of the deficiencies which mark accounts kept strictly on a cash basis, are considered, the Committee will readily see that to regard this as a true commercial picture of the work of a body or institution is really to imagine a completely vain thing. It is only when you are able to get the commercial accounts of the Post Office that you can really arrive at a true idea of the picture, and those commercial accounts, in the ordinary way, are not available until the end of the year, because it is not until the end of the year that they are passed and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I have sometimes thought—and I think I have said this before—that it would be better if we had the annual review of the Post Office finance at the end of the year in some way or other rather than in the ordinary way among the Supply Votes.
  The commercial accounts are correct, and they do give a true picture of Post Office finance. I would not mind in the slightest signing my name to a document saying they are a true and accurate account, with this reservation, that they
  436
  contain no provision for taxation. That is not necessary, because all the profits, if there are profits, go into the Exchequer in the ordinary way. I ought, however, to mention that fact when dealing with figures, because, in comparing the Post Office with ordinary business concerns, it has always to be remembered that all the profits go into the Exchequer and that no figure is set aside in reserve for taxation. Apart from that fact, however, the commercial accounts are prepared on a true basis and do show proper commercial results. It is from the advance figures of the commercial accounts that I propose to give some examples, though I will not trouble the Committee to-day with many figures. I would like to make only these two reservations. In the first place, any figures that I give are subject to ultimate audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and, in the second place, in making a comparison, I have thought it right, when taking the figures of previous years, to exclude payments under the Sutton Judgment, because they do give a distorted picture, being a signal instance of a non-recurring item, and to include them would certainly distort the figures. Apart from that, I propose to give a comparison upon a commercial basis.
  Taking the postal side first, the year 1924–25 closed with a surplus, on the commercial accounts excluding the Sutton payments, of nearly £7,600,000. The next year the surplus, excluding Sutton payments, was about the same. For the current year it was estimated at the start of the year that it would be about £8,300,000 or a cost-of-living basis of 75. I will say something more about the details of postal development in a moment. The telegraph business is as unsatisfactory as ever. In 1924–25 and 1925–26, the deficiency ran round about £1,330,000, and in the current year it is estimated at about the same figure. There is, therefore, no evidence of progressive improvement in the telegraph service. The inland telegraph service continues to show a marked decline. The foreign telegraph service shows a certain amount of increase—a fairly satisfactory amount. The wireless services are, of course, growing. The reduction in the inland telegraph service is, I think, almost certainly very largely attributable to the competition of the telephone services. To illustrate the truth of that, just let me

  437
  give the Committee one set of figures with regard to the exchange of inland messages up and down the country. I have taken the figures for the year before the War, 1913–14, and the figures for last year. The inland telegraph messages and trunk calls over the telephone in 1913–14 together numbered 103,500,000. Of those messages, 65,900,000, or 63·7 per cent., were telegrams, and 37,600,000, or 36·3 per cent., were telephone trunk calls. Last year, the figures were almost exactly reversed. The total number of messages was 133,300;000, of which 48,800,000, or 36·6 per cent., were telegrams, and 84,500,000, or 63·4 per cent., were telephone trunk calls. I think, therefore, that the Committee will see that what I said is true and that the inland telegraph service is being cut into, particularly on the shorter distances, by the competition of the telephone service. I shall have a little more to say about the telegraph service in a moment.
  The telephone service, as one would expect, continues to make steady progress. The surpluses on the telephone account are falling. In 1924–25 there was a surplus of £850,000; in 1925–26, which felt the full burden of the reduction in the rates, there was a surplus of £540,000; and in the current yeas I anticipate a surplus of about £250,000. This is not due to any fall in revenue. On the contrary, the revenue is increasing. It is partly due to the policy, where possible. of reducing rates, and, even more, it is due to a development of the Service which entails the carrying of what I have before in this House called a large and growing uneconomic fringe of business. If you want to develop the Service, it entails laying down plant which cannot immediately begin to be profit-bearing. I do not think that our undeveloped fringe is too large at the present time. bat I admit that I have at times some anxiety about it. I should like to see a part of the uneconomic fringe begin to become a little more economic than it is, but when hon. Members press me, as they very often do, to extend the area of our rural operations, I hope they will remember this anxiety which I always have on my mind as to how long and how far the urban areas, the paying centres, can afford to go on carrying the uneconomic fringe.
  As I have said, the revenue in this respect has not fallen off. The
  438
  telephone revenue for 1923–1924 was £14,500,000 and the telephone revenue for the current year is estimated at £17,500,000. Taking the figures together, postal, telephone, and telegraph, and summarising them, excluding the Sutton payments and taking the figures on the commercial account, the surplus last year for 1925–1926 was £6,783,000, and I anticipate a surplus for this year of £7,230,000. Of course, these are pre-strike figures and the ultimate effect of the strike on Post Office finance cannot yet be determined. These figures relate to the period before the general strike and before the full effect of the general stoppage became known. I have done my best to make out as far as I can what the effect of the stoppage will be so far as it affects the postal revenues for the year. On the postal side one can fairly accurately anticipate the loss which amounts to not less than £730,000 up to the end of June. I think when you add telegraphs and telephones you will be fortunate if the reductions made do not amount to about £1,000,000 for the three services. Of course, I cannot possibly say what the full effect will be because that depends upon the duration of the stoppage and upon the revival of trade which I hope and believe will ensue as soon as a settlement is arrived at. I am not going to weary the Committee any more with figures, but what I have stated represents as far as the general services are concerned, a fairly distinct and, I hope, clear account of the prospects of the coming year.
  Now let me say a word or two about the details of the different services. There are so many points of interest, but I want to pick out those in which the Members of the Committee are likely to be interested. Let me say first of all a word with regard to the growth of the postal business. I doubt very much sometimes whether even here in this Committee we recognise the full extent of Post Office operations and how varying those operations are. The business of the Post Office is much more than merely carrying letters because it has a very large variety of other activities added on to that. I will give the figures for 1923–24, 1924–25 and 1925–26. In 1923–24 the total number of postal packets carried was 5,585,000,000; in 1924–25., 5,840,000,000: and in 1925–26 the stupendous total of 6,000,000,000.

  439
  It is very difficult to visualise that figure, and I do so myself by taking the biggest distance I can, which is the distance of the earth from the sun. If you take that distance and drop a packet every 30 yards over the whole of that distance you would have some packets left over out of the total which the British Post Office handled during last year. The number of parcels delivered in 1924–25 was 137,200,000 and 143,800,000 in 1925–26. The postal orders were 114,400,000 in 1923–24, 121,800,000 in 1924–25 and 129,900,000 in 1925–26. The figures for the other activities during the past year were as follows. Savings Bank Deposits, £24,760,000; Government's Stock and Bond Accounts, 2,530,000; Licences issued other than Wireless, 3,820,000; Old Age Pensions paid, £27,000,000; Health Insurance Stamps sold, £29,780,000; Unemployment Insurance Stamps sold, £34,020,000; War Pensions paid, £55,700,000; Postal Drafts paid, £9,070,000; Savings Certificates issued, £35,500,000; and Wireless Licences issued nearly 2,000,000 or, to be strictly correct, 1,960,000 during the last financial year. The Committee will see from those figures the activities of the Post Office are something much wider than the delivery and transmission of letters and parcels, vast as is that business.
  Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to say something about Christmas. We had certain difficulties and troubles during the Christmas time of 1924, and with a view to preventing a repetition of those delays, which were not entirely the fault of the Post Office, we did take steps to complete as far as possible in advance the organisation for Christmas traffic. Notice was given to the public that letters and parcels intended for delivery at Christmas ought to be posted by a certain time or otherwise we could not undertake prompt delivery. The public responded extremely well, and it was possible for us not only to keep to our times, but even improve on them, and in some cases correspondence posted later was in fact delivered by Christmas Day. Next Christmas we hope to be able to give an equally satisfactory service providing the public will co-operate to the same extent as they did last year. I have already spoken of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and the larger number of pensions paid there-
  440
  under. It may interest the Committee to know a little more in detail what is happening. We made preparations before that Act came into force. We exhibited the usual explanatory notices about the working of the Act, we had the usual forms ready, and the payment of widows' and orphans' pensions began on the 5th January, 1926, and old age contributory pensions began on the 2nd July. The system of paying contributory pensions follows very closely the system adopted in regard to old age pensions, and it is working extremely well. Approximately 150,000 widows' and orphans' pensions are being paid weekly, amounting to £120,000. I cannot give the figures for the contributory old age pensions because that system was only started on the 2nd July, and I have not the figures available.
  I now come to another subject, the extension of a new service for the foreign heavy parcels post. The number of Foreign and Colonial services in which the limit of weight for parcels has now been raised to 22 lbs. is about 100, that is 60 per cent. of the total number of services. The limit of the weight for Canada is 15 lbs. and the limit for India, and I think for Iraq, is 20 lbs. The limit is still 11 lbs. for Australia, Brazil, Chile, Egypt, Japan, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and the United States, and I ought to add Russia, in regard to which country, after having started a 22-lbs. service, we had a request to revert back to the 11-lbs. limit. We have arranged a semi-official service for the exchange of heavy parcels with Holland, which is working quite satisfactorily through a firm of Dutch carriers, and negotiations are in progress with the United States for an extension of the weight to 22 lbs. These heavy parcels are accepted at all the chief offices of the Post Office in the provinces and in London, and at about 100 branch and sub-offices in London and the provinces.
  Perhaps I had better say a word about the cash-on-delivery system. This system did not have a very auspicious start because it was interfered with by the general strike, but the total number of parcels dealt with from the inception of the service to the 1st of July is 195,792, or about 850,000 parcels a year. The rate seems to be growing because in the last five weeks the average is 3,000 per day, and as the service is running very

  441
  smoothly I think the total will increase. Of course, it is not the business of the Post Office to create a demand because our job is to supply the demand, and as far as we can, we differentiate between this and our other services because we are not, out to make any money at all, and all we want is to cover our bare costs. Of course, a large factor in the cost of this service is the carriage. The service is running with extraordinary smoothness, and I think it is already working better and more quickly than the Cash on Delivery service anywhere else. The trader is getting his money back within two or three days, and that is more than can be said in regard to any other Cash on Delivery service. One or two cases have occurred where people have sent parcels to householders and others who did not order them, and I think the public would be well advised to refuse unordered parcels.
  I would like to say a word or two about the Post Office tube. I had hoped that the Post Office tube would be finished next month. That, also, has been some- what delayed owing to the coal stoppage, and the time of completion has had to be put off for, I am afraid, several months. The permanent way is completed, and the hulk of the electrical plant manufactured The installation is going on now, but there is, as I have said, a good deal of material which has been hung up and has not yet come to hand. I hope, however, that it will be completed in the autumn, and that it will be practicable to bring it into service early next year.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will it bring about economies?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not able to say that now, because it has been hanging on for so long owing to the War. The total cost is estimated at £1,680,000, and, frankly, I do not see how it is possible to produce such economies as to be able to pay the interest charges on that; but that is not the fault either of those who originally designed the tube or of those who have been carrying out the work; it is the fault of circumstances.
  I was going to say a word about the use of motor vehicles in the Post Office, but time is getting on, and I will just summarise by saying that we are extend-
  442
  ing the number of motor services carried on by the Post Office, and we are embarking this year on a new experiment altogether, namely, the provision of a number of solo motor cycles for country postmen. We are only starting in a small way with, I think, about 20 of these cycles, but I hope and believe that it will develop, and will make the work of the country postmen easier and improve the services in the country districts.
  The air mail network in Europe continues to expand. If hon. Members will look at the new air mail leaflet which is now to be found in post offices, I think they will be surprised at the number of extended facilities which are now available for the postage of letters by air. I should like to call particular attention to the latest of the new services, which is that to Marseilles, by the use, of which it is now passible to post by air mail for the Indian mail very early on Friday morning, instead of at six o'clock on Thursday evening—a clear saving of about 12 hours. A letter posted in London before, I think, six o'clock on Friday morning—the particulars are obtainable at the post offices—for the air mail, will get to Marseilles in time to catch the Indian mail on the Saturday.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman come to any agreement with the German Government about flying over their territory?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think I would rather say nothing about that at the moment. Negotiations, however, are, I think, proceeding.
  I have now exhausted most of the subjects, but perhaps I may say a word or two about telephones. The expenditure of capital on the telephone service has been proceeding at about the rate that I told the Committee it would. The Committee may remember that I came to the House last summer for borrowing powers to refresh my telephone capital, and I then said that I hoped to be able to use this money usefully at the rate of about £1,000,000 a month. That is just about the rate at which telephone capital expenditure has been proceeding during the past year. The actual expenditure last year was £11,892,000, as compared with £9,720,000 the year before, and this year I estimate that the expendi-

  443
  ture will be £11,720,000, divided, broadly speaking, as follows:

  £

  Trunk lines and submarine cables

  …

  2,412,000

  Local exchange system

  …

  8,308,000

  Sites and buildings

  …

  1,000,000

  There has been during the past year an unprecedented growth in the number of new telephone stations. The total number of telephones connected during the year 1925–26 was 222,494, or 5,618 more than were joined up during the previous year, which up till then was the record year; and the net increase for the year, allowing for cessations, was 116,353 stations, representing a growth of 9·1 per cent. As I have said before now, I am very far from satisfied with the position that this country occupies among the telephone-using nations of the world; but I will say this, that we are improving, and improving at a fairly rapid rate. We are progressing, I think it, is true to say, at a faster rate than other people, so far as the number of telephones is concerned. We come actually third in the list of the world countries. The highest, of course, is the United States, then comes Germany, and then ourselves. That is so far as the number of telephones is concerned, but it is when one comes to take the figures for population per telephone that our comparatively lowly position appears. In that respect we stand ninth among the great countries. The United States heads the list with 7·5, though in the last year for which I have the figures it falls below that, namely, 7·05, as against 34·6 for ourselves. I will, however, say this, that our figure has been improving, and is going on improving. In 1922 it was 42·2 per telephone; in 1023, 38·5; and in 1924, 34·6, while at the end of June this year it was 30·4. Therefore, we have made a very marked and rapid improvement, and our rate of improvement will compare extremely favourably with any other country.
  Mr. TINKER: Has there been a corresponding improvement in the United States?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The figures in the United States have changed very little. I do not say they are at saturation point, but they are beginning to approach it. I have not the figures
  444
  for last year, but for 1922, 1923 and 1924 the figures were, respectively, 7·7, 7·5 and 7·05.
  Mr. G. HARVEY: And private enterprise at that!
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think it is what might be called cooperative enterprise. A most remarkable thing is the number of subscribers who are shareholders in the company—but perhaps I had better not be led away too far from the Vote. I may, perhaps, just complete the telephone figures by saying that the total number of effective calls passed during the year 1925–26 was 1,016,000,000, showing an increase over the previous year of 9·4 per cent. I think it is fair to say, while I am on the subject of telephones, that I do not think the telephone plant has ever been in better condition than it is in to-day. Its condition will challenge comparison with that of any other country; and, in spite of what people say about the quality of the service, the quality of the service also will challenge comparison. The trunk line system is being, as I have said, rapidly developed, ands, further, during the last year, 55 schemes were completed and brought into use, about 30 are still in hand, and 10 new schemes are to be put in hand this year.
  I should just like to say one word about the Anglo-Continental traffic, because I think the Anglo-Continental branch of the telephone service is one which has stood in great need of development in the past. It is now, thanks to the co-operation of the countries concerned, being developed very rapidly. At the present moment we have 21 circuits to France, eight to Belgium, 11 to Holland, and one to Germany. A new cable, containing eight physical circuits and four phantom circuits superimposed, was laid at the beginning of May between England and Holland, and this will be employed for the purpose of a direct service between London and various cities in Germany. It is ex-expected that a full Anglo-German telephone service will be opened during the present year, and meantime a restricted service is being provided via the existing Anglo-Dutch circuits and the Dutch-German land lines. A new cable between England and France, with 21 circuits, is expected to be laid during

  445
  the current month, and the French Administration are now laying a land cable from Boulogne to Paris to connect with our cable. A. new cable between England and Belgium is also being laid, and should be available early next year.
  I should now like to say a word about automatic telephones. The progress and development of automatic telephones is going on continuously and steadily. So far as London is concerned, it is, of course, an enormous problem, and it will be many years before the complete automatisation of London takes place, but we shall begin, by next year, to have automatic exchanges in operation in London. Actually, the first one, I think, will probably be what is known as a mechanical tandem exchange, which is necessary when both manual and automatic exchanges are in operation at the same time. It will be situated in the Holborn building, and I think it will probably be ready to start operating in April of next year. Probably by about June of next year the Holborn exchange will be operating, and, in the autumn of next year, Bishopsgate, Sloane and Western. Thereafter, the process of completing the development of the automatic telephone service in London will be a steady and continuous process over a considerable period of time, and it will probably be 15 or 20 years before the whole of the London telephone area is completely automatised. A large number of schemes are, of course, going on all the time in the provinces, and it may perhaps interest some members of the Committee if I say that the places in which it is hoped to complete automatic exchanges this year are Bedford, Cheltenham, Chesterfield, Coventry, Edinburgh, Gloucester, Nottingham, Oxford, Sheffield and West Hartlepool.
  Now one word about the rural telephone services. The number of rural telephone, exchanges, which at the end of June, 1925, was 721, is now 909, serving nearly 14,000 subscribers, and 70 more rural exchanges are in course of construction. The number of subscribers connected to each exchange averages about 15, and the older exchanges opened under the scheme are showing a steady and satisfactory growth of subscribers, but all of these exchanges entail at the present moment, and will, until they grow, entail a substantial loss, averaging something
  446
  like £56 per exchange. I would, therefore, appeal to hon. Members who represent rural constituencies to this extent, that, while I sympathise to the full—and I think I am showing my practical sympathy by opening these exchanges—with their desire to facilitate telephone communication in rural areas, that they will not press me too hard in this matter, because there is a limit to the extent of the remunerative part of the business, and one gets a little apprehensive when one's margin of telephone revenue begins to run down.
  Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking measures to make the facilities better known in the rural areas?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If my hon. Friend, or any Member of the Committee, will make any suggestions to me as to how the facilities can be better developed in rural areas, I shall be glad to co-operate in every way that I can. With regard to the existing exchanges, it is, of course, greatly to my interest to increase the existing number of subscribers.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, in the development of automatic telephones, the original programme is being worked to? I ask because in many cases we have had our numbers altered because of the coming of the automatic system, and now we are told that it will be many years before it is completed.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There has been no deviation from the plan that I am aware of. All this has been, of course, a matter of long development, but the development is proceeding perfectly steadily, arid without a hitch so far. I do not think there is any place in the country that has an automatic exchange where the subscribers would like to go back to the manual system.
  With regard to the telegraph service, I have only a few further words to say. I have already given the figures regarding the cost. The numbers of telegrams dealt with during the years 1923–24, 1924–25 and 1925–26 were, respectively, 68,800,000, 66,900,000 and 65,000,000, the fall this year being accounted for by the reasons T have stated already. What we can do we are doing. We are trying to introduce the latest devices in the way of apparatus wherever we can, in

  447
  order to save time, to save labour, and to minimise the cost. There is one way in which the public can help the telegraph service, to their advantage and to ours, by making greater use of the telephone for telephoning telegrams and by making greater use of telephone numbers as the addresses for telegrams. I do not think it is sufficiently known, though I try to call attention to it by every means in my power—members of the public will see in large letters in the front of the telephone book that you can use the telephone for the purpose of sending telegrams and you can use telephone numbers for the purpose of addresses.
  As regards the use of the telephone, it has been the practice to allow the public to send telegrams from any call office where an attendant has been on duty. We are now trying to extend that as far as possible to every telephone call office, and the number of unattended telephone call offices has grown very largely within the past year. Telephone kiosks are springing up on all hands. There has been an increase of 75 per cent. in the past year. We are trying to arrange to make it possible to despatch telegrams by telephone from those offices, but the difficulty is that the majority of the offices can only be fitted so far with machines that are capable of taking pennies, and before you can send a telegram you must equip yourself with 14 pennies, which presents rather a difficulty. The only way to get over that is by introducing multi-coin boxes, a complicated looking apparatus with a number of handles and buttons which enables you to make payment in silver. With the extension of that it will be a great deal easier for the public to make use of telephone facilities for telephoning telegrams and in so far as they can do that, they will save time and very probably save money, and they will certainly save the time and money of the Post Office.
  Mr. HURD: There is no hand delivery in that case is there?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The telegram is sent by the next post. The telegram is telephoned, and a confirmatory copy follows by the next post.
  448
  May I say a word now on the question of broadcasting First of all, as regards the position of the existing broadcasting service, the number of licences in force is round about 2,000,000. 1,960,000 were taken out last year, and the number of licences actually in force at present is 2,076,000, as compared with 1,387,000 a year ago. I mention those figures because there is an idea abroad that the rate of growth of wireless licences has fallen off. The figures I have do not corroborate that idea in the slightest. This is always a comparatively slack time of the year for taking out wireless licences, but the number issued during June this year was 57,512, as compared with 31,311 in June, 1925. So far as licences are concerned, I hope no one will imagine that the Post Office proposes to relax its efforts to detect and prosecute any people who fail in their duty as citizens and as honest people in taking out the necessary licence. It is the cheapest form of entertainment that has ever been offered to anyone anywhere. May I add a word or two with regard to the future of broadcasting? As I have stated in answer to questions, the Government have accepted in general the recommendations that were made by the Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Crawford. Those recommendations, briefly, were, that the broadcasting service should be conducted by a public corporation acting as trustee for the national interest. The corporation should either be set up by Act of Parliament or be incorporated under the Companies Act, should be licensed by the Postmaster-General for not less than 10 years, and should consist of not more than seven or less than five commissioners; that the undertaking of the Broadcasting Company should be transferred as a going concern to the Commissioners on 1st January, 1927, and the fee for a receiving licence should be maintained at 10s. In general, the Government have decided to accept those recommendations. I should like it to be known that there will be no interruption whatever in the continuity of the service. The intention is that on 31st December the service at present conducted by the British Broadcasting Company shall pass over as a going concern, plant, assets, and in a large part, staff and all, under the control of the new authority. With regard to that

  449
  new authority, I should like to read just what the Committee had to say as to the status of the new body:
  "We feel that the prestige and status of the Commission should be freely acknowledged and their sense of responsibility emphasised. We have framed our Report with this object constantly in our minds, and we have done so with the knowledge that the State, through Parliament, must retain the right of ultimate control. We assume that the Postmaster-General would be the Parliamentary spokesman on broad questions of policy, though we think it essential that the Commission should not be subject to the continuing Ministerial guidance and direction which apply to Government offices."
  They go on:
  "Within well-defined limits the Commission should enjoy the fullest liberty, wide enough to mark the serious duties laid upon it and elastic enough to permit variation according to technical developments and changes in public taste."
  The gist of it all is summed up in the last sentence:
  "The Commissioners should therefore be invested with the maximum of freedom which Parliament is prepared to concede."
  That in general is the position the Government are prepared to accept and take up.
  The only question we have had to consider is how the body should be actually called into existence. The Committee recommended that it should be done either by Statute or by incorporation under the Companies Act. We have considered both. The idea of setting up such a body by Statute presented considerable attractions, but the difficulty about a body operating under purely statutory authority is that it is apt—and a long series of history in the Law Courts has shown it is true—to be regarded, when its powers come to be scrutinised, if they ever have to be scrutinised in law, as being strictly confined within the limits of the words of the Statute itself, and if any alteration is necessary in its powers it is necessary to have an amending Statute. That, on the practical side, is certainly a difficulty. But there is a greater difficulty than that. My chief objection to a, body set up by Statute is that it really tends to prejudice the position of the new body from the start by investing it in the mind of the public with the idea that in some way it is a creature of Parliament and connected with political activity. If broadcasting is to live in this country, I am certain its
  450
  vitality will be increased directly as you can succeed in divorcing it from political activities. With that in our minds we have decided that we should not proceed to set up the new body by Statute. Then we considered the other alternative of setting it up by incorporation under the Companies Acts, and again we came to the conclusion that it presented insuperable difficulties. In the first place, the Government would probably have to acquire or hold shares if a company was registered with capital at all, and if it were not registered with capital, it would always, I think, lack a certain amount of status and dignity.
  We therefore came to the conclusion—and this is what we propose to do—that we would apply to the Privy Council to move the Crown to be pleased to grant a Royal Charter for the incorporated body to hold a licence from the Postmaster-General and to conduct this service. The actual regulation of the finance of the body will have to be clone by this House, either by legislation in the autumn or by way of Supplementary Estimate, and whichever it is, whether by legislation or by Supplementary Estimate, that would afford a proper opportunity for a discussion upon the broad question of the powers and constitution of the body. I cannot say anything more as regards its constitution, numbers or membership today, and I think it will be the autumn before I can say anything definite with regard to that. When the Parliamentary discussion comes, I will undertake that in good time before that, the draft of the petition and other relevant papers will be laid as Parliamentary Papers so that everyone interested will have an opportunity in good time of seeing all the details of the proposed constitution and everything else. I cannot say anything more about it to-day, because the details are as yet under scrutiny but, broadly speaking, we propose to accept the recommendations of the Committee and to set up this new body which I think will probably be called the British Broadcasting Corporation, and not Commission, rather to emphasise the fact that it does not exist as a mere statutory entity. It will take over the present business of the British Broadcasting Company as a going concern with all the assets, and I have financial arrangements in hand under which I hope it will be

  451
  possible for the new body to start with an absolutely clean sheet, clear of all liability.
  5.0 P.M.
  May I say a word on the subject of Imperial wireless. We have opened this year, quietly, without any fuss, the biggest thing in wireless stations that exists anywhere in the world—the station at Rugby. It stands alone among the world's largest radio-telegraph stations because it uses the valve system of transmission, it is equipped for communication both on long and short waves, and it has a novel installation which enables it to be used not only for telegraphic but for telephonic purposes. At present, on the telegraph side it is being used for broadcasting thrice daily British official wireless messages, and also for transmitting private and Press telegrams to ships equipped with suitable apparatus on any sea anywhere in the world. I should like hon. Members and the public to know that by going to any telegraph office and paying ls. 6d. a word they can now send a telegram to any ship which has suitable apparatus, no matter where the ship may be, on whatever sea it may be. We are getting daily reports from all over the world of the working of the Rugby telegraph. All these reports are collated, and we are beginning gradually to get a map of the world showing the strength of the Rugby signals in different parts of the world. It is interesting to observe that there appear to be—no one can say why—certain parts of the world which are more difficult to get at than others. There are certain, not quite blind, spots but difficult spots which occur for no apparent reason. Broadly speaking, and in general, barring any exceptional disturbance, it is pretty certain that any message sent from Rugby will reach any ship almost anywhere in the world. Equally gratifying results have been reached on the telephone side. Wireless telephonic communication across th Atlantic was first established on 7th February last. Four weeks later a demonstration was arranged at which representatives of the Press were present, and talked across the Atlantic to their confreres in New York. Since then the feasibility of inter-communication, in the absence of any abnormal atmospheric disturbances, almost throughout the 24
  452
  hours has been established, and this problem of linking the radio-telephonic service to the land trunk telephone service appears to have been successfully solved. We are getting appreciably nearer the time when the trans-Atlantic telephonic service will be a practical commercial proposition. The telephonic tests have hitherto been confined to communication with the United States of America, which is the only country now equipped with suitable corresponding stations for two-way communication; but we have invited, cordially, the Dominions, the Colonies and India to co-operate, and it is hoped that many of them will be able to hear Rugby speaking, even though they are unable through want of modern means of communication to reply themselves.
  The completion of the Beam stations by the Marconi Company, under the contract of 1924 has, unfortunately, been delayed through causes beyond the control of the contractors, of which the most important was the illness at one and the same time of Senatore Marconi and his chief assistant, but the stations at Bodmin and Bridgwater for communication with Canada and South Africa are now practically finished. Some time will be occupied in completing the final adjustments, but the Marconi Company tell me that they hope to begin at Bodmin their preliminary tests with the Canadian station at the end of this week, and to be ready for us to make our official tests towards the end of the present month, and the station for the South African service a little later, about mid-August. The stations at Grimsby and Skegness for communication with Australia and India will probably be ready in October. When due allowance is made for the difficulties which must inevitably arise in connection with the development of a new system of wireless communication, which is being tried under practical commercial conditions for the first time, I think it is a reasonable expectation that the four Beam stations will be in full operation before the end of the present year.
  The rates and the contract conditions for working have been settled in all cases except in the case of Australia, by a Committee sitting under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General (Viscount Wolmer). Roughly speaking, the rates will be, except in the case of Canada, two-thirds

  453
  of the cable rates existing in July, 1924. In the case of the Canadian service the rates will be identical with the corresponding cable rates. The effect will be that in the case of South Africa there will be a reduction in respect of cable rates of 8d. a word, in the case of India 7d. a word, and proportionate reduction for cheaper classes of traffic. I have done my best in the time at my disposal to make myself clear. If there is any point on which I have not been clear or on which the Committee wishes further information, either I or my Noble Friend will be glad to answer any detailed questions, to the best of our ability.
  Mr. AMMON: The Postmaster-General in opening his speech said that he felt very much like the chairman of a public company making his annual statement. I think the Committee must congratulate itself on the fact that they have a Postmaster-General who has presented the accounts of a big commercial concern in concise, businesslike terms, which have been very interesting and appreciated by all of us. The fact that he said he would not be prepared like the chairman of a company to put his signature to the balance sheet in no way detracts from the fact that he is at the head of one of the most successful business concerns in the world. I imagine that there will he no difficulty on this side of the House in co-operating with him in endeavouring to get his annual statement at the end of the year arranged by a different kind of accounting, instead of what is now a strictly cash account. The businesslike and interesting statement which the Postmaster-General has presented embodies within it a story of wireless romance more fascinating than any that has ever been talked about within the knowledge of man. The statement which he has just given to us in matter-of-fact terms of the possibility of our being able by wireless telephony to communicate with the utmost ends of the earth, coincident with the development of wireless telegraphy, opens up visions which the imagination fails to comprehend.
  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the staff, and particularly that section of the staff which he mentioned in connection with the general strike, especially as it does something to counter the mischievous and false
  454
  innuendoes and suggestion made by certain hon. Members in this House with regard to the work of the staff and the cooperation of the large union mostly concerned with them, which did co-operate very closely with the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the officials during that particular period. Whilst paying that tribute, the right hon. Gentleman went on to express a doubt as to what the staff might think of him. Up to now the report is quite a good one. There is no objection, and there can be no objection, to the fact that when the wage claim was lodged with the Arbitration Court, the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, took the unusual step of lodging a counter-claim. If the case presented has to fear any counter-claim, then, of course, we cannot feel on very sure ground with regard to the case. Although there may have been some demur, it was only on account of the unusual course that was taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and not from any feeling of animus against him for taking that step.
  My task will be a great deal easier this year, because many of the grievances that are usually raised on this annual occasion are sub judice. I shall not therefore trouble the Committee with them. I would hasten to say that through the spread of the co-operative spirit which has taken place between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office administration during past years the need for venting grievances in this House has been progressively less. We have not had to trouble the House with purely domestic affairs, because we have been able to settle them through the machinery which has been devised between the Union itself and the Post Office. I demur from one remark which the Postmaster-General made, that he did not think it was his business to do anything to stimulate a demand with regard to the cash-on-delivery system. Surely, he has to look at the matter on business lines, just in the same way as the development of the telephone. It is as much his duty to endeavour to increase the usefulness and work of his Department on that side as it is to look after the rapidly developing telephone side. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to much credit for the businesslike way in which he has developed the telephone side and

  455
  brought it increasingly before the notice of the public. He has taken a long, businesslike view in spending money well ahead, and if for the time being it may seem unremunerative it is bound to be remunerative later, because he will be in a better position to meet increase of traffic along that particular line.
  I was interested to notice that the Postmaster-General has joined the ranks of those statisticians who delight in telling us how many pennies it would take, placed side by side, to reach to the end of the earth. The right hon. Gentleman did not illustrate his point by pennies, but he spoke of the number of packets which would be required to reach from the earth to the sun, and how many would be likely to be left over after the long line of packets had made the journey. Although he has taken this fresh method of illustrating his point, the wonderful figures which he has given us have left us to some extent unable to grasp all that was meant in that respect. I shall not trouble the Committee with matters of detail so far as staff grievances are concerned. As far as the Post Office is concerned, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for a wider development of the Post Office service. It always gives me great delight when someone of the political persuasion of the Postmaster-General stands up, and has to give us such a very fine report of a purely Socialistic experiment in business which is being carried on so efficiently under a confirmed individualist such as the Postmaster-General.
  I suggest that a line of development, which might he adopted without involving any fresh legislation, would be to explore the possibilities of the Post Office Savings Bank. I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that matter in a question a few days ago. The Government and the country need as much money as they can get at a cheap rate, and it would be well to encourage among the bulk of the population the habit of thrift. The Post Office Savings Bank is one of the best avenues for promoting thrift. Quite recently there were proposals before the London County Council for the establishment of a municipal savings bank. The County Council considered the very excellent example of Birmingham in regard to the
  456
  establishment of a municipal savings bank. They considered other experiments which have been made in this and other countries, but the County Council and the Finance Committee came to the conclusion, after examining the question in all its details, that the need would be met in the Post Office Savings Bank if the Post Office Savings Bank would relax one or two of the regulations now operating.
  They suggested that the National Savings Committee could do a good deal in the way of publicity in regard to the opportunities offered by the Post Office Savings Bank for the development of thrift among people of small means. They went on to suggest that the Post Office should give further facilities by abolishing the limitations, to which I called attention some years ago, which are imposed by insisting that people can only pay in a complete shilling. To people of small means that is a difficulty, although it may not seem so to hon. Members who are not accustomed to dealing with 'these small matters. It is a considerable difficulty from the point of view of poor people who may not have a shilling, but who would be prepared to put a few coppers into the Post Office. In the aggregate, that would turn out to be a considerable amount of money, as has been shown by the experience of the Penny Savings Bank, which collapsed with disastrous results to many poor people, and similar organisations. These institutions meet a need which the Post Office has not yet met. I suggest that the Postmaster-General might very well explore the suggestion made by the London County Council in their resolution:
  " That the Council is of opinion that with a view to providing additional facilities for encouraging thrift it is desirable that the scheme of the Post Office Savings Bank should be improved so as to provide as regards deposits and withdrawals facilities similar to those provided by the Birmingham Municipal Bank, and that greater publicity should be given to the facilities offered."
  There are two points to be made in that connection. One is, that people should be allowed to put in deposits of less than 1s., and that they should be able to withdraw without notice a larger sum than they are able to do at the present time. I know some of the difficulties from the inside. One of the difficulties will be

  457
  the amount of book-keeping which will be involved and greater expense, and there will be, possibly, the danger of mistakes in paying out. Those are difficulties which every bank has to face, but they could be got over by administration. I hope the Postmaster-General will take the lead which has been given to him by our largest municipality, and explore the matter not only with a view to offering better facilities for depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, but of getting the use of money at a comparatively low rate of interest. After all, the poor people are not so much concerned with the actual amount of interest as they are with the security which is afforded and have some little return for the money placed on deposit.
  I want to refer again to the question of what is known as the postal cheque system. I have already brought it to the attention of the Postmaster-General in discussions in this House and in correspondence have put it before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The postal cheque system, in a word, provides that people of small means shall be able to use a cheque book, appropriately devised, in the same way as people who have large deposits in joint stock banks. It is not a new proposal because it has been adopted by almost every Continental country. Having regard to some of the criticisms and objections by the Postmaster-General, and also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I sent a questionnaire to all the European countries asking for information with regard to the business carried on in this direction. If the Committee will pardon me I will give hon. Members the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to me in September of last year. It is to this effect:
  " As I promised, I have now looked into the question of postal cheques. I find that the Post Office have investigated this system on several occasions from 1908 onwards, but have never felt able to recommend its adoption. It is true that certain Continental countries have made a success of it. This is partly due to the fact that they run their post offices on cheaper lines than we do and can afford to fix fees for such business on a scale which in our case would result in a heavy loss. But the main reason is that their banking systems are relatively undeveloped and the postal cheque system has the field more or less to itself. In this country where banking facilities are so widely spread and highly developed it is only the smaller and less remunerative
  458
  accounts which would come to the Post Office. I am advised, therefore, that it would be impossible for us to adopt the system without serious financial loss."
  I feel sure that the real objection comes from the joint stock banks, who are opposed to any development of State banking as represented by the Post Office. The fact remains, however, that the Postmaster-General is the largest banker in this country and does a business which is much larger than that of any joint stock bank. In spite of it having been turned down in former years—that is always the fate of a new proposal—I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, with his independence and business capacity, should jump at this sort of proposal and adopt it. It affords great opportunities for much business. It has been adopted by most of the other countries in Europe. When asking them for a return in connection with this postal cheque system, I put this question to them: " Is the banking system as highly developed in your country as in England?" That is the real objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In their reply several countries say that it is not, but one or two, which are commercially more nearly akin to Great Britain, particularly France, claim that their banking system is superior to ours. I am not in a position to contradict them; I do not profess to be an expert on this matter. Belgium and Germany consider that their banking system is on an equality with the banking system in this country, and from the replies I have received it is clear that the amount of business done is simply stupendous. The figures beat even the figures which the Postmaster-General has put before the Committee this afternoon. They, of course, refer to marks and francs, not to pounds sterling. In the case of Germany, the whole of the business they dealt with in connection with the postal cheque system amounted in the aggregate to the extraordinary figure of 78,501,341,000 marks in the year 1925, and in Belgium it amounted in the aggregate to 36,320,244,000 francs. Those are figures which we can quote but cannot fully grasp. They indicate a tremendous amount of business which, if it is found to be profitable in other countries, the Postmaster-General might explore in order to see whether it is not worth while adopting in this country.

  459
  Let me turn to another subject, namely, the sale of the Abu Zabal Wireless Station in Egypt. This station has been run by the British Post Office, but it has not paid. It has been run at a loss. Latterly it has been re-equipped and a certain amount of money, about £10,000, has been spent on technical equipment and additional accommodation for the staff. Altogether a considerable amount of money has been added to the capital expenditure originally involved. I am informed that a sum of £120,000 has been paid by the Marconi Wireless Company for this station, at a moment when it seems that there might be a revival of business and the station made a business proposition. Having regard to the fact that the Post Office is able to conduct its work with so much success it is curious that it is unable to make a success of this wireless station, which it is proposed to hand over to the Marconi Wireless Company who are prepared to run it. There must be a little more behind this. The reputation of the Marconi Company in regard to Imperial wireless is not altogether above suspicion. They have more than once queered the pitch with regard to the development of Imperial wireless, and when the Imperial Economic Conference have approved the development of Imperial wrieless, the Marconi Company have put sand in the machine and delayed it. Now they appear in this transaction, and it would be interesting if the Postmaster-General can inform the Committee of the real reasons why the Government arc selling this wireless station to a private British concern. It has been technically improved and new buildings for the staff and plant erected, and I should like to know whether this was done preparatory to disposing of it to another company.
  The Marconi Wireless Company are, I understand, our competitors in other fields. We work Italy from London. Is there any proposal to make concessions to the Marconi Company to work route traffic for this country through Abu Kabal? This is an important matter. This particular station transmits to Rhodesia, Iraq, Hong Kong and Singapore, and it shows possibilities of great commercial development. If a concern like the Marconi Company buy this station, it shows that they must have some knowledge of the potentialities of
  460
  the station and that there is a possibility of producing a revenue. The Donald Committee, I know, recommended that the station should be disposed of when the Admiralty requirements had been satisfied. Have those requirements been satisfied? I hope the noble Lord, the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to give us full information with regard to this case when he replies, because it is a matter of public importance. It is the disposal of public property and services to a private concern without Parliament knowing all the facts in reference to the case.
  I want now to deal with a purely personal matter concerning an officer who was lately chief engineer on His Majesty's cable ship " Monarch." In 1915 the " Monarch " was torpedoed and sank- off Dover, and as a result this officer suffered considerably in health and from a nervous breakdown. He was placed off duty, and received a pension under the Injuries in War Act. He received certificates. from the Post Office medical officers, four in number, and in addition certificates from private practitioners, including one of the most eminent nerve specialists of Harley Street, Dr. Schofield, to the effect that he was suffering from shock due to the torpedoeing of the " Monarch." This officer has been retired earlier than his full service life on a reduced pension and without any allowance whatever for the injuries received by the torpedoeing of the " Monarch." The reply of the Post Office has been that the Department does not recognise the complaint which has brought about his retirement as in any way due to the injury received while he was on the " Monarch." That, curiously enough, is in direct conflict with the highest medical opinion. and Dr. Schofield, the physician of Harley Street, wrote and objected to the Post Office sending this man back to work on the " Monarch " on the ground that it was quite contrary to his own orders. He said:
  " I saw and carefully examined Mr. R. Allen at 10, Harley Street, on 22nd March, 1919, and gave him a certificate (Copy sent), and now learn with intense surprise. that it was utterly ignored. I have been constantly consulted by all grades in both Services, and this is the only instance of such action. The consequences have been disastrous, and I have certificates from Drs. Hunter and Davis proving this, and find

  461
  that my patient at 47 is now an invalid from service causes only."
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. AMMON: When I was unfortunately interrupted, I was saying that this gentleman had a certificate from an eminent specialist and five other doctors, four of whom are Post Office doctors, all of them bearing out the statement that the complaint from which this gentleman was suffering resulted from the torpedoing of the vessel. It is not playing fair with this man, who did his duty in very difficult circumstances during the War and was engaged in service that made him particularly open to injury such as he received, that advantage should be taken and an endeavour be made to get away on some technicality so as to deprive him of his proper pension. I want to press on the Postmaster-General that in view of this somewhat indignant letter from an eminent specialist, who feels that, he has been treated by the Post Office in a way that no other Department of State had dealt with him, some reconsideration of the case is called for, with a view of seeing whether this gentleman is not entitled to some increase in pension.
  I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General when he replies to say something in regard to a matter that concerns large numbers of the manipulative workers, particularly the postmen up and down the country, with regard to what is known as the Saturday half-holiday. Normally speaking, the agreement is that the Post Office should endeavour to see that the eight-hours day of post office servants is covered within the 12-hour period. I am not making any complaint with regard to the general way in which that arrangement is carried out; but there was an agreement between the Post Office and the staff representatives on the Departmental Whitley Council. The covering period, it is alleged, applies only to the larger offices. That is accepted in the Report. But it comes down to the question, What constitute the larger offices? The Post Office claim that it involves only Class I offices—Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and so forth; but the staff contend that it should and does involve Class II and Class III offices. We under-
  462
  stand that later deliveries are contemplated in some places, and that will involve an extension of the 12-hours covering period.
  Before administrative action is taken with regard to this, I hope that the Post Office will not stand too much on the punctilio of determining what it shall do, but will meet and discuss the matter with representatives of the staff nationally, in order to see whether it is possible to arrive at a national agreement. It is somewhat late in the day, particularly in regard to what has happened in industries in other quarters, for any Government Department to take steps which will have the net effect of increasing the hours of work and the covering period. I hope that the Post Office, at least, are not going to add anything to the volume of criticism that has been again and again poured out on this Government with regard to attacks on the hours and conditions of working-class life, and that before they decide on any administrative action and increase the late deliveries and the covering period of hours which the men are to work, they will meet the representatives of the staff and see whether something can be (lone to arrange an agreement on national lines. Hitherto the relations between the Postmaster-General and the staff representatives have been excellent, and I am hoping that nothing will be done to impair those relations.
  I would conclude, as I began, by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the record of a Department which has served the State in a very excellent way, and at the same time I would express the hope that the House will recognise, when inclined to criticise the Civil Service and its work, that the Post Office includes more than two-thirds of the whole Civil Service in its ranks. The Postmaster-General has already given a very wide review of the duties that are thrown on the Post Office staff. Those duties multiply every year and are increased by every piece of fresh social legislation, because the Post Office is the most admirable machine that we have for such work. I ask the Noble Lord when he replies to give some attention to the points which I have raised with regard to the future development of the service and the special cases which I have brought to his notice.
  Captain FRASER: It is maintained by the Postmaster-General that the British telephone service is equal to any in the world, and from the point of view of quality I daresay that there will be few who will challenge that statement. But, if that is so, it does not alter the fact that there are other respects in which the telephone service compares very unfavourably. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committe in going over that ground, because it is well known to Members of the Committee and to the public that our telephone service is not as universal as are the services of other countries, or as universal as some of us think it should be. The Postmaster-General has shown that very great efforts have been made by his Department to extend the service, and the figures which he gave to the Committee will undoubtedly have impressed us with the fact that there is a genuine desire, and a very strong effort being made, to catch up in that respect. It is curious, however, to record that in the Report of the Telephone Select Committee of this House in 1922, there are the words:
  " There is a marked practical divergence between the official view and the views of the general public and the business community."
  I think that that is still the case. It would appear that the official view is, firstly, that there is no latent demand which the present machinery of the Post Office is not stimulating; and, secondly, that such demand as there is, is being met as quickly as possible. With regard to the first point, in answer to a question which I asked recently, the Postmaster-General said that he had canvassers all over the country actively engaged in bringing to the notice of members of the public the advantages of the telephone, and seeking to persuade them to install telephones. He claimed that they covered the ground; at least one had to infer from his answer that he believed that they covered the ground, because the question asked was whether or not he would advertise so as to cover the ground properly, and I understood that he satisfied the House that he was already covering the ground by means of his canvassers. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that in the Provinces, out of some 375 exchanges which have more that 300 subscribers, no less than 13 per cent. are in
  464
  a category in which no canvassing is allowed or only very restricted canvassing, and whether in London the conditions are not very much worse, namely, that something like 67 per cent. of the exchanges are in such a category?
  One is tempted to ask why are there such restrictions, and whether in those circumstances it can be claimed that the latent demand, which some of us believe to exist, is being properly exploited? The divergence of opinion between the Post Office and the general public and the trade and business community, is exemplified in a way that must carry conviction with practically the whole of the trade which is engaged in making the apparatus used in telephone development, for they have thought fit to establish an Association—as hon. Members will probably have gathered from advertisements which have recently appeared—and they have thought fit liberally to finance the Association in order to stir up this latent demand for more telephones. These are business men, scattered all over the land, able in a very useful way to judge what is the public demand or the latent demand, and they not merely find themselves in conflice with the official view that there is not a latent demand, but they are prepared to back their conviction with very handsome financial arrangements. I suggest that that indicates that there is grave doubt whether or not we might not have many more people using the telephone, did they know of its advantages and were those advantages properly brought to their notice.
  It may be said that the British people have not cultivated the telephone habit. Possibly the Post Office may take steps to cultivate that habit when our people are young or in other ways. Probably our people did not use typewriters adequately until someone advertised them and cultivated the habit. The Post Office, like most Government Departments, is shy about advertising, I suppose, and finds difficulty in embarking upon such a venture. I do not feel that it should present difficulties. This is primarily a commercial enterprise, an3 the Postmaster-General himself has emphasised that, by mentioning that he would like to see the accounts of his Department kept and presented in another way. May I, in passing, ask him, if he thinks it wise, to devote some time to that ques-

  465
  tion and to make a suggestion to the House at a convenient time. If the telephone accounts particularly were presented and dealt with in a way which conforms with usual business practice, and if the profits of the Department were retained by the Department, there might be a greater chance of quick development than there is under the present arrangement.
  Probably it will be said that the delays and the restrictions in regard to canvassing, which I have mentioned, are due in large part to the pending change from manual operation to automatic operation. No doubt, that is so, and the Postmaster-General has told us the change is being proceeded with as fast as possible. I suggest, however, that it will be deplorable if, as he tells us, it is going to take 15 to 20 years before we get the automatic system,, and if during the transition in those areas, where there are now restrictions, those restrictions are to continue for that length of time. The capital expenditure which he is asking the Committee to sanction and in which he is involved is large. I note that, in answer to a question which I put recently upon that subject, he said he was spending £12,000,000 a year or £1,000,000 a month. I take it, as that was an answer to a Supplementary Question, that the phraseology was the phraseology of the moment. It is obviously not expenditure in the ordinary sense, but a very profitable investment, which returns to the taxpayer—as do very few other nationalised or municipalised services—a revenue which is, or could be made, well worth having.
  It seems to me a case can be made out for a reconsideration of what appears to be the slow development which is being made. I realise that a development of 10 per cent, is considerable, and it may be greater than that which is taking place in the United States, but there is so much room for development that we would expect much greater development here. I want to see the time when we shall no longer stand ninth on the list so far as telephone density is concerned, but shall be nearer the top, and I hope that in a few years, and not in 15 or 20 years, it will be possible for the poor man to have the telephone. I think it should be possible for the small trader, to whom this instrument would be a great
  466
  boon, to have it at a price which he can afford, and the larger the number of persons who use the telephone the cheaper it can be made. That statement is sometimes contradicted and much argument took place on it before the Select Committee, but my view is that there is no doubt that if there were, say, twice as many telephones in this land, the price could be vary much reduced. I would ask the Noble Lord to tell us why there are restrictions and if it is contemplated that these restrictions will last for 15 or 20 years until we are all converted to. the automatic system.
  In regard to broadcasting, I welcome the announcement which the Postmaster-General has made that the Government propose to follow the Report of the Committee recently set up. I regret that the details will not be before us until the Autumn Session, because that Session will presumably be brief and full of business, and there will not be a great deal of time to deal with this important matter. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, promised to lay these papers on the Table and to give us adequate time. I congratulate the Government upon their action in this matter. I realise this is not the time to debate it, but there is just one point in relation to finance and one in relation to the general question which I should like to mention. There is some fear, and there is evidence to support the fear, that the Government are not giving the broadcasting service enough money. The programmes have not maintained that progress in interest and variety during the last year which characterised the first two or three years. I do not say they are worse, but they have not become better at the same rate as listeners were entitled to expect. Listeners have paid very large sums for these programmes, and they are entitled —to quote, roughly, the words of the Government Committee—to know that the Postmaster-General or the Treasury will not retain any of the funds which they have contributed, until adequate provision has been made for the development, of better programmes.
  The Committee also used words to the effect that expenditure on experiment and research ought not to be meagre. There is very little surplus left in the British Broadcasting Company at the present time to make such experiments

  467
  as they must make, in order to establish a better system of distribution and higher-power-stations throughout the country. I hope before the end of the year and during this interim period the Postmaster-General will make financial arrangements with the British Broadcasting Commission which will enable them to improve the programmes this winter, and make a large and bold experiment in the use of higher power, so that better distribution, and, possibly, alternative programmes may be attained. Will he also grant, because this is a necessary corollary, a wide discretion in the matter of the use of the higher power which they will need for these experiments? I am sure it will be said, and I am convinced it is the case, that the present Postmaster-General is keenly alive to this matter, and is personally interested in the development of broadcasting and appreciates its potentialities. One is not, however, always impressed with the fact that the departmental mind in the aggregate—I do not refer to the officials themselves because I have the highest regard for the services which they render —is capable of appreciating the potentialities of such a new thing as this, to the same extent as, I know, the present Postmaster-General does. Can he assure the Committee that some delays which have taken place in the past, in the matter of giving the company powers to use a greater number of kilowatts on their aerials, will not continue in the future, so that we may look forward, even this winter, to a development in their new distribution scheme?
  On the questions of interference with broadcasting programmes the Committee know there are two kinds of interference. One arises from the carelessness of listeners, who make their receiving sets behave in a way which interrupts and interferes with their neighbours. It is true that can be dealt with by education and the British Broadcasting Company has done much to educate people not to cause this interference, but at present there is only one way to impress this matter upon people and that is to prosecute a few offenders vigorously. May I ask him if he will do everything he can to prosecute a few people in different areas in the country. I think he need prosecute very few. I know the
  468
  Committee will not consider me vindictive because I am thinking of the common good, which can only be attained by prosecuting one or two careless individuals so as to " encourage the others." I think the Postmaster-General has the machinery for doing it. Will he assure us he will use that machinery soon so that we may have in the newspapers a few reports of prosecutions. The other form of interference comes from marine stations and ships and from foreign coast stations. We cannot expect shipping to make alterations in plant now, because shipping is very depressed, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he might not, make Regulations forbidding the inclusion in new ships or altered ships, of apparatus which emits a wave capable of interfering with broadcasting. Will he also do what he can to see that ships keep to the wave lengths which are laid down for them. He will say that he has little control over foreign ships, and I am aware that they are the worst offenders, and the French shore stations, in regard to London and the South Coast, are perhaps worse still. That leads one to ask what steps he is taking internationally to deal with this question? Listeners are entitled to know that the Government are taking steps internationally to secure agreement that broadcasting shall be given a free hand.
  In relation to the free band, if it can be secured internationally, will the Postmaster-General revise his ideas as to the amount of power which may be used on that free band. If broadcasting is limited to a certain band of wave lengths, there seems little reason for limiting the amount of power which might be used on that band and many advantages to listeners throughout the land will arise, if higher power can be used. I feel there ought not to be a house in the land in which programmes, both for entertainment and education, cannot be received on the simplest apparatus. It rests largely with the Post Office to provide the facilities.
  May I conclude by saying in spite of the criticisms, if they can be so called, which I have made, and the questions which I have asked, I am very happy to think that, through the energy and foresight of the British Post Office and our manufacturers, and through the great ability which has been shown in

  469
  the conduct of the British Broadcasting Company, we in this country have an unparalleled service. It can be maintained as the best service in the world, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can assure the Committee, through his noble Friend, that some of the points which I have raised and which I believe have a material bearing on the future success of the service, are being attended to.
  Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: On behalf of my hon. Friends who sit on these benches and who heard the Postmaster-General's statement, I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a very able expose of the government of the great Department over which he presides. I think he is to be congratulated, though, needless to say, there are certain things he said with which 1 totally disagree. The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) who has just spoken, made certain remarks about the telephone with which I thoroughly agree, just as I disagree with his premises about broadcasting am not going over the ground which he covered, but I wish to say something on the question of telephones. I put it to the Postmaster-General that there is a good deal of uncertainty arising out of his statement with regard to the action of the Treasury in limiting expenditure, and when I say expenditure, I mean capital expenditure. Does the Treasury look upon this as an annual outgoing or as capital expenditure which will produce revenue? If they are hampering expenditure on the telephones because they are short of cash in the national Exchequer, it is a foolish and un-businesslike policy. From the Post Office commercial accounts I see that between 31st March, 1924, and 31st March, 1925, on the whole telephone service, after paying everything, the right hon. Gentleman was able to present the Exchequer with £463,000. That is a very handsome profit which we are making out of the telephone service, and, if we can extend the service, we shall make more money, and, as the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last pointed out, the more telephone users, the cheaper the service.
  6.0 P.M.
  I have asked questions on this matter, and it is admitted that in many districts subscribers are experiencing delay in receiving their
  470
  instruments. I find in connection with the central exchanges that telephones are fitted up in an efficient and expeditious manner and the technical staff of the Department is admirable. But there are many districts in which people have to wait for an indefinite period. What is the reason for that? The Noble Lord said, in reply to a question earlier in the week, that it would cost unlimited money to fit them up more quickly. I submit, however, that it is false economy to limit the extension of the service now, because you do not get a return till the year after next, and every business man knows that. The right hon. Gentleman is himself a business man, and he knows in his heart that what I am saying is absolutely true. The same applies to the automatic telephones, which are being installed very slowly. I do not like mentioning the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, but in Hull we were wise enough to keep our own municipal telephones, and we are making a very handsome profit. We are paying £10,000 a year royalty to the Post Office, and making a profit of about £11,000 in relief of rates. We have a much more efficient telephone service there than we have anywhere else, especially in London, and it is cheaper, and now we have just opened au automatic telephone exchange. If a municipality can do that with its small resources, and yet have to pay a royalty to the Post Office, what is the reason for not having the automatic telephone exchanges operating over many times the area in which they operate now? I am afraid that the reason is that there is a short-sighted shortage of money, brought about by the Treasury, and L am reinforced in that belief by the remarks of the Earl of Lucan in another place, in answer to a Noble Friend of mine who raised this matter recently. The Noble Earl said that the Department was rationed, like other Departments. That shows a complete misapprehension of what the Post Office ought to be doing, and I make the charge that the Treasury is either hampering the Postmaster-General in revenue-producing development, or else the Postmaster-General is-not sufficiently pressing upon the Treasury the need for more money.
  I must make here the suggestion I have made outside as to the need for the use

  471
  of the telephone being made part of the education of the child. We teach a child to speak in school, or we try to teach him to speak, and it is equally important to teach him to understand the spoken voice on the telephone and to speak into the telephone. This is an important matter. We are a great commercial nation, and the amount of time lost and of trouble caused by inefficient clerks and typists in offices, with no knowledge of how to use a telephone, must in the course of a year be colossal, and must cost us hundreds of thousands of pounds. Why does not the Postmaster-General make a present to every State-aided school of a couple of telephone receivers, with a battery and a length of wire, so that the children could speak from one room to another? They would love it. Let them do it for half-an-hour each, once a fortnight, in their last term in a council school. They would, in the first place, learn how to use the telephone, and later they would insist on having telephones in their own homes, and, secondly, they would be of some use when they went out into ordinary life. The use of the telephone is a necessity to-day. You may say that a manual labourer does not use the telephone, but he might do, and should do. There may be some accident, or there are dozens of cases in which the telephone would be useful to him. The use of the telephone should be taught in the schools. I do not see how even the present Minister of Education could object to that.
  I must also repeat the suggestion that I have seen outside with reference to people who lose their tempers over the telephone and smash the instrument I must repeat to the Committee what has been suggested, because I think it is a most admirable idea. Somebody using a telephone became exasperated, probably because of the under-paid telephone operators, who do not trouble to hold on to their jobs. If they were better paid and better treated they would be much more careful not to lose their jobs and occasionally to cause outraged subscribers to smash the instruments. The suggestion I have seen is that a plaster image of the Postmaster-General, cheaply produced, ought to be placed in every telephone box, with a hammer attached by a piece of wire, so that the outraged
  472
  subscriber could wreck his vengeance on the plaster image of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not mind it, if his own instruments were not destroyed. I think there is really a case for further explanation with regard to the development of the service.
  I want to say a sentence about rural telephones. I represent a city, but it affects us just as much at Hull, because we cannot talk to our customers in the country unless they have telephones. The right hon. Gentleman says that in many of these districts there are not enough subscribers to make the service pay, but that is a very narrow way of looking at it. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is not only the subscribers in the country districts who use the telephone, but the people who speak to them from the cities, the people who do business with them, and the greater the number of subscribers there are in the country to whom a business man in the city can speak, the more lines there will be to put up? I hope I have made the point clear. It seems to have been overlooked, because I do not see it in any of the Government's apologies for not fitting the country districts with more telephones. Speaking for a business community that has to communicate with its country customers in the East Riding of Yorkshire, I must say that we feel the need of these country telephones very much. We are all right for the 20 miles round Hull that we are allowed to cover with our municipal service, but outside that radius we are not very well served.
  Wtih reference to advertising, I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras said, that the Government ought to advertise the telephone much more than they do. It seems rather absurd that we should have this association, which has been referred to, for spending money on advertisements, when the Government should he doing it themselves. If they can allow liquor merchants to advertise in telephone kiosks, which I resent very much, on moral grounds, they ought to put on the backs of postal orders and telegraph forms, and on telegraph posts and letter boxes, advertisements showing what the cost of the telephone is, how cheap it is, and what advantages it offers. People do not know these things. In this country they still think that only the

  473
  rich people can have telephones, whereas, as a matter of fact, every house ought to have a telephone, just as it is fitted with a scullery sink. I hope the Post Office will do what a business concern would do and go after the business, otherwise, they will always be open to the old criticism: " Oh, here you are; this is a Government industry, and it cannot compete with a private enterprise concern, because it will not go out after business." They can quite easily remove that objection, just as they have already removed the objection that it does not pay. It does pay, and all that they have to do—and the right hon. Gentleman can well do it before the time comes for him to lay down his office—is to employ more canvassers and more advertising means for the telephone.
  With-regard to broadcasting, I am very sad to hear that the Government are going to adopt the Report of this Committee which they set up, apparently bolus bolus, and I am astonished that the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras, to whom I have had the pleasure of listening over the wireless, and who knows a good deal about it, should have endorsed that policy. You have to-day a wireless monopoly, and you are going to rivet it on the country for another 10 years. You are going to appoint Commissioners for 10 years with absolute security of office, and we know from past experience the sort of people whom they will appoint. In any case, even if they are archangels, they will be there for 10 years, and there will be the atmosphere of the Civil Service gradually developing in the broadcasting service. However well the Civil Service can run the Post Office, and however well the Civil Service could, I believe, run the mines of this country, and many other great monopolies, the last thing they ought to have anything to do with is art, or the entertainment- industry, or giving news, or an educational service. Those are the last things that a Government can run. The service is going to be controlled by the Government.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I thought I pointed out in my speech that the very reverse is the aim and object of our whole endeavour.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman left out a very
  474
  pregnant sentence in the long paragraph which he quoted. I quite agree that his time was limited, but he said that the progress of science would be hampered by too rigid rules, and by too constant supervision by the State. Why not, therefore, if he is not going to take it over, as he says he is not, leave things as they are and renew the present licence for three years, perhaps breaking the monopoly and making them into two or three companies? This science is making enormously rapid progress, and 10 years is too long to give a licence to this corporation. Let him keep Government interference as much as possible out of it. There will be Government interference, if they are going to appoint commissioners or officials, and the Post Office will control this great service much more than they are doing at present. I believe they will do immense harm to broadcasting in this country by stereotyping this monopoly for 10 years.
  Again, it is a most iniquitous suggestion that the surplus revenue should go to the Government, and I hope that that policy is not really going to be pursued. The surplus revenue ought to go towards the development and improvement of the service. This is a service that will help young artists, singers, and musicians as nothing else can, if properly used. The hon. and gallant Member for North Saint Pancras referred to certain developments. I believe that programmes have been arranged for six high-power stations, every one simultaneously broadcasting two programmes on different wavelengths. That, I believe, ought to be the future development of the service, but if the Government are going to take the surplus revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look upon it simply as a means of getting money. Now that the capital expenditure for the existing stations has been made, there can be a very great service developed, but I am afraid that now we shall have the old example followed once again, with even worse results, because broadcasting is not only of immense importance to our own people, an importance as great as that of the Press and the drama in its effects on the minds of the people, but, by sending out good broadcasting programmes, we help our national prestige abroad, because we are listened to at present by every listener-in in the West of Europe who

  475
  cares for good music and has good apparatus with which to take our programmes. I have met gentlemen from all the different countries in Europe, who listen-in daily to our British programmes, and that, I think, is a very great tribute indeed to those programmes. I am, therefore, very sad that we are going to take what I call this retrograde step, and I think it would be very much better to renew the licence for, say, three years. and then, at the end of the three years, reconsider the position.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) to refer to a case that came up at Question time yesterday —and I cannot refrain from mentioning it—of a man called George Hudson, a married man, with several children, who was, after many years service in the Post Office, suspected of theft. I would ask hon. Members to look upon this matter as a question of principle. He was dismissed, but he was not put on trial or prosecuted. He was simply dismissed. He has spent the greater part of his life in the Service, and he stoutly maintains his innocence, about which, of course, I express no opinion. The Postmaster-General says the man is guilty, and he practically labels him as a felon. The Post Office authorities decline to prosecute him, and they give the man no chance of clearing his name. He then goes to the Poor Persons' Legal Aid Department and tries to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal, so as to have a chance of clearing his character, and then the Post Office plead Crown privilege. They will not go to the expense or trouble of defending their action, but this poor fellow's life is ruined, because they plead Crown privilege, which, I think, is very unfair. He applies for work, and the firm ask the Post Office about his character. The Post Office say they are satisfied he was guilty of theft, and the result is he cannot get work.
  This is an interference with the liberty of the subject which the House of Commons should resent. Either the man should be prosecuted, and have a chance of clearing his name, or the Post Office should not ride off on the plea of Crown Privilege when he wishes to bring a civil action. The poor man's whole career
  476
  rests on the judgment of certain officials employed in the Post Office, and the Postmaster-General has satisfied himself. But that is not what has been the right of the Englishman ever since Magna Charta. A man has had a right of trial when accused of crime, and it is putting far too much power in the hands of the officials of the Post Office that they should have the power, practically, to ruin a man in this way, and then to continue to give this evidence against him whenever he tries to get employment. It is most unfair treatment, and, although I have nothing to do with this man, who belongs to the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), I was so astonished at the Postmaster-General's replies this week, that I felt compelled to mention it in to-day's Debate.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: I have only one point to raise. It is a point which I have urged against successive Postmasters-General from the days of the Coalition till now. It is a complaint of my constituents that the Post Office is the only Department of the public service which is making no serious endeavour to get back to pre-War conditions in the case of postal delivery. I live in a town of 60,000 or 70,000 inhabitants, and in this matter I speak on behalf of representatives of other towns of about the same size. Before the War, we used to have evening posts. Since the War, we have had nothing but 4 o'clock deliveries. It is intolerable that a large town with a great deal of correspondence should be absolutely cut off from communications with the outer world at an early hour in the day. I know a town in the South of England where the last, post of the day is 2 o'clock! I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department whether he is proud of the fact that 2 o'clock should be the hour of the last postal delivery in a Cathedral city in the South of England? In mid-Victorian days, we at Oxford had a r o'clock post, and a 9 o'clock post, and we used them largely. They were of vital importance to us. At the present moment, we have no post after 4 o'clock. This not only applies to Oxford, but to scores of other towns of the same size.
  Is no effort to be made to restore the evening delivery in such places? There seems to be a lot of money going in the Post Office. It deals with figures running

  477
  into tens of millions, but the small sum which would be required to recruit an evening staff for the delivery of letters, say, at 7 or 8 o'clock, seems to be the one thing which cannot be provided. I can only suppose, from what was said from the Front Bench opposite, that a certain dislike among postal servants to evening service is allowed to prevail over the wish of the whole population of this kingdom to have an evening service. That is what I gathered from the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said he trusted that no arrangements would be made for extending evening services, because it was extremely inconvenient to some postal servants. If it be inconvenient to certain railway servants to run midnight trains, then on this principle we should have to scrap the night service on railways, and if it is inconvenient to Members of the House of Commons to sit late, we must scrap the night sitting of the House of Commons! It is an absurd argument to say, that, because it is inconvenient to certain people, the public service of the Post Office should not be exercised for the benefit of the nation.
  Mr. AMMON: The hon. Member has entirely misrepresented what I said. What I said was that it increased their working day by spreading it over a longer number of hours, which was not fair.
  Sir C. OMAN: I apologise if I said anything inaccurate, but I think the hon. Member said it was not that their hours were going to be increased, but that the hours of their duty would be evening ones.
  Mr. AMMON: What I said was " their covering period," and I pointed out that if they spread their eight hours over 16, it gave them a shorter time for themselves.
  Sir C. OMAN: That bears out what I said. But if for the convenience of certain postal servants, the whole of our postal arrangements are to go back to pre-Victorian times, I pity the nation. What I want to urge on the Postmaster-General is simply that it is undesirable, that where very other branch of the State makes an attempt to get back to pre-War principles, the Post Office, alone of all public Departments, stands out on behalf of a time-table that is worthy of
  478
  the 'forties and 'fifties of the last century. It was long gone by 1890. Of course the right hon. Gentleman can say you have instead of postal deliveries, telephones, and all that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, that does not appeal to me at all. The things with which I have to deal are documents, reports, proofs from the Press, examination papers and all sorts of things you cannot send by telephone. You cannot telephone their details. I dislike the telephone, because it puts me at the mercy of my enemies Anyone who wishes to ask me the date of the Battle of Hastings, or press me to attend some small meeting, can come to the telephone at the moment when I am in the middle of putting through an important document, or writing something which has to be done by 12 o'clock. So I have scrapped my telephone, and never want to have it back again. The telephone in no way makes up for a regular and punctual delivery of letters. The Postmaster-General is above all things, the arch-postman for our kingdom, and our deliveries now arc worse than they were during the Postmastership of his remote predecessor in 1880. The Department, instead of deserving the aureole or halo which has been placed round it by certain speakers to-night, is acting like some belated institution of mid-Victorian times. I am sorry if my language seems somewhat rhetorical, but 1 and my constituents really feel very deeply on the subject of late deliveries, and surely it is the duty of the Post Office to get back to pre-War conditions.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I desire to refer, very briefly, to one part of the Postmaster-General's speech this afternoon dealing with the declaration of policy with regard to the Report of the recent Committee on Broadcasting. It is perfectly true that in the autumn of this year, the Government will require to embark upon legislation, and to that extent discussion would be out of order this afternoon. But, quite clearly, we are well within the rules of order in a Debate of this kind, when we refer to the administrative steps which the Postmaster-General is intending to take now regarding this great service. In substance, the Committee reported in favour of a Broadcasting Commission of the nature of a public corporation, which was to undertake this service from the British Broadcasting Company at the end of the present

  479
  year when the existing licence expired, and probably it would have been well if it had been made abundantly plain to the Committee that, under the terms of the licence, the transfer is effected without cost to the taxpayer, or compensation of any kind. The existing shareholders consist very largely of manufacturers of wireless apparatus, and merely receive the repayment of their subscribed capital at par. The whole undertaking will then pass, if effect be given to the Report, to the new British Broadcasting Commission.
  I dare say the great majority of Members of the House will cordially welcome the statement which the Postmaster-General has made. May I observe, in passing, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that the suggestion he put forward for continuation of this licence is an altogether impossible suggestion, which was very fully investigated by the Committee, of which some of us were members. We went into this matter in very great detail, and I should have thought the whole experience of broadcasting in America was absolutely against the suggestion put forward on behalf of a perishing individualism by the hon. and gallant Member. That proposal does not require more debate at our hands.
  If the scheme indicated by the Postmaster-General become law, this will pass to the British Broadcasting Commission, and our duty this afternoon is to try to indicate our point of view of the administrative steps now being taken. There will, of course, be very great freedom in regulation, and, on that point, may I call attention to the representations which have so far been made by educational and other authorities that the programmes in education are somewhat restricted under existing conditions? There is the natural desire to eliminate everything of a controversial character, but it is impossible to have any true education in this country unless the leading elements in controversy are outlined, whatever deductions, individually or collectively, are drawn from them. There is a very strong plea that the practice should be amended, at least to that extent, and also a plea that all possible facilities in finance should be placed at
  480
  the disposal of the educational side of this work. No hon. Member will dispute that in broadcasting there are abundant opportunities for education, more particularly as you extend it to rural districts, which can probably never be adequately covered by the existing educational machine. To that extent, and for that reason, it is our duty to see that the service is not in any way restricted because of the too severe attitude in the matter of controversy from day to day.
  Important as that matter is, far greater importance attaches to the finance of the scheme as it is run now, and to the possibility which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has in mind. He suggested, first of all, that there was doubt in his Department as to whether they should proceed by Statute to set up the new British Broadcasting Commission, which was the central idea in many of our minds during our investigations on the Committee, but the Postmaster-General apparently is inclined, in theory, to believe that there would be greater elasticity if he proceeded by ordinary process under the Companies Acts, and merely took this step in terms of that legislation as we have it now. He indicated, however, that he proposed to appeal to the Privy Council for some kind of charter of incorporation—a very difficult issue on which we, perhaps, need not enlarge to-day. The central point is, that when some of us inclined to the idea of the British Broadcasting Commission, we did say that the passing of this great service to the State could only he done properly under an Act of Parliament, which was reviewed by this House, the exact nature of which was known, and which, so it appeared to us, would afford far more opportunity for public discussion than a similar step under the Companies Acts themselves. I do not imagine for a moment that any Member of this House would seriously dispute the validity of that objection, because there is a great deal of public money directly and indirectly bound up with the matter.
  The Postmaster-General to-day said that there is something undesirable in considering a Statute when you are able to get the same effect otherwise, and that it will not be very difficult to secure or alter on the Companies Acts basis, as

  481
  against an Act of Parliament, if, in fact, you desire to extend or develop the service in any direction which is not specifically covered by the Statute itself. May I say in reply to that, the whole object of a good deal of our suggestion as regards the basis of this matter and of our proceedings in the Committee was to preserve that very elasticity that the Postmaster-General implies. It is true that the choice was indicated in the Report of the Committee itself. I am bearing that in mind; but of course I want to make it quite clear that the theory dominating that part of our recommendations, in respect of the basis of the new scheme, was to make that Statute of quite a general character, and in a schedule give the Commission very wide powers and that elasticity that the service undoubtedly requires.
  If I develop very briefly, in conclusion, the financial side, this argument will be plainer to hon. Members. The House knows that under existing conditions there is a great deal of freedom left to the British Broadcastng Company, though, of course, it is subject to a certain amount of regulation at the hands of the Postmaster-General, and to Rules that this House has laid down, in terms of the licence of the great monopoly which it works. The right hon. Gentleman himself indicated, to a certain extent, what was in his mind in this matter. Our idea was that if freedom were entrusted to this new Corporation we should lay it down first of all that the licence fee should remain at l0s., though as the right hon. Gentleman said, this is one of the cheapest services in the State; and that whatever view we take of private or public enterprise it is not desirable to make a good service too cheap; we do not want to throw it away and no one can complain of the 10s. basis. We have, under recent legislation, begun to take proceedings against those who have perhaps availed themselves of this joy without paying the necessary 10s. year by year. The Postmaster-General told us that there are more than 2,000,000 subscribers. There will be, therefore, that very broad basis in the financial contributions to the new British Broadcasting Commission. We are proceeding from that to say that there should be, of course, complete provision for all the developments of this service to which
  482
  the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras referred, and that only after all duties had been covered which fall to the Commission, that is, after everything has been done to provide the service on the most efficient and on the most attractive basis, should anything that remains revert to the Treasury or to public funds. That is the broad theory of the members of that Committee. The public interest is perfectly safeguarded if the House decides that, after these conditions have been fulfilled, any balance should go to the public.
  There is one difficulty which I should, even at this stage, ask the House to note. Whether the Commission is set up by order of the Privy Council or in terms of an Act of Parliament one ought to know, the House ought to know, quite clearly, what is the nature of the financial control over the new Corporation or Commission the Government intend. At this point I do not desire to describe fully what was done, but it was the intention of the Committee, if I remember rightly, that these accounts should be audited in due course by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which is merely another way of saying that they should come before the Public Accounts Committee of this House, which for all practical purposes is the only body in existing conditions which will financially review the situation. If that proposal is disregarded, the position will be this: to a certain extent under the Government plan the House will be interested in the finance of the broadcasting Commission because they would, at any rate, have the review of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General. There is a certain regulation of the finance; and in due course the returns will presumably be included in the usual way in the Appropriation Accounts. If that were not the position I fear that the financial programme very briefly described by the Postmaster-General would be the one weak part of his case this afternoon. More than that I do not desire to add, but merely as a member of the Committee to express my gratitude to the Postmaster-General for having adopted our Report, and to express to the House the firm conviction that, if we pass from the present position of broadcasting to the new public corporation, or to the efficient form of

  483
  public ownership and control, which is suggested, there is a great future for this service in British political, social and economic progress.
  Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: There are many people in the country who must feel very grateful to the Postmaster-General for the very full details he has given to the Committee this afternoon. I am very glad that he should have devoted so large a portion of his speech to the great part the telephone system now plays in our national life. It is as well, perhaps, that that should be generally recognised, even in this House of Commons. There is one point I should like to stress, and that is that I believe the telephone now is an absolute national necessity up and down the country, and, if that is so, it is only right that we should have the most efficient service possible. I am not now suggesting that great progress has not been made. I am not dealing with the personal side of the matter, nor am I trying to make cheap gibes at the expense of the telephone girls, but I am referring to the main lines and their increased efficiency. In the North-East of Scotland we are still relying upon overhead wires. I understand that shortly a subterranean cable is to be laid down as far as Dundee. I am merely now putting in a plea for extension. I trust that the Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General, when he comes to reply, will be able to say that consideration will be given to the question of carrying this line as far north as Aberdeen. Thereabouts it is a very wild country where there are a great many storms, and snow, and strong gales throughout the winter, with the result that the telephone communication is frequently interrupted by the considerable disorganisation which they cause. I think it is high time that this matter was taken in hand. I am quite sure, -at all events, that we will be very grateful to the Postmaster-General if we can be given to understand that he is taking steps in the direction indicated.
  I should like to endorse all the remarks that have been made on the subject of telephones by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser). I am quite certain that one of the things needed in the country is a wider extension of the tele-
  484
  phones. Then references have been made to a campaign of advertising. No doubt the Postmaster-General will succeed in this, as he deserves to succeed in his efforts to increase the number of subscribers to the telephone system, and I myself have tried, and will continue to try to do what I can to help. I think the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) is unique in this House in his dislike of this modern improvement. But, however much the Postmaster-General may increase the number of exchanges and subscribers, it will only be from a certain class of people, those who can already afford to pay for them. The right hon. Gentleman must endeavour to attract the people who cannot at present afford to subscribe—the hard-working farmers spread about in the country districts at far distant intervals, in wild and inaccessible parts of the country, as in the North-East of Scotland, who fully realise the importance of the telephones, but at its present cost cannot afford to instal it. When I was engaged in the advertising campaign, in that small part that I played, I was told by people, " Of course, we appreciate the use of the telephone, but we cannot afford it." I would ask the Committee to consider these people working under very difficult circumstances, fighting against a hard climate, an unfriendly soil, and with everything against them, competing not only against those in this country, but suffering from the competition of other countries as well—
  Lieut. - CommanderKENWORTHY:And of the Tory Government?
  Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I did not quite catch what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said they had the further disadvantage of a Tory Government.
  Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I am not often in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am against him on this occasion. We have these people suffering under the disadvantages to which I have referred. If there is one advantage they have, it is, I say, the present Government, and they will be glad of whatever help this or any other Government can give them. The Report of the Scottish Agricultural Committee

  485
  of last year dealt with the matter. I quote, briefly, from it:
  " For the reasons indicated.… the telephone is of the greatest utility, both social and commercial, to those engaged in agriculture."
  I should like the Postmaster-General to look at this matter from a slightly different angle to what he may have done. He has told us of the number of rural exchanges, and he has given us the average number of private subscribers. I know that when you have very small exchanges and a very small number of subscribers you cannot expect the exchange to pay very well. The obvious thing there is to try and get more subscribers to the exchange. How are you going to get other subscribers in the districts to which I am referring? There is only one possible way, and that is by lessening your charge. I ventured to put forward a suggestion last year. That one of the ways in which we might proceed was by putting up a less perfect system. I suggested that we might go in for lighter and less expensive equipment. I still think that something might be done on these lines. I regret the Postmaster-General has not been able to give us information that, so far, he has been unable to carry this idea out. I was very interested in reading that most illuminating book entitled " The Secret of High Wages," which has been referred to in the Press. The authors make a suggestion on the subject of a telephone directory. It is a very small point, hut these are all small points. Small economies may be effected by them. If one see some small points one cannot help wondering if there are not other points that one has not seen, and which might indeed be substantial, and enable the Post Office to give us the telephone at a less exorbitant figure. In these days of financial stringency I quite understand the desire of the Postmaster-General to keep the telephone system an a paying basis, and I would not urge him to do anything else, but I do ask him to look into its organisation from the paint of view of reducing his costs. Let him get down to the most rigorous economy, so that he may be able to give us cheaper telephones and at the same time keep his system on a paying basis.
  About 30 years ago, in the year of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, it was
  486
  decided that every house in the country had a right to a daily, or at any rate a periodical, postal service. To. my mind the telephone now takes very much the same place in the national life as the postman took 30 years ago, and I hope the Postmaster-General will see to it that before he comes to the end of his term of office he has put the telephone within the means of every householder in the country—especially those in the country districts where they most need it—and he can do that only by cheapening the service.
  Mr. BROAD: I would like to support the hon. Member who has just spoken in his appeal to the Minister to reduce the basic charges for telephones. I believe he would find it to be a paying proposition. The Minister might consider the possibility of lowering the basic charge and putting such subscribers on a message rate of 2d. a call instead of ld. In many streets in our suburbs one finds only two or three houses out of a hundred equipped with the telephone, because the basic charge is too high. If the basic charge were brought down to a half of what it is at present, we might have 20 or 40 or even 50 subscribers in a road of a hundred houses. The telephone is not greatly used in private houses, but it is a great convenience to have it when it is wanted. Perhaps, also, the Minister could see his way to abolishing the unsightly poles which are being put up all round our residential areas, putting the wires underground. The potential demand for telephones has hardly been touched as yet, and if the Post Office would adopt the policy of the more enterprising gas companies, and make the rental charges and the initial charges very low, they would find that instead of just one house here and there having a telephone practically every house would instal one, even some of the very small ones.
  As regards the collection of the mails—one of the hon. Members representing the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) wants to get back to mid-Victorian times, or even pre-War times. I am not anxious that we should get back to pre-War times as far as Sunday collections are concerned. In London we did very well without them, and I do not see why the provinces should have a Sunday collection. It meant a seven days' week for many of the postal workers in scattered areas. I hope we shall never return to

  487
  the Sunday delivery. But I do want to see later collections in suburban areas. Many workers in London leave work rather late in the evening, have an hour's journey home, and then like to have a wash and a meal and a few moments with the youngsters. Many of them are active workers in connection with sports associations and other societies, and have secretarial work to do, but they find, as we find in my district, that the last post goes out at five minutes past 10. That is not a reasonable hour for the last collection. If the records were turned up, it would be found that in pre-War days the heaviest collection in suburban areas was that which was made about 12 o'clock midnight. This is not a plea for extending the hours of the regular men in the service. This later collection was usually taken up by auxiliary men—those. who had some other way of getting their living but found this work a valuable addition to their income.
  A late collection is often a matter of great importance. I know of one case where a man seeking employment received by the last post two letters making appointments for him to see certain firms next morning. There was not sufficient time for him to get into the post a reply to one of the firms putting off the appointment. Next day he called on one of the firms but did not get the job. Then he went to the other, and was told that as he had not attended at the time appointed the vacancy had been filled with somebody else. This may make some Members smile, but it was a matter of vital importance to that man. Before I came to this House I worked at the bench, but I have always done a good deal of voluntary secretarial work, and I used to find it very convenient, after the youngsters had gone to bed, to do an hour's writing and get my letters into the post the same night, but it is impossible to do that now. The inconvenience is not worth the saving of a few shillings a week on auxiliary postmen. I hope their work will be restored to them, and that we shall have restored to us that part of our pre-War postal service which was very much appreciated by those who live in the suburbs and daily travel to work.
  In pre-War days we used to be told about the tube the Post Office was building. Something was said about it by the
  488
  Postmaster-General to-day, but I did not regard his statement as very satisfactory. That tube apeared to be on the point of completion, as far as construction was concerned, before the War. Ever since the War they have been pottering about with the equipment of it, and I think there must be something wrong. Time after time we have been told the Post Office hoped to have it in working order shortly. It is not the Post Office alone that is losing. At certain hours of the day mail carts rushing about London add considerably to the congestion of the traffic and to the congestion at our terminal stations. In connection with this interminable delay, it must be remembered that something like £8,000,000 is standing idle. We are paying 5 per cent. for money to-day, and at 5 per cent. money doubles itself in about 13 years, I believe, and the delay in getting this tube into operation means a loss of many millions to the country. We want to know who is responsible for this tremendous loss.
  I believe a great deal of economy could be effected, and the efficiency of the service be improved, if the mails for places within a 100 miles of London were taken on by road from the ends of that tube. At present there is a good deal of cross handling. The mails have to be taken to the railway stations, put into the train, then dropped at various places and there collected by carts; whereas if they were taken direct by road from the tube they could be dropped at the doors of the various distributing offices in the country. We should get greater efficiency in the service, and get more value from the roads which we have been developing as a great national asset.
  I would like to say a word on behalf of the auxiliary postmen. There are many poor fellows who are not able to get a full-time job. They take up work as auxiliary postmen or auxiliary sorters, and I think that, other things being equal—I refer to their physique, their ability and their conduct—they should be given preference when it comes to making permanent appointments. Particularly am I speaking for the sorters. There are vicissitudes in all trades and industries, and the means of earning a livelihood are curtailed. Our industry is in a very dis-

  489
  turbed position. We have to re-balance all our industries. Some of them will never be of the magnitude they used to be. Except where work requires the careful training of men from youth, I think the Post Office and other Departments of the Government ought to give an opportunity to men who may be 25, 30 or 35 years old to qualify—first of all by means of auxiliary service, if that is necessary, though I do not like auxiliary service at any time. Any decent ordinary firm who have had men engaged temporarily, or for part-time service, give them the first consideration when appointing men to full-time jobs, and I hope the Post Office will follow that example. I would say the same of the mechanical department. At present men are engaged by the hour and put off by the hour. It is the rule in Government Departments that no man should be started at work who is over 40, or sometimes 45, no matter how skilful he may be, though the Government take no responsibility for these men. If they are not efficient they are put off, and the only claim they have is that after seven years' service, if they leave through no fault of their own, they may have a bonus of one week's wages for each year's service. If big engineering employers laid it down as a rule that no man should be engaged, or re-engaged, who was over 45, we should say it was an intolerable state of things; and I thing men in the mechanical departments of the Post Office should be given the same opportunity as in the case of ordinary firms.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: I wish to raise a question which as yet has not been discussed this afternoon, but which, in my submission, raises as important an issue as any which has been before this Committee. It is a very important thing in the Post Office, as in any other Department of the Civil Service, to give recognition to various anions or societies of civil servants in that Department, because it is by recognition that the societies can have a word as to remuneration, the system of promotion, the accommodation, and other questions concerning the interior economy of the Department which arise from day to day. The question I wish to raise, and the complaint I wish to make against the Post Office authorities, is two-fold: First of all, that with a full knowledge -of the facts they insist upon continuing to recognise, and
  490
  to recognise exclusively, as the mouthpiece of the Civil Service in the Post Office a trade union which describes itself as the Union of Post Office Workers, which union, I hope to satisfy the Committee, took an actively illegal part during the late general strike, and is unfitted to represent any body of civil servants.
  7.0 P.M.
  The second part of the charge I want to make against the Post Office is that, while, on the one hand, it continues to
  recognise this illegal society, on the other hand it fails to give any recognition to the other societies within the Post Office, which are, it is true, somewhat smaller in numbers, but which are absolutely loyal in their constitution and have a far greater claim to recognition by the State. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) referred to certain insinuations and innuendoes made against a union which, I understood, was the Union of Post Office Workers. I have no intention of making any insinuations or innuendoes. I make charges, and I can substantiate them by reading from documents in my possession with regard to the actual conduct of this recognised union of civil servants during the late general strike. On the 1st May they issued a manifesto to their members, a copy of which has passed into my hands from a loyalist who seceded from the union, and I want to read one paragraph from this letter. It is as follows:
  " A state of emergency has now been proclaimed, and the General Council of the Trade Union Congress are acting on behalf of the trade union movement, and pledges to be loyal to the decision of the General Council have been given by the great majority of unions, including not only those represented by the Union of Post Office Workers but also by black coat organisations, including those of the Civil Service. Your own Executive Council "—
  that is the Council of the civil servants—
  " have taken a full part in all the proceedings which culminated in the acceptance of the Government's challenge to the trade unions and to the standard of life of the whole of the wage-earning community. In common with other organisations, a pledge of loyalty has been given by the Executive Council on behalf of the Union of Post Office Workers."
  That is not an innuendo or insinuation. It is a definite statement of fact, not made by me, but by the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers. It simply

  491
  means that on the day that that challenge to society was issued, and when the Trades Union Congress engaged in what has been held to be an illegal conspiracy against the State, the executive members of this officially recognised body of civil servants pledged the assent of their society to this illegal conspiracy against the State.
  I do not want to trouble the Committee with any number of quotations, but I am fortunate enough to possess a copy of the " Post," dated 22nd May, which contains what is called the General Secretary's letter, and which gives a survey, from his own point of view, of the action of this association of Civil Servants during the General Strike. It first of all cites a letter which, to my amazement—and I should like to have the Postmaster-General's view about this—was apparently written by the General Post Office on the 1st May, in which the Postmaster-General says he has issued instructions that Post Office workers should not perform acts on behalf of the State which it was not their practice previously to perform. In other words, the Postmaster-General seems cravenly to have complied with the demand of the society by undertaking not to call upon Post Office workers to perform, as a condition of their service, work which they were not accustomed to do. It goes very much further than this, because these civil servants, after having exacted that pledge from the Postmaster-General, say that, they set up in their headquarters an organisation to assist the General Strike. They go on to say:
  " Since the strike commenced the headquarters of the union were inundated with telegrams, telephone messages and personal calls, which received prompt attention, and every effort was made to help and advise the branches, thereby rendering really valuable services, not only to the union, but to the entire movement."
  That means to say that this association of civil servants during the strike, while dissuading their members from undertaking any voluntary services, did duplicate messages and work for the strikers, for, in addition to the work done for the General Council, they say:
  " We sent out daily bulletins to our branches of reports on the position, and several members were loaned to the General Council."
  492
  That means to say that these Post Office workers, employed by the State and privileged in regard to their status, their permanency of employment and pensions, were actually loaned by the Association to the Trades Union Council during the strike. Then they say:
  " Remarkably few members volunteered for Post Office work for which they were not normally liable."
  So that they take credit to themselves for having successfully dissuaded or cajoled, or intimidated their members from undertaking any voluntary work whatever. That, of course, is absolutely inconsistent with the traditions and principles on which any Civil Service in any civilised country can be run. It has always been the boast of our Constitution that the Civil Service is kept out of politics. It ought even more to be the boast of all civil servants to keep out of an illegal conspiracy against the State.
  Nor does it end there, because I have evidence of direct pre sure against a loyal man who helped the State in the emergency. I have here a print of the Union of Post Office Workers' Circular in which the members of the branch are asked this question:
  " What part are you going to play in this crisis? "
  They go on to say this—and I ask the House to draw the inevitable implication from the language used—
  " Your Committee want to hear one reply and one reply only; but, whatever your opinion, it is your duty to attend the branch meeting and record it."
  So that those who were going to be loyal and wished to help the State had to attend the meetings of the branch and become marked men in the ranks of the society. Moreover, there is another passage which I do not want to read, in which they say that 5 per cent. of the remuneration of Post Office servants has got to he taken for the purpose of furthering this illegal conspiracy. What is the basis of that? We get it from the " British Worker," the official strike news bulletin, published by the Trades Union Congress, of the 10th May, which on page 4 says—
  " Levy yourselves if at work. The General Council requires that all workers who are still in service or employment shall contribute 5 per cent. of their wages to strike funds."

  493
  That is the case against this Union of Post Office Workers, and on those facts, stated without any passion or heat, you can only draw two conclusions: first, that this Union of Post Office Workers gave their fullest possible support to the illegal conspiracy against the State; and, secondly, that pressure was exercised directly and indirectly, morally and practically, on loyal members of the Union to dissuade them from undertaking services which they as loyal citizens would otherwise have undertaken in support of the State. That is the charge against this Union. Unlike other Unions whose public conduct is only the concern of their members, it is not an ordinary Union; it is an association of civil servants. My complaint is that with these facts well within the knowledge of the Postmaster-General this Union should still receive the exclusive right of audience on behalf of members of the Post Office in connection with negotiations with the State.
  To show the extent to which this is carried, let me read a letter written from the General Post Office on the 23rd April, 1926, to a loyal federation, not a party one, but the society called the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks. This federation has a partial recognition, a local recognition, and being a non-party body it is of course always the target of abuse by the Union of Post Office Workers. This federation, on claiming full recognition, received a letter, the full terms of which I will not read, but which included a threat to withdraw the local recognition from certain branches of this loyal federation. It said:
  "It is proposed, therefore, subject (to any observations which your Federation or the Union of Post Office Workers may make, to instruct surveyors to arrange for a check of membership figures."
  What right has the Union of Post Office Workers to be consulted before the General Post Office replies to the Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks?
  Mr. AMMON: Because it is the recognised union.
  Mr. HURST: That is the answer; because it is the recognised union, and I say it is a scandal and a disgrace. No association of Post Office workers or civil servants can have their affairs discussed with the Postmaster-General
  494
  or enter into negotiations with him as to recognition or non-recognition or withdrawal of recognition from their association without the interposition of a third and alien body, the Union of Post Office Workers, who are proved up to the hilt to have embarked heart and soul in the conspiracy against the State. I have set out the bald facts—
  Mr. AMMON: They are distorted facts.
  Mr. HURST: No, they are facts you cannot deny.
  Mr. AMMON: They are wrenched from their context.
  Mr. HURST: If the Union of Post Office Workers say they were not in favour of the strike, and did not press their members not to volunteer for service for the State, I will accept it from, the right hon. Member opposite, but he will not say it, and the facts speak for themselves. I say it is high time that the Civil Service should be purged from the predominance of associations which are antagonistic to all conceptions of decent government and to all sound tradition within the Civil Service, and I do ask the Postmaster-General, without any heat, passion or rancour, to explain why it is that this trade union should be singled out for sole recognition, and the unions which are run on decent lines by decent men should be excluded.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not intend to deal at length with the matter raised by the last speaker. I know nothing at all about the position of the Post Office Workers' Union, or any other such unions, and I only want to make this one remark, that while the hon. Member was speaking he said he was only setting out his facts without passion. That may be true from his point of view, but it certainly conveyed to us a totally different impression. I only want to say that whatever may be said about the general strike and the Union of Post Office Workers, this much is true, that neither the Union of Post Office Workers, or any Post Office servants came out on strike. Whether they subscribed money to other people or not is another matter, because they are just as much entitled as anybody else to do so. If they wish to subscribe money and help the Government they are entitled to do so, and if they wish to subscribe to help the miners they are equally entitled to

  495
  do so, and I appreciate very much what they have done. I am not called upon to go into the question of the other unions not having received recognition. I only say that the Post Office workers or any other workers are entitled to subscribe for the miners or any other class from their own private means.
  I want to raise one or two questions of minor importance, one of which I raised last year and which I shall now endeavour to raise again. There are in all the towns, and particularly our big towns outside the suburban areas, steadily going on building operations by local authorities and by private enterprise. Last year I raised the question of providing post offices in the new areas now being developed. One difficulty we find in Glasgow is that post offices were erected in various parts. We have a new city actually being built, and yet we have only the small post offices which were built before the needs of Glasgow were anything like so great as they are now. I would like to ask what is being done to provide post office accommodation in connection with this matter in the suburban areas. It is not sufficient that the old post offices should go on as they are in Glasgow, because it does not give us a decent chance, and they are much too small to meet the requirements of growing neighbourhoods. I ask the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps, if any, are being taken to meet this growing demand.
  Another question I wish to refer to is the development of the telephone service. Almost all the previous speakers have devoted their remarks to the development of the private telephone inside the office or inside the home of the private individual. I want to know whether it is not possible for the Postmaster-General to still further develop the public telephone call boxes which are open day and night in working-class areas. It seems to me that one thing which might be done is that a red lamp could be added to those telephone call boxes denoting where they are. They would be extremely useful during the night especially in cases of childbirth, when you require to get a doctor at short notice. I think there ought to be a red lamp placed in order to denote from some distance that there
  496
  is a telephone box of this character at a certain place. I am sure this would be a very great advantage in our poor districts.
  I fully appreciate the opening statement of the Postmaster-General in regard to the whole ramifications of the Post Office, and I think that the present Postmaster-General has been less standoffish in regard to these questions. I hope he will further develop the telephone system. As far as I am concerned I do not agree with the argument regarding later deliveries of letters. I have represented Glasgow for four years, and I have had a considerable experience in Glasgow in local government before that period, and when changes of this kind are made they are generally asked for by the local authorities. During all the years I have been connected with local government and with the House of Commons I have not had any requests for later deliveries of letters, and I am speaking now in regard to a population of over 1,000,000. The reason is that most of the people are engaged in offices which close by 5 o'clock. There is a delivery of letters just before that time, and from ordinary private residents I have never had any demand for a later delivery. We cannot alter the whole postal service for the convenience of one or two people. I hope the Post Office is not going to take a reactionary step in the direction of employing its servants during hours when it is not necessary for the common need.
  With regard to the supplying of stamp machines, I have seen the new machine which has been placed in the Library for demonstration purposes, and I want to ask if it is not possible in working class districts to have a larger supply of these automatic machines for stamps. I am only speaking for Glasgow, and there not a single sub-post office has- a stamp machine. Some time ago it was agreed to extend the hours of certain post offices from 7 to 8 o'clock, and I find that in my district although the working class avail themselves of this extension, they are much more concerned about the stamp machine because most of their correspondence is done last thing at night, and they buy stamps one or two at a time, consequently these automatic stamp machines are the most useful things I know of for providing stamps. I would like to see provided in every

  497
  post office and in every sub-post office one of these automatic stamp machines for the use of the general public. This system does not employ more labour, and it is a very handy way of obtaining stamps. I understand one of the reasons for the delay in providing them is that there is a great demand for these machines, but I hope the Postmaster-General will push on with providing these machines in the poorer districts.
  One of the difficulties in great towns is that the town is often growing more rapidly than the post office develops. I want to see a new post office in those areas because at the present time post office servants are being worked too much under conditions which are not the best from a health point of view. There is one post office in Glasgow where I am sure the postal staff has not got the accommodation which the Postmaster-General would desire them to have or anybody else. I want the right hon. Gentleman to see if he cannot carry out a scheme of providing new post offices in the new areas for the convenience of the public and see that proper accommodation is provided for post office servants.
  Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I would like to invite the attention of the Committee to the needs of the countryside, and put in a plea for the institution of an agricultural parcels post. In the spring we welcomed the institution of the cash-on-delivery system, but I am bound to say that, although that system is a step in the right direction, its benefit to agriculture is very limited indeed. Much was made of the contention that the farmer would be able to get his spare parts of his machinery by post, but that service can only be of use to those farmers in a large way of business and to owners and users of machinery. The system is of no value to the smallholder, who is the very man whom the cash-on-delivery system ought to benefit if it is to benefit anybody in the countryside.
  There are two classes of people to be considered in connection with a cash on delivery system—those who receive and those who send. It is as senders that we agriculturists press our claim upon the Postmaster-General. At this moment as senders the particular system we have is of no value, as I will endeavour to show by giving a few instances. If a farmer or
  498
  smallholder desires to dispose of his fruit by making it into jam and he sends two 1-lb. jars of jam by post the postal charge will be 9d., and the cash-on-delivery charge 4d., making a total of 1s. Id. The value of the goods would be about 3s. 2d.. and consequently the charges would come to 24 per cent. of the whole value of the article. Take butter. If you send a pound of butter the postal charge is 5d. and the cash-on-delivery charge 4d., making a total of 9d., when the value of the article is not more than 2s., and at the present time it is considerably less. These charges on a pound of butter are equal to 40 per cent. of the value of the article. Supposing you want to send one dozen eggs. The postage is 9d. and the cash-on-delivery charge 4d., making a total of 1s. 1d., or over 50 per cent. of the value of the article. If you should be so rash as actually to send fruit and send, say, half-a-stone of apples, the charge would be 1s. 7d. or more than the total value of the goods. It is quite clear that in regard to all these cases where a smallholder might want to send his produce, the cost of the postal charge plus the cash-on-delivery charge comes to more than his profit, and in some cases to more than the whole cost of the article itself. If you compare this position with any tradesman who may desire to send fancy goods through the post up to the value of l0s. he pays 3d. postage and 4d. cash-on-delivery charge on that 10s. article and for that 7d. the money is collected.
  Under these circumstances I do not think it is necessary for me to state the advantages which an agricultural parcels post would confer upon the agricultural community. The smallholder or any farmer would be able if there was an agricultural parcels post attached to the cash-on-delivery system to build up a new type of business which we are not accustomed to see at the present time in this country, and we should be able to send produce directly from the producer to the consumer. The farmer could eliminate the risk of bad debts by the use of the cash-on-delivery system which is a very important matter, more especially in the case of the small man. Thirdly, and I think perhaps the most important of all, it would enable the farmer or the smallholder to recapture the home market for home products in this country.

  499
  We have now been accustomed to consider our agriculture in this country, but let us see whether we cannot take some other countries as an example to see what they do in regard to these matters. It will, perhaps, be interesting to the Committee to know that in the United States of America the parcel post system was at first instituted entirely for the purpose of sending agricultural produce. through the post, and rules were laid dawn by which all articles, whether agricultural produce or otherwise, were transmitted at a reduced charge because they came from the country or were to be transmitted to the country. Then, again, the rates are zone rates, that is to say, the postal charge varies according to the distance the parcel is to be sent, and they are in every case kept as low as possible. In addition, there is a cash-on-delivery system which is run on very simple lines. Further, there is a special handling system, under which, on payment of a small extra fee, perishable agricultural produce can be sent as though it were first-class mail letter stuff, by the fastest trains; and, if that be not sufficient, there is on payment of another small extra fee, a system of special delivery whereby the parcel is taken by a special messenger from the nearest post office -direct to the consignee. The limit of weight, up to 150 miles, is 70 lb., as against 11 lb. in this country, and the limit of size is 84 inches, including both length and girth. It is obvious that in the United States infinite pains have been taken by the postal authorities really to do something to encourage the sending of agricultural produce by post.
  That is not the only country where that is done. The Union of South Africa has had an agricultural parcel post in operation for some years, and I will, if the Committee will allow me, just read a few words from the Union of South Africa official Post Office Guide:
  "Agricultural Parcel Post.
  "Articles transmissible and Rates of Postage.
  "Parcels containing primary produce of the soil, horticultural produce, dairy produce and foodstuffs produced within the Union of South Africa, and addressed to
  500
  any place within the same, will be accepted at the following reduced rates:

  Up to 1¼ lb.

  3d.

  the English equivalent is 6d.—

  Over 1¼ lb.

  6d.

  the English equivalent is 9d.—

  Over 3 lb.

  8d.

  the English equivalent is 1s.—

  Over 9 lb.

  1s.

  which is the same rate as in this country. There are some 50 different classes of goods which come within the agricultural parcel post in the Union of South Africa, and of each of these classes there are a great many sub-divisions, so that it is possible to send, as stated in the first words I have quoted, practically all parcels containing primary products of the soil. If that can be done in South Africa, why on earth cannot it be done here? It would be an immense advantage to a very large number of agriculturists.
  I know that there are a certain number of objections which have been raised against this proposal. I know it may be said that the cash on delivery system is a service that is paid for by value and not by weight, and this is, of course, perfectly true. I am not suggesting that the rates for cash on delivery should be so much reduced, but that the postal rates might be reduced, so that, by a combined service of cash on delivery plus reduced postal rates, the agriculturist could be given postal facilities that would be really worth having. It may be said that there are administrative difficulties. It may be contended that it is difficult to discriminate between what is agricultural produce and what is not, but I say that, if it can be done in South Africa, it can, surely, be done equally well here. Then it may be said that the cost would be too great, but, surely, a larger volume of business should lessen the average cost. If that is the experience of business when it is conducted by private enterprise, it should equally be the experience when it is conducted by State enterprise. Therefore, I think that on that bead there is no real objection that holds water.
  It may be said—and possibly this may be considered to be the real objection to the whole proposal—that the institution of an agricultural parcel post in this country would be a subvention or a subsidy to a particular industry. If that be so, what of the subvention or subsidy

  501
  that is now given in the matter of Press telegrams? The Press telegrams of this country cost the State and the taxpayer no less than £330,000 a year. The receipts from Press telegrams are only £84,00-0 a year. Therefore, the taxpayer to-day is giving a subvention. to the industry of the Press, on its telegrams alone, of roughly £250,000. If you compare the claims of the industry of agriculture with the claims of the Press as an industry, surely it is pretty obvious which is the more in need. Generally speaking, 1 think one may say that the great industry of the Press in this country is healthy, is wealthy, and very often wise. On the other hand, the industry of agriculture is neither healthy nor wealthy, but, indeed, is very much otherwise.
  There may be differences of opinion upon that, but I think there will be no difference of opinion on this, that the Press of this country is an extremely generous body, and I do not think that, if this matter were put to the Press of this country, it would ever cavil at the transference of a part of this subvention from itself to its more needy neighbour, agriculture. I would submit that, if I may do so with respect, to the great Press of this country. I believe that it has a full appreciation of the important part which agriculture should play in the life of the nation, as its chief and oldest industry even now, and I would commend this suggestion to the Postmaster-General, in the hope that he will agree that, in granting to any industry assistance such as I have described, if there is an industry in this country that is in justice worthy of that consideration and assistance, it is the industry of agriculture.
  Mr. AMMON: In inflicting myself once more upon the Committee, I crave their indulgence, but I think they will agree that something should be said in reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst), who is not, I regret, now in his place. I merely want to say that it is quite easy for Members of the House to adduce facts in such a manner as to give an utter distortion of what is really the truth, and that is what happened in regard to the statement of the hon. and learned Member. I would remind the Committee that only a day or two
  502
  ago he made an attack on another trade union, which has a representative in this House, and, when pressed, he was unable to sustain it; and precisely the same thing has occurred in this case. It is true that certain documents were issued by the Union of Post Office Workers to its members. Those documents were sent out in order to endeavour to maintain the peace and to ensure the smooth working of the Service, and so successful were we, that we were able to co-operate with the Department, and the service was run during that difficult time in a manner that has earned the eulogium of all sections of society, while the very body to whom the Postmaster-General has paid tribute to-day, namely, the telephonists, are almost entirely members of the Union of Post Office Workers.
  I want to point out that the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side has persistently pursued a campaign in this House on behalf of a small, disgruntled sect-ion, numbering not more than 5,000 throughout the whole of England, against the Union of Post Office Workers, which numbers nearly 100,000, and I think one has only to state the facts to show exactly what the position is. These few disgruntled people tried to get Executive positions in the bigger union, and failed, and latterly they have founded this union and have carried on a campaign of calumny and misrepresentation such as has been voiced by the hon. and learned Member here. After all, when we make appeals, as we do, to our members to support the miners' fund, and are accused of disloyalty, I think you will have to go very high in the Government of this country and also indict persons there, if that is going to be a charge made against us. We have had an example set by persons very high in this country, who have -expressed the opinion that they do not want this dispute settled by the starvation of women and children. That is the view that our society took, hut they have been as loyal as any other section.
  Captain BENN: I do not think it is necessary for an observer to make any comment on the attack made by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) on the Postmaster-General because his attack was as much directed against the Postmaster-General as against the union concerned, and it was heartily

  503
  cheered by most of the Members behind the Postmaster-General. To an observer —to an ordinary member of the public—however, the Postmaster-General seems to have kept his head and acted with remarkably good sense, very much to the benefit of those who use the postal services of this country.
  I only rose to make two remarks. First of all, is the Postmaster-General aware that the early delivery of letters is far more important to the business community than the late one? I have the honour to represent a very important industrial district, and, although I do not say I have had any complaints of late, I know that the merchants of Leith attach, as it is obvious they must attach, the most urgent importance to getting an early delivery of letters, so that they may deal with them the moment their offices open, and so carry on their business with profit to themselves and to the wages and employment of other people. My second point is with regard to broadcasting. We are embarking now upon the largest scheme of news distribution that we have ever seen in this country. Two million listeners are licensed, and, taking, say, three listeners to each machine, that would represent a public of 6,000,000, which is a far bigger public than is appealed to even by the newspapers. There is going to be some sort of Commission, which is going to be represented in this House, and I would like to ask the Postmaster-General seriously to consider what precautions he intends to take for the purpose of preventing this great weapon of news distribution from being used for propaganda purposes. I think it is in the interest of all parties that this should never occur. I do not want to say anything unpleasant about the " British Gazette " at this juncture, but it is quite obvious that if the Government are going in, directly or indirectly, for the distribution of news, it is the duty of all parties in this House to unite at once, at the beginning, to see that this great and powerful weapon may not in the hands of any Government be used for party purposes.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer: It is now my duty to endeavour, so far as I am able, to gather up the very interesting
  504
  but somewhat disconnected criticisms and suggestions with which the Postmaster-General has been favoured during the last few hours, and in doing so I would like to thank the Committee for the kind reception they have given on this and on other occasions to the Post Office Estimates, and for the appreciation, as well as the criticisms, from various quarters of the Committee, of what has been accomplished by the Post Office during the past year.
  I think I ought to deal first with some of the suggestions which were made by the hon. Member far North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) in regard to the Savings Bank. He drew attention to the very important report of a committee of the London 'County Council, which was published this spring, and which has been engaging the earnest attention of the Postmaster-General. I do not think, however, if I may say so, that the necessarily summarised account which the hon. Member gave of that report conveyed an entirely fair impression of the facilities that the Savings Bank offers to the small investor. In quoting the report, he compared the facilities which the Post Office offers somewhat unfavourably with the facilities that are given by the Birmingham Municipal Bank, and I think he also mentioned some of the penny banks. It is not quite fair to say the Post Office will not take anything under a shilling, because the hon. Member knows, or ought to know, that we issue stamp cards especially for investors, mainly children, who wish to save small amounts, such as a penny or twopence at a time. They stick their stamps on, and when the card has 12 stamps on it it can be paid into a Savings Bank account. Similarly we issue 'home safes in which depositors can put their savings. Only the Post Office has the key. There are over 200,000 of these in use, so that by means of those safes alone a great deal of saving takes place in very small sums indeed. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said in regard to publicity. I think we—when I say we I mean not only the Government but all Members of the House—might give more publicity to the work of the Savings Bank. I think it would pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much better if there was more money invested in the Savings Bank rather than in National Savings Certificates, because he has to pay a very much

  505
  lower rate of interest for the Savings Bank than for the certificates. I think the really great advantages and facilities that the Savings Bank gives should be quite as prominently drawn to the attention of the public by Members of Parliament and others when they are addressing meetings in connection with the National Savings Association as the facilities offered by National Savings Certificates.
  Then the hon. Gentleman tried to draw me on the question of postal cheques. That is not a new question, but it is a very big one, and I could not possibly deal with it exhaustively to-night. But when he claims that it is a system that is used in other countries, I think the Postmaster-General is entitled to reply that he has already shown, by his action in the matter of cash-on-delivery, that where he thought the experience of other countries was pertinent he was not afraid to follow their example in this country. If there is an objection to the system of postal cheques being introduced into England, it only arises, so far as I am aware, from the fact that the banking conditions, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, are totally different in this country from what they are on the Continent, and that our banking facilities are immeasurably superior to those of any other country in the world. But still the Postmaster-General is carefully watching the success of this system abroad, and has from time to time most interesting reports made to him by members of his own staff on the detailed working of the postal cheque system abroad, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will not he lost sight of.
  Then he wanted to know why we were selling the Abu Zabal wireless station near Cairo. He seemed to think that we had sold it because we disliked anything that was State owned, and that it was a little individualistic " ramp " and that the Marconi Company had some ulterior purpose to serve. I can assure him that there is nothing of the sort. The only reason why the Government have no use for the Abu Zabal station is that the circumstances have entirely changed since it was opened. The Abu Zabal wireless station in Egypt was intended to be one link in the Empire wireless chain. When that policy held the field it was erected and there were to be other stations in
  506
  India, in South Africa and in other parts of the Empire to make the wireless chain. Very soon after that policy had been started the progress of wireless telegraphy made it obsolete and to-day we are talking to Australia direct without the intervention of Abu Zabal and without any need for it as far as the Empire chain is concerned. In these circumstances, coupled with the fact that the station had always been run at a heavy loss, the Postmaster-General has decided to sell it. In doing so he will not create any competitor to the Post Office in his Continental wireless services. Those are all carefully marked out and any purchaser of the Abu Zabal wireless station will not be a competitor of the wireless preserve of the Post Office. I should like to dissociate myself from the somewhat disparaging and, I think, unfair remarks the hon. Gentleman made in regard to the Marconi Company. After all if it had not been for Senatore Marconi and the Marconi Company there would not be much wireless in the world, and the Post Office has absolutely no reason to complain of their attitude at the present moment. On the contrary we are collaborating with the Marconi Company in many fields.
  Now I come to a question which I think concerns the House more generally. I come to the eternal telephone question. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) are really labouring under a complete misapprehension in regard to this question of shortage of telephone plant in certain districts and the amount of capital that is being employed on telephone work. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that when the Postmaster-General mentioned that it would be 15 years before London was completely under the automatic system there would be parts of London which would be left in a state of shortage of telephone facilities for a period of 15 years. That is not what my right hon. Friend said or meant in the least. Our telephone service is expanding more rapidly, I think, than that of any other country in the world. That, no doubt, is mainly because we occupy such a relatively low place in the order of telephone density, but the fact remains that we are ex-

  507
  panding more rapidly than anyone else. We are expanding because the demand is growing more rapidly here than elsewhere. That carries with it certain difficulties which you cannot possibly get out of. When you build a new telephone exchange it may take a year or 18 months, and you have to forecast the date at which the capacity of that exchange will become exhausted. The Post Office is doing that every day. It has a special department for forecasting, and in the majority of districts its forecasts, on the whole, have been successful. But if the forecast of the Post Office be an underestimate, in any case, before the new telephone exchange will be completed or a new main cable can be laid there will be in that district for a few months or a few weeks a shortage of telephone plant. It will be remedied within a few weeks and, of course, by the time we have remedied it, another shortage will be appearing in some other district.
  8.0 P.M.
  We are in a chronic state of coming to the end, or near the end, of our telephone plant in every district of the country one after the other, and it is the duty of the Post Office to try to keep ahead of the demand in exactly the right proportion. We must not keep too far ahead of the demand, because otherwise plant would be lying idle, and that is one of the most extravagant and unbusinesslike things you can do. Therefore, what the Postmaster-General has to do is to allow just enough capital expenditure to keep ahead of the demand in every part of the country. But, as a general rule, you cannot prevent little local temporary shortages occurring here and there. They occur in every country in the world, but they are bound to occur most at times when the telephone service is rapidly expanding. That is the sole cause of any shortage of telephone facilities that may exist. I do not think I have ever known a case where the want has not been made good in less than four or five months, but generally the stringency has lasted for a very much shorter period, and the Department is actively engaged in trying to keep ahead of the demand just to the right and economic extent. We may make mistakes in some districts. Then we try to remedy them. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull is quite mistaken if he thinks we
  508
  are suffering from a lack of capital for the work. The Postmaster-General has, as he announced last year, made an arrangement with the Treasury, and he is satisfied that that arrangement gives him adequate capital to meet the extension of the telephone service and to meet the present demand and it is enabling us to expand the service more rapidly than it is growing in any other country. We cannot expand beyond the limit of the demand without losing our profit. I would remind the hon. Member for Hull, who is always a stickler for economy, that the telephone profit has fallen for the last three years—£830,000, £538,000 and now £260,000. It is falling not because receipts have gone down, but because our capital expenditure has gone up so much and the charges upon the Post Office for debt are growing every year. That, I think, will assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Postmaster-General is developing the system up to the very hilt of what the growth of the demand allows. With respect to automatic telephones in London, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for North St- Pancras that there will be a start made next year. There will be four or five telephone exchanges working on the automatic system next year. The year following, there will be more, and in the following year there will be still more. There will be an increasing number of telephone exchanges beginning next year, which will be put under the automatic system. When we convert a vast city like London, with its scores of exchanges into the automatic system, it necessarily takes a long time. The newer exchanges, of course, will all become automatic exchanges, and the work of converting the old exchanges must proceed pari passu and necessarily must take some time.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) tackled us on the question of rural telephones. He asked, (1) when we should have an underground cable to Aberdeen, and (2) why could not we reduce toe price of the rural telephones? I should like, respectfully, to suggest to him that these two requests are a little bit inconsistent. The underground cable work, which we are pushing all through the country, is of a most expensive nature. I believe

  509
  we have far more underground cable work, in proportion to the size of our system, than any other country in the world, including America. It is a wise policy, because it renders the service extraordinarily immune from the vicissitudes of the weather, and that is a factor which we cannot leave out of account in these islands; but it does mean very heavy expenditure. My hon. Friend went on to argue that telephones might be constructed on a cheaper, lighter, inferior, and, if I may say so, more gimcrack scale. If we constructed our telephones in that way, we could, perhaps, produce a very much cheaper service for rural districts. That is what has happened in some countries. I can assure my hon. Friend that if that is to be the policy, there will be no underground cable to Aberdeen or to other remote parts. Hitherto, the British Post Office have always gone on the principle of doing very solid work, and although that has its disadvantages, it has very sterling advantages. My hon. Friend most decide which policy he prefers.
  In regard to broadcasting, we have heard some very interesting, remarks, especially from the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras North, and the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham): I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating them, together with the other members of Lord Crawford's Committee, on the very able, interesting and instructive Report which they presented to the Government last spring, and which we have been able to follow on practically every point. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh asked several questions, and also raised a Constitutional question as to whether the new authority was to be set up by Statute or Charter. I could not gather from his speech that there was really any great advantage in setting up the authority by Statute. It will possess all the powers that it requires by virtue of its Charter and by virtue of the licence of the Postmaster-General, and certainly it will posses those powers in a far more elastic form than it could possibly do by Act of Parliament.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked various questions about finance, the control of finance, and the like. I am afraid that I
  510
  must decline the invitation to answer. The Postmaster-General has promised that he will lay full particulars, and that he will lay the draft petition to the Privy Council before this House in ample time for every hon. and right hon. Member to study every detail and to discuss it in every way. Whether it is presented in the form of a Supplementary Estimate or by any other Parliamentary form, it will enable all hon. Members to debate the question with full knowledge of the facts. The Government are not in a position at the present time to announce details of their policy, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when they are in a position to do so, he will be given every opportunity for discussing the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras North asked various questions about our treatment of the British Broadcasting Company. Perhaps he will be interested to know that the British Broadcasting Company have been given authority to construct an experimental station at Daventry, to work on a 300 to 500 wave length, and using the power of 20 kilowatts. We cannot say what terms will he given to the company in regard to the future until these experiments have been carried out.
  I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are on the very keenest look-out for oscillators. The Postmaster-General has means for finding the oscillator, and if it were necessary he would not hesitate to take every step in his power to prevent the oscillator from continuing to oscillate; but I am bound to say that in all the cases to which our attention has been drawn up to now, a visit from a Post Office official has invariably remedied the evil, and the gentleman or lady concerned has taken the necessary steps to bring the nuisance to an end and has thereby obviated the necessity of the Postmaster-General taking the more drastic step suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Captain FRASER: Does the Noble Lord not think that while the action which he has described would cure the evil so far as the particular lady or gentleman was concerned, that course suffers from the disadvantage that nobody knows about it, whereas if the offenders were prosecuted all and sundry would know?
  Viscount WOLINEFI: I hope the Press will give as much publicity to the point

  511
  which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned as possible, and that in that way we shall get the facts better known. With regard to ships causing disturbance through obsolete machinery, that question is to be discussed at an International Conference which meets at Washington next year. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is no use imposing heavy expenditure on British ships unless foreign ships will also agree to stand the same burden. It is a matter which requires international agreement. I agree that the reform is urgently needed, but it cannot be done except in concert with every other country.
  I must allude to the pleas put in by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise), the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad), and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), one. pleading for later posts, another for earlier posts, another for later collections, and the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon pleading for agricultural parcels post. These are all competing claims. All these hon. Members, friends of mine, desire to have a slice off the Postmaster-General's surplus, but the unfortunate thing is that by the time they get to the Postmaster-General they find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been there first, and
  the cupboard is bare. Until the Postmaster-General is in a position to consider these reforms, which he would like to carry out, even more than anyone else, it is no use asking for them. When the national finances allow, I think my right hon. Friend will be able to consider all these reforms, and get back to the good old days when we had the penny postage, late deliveries, cheap parcels post and the like, but at the present time the financial position of the country is such that I cannot hold out hope that we are in a position to promise that at the present time.
  Mr. HURST: Will the Noble Lord deal with the point which I raised?
  Viscount WOLM ER: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I thought he had left the House. I do not deny the importance or the gravity of the matter which my hop. Friend raised. It is under the
  512
  examination of the Government at the present time, and I am afraid that I cannot make any useful answer now.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Last year, I asked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that in certain appointments in the Post Office, such as those of postmen and letter sorters, a restriction was placed upon competent ex-service men below a certain height—I believe the height was 5 feet 3 inches—and it was also said that they were not physically strong enough for certain duties. I consider that to be a real grievance to these men. These ex-service men were strong enough during the War to carry a rifle, 80 rounds of ammunition, and a pack. They were strong enough to carry these heavy loads under very difficult circumstances, even for such distances as 20 or 25 miles, but when they apply for a job in the Post Office, they are told that they are not strong enough to carry a bag of letters from door to door. It is not simply a ease of ex-service men who fought in the trenches not being strong enough to carry letters, but ex-service men are refused jobs as letter sorters, because they are told they cannot reach the top pigeon hole into which letters are sorted. These men are of a very fine type. We saw hundreds of thousands of them during the War. They were tall enough to fire over the top of a trench, and served the country well enough in that way, but when they go to the Post Office they are told by the right hon. Gentleman, " You were tall enough to fire over the top of a trench, but you are not tall enough to reach a top pigeon hole here. You were strong enough to carry a rifle, a pack and ammunition for 20 or 25 miles, but you are not strong enough to carry a bag of letter 10 miles in one day." I consider that to be an intolerable state of affairs, and I am sure the Noble Lord would not dare to go down to his constituency at Aldershot and defend this practice. I know there is a definite rule in the Post Office, but I hope he will cut that red tape and add a proviso to the effect that nothing shall prevent an ex-service officer or man from being appointed to these jobs merely on the ground that he is not tall enough or strong enough, when he was tall enough and strong enough to carry out the duties of a combatant soldier.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I sent the Postmaster-General the facts of a case similar to that which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and I hope he win not discharge ex-service men in his employment on the ground of physical infirmity, and that once a man has been employed in the Post Office he will not be dismissed because of any physical infirmity due to his war service.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I just want to put one point to the Postmaster-General. The last time this Vote was before the Committee, the Postmaster - General promised to look into the case of the auxiliary sorters in the inland section, who are earning from 25s. to 30s. a week. At the same time, there are overtime rates paid to the amount of £300,000 or £400,000, and I should like to know what has been done in this matter.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am considering the matter very carefully, but, as the hon. Member knows, it is a very difficult one indeed.

CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
  CLASS II

    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £71,724, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Rams-gate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals, and for Expenditure in connection with the Technical Survey for a general scheme of Generation and Transmission of Electricity in Great Britain, and with the Severn Barrage Investigation."—[NOTE: £70,000 has been voted on account.]
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): It is usual for a Minister when he introduces his Estimates to make a speech of inordinate length relating the activities of his Department during the past year and pointing out how they are going to do better in the next. But the exigencies of Parlia-
    514
    mentary time have only left us about 24 hours, in which to discuss this, the most important Vote of all, and I propose to occupy the time of the House for only about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. Then, after hon. Members have voiced their complaints, absolutely groundless complaints, I shall proceed to demolish their contentions to my own
    satisfaction if not to theirs. Any uninstructed Member of Parliament glancing at the Estimates would say " Here is a spendthrift department. In the clays when economy is so necessary their Estimates have risen from £134,000 to £141,000, showing an apparent increase of £7,000." In reality the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport have been reduced by £13,000 in the present financial year, because £20,000 has been placed upon the Estimates since last year in order to defray the cost of the investigations, and very proper investigations, which are taking place to ascertain whether the Severn Barrage scheme is possible.
    If it is practicable by utilising the tides in the Severn Channel, without hurting any of the great ports which work in that channel, to release an immense volume of energy for the creation of electricity in this country, to cheapen the cost and help our manufactures, I am sure no one in this House would grudge a petty sum of £20,000 to continue these experiments. These experiments have been going on for some years, under the Government before the. last and under the last Government, and it will undoubtedly be three or four years before any decision can be arrived at whether this great project is practicable and desirable. The real decrease, therefore, is £13,000. No member of this Committee is so ignorant as to suppose that the total activities of the Ministry of Transport amount to a miserable sum of £141,000. They know that the administration of the Road Fund which is one of the chief functions of the Ministry of Transport, is outside this £141,000, that the money in the Road Fund is used to defray the cost incurred by that administration and that the £141,000 is voted by Parliament for other matters apart from the Road Fund. May I say one word about the Road Fund, because it is a question that has been debated at some considerable

    515
    length in the discussions on the Budget. It has been decided by Parliament on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that, though the Road Fund shall remain as a Road Fund, though the structure of the Road Fund shall remain as it is, yet owing to the exigencies of the public services and possibly to the abnormal growth of the Road Fund, it has, I say, been decided that the proposals of the Government are right and that certain moneys shall be diverted to national purposes which would otherwise have been devoted solely to road purposes.
    The Fund is larger than it has ever been, and £17,500,000 is to be available for road purposes during the current financial year. All the proceeds of the taxation on heavy motor vehicles remains in the Road Fund because the wear and tear is far greater on the heavy side than on the light side, and on the personal side, not the luxury side—I object to that term, because motoring has ceased to be a luxury and is now a necessity—one-third is to go to the national Exchequer and two-thirds to remain in the Road Fund. The Committee will understand that the Minister of Transport, in the year 1926–27, has more money in the Road Fund than any previous Minister had, £17,500,000, to dispose of in the appropriate manner, in more or less the usual channels, with one notable exception to which I will refer in a moment. In the first place, to my mind the first charge on the Road Fund should be, and I hope will always be, the classification grants to first-class and second-class roads, which are administered so well by our great local authorities. After all, the Road Fund money is paid by the motorist in order that he may have good roads, and the upkeep of the main arteries of traffic should be the first charge on the Fund. In the current year that will dispose of from £9,500,000 to £9,750,000 out of the £17,500,000. But since I first introduced these Estimates, a notable departure has been made in the administration of the Fund.
    Hon. Members will recollect that in 1923, when I had the honour to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, I initiated the principle of giving something out of the Road Fund to
    516
    unclassified roads in rural areas, on the ground that as the volume of traffic was increasing, and was likely to increase, even unclassified roads, roads that were little used 10 years ago, could legitimately claim some of the money of the motorist to help the poor local authorities in maintaining the roads. That principle went only as far as improvement, and though it did not quite satisfy everyone, yet it did something to meet the case. I have been a member of a county council a good many years, and I appreciate the point of view of the rural authorities and the rural district councils. This year, for the first time, the Government, in their Budget and in their proposals with regard to the Road Fund, are definitely allocating to highway authorities, in areas distinctly rural in character, a certain amount of money which will go to the maintenance of these unclassified roads pure and simple, and not to improvements. The sum is not large if you consider the national needs, but is no less than £1,400,000, which will roughly work out at nearly 20 per cent. of the expenditure on these unclassified roads in rural areas; and, in addition, there is a sum of £1,250,000 for these unclassified roads for improvements, mainly, I hope, that they may be improved and handed over to the county councils and thereby possibly be got into a better state than at present.
    Then we have allocated a sum of £2,500,000 for improvement works on the more important roads, quite apart from the unemployment programmes. £2,500,000 sounds a large sum of money, but when you spread it over the whole of Great Britain the butter is rather thin on the bread and there are many localities which want more money. The Committee must not forget, however, that the unemployment programmes of successive Governments — I am not apportioning praise — which are still unexecuted, are large, and they relate to work on these roads. In this present financial year, if all the projects materialised—there has always been a lag in the programmes owing to various causes which I will not mention—there will be advanced from the Road Fund no less than £7,000,000 towards unemployment works carried out on the big roads, and the local authorities will find £3,750,000. Therefore, in the present financial year on roads alone, for unemployment, money is allocated and ready,

    517
    if it can be spent, to the extent of £10,750,000. Therefore when hon. Members say, as they do sometimes, that nothing is being done for the unemployed, I submit that that sum represents a very substantial help to the unemployed.
    That is all that I propose to say with regard to the ordinary programme. I wish to say a few words on a subject which, I understand, is specially interesting to two hon. Members now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, namely, the question of London traffic. Of all the problems which a Minister of Transport has to face, I say frankly that the most difficult to solve and the most troublesome to handle is that of London traffic, because there is no royal road to success; whether there is any road to success at all, I sometimes doubt. You can look forward and prevent, congestion occurring on the outskirts of the Metropolis, but unless you have the purse of Fortunatus or the genius of a Baron Hausismann, it is difficult to see how you can solve the problem in inner London. May I say publicly that in the mitigation of this difficult problem and in helping to solve it, no Minister could have had better help than I have received from the London Traffic Advisory Committee, set up under the Act of 1924. The Members of that Committee have not spared themselves. They have even criticised the Minister. What more could they do than that? But, whether they have criticised the Minister or not, they have certainly helped him, and I am deeply grateful for the personal trouble they have taken, as representing the great local authorities and other interests, in trying to solve this difficult question. The activities of that Committee and of the Minister may be divided under four headings. There is, first of all, the actual control of moving traffic; there is the encouragement of further facilities; there are the Regulations by which streets may be cleared from obstructions; and the improvement and alteration if streets so as to allow greater freedom of movement. Let me take them in order. First, there is the control of moving traffic. Here, I think, the Advisory Committee and myself can really claim that we have made an advance. I think it will be agreed that the " roundabout " system—I hate the word " gyratory "—instituted in Par-
    518
    liament Square, in the Mall at Buckingham Palace, at Hyde Park Corner, and especially in Trafalgar Square, has made a very substantial improvement, and although, I say frankly, it may make it rather more difficult for pedestrians to cross unless they do so at the proper crossing places, yet the benefit to the traffic, as traffic, is so marked that undoubtedly the innovation has come to stay.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Who invented it?
    ASHLEY: As in the case of all great ideas, there are so many claims to the honour that I would hesitate to give the list, as its recital would exceed the length I have allotted to my speech. We hope to start a modified roundabout system in Piccadilly Circus on the 19th, to have a more complete system when the improvements there are finished in a few months, and also by the institution of signal lamps in Piccadilly—they are now being erected—and by the use of one-way traffic streets both North and South of Piccadilly, to do something to mitigate the troubles which are now so prominent in that main artery of London traffic. The next point is the encouragement of further facilities, and here we find great difficulty. They are difficulties which must be overcome, but, frankly, up to now various causes have prevented me from carrying out all that I should have liked to carry out. The Traffic Advisory Committee was established at the end of 1924. and the first thing I did, on their unanimous advice, was to stabilise the position in London as far as omnibuses were concerned. They were coming on then at the rate of 20 per week. The congestion in London would have become impossible. and in order to check that congestion, and also in order that we should have time to look round and consider the problem, we took that action. The Advisory Committee by the spring of this year had fully explored the situation, and, by a unanimous vote, they gave me advice, in which I fully concurred—I had arrived at the same conclusion from independent inquiries—that it would be absolutely necessary to diminish to some extent the number of omnibuses on the streets.
    The Committee will remember that, by the Traffic Act, 1924, I have power, on the ground either of traffic congestion or in order to protect other means of locomotion, to diminish by order the number

    519
    of omnibuses on the streets. I want the Committee to, approach this question free from prejudice and to put aside altogether the questions which are so often raised—should a traffic combine control London, whether it is better that a man should own two omnibuses or one omnibus, or whether 100 omnibuses should be owned by one company. I want the Committee to approach the question as the Minister and the Advisory Committee had to approach it, and to ask themselves: What is the best thing to do to minimise the congestion in our streets and enable the general public to travel to and from their work in ease and comfort and with cheapness. If you removed all the trains from the streets of London to-day and did away with all the tubes, and relied entirely on the omnibuses, apart from the fact that you would scrap property worth scores of millions, you would not be able to carry the people backwards and forwards, because the number of omnibuses on the streets would be so enormous, that the streets could not carry them. We have to visualise other things. We have to visualise the conditions which now prevail in the North-east and the South-east and the East of London. I have held inquiries, at considerable expense at which many local authorities have been good enough to give evidence, and the conclusion arrived at is that the only way of giving facilities to these teeming millions—not hundreds of thousands, but millions—who have to come in to London to their work every day, is by means of tubes. Surface traction cannot deal with them. There is no room.
    If you must have tubes, who is going to build them? People will not build tubes unless they are going to get a certain return for their money. At the present moment, unless you protect tubes you will find nobody to build tubes. Is the London County Council to do so? If the London County Council were to do so, apart altogether from the question of municipal versus private enterprise, the rates of London would have to find any loss which those tubes would involve. Therefore, while endeavouring to do all I can to see that no injustice is done to any person, it is quite clear I must follow the unanimous advice of the Traffic Advisory Committee to give some protection not to all trams but to some
    520
    trams, and not to all tubes but to some tubes, in order that they may be able to pay their way and help to carry the millions of London to and from their work. When the general strike broke out all prosecutions for breaches of the Regulation were naturally held over. I have been endeavouring, by private negotiation, to come to some understanding with the various interests concerned. The majority of the people interested would, I think, have entered into what I considered to be a fair arrangement, but there is a minority, which stands out and will not come in. Therefore, I am reluctantly compelled to continue those prosecutions which I have instituted in order to carry out the Regulations, and I am convinced, unless I go on with the work which I have started, and which, the Advisory Committee has advised me to do, I shall make no step towards the solution of the great traffic problem of London.
    WATTS - MORGAN: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concludes, may I ask if he is aware of the pernicious practice which is now being adopted by the Ministry of Health of withholding sanction to loans for county councils, although those loans are within the councils' borrowing powers. In several instances, county councils have been unable to get their share of the Road Fund grant to carry on unemployment work. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not aware of this practice I ask him to make inquiries.
    Mr. BROMLEY: I also wish to interpose a question with reference to the coloured light signals, which I understand it is proposed to instal at Piccadilly. Has the Minister made any provision for a test of motor drivers in the matter of colour blindness? This is a most important matter in connection with the railways where coloured light signals are employed, and if you are to have people driving cars who cannot understand the signals because of this physical defect, you may have confusion worse confounded.
    ASHLEY: With the permission of the Committee I will answer these two points. As regards the first, I am not aware of the cases referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, but if the circum-

    521
    stances are communicated to me I will certainly communicate with the Ministry of Health.
    WATTS - MORGAN: May I give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the facts now? The Glamorgan County Council has a grant due to them of £134,000, and they have been held up for the last six months, because the Ministry of Health, though it is well within the council's borrowing powers, refused to sanction a loan.
    ASHLEY: As regards the other point which has been raised, these coloured lamps are not for the use of drivers. They are only for the use of the police.
    Mr. B. SMITH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as all good Ministers apparently do, has told us of the things that have been done by his Department. I wish to call attention to some things which have not been done by the Department. The Minister told us of the abnormal growth of the Road Fund, and one would imagine from his statement that this increase was not capable of being spent by the Department. He goes on further to say that he has more money in that Fund to-day than any predecessor of his, and I hope to call attention to some very useful channels in which this money might be expended, and to suggest that there might even be a reconsideration of the question of the rooking of the Fund for £7,000,000 for other purposes. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman has the purse of Fortunatus; on his own admission, he has a purse that is gradually developing as traffic is developing and the income is increasing, and yet, on the face of it, there are anomalies that exist in London. I propose to deal, first of all, with the question of the London traffic area., and I hope that anything I shall say will not be construed, either by the Minister or by my colleagues, as any disloyalty to the Traffic Committee, of which I happen to be a member. It is not in the light of that position that I propose to speak, but as a public representative in this House. We had first the question known as the Victoria Dock Road scheme, a, scheme that has been on the tapis, I think, for well over 100 years. I quote from the
    522
    " Journal of the Royal Society of Arts," and Sir Lyndon Macassey, in discussing this very project, said:
    " Over 100 years ago the principle which Sir Henry Maybury had argued had been laid down by four Royal Commissions."
    But to bring it a little nearer modernity, at least 21 years ago this scheme of the Victoria Dock Road was adumbrated. Successive authorities have dealt with it, and many public and well minded people have waxed eloquent about it. We have got as far as a model of the scheme, after 21 years, and one of the first duties of the Committee was to consider the scheme. After an exhaustive examination of it, the whole Committee visiting it on the spot, they decided to recommend it unanimously to the Minister—and I think I am correct in saying that he joined with them in approval of the scheme—yet at this time we are still without any approach to the problem of the Victoria Dock Road. There is a place there called White Gates, a level crossing. It has been estimated, by various people who have been there, that for fully 40 per cent. of the time the road is closed against traffic, that there are queues there of 300 and 400 yards long, with vehicles standing, to a total period of nine out of every 24 hours in the day, and that during the business hours of the day for 47 minutes of every hour the gates are closed against traffic. Not only so, but they are closed against the workpeople who have to use that route, the result being, not only a good deal of lost time to many thousands of workpeople in the course of a year, but naturally an increased cost to the business associations represented in that area. I would mention that the release of traffic from the White Gates can be traced right through the centre of London and can undoubtedly be brought to account for a good deal of the congestion, by blocks of traffic being released approximately every half an hour, in the junctions in the inner circle of London. The scheme has the approval of the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), speaking at the Royal Society of Arts, said:
    " He had been driven to the conclusion —and he asked his hearers not to think it was Socialism—that our great main roads would have to be regarded from a national standpoint, more particularly when it was remembered how many of the local authorities in whose districts better transit facili-

    523
    ties were needed could not find the necessary money to do the work."
    Further on he said, in dock road:
    " It was not only the district in question, but the whole of London would benefit if the improvements such as Sir Henry Maybury was going to elaborate might be brought about."
    Then Sir Henry Maybury, waxing eloquent on a subject with which he is thoroughly au fait, commenced by saying in regard to West Ham, a county borough that has been in the eye of the House of Commons pretty considerably of late in regard to the guardians:
    " It was no use expecting West Ham to pay. They had never possessed the resources or influence effectively to control the development of Silvertown, much less the amazing contortions of the River Lea, which imposed such difficulties upon bridge builders."
    Sir Henry Maybury unconsciously joined with this side, and I hope to show to-night the utter impossibility of expecting West Ham, which gets no advantage itself from the traffic as such, to contribute to this scheme. It is London, or, rather, the country, because traffic radiates a good deal through the Midlands and the East and West of England, which would get the advantage if this £3,000,000 was spent on the dock road. What is against it? The Minister will say, no doubt, that he is handicapped, and that it is not permissible for him to spend the money, although he has this purse of Fortunus, although his income is abnormal, although it is an increasing rather than a diminishing factor. The Minister, if, in fact, he has an abnormal income, neither considers making a reduction of the amount of taxation per individual, nor does he spend the money on works that are absolutely essential to London. He may say, and perhaps rightly, that it is not his fault, that he does not control the purse strings, that he is really only the rent collector, and that, having collected it, another very astute right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Government, controls the purse strings, but I imagine that if the Minister were to reflect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the will and request of the Committee as a whole, backed by hid own opinion that this thing is essential, that money would be forthcoming from this apparently illimitable purse.
    524
    The scheme is held up because, in the first place, there are no contributions to it. West Ham obviously cannot contribute to it, the Port of London Authority refuse to contribute to it, the London County Council have offered no contribution to it, and the Minister, seeing a negative staring him in the face, after himself having approved the scheme, accepts that negative. But what is the position at the docks? In the year 1886 the net tonnage entering those docks was a mere figure of 327,643 tons, whereas in 1923—and it has increased since—the net tonnage was 4,148,443 tons.
    Surely a developing port of that character, a port which now can handle the largest ships, ought to be served properly with roads, and it is for those reasons I again ask the Minister to give consideration and financial support to the scheme, and to expedite that scheme in the interest not only of West Ham, not only of the Victoria Docks area as such, but because of its undoubted advantage to the traffic facilities of the whole of London and Greater London. Then there was the question of a Lower Thames Tunnel. We spent many hours visiting the spot where the tunnel was to be. Whether it is to be is, of course, a matter for the Minister. Again, after most exhaustive inquiries, after getting the most expert advice we could get on the matter, and again, I believe with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme should proceed, that scheme is exactly where the Dock Road scheme is. We do not want forty years to pass before this scheme is brought about.
    Mr. RHYS: Has the site for the tunnel been decided?
    Mr. SMITH: Yes; it has been decided and recommended, but, perhaps, the Minister will answer that question. Then with regard to Aldgate haymarket, again the Committee spent many houre visiting that place. There is a very old established market there. For two days in the week congestion is almost at the point of complete blockage. It was recommended that this should be done away with. Two schemes were submitted, one to cost £200,000, and the other, which demanded some demolition of property, £1,500,000. The Committee, knowing that the Ministry could not throw this fabulous

    525
    sum of money about, decided to recommend the minor scheme, and I ask the Minister to tell us exactly where that scheme is at the present moment. Then there is the question, within the terms of the Traffic Act, of alternative routes. What has happened to the Bayswater and Eastern Avenue; the cost of which, approximately, was put at £162,000? Then, what has happened to the Tottenham and the docks scheme I Both of these have been referred to the Ministry, and, I believe, approved. Then, with regard to a spot in London which, I believe, is almost as bad, from a traffic point of view, as the Dock Road. I refer to the Elephant and Castle. Anyone looking at a map of London will see that there are nine bridges, and possibly two more to be built, converging directly at the Elephant and Castle headway. Recommendations have been made, and I believe approved by the Ministry, for two schemes. One scheme was to cost, I believe, £5,000 and the other £340,000.
    9.0 P.M.
    I think the Minister will agree that this improvement on the traffic facilities, especially No. 2 scheme, which deals with traffic at the inlets from New Cross, Camberwell Green, etc., by directional signs over the bridges, which the Minister has already approved, is essential. These schemes are only a few which one could cite and develop, but I feel it is better to raise specific issues, instead of making a general survey of the Department's work, and to endeavour to focus the attention of the Committee upon them. Then there are three Committees set up by the Minister about which I should like some information. 'What has happened to the Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles? That Committee was appointed in October, 1919. Three Interim Reports have since been issued, but no Final Report. What has happened to the Committee on the Licensing and Regulation of Public Service Vehicles, which was appointed in May, 1922, and as to which one Interim Report only has been issued, and nothing further has been beard of it? Then what has happened to the Committee on Lights on Vehicles? The first and second Interim Reports were issued up to March, 1920. The third Interim Report was issued on the 30th September, 1921, but no Final Report has yet been issued. Can it be denied that any one of those Reports, or
    526
    them, should be carried out, with the utmost expedition? The position in London and the country at the moment is a positive scandal. Motorists are daily in trouble, and pedestrians are also in trouble, simply for the want of some coordinating policy that would allow us to get a uniform system, giving direction and guidance not only to pedestrians, but to road users as well. Will the Minister tell us what exactly has happened to these Reports?
    The Minister has stated how much has been estimated and how much granted for various projects for unemployment on Class I and Class II roads. Last year the estimated expenditure for roads and bridges in Metropolitan Boroughs and under the London County Council was £739,188, and the grants made were £369,587. On Class II roads and bridges account, the estimated expenditure was £267,200, and the grants made were £66,794. The total estimated expenditure was £1,006,388, and the grants made £436,381. What is the use of asking this House for estimates and getting those estimates, when, in fact, the money is not spent? Not only is unemployment continued, but the physical conditions of London remain as they are, with an ever-growing volume of traffic. Therefore, want to ask the Minister why there is this disproportion between the grants made. Here is a traffic area of 25 miles circle, with a population of, approximately, 11,000,000, and although the estimate was £1,000,000 for that area, the grant made was 2436,381; while for the roads in England and Wales the amount was £9,527,890? I am using these figures for the purpose of comparison. London cannot be treated as London from a traffic paint of view to-day, It is very obvious that it is a place to which people come and leave. There is an ever-growing road traffic in and out, and, therefore, it seems to me, although the Minister may say he cannot consider London as London, he does consider Ireland as Ireland. The North of Ireland gets its money back, and, I believe, also the South of Ireland. Why should not London, the largest and most congested city in the world, have at least a right to claim that the money it raises should he spent to give facilities for the traffic of London? Surely that is not an unfair thing?

    527
    The Minister may say, he probably will say—this is a point I want to lay stress upon—that despite the fact of this abnormal growth of his Fund, despite of having this purse of Fortunatus, with this £17,500,000 last year as an income practically from the roads, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allocated to the whole of London and the home counties area the miserable sum of £400,000 per annum. The Minister may say: " That is all right, I cannot even spend £400,000 because of the handicap which is upon me." He may say: " Unless I can get the London County Council," for instance—who I understand have allocated £100,000 for this purpose during the present financial year—" unless I can get the London County Council to increase that amount, and unless the Middlesex County Council and the Essex County Council can make similar advances towards getting this development carried out, I shall be in a miserable position of being unable to spend the £400,000 that has been granted to me." On that point, if the Minister came to this House and asked, in the interests of traffic, in the interests of mobility and better service to the people, not having enough powers already: " I want more powers, I want to get on with this big dock scheme which is absolutely essential, and I want to get on with the other schemes before the Committee," I believe that the House would grant what powers he asked for, and would give facilities in the matter of period and money. It is because be has not come to this House that I am raising the issue here to-night. Finally, I sincerely hope that the statements that I have made here to-night will not be deemed by the Minister to be baseless. They are founded on fact. I hope he will give an effective reply to the demands made.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: The speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) suggests the importance of this question and also suggests the non-political character of the work in which the Committee has been engaged. I can speak with a certain amount of authority. I admit it is extremely nice to hear speeches from the Opposition side because it is always possible to show how much more could be done. I have heard a great deal of talk of that sort in another place. I
    528
    happen, however, to know some of the difficulties which people have to face who are responsible for getting schemes launched and have to get the money in order to back up those schemes. There is nobody more anxious than hon. Members on this side of the House to see something really effective done in these matters in London, but the more we look into the problem the more we have to recognise that it bristles with difficulties on every hand. The hon. Member has, I think, very wisely, and very practically, instead of inveighing at large, has dealt with particular schemes on which he has set his heart, and on which the Advisory Committee have reported favourably, and I believe unanimously, and I have reason to believe the Minister is anxious to see something done.
    The London County Council on the other side of the road might well say: " Well, you are in a pretty large mess because you refuse to adopt the suggestions made by us to set up such an authority as would deal with this problem effectively and find the money." We are extremely anxious that the difficult problem of London should not become a political question. It is too grave a matter for that. We must all co-operate to see what can be done. Take the Victoria Dock scheme. That is only one small item, big enough in itself, but one small question in the whole of the traffic problem of London. We all realise the need for that to be dealt with. The matter has been mentioned at the London County Council, I will not say officially —we have never had it officially before us—and many other points have been mentioned at the London County Council, whose duty it is to look after the County of London and to provide those things which are needful for London. They have already been drawn outside the bounds of their area into helping arterial roads on a pretty large scale, but they have found it possible to do that on the ground of giving assistance to the unemployed of the County of London. The same argument does not apply to this particular Victoria Road scheme. Yet I believe that if a scheme were really promulgated—I do not mean the practical part of the scheme, because I believe everything is ready to go ahead—it is the money that is to be found—for the whole of London area, involving not

    529
    only the London County Council but the authorities outside, all those who benefited by this combine, I have not the slightest doubt but the London County Council would do its part. We shall be very glad to see a scheme carried through which would in the long. run, I believe, be of benefit to London. My hon. Friend said that the London County Council had made no offer. The London County Council are not yet in a position to make an offer. I am quite hopeful that it will co-operate with the other authorities if they will play their part—
    Mr. J. JONES: We in West Ham have offered £300,000!
    Sir G. HUME: West Ham may have done its duty and played its part. I am not blaming West Ham. But there are many other authorities that ought to come in who are interested in seeing the road carried through. The London County Council are willing to co-operate, with the assistance of the Government, to see that the necessary Bills get through the House. But in dealing with this great traffic problem of London wide issues have to be considered. There is not only the county problem. One or two bridges have fixed the public gaze. The thing is far wider than that. The whole question has to be considered, and I believe that no one authority is in a position to consider it from the broadest point of view. We have heard something about a Royal Commission being set up. I am told that this Royal Commission will be so constituted, and will have such a reference as to enable it, not merely to consider the question of the bridges, but the more important question of the southern approach to the bridges. The question will also involve that of finance, which will not have to be left out. If the London authority is to be interfered with, if its responsibility is to be clipped, if some outside national body is going to say what is to be done, then those who want the tune must be prepared to pay the piper. Above all, speed is of the essence. There is not the slightest doubt that in setting up that Royal Commission the hope is that Waterloo Bridge may be saved and St. Paul's Bridge may be stopped. Waterloo Bridge will not wait for the Royal Commission. Waterloo Bridge is gently sitting down, and the London County Council naturally cannot
    530
    stand aside and see the upper districts of London, Putney or any others, submerged by reason of the fact of the river being blocked. There is tremendous need to proceed rapidly in this matter.
    On the question of moving traffic, while I do not wish to raise the old question of the trams and the omnibuses, I would like to say that the London County Council have not got any of the relief that was promised by a reduction of competition along tramway routes. To-day everybody grumbles and wants the first place, but I am not claiming the first place for the London County Council, because they need help less than any other body. I believe there are certain undertakings which are in a very parlous condition, and need speedy relief if they are to continue to carry on their work. But, politics apart, the chief concern is that the public of London should get to and from their work. We have no time to discuss ethical questions when we have such a, really serious and sobering question to deal with, and one which will not wait. Trams may have to be scrapped, services may have to he shut down, bridges may crumble. I am quite confident that the Ministry of Transport realise all the difficulties. The Ministry have difficulties of their own. They have good advisers, and they are willing to accept other advice. There are financial difficulties I know, but there are other enormous difficulties arising out of the effort to try to get a large number of authorities into line: that is one of the main difficulties to be faced. I would join with other hon. Members in encouraging the Ministry to do all they can in the circumstances. I do not think the Ministry can be blamed up to the moment, because they have been taking important steps forward and preparing the ground, and I hope that in the near future we shall begin to see the end of the difficulty.
    Mr. PALIN: It may be news to the Minister that there are a few traffic problems to be solved in the provinces. It may be very desirable that the London traffic problem should be solved, but I trust the provinces may receive some attention. I do not want to say that all these problems are directly attributable to the present Ministry, because they existed before the Ministry was established, but unfortunately for the Ministry and for us, the Ministry was not organised

    531
    on a proper basis to deal with them. In my judgment the Ministry was never properly staffed to deal with the problem confronting it. The Roads Department has a head and a staff eminently fitted, from the technical and from every other point a view, to deal with the question, and we are grateful for the work it has done; but, apart from London, where a Traffic Advisory Committee has been set up, and has done excellent work, the position in the provinces has been made more acute by every decision given by the Ministry.
    We hear a good deal about economy, but in the Ministry of Transport there is need for some wise spending. It would be a wise thing to set up a Traffic Department, with a man at its head who has some knowledge of the control of traffic, and in which the services of the inspecting department, which was transferred to the Ministry from the Board of Trade, should be utilised to the fullest extent. The inspecting department appear to be lost lambs; nobody seems to own them. They inspect tramways and lay down most excellent rules for safety; they investigate accidents and give excellent advice on how to avoid them in the future; but so far as the question of traffic organisation is concerned the inspecting staff have no power and exercise no control whatever. At one time local authorities were masters in their own house and could make regulations for their roads. To-day, under the powers conferred upon him by the Roads Act, the Minister has practically deposed the local authorities from control in their own areas. No matter what a local authority may say as to the congestion of traffic, he decrees that there shall be more omnibuses. Though saying, in so far as London is concerned, that the trams are an important factor in carrying people to 'and from their work, he appears to ignore the fact, when dealing with the rest of the country, that £71,000,000 of public money is invested in tramways and that from 50,000 to 60,000 adult workers are engaged on tramways. While he has interfered with the discretion of a public authority in the control of their own streets, he has not even taken trouble to lay down any rules for the guidance of traffic in the provinces, as has been done in London.
    532
    Most contradictory decisions have been given so that local authorities do not know where they stand. In one case, with which I am well acquainted, he decided, despite representations by the local authority, who said that the streets were steep and narrow and already congested, that through omnibus traffic must be allowed. He ignored the fact that the middle of the district in which the omnibuses proposed to run was already served by three lines of railway, in which private capital had been invested, and that there were excellent services of tramways run by local authorities. We have motor omnibuses imposed upon us in every direction. Very shortly it will be most unsafe for any pedestrian to cross the streets.
    In another part of the country the people in a certain district complained that the transport facilities provided by the railway ought to be supplemented. They invited the nearest large town to provide them with a system of omnibuses. They got Parliamentary powers for the running of these omnibuses, but despite the decision he had previously given that a through system of omnibuses was necessary for linking up to traffic points, in this case, although the municipality had got powers to run the omnibuses, the Minister said he had no power to intervene when a railway company objected, and he left the local authority absolutely in the air, giving a very contrary decision to those he had previously given. All that the municipalities in the provinces are asking is that if the Minister desires to cultivate competition, it should be fair competition. At the present time the competition is so unfair that it is causing, not only the waste of the ratepayers' money but a great waste of private capital. It would appear that the only fair way out of the difficulty is to set up a traffic authority from whom municipalities or private companies should secure permission before any routes are entered upon. Possibly the Minister may require some powers in order to bring about such a desirable state of things. The House would grant him all the powers necessary in the interests of public safety.
    At the present time, before passengers can be conveyed upon a railway, very stringent Regulations have been laid

    533
    down by this House with regard to the physical condition of those operating that service, and safeguards are laid down, which must be adopted at railway stations, level crossings and other places, for the protection of the public. So far as the roads are concerned, absolute chaos obtains. A practical problem which the Minister might tackle immediately is that of making our roads and streets safer. For instance, the Minister ought to have the power to grant driving licences for a specified period to applicants with satisfactory physical references, and to grant a full licence to those who have received a provisional licence only after some tests as to their ability and fitness to drive have been passed by them. Again, it seems very desirable that some age limit should be laid down before a person can drive a light vehicle. I would suggest that 18 is quite early enough to entrust ,a light vehicle to someone who may have the opportunity of taking life or of causing a serious accident, while, having regard to the physique necessary to drive a heavy vehicle, 21 might be the age limit in that case. There is also the question of the limitation of the period of duty during which a driver should be allowed to drive. Upon a railway or a tramway certain limits are laid down, and a private company or a municipality which transgressed those Regulations with regard to hours of duty] would be very severely censured if they were exceeded. So far as road vehicles are concerned, we have cases of men, driving vehicles on regular good services between places like Newcastle and York, or York and Liverpool, who have no limit to the time they should be on the road and who, in their fatigued state, especially when they have met with unforeseen circumstances like breakdowns, constitute a public danger. There is nothing laid down with regard to the hours of rest in connection with road traffic, although a driver of a railway locomotive must by law have a certain amount of rest before he can be called upon to take up duty again. The case of the driver of a road vehicle who has quite as great a responsibility—for although he may not carry so many passengers the number of people whom he may injure is quite as great—seems to make out an irrefutable case for action.
    534
    Again, there is the instance of passenger-carrying vehicles whose schedules are such that it is impossible for a driver to obey them and to carry out the law with regard to speed. I believe the Minister has already power where it is proved that journeys have to be completed within a specified time which does not enable the driver to carry out the-law. It is time that the Minister intervened in the interest of public safety. There is also the question of compulsory insurance. Except in those cases where local authorities have exceptional powers through the Local Legislation Committee anyone can take out a licence and run a passenger-carrying vehicle. In the event of a serious accident no one can get compensation for any default on the part of such people because they are not insured. Having regard to the congested state of our roads, that old, out-of-date and cruel practice of allowing one man to be in charge of two horses and two carts with one poor animal having his neck pulled out by the chain, should be abolished.
    These are practical questions on which the Minister might take action. He has an opportunity, during the next few years, of making a name for himself as the Minister of Transport, that has not been the lot of any of his predecessors and it may be some years before his successor has the same opportunity as he has to-day. Our roads, due to causes which we cannot control, are to-day in a state of chaos and are dangerous. The Minister of Transport has the opportunity of reducing chaos to order and making our roads similar to what they were before the world unheaval caused the conditions now prevailing.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It may be convenient that I should intervene now for five minutes to answer the various points raised since I spoke. After that, I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the Debate. The hon. Member who has just spoken said the Minister of Transport has a great opportunity of doing something in his term of office. I agree, although these opportunities are not so easy as he seems to think, because, as he knows, every Government Department thinks that their particular Bill, which

    535
    is to be put through the House of Commons in any particular year, is the only Bill worth considering. Last year the Ministry did put through a very useful Act called the Roads Improvement Act. This year I hope I am right in assuming that quite a big Measure called the Electricity Bill will be passed. I hope that if that safely reaches port, we shall be able next year to deal with the Road Vehicles Bill, which various speakers have mentioned and which, I admit, is long overdue. In that direction naturally I shall consider the points which have been put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite and other hon. Members.
    Major CRAWFURD: As the Road Improvement Acts give the right hon. Gentleman very important powers, can he say what powers he gave them?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Tree planting programmes are being carried out during the winter of 1926 and 1927 in the counties of Essex, Surrey, Middlesex and Hertford-shire. Eventually we shall have some scores of miles of arterial roads planted with trees by those counties. I know that the road from Bristol to Avonmouth is planted most gracefully and successfully with trees along the whole of it. We are making experiments under the Act of last year, and have allocated about £35,000 for experiments; nearly all those authorities are making schemes for building lines, which is an important thing, and the question of blind corners is being considered.
    I was rather amused with the speech of the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin), because he and I had a serious controversy when he occupied the responsible position of Lord Mayor of Bradford. So acute became the controversy between the hon. Gentleman and myself that I was in process of mandamusing him when, fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, he left office, and I had to mandamus his successor in office. "The hon. Gentleman opposite always said that he would not agree to the mandamus or carry it out, but happily that contingency did not arise, and his successor has shown that discretion is the better part of valour and accepted the mandamus. I was acting in what I con-
    536
    sidered to be the best interests of the public, but I agree that it is not pleasant, and not generally right, to override the decision of a great local authority in these matters. I had, however, to carry out what I conceived to be a right decision, to the effect that it was right that while a municipality ought to have every safeguard for the protection of its tramways, it should at the same time allow private omnibuses to come in from outside, bringing their passengers to the centre of the city, and then take them out again. In this matter the convenience of the travelling public must come first. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) is not present. He alleged that there had been a neglect of the Minister of Transport to carry out great improvement schemes in London. I know many of these improvements are desirable and most of them are necessary. The hon. Member mentioned three, one at Whitechapel, another in the Haymarket area, and another at Victoria Docks Road. The hon. Member forgot to mention Kensington High Street. I think the hon. Member for Rotherhithe was skating over very thin ice with regard to the Lower Thames tunnel, because his Committee put this scheme at the bottom. The position is this. As the Committee knows, the Minister of Transport is not the improvement authority for the Metropolis. The authority for that purpose is the London County Council, and by the London Traffic Act, 1924, Section 11, I am confined as to my action by that Section which lays down that
    " Nothing in this Act shall be construed as giving power to the Minister to impose any obligation on the local authorities to incur any expenditure on or in connection with the improvement of any road or the construction of a new road without the consent of such local authority."
    The position is clear. The authority for this purpose is the London County Council, and they are the people to carry out improvements in the Metropolitan area, and it is for them to promote any Bills which may be necessary to carry out those schemes. It would be proper, if I had the money, for me to contribute towards these great improvements, and I am always willing to use such good offices as I possess to promote such a policy, but it must be quite clearly understood that the improvement authority for the Metro-

    537
    politan area is the London County Council, and until they promote legislation dealing with these improvements it is not proper for the Minister of Transport to act. There is the Kensington High Street scheme.
    Mr. B. SMITH: That is in hand.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, just in hand. With regard to the Whitechapel scheme legislation is to be initiated in the autumn, and there are also the Elephant and Castle and the Docks schemes still in abeyance. I can only reply to this friendly indictment that it is not for me to initiate those things, but for the London County Council.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Charles Edwards): Mr. Gosling.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I again put the question that I addressed to the Minister when he was completing his first statement—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. When the Minister intervened the second time, he did not reply to my question, and I want to repeat it. I want to ask what use is all this money if a new practice is going to be established by the Ministry of Health after we have satisfied—
    Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask whether this is a point of Order?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member rose to put a question, but I had already called upon Mr. Gosling.
    Mr. GOSLING: I want, first of all, to congratulate the Minister, so far as one possibly can, on the things that he has told us he has done, but I must say that he seemed to me to ride away on a promise that presently he would speak again and would then tell us all that there was to he known. He has now spoken twice, and has not told us very much yet. He has not told us, during all the time he has been speaking, what he has done with the money, which is what everyone here, so far as I can see, wishes to know. We know all about the schemes; we know all about the work that there is to do,
    538
    and everyone is agreed upon it. There is no difference of opinion about the roads of which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking, because no one can speak upon this subject without speaking from the same book, telling the same story, and quoting the same facts—how there is congestion here, how there are level crossings there, where trains have to stop while carts go across, and carts have to stop while a train comes along, all in places where the same kind of goods are being carried to the same place. There is all that, and then you have to come back to the question, who is going to pay for it? Unless the Minister of. Transport finds the money, it will not be done for another 40 or 50 years, because there cannot be the money in that locality to enable it to be done in any other way.
    There is some more money that we are searching for. When I occupied the office which the right hon. Gentleman so well fills now, I remember going with my colleague, the right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. William Adamson), into the Highlands of Scotland. There were road schemes there that ought to be carried out, and at once, and it was agreed that they would be of lasting use and would give work to a great number of unemployed, and nearly all the material that was wanted for the job was on the spot and could be had without much cost. I cannot be sure of the figures, but I think that at least 80 per cent. of the money that would have been used for the purpose would go in. the employment of labour, because the material was so cheap and so near at hand. Then we came back, and in our case we had the great good fortune to be associated with a sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer. We went to him as men who were really anxious about the improvement of transport, and, although we did not threaten any violence to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we had a promise from him, before we left him, that £2,000,000 was to be devoted to that work. Where is it? What has been clone with it? We did not bring it away with us.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is easy to make promises.
    Mr. GOSLING: I think I could go blindfold to the place where the papers are in the Minister's office. Where is the

    539
    money? What has been done with it! I thought that, while the Minister was -saying to us that it was his duty to tell us of all the good things he has done, and of all the other good things that he was going to do, he was going to tell us about the £2,000,000, but that has gone west. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Transport has got into bad company. A Department like his, and I am speaking with some experience of it, is one of those Departments where there is very little politics unless you take them in with you. It is nearly all business. You are surrounded by experts, and there are schemes there for improvements one on the top of the other, till -they hardly know where to put them. But all the while the Minister was talking to us to-night, it seemed to me as though -he had the cash bag behind him, and another right hon. Gentleman had got his hand in it while he was taking our attention off and, talking to us in order to get this Vote. He told us that, after all that had been said about economy, he did not take any notice of that little £7,000,000. He said that it was quite right that it should be taken away from him. It was true that he did not want it to go, but he had got such a lot more —he had got more money this year than ever before; and yet there are two or three schemes of which, although it may be thought extravagant of me to say it, I think it is good enough to say they will never be carried out unless the Minister of Transport finds the money out of the Road Fund with which to carry them out.
    I do, not want to talk only as a Londoner, but I am talking as a Londoner about a matter that is of national importance when I say that, all the time that that dock road is allowed to remain as it is, you are wasting no end of money belonging to the whole nation. The want of that dock road is impeding the progress of the whole of the dock undertakings of London, and they cannot be called merely the dock undertakings of London—they are the dock undertakings of the whole country, and they have an international value too. At the risk of repeating something that I said to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other day, I want -to point out that there is a speeding up
    540
    in every section of trade and commerce connected with shipping and transport. From the other side of the ocean, from other countries across the seas, the finest vessels that the world has ever seen are coming, from the most modern and up-to-date docks that have ever been built, and, after all that high tension, after all that extreme improvement, directly you land your goods here there is this tremendous wastage, which is such a large percentage of the whole of our trade.
    How business men can sit still and allow that to go on is beyond me. I am enough of a business man, and know the trade of this great country and of its great ports sufficiently well, to know that it is an absolute waste of money. The expense of carrying goods from the port to their destination here in any part of London, or of carrying goods through London into the country is an enormous expense, with much waste. Therefore, it is the duty, above all people, of the Minister of Transport to take the matter in hand. It is an absolute necessity and it has got to be done. The Chairman of the Port of London Authority and I were talking only a few days ago. We were going through the improvements that have been made and those that are in contemplation. £14,000,000 have been spent. That means very progressive action on the part of the Port Authority since they came into existence. There are another £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 to be spent in improvements, and yet all the time you are making those improvements you feel that there has got to be a tremendous discount of them because of this bottleneck and other impediments that you have to meet in getting your goods away from the docks. Is it not absurd to stop short there? You might say the Port of London Authority are the proper people to do it, but their job finishes at the end of their boundary, and then come all the local authorities. What. we are suffering from in London is that there are so many authorities and there is so little authority, and there is no money now because of the calls made on them through unemployment and want of trade. It is hound to come back to the Minister of Transport. When I was at the Ministry I was convinced that there are some departments of transport, road making and that kind of thing, which are

    541
    bound to be nationalised if you are going to get any efficiency, and therefore I press the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the matter.
    10.0 P.M.
    There was one other matter that was raised with which I have a great deal of sympathy. The Minister of Transport is not only responsible for traffic on land, he is responsible for the waterways of the country, and here is' this great water-way of ours being again impeded by what is now an obstruction—Waterloo Bridge. While I give way to no one in my love r f Waterloo Bridge—I consider it was a very beautiful structure—still it has now become an impediment, and even if it were perfectly sound it has reached the stage when it is an impediment to the waterway traffic. All the bridges on the river have been rebuilt, right up to Brentiord. You have made all those improvements, yet Waterloo Bridge is standing in the way and discounting the value of those improvements because we do not 'finish off the job. You can deal with the London traffic in the ordinary sense in which traffic is dealt with everywhere else. You must have a central body to deal with the river, and it must regard it, not only from the point of view of the traffic that goes over, but from the point of view of the traffic that goes under. There is another thing. You can have some variety in roads, but you have no choice as far as the river is concerned. It is the only one we have. Improvements are going On very rapidly. Wharves and every kind of machinery are being brought up to the highest standard all along the
    riverside, and the waterways have been made more navigable. You have to make these improvements and clear away obstructions, and they are all cleared away so far as the bridges are concerned except this one, and there is absolutely a controversy going on as to whether we shall put it in such a state that it will continue to be an obstruction for the next 70, 80 or 100 years. It wants a central authority there. I hope the Commission will deal with it in a reasonable time, but I would press upon the Minister that he must get out of the company he has got into. He must stop that other fellow from dipping into his purse, and see that those to whom the money belongs have the use of it, and no better use can be
    542
    made than by the suggestions I have made to him in a friendly way.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: I am sure the Advisory Committee will be very grateful to the Minister for the very kind remarks he has made about us. I should like to say in return that no Advisory Committee during the last 18 months could have had a Minister who has treated them with greater courtesy, or with greater willingness to accept our recommendations and crystallise them into regulations. In regard to the remarks of the last speaker, who, with his usual pathos and eloquence, alluded to this great problem of the East End of London, I have been very closely associated with that scheme since the Traffic Advisory Committee came into existence and everything he has said I can emphasise to the fullest extent. This is really a great Imperial question, and as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) described it to me in an. excellent epigram, it is not a road for West Ham, it is not even a road for London, it is a road to the Empire. I hope something may be done to bring this great road into existence, but I think we must frankly recognise that, in dealing with it, not only the Ministry but the Treasury are faced with quite a new proposition. As the Minister has said, he has no power under the London Traffic Act to impose expenditure on any local authority, and as far as I understand it, it has been the policy of the Ministry and the Treasury, when great new schemes of this kind have been carried out, there have had to be very considerable and substantial sums from the local authorities.
    I frankly admit that we arc faced on this occasion with quite a new proposition. Everything said on the other side of the House as to the inability of West Ham to contribute shall we say a third—I presume that would be normally its share—may be accepted. I appeal to the Minister, and through him to the Treasury, whether they cannot look upon this great dock road in a different light from that in which they have looked upon propositions of this kind before. From my personal knowledge, the Minister and his officials have been most assiduous during the last 18 months in trying to get all the people concerned to come forward and make a proposition

    543
    which he could put before the Treasury; but all these efforts have failed. The greatness of the scheme is such that it should not be allowed to remain in abeyance much longer. When distinguished visitors come to London, we always take them a trip to the docks. We take them to Westminster Bridge, along the wonderful panorama of the river, and to the magnificent docks. I sometimes wonder what they would think if we brought them back to London by the old dock road. They would be staggered. Therefore, I hope, after all we are doing on the Advisory Committee to get the road constructed, that in regard to the financial difficulties, which are really the serious obstacles with which we are confronted, the Treasury will relax to a certain extent the conditions which they have regarded as a sine qua non up to the present time.
    The Advisory Committee have done, during the last year, some valuable work. Their Report will soon be in the hands of the Minister and I hope it will soon be in the hands of Parliament. When the full story is told, it will be found that we have made a very considerable start in trying to do something with regard to the great problem of improving London traffic. Much of what we may call pioneer work has had to be done. There has been nothing spectacular to show yet, but we are beginning the foundations of what will ultimately prove to be a valuable work. I would like to mention one or two, impressions which I have formed from my association with the traffic problem of London during the last 18 months. The first is, that the intensive road competition in London to-day of omnibuses and tramways is very seriously affecting the tubes, the electric railways and the suburban traffic of the main lines. I have had the privilege, thanks to the courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, to serve on two public inquiries into the traffic of London. The first inquiry was in connection with North London, and more recently an inquiry has been held with respect. to East London. In the autumn we shall begin an inquiry into the traffic of South-East London. The Reports will be in the hands of the Minister very soon. Therefore, it will be improper for me to state at this stage what considerations we have taken; but I do say that from the evidence
    544
    which has been given to us and which is printed, and which is therefore common property, certain conclusions may be drawn.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Member say when the Report in regard to East London traffic will be issued or in the hands of the Minister?
    Sir H. JACKSON: I do not know whether the Minister will like me to say this, but I think it will be in his hands within the next fortnight. It will then be in his discretion as to when it is to be published.
    Mr. J. JONES: It will be Churchill's discretion.
    Sir H. JACKSON: When the whole story is told, it will be found that we are dealing with a problem which is common to London, not a problem merely of North London or of East London or of South-East London. That is my first generalisation, and the result of the intensive road competition will be emphasised in each ease. In the case of North London, for instance, we have been told that the problem could be settled by the electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway, or the construction of a new tube from Finsbury Park. Frankly, I must say that the management of both these great railway undertakings have made it clear to us that the present intensive road competition makes it more and more difficult for them to contemplate the expenditure of fresh capital, whether in tubes or electrification. tube to-day costs £1,000,000 a mile to. build, and electrification probably
    £100,000 a mile. The Committee will, therefore, have some conception of the reality of this problem.
    The second thing that has been brought to our notice, and by now may be taken as an axiom, is that all the existing forma of traffic in London to-day have their proper place. The day has passed when we can talk about scrapping the trams. The tram has its definite place in London traffic. Nothing else can take its place in the early morning and in the late evening for moving masses of men and women to and from their work, and doing it at remarkably reduced fares. Equally, the tube has its place in London traffic. We are constantly asking men and women to go to live out in the country and to get away from the slums.

    545
    The tubes can take men and women quickly from their work in the centre to their homes on the outer fringe. The tube is an additional road underground to relieve surface congestion. It is equally true that the omnibus has its place in London traffic, and equally obviously the electric train has its place. The problem before those of us who have to advise the Minister to-day, is how these various traffic facilities can be allocated to their proper place in London traffic. It is the present competition—the cut-throat competition—which has given us an excess of one form in one place, and which makes it impossible to protect another in another place.
    My third generalisation is, that we are confident that there is in London traffic to-day a sufficient amount of money to give every type of transport that is necessary, a place. One of the most amazing things has been the growth of London traffic. In 1923 the people moved by local passenger traffic totalled 3,190,000,000. In 1924 that figure increased by another 126,000,000, and last year the stupendous figure of 3,420,000,000 of people were being moved about in the year. I think I am voicing the opinion of many men who are considering this problem to-day in declaring that it is only by a pooling and co-ordination of transport facilities and management that it is possible to find whatever facilities are required for the travelling public of London, without requiring subsidies either from the rates or from the Exchequer, and at the same time giving a reasonable return on the capital invested in these great undertakings. Until that is done, I feel sure there can be very little hope of either fresh tube development or facilities of another kind. I have put before the Committee in a rather crude form the generalisations at which we have arrived. The problem of London traffic is one of absorbing interest and of great fascination. Transport in London to-day is as vital to the 11,000,000 of people to whom the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) referred, as food or clothing or housing. I say, therefore, that in trying to make this problem easier, in trying to make transport easier, we are doing a work which is worthy of the best of us, and I am confident that everything that the
    546
    Minister has told us and everything that he advises will if carried into effect give us a solution of this great problem.
    Major CRAWFURD: Whenever the Committee discusses the question of transport it always seems to labour under a great disadvantage. Years ago a volume of reminiscences was published by one who had been an inspector of schools, in the course of which he described how, in the old days, the inspectors themselves gave certificates of merit to candidates who wanted to enter the teaching profession. He and some of his colleagues listened to a number of young ladies in North Wales who were anxious to become teachers. One of them showed no merit as a teacher, but she was such a pretty girl, with auburn hair, she was really so delightful, that they could not find it in their hearts to reject her. On their report they said nothing about her except that she was " a pretty fair teacher." The right hon. Gentleman on these occasions speaks for about 10 minutes, says what he has to say very prettily and attractively, but says very little, indeed, arid it is only in answer to an interpolation that he gives us any details about the work of his Department. I have been rather mystified in following the two speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made on these Estimates. There seems to have been a conspiracy, shall I say of hack scratching, on the part of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides, who have vied with each other in showering compliments front the Committee to the Minister, from the Minister to the Committee, from ex-Ministers to ex-Ministers, and I feel that if T introduce anything like criticism into this Debate I shall be, introducing something which, if not indecent, is improper.
    At the risk of doing that, I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to three things. The first is that the right hon. Gentleman's description of the activities of his Department, and the criticisms and suggestions which have come from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, are the strongest possible criticism of the action of the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, with regard to the Road Fund. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were two qualifications for a Minister who wanted to do something,

    547
    one was to have the purse of a Fortunatus and, the second, to possess the genius of a Baron Haussmann. But he said it in such a tone that it led one to suppose that he had neither. I do not know whether he agrees with that interpretation. But supposing he had the purse of a Fortunatus, and the genius of a Baron Haussmann, then, as an hon. Member on this side said, he must change the company he is keeping, or if he does not change the company he is keeping, he must take those precautions which are usually taken when you frequent that kind of company. I do not know whether there is any warning notice of this kind in the Cabinet room. I am not in the secret, but I know that in public places where people carry purses there is a notice to beware of pickpockets; and in that part of his duty the right hon. Gentleman has lamentably failed.
    The Road Fund has not only suffered from the depredations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has suffered from something else. The Finance Bill of 1914, which, of course, was not carried into effect because of the War, provided that road maintenance should be paid for out of the general fund and not out of the Road Fund. The Finance Act, 1920, put that charge back on to the Road Fund, but if it had not been for the intervention of the War, maintenance would have to be paid for out of the general fund. Therefore, the Road Fund, long before the present occupant of the office became Chancellor of the Exchequer, had already suffered to a large extent, and the depredation of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague is a further inroad into this Fund. The right hon. Gentleman said with some pride to-night that he was spending £1,400,000 on the unclassified roads in rural areas, and he said that that might seem a large sum. A large sum It is a contemptible and miserably small! sum. There are few things which are more obvious than that all the work which should be done in the Department must have its effect and reaction upon a great deal of our industrial and agricultural and commercial life. The Dock Road, or the absence of a Dock Road, has been discussed at great length to-night. It has its maleficent effect on hundreds and thousands of industrial concerns around this great city of London. In the same way, unless the rural roads, classi-
    548
    fled or unclassified, are kept in a state of efficiency, you are going to retard the development of agriculture, and you are going to affect the whole of the rural population.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about protecting other means of locomotion. I want to say that it is not the business of any Government to protect any form of locomotion which is becoming inefficient and less economic. In the United States you find that branch railway after branch railway has been shut up because the work is now being done by road transport and cannot be economically done by rail. It is true, too, in this country, especially in the southern counties. There are branch lines and odd lines here and there, with two or three trains a clay, which will never again run economically. They ought to be given up altogether. If the Minister is going to leave any fairly important rural road in a state of inefficiency, unable to bear fairly heavy traffic, he is retarding the development of that area. Let me leave London and speak of the great cities of this country. The Minister may not have the genius of a Baron Haussmann. It is not his business; it is his business to employ someone who has. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to have is a little imagination. He tells us that he is looking forward, not to two years, but to five years as the minimum period to carry out his work. If he had any imagination at all he ought to realise that, so far from being content with stepping a few omnibuses because they are competing with trams, or arranging that certain trams or omnibuses shall not run, he ought to take a longer and wider view.
    It is true that we cannot effect, in our day, all the improvements that ought to be made, but it is not less true that the miserable sums which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to for his various purposes would not even supply the needs that have been cited this evening, and the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) are only the fringe of the problem for which money is needed in the reconstruction of roads. I hold here a document which I have referred to before. I was asked by Press representatives, not whether I was in my right mind, but whether I had given the right figures. It is a Schedule, which is by no means an exaggeration, of

    549
    £300,000,000 of capital expenditure which is badly wanted for the roads and bridges of this country. That is the problem which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be facing. That is the problem with which he is confronted, and under the shadow of which he has allowed himself to be overborne by his more imperious colleague at the Treasury. That is the first of his great offences. The second is, that he does not seem to have the faintest idea of the fact that the real business of the Ministry of Transport to-day is to envisage the needs of the future. It is true that we cannot, in our time, get all these improvements that we ought to have but let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the forthcoming Recess make a short tour and visit Paris, Vienna, Budapest—let him even go to Petrograd —and he will find that in all these cities, with infinitely less traffic than London, they have far finer road accommodation. Let the Minister begin now to provide for the needs of future generations.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: This has been, unfortunately, a very short Debate, and so many Members have taken an interest in it—
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Six London Members out of seven.
    Mr. MORRISON:—I feel that in future years we should endeavour to get a whole day for the Ministry of Transport tote. I do not think that London Members take up time unnecessarily, and those of us who have raised London questions to-day, have laboured under a difficulty to which I would direct attention. Although the Advisory Committee on London Traffic has been in existence since last December 12 months, and completed its first year's work last December, the first Annual Report has not yet appeared. I would point out to the representatives of the Advisory Committee who are here, what this delay means. We are now seven months after the end of the first year's work, unable to discuss the Annual Report, and before we are able to do so, it will be next summer. Next summer, at this time, we shall be discussing the Annual Report of 1925. It is almost impossible to keep up to date on these questions in such circumstances, and many of the matters dealt with in that Report will be hopelessly out of date when it comes up for discussion.
    550
    It has been said to-night, particularly by the Minister himself, that the Committee has done well and has helped the Minister. The point which I would put is How far has the Minister helped the Committee? After a great deal of agitation in the House of Commons the Minister decided to hold a series of inquiries into travelling facilities in London. An inquiry took place in regard to North London. There has been one since in regard to North-East London and, we are informed, another is going to take place in regard to South-East London.
    In connection with the North London inquiry, the local authority went to great expense and trouble and the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) and several other members of the advisory committee spent an enormous amount of time over it. I think the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth will admit that the case was proved up to the hilt in regard to North London and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary the old ex-service man's question. " What about it "? If local authorities are going to be put to the expense of briefing counsel, gather nag witnesses, and sending their repro sentatives to these inquiries, and if members of the Advisory Committee are to give their times voluntarily delving into this problem; if voluminous reports of evidence arc to be published and sold to the public at 10s. 6d. each, is the only result to be that the Minister is simply going " ea' canny " on the question and doing nothing. The population of North London want an answer to that question, in regard to the inquiry which took place into traffic facilities north of Finsbury Park. When is action to be taken? Is all this money, time and trouble to be wasted? I feel inclined to use strong language on this question. To-night tint Minister has come along here and held up his hands and said, " The trouble is that we have held an inquiry, and tubes are wanted, but who is going to build them?" Is that the end of it all? I beg leave to repeat what I said in my evidence at the public inquiry, that if private enterprise is not prepared to construct tubes where they are needed so urgently, some form of public ownership ought to be considered.
    Ever since I have been in this House I have protested that the travelling conditions in North London to-day are a dis-

    551
    grace. Apparently the only London scheme of any extent that has been started up to now is the widening of Kensington High Street. If the conditions which obtain in North London had been suffered in Kensington High Street, an improvement would have been brought about there a considerable time ago. I have had the temerity to hold up in this House almost every Bill brought in by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and I have got myself into considerable ha' water for doing so. I have done so because I have alleged, and have continued to allege, in this House that that company was doing its best to prevent the tube being extended north of Finsbury Park. The Minister and the representatives of the London and North Eastern Railway Company have always got up and said that I had simply discovered a mare's nest, and that there was nothing at all in my contention; but I would point out that the representative of the London tube railways, giving evidence at the public inquiry, said that the London traffic combine would have constructed a tube north of Finsbury Park in 1920 if it had not been that the London and North Eastern Railway Company had prevented them.
    The position now is that evidence has been given at that public inquiry by a representative of the underground railways of London, known as the Ashfield Combine, that a tube could be constructed immediately from Finsbury Park to the Manor House, which would prevent the present bottle-neck at Finsbury Park, three-quarters of a mile long, at a cost of from £800,000 to £1,000,000, which would include an elaborate station, and the further important point has also been made by that witness, Mr. Pick, representing the underground railways, that, as far as he knew, there would be no opposition by the London and North Eastern Railway Company or anybody else to such an extension. I hope we may get a definite answer to this simple question of mine—thousands of people are anxiously waiting to know it—as to what is going to be done now that the inquiry has been held. I do not like to cast aspersions, but there is a feeling, I am sorry to say, that the Minister of Transport has been playing what has been called " ea' canny " over this business.
    552
    The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well the tremendous amount of interest that has been evinced in this matter in the whole of North London, covering nearly a million people, and I put it to him that he should tell the Committee, on behalf of the Minister, what is going to be done about it.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: The hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) complained just now that during the discussion to-night there had been more bouquets handed to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport than brickbats thrown. At the risk of incurring the hon. and gallant Member's displeasure, I am going to add yet another scratch to the well-marked back of the Minister of Transport. I want to congratulate him for the efforts that he and the Traffic Advisory Committee have made and are making to deal with this enormously difficult problem of congestion in the London streets. I think they have shown signs of a definite intention to tackle it, and to look to the enormous future increase of traffic which is inevitable. T think there is in one quarter of the Committee some slight disposition to be dissatisfied that so much of the Debate to-night has turned on London, but, after all, the hon. Gentleman must remember that the subject for discussion to-night was led into these channels by those who sit on his own Front Bench. It seems to me that in dealing with this enormous problem of the congestion of London traffic, two distinct problems have to be faced. First, there is the question of bottle-neck and cross roads, and, secondly, where traffic, through physical conditions, has been held up. That has been adequately dealt with during the course of the Debate, and, therefore, I need not emphasise what has already been put clearly before the Committee.
    I would like to deal with a few other aspects of the matter. such as keeping on the move, the speeding up of traffic actually in motion. For the suggestions 1 am going to make. I do riot claim any originality, as they have been brought before the Traffic Advisory Committee, but I would like to emphasise them again, because on previous occasions, when I have asked questions in the House, I have almost invariably received a reply that

    553
    these are matters which will be dealt with in the Motor Vehicles (Regulation) Bill, when introduced. There is the question of one-way streets. That, I think, is one partial solution of the problem, which might be considered on a larger scale. It has been very successful in New York and Paris, and from my own personal observation, it does largely help to deal with congestion. Then there is the question of slow-moving traffic. I do not know if the Minister has power, but if he has not, he ought to have, for confining slow-moving traffic altogether, or at certain times of the day, to certain streets and roads, and he should also, I think, endeavour to press upon his colleague the Home Secretary, to urge the police to be more strict in enforcing what is the law at the present time, that slow-moving traffic must keep in to its near side of the road. Every member of the Committee, I think, will agree that this is a Regulation which is more honoured in the breach than any other. One constantly comes across slow-moving traffic in the middle of the road, holding up a whole line of traffic which, otherwise, might get on more quickly.
    There are two more suggestions I would like to make. One is that in certain streets traffic should not be allowed to
    turn round. It, is the turning round of taxis and private cars in these streets which very frequently holds up traffic for a considerable time, and I think it quite justifiable that, if they want to turn round, they should do so by turning up side streets. Again, I would urge that traffic should not be allowed to draw across streets on the wrong side of the road, facing the wrong way. If it is desired to draw up on the opposite side, the vehicle should have to go up another road, or set down passengers on the near side of the road. These are small points, but I think in the aggregate such matters as crawling taxis, two stationary vehicles standing opposite one another, as frequently they do in a narrow street, thereby reducing it to one line of street —if they were more actively dealt with by the police, I believe we should get considerable speeding-up of traffic. Then, trams and omnibuses should never be allowed to stop side by side. The Minister assures me he knows of no authorised stopping places for omnibuses and trams, but in fact,
    554
    they do stop side by side at stopping places. It should be made an offence, a thing they ought not to be allowed to do.
    Leaving—for I have only a few moments left—the question of London traffic, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. Has he considered doing anything with regard to the danger of accidents at cross-roads? I do not mean merely those places he was empowered to deal with by the Act of last year, but the question of some kind of sign indicating that traffic proceeding in certain directions should go slower over the main roads. I know there are great difficulties in the way of the general adoption of such a scheme, but I believe if the roads were marked and one definitely known as a major and the other as a. minor road, the person going on the major road should slow down at least two miles an hour before entering the road, and the responsibility would be on him if he did not do so. I believe this would solve a great many difficulties and dangers, and prevent accidents at cross-roads.
    Again, I should like to ask the Minister whether he has made any advance at all in his search for a solution of the problem of dazzling headlights. Everybody will agree that there is no greater nuisance than these dazzling headlights. On a Sunday or a Saturday night it is almost impossible to proceed against the traffic whether you are driving a motorcar yourself, or otherwise. Any invention which rests entirely with the motorists to adopt, such as dipping or dimming the headlights, will not have the desired effect, and I believe the Minister will agree with me. You will really have to impose upon motorists anything you desire in this respect, or you cannot be certain that anything you do is going to be effective. If anyone found some anti-dazzling device which in the end every driver would be compelled to adopt, it might be well. It would be worth the expenditure of time and sonic money on the part of the Ministry to encourage those who are striving after this—and there are many I know. When I asked a question in the House the other day, I was inundated with letters from gentlemen professing to have solved the question. If the Ministry would do something to encourage this matter I am sure it would be helpful; to perfect an anti-dazzling lamp if such a lamp were in-

    555
    vented. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of making the adoption of such a device eventually compulsorily on all motorists? At present many say, " What is the good of our making experiments in providing these lamps if they are not made compulsorily on people to adopt them. We are not going to spend time or money unless we get some encouragement from the Minister?
    I would like to ask the Minister a question as to the size of chars-a-bane. Has the right hon. Gentleman got this matter constantly before him. There is the danger of these chars-a-bane increasing in size year by year until they reach a proportion which makes them, not only a nuisance, but a possible danger to the country. During the last day or two I have seen in my wanderings about London some gargantuan monsters, green and caterpillar, with six wheels, and they appear to me to constitute a danger, I do not say in the London streets, but certainly in any narrow road that they go into. I do think that we ought to keep this problem constantly before us, so that we may keep watch over any vested interest growing up. I am one of the last persons to interfere with the increase of motoring for the people. The chars-a-bane are bound to increase. It is a most excellent thing that they do, but surely they can be maintained at a reasonable size? No one wants to interfere with what is a most important and democratic form of travelling.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) was perfectly correct in saying that in discussions on the Ministry of Transport very little high politics come in, consequently, I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of the major question of the Road Fund by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd). I want to keep strictly to the doings of the Department. I recognise that a Minister of Transport can be chased up and down the country more easily, perhaps, than any other Minister —by rail, by road and by canal; he can be short-circuited at any moment by
    556
    electricity; and we know from the past that he can be bombarded the whole evening on the one question of rural roads. In the very short time I have this evening, I hope to impart as much information as I can about the Department, even, perhaps, if it has not been asked for by questions during the Debate. Before I do that, I would like to answer one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) with regard to the inquiries on the question of traffic which have been going on in London. There has been one in regard to North London, which has reported, there is one going on in regard to the North-east, which will report in about a fortnight, and there is another with reference to the South-east, which will report later. I do not think it would be correct for the Minister to adumbrate the course he may decide to take after those inquiries until he has had their Reports.
    Major CRAWFRD: What about publication?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: They will be published.
    Mr. B. SMITH: The Minister promised the House that the second Report, when published, would be submitted to the House. Now the request is that we should wait for the three.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: I was not talking about the publication of the Report but about the policy to be followed after the Minister has considered the Reports. When he has got the third, the questioning of him as to what he is going to do might become a little more pertinent. But there is this sticking out, so to speak, from these Reports: that unrestricted competition in London is thoroughly bad for the general good of the community, and until a certain amount of co-ordination of traffic is indulged in and made compulsory, there is little possibility and less probability of those tubes and new facilities which we all desire ever becoming physical entities.
    There is one question of great importance to the country which has not been raised to-night, that is the question of the railways and the appointed day on which the new scale of rates will become operative under the 1921 Act. The Rates

    557
    Tribunal has been a very long time over its work, nearly five years. A lot of the trouble has been due to the Act, which said the Tribunal was compelled to hear all parties interested and desirous of being heard. That imposed upon it a duty which was almost intolerable. Although it is the Tribunal that must decide as to the appointed day, we believe and we hope that it will be early next year.
    There is another point with regard to the Ministry's activities, which has not been raised to-night arid on which I would like to give some explanation. We spend annually £40,000,000 on the roads of this country yet it was not until this House last year passed the Roads Improvement Act that we were able to spend any money at all upon research and experiment. Under that Act we were e allowed to earmark a certain amount of money from the Road Fund for experiments. I am happy to say that we have started already a certain amount of experimenting in road construction. We have a small amount of money earmarked for it—some £35,000—and we are constructing in the neighbourhood of Barnet and in Essex various lengths of roads on the by-passes in that quarter. There has been so much said in America about the merits of the hard road, the concrete road without any top covering, that is is really necessary to say that, in our opinion, it is not the ideal form of road construction. When you consider roads, you have to consider the three interests which are wrapped up in roads. There is the tar interest, the gas company; the bitumen interest or the oil interest; and the concrete interest or the cement interest. It is of vital importance to this country, which has spent so much on roads, and which has already the best roads in the world, to proceed along the right lines in order to see that we are really getting our money's worth. There is one other point, the design of vehicles that run upon our roads. An engine running upon a railway would be taken off in three days if it damaged the track, because the railway company has to pay for its own track, but that is not so in the running of commercial vehicles. You often get a design of vehicle upon our roads which is doing damage. We are going to institute experiments upon the sections of roads to see what kind of
    558
    vehicle does the most damage and to take powers, possibly, to exclude undue damage being done to our roads.
    One word with regard to our docks. I was some few weeks ago sent down to the docks on work which I never expected at any time of my life I should have to do, and although I do not expect anybody in the Last End regarded me with affection, 1 must say that I regard the docks with enormous affection. We who live in the West End of London fail entirely to appreciate the fact that London is by far the biggest port in the world. So many people imagine that Hamburg and Liverpool are the biggest ports, but London is, after all, the biggest port in the world. The Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was quite right when he so happily described the road to the docks as " the road to the Empire." There could be no better description of the proposed road than that. We are, on the question of the Victoria Dock Road, on very difficult ground in getting anything done be-cause there are so many interests that really should contribute towards it. There is the Port of London Authority, which would benefit and which should contribute. There is not only the East End locally, but the whole of London which should contribute. The London County Council should contribute. There are important districts outside London that would benefit and should contribute.
    It is not, of course, really right, that the motorist should pay entirely out of his taxation for a big capital improvement to London as a whole. I can assure the Committee that the Minister of Transport fully appreciates the responsibility which the Opposition put upon his shoulders as being the person to secure co-ordination in order to get this done, because it is a national work. There is, however, this difficulty. It is a big problem, and it will cost between £2.000,000 and £3,000,000. It involves in regard to the housing question alone the building of 700 to 1,000 houses to accommodate the people who will be displaced. Therefore it means the co-
    ordination of a lot of interests affecting the whole of London, and it is one of the most urgent works that can be undertaken. Nobody is keener and more anxious to get this road done than the Ministry of Transport, but, as the Committee knows, we are short of

    559
    money, but this is one of the first improvements that will be done. I regret the time is too short for me to deal with the many subjects which have been raised, but before I sit down I should like to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer).
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the point raised in my question before he closes?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The point is with regard to a contribution towards the general scheme.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I said it was applicable to all local authorities in the country, and I want to know what action the Ministry of Health are going to take?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-ERABAZON: When my right hon. Friend has communicated with the Ministry of Health, he will be able to answer that point. With regard to dazzling headlights they are not really so dangerous as the hon. Member who raised this question believes I have had many conversations with cycling organisations who do not complain at all of dazzling headlights, and the person who suffers most from them is the driver of a lorry who has insufficient lighting himself, and if he could increase his lights a good deal of the present trouble would he eliminated. I do not think it would be right to put it in the power of a country policeman to haul up a motorist and argue with him as to candle power and rays of light, and 'we do not want to plunge into a matter of that kind without careful consideration. As a matter of fact this trouble is becoming less every day. With regard to the question of heavy vehicles, there is a limit of size already, but my right hon. Friend is going to introduce a Vehicles Bill which will lay down standards throughout the whole country for various types of vehicles of this kind. This is the second time we have had this Vote discussed and my right hon. Friend has given the facts which have been asked for.
    Mr. J. JONES: When is the Minister of Transport going to muster courage enough to make the Treasury carry out their promises to the people?
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [Lords.]
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Maintenance of drains, etc.)
    Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word " land " to the word " is " in line 31.
    As the Clause stands, provision is made for making the occupier or owner liable to put into proper order agricultural land the drainage of which may be in such a state as to result in injury to land occupied or owned by some other person, but there is no obligation on the owner or occupier of land which may he in a waterlogged or bad condition, though in possibly may not be directly injurious to other land, to put his land into a proper state as regards drainage. The effect of this omission from the Bill is that the major purpose of the Bill is very largely defeated. In support of that statement I want to quote the testimony of Lord Bledisloe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in regard to the importance of drainage as referred to in this Bill, but before doing so I want to point out that the words which are covered by this Amendment were not in the original Bill as submitted by the Government in another place, but were put in in another place. The Bill as it was originally drawn; made it obligatory upon the occupiers and owners of agricultural land, where the drainage was deficient and resulted in injury to other land, to remedy that deficiency. When the Bill came from another place the owner who may have water-logged land if it is not injurious to contiguous land is under no obligation whatever to put it in order. Upon that matter on the Second Reading Lord Bledisloe made the following statement:
    " The efficient drainage of our agricultural land would probably increase its average productivity by at least 7 per cent. Out of 27,000,000 acres of cultivated land in England and Wales, at least 1,000,000 are to-day waterlogged and another half-million

    561
    acres are badly drained, and these areas include sonic of the richest land in the kingdom, comprising, of course, a good deal of alluvial land contiguous to the estuaries of our larger rivers. Upon these the food output might be trebled by efficient drainage."
    Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to read out speeches made in another place?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is the speech of the Minister, I understand.
    Mr. RILEY: It is a statement of the Minister on the Second Reading. He continues in these words:
    " It is estimated that the lack of such drainage involves a loss to the nation food value of £18,000,000 a year at least. The effect of inadequate drainage is to check germination and delay the ripening of crops, it induces rushes, sedges, mares' tails, and other useless weeds to abound on potentially fertile soils, and it also aggravates the effect of drought—which is nut generally known—owing to the shallow rooting or grass and arable crops. It not only produces mists, arid thereby adversely affects human health, but it also produces liver-fluke, foot-rot, and other diseases among our livestock, and fungoid and insect pests among our economic plants."
    The Minister may reply that there is no obligation on the part of the owners or occupiers of land unless the effect is injurious elsewhere, but the testimony of Lord Bledisloe is that while it is injurious directly by the choking of channels it is also detrimental to public health. What is more to the point is that surely we have the right in a Bill of this kind to see that the national resources of the land arc used to the utmost. An owner who may have very large tracts of land Odell possibly owing to consideration may not be directly injurious to adjoining lands but which themselves may be waterlogged may be obviously as detrimental to efficient food productivity as to the best output of the land. I submit, therefore, that this Amendment serves a useful purpose by making the Bill effective. As it now stands it is only half a Measure. It is only asking a certain portion of occupiers and owners to carry out what is admitted to be an urgently necessary piece of agricultural reform. I noticed that the late Minister of Agriculture, Lord Ernie, speaking in 1924 as to the need of effective agriculture land drainage, said owners must realise that, unless this matter was attended to, nationalisation would ensue as a matter
    562
    of course. Until the resources of the land could be made productive the country must demand better control and better organisation.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a Bill of this kind, introduced for the improvement of land drainage, ought to tackle the whole question and not only a part of it, as will be the case unless the Government accept our Amendment. Although we may be the Mother of Parliaments, and although many other countries may have based their Parliamentary systems upon the precedents we have established and the experience that, we have give to the world, there is no other Legislature in the world that would have dreamed of introducing a land measure which was not directed to improving the whole process of the land of their country, and not confine it only to those cases were land was at the time being used in such a way as to to be injurious to other landowners. The explanation is that we have another place in which the land interest is so exceedingly powerful. I would remind the Minister that when this Bill first left the Ministry of Agriculture the words which we propose to leave out were not in it. It was obviously the intention of the technical advisers of the Minister that the Bill which he is now asking the House to pass through its Report stage should be a piece of constructive legislation in regard to the drainage of land as a whole and should not be confined only to those pieces of land which were being allowed to be so water-logged as to be injurious to other landowners When this Bill had been debated on Second Reading in another place, because of the very powerful landed interest there, the Government apparently used discretion as the better part of valour, as they are normally supporters of the peers in another place and calmly gave way and have taken away the main dynamo from the Bill and the purpose for which it was introduced.
    The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has quoted a speech of Lord Ernie, a former Minister of Agriculture, as to the position of water-logged land in this country at the present time. I do not think he quoted the whole of it. I remember that Professor Orwin, in

    563
    a book which he has published, referred to the statement by the late Minister of Agriculture, that so serious was the position of having some of the richest land in the country water-logged, so that it was not producing to its full capacity the food that the nation required, unless it was tackled in a serious way. There was only one solution, and that was nationalisation of the land. That was a statement made by a former 'Conservative Minister of Agriculture.
    Let me impress upon the House the very great importance of the point with which we are dealing. As I pointed out in the Debate on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote last year, we are in a critical position in this country because of the tendency of the trade balance to move more and more adversely against us, largely because of the fact that we have to import year after year an increasing amount of the food we consume. The values of imported food go up year after year. One direct way to correct that tendency and improve our adverse trade balance is to take such steps in our agricultural policy as will ensure a larger production of food at home.
    Yet we go on allowing hundreds and thousands of acres to remain waterlogged which might well be made of a high food-producing capacity. After the Minister has introduced a Bill to deal with the problem so strongly emphasised by his predecessor, his Parliamentary Secretary in another place calmly gives way to the vested interested concerned and takes out of the Measure a large proportion of the water-logged land of the country. It is absolutely unjustifiable, and I cannot imagine that the Minister, with all his ability, can make a logical case for including these words in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary in accepting these words said that he intended to adhere to the local maxim that you should so use your own property so as not to damage that of other people. That is the reason why the Government accepted this Amendment. Surely when we are in such an increasingly difficult position with regard to our food supplies, the position of the Government is not tenable. I hope at this late stage—we support some provisions of this Measure, we agree
    564
    with it in principle—that the Government will accept this Amendment which is moved solely to secure a larger supply of food in the national interest.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I should like to associate myself with every word that has fallen from the two hon. Members opposite so far as they relate to the need, the absolute necessity, of adequate drainage of land used for arable and agricultural purposes. -Unless land is properly drained it is perfectly useless to try and get the best out of it, and unless a farmer gets the best out of his land it is quite impossible for him to pay the wages which the Wages Board rightly require should be paid. Land drainage is a matter of paramount importance. There is one question I want to address to the Minister. No question of framing a scheme under Section 16 of the Land Drainage Act, 1919, can arise under Clause 2 of the Bill. A scheme can only be prepared by a county council under Clause 1; Clause 2 relates to other circumstances and another situation. It empowers county councils to bring to book any person who allows his drains to get into a bad condition through default. What is the position where you have six persons concerned all of whom have been served with a notice to clean out their drains? Five of them are willing to do the work, but the sixth person stands out and refuses to clean out the drain. and, apparently, under Clause 2, Sub-section (5), he would escape. By his action or inaction he might block the whole of a drainage scheme which is of the greatest importance. Does the default in that case fall on the other five persons If so, and if they then object to cleaning out the drain, can they be legally forced to take up the burden of cleaning out the drain 1 It is important to have a clear understanding on the point. The advantages which may be derived from this little Bill, which envisages schemes under £5,000, arc very real and great.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Does this Bill apply to Scotland's There is no mention in the Bill of its being limited to England and Wales. If the Bill applies to Scotland can the right hon. Gentleman give us any figures to show how many acres of land will be exempted from the provisions of the Bill as a result of the Amendment inserted in another place? I have repeatedly mentioned the extraordinary

    565
    instance of a great area of Scottish land which lies waterlogged precisely in the circumstances that the last speaker described. I have seen that land all my life. There are miles and miles of it, and it is no one's business to drain it. There are three rivers joined together. They are being filled gradually with coal sludge from the pits. It is no one's business to lift out the sludge and to throw it on the embankment. The trouble extends right down to the outfall of the Clyde. I cannot see how, under this Bill, any pressure can be brought to bear upon any individual landlord to deal with it. Can the Minister say whether a state of affairs like that can be dealt with under he Bill?
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: I would like to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton). It is important that we should know whether a frontager is to escape if he neglects entirely to do his share of drainage work. There are certain schemes up and down the country where one out of many owners absolutely refuses to do what is his obvious duty. I know of several instances where one recalcitrant frontager refuses, in season and out of season, to carry out any of the ordinary duties which fall upon him. It is unfair that the other owners should have to shoulder the whole burden. These schemes are proving to be extraordinarily costly in many instances. If my right hon. Friend would indicate that, as a result of the operation of this Bill, some of these recalcitrant and negligent frontagers would be required to perform the duties which fall upon them, it would relieve some of the misgivings which arise.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Amendment raises a very small issue, but hon. Members have since asked questions affecting the whole of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) asked whether the Bill applies to Scotland, and what can be done in the case of a river where the banks are in the possession of several owners who do not keep the watercourse clear. That is a case which would probably not come under Clause 2. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), enables local authorities—
    HON. MEMBERS: Does it apply to Scotland?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. Had we not better adjourn the Debate until the Minister knows to what the Bill applies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We can read the Bill for ourselves.
    Mr. GUINNESS: There is no exemption for Scotland in the Bill. The hon. Member will find that the necessary powers are contained in Section 16 of the Land Drainage Act of 1918, under which local authorities can be empowered by the Minister and now will be -empowered without any authority, to institute small drainage schemes for putting such cases into proper order.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Do I understand the Minister to say that in such an area. as I have described, where five authorities are concerned, one of these authorities can act?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No. I thought the hon. Member spoke of five owners. This Bill does not deal with drainage authorities at all. We hope to be able to deal with that subject in a larger Measure. I am sorry I did not catch the hon. Member's question correctly. This Bill merely deals with areas where no drainage authority has been set up or where a drainage authority is not carrying out its duties. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) asked whether one recalcitrant owner could refuse to clear his drain, and so cause his neighbours inconvenience and loss. The whole object of the Bill is to exercise compulsion in these cases and unless the owner is able to make good his claim to exemption on the various grounds given in detail in this Clause, he Can of course be compelled to carry out his obligations.
    Now I come to the Amendment, which relates to a email paint and one which probably would never arise. It is true that in the Bill as originally introduced the words were or general application and there was nothing to prevent notices being served on owners who wasted their own land. But there was no idea in my mind that local authorities should or would attempt to control owners in the management of their own land, providing those owners did not interfere with their neighbours by default in keeping drains clear. If a man, by failure to remove obstructions,

    567
    injures his own land, surely we can trust self-interest to induce him to remove the obstruction? (HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] It is not our intention to cause local authorities to go round exploring to find what land, in theory, can be drained. We only want to see land drained where it is economically sound to drain it.
    When land is in one occupation, we trust to the ordinary financial incentive to induce the landowner to do what is best for his land.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 62.

    Division No. 368.]

    AYES.

    [11.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Raine, W.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ramsden, E.

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rees, Sir Beddos

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

    Hanbury, C.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ropner, Major L.

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

    Harland, A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Headlum, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Holt, Captain H. P.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

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

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

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Burman, J. B.

    Jacob, A. E.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Campbell. E. T.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Christle, J. A.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Clayton, G. C.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    McLean, Major A.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon, Sir W. Mitchell-

    Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Meller, R. J.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Merriman, F. B.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.

    Wells, S. R.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Dixey, A. C.

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

    While, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fairlax, Captain J. G.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fielden, E. B.

    Neville, R. J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Withers, John James

    Forrest, W.

    Oakley, T.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstabple)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Goff Sir Park

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Sir Harry Barnston and Major

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Preston, William

    Cope.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    NOES.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Gosling, Harry

    Barr, J.

    Dalton. Hugh

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Batey, Joseph

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Greenall, T.

    Bromfield, William

    Duncan, C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Henderson, T, (Glasgow)

    March, S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Paling, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Riley, Ben

    Welsh. J.O

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sakiatvala, Shapuji

    Westwood, J

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Scurr, John

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sexton, James

    Williams, David (Swansea. E.)

    Jones, J J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sutton, J. E.

    Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment standing next on the Order Paper, it seems to me a surplusage.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment had better be moved.
    Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the wood "act" to insert the word "omission."
    If there be any reason for the insertion of this word, it is sufficient, I think, to point out that it was in the original Bill, and there must have been a reason for putting it there. I should like to hear the Minister's expianation for taking it out.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is quite true that as the Clause was originally amended in another place the word "omission" was included, but it was omitted on the advice of an eminent legal lord on the ground that the word "default" was the better one to use. Upstairs we created a duty in the first part of Sub-section (2), and because of this insertion the word "omission" is unnecessary.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is just a little late for such an explanation to be given as lint of the Minister of Agriculture, especially in view of the attitude adopted by the Government. Nothing could be more clear than the case for retaining the word " omission." The case put forward, and endorsed Jay the Minister, which in effect means the restriction of the obligation to the particular class of landowner, and not to make it apply to the whole of the people concerned, shows the bias in the matter. Therefore it is better that the law should be made perfectly clear and for the word "omission" should be included. The right hon. Gentleman
    570
    knows better than any of us that this form of words including the word "omission" is the common form of words in the whole range of private Acts. There seems to be some sinister intention in definitely omitting this word, and if the Amendment of the other place is to be accepted and so restrict the operation of the Bill to particular landowners, it will defeat the object of the full obligation. For these reasons, I submit that we should not accept the Amendment of the other place, but that of my hon. Friend to restore the word.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: My attitude towards the omission of the word "omission" will depend upon whether or not Scotland is omitted from the Bill. A moment. or two ago the Minister assured us that Scotland was in the Bill, will he tell us whether or not the governing Act of 1861 specifically excludes Scotland? If it does, what becomes of his answer a moment or two ago?
    Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member has looked it up and finds that it does ex-elude Scotland, I have got no answer to him; but my own examination has failed to disclose any Clause which does exclude Scotland.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that Clause 2 of the Act of 1861 specifically says that this shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland or the Metropolis? I will give the Minister time to look at it.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I apologise to him. I had not seen that reference before. It was a new point to me. Quite clearly, on that, Scotland is excluded.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that Section 2 of the Act of 1861 says it shall not extend to
    " Scotland or Ireland on to any part of the Metropolis as defined by the Metropolis Management Art, 1855."

    571
    and does not the Act of 1918 refer to this Act as the principal Act, and does not the Bill that we are how discussing refer to the Act of 1918 and the principal Act and, if so, is it not the case that Scotland and Ireland must be excluded? Will it be in order to ask the Government to postpone consideration of this Bill till they know just where they are?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is quite clear from the very learned dissertation to which we have just listened from two Scottish Members that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, therefore their objection to it, from the point of view of active watchers of Scottish interests, must fall to the ground.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But is there not something more here If the Government have
    brought in a Bill which they imagine applies to Scotland, surely they must have had something in their minds?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, we most certainly did not imagine it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But that does not get away with it. The Minister of Agriculture has been making out that it did apply to Scotland and I should imagine the Government have been labouring tinder some kind of delusion or allusion. In that case it would be better to postpone further discussion of the Bill till they find whether they cannot bring in some Clause will be beneficial to Scotland.
    Question put, "That the word 'omission' he there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided; Ayes, 51; Noes, 158.

    Division No. 369.]

    AYES.

    [11.5 a.m.

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

    Henderson, T. {Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Barr. J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slsser, Sir Henry H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Heath)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sullivan, J.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Kelly, W. T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Westwood, J.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Sakiatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Harland, A.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Holt, Captain H. P

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Finburgh, S.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Forrest, W.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lamb, J. O.

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

    Ganzonl, Sir John.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gibbs Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Burman, J. B.

    Goff Sir Park

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacIntyre, Ian

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McLean, Major A.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Christle, J. A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Cope, Major William

    Hanbury, C.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wells, S. R.

    Neville, R. J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

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

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

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

    Shepperson. E. W.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Nittall, Ellis

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Slaney, Major P, Kenyon

    Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Oakley, T.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Withers, John James

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Womersloy, W. J.

    Preston, William

    Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Raine, W.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ramsden, E.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Styles, Captain H. Waiter

    Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. Frederick Thomson.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

    Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out Subsection (8).
    This Sub-section has been inserted in another place to provide for a further appeal from the decision of the county councils and the borough councils. After negotiations in a court of summary jurisdiction there is still another appeal to Quarter Sessions. It is perfectly clear that the landed interests, in dealing with this Bill, desire to lay every possible obstacle in the way of making any real progress with land drainage in this country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member must move his Amendment on its merits and not refer to the debate in another place.
    12 M.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I will observe your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for transgressing. This Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place as well as a very long Amendment on Clause 1, which provides very fully for an appeal, and it is because of the attitude of the Minister when that Clause was accepted that I want to delete this further right of appeal. When opposing the insertion of this Sub-section the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that once we begin to allow appeals to be made for local authorities, county councils and borough councils to the Ministry, the tendency will be to carry that objection to the Ministry as against the county council. Therefore it is obvious that the Government foresaw that in this Bill which lays the duty upon county councils of proceeding with land drainage schemes is going to cause a
    574
    good deal of unnecessary trouble and provide too many obstacles by allowing too many rights of appeal. It is conceivable that in such a simple case as where a tree has fallen across a stream, and a county council orders it to be removed, the owner of the land, if he is recalcitrant, can go on objecting right through the process of appeal which has now been laid down, because, after exploring through the court of summary jurisdiction, he is still to have a further light to hold up this simple process by appealing to quarter sessions. That is not a fair attitude to adopt when one considers how important the county councils are, and the position that they have established for themselves in the country. That a county council, invested with the full authority of the suffrages of the electors, with nearly 40 years experience behind it and with full knowledge of what is necessary to meet the local situation, should be held up on quite small drainage matters through three or four avenues of appeal, is derogatory to their prestige and influence, and I think that on reflection Members on the other side who have had experience of the work and duties of county councils will see that to retain such a provision in a Bill of this kind is not conducive to progress in local government. I feel certain that the object of this provision is only that it may be used as an additional means of holding up progress in land drainage where the owners do not think it is in their own interests.
    Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

    575
    This Sub-section is a most extravagant demand. It. must he borne in mind that the county councils are representative, not only of the ordinary electors in the county areas, but also of the landed interests.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is reasonable that there should be a power of appeal in these rather complicated matters. It is not a general power, but is carefully guarded by the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Clause 2. The procedure is that the person on whom the notice is served has a choice of going to an arbitrator or to a court of summary jurisdiction, and he or the county council can appeal from the court of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions. The power of appeal is not solely in the interest of the owner or occupier, but is equally in the interest of the county council. I cannot see any reason to fear unfairness in these matters. In any case of this kind it is the duty of this House to take reasonable steps to see that no injustice is done.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I point out that the Amendment which has been put in in another place tends to increase expenditure upon any question that arises? Those owners or occupiers who think themselves aggrieved, and who think their claims have not been fully considered, even though they are wrong in so thinking, can add expenses which may make it almost impossible for an individual who has received a verdict in the court of summary jurisdiction to appear
    when the case comes before the court of quarter sessions. I fail to see why this House should give further legal advantages to people whose claims have been considered and decided, by giving them the right of appeal to quarter sessions. The net result will be that lawyers will pocket fees, and I submit that, in view of the added legal expenses, the Government might see their way to withdraw this Amendment of the Lords and send the Bill forward without it. If they accept that, we have no objection to the Bill going through, but otherwise we shall be forced to carry the matter to a Division.
    Sir ROBERT SANDERS: Hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is a provision that will act entirely in favour of the landlords. It seems to me to have exactly the opposite effect. The landlord, if he feels aggrieved, can either go to the petty sessions court or he can go to an arbitrator. If he goes to an arbitrator, this Clause does not apply. If the petty sessions court gives a decision, not only can the landord appeal against it, but the county council can appeal against it as well. The advantage of the appeal is quite as much in favour of the county council who want the drainage clone as it is in favour of the landlord, who, hon. Members opposite seem to think, does not want to get the drainage done.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes,153; Noes, 32.

    Division No. 370.]

    AYES.

    [12.10 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

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

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Christle, J. A.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Albery, Irving James

    Clayton, G. C.

    Goff Sir Park

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

    Cope, Major William

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Gunstan, Captain D. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbed

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Hanbury, C.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Curzon, Captain viscount

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Harland, A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Harrison. G. J. C.

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Dixey, A. C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Falk, Sir Bertram G.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.

    Fielder', E. B.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Finburgh, S.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

    Forrest, W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Burman, J. B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Oakley, T.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hindersley, Major G. M.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Preston, William

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Lamb, J. O.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Raine, W.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Wells, S. R.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    McLean, Major A.

    Salmon, Major I.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Merriman, F. B.

    Savery, S. S.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

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

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Withers, John James

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

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Womersley, W. J.

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

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

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

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Smithers, Waldron

    Neville, R. J.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

    Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. Frederick Thomson.

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    NOES.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barr. J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Duncan, C.

    Kirkwood. D.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Colonel Day and Mr. James Hudson.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Riley, Ben

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed "that the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. PALING: Before the Bill is read a third time I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain what happens under
    Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. It reads as follows:
    "Where any drain within the meaning of this section is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded, then unless the condition of the drain is attributable to the subsidence of surface due to mining operations, it shall be the duty of the person having control of the drain, or of the part thereof where the impediment occurs, to put the drain or such part thereof in proper order if by reason of such impediment agricultural land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is injured by water, or in danger of being so injured."
    It appears to me that a subsidence due to mining operations is entirely excluded. Two years ago when the Bill promoted by the West Riding of Yorkshire was going through Parliament dealing with drainage matters, an at-
    578
    tempt was made to get powers to deal with the drainage of areas which had been lowered through mining operations. It was cut out of the Bill on the promise that the Government would deal with it at the earliest opportunity. I have not heard the question mentioned since, and nothing is done in this Bill. I realise that Doncaster has been recognised as an abnormal area and the Government have appointed a special Commission to go into the case, but I want to know what is going to be done in those areas which are normal and where mining subsidences have taken place. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Government in the Bill which is to be brought in next year are proposing to deal with this question. If he can tell that it is their intention to do so, I do not think there will be any objection to this Bill. The people who live in these areas, in view of the definite promise given two years ago, expect the Government to deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. GUINNESS: We cannot deal with a question like this until we get the report and advice of the Committee which is inquiring into it, and whatever legislation may be found necessary will be introduced into Parliament.
    Mr. PALING: Does not that apply only to the Doncaster area, and are there not scores of other areas where the land is flooded and where mining subsidence has taken place? What is going Co be done in regard to the other areas? If my memory serves me aright the Commission only applies to Doncaster.
    Mr. GUINNESS: There is a Royal Commission inquiring into the whole question and as the matter is being considered by them, it is obviously impossible to say now what course is to be taken.
    Sir D. NEWTON: I take the opportunity of pointing out to the House that this Bill is but a. short step in the direction of the better drainage of the land in this country. It only deals with cases where an expenditure of £5 per acre is involved or a total expenditure on a scheme of £5,000. It is an imperative necessity however that the position of the highlanders and the lowlanders should be definitely made clear. It is also very important that such questions should be solved as, for instance, whether a whole watershed should be taxed, and whether drainage rates should be based on acreage, or on benefits received, or on rate-able value. These are questions of great urgency, particularly in the district in which I reside, and I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that he will introduce, at the earliest moment, a comprehensive Measure to deal with the whole question of the drainage of agricultural lands.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a matter of regret that the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind should be taken at this hour. It is also a. matter of regret to me that the taking of the Bill at this time has made it inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton), who is so intimate with this matter, to be present. In his absence I heartily support the point put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) that this Bill must be regarded as only a short step in the direction of land
    580
    drainage reform which is so urgently required in the interest of agricultural development in this country. It is to be regretted that, even in the case of such a short step in the right direction, the Government should have been so complaisant as to withdraw from the Bill many provisions which would have made it more workable. The way in which the Bill was handled in Committee showed clearly that the Amendments accepted from another place had made such a great change that even the Minister himself was not able to follow clearly the Bill in its amended form. We have had another illustration to-night of how imperfect in the absence of expert advice at the moment, is the Minister's knowledge of the Bill to which we are now giving a Third Reading. It is obvious that the Bill was so emasculated in another place as to make it far less useful than it would have been, had it been taken through all its stages in the form in which it was originally drafted. We on this side think that in measures of reform of this kind, the House should always make quite certain, where steps are taken to improve land in the interests of the nation as a whole, that the increased value of the land should not accrue to the landowner, but should become the property of the community.
    We have been told that it is contemplated that the whole cost—at any rate in theory—of schemes promoted under this Bill will be recoverable from the owners. That has never been very clear to me, but, in passing the Third Reading, we ought to say here and now that any increment in value as a result of these schemes, is not to become the property of the landowners but is to be credited to the whole community. That point was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk during the Committee stage, and I do not think he got a satisfactory answer. It is much to he regretted that the Amendments accepted provide so many avenues for obstructing the legitimate action of local authorities in securing improvements in land drainage, and I wish to place on record, on the Third Reading of this Bill, that in our view it was unnecessary for the Government to give way, as they have given way, to those who take the landowners' view in these matters. They should not have allowed

    581
    it to be made so easy for interested persons to check and delay, at every stage, the action of local authorities for improving drainage, and to do so at the expense of the local authorities and ratepayers. While we make these points we agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that th.7, Bill is a short step in the direction of reform and we emphasise the request which he has made that the Government should introduce at an early date a more comprehensive Measure but we do not propose to divide against the Third Reading.

    MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL [Lords].
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time".
    Captain GARRO-JONES: This Bill ought not to be allowed to pass without some observations on certain features in it. Clause 2 gives the Minister a clear discretion in the case of no fewer than three Acts of Parliament, where previously he had only a limited discretion. That is bad enough but in Subsection (4) of Clause I we find that the Minister may by order declare that the provisions of this measure are not to apply as respects any market, fair or mart. I wish to protest against this system of government by Order in Council. I have never seen a more blatent example than this Bill, which is the kind of Bill one would expect to originate in another place. Clause 1 has been drafted, presumably, not without due reason but Sub-section (4) gives the Minister the power, either to put it into effect or not as he thinks fit. That practice has been going on for a long time but it has never been more blatant or disgraceful than in this Bill. In spite of the fact, that hon. Members opposite are expected to support the Government of the day in whatever they do, I hope a few will be found to protest against in-
    582
    fringements of this kind on the rights of the people.

    ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
    Resolved,
    " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hems-Newton Abbot, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 8th day of June 1926, be approved."
    Resolved,
    " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hems-north, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 8th day of June 1926, be approved."
    Resolved,
    " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, M respect of the urban district of Millom, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 10th day of June 1926, he approved."—[Colonel Ashley.

    FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS MEASURE, 1926.
    Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
    "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the First Fruits and Tenths Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
    I believe this Measure is to all intents and purposes non-controversial. It has received the full consideration of the Church Assembly and has now received the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Before this Measure is allowed to pass, I think we ought to have some slight explanation from the hon. and gallant Member for North-east

    583
    Leeds (Major Birchall) who is in charge. I have studied the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee which accompanies the Measure and although being unacquainted with many of the theological terms used in this Report I think I have a fair idea of the drift of it. But in paragraph 3, there is a statement to which historical criticism should be directed. It is stated:
    " First fruits and tenths were originally Papal imposts, which were transferred to the Crown at the Reformation."
    If my recollection of Hebraic scriptures is correct, first fruits and tenths are specifically referred to in the Old Testament as a scriptural injunction and not as an impost. If we can thus at this time of the morning detect what we think to be historical inaccuracies in the Report that accompanies the Measure, we are justified in the suspicion that there are matters in it which require the grave consideration of this House. I think, therefore, that we should not pass this Measure without some further explanation from the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Leeds.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: I really think that if the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) would read the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee carefully he would find that it makes perfectly clear what the purpose of this Measure is. I have often thought that these Reports do not receive the attention they deserve, and the speech which the hon. Member has just made rather strengthens that view. It is perfectly clearly laid down what the position is. Paragraph 4, for example, states:
    "In the reign of Queen Anne first fruits and tenths were transferred to Queen Anne's Bounty and they have ever since been collected and administered by Queen Anne's Bounty for the benefit of poor livings."
    It is therefore not necessary to transfer these particular moneys to any different source for assessment. It is simply a question of a change in the medium by which these people are to be assisted. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 5, they will see it says:
    " Queen Anne's Bounty has now other and larger sources of income than those derived from first fruits and tenths. And the Legislative Committee have represented that since during recent years a large part of that income has been applied in making good the depreciation of invest-
    584
    ments, it is possible at the present time-to abolish first fruits and tenths without in any way decreasing the amount required in order to carry out the Queen Anne's Bounty scheme for the relief of dilapidations; and that there is therefore now a favourable opportunity of getting rid of these imposts, so far as they are charged upon ecclesiastical persons performing ecclesiastical duties."
    It is also pointed out in the report how uneven is the incidence of the first fruits and tenths, and how unsatisfactory the position is. The purpose of the Measure is to bring the position up to modern requirements and conditions.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. and learned Member for South-east Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) oblige me by answering the specific question I raised as to the first sentence in paragraph 3 of the report?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) is quite right in saying that the moral obligation originates in scripture. But naturally enough it came to be enforced under ecclesiastical law by the Pope. It was a moral obligation before that, but not a legal one.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: So the memorandum is wrong?
    Lord H. CECIL: No. I think not; but, at any rate, it is not very important. It became impost when it was made an impost by law. When the rights of the Popes were transferred it was assessed on a valuation then made, once for all. When that valuation lapses it makes no difference to the clergy because they get it back through Queen Anne's Bounty. But the incidence is very unfair as between one clergyman and another. For that reason it was proposed to abolish it and leave the matter for the administration of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
    Mr. BARR: I think there is occasion for a remark here. I do not think any of us desire to offer any factious opposition to what is agreed on by the National Assembly of the Church of England. But I do think, that there should not be any assumption that these Measures are brought forward and passed as a mere matter of form. Under the Enabling Act of 1919 it was quite clearly stated hat the powers of Parliament should be duly considered in regard to these

    585
    matters. I feel at a disadvantage in that this Measure has come upon us at so late an hour and without the full information and study that we should have liked to give it. This applies particularly to the next Measure on the Order Paper which raises some large questions. I think this should not be taken as a precedent and that we should have every opportunity of giving intelligent study to these Measures and not have them rushed through as a matter of form at a late hour and almost on the spur of the moment before we have had time to read the documents.
    Resolved,
    " That, in accordance with The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the First Fruits and Tenths Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."

    ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS MEASURE, 1926.
    Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
    " That, in accordance with The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
    I apologise to hon. Members opposite that this should come on so late in the evening. In regard to this Measure, we have practically a non-controversial matter. The powers of the Commissioners are strictly limited by Statute, and this Measure somewhat extends their powers of usefulness by enabling them to expend some of their income on some matters in the administration of the Church, matters which are not of great importance. The Measure has received
    full consideration by the Church Assembly, and has also been reported favourably upon by our own Ecclesiastical Committee.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Motion.
    Resolved,
    " That, in accordance with The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."

    MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.
    Order for Consideration of the Lords Amendments read.
    Lieut.-Col. FREMANTLE: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
    These two Amendments are non-controversial.
    Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 1 (2) of Midwives Act, 1902.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 19, at the end insert:
    " Provided that the provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of a person who, while undergoing training with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner or a certified midwife, attends a woman in childbirth as part of a course of practical instruction in midwifery recognised by the General Medical Council or by the Central Midwives Board."
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This has been put in as necessary to safeguard the work of medical students under tuition. Although they are not qualified men, they are doing useful work under proper safeguards in training schools. Therefore this Amendment was put in to allow them to continue, although unqualified persons.
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 8, at the end, insert

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power to exempt certain, institutions from Part II.)
    (1) A local supervising authority may grant exemption from the operation of this Part of this Act in respect of—

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

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

    (2) A local supervising authority may at any time withdraw an exemption granted by it under this section.
    (3) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of local supervising authority to grant exemption under this section in respect of any hospital, premises or institution, or by the withdrawal of any such

    587
    exemption previously granted by the authority, may appeal against the refusal or withdrawal to the Minister of Health, and the Minister, after considering the matter, shall give such directions therein as he thinks proper, and the authority shall comply with any directions so given.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move: " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is necessary in order to allow certain social welfare institutions, that occasionally take in maternity cases incidental to their work, to escape inspection where the local supervisory authority thinks it can safely be done. It will appeal to all Members of this House when they realise that there are certain homes known as Rescue Homes and other places of that sort which occasionally have cases of women who give birth to children. They come there and are properly looked after, but it is of the essence of the good work of these institutions that there should be no publicity about it. It is for that reason that these homes appeal to us to have them exempted from the necessity of public inspection. It was especially in connexion with the Salvation Army that we were approached. Obviously it would be open to some kind of difficulty unless it were left still to the judgment of the proper authority. The local supervisory authority is therefore given power to exempt in such cases. This is given to any hospital or other premises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible, or any hospital or institution not carried on for profit and not used mainly for a maternity home; and in these cases the local supervisory authority may at any time withdraw the exemption granted by it under this Clause.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Having listened to the explanation of this important Amendment it seems a very great pity that we should be in a position to consider this Bill at all at this late hour. The hon. Member must know that an Amendment of this kind is very controversial. We were assured, when we were asked whether we would consider the Lords Amendments to-night, that the Amendments were not controversial.
    588
    Obviously the principle involved here is of very great importance. It is perfectly obvious that a large number of cases of maternity which are likely to be dealt with in the very class of home to which we have referred are cases from the working class, and power is to be given apparently for those institutions to be exempted from inspection. Obviously that is not at all to the interest of working class mothers who may be confined in institutions of that kind. I suggest that the hon. Member would be wise, in view of the strong feeling likely to he aroused in the minds of many Members of this House, to withdraw this Amendment and let us have time to consider it.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: In regard to the first Amendment I have nothing to say; I think it was quite necessary. But in regard to this one, while I am in general sympathy with it, I do think, perhaps, it requires a little consideration. On the whole, there is an effective safeguard in the fact that the inspecting authority will require to be satisfied of the bona fides of any hospital or similar institution which is exempted, before exemption is given, but I would like the hon. Member to consent to another safeguard, and that is that the exemption so given should not extend for more than 12 months. We can quite understand that exemption might be given to one of these places, and it might be quite all right, but—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that the hon. Member is objecting. If that be so, as it is after 11 o'clock, the Debate must stand adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening; Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Ten Minutes before One o'Clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
POST OFFICE.
  CNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS (GENERAL STRIKE).
  CNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS (GENERAL STRIKE).
  IMPERIAL WIRELESS SERVICE.
  IMPERIAL WIRELESS SERVICE.
  LETTER SOETING.
  LETTER SOETING.
  ENEMY DEBTS (BRITISH CLEARING OFFICE).
  ENEMY DEBTS (BRITISH CLEARING OFFICE).
  APSLEY PAPER MILLS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  APSLEY PAPER MILLS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  WAR INVENTIONS (AWARDS).
  WAR INVENTIONS (AWARDS).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (ABINGDON STREET BRANCH).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (ABINGDON STREET BRANCH).
  GUN LICENCES.
  GUN LICENCES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMMUNISTS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMMUNISTS).
  SECOND-CLASS BOOKKEEPERS (PAY).
  SECOND-CLASS BOOKKEEPERS (PAY).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  HENDON DISPLAY (PARLIAMENTARY ENCLOSURE).
  HENDON DISPLAY (PARLIAMENTARY ENCLOSURE).
  OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT THE MINISTRY.
  OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT THE MINISTRY.
  ROYAL NAVY (BOYS' TRAINING).
  ROYAL NAVY (BOYS' TRAINING).
  ROYAL PARKS (HANDBILLS).
  ROYAL PARKS (HANDBILLS).
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  LAND VALUE TAXATION (DENMARK).
  LAND VALUE TAXATION (DENMARK).
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
TRANSPORT.
  HYDE PARK CORNER.
  HYDE PARK CORNER.
  ROAD REPAIRS.
  ROAD REPAIRS.
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (MIRRORS).
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (MIRRORS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON ELECTRIC AND METRO- POLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COM- PANIES BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PORTSMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1926.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name with reference to this Bill.
Moved, That this House agrees to the modifications subject to which the House of Commons has approved the Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Portsea Island Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 3rd of

1061
June last, and approved by this House on the 24th of June last, and approves the said Order as so modified, viz.:
Clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out the definition of "The date of transfer" and insert "the date of transfer means the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-six"
Clause 4, sub-clause (1), line 2, after "be" insert "deemed to have been"
Clause 4, sub-clause (2), line 2, after "shall" insert "be deemed to"
Clause 8, sub-clause (2), line 3, after "be" insert "deemed to have been"
Clause 17, sub-clause (1), line 8, leave out "transfer" and insert "this Order"
Clause 18, sub-clause (1), line 2, leave out "transfer" and insert "this Order"
Clause 19, line 1, leave out "transfer" and insert "this Order"
Clause 20, line 3, leave out "transfer" and insert "this Order"
Clause 20, line 4, leave out "that date be" and insert "the date of transfer be deemed to be"
Clause 23, line 1, leave out "have" and insert "had"
Clause 24, sub-clause (1), line 2, leave out "retire" and insert "be deemed to have retired"
Clause 24, sub-clause (2), line 2, leave out "retire" and insert "be deemed to have retired"
Clause 24, sub-clause (3), line 4, leave out "retire" and insert "be deemed to have retired"
Clause 24, sub-clause (4), line 1, leave out "transfer" and insert "this Order"
Clause 24, sub-clause (4), line 1, leave out the proviso.
Clause 26, sub-clause (1), at the beginning of line 3, insert "and be deemed to have extended to and included."—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peel.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 2a accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gage, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and. Bill read 2a accordingly.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS AND SEWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee. Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

ROYAL NAVAL ENGINEER OFFICERS.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND rose to call attention to the alteration in the status of Royal Naval Engineer Officers effected by Admiralty Fleet Order 3241/25; and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have ventured to bring this question to the attention of the House because, in the opinion of those best able to judge—that is, I believe, the whole engineering profession—it will have, to say the least of it, an unfortunate effect upon the engineering branch of the Navy and very adversely affect the number and quality of those

1063
willing to come forward and specialise in naval engineering. So serious was the effect of this Fleet Order considered to be that all the great engineering societies, representing the engineering profession—the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Naval Architects, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders and the Institution of Marine Engineers—representing 40,000 professional engineers, decided, when the Order came out, that they would draw up a memorandum of protest, which was submitted to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and a deputation was sent to represent their case to him. That shows what the opinion of the engineering profession was with regard to the effect that this Order would have.
In order that your Lordships may appreciate exactly what this Order does and what its effect will be, it will be necessary to go very briefly into the history of this question. In 1902 a system was established for the common entry and training of all naval officers, whether deck officers or engineering officers. The object of that scheme was to amalgamate the two branches of the Service, to provide for interchangeability of duties, and under that scheme there was no reason why an engineer officer, if he had sufficient ability, should not eventually rise to the command of a ship. It aimed at doing away with all distinction between the executive and non-executive branches of the Navy—doing away with all distinction between deck officer and naval engineer. It did away with all difference in uniform and all difference with regard to the title of their rank. Prior to the initiation of that scheme engineer officers did not belong to the executive branch of the Navy. They had to prefix their titles with the word "Engineer"—Engineer Commander, and so on—and to wear a purple stripe upon their sleeve. The old engineer officers who were serving prior to the inauguration of that scheme were not affected by it. It only affected officers who entered after the scheme came into force.
That scheme went on being gradually developed until 1915, when during the War a further development took place consisting of the creation of a new branch of the Navy called the military branch, which included not only deck officers but all engineering officers. The
1064
old officers who had been serving prior to 1902, equally with all new officers, came under that scheme. The formation of that branch was due to the recognition of the great importance of engineering in a modern fleet and was a recognition of the immense services which had been performed by the engineering branch of the Navy during the War. Between 1915 and 1921 the whole of the scheme for the amalgamation of these two branches was scrapped altogether and a complete separation was effected between the two branches. The only thing which remained was the system of common entry. They all went in under the system of common entry, but officers who wanted to specialise in engineering had to do so on being rated midshipmen, and having once specialised in engineering they could not thenceforth revert to deck duties.
Although this 1902 scheme may be said to have been completely scrapped and abolished, yet one thing did remain, and that was the military branch which had been created in 1915. Owing to the formation of that branch, engineer officers held an executive Commission. Now an executive Commission is a very real thing and differs very materially from a non-executive Commission. An officer who has an executive Commission is commanded in that Commission "to take charge and command." If, on the other hand, he belongs to the non-executive branch of the Navy he is ordered "to discharge the duties of"—whatever it may be; "and be obedient to such as command," which your Lordships will see is a very considerable difference. There was one other thing which remained, and that was that the engineering officer still retained the same uniform as the deck officer, and there was no distinction between them in that respect.
Such was the situation at the end of last year, when the Fleet Order referred to in my Motion was issued. Now that Fleet Order abolished the last vestige of the improved status which the engineer officer was to obtain under the 1902 scheme. It abolished the military branch altogether and it relegated the engineer officer to the non-executive branch of the Navy. It emphasised this difference and this distinction between the deck officer and the engineer by re-imposing the purple stripe which had been done away

1065
with for the express purpose of placing the engineer on an equality of status with the deck officer. I have not come here to-day to express any opinion whatever in regard to the 1902 scheme, which aimed at the amalgamation of the engineering branch of the Navy with that of the deck officers. Not only have I no desire to express any opinion upon it, but I am quite incompetent to do so. It is a very technical question, and I think it has been generally admitted, even by engineers, that that scheme went too far and that it was wrong to suppose that it could ever be sound for an engineer officer to rise to the command of a ship.
But we are not discussing this afternoon the merits of the 1902 scheme. Let us assume for the purposes of argument that the Admiralty were right in scrapping that scheme altogether. If we admit that, was it necessary to issue this Fleet Order and to abolish what was really of only sentimental or moral value for the engineering branch of the Navy? If you grant certain privileges to a certain category of persons and you find yourself compelled subsequently to take away those privileges, the process can never be agreeable. If you have to do that, at least you should try to ensure that as few privileges are taken away as may be necessary, and also that you should give the least offence in doing so and consider the feelings of those whom, unfortunately, you have to deprive of those privileges. No protest was made by the naval engineers against the scrapping of the 1902 scheme. I do not mean to say that there was not a certain amount of soreness. They could not possibly be expected to like it, but I think they realised that the Admiralty at any rate had a case. They might or might not agree with the case, but at any rate there were strong arguments for doing what was done.
But an entirely new situation has been created by the issue of this Fleet Order. It has created a storm in engineering circles simply because the reason for it is not understood, and no serious argument has been produced to justify it. Prior to the issue of this Order there was, as I say, a certain soreness in engineering circles, partly due to the fact that the 1002 scheme had been abolished, but also to certain other grievances, or alleged
1066
grievances, which they have, such as, for instance, the fact that they were not represented on the Board of Admiralty, and they had very restricted disciplinary powers. The extent of punishment which an engineer officer can give to the men in his own department is very small indeed. They were ineligible to sit on Courts Martial, and they considered that there were certain shore billets to which they should be appointed, and to which, whether they were entitled to them or not, they never had been appointed.
I only mention these grievances—not because I wish to discuss their merits, but merely because I wish to point out to the House that there was this feeling of soreness prior to the issue of this Order and that, therefore, it was all the more necessary for the Admiralty to go gently and not to create more resentment than was absolutely necessary in the interests of the Service. The protests to which I have already referred on the part of all the great engineering societies was made because it was felt that the Admiralty's attitude had been unreasonable. A deputation was sent to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but it obtained no satisfaction. The answer given to them, and also given subsequently in another place, was, in effect, that all this was a fuss about nothing, the status of the naval engineer had not been really affected by this Order at all and that, in short, the whole grievance was merely imaginary. There may or not be a serious argument for the issue of this Fleet Order, but it is impossible to take this particular argument seriously. It is perfectly true that the career of the engineer officer who is serving at the present moment is not vitally affected by this Order. He had already been deprived of any possibility of exercising executive command on board ship, at least, in so far as fighting the ship was concerned, but the moral effect of this Order is very serious indeed.
It abolishes a distinction which was granted expressly for War services and which was a recognition, not only of the services which had been rendered by the engineering branch of the Navy but also the importance in general of engineering in a modern battle fleet. One argument of the Admiralty is that the engineer has not been any more affected by this Order than the deck

1067
officer, because the military branch is abolished for everybody and therefore the deck officer ceases to belong to the military branch in the same way that the engineer officer ceases to belong to it. It is impossible to take this argument seriously either. Everybody knows that the officer whose duty it is to fight and to navigate the ship must belong to the military branch. It does not matter whether you call it the military branch or not: everybody knows that his duty is to fight the ship. It is perfectly clear that the engineer officer's duty is not primarily to fight the ship; therefore the formation of a military branch was a compliment to the engineer, but was not a compliment to the deck officer. If you abolish the military branch you take away a compliment which you have given to the engineer officer and, of course, you do not affect the deck officer in any way.
Moreover, there is, as I say, a very vital difference in the wording of the Commission which is given to the engineer officer from the Commission which is given to the deck officer and the distinction has been further emphasised by re-imposing the purple stripe. The contention of the Admiralty in regard to the purple stripe is that it is only the same thing as the difference betwen two regiments one of which wears green facings and the other yellow. One really cannot take that seriously. If that was the case, why was the purple stripe done away with at all? It was done away with in order to effect equality of status as between the deck officer and the engineer. If you re-impose the purple stripe it is equally clear that you do away with that equality of status. It does not matter what facings two different regiments wear. Everybody knows that they exist to fight. The case is entirely different between the two branches of the Naval Service one of which does not exist primarily for the purpose of fighting and the other does.
The effect of all this has been that very great resentment has been aroused. We are told that it is only a matter of sentiment, but there are two answers to that. In the first place parents have sent their sons into the engineering branch under the implied contract that they will have a certain privileged status, and how greatly they resent the change is shown
1068
by the numerous letters which have appeared in the Press during the last few months. That those letters have had an effect on public opinion is also shown by the attitude of the majority of the Press in regard to this question. The best judges hold that the number and quality of those who are willing to specialise in engineering will be very seriously prejudiced. In the second place, it is a very dangerous matter to rule out sentiment in regard to matters of this kind. Are we seriously asked to believe that the sentimental value of belonging to the military branch of the Navy is worth nothing at all? But, as a matter of fact, the Admiralty argument defeats itself. If all this is a fuss about nothing, and these changes do not make any difference to anybody, why do it?
Why do a thing which creates great resentment, even if it is unreasonably, in the minds of a large number of persons unless you gain an advantage by doing it? So far as I can make out, we only lose by it and gain nothing at all. The only argument which can be taken at all seriously—and it has very little weight—is that it regularises the position and makes quite clear the separation between the deck officer and the engineer officer. That distinction had already been made because, as I say, the 1902 scheme had been scrapped altogether. Now in order to make it even more clear and to emphasise the distinction, they have abolished the military branch and reimposed the purple stripe. Surely that is a red tape argument. If the division between the duties of these two branches of the Service was perfectly clear and it was understood by everybody before this Order was issued that the privileges which the engineering officer retained were merely of moral value, why should you regularise the position by abolishing certain distinctions which certainly did nobody any harm and which the engineering branch of the Navy greatly valued?
The effect of doing something which is not understood and for which you can provide no satisfactory explanation is, of course, that people jump to the conclusion that you have an ulterior motive which you are not ready to admit. This has led to most serious charges, with which I need hardly say I do not associate myself, against the Admiralty—charges of professional jealousy and of a wish to

1069
relegate the engineering branch of the Navy to a definitely inferior position to that of the deck officer. As I say, I feel sure that there is nothing whatever in those charges; it is unthinkable that the Board of Admiralty should be actuated by any such motives. Unless they can explain their purpose in issuing this Order, however, it is inevitable that such charges should be made.
But other charges have been made as to which there would appear to be some ground for thinking that they have weight. One is that a new electrical branch has been formed, a branch of electrical engineers which is not to belong to the engineering department of the Navy at all, but is to work under the torpedo lieutenants without having any military or executive status. What the engineering profession is saying is this: You could not have formed this new branch at all, and you could not have put it under the torpedo lieutenants, unless you had abolished its status as an executive branch. Up to the present time the engineering officer has not been under the command of any executive officer junior to the commanding officer of the ship. Under this new scheme he will be, and what is said is that this Fleet Order was issued and the executive status was done away with on purpose to place this new branch of engineering officers under, the command of junior deck officers. As I say, this is the first time in the history of naval engineering that engineer officers have been held responsible to any executive officer junior to the commanding officer of the vessel. Whether that be one of the reasons which induced the Admiralty to take this action or whether it is not, the fact remains that it has had a very serious effect on the engineering branch of the Navy and that no compensating advantage has been gained.
A most unfortunate situation has been created, which will only be rendered worse by belittling it and calling it a "fuss about nothing." It is hardly likely that the whole engineering profession would have adopted the attitude it has adopted unless it had some good reasons for doing so. They feel that whatever reasons the Admiralty have for taking this step, it has been unnecessary. The distinction between the duties of the two branches of the Service was completely clear before the Order was issued
1070
and it would seem that there was no reason for the Order at all. There was, on the other hand, every reason to "let sleeping dogs lie." As it is the dogs have been very effectually aroused and are not likely to be pacified unless one of two things happen. Either the Admiralty should give some satisfactory explanation which will be convincing of the step they have taken, or, if they cannot do that, they should reconsider the attitude they have adopted in regard to this matter.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time, I must claim your indulgence and express my regret that I find myself in collision with the noble Duke who has just spoken. My credentials are the fact that for over twenty years I have served with the Navy as a volunteer ashore and afloat in peace and in war. I cannot believe that this Admiralty Fleet Order which has caused all this trouble was issued without thought, or in wanton wickedness on the part of the Lords of the Admiralty. I feel sure that this Order was issued as the result of careful deliberation and experience gained in the Great War.
It so happens that from about the year 1902 to 1905 I knew the late Lord Fisher very well indeed, and, if I may say so, he used to treat me as he treated his famous waste-paper basket—as a sort of convenient receptacle in which he could throw his ideas to mature. I often discussed with him this question of the common entry into the Navy of those destined to become engineers or to become executive officers, with the idea of the interchangeability of service. I could never follow him, for the reason that any one who was in close touch from 1902 to 1905 with the development of modern engineering and gunnery must have seen that it was impossible for any officer to master more than one subject. At that time we were bringing into the naval service the internal combustion engine, we were developing high-pressure steam and we were introducing the submarine. At that time, under the wonderful inventive genius of Sir Percy Scott, we were bringing in as regards gunnery the deflection teacher, the dotter, the spotter, and the control tower. It would be impossible for any officer at the same time to be a

1071
fully trained engineer and an executive officer with duties above deck. It would take him all his time to master one subject, let alone two, and the experiences of the War have shown us that once an engineer—always an engineer, without any hope of executive command afloat. How could it be otherwise, my Lords? An officer in executive command is an officer whose duties lie above deck and on the bridge. The duties of an engineer lie below deck in the engine room. How could he ever become qualified to command a ship or exercise executive authority above deck?
During the War I had some experience of a Russian cruiser which was commanded by an executive committee. She went to sea one day. She was in collision twice. She turned round once in the Irish channel and she ended on the rocks—where she ought to be. She lies there to-day, as a monument, to all seamen, of muddle-headed command and dual executive authority. As regards this purple stripe, I never can see how it can be undignified to wear a purple stripe. It is, after all, a sign and symbol of a very important category of the naval Service. Everybody to-day realises the importance of engineering and the purple stripe has been the honoured badge of engineering in our own Navy and in every Navy in the world almost for two generations, and of the mercantile marine also. The purple has been worn by Kings and Emperors and why is it not good enough to be worn by a naval engineer? There are snobs in every walk of life. Only last year there were people in this City who took to wearing "Oxford bags," thinking that they would be taken for Oxford "Blues." They deceived nobody and the purple stripe deceives nobody. We all know and respect the engineer and it is inconceivable to imagine that any officer of the Navy would refuse to pace the quarter-deck with another officer simply because he wears or does not wear a purple stripe. To suggest anything to the contrary is to cast a grave reflection on the gentlemanly instincts of our officers in the Navy.
There is some justification for the contention that the naval engineer should be more recognised in the matter of, say, being a Sea Lord on the Board of the
1072
Admiralty. I think, in view of the great importance of engineering to-day, that it would be a graceful gesture to appoint a naval engineer as a Sea Lord at the Admiralty. I also think that naval engineers should be given executive command in certain naval establishments ashore and such positions as superintendents of naval construction. At present the superintendent of naval construction in the Clyde area is an executive officer and fully 90 per cent. of the work is engineering. Why should such a post not be given to a naval engineer? I feel that if appointments to naval engineers could be favourably considered from that point of view this Admiralty Order ought to stand. There is no room for two executive authorities in a ship. I think the purple stripe will assist in administration and in distinguishing the proper authority of an engineer in his own department. It will make clear as daylight now, once and for all, that there is no more room for two executive authorities in a ship at sea to-day than there was for two Kings of Jericho in the days of old.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I feel bound to say a word on this matter because it arose during my time as First Lord of the Admiralty. We had it under consideration, but it was not ripe for decision when I was there and so I left a note for my successor which I handed to him when he took over office from me. It arose in my time in this way. One officer under the common entry scheme, a Lieutenant Commander (E.), was becoming ripe for promotion and the question was raised whether he should be promoted Commander (E.) or an Engineer Commander. That was not decided in my time because the appointment was not to come forward till about October, but I felt quite emphatically that any change of the title in the case of that particular officer would have involved a breach of faith to him and to those m like position with him. I may say that, so far as that narrow question on which this whole matter came forward is concerned, my successor at the Admiralty took the same view as I did and insisted that the person in question should be promoted a Commander (E.) and not an Engineer Commander.
But outside this narrow question there came up this wider issue which appears

1073
in the Motion of the noble Duke—that is, the position of the engineering branch vis-a-vis the executive branch. When my successor passed this Order, of which the noble Duke complains, perhaps I ought to have raised this question in your Lordships' House because I disagreed with what he had done, but no one who has been responsible at the Admiralty and knows the feelings which are aroused over this question would lightly raise a matter of this sort unless he thought that something was going to come out of it; so I purposely refrained from bringing the matter forward. When the noble Duke brings it forward in this Motion to-day, however, I feel bound to express the views that I entertained when I was responsible for the Admiralty. I am not going into a long history of this question, nor into the technicalities of which the noble Duke has given us so lucid a summary. To my mind the whole question really boils down to a question of social status—social status, as between the engineering branch and the executive branch.
Your Lordships know, when a question of social status is raised, the difficulty and delicacy of dealing with it. What, to an outsider, appears a very small matter looms very large indeed to the man who is affected by it. One is apt to say, "Oh, what docs it matter, this question of social status?" But if the people who are affected themselves say that it does matter to them, I think we must treat their protest with the greatest respect. The engineers, on their side, say: "Here is a great and important branch of the Navy and, by admission, a branch of growing importance and we attach value to this badge, which approximates in its character to, and is, indeed, the same as, that of the executive branch. This has been deliberately given to us in the past and we attach value to it. What have we done that this should be taken away from us?" This, of course, is not purely unilateral, because the executive branch, on their side, have felt very strongly in regard to the terms of Captain and Admiral being given to men who have not obtained those ranks in the executive branches and they feel, equally strongly, that it derogates from the importance of their position, of their rank and of their
1074
social status if similar titles are given to another branch which, in their opinion, does not stand quite on the same footing as the military branch.
I have great sympathy with what was said by the noble Duke who has just sat down when he alluded to this matter. We have to remember that the engineer's view is not represented on the Board of Admiralty itself and so, when I had this brought up before me, I felt, as the engineer's case was not represented by an Engineer Lord on the Board of Admiralty, especially responsible for seeing that the engineer's point of view was safeguarded. As I told your Lordships just now, when I left I handed a note, which was a purely private note and in no sense official, to my right hon. friend Mr. Bridgeman, who is now First Lord of the Admiralty. I find that I said this to him with regard to this wider aspect of the question. I find I used a proverb which the noble Duke in moving this Motion has already used. I said—
"I would have said, 'Let sleeping dogs lie.' There is no acute demand for any change at the present moment and I do not propose to stir up trouble by introducing any change in the present (admittedly illogical) system; a system which is at all events working."
No crisis had arisen, except this one case as to whether an officer should or should not be promoted Commander (E).
My noble friend Lord Selborne, who I hope will speak presently on this subject, was responsible for the scheme of 1902 and he will be able to tell us—as I have no doubt he will—that that scheme was due to the real grievances which the engineering profession felt at what appeared to them to be the lower status of engineers in the Admiralty, and that he had to take steps to meet that feeling of grievance. For my own part, I felt that it was most necessary not to arouse any new feeling of grievance, nor any agitation on that question, and I purposely, so long as I was there, refused to raise this question at all. If it had come up for decision I should have taken the line which I have shown I should have taken in the note which I left for my successor. It is most important that there should be harmony in the Navy and most important that this branch of naval officers, the engineering branch, should not feel under any grievance with

1075
regard to status. Therefore I support the noble Duke in the observations he has made on this question.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have taken no part in this controversy, but now that it has been raised in your Lordship's House, like my noble friend who has just spoken I feel I cannot properly keep silent. The two noble Dukes who have already addressed your Lordships have alluded to the history of this question, but they will permit me to say that they have not recited that history absolutely correctly. I think it is very pertinent to the just consideration of this question that your Lordships should be reminded of what led up to the Orders of 1902 and what was, as a matter of fact, effected by those Orders.
Before I come to that I want your Lordships to remember that the present engineering officers of the Navy may be roughly divided into three classes. There are the old naval engineering officers who were naval engineering officers before 1902. They were, as has been stated by my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland, given status in the military branch of the Navy on January 1, 1915, as a reward for War service, a privilege that they prized quite beyond anything that your Lordships, as civilians, can fully understand. Then there are the young officers who entered under the 1902 scheme and who had always been classified with tin executive officers of the Navy until this Order, to which my noble friend is drawing attention, was issued. In 1922 there was a modification of that scheme, and naval officers who had become engineers under that modification of 1922 were expressly promised in that modification that they should remain in the military branch. Therefore you have these three classes of officers, all of whom they think have a real grievance arising out of the recent Admiralty Order.
The scheme of 1902 is generally known as the Selborne-Fisher scheme, but it would be much more correct to call it the Selborne-Kerr-Fisher scheme, because Admiral of the Fleet Lord Walter Kerr, who I am glad to say is still with us to-day, was the First Sea Lord. Lord Fisher was Second Sea Lord. Lord Walter Kerr was an officer of the old school who never would dream of agree-
1076
ing to a change on mere grounds of theory. He would never agree unless he thought an important change was essential to the good of the Service. I think a great deal too much stress has been laid on Lord Fisher's name in this matter. Lord Walter Kerr was just as responsible for the scheme as Lord Fisher, but Lord Fisher, as the Second Sea Lord, was the particular member of the Board of Admiralty who had the work of administering the scheme. Under that scheme there was to be a common entry for all the officers of the Navy, and they were to specialise when they reached the rank of Lieutenant, and decide whether they would become engineer officers or not. It is true that there was a hope expressed, and we entertained the hope, that subsequently there would be a certain measure of interchangeability between the executive officers and the engineering officers, but we never felt any certainty on that subject and it is a complete mistake on the part of the Duke of Montrose to think that interchangeability was an essential and permanent part of the scheme.
I can prove that by reading to your Lordships an extract from a letter, which I wrote myself to a correspondent on January 12, 1903, and which was printed in The Times. What I said then was:
"As regards interchangeability between the executive and engineering branches, only time and experience can answer the questions raised by this matter, and the Board in framing the present scheme had to be prepared for either event. Their object is to leave future Boards unfettered to act in this matter for the greatest advantage of the Service."
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that it was not regarded as a settled matter in the scheme of 1902. There was a hope that a certain measure of interchangeability would be possible, and the matter was left to experience and to future Boards of Admiralty to decide. Then came the experience of the War, and it was on the experience of the War, I imagine, that the Fleet Order of 1922 was issued, making specialisation at the stage of midshipman instead of at the stage of Lieutenant and also finally closing the door to future interchangeability. I make no criticism of that.
It is, I am sorry to say, more than twenty years since I left the Board of

1077
Admiralty, and of course those who had the experience of the War were the men who had to decide. But I cannot help drawing your Lordships' attention to this fact in answer to what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has said. There was another great Navy that made a corresponding change in 1902, and that was the Navy of the United States of America. In that case there was no scheme of slow development. They issued an Order that on a certain date—I think it was January 1, 1902—every engineer and deck officer should be interchangeable. They fought the Great War with complete interchangeability, and that interchangeability remains to the present day. I do not question the decision of the Board of Admiralty, but it is going too far to say as the noble Duke said, that it was a perfectly impossible system to work.
I want to remind your Lordships of the genesis of the Selborne-Kerr-Fisher scheme. When I had the honour of going to the Board of Admiralty in October, 1900, I found the Navy profoundly divided into two camps. Do not let me be misunderstood. The same perfectly harmonious and friendly relations existed between the officers of a cruiser or battleship, in the ward-room or the gun-room, that exist to-day. The engineer officer and the executive officer were the same great friends and shipmates as they are to-day. But the whole engineering branch of the Navy was organised in protest against what they believed to be unfair and unjust treatment. The whole of the engineering interests of the country were organised in a very formidable way behind the engineering branch of the Navy. All the engineering societies and, if I recollect rightly, even the trade unions were engaging in political agitation, and the result of this upon the harmony of the Service was very serious. There was a danger for the first time of a serious cleavage between the offices of the Navy, and nobody felt that more than Lord Walter Kerr, who was steeped to the lips in the love and tradition of the Service.
The Selborne-Kerr-Fisher scheme was a scheme designed once more to restore harmony to the Navy and to get rid of this feeling of resentment which arose from the fact that the engineer officers, rightly or wrongly, considered them-
1078
selves in a position of inferior status to the executive officers. They felt the importance of the engines of a battleship. Lord Fisher called a battleship nothing more than a box of machinery, but the importance of the machinery was increasing year by year. Yet in the year 1902 the status of engineer officers was almost exactly the same as it had been when the first engine was put into an old ship fifty years before. I ask your Lordships to take it from me that the condition of affairs was such as to cause the greatest anxiety to all naval officers who loved their Service.
The Selborne-Kerr-Fisher scheme may have been good or bad, but it had, at all events, the merit of stopping the agitation absolutely. The agitation died down and the division of the Service into two camps gradually disappeared. I do not say that the engineer officers were wholly satisfied, but they were sufficiently satisfied to feel that the Board of Admiralty had been sympathetic to them and that the position of the naval engineer officer of the future would be quite different from his position in the past. In that respect, at any rate, the scheme absolutely succeeded, and the final crown was put upon it when the Board of Admiralty, during the War, on January 1, 1915, included the old engineer officers in the military branch. From that moment I believe that there was not a single thought of discontent or of grievance in the mind of a single engineer officer of the Navy.
Then came the very important alteration of the scheme in 1922. I do not think that the naval engineer officers liked it, but they did not resent it greatly. They felt that the Board of Admiralty must, after all, judge according to the experience of the War, and no agitation arose after that alteration. It was not until what I cannot but call the most unfortunate Fleet Order of last year, to which my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland has called attention, that the old sore was re-opened. The whole of that old wound has been reopened, as the noble Duke has pointed out; and for what reason? My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, according to the reports of his answers to Questions in the House of Commons and to his speeches, has said that it was done for the sake of simplification and for convenience, and that the very last thing

1079
that the Board of Admiralty thought of was injuring the position of the naval engineer officer. I do not doubt that for a single moment. I think he went further—my noble friend Lord Stanhope will correct me if I am wrong—and said that, if he had thought for a moment that it would have that effect, he would never have consented to it. I do not know if your Lordships have read the letter from Engineer Rear-Admiral Sheen in The Times of June 1, where he recapitulates the point of view of the engineer officer. I have seen no answer to that.
Now I come to the extraordinary argument of my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty that the abolition of the military branch was just as much a grievance to the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean as to the naval engineer officer, because in both cases they had been previously included in the military branch and, if it was a grievance to the naval engineer officer that the military branch should be abolished, it was also a grievance to the Commander-in-Chief. That will really not stand examination, and I will tell your Lordships why. Any one who knows what I may call Service language in these matters and the line of thought of all those who live in what the newspapers call naval circles knows that the two terms "military" and "executive" mean almost exactly the same thing and are of equal honour. Accordingly, while it is no loss to the Commander-in-Chief, who retains the term "executive," to lose the additional term "military," it is in their opinion a very great grievance of the naval engineer officers, who never have been included and are not included in the term "executive," that they should be deprived of inclusion in the military branch.
Naturally I was not consulted about this. I can say quite truthfully that if anybody had told me of the Order that the Admiralty were going to issue I could have told them to a hairsbreadth what was going to happen, thanks to my experience of twenty years ago. The pity of it is that there is nobody now at the Admiralty, either among the naval officers or among the Parliamentary officers, who has any knowledge of the state of affairs in 1902.
I have very little more to say, but I cannot altogether avoid alluding to the question of the
1080
purple stripe. It is not a point upon which I lay the greatest stress, but I do wish to point out to your Lordships that it involves a double-edged argument. The naval engineer officer asks why, if a purple stripe is absolutely necessary for him to show that he is an engineer officer, no stripe is necessary to show who is the navigating officer, me gunnery officer, or the torpedo officer. I do not quite know what answer can he given to that question.
I come now to the probable effect of this Order and what, after all, is the most important thing for the country—namely, the future of the naval engineer officer. That is a matter of immense importance. At the present moment those officers are drawn from three sources: the officers of common entry at Dartmouth, the officers drawn from the public schools, who are also in a certain sense, common entries, and officers promoted from the lower deck. Surely, all these three classes of naval engineer officers, growing up as they do now in the traditions of the Service, will harmoniously combine with the executive officers, no matter what they may think as a class of their treatment. I ask the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, do they really believe they will in the future get enough officers from the common entry or public schools to meet their needs? Will they get a large enough proportion of officers from those two sources? It is of the utmost importance that the Navy should draw a sufficient number of officers from those two sources. I do not know. I greatly doubt it, although I most devoutly hope that I am wrong, but if there is a failure from those two sources, and the Board of Admiralty is forced to go outside and bring in engineer officers who have graduated in another school and have not grown up in the traditions of the Navy, then I do foresee future grievous trouble. Therefore I am forced to the conclusion that while the abolition of the military branch may do great ha mi it cannot possibly do good.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I would not have intervened in the debate on this Motion had it not been that I was strongly asked by engineer officers in the Navy to take up their case in support of the noble Duke, and their case was put

1081
before me in some detail. The details have been referred to already, and there only remains to my mind to say this. The feeling in the minds of the engineer officers on this matter, apart from the practical considerations which have been alluded to, is this: We were promised certain things when we made our election. We accepted loyally and without complaint the decision of 1922 to exclude us from executive command, and there is no complaint at the present time upon that ground. But this later Order has gone further, and not only put upon us a certain change in social status—as the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, said—but has put upon us a certain change of status and consideration in the eyes of our own men. Our authority over our men on board has been diminished. We are no longer allowed to sit upon Courts-Martial. We have this purple stripe imposed upon us. Those, very briefly, are the symbols of the complaint of those officers. All of these things they were promised in addition to executive command, and guaranteed when they entered the Service, and surely they should retain them. On the other point which the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has referred to, the question of a seat upon the Board of Admiralty and the question of professional commands in the case of constructive works, they also feel strongly, but that is a matter of the loaves and fishes about which I do not think they will contend so energetically as they do contend about the question of diminished status and authority in the Service.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the difficulty in discussing a question such as the Duke of Northumberland has brought before the House is that it involves the use of terms which have a meaning to those who have been in the Service different from the meaning which is conveyed to those who have not been in the Service. Indeed, I might go further and say that the same terms very often mean a different thing in the different Fighting Services. I should be ashamed to confess to your Lordships how little I really knew about the Navy when I first became Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I knew a little about the Army, but I am afraid I knew practically nothing about the Navy. It had this advantage, however,
1082
that I was able to approach this engineering question and other questions with a perfectly unbiased mind. I might say that, if anything, I should have been inclined to take the side of the engineers, because an ancestor of mine, some 130 years ago, assured your Lordships that some members of your Lordships' House would live to see the day when vessels moved by steam and not by sail, and he was the first person who endeavoured to put engines into His Majesty's ships. I am bound to say, however, after having gone into this question thoroughly, that I concurred absolutely in the decision of the whole of the Board of Admiralty that the change which was brought about by the Fleet Order of last November was necessary and desirable.
Now this Fleet Order has been the cause of a good deal of misunderstanding both in the Press and elsewhere, and it has been exaggerated, as the noble Duke behind me has said, into being an expression of a great change of policy. It is nothing of the kind. This Admiralty Order does not affect the rank, title or powers of engineer officers. It does very little more than regularise the situation already existing. I am quite aware that Lord Selborne will say: "Very well, then, why was it issued?" and I will try to show to your Lordships the reasons why the Board felt that such an Order as this was necessary. The Selborne scheme for common entry and for one branch of the Service, which was instituted in 1902, was extended by the Douglas Committee in 1906, and the Douglas Committee went further than my noble friend, and decided that there should be only one branch for the whole Navy, and that every boy when he entered the Service should have the right—in fact, be positively ordered—to go into the engine room one day and take up deck duties the next.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Earl will remember that I was no longer at the Admiralty.
EARL STANHOPE: Quite so. I am not imputing that to my noble friend. I think from his interruption he will agree with me that, so far from that being a compliment to the profession of engineering, it was exactly the reverse, because it implied that engineering was

1083
so simple a matter that it could be taken up for a year or two, and wedged in among the many things which a naval officer has to learn. Successive Boards of Admiralty have expressed the conviction that engineering is a man's whole life's work, and that it is impossible for any ordinary man to learn enough of engineering to be a capable naval engineer officer and at the same time be capable of taking on deck duties. There is a further reason why the Selborne scheme had to come to an end, and that was that it failed to produce from Dartmouth the number of volunteers required for the engineering profession.
The situation prior to the issue of this recent Fleet Order was this: As noble Lords have already told the House, there were three methods of entry into the engineering branch of the Navy. First of all, there were the older officers who wore already members of the Service before the Selborne scheme was instituted. They all bore the double title—Engineer Vice-Admiral, Engineer Captain, and so on, and all wore the purple stripe. The second branch were boys who came in through Dartmouth, the seniors of whom have now reached the rank of Commander. This class of officer did not have the same title as the senior class, but instead of being called Engineer Commander, Engineer Lieutenant and so on, they were described as Commanders (E.), Lieutenants (E.) Thirdly, there were the officers who were promoted from the lower deck. They had the double title, similar to the senior officers, of Engineer Lieutenant - Commander and Engineer Lieutenant, and they also wore the purple stripe. All these officers belonged to the so-called military branch, but, with certain exceptions, none of them exercised military command, and that is where the question of terms, to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, comes in.
Now what is the definition of "Command" and of "Military Command"? "Military Command," I may point out, was held by deck officers, "Command" was held by engineer officers and by others. The definition of "Military Command" is this:—
"The general authority vested in officers.….to command one or more ships or boats or to direct any work or undertaking which requires the co-operation of different branches of the Service."
1084
The definition of "Command" is this:—
"The authority vested in officers and ratings over their subordinates within their own departments."
The House will see that this so-called military branch consisted of deck officers who had the power of military command, and of engineer officers who had not the power of military command, but had the power of command. That, in itself, was an anomaly, and it was still further increased by the fact that there were other officers on board ship who did not belong to the military branch, but who also had the power of command, such as accountants, instructors, and so on.
The result of talking of "military branch" and "military command" has been this. I believe that the general public feel that unless an officer belongs to a military branch he is a non-combatant. That is obviously absurd. Every officer on board ship is a combatant, except the chaplain and the surgeon, and, as a matter of fact, the Navy as a whole objects, very strongly to the term non-combatant, because every officer on board ship undergoes the same dangers and faces the same risks. Actually, if you go into the statistics of casualties in the last War I believe I am correct in saying—though I am not quite certain about it—that the greatest percentage of casualties among officers serving on board ship at sea was susstained by chaplains, the next by doctors, and lastly, in exactly the same percentage, by engineer and executive officers.
The recent Fleet Order sweeps away this anomalous military branch, which, as I pointed out, is divided into those who held military command and those who did not, and it has divided all officers into categories according to their duties; that is to say, executive officers, who are all those who undertake duties on deck, and engineer officers, who undertake duties in regard to the engine room, accountant officers, medical officers, instructor officers, and so on. The division will not in the smallest degree affect either the status or the powers of the officers in question. The powers of practically all engineer officers will remain exactly as they were before the introduction of that Fleet Order. Some individuals have suggested that if an officer does not

1085
belong to a military branch he cannot hold military rank—again, these terms which muddle people outside the Service! I do not know what people mean by military rank as regards the Navy, but I do know this, that as regards naval rank the fact that an engineer officer will no longer belong to the military branch will not have the smallest effect in regard to his rank, either relatively to other officers in the Navy or in regard to officers in the Army or the Air Force. He will remain exactly where he was before.
Your Lordships may say that officers in the engineering branch who hold executive rank and the right to revert to deck duties have had that right taken away. The story goes back rather further than my noble friend Lord Selborne intimated. In 1918 an Admiralty Fleet Order was issued by which officers in the engineering branch, that is to say officers (E), were given the option on attaining seven and a half to nine years' seniority as Lieutenant either to revert to deck duty acid to give up all further work and promotion on the engineering side, or to remain on the engineering side for the remainder of their service and to give up the power of military command. Therefore, in December, 1918, that division was made, and if an officer chose to go on with the engineering side he automatically relinquished the power of military command. If an officer decided to revert to deck duties he, of course, had to stand for promotion by selection with other officers who throughout their service, or the greater part of it, had been doing deck duties.
Your Lordships will see that an officer who has spent the whole of his service in the engine room probably had a very small chance of promotion for his capabilities as a seaman when he was in competition with other officers who had been doing nothing else but study seamanship and acquire the knowledge necessary for deck duties. Finally, in 1920, a further Fleet Order was issued by which the eligibility to revert to deck duties was withdrawn from that date. Of the officers who had the right to exercise the option of reversion under the 1918 Fleet Order, 245 have definitely adopted engineering as their career, and only three have retained the option of reverting to deck duties and retained the right to military command. I think
1086
your Lordships will agree that the Board of Admiralty of the day were justified in abolishing the reversion, when those who exercised it had already sunk to such small numbers.
Now I turn to the purple stripe. As has already been pointed out, officers who entered the engineering branch prior to the introduction of the Selborne scheme all wear the purple stripe, and so also do all officers who were promoted from the lower deck in the engineering branch. The only officers who did not wear the purple stripe were those who entered the naval engineering profession through Dartmouth, or by the scheme of special entry. I think the noble Viscount Lord Chelms ford talked about the "badge" of engineering. That is exactly what the engineering branch did not get, because your Lordships will see that all the senior officers in the Service, those who held all the important positions in the War in the engineering branch of the Navy, wore the purple stripe; all those officers promoted from the lower deck wore the purple stripe and the others did not. Therefore you had, in peace, the branch dressed differently and described differently—either described as Engineer Commanders or Engineer Lieutenants, or as Lieutenants (E). I think your Lordships will agree that if the engineering profession is really to be recognised in the Navy as a profession—which the Board of Admiralty wishes it to be recognised as, vital to the Service and vital to the safety of this country—it is a right and it is a recognition of that service that they should bear some distinguishing mark to show that they have the honour of belonging to that Service.
To talk about the royal purple stripe being a degradation, or anything of that kind, is obviously absurd and ridiculous, unless you are going to take the line, which personally I am not going to take, that engineer officers hope that in time, as the senior officers disappear from the Service—that is to say, the engineer officers of the old-time scheme—there will be left only those who came in under the Selborne scheme and who did not wear the purple stripe, and that they will then be differentiated from those promoted from the lower deck and will he in a different class because they are dressed differently. No executive officer desires for one moment to have any

1087
differentiation in uniform between the ranker officer and the deck officer, and it would be a libel to think that the engineer officer desires to have anything of the same kind. I am aware that it may be asked: Why have the purple stripe at all? Why should not all officers in the Navy be dressed in identical uniforms?
Other branches already have different uniforms, and I submit to your Lordships that it is absolutely essential that an officer should be distinguished instantaneously and with the greatest ease by the uniform he wears. A man no more wants to go up to a deck officer and report to him that a steam-pipe has burst than to go to an engineering officer and report to him that a boat has capsized. In these days of great ships where you may have a crew of 1,200 and very nearly 100 officers, it is obviously impossible that everybody on board should know every officer by sight. It is also obvious that it is desirable that when anybody comes on board a ship from another ship or from the shore, he should be able to realise whether he is talking to a deck officer or to an engineer officer, so that he may deliver his message and get on with his business with the utmost rapidity and efficiency.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Selborne remembers the days when he used to inspect ships. If so, he will recollect that the officers were lined up on deck according to the clothes they wore. First of all there was the Captain of the ship, then the Commander, then the Lieutenant-Commander, and so on. Then you came to the Lieutenants. I suppose it would hardly have come into operation during the time he was First Lord of the Admiralty, but later on you would find among the Lieutenants the Lieutenant (E) who was engaged in the engine room. Further along the line you came to the Engineer Commander, the Engineer Lieutenant-Commander, and the other officers of the engine room who were placed in another part of the line because they wore the purple stripe, whereas the Lieutenant (E) did not wear it and was put in another place. That is illogical and absurd. Surely, the right thing to do is to put each branch together, to dress them similarly and to give them the same power.
Future Boards of Admiralty may take an entirely different line, but in due
1088
course of time the whole of the engineering branch of the Navy will have the same titles. Those promoted from the lower deck from the beginning of this year will be called Lieutenant (E) and Lieutenant-Commander (E) in the same way as the boys who enter the Navy, through Dartmouth. Everyone admits, I think, that only one officer can command a ship and he must be an officer who, by his training, is an expert in, manœuvring and navigating her, who is trained to handle her and to make the best use of her speed, her guns, her torpedoes, and of every weapon and capability she possesses. It is a matter of opinion whether the expert user or the expert maintainer is the more important of the two. To turn for one moment from the Navy, every one of your Lordships, I know, has heard of the Martini rifle and of the Lee-Enfield rifle, but how many of your Lordships would be able to name the expert user who won the King's Prize at Bisley last year? I should think the number would be very small indeed.
So far as the Navy is concerned, the recent Fleet Order makes no difference. Boys who enter Dartmouth from the same school go through the same course together at Dartmouth. They serve at sea for eight months together and then one becomes an executive officer and the other becomes an engineering officer. Similarly, in the case of the special entries, all boys go through the same examination, and their position in the Navy or the Army or the Air Force, and whether they take the duties of engineering depends on their position on the examination list and the choice they make. It is obviously absurd to say that because an officer belongs to one branch or the other of the Navy—having so much in common and having been at the same school—there can be any possible differentiation or change in status because one wears a purple stripe and the other does not.
My noble friend the Duke of Northumberland raised the question of electrical engineering officers and suggested that one of the reasons for this Order might be that as there was to be an electrical branch of engineers it would be impossible for them to serve under the torpedo officer unless some Order of this kind was instituted. I am afraid that my noble friend knows very little more

1089
about the Navy than I did when I first went to the Admiralty, because, of course, this Order will not make the smallest difference. The electrical officer will have the power of command but not of military command, and he will laky over from the torpedo officer, who, amongst, other duties, has until now had the duty of running the electrical apparatus on board ship, those particular electrical duties and will be responsible directly under the Captain for the maintenance of all electrical work on board the ship. The Fleet Order does not make the smallest difference with regard to him and will not affect him either in one way or the other.
All this Order really does is to regularise a situation which, as I think your Lordships will agree from the letters which have appeared in the Press, is very little understood by the public. Several noble Lords have said that this Order will affect very seriously and very adversely the number and quality of the boys who will ask to go into the engineering branch of the Navy. These, of course, are early days to speak of the matter. This Order was only issued in November, 1925, and therefore one cannot take what has happened in the interval as any indication of what is going to happen hereafter; but so far from its having adversely affected the number of boys coming into the engineering branch, if I wished to make a debating point I should say it has increased the number by something between 400 and 500 per cent. Actually the numbers that come in from the Dartmouth are small and of course it is only a small increase, but there has been a very distinct increase in the two terms that have gone into the Navy since the Order was issued, and the increase by special entry is also very satisfactory. Therefore, so far the quality and number of the boys who desire to go into the engineering branch of the Navy have not been affected adversely.
I have tried to show that the Board of Admiralty had no sinister motive in making this Order. I have tried to show also that to have one branch of the Navy dressed in different forms of uniform and called by different titles is derogatory to that branch of the Navy and derogatory to the position which it represents, that, so far from our having
1090
tried to impose a slight on engineering, we felt that in dressing the officers of the engineering branch in a similar way we recognised them as a vitally necessary part of the Navy, and that we trusted they would become as proud of their connection with the engineering branch of the Navy as with any other branch of that great Service. We have ensured that there shall be no question but that the command of a ship or a shore operation shall devolve upon a deck officer. The executive branch was very nearly called the executive line in order to show that it was the necessary chain of command. We have tried to provide that officers doing similar duties should be similarly dressed, and we left the rank, the responsibility and the status exactly where they were before. The last thing the Board of Admiralty, or any member of it, wished to do was to impose the smallest slight on the engineering branch of the Navy, and I trust I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that neither in intention nor in fact does the Order do anything of the kind.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I have no desire to persist in my Motion. I am sorry that my noble friend was not able to give an answer that would be considered more satisfactory by the engineering profession, I am sure that the Admiralty will be compelled by force of circumstances to change their attitude because this agitation is not going to die down but to increase. I think the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon may possibly hasten that change of attitude. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to call attention to the proceedings at the close of the debates on Thursday, July 8, and to move to resolve:—

(1) That it is contrary to the Rules of Order in this House for one Lord to interrupt the speech of another Lord, save for the purpose of eliciting information or making a correction, or for the purpose of moving, "That the Lord be no longer heard."

1091

(2) That the Motion "That the Question be now put" is unknown to the procedure of this House.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is with a full sense of responsibility that I have placed upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House this Motion upon a subject which, as I shall suggest to your Lordships, is of great importance and well worth your most serious consideration. I think, before I approach the actual terms of my Motion, that it might be well shortly to run through the events of last Thursday which preceded the occurrence to which I desire to draw attention. Your Lordships will remember that there was a good deal of business upon the Order Paper, which pursued a rather unexpectedly leisurely course and, I think I am right in saying—and may I say that I hope any noble Lord will correct me at once if I am wrong, because I am only anxious, as noble Lords know, to be accurate about the facts—that it was half past six before the debate upon the Third Reading of the Coal Mines Bill began.
The Third Reading was moved by Lord Cecil of Chelwood without any observation at all. He did not think it necessary to make any explanation to the House or to say anything further upon the Bill, and that Motion was followed by three speeches from the noble and learned Viscount, my Leader, Lord Haldane, Lord Thomson and Lord Balfour of Burleigh. After those three speches the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, did make a contribution to the debate. Then Lord Mayo spoke and, after that, I ventured to say the first word I had said on the Bill and to make an appeal to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), to which he responded with the utmost frankness and the utmost courtesy, and with that I have no complaint to make. At that time there had been seven noble Lords who had spoken and I think I am right in saying that the whole of the seven had taken considerably less than an hour.
Then, after I had sat down and the noble Marquess had replied, the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, got up. He had hardly begun speaking before he was met with what I can only call very gross disorder from the Benches opposite. A number of noble Lords sitting there impatiently shouted "Divide, divide!" I make no accusation against the noble
1092
Marquess on the Front Bench (the Marquess of Salisbury) in this matter. The Front Bench took no part, naturally, in that demonstration and their conduct was in no way disorderly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, is well able to take care of himself and turned upon his assailants and reduced them to silence. If I were to be so unkind as to make any suggestion about what might have been done by the Front Bench, I might have recalled to your Lordships an incident that took place some thirty years ago, which I recollect very well, when Lord Goschen was speaking. He was making a very long speech, quite remote from the question under discussion, so remote that in another place he would have at once been called to order. A certain number of impatient noble Lords in the Liberal Party, to which I was then attached, also ventured to say "Divide, divide!" Upon that occasion Lord Ripon, who was leading the House, got up at once, turned around upon his followers and pointed out that the noble Lord, Lord Goschen, was entitled to a patient and courteous hearing. Perhaps if that example had been followed at an early stage by the noble Marquess it might have been possible to conduct the debate to a close in a more orderly way.
However, when Lord Parmoor finished Lord De La Warr rose. Lord De La Warr is a noble Lord who is well acquainted with coal mining matters—much better acquainted than I am—and he feels very strongly about them. He spoke at some length, but there was nothing—and I challenge noble Lords who have the debate before them in the OFFICIAL REPORT to look at it and see—in his speech that was not relevant to the Motion which was before the House, nothing which consisted of idle repetitions and nothing for which in another place, under the Standing Orders, he could have been called to order by the Speaker. He was merely speaking at some length upon matters about which he felt keenly. There was also some interruption at the beginning of his speech. When he sat down my noble friend Lord Arnold rose. I was here then and I waited for the first five minutes or so of his observations. My noble friend will speak for himself but he told me, and I believe it to be the fact, that he had several matters of very considerable importance, some of them perfectly new, to which he desired to call

1093
the attention of your Lordships—matters of terms which had been imposed that were at least as flagitious as those terms which led the Government to postpone the Third Reading of this Bill.
At about five minutes or ten minutes past eight I left the House. As to what happened afterwards I can only speak from hearsay. Again, I hope noble Lords will correct me if I go wrong in a statement of the facts. I gather that a few minutes afterwards, when Lord Arnold was speaking, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who was in charge of the Bill, came into the House and Lord Arnold desired his special attention to some point that he was making, whereupon the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, so it is reported in every newspaper, turned his back upon him and immediately left the House. If that incident really happened it was at the very least a grave discourtesy and a grave discourtesy to an ex-Minister who was addressing your Lordships on a special matter, and it is a discourtesy to which we have been accustomed from some members of the Bench opposite but which, I think, we never expected from a Cecil. That is apparently what happened. Then I gather that a very few minutes afterwards the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who had not been in the Chamber, rushed into the House accompanied by a considerable number of noble Lords rather noisily and stood up in his place and moved that the debate should be terminated.
I think I had better read the actual words of the noble Marquess as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"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."
It was a short speech but, for a speech so short, it contains, it seems to me, several rather grave inaccuracies. In the first place, the noble Marquess did not rise to a point of order. There was nothing disorderly in the conduct of my noble friend and when he rose the noble Marquess raised no point of order. On the contrary he made a Motion and in making that Motion he actually permitted himself to say that it was an abuse of the privileges and traditions of this House to make the speech that my noble friend was then making. If there were any
1094
abuse of the traditions and privileges of this House that abuse was made by the noble Marquess when he moved his Motion, a Motion which had never before been heard of in your Lordships' history. Why was there this invasion of our privileges and this invasion of our traditions? And it is that fact that has moved me, as an old member of your Lordships' House, to put down this Motion. Earlier in the afternoon, in a spirit of pleasantry, I was chaffing the noble Marquess upon his iconoclastic and revolutionary spirit, but I little thought that his revolution would go so far as to upset, at a moment's notice and in what I hope was only a temporary moment of irritation, the tradition and the long established practice of your Lordships' House.
What followed when the Motion had been made? I understand that the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack rose at once to put it and that upon his rising to put it my noble friend. Lord Arnold, claimed to speak and was informed by the noble and learned Viscount that he could not speak. Now the OFFICIAL REPORT does not, apparently, contain a full report of what happened. What I find in the OFFICIAL REPORT is this:
"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."
In the newspapers it is reported that the noble and learned Viscount also said:
"I put the Motion on my own responsibility."
I think I am right in saying that these were the words used. What did that phrase mean—on the noble and learned Viscount's own responsibility? What is the responsibility of the noble and learned Viscount? This is not the House of Commons. We are not presided over by a Speaker, who has authority over the other members and who can dictate what the procedure shall be and what course shall be taken by this House. It is one of the oldest, one of the most firmly established traditions of your Lordships' House that your Lordships alone, and not a single Peer, can decide what shall be done, or what is in order or what is out of order. There is no such thing in your Lordships' House as any Peer, even the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, undertaking responsibility for a

1095
particular Question or putting a Question in a particular way. Such a doctrine is against all our practice and all our traditions.
There appears to be no doubt, also, that the noble and learned Viscount said the Question could not be debated. Is there any authority for that? Can any noble Lord find anywhere in the proceedings of this House any authority for the proposition that any Motion cannot be debated? Is there not exactly the same liberty in this House as there was in another place before modern rules were adopted? Cannot the adjournment be moved time and again, the adjournment of the Debate or the adjournment of the House? Cannot any Motion, whatever it be, be debated at the same length and by the same number of speakers as the original Motion? Is there not authority for that proposition? I would like to ask whether two things are maintained to-day. Is it maintained to-day that a Motion for Closure is possible? And is it maintained that if such a Motion is made it cannot be debated? It these two entirely novel propositions are going to be maintained by His Majesty's Government, then I shall ask them to be so good as to show their authority.
Now, a Division took place, and by forty-four to four the Motion for the Closure was carried. I have no observation to make about the Division except to say with what regret I saw, among others, in the majority the name of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who was almost the only representative of the Liberal Party here. The influence of the Liberal Party, divided as it is and diminishing as it is in the country, is, I think, hardly likely to be increased by the action of the noble Earl who thought fit on this question to stifle debate and assist the Government in forcing through, with inadequate and incomplete discussion, a Bill about which very strong feeling is held in the country. I shall be very much interested to know whether the rest of his Party agree with him. That, perhaps, is hardly a fair question, for one knows that the Party is divided into sub-parties and that no human being can tell how many agree with anybody else at a given moment. But I shall be much interested to know if Liberals in the country agree with the vote which was given by the noble Earl.
I am not very anxious to found myself on what any one else says, but there are two quotations which I think I should do well to read to your Lordships to show the view which is taken in some quarters. The first quotation is from the Manchester Guardian. They had been referring to the position in the country, to the feeling between the Houses, and to the growing feeling of Labour, and they said it was "a situation full of danger." They went on to say:
"Lord Salisbury made a great mistake, we think, in this atmosphere, in closuring the debate in the Lords."
After some other observations they said:
"It should have been remembered, too, that if the opponents of the Bill in the Lords are few, they represent a very large body of opinion outside. The use of the closure can only give a finishing touch to the very unfortunate impression created by the policy the Government have adopted."
I have another quotation from the Daily Express, whose politics, I believe, are those of noble Lords opposite. The Daily Express said:
"We have consistently advocated the Eight Hours Act, even when the Government seemed uncertain of its own policy, and this enables us to express our profound disagreement at such interference with the right of free speech. Lord Arnold, who was closured, is a man who is entitled to be heard. Noble Lords who complain of the want of authority of their House should reflect before detracting still further from that authority by paying so perfunctory an attention to their deliberative duties.
The excuse which is made by the other side, I assume, is that the debate was obstructive, that the speeches were made simply for the purpose of obstruction and that they represented no real feeling.
What are the facts as to the debate? At the time the closure was moved, I think I am right in saying it was about a quarter past eight. That is to say, the debate on the Third Beading of this important Bill, about which we on these Benches feel so keenly, had lasted for less than two hours, for one hour and three-quarters, and the noble Marquess opposite preferred to closure the last speaker rather than wait twenty minutes for his dinner. Is that an attitude to be proud of? Was that a reasonable occasion for asking for the closure? I very much regret to have to raise this question, but I raise it in the interests of the traditions of this House and of the liberties of this House, of which the noble Marquess him-

1097
self should be the first guardian. Yesterday we had a debate in Committee upon a Bill for the protection of wild birds. I think I am right in saying that that debate lasted altogether some two hours or the various questions that arose. That debate was not closured; that debate was allowed to run to its natural end. That was a debate upon a subject to which many oil us attach importance—the preservation and fate of wild birds—but it was a subject of the utmost triviality compared with the subject we were discussing last Thursday.
On Thursday we wore discussing a subject which affected the lives, the happiness and the health of something like half a million working men in the country and which we have been told may have the result of putting 130,000 men permanently out of work. That was surely of great importance. That was a debate that might have been allowed two hours instead of being truncated at one and three-quarter hours. It is said that there is some sort oil precedent, or it has been suggested to me that there is some sort of precedent, for the Motion that was made, in a suggestion that was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, on July 15, 1924. I have looked up that debate. I have read carefully what was said. The Measure was a Measure affecting the Diocese of Winchester, a matter, however much noble Lords may be interested in it, of incredibly small importance compared with the coal industry in this country. It affected only one small fraction of the country's area and affected only Churchmen in that fraction. Upon that Measure a debate had proceeded for two days and it was then suggested that the debate should be adjourned. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who was in charge of the debate and who said that he objected to the adjournment and wished the vote to be taken.
Then some discussion arose as to what had better be done and the noble and learned Viscount got up and said:
"If any noble Lord thinks it, advisable, perhaps he will move the adjournment."
And if any noble Lord had done so it would have been accepted and could have been debated, and would have been debated. There was nothing in the least resembling the closure. What did the noble Marquess say on that occasion?
1098
Dealing with the suggestion—it was nothing more—that was made from the Woolsack, he said:—
".… that it is the business of the Government or the Leader of the House—I do not know exactly who is the Leader now—to protect the privileges of your Lordships. I desire to place on record a solemn protest against the way in which the business has been conducted."
A solemn protest as to the way in which the business had been conducted! And all that had happened was that the noble and learned Viscount had in effect said: "Does the House wish to proceed to a Division now, or is any noble Lord willing to move the adjournment?" The noble Marquess shakes his head. He will have an opportunity of correcting me if I have misrepresented what happened.
So much for the so-called precedent. What might the noble Marquess have done? The noble Marquess might perfectly well have moved the adjournment of the debate until after dinner, or he might have moved the adjournment of the debate until the next day. Was there any reason, excepting the pledges which the Government bad apparently given to the coal owners, why that Bill should be passed on that particular night rather than the next night or rather than after dinner? It is perfectly true that your Lordships' assent had been so much taken for granted that all the new terms had been posted and everything had been done on the assumption that the Bill was certain to become law—as, indeed, it was. But was there any conceivable reason why the noble Marquess and his friends were unable to remain for another twenty minutes, or why the debate should not have been adjourned either until after dinner or until the next day? I think that this would have been a happier course to adopt.
I recollect, when we had discussions upon the Parliament Bill, Lord Crewe saying in this House on behalf of the Liberal Party that Liberal measures, Liberal policy and Liberal principles never got fair play in your Lordships' House, that they were always subject to emasculation or rejection, and that they could never be counted upon in the same way as the measures of the other Party. What is the object of Rules of Order and Rules of Debate? The object is to protect the rights of a minority, to enable

1099
the minority, who have overwhelming battalions leagued against them, at any rate to state their case. That is the object with which all Rules of Order and Rules of Debate are drawn. We who now represent Labour in this House are an even more insignificant minority than my noble friends who represented Liberalism here in the days when I belonged to them. We are a very small minority indeed, but we represent very great interests and a very large number of votes in the country, and we have a right, I think, to state our case.
In view of their overwhelming strength and their overwhelming power of pledging this House to any course of conduct that they think fit, I think that the Conservative Government might at least give us the privilege of saying what we have to say before they impose their will upon us. Every noble Lord is the guardian of the privileges of this House. The noble Marquess, I am sure, feels that he is, and I should like to appeal to him if possible to recognise, now that we have reached the stage of cold blood, that the action that he took on Thursday was a hasty and mistaken action, an undesirable and impossible precedent, a course of action that would make the relations between the two sides of this House impossible, that would do immense harm to this House in the country and that would enhance neither his reputation nor the reputation of your Lordships' House.
Upon the Order Paper I see an Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent—
"To leave out all the words after the first 'That' for the purpose of inserting these words 'It is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the leader of the House in moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question 'That the Question be now put.'"
Do His Majesty's Government accept that Amendment? It is not put down by any member of the Government, and it is not put down in their name. Are they going to give it their support and their blessing? If so, I venture to think that a situation arises even more serious than the situation created by the unfortunate action of the noble Marquess on Thursday. We shall be establishing in
1100
this House a new precedent, a new tone of debate; we shall be establishing a precedent which, I think, will be very unfortunate and which I really think the noble Marquess would himself be the first to regret. I do appeal to the Government to admit that the action taken on Thursday was an error of judgment and that it will never be repeated and will never be regarded as a precedent.
I feel very strongly upon this matter, and I feel also for the position of your Lordships' House. Of recent years I have come to the conclusion that your Lordships' House often serves a very useful purpose and often has the most useful and most excellent debates. During the War, in particular, your Lordships' House was practically the only free House in the country. But what was the reason for my good opinion of your Lordships' House, and what was the reason for its growth of popularity in the country? It was precisely this absolute and un-trammelled freedom, and that is what the noble Marquess is apparently prepared to take from us. He is apparently prepared to make it part of our regular procedure that any noble Lord who speaks longer than he or the Leader of the House for the time being thinks fit may be closured and the Question put.
I am told that, after I left, some disorder took place outside this House. With that I am not concerned, except that I can tell your Lordships that it was not premeditated. It was the natural and spontaneous ebullition of Englishmen who saw their spokesmen being closured by overwhelming numbers. There was no premeditation in it whatever, and, in that connection, I may remind your Lordships of words used by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, during the War when conscientious objectors or peace meetings—I forget which—were being what the Americans call "beaten up" and knocked about. The noble Earl, who was then more or less responsible for law and order, was asked whether he would not put a stop to this and his reply—I forget the exact words—was to the effect that there were limits to the endurance of human nature, that you could not expect human nature to contain itself. If any excuse is needed—and I certainly make none—for the unfortunate ebullition which took place, that was the excuse.
Incidentally I should like to point out that this was not the only disorder that took place. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, not only cried "Divide, divide!" from that Bench, but, on several occasions during the speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, cried "Divide, divide!" iron; the steps of the Throne, outside the precincts of this House, where he was not entitled to say anything at all. That was in its way quite as disorderly as any other demonstration that took place. In conclusion let me ask whether it is to be said that an overwhelming majority is to be used, with brutal contempt for a minority, not merely to impose its will upon that minority by legislation but to impose silence upon its members when they are putting forward their ease. Is that the claim that is going to be made from the Benches opposite? Is that to be the result of the Division to-night? If so, warn your Lordships that your influence in the country will very soon be very much diminished, and possibly your powers also. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve—

(1) That it is contrary to the Rules of Order in this House for one Lord to interrupt the speech of another Lord, save for the purpose of eliciting information or making a correction, or for the purpose of moving, "That the Lord be no longer heard."

(2) That the Motion "That the Question be now put" is unknown to the procedure of this House."—[Earl Russell.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, the effect of the Motion which the noble Earl has brought before the House and of his speech is to involve a challenge, not only to the course taken by my noble friend the Leader of the House in moving the Motion on Thursday last, but also to the course which I thought it my duty to follow as Speaker of the House. Accordingly, I hope you will allow me at once to make a short statement on the matter. The Motion raises two points, and I think it convenient to deal first with the second and more important part of the Resolution, namely "That the Motion, 'That the Question be now put,' is unknown to the procedure of this House." Of course, I agree that no such Motion is expressly sanctioned by any Standing Order of this House. I go further, and I am not aware
1102
of any precedent for putting a Motion to this House precisely in that form. I say that quite frankly, but I was satisfied on Thursday last, and on full reflection I am still satisfied, that the Motion, put in the circumstances which existed on Thursday, was in accordance with the rules governing the general usage of this House.
The House of Lords differs from the House of Commons in many ways, and in particular the two Houses differ profoundly in the manner in which they have thought fit to regulate the order of their proceedings. Your Lordships do not, like the other House, entrust your Speaker with power to determine the points of order which arise, and in that I agree with what the noble Earl has said. The Lord Chancellor has no authority beyond that of any other noble Lord to determine questions of order; but, on the other hand, this House has always maintained in its own hands the power to enforce order in its proceedings. It has clone so in even fuller measure than the House of Commons. The principle has always been observed, and frequently laid down, that this House is master of its own proceedings, subject, of course, to the Standing Orders and to the general usage of the House. May I give you two illustrations of that fact which will be quite familiar to your Lordships? If, in the other House, two or more speakers rise together to speak, the Speaker of that House has authority to say who shall be heard first. In this House the procedure is quite different if two Peers rise together, and neither will give way, a Motion is made that a particular Peer be heard, and that is decided by the House. So, again, if a Peer who is taking part in the debate is guilty of some breach of order, or of some obvious and continued irrelevancy, the Lord Chancellor cannot intervene but a Motion may be made, by any Peer, that the Peer in question he no longer heard.
The Standing Orders make no provision for either of those Motions, and it is obvious that when the House first allowed them to be made it was making a new precedent. It seems to me that the precedents so made were not exceptions to the ordinary practice, but were only illustrations of the manner in which effect is given to the general sense of the House. If that view be correct, and

1103
if it is applied to the proceedings of Thursday last, I think the inference is plain. I have no wish to be controversial, but I confess that I cannot recognise in the description given by the noble Earl of the proceedings on that evening, an accurate picture of those proceedings. I cannot deal with this Motion without saying, quite frankly, that it was clear to every one who was present at the time—at the material time—that a concerted attempt was being made by a group of noble Lords to obstruct and delay the proceedings of this House, and to do so by means of a succession of long speeches, containing many irrelevant arguments and much repetition. The noble Earl may not accept that description of what was happening, but he is always frank, and I do not think he will deny that some arrangement had been made between him and his friends to prolong the proceedings. In any case it is enough to say that the whole House, with the exception of the three or four noble Lords who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, was convinced of the facts which I have stated. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the Labour Party in this House, or those attached to the Labour Party, had been called away, and it was impossible to appeal to him to put some restraint upon his friends.
It was under those conditions that my noble friend, the Leader of the House, moved, That the Question be now put. No doubt that; form of Question is not to be found in our Standing Orders, and I think we have all been rather proud of the fact that, owing to the traditions of this House, in which it has been your practice to rely upon argument only and to give to every argument a ready and a courteous hearing, no such Standing Order has ever been required or proposed. But a new precedent was being created, not by His Majesty's Government but by noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench. New diseases sometimes require new remedies, and when the Motion for the Closure was made by the Leader of the House, it appeared to me to be wholly in accord with the principles regulating the proceedings of this House, and that I should have no right—even if I had been disposed to do so—to decline to put the Motion to the House. That the action taken was in accordance with the general sense of the
1104
House is, I think, quite plainly shown by the figures of the Division, in which only four noble Lords, of whom three had already spoken in the debate, recorded their votes against the Motion. So much as to the general principle raised by the second part of the Motion of the noble Earl and I have only to deal with the three minor points which he has taken in his speech.
First, it is suggested that my noble friend should have moved the familiar Motion that the Peer, who was in this case Lord Arnold, be no longer heard. Such a Motion is no doubt appropriate where a single Peer, who is speaking, is guilty of some breach of order, or is labouring under some kind of personal incapacity, but it does not appear to me to be at all an appropriate method of dealing with a combination of Peers who desire to delay the proceedings of your Lordships' House. In such a case the only result of the Motion that a particular Peer be no longer heard would be that all the Peers who were parties to the combination would debate that Motion, and the result would be, not to shorten, but greatly to prolong the proceedings.
Secondly, the noble Earl says that in any case it is contrary to the Rules of Order that one Lord should interrupt the speech of another Lord, except for the purpose of obtaining information or of moving that he be no longer heard. I do not think the noble Earl said anything about that part of his Motion, but in any case I do not think your Lordships would agree with that view. In the other House a member who is speaking may, of course, be called to order at once or the Closure may be moved in the middle of a speech, and, unless something of that kind can be done in your Lordships' House, it would be in the power of any one Peer by indefinitely prolonging his speech to defy the wishes of the House and make a mockery of our proceedings.
Only one other point is taken. It is said that at all events the Motion which was made by the Leader of the House should not have been put without full debate. That point is not raised in the Motion upon the Paper, but it was raised in the speech of the noble Earl. I say frankly that upon that point there may well be some difference of opinion, but I took the opposite view on Thursday last,

1105
and, on further reflection, I feel convinced that I was right. Of course, I accept the general principle that a Motion made in this House may be debated, but the question is whether that general principle applies to a Motion of the nature, and made under the conditions, which existed on Thursday last. Our proceedings are governed in this House by common sense. It is plain to everyone that if a Motion for the Closure could be debated it could easily be made absolutely abortive; for the Peers who desired to obstruct the proceedings would debate that Motion also at length, and so prolong the proceedings for an indefinite time. I know of no Legislature which allows a Motion for Closure to be debated.
In the present case it appeared to me that the Motion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in the circumstances which I have endeavoured to describe carried with it the condition, which alone could make it effective, that it should at once be put to the vote, and, in so putting it, I was endeavouring to interpret, to the best, of my ability, the meaning and intention of the Motion which had bean made and the general wishes of your Lordships' House. If I took responsibility that is the responsibility which I took upon myself. I have not endeavoured to deal with the controversial parts of the noble Earl's speech, but, with all respect to his arguments on points of order, I believe that the course taken by my noble friend and myself was in accordance with the general sense of this House, and was not contrary to any of oar Orders or usages, and, if the same contingency should arise again, as I sincerely hope it will not, I should, unless your Lordships instruct me otherwise, follow the same course.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN O DERWENT VISCOUNT FITZALAN O DERWENT had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, the omission of all words after the first "That" for the purpose of inserting the words: "it is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, July 8, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the Leader of the House in moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question, That the Question be now put'."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a very few moments in making a few remarks upon the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. I was present in this House on Thursday when the proceedings in question took place, and I differ in toto from the description given of them by the noble Earl opposite. In my Parliamentary experience I have seldom witnessed a more deliberate act of Parliamentary obstruction than was perpetrated on that occasion by a few noble Lords occupying seats on the official Opposition Bench. The noble Earl implies and, in fact, states, as I understand him, that the Leader of the House broke our Rules in moving the Closure, and, further, that the Lord Chancellor was not entitled to put the Question. Your Lordships have heard the statement from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. It would be an impertinence on my part to make any comment thereon, but I shall be greatly surprised if the statement he has made does not meet with the warm approval and accord of the great majority of your Lordships' House.
The noble Earl speaks in his Motion of the Rules of Order. I have always understood that it is assumed in your Lordships' House that debates take place, not so much by rule as by tradition, and that the tradition of debate in this House is that it is conducted on lines familiar to all who regard a dignified procedure as essential to a proper and efficient conduct of public business. No one will pretend that the action of a few noble Lords on Thursday last fulfilled those conditions. Such action is always regrettable in any assembly. It reflects no credit on those who adopt it, and it diminishes the public esteem and regard of any assembly in which it takes place. I understand that the power of dealing with any question of this kind rests entirely with your Lordships, but somebody must take the initiative, and I submit, with all respect, that it was the bounden duty of the Leader of the House to take action on that occasion.
The honour and the dignity of the House had to be vindicated. The atmosphere of the House at the moment, and the evident, intention of those few noble Lords who continued to obstruct public business, made it absolutely essential and necessary for definite action to be taken. I know of

1107
no possible action that could be taken with real efficiency to fulfil the needs of the moment other than a Motion for the Closure. I feel earnestly that in the interests of the dignity of this House it is of real importance that your Lordships should give support to the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, which, in all humility and with all respect, I venture to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after the first ('That') for the purpose of inserting ('it is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the leader of the House in Moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question "That the Question be now put"').—"(Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there was a good deal of gravity in the position before but its gravity is emphasised, and very seriously emphasised, by the personal attack, as I must call it, made, on the four noble Lords on this side of the House who were present on Thursday. I want to say in the most emphatic way possible that there is, I know, no ground whatever for the idea of a concerted action and no basis whatever for the suggestion that there was obstruction on that occasion on behalf of the Opposition. I was not in the House when the discussion first arose on the Third Reading of the Coal Mines Bill; but I came into the House and heard the last portion of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the speech of the noble Marquess opposite in answer thereto.
As a matter of courtesy, as well as from the point of view that we were dealing with a very important question, I thought it my duty, and I am still of that opinion, as representing the Opposition on that occasion, to attempt at any rate to answer the arguments adduced by the noble Marquess opposite. I spoke for about ten minutes, not more than that, and I spoke only on one subject, which to my mind is of vital importance at the present moment. No question of obstruction or of anything of the kind, it appears to me, can possibly arise. My point is summarised, I think, in the last words which I addressed to your Lordships' House on that occasion after there had been some interruption; but I do not now
1108
make a point of what may be regarded as a matter of discourtesy under excitement. The last words I said show that the object we desired was the insertion in the Bill of
"a suspensory clause which would further peaceful negotiations in this great national industry."
Will any one get up in your Lordships' House and say that a speech of ten minutes duration, for that was the length of my speech, the whole of which was devoted to the desire to bring about a peaceful settlement of this great national crisis, is a speech which is in any way an abuse either of the procedure or principles of this House?
I do not know whether the noble Viscount was present at the time but that my speech lasted just about ten minutes I know from looking at the clock, and I spoke from a very solemn standpoint. I was speaking not only from the political standpoint, but as one of those dissentient mineowners, as I have stated more than once, who were utterly opposed to this prolongation of hours and would rather starve, if one might say so, than feed on the sorrows consequent upon a more degraded life of the working classes in our mines. I spoke for ten minutes only upon that topic, and I think the noble Marquess who heard my speech will be generous enough to admit what I say—that every single word in my speech was directed to the hope of bringing about a satisfactory settlement. There was not one single word of a controversial or antagonistic kind in it. And I say again, and I want to make this perfectly clear, that on such an occasion as this any noble Lord who makes a speech of that length and in those circumstances is not to be charged—it is monstrous to charge him—with having acted in what is called an obstructive manner.
Let me say one more thing. A myth apparently has got about—I know nothing of it; I was in command while my noble friend Lord Haldane was away—regarding what is called "concerted action." I never heard a word or a suggestion of concerted action except what has been brought forward by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I deny it wholly and absolutely. There were only two noble Lords who could have spoken after I had finished my short speech. One was the

1109
noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I wonder how many noble Lords have read his speech with any care?
A NOBLE LORD: There was nothing in it.
LORD PARMOOR: It was a thoroughly thought-out and very well prepared speech, every word of which was worthy of the attention of this House on an occasion of that kind. I deny wholly and absolutely that there was a single word in that speech which could be denounced in any way as of an obstructive character. The only other noble Lord who could have spoken was my noble friend Lord Arnold and he had not the chance to speak. He told your Lordships that he had a great deal to tell us and I have no doubt that he had. But whatever he had to tell us was intercepted by the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite.
I am corning to what appears to me to be the serious fault—I regret very much to have to say it—in the procedure adopted on that occasion. The words of the Amendment of the noble Viscount are specious but they will not boar investigation for one moment. What he calls the "inherent right" is not vested in a chance majority for the time being—in this case a very small majority, indeed, of only forty-four members. It is not vested in them and never can be unless you are going to make this House a region of oppression of minorities by majorities. It is vested in this House under the Standing Orders of the House and it is under those Standing Orders, which represent the House as a whole and not merely a chance majority for the time being, and those Standing Orders alone, that the inherent rights of this House are safeguarded and protected. I should like to put this as a short illustration in answer to what was said by the noble Viscount opposite.
I say that the right description is not what we find in his Amendment but in these words: It is the inherent right of every Peer to address this House so long as he complies with the Rules and Regulations contained in our Standing Orders. Can any one question that statement? More than that, I do not believe that any one in his heart can question this fact. It was not under any concerted action but as an inherent duty
1110
to address your Lordships and in his inherent right of free speech that my noble friend Lord Arnold was proposing to speak on Thursday night.
I have not yet heard what the noble Marquess who leads the House has to say, but I heard what he said the other night and it was very short. And, speaking with all courtesy, I do not understand the attitude taken up by the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor. He has no more right than any other member of your Lordships' House to take any action inconsistent with the Standing Orders of the House. If you want the Standing Orders altered they are not to be altered by the ipse dixit of an autocrat whatever position he holds. They can only be altered after inquiry by the House as a whole. The noble Viscount on the Woolsack, as I understand his argument, does not pretend that the Closure Motion is governed by the Rules as they stand. Not only is it not governed by the Rules as they stand but it is absolutely inconsistent with the Rules as they stand.
I will take one illustration, Rule XLV, because it is very relevant to the attitude taken by the Lord Chancellor, who would allow no debate upon this question:—
"Every Motion after it has been moved"—
that is after, in this case, the noble Marquess had moved his Motion—
"shall be proposed from the Woolsack or the Chair before debate thereon."
In this case the Lord Chancellor did propose it and that was right. The Rule goes on:—
"Debate must be relevant to the question before the House, and where more than one Question has been put the debate must be relevant to the last Question.…"
There you have it in terms in the Standing Orders that debate is to be allowed on a Motion put, I will not say from the Chair—we have no Chair in this House—but put by the Lord Chancellor. How can that justify on a matter of the sort what I find reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT? The Lord Chancellor said:—
"The Question cannot be debated."
The Order says it can be debated.
"I have put the Motion, That the Question be now put."
The Lord Chancellor put the Motion, That the Question be now put, and that was the very Question upon which,

1111
under our Standing Orders, every member of this House was entitled to speak in the course of any subsequent discussion.
It is unnecessary, perhaps, to deal with the other matters, a great many of them on the whole, I think, inconsistent with what is in our Standing Orders, because I understand the Lord Chancellor does not seek to justify, under the forms of our Standing Orders, what he did, but he justifies it on the delinquencies, if I may put it in that way, of my noble friends and myself—delinquencies that are mere matters of the imagination and do not exist in reality and never did exist in reality. Let me come back to what is called the Closure Motion—admittedly not allowed by our Rules, admittedly without precedent. What is the result? It is wholly brutal and unjustifiable in that case, on the part of a majority, to attempt to oppress into silence a small minority. Our protection lies in the Standing Orders; our protection lies in the fact that they have been drawn so as to ensure a fair hearing even for a small minority. I go further, and say that, so far as I know, there is no assembly in the world, especially no Legislative Assembly, that does not depend for the protection of the rights of the minority upon the Standing Orders which govern its debates.
Apart from that, if a chance majority at any moment are to have the regulation of Rules in their hands they can, on Party questions, silence a minority. On this particular occasion the majority was represented by only 44 Peers—less than 10 per cent. of the member of this House. Can they arrogate to themselves a form of procedure which sets our Standing Orders on one side? As far as I can understand, certain members of the House have some obsession, which is absolutely contrary to the fact, as regards the attitude of members on this Front Bench. Let me say one other word. This Closure procedure is not a matter that can be utilised without much consideration so far as the House of Commons is concerned. It cannot be utilised at all unless 100 members vote on the positive side, and it cannot be put without the assent of the Speaker. There is no such position in this House. And the Speaker is directed, in the very terms of the Standing Order,
1112
that he is to have regard to the rights of minorities.
One word more upon what the noble Viscount said. It is not the inherent right of a chance majority—that is what he is really aiming at—it is not the inherent right of a chance majority in the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations shall be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House as they interpret them. You can only preserve the traditions and dignity of the House by being obediently observant of our Standing Orders. There is no other way in which you can do it and that goes to the very foundation of what the noble Viscount has said. It is not for me to do so, but if I were in a position to propose another Amendment it would be this: "It is the inherent right of every Peer in this House, so long as he complies with the Rules and Regulations contained in the Standing Orders, to address this House." That is the principle of freedom for which I stand. If you do not adhere to that the whole basis of freedom of speech is gone, you have mere majority rule, and I do not think there is any Assembly in the world which has from time to time shown more certainly than this Assembly its abhorrence—and rightly its abhorrence—of mere majority rule as between political Parties and political questions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope your Lordships may realise that I am able to speak from a more impartial standpoint than that which has been taken by any members who have addressed your Lordships this evening. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House knows that there is no more determined opponent of many of the measures he introduces into this House than myself. It was only on Wednesday last that, in regard to this very Bill the proceedings upon which we are discussing, I both spoke and voted against His Majesty's Government in this matter. Therefore I venture to say that I am able to speak from a somewhat more impartial standpoint than many other noble Lords. I confess that in this matter I sweep aside altogether all niceties of procedure. I am not concerned very much as to whether it was better that the Motion which was made should have been "That the noble Lord be no longer heard" or "That the Question be now

1113
put," or that there should have been discussion allowed on the Motion. Those things do not matter to me. What I wish to say to your Lordships is that it seems to me that every Assembly has the inherent right to protect itself against an organised abuse of its customs and, therefore it is that, though I do not pretend to be particularly enamoured of the terms of the Amendment which is moved by the noble Viscount, I shall conceive it; to be my duty to go into the Lobby in support of that Amendment.
We heard a great deal from the noble Lord who has just sat down upon the privileges of minorities, but minorities have their duties as well as their privileges. I regret profoundly what took place on Thursday night. I think hat in future all minorities in this House will suffer from the action which was taken by noble Lords upon that Bench, that there will be no minority in the future which will not feel that the action, which w justified, taken by His Majesty's Government on Thursday last may not be repeated by some other Government upon some occasion when it will not be justified. I regret, therefore, the possibility that all minorities will suffer from the action of noble Lords in the future. After all, do let us remember that there was a great opportunity for rotate Lords upon this Bench to address your Lordships' House upon this Bill if they had wished to, on the Committee stage. They refused to take advantage of their opportunity to discuss this measure on that occasion and thus we had what has been already described by the noble Viscount as an attempt at organised obstruction on Thursday evening.
I think it is very difficult for noble Lords who were not present then to judge what exactly took place on that occasion. Nothing can be more difficult on an occasion of this kind than to judge from the bare report either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in the newspapers. I can only add my personal testimony, as one who was here throughout the proceedings, that believe the descript ion given by the noble Viscount was an entirely accurate description. There was a deliberate attempt upon the dignity and honour of this House by noble members who sit on the Benches beside me. It was a deliberate attempt and it was one which I grieve to say was
1114
largely shared in by members of the Front Bench. May I remind those noble Lords that only two years ago they sat on the Benches opposite and that they were treated with immense forbearance during the whole time that they formed the Government of this country. There were many occasions on which noble Lords might well have wished to make difficulties for the Labour Government to which they were so bitterly opposed, but never was anything dote which could in any kind or sort of way obstruct the passage of business through this House during the time they were in office. They might have remembered that, when on this occasion they tried to obstruct the proceedings.
I think, too, I may fairly say this, that noble Lords sitting beside me and I myself have often had occasion to put before your Lordships' House views far more unpopular than what it was necessary to say on Thursday last. We have spoken on such occasions as the passing of the Parliament Act and the Budget of 1910. We were always treated with great forbearance and with the greatest patience by members of your Lordships' House, and for myself I may admit that I am most grateful for the forbearance always shown me. If I may paraphrase a famous phrase, I am a House of Lords man. Everything I am in political life I owe to the constant forbearance and courtesy of your Lordships' House, which has never failed me.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, told us only the other day that he was not himself one of those who took their views or their orders from Moscow, and I am sure that that represents accurately his point of view. But I would ask him to reflect upon this, whether it is not the case that there is nothing which Moscow dislikes so much as representative institutions, and that there is no representative institution anywhere in the world which has the tradition and reputation of the British Parliament. This House is an integral part of the British Parliament, and in making an attack on the dignity of the House, and assisting those who were trying to obstruct the proceedings, he was carrying out the wishes and policy of Moscow. I regret to think that it is very likely we shall he obliged to consider the question of adding to and strengthening the Standing Orders of this House.

1115
Whether that may be so or not is a matter for future consideration. I shall regret it very deeply if it does become necessary, because we should always be proud, I think, of belonging to an Assembly which was able to conduct its affairs in a businesslike way without the necessity for these Standing Orders.
The speech of the noble Earl who moved the Resolution moves me to ask one or two questions. If he felt so keenly about the passage of this Bill, how was it he was himself unable to sit and listen to the later speeches? The least he could do, I should have thought, would be not only to be present but even to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill. If he had done so I should have found myself in the same Lobby. If this precedent becomes an integral part of our ordinary proceedings, I ask: Whose fault is it? The noble Lord who has just sat down praised very highly the speech of Earl De La Warr. I hold in my hand the Report of the speech that was made by Earl De La Warr, and I would challenge anybody with experience of the conduct of proceedings in any Assembly to say that the speech which he made, or even half of it, or even a quarter of it, was in order upon that occasion. The Bill before your Lordships was the Coal Mines Bill. We know that later the Government will proceed with another Bill dealing with other subjects. I turn to the speech made by the noble Earl and I find that very early he repeats the question he put upon Second Reading. Then he says: "Before I pass on to re-organisation." From re-organisation he discusses nationalisation. That seems to take up one or two columns—two, I think. He then goes on to nationalisation of royalties and to amalgamation, and there is also a passage of considerable length on the subject of municipal trading.
Broadly this speech is proof of the fact that there was obstruction. I venture to say to the House that nearly the whole of that speech consisted of obstruction and was an attempt to delay the proceedings of your Lordships' House and in delaying them to do something which would diminish the dignity of your Lordships' House. I would venture to say, although I am not in the confidence of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that I do not believe for one moment that he took the action he did because he was
1116
unwilling to sit and listen to anything more which had to be said. It was a matter of comparative unimportance to us whether we sat for another twenty minutes or half an hour or even the whole hour which we have learned to expect from the noble Lord then speaking. The reason, I believe, why the noble Marquess made his Motion was that he felt that in the circumstances of this organised attempt to obstruct our proceedings and to attack the dignity of your Lordships' House it was necessary to show that this House did possess resources within it able to repel the attack which was made upon it. It was for that reason that he moved. In these circumstances your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I shall certainly not vote for the Resolution moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, it will be my endeavour in speaking in this debate—and I am not going to make a very long speech—to avoid using any language or argument which will aggravate a situation which is already, I think, extremely serious from the Parliamentary point of view. I regard this matter as one of the highest constitutional importance, and I shall discuss it from that standpoint and not from any personal standpoint. Reasonable freedom of speech in our Parliamentary institutions is vital, and therefore I do feel that the proceedings of Thursday last must not be held to establish any precedent. I therefore deeply regret the Amendment which has been put down by the noble Viscount opposite. I have, as he knows, a great regard for him: otherwise, I might feel it my duty to say something rather severe about the wording and implications of the Amendment. I will, however, content myself with observing that I do not believe it is possible to prove, so far as Labour Peers are concerned, that there was anything done last Thursday which justifies the words of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
We are all broadly familiar with what happened, but I want if I may—because I think it is very important—to call attention to certain facts which have not yet really been mentioned. I wish to tell the House what these were, because they are of extreme importance, especially in view of the fact that our proceedings last

1117
Thursday may be referred to and quoted for long years ahead. In view of the gravity of the debate I wish, so far as my own contribution to it is concerned, to adhere, with your Lordships' permission, rather closely do this statement, which I have prepared very carefully. But, as I said, I am not going to detain your Lordships at any undue length.
It is necessary for me in the first place to say that there are some vital omissions from the OFFICIAL REPORT. That fact can easily be proved, because some phrases which are not in the OFFICIAL REPORT have appeared in various newspapers. I do charge myself to hear the strictest testimony I can in supplying, as I will now do, those omissions from the OFFICIAL REPORT, or my view of them, because they are really very important from the constitutional point of view. Immediately the noble Marquess had moved, "That the Question be now put," the Lord Chancellor put the Motion. I rose and said, as appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"I rise to speak on that Motion."
The Lord Chancellor then said, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT—
"The Question cannot be debated. I have put the Motion that the Question be now put."
I at once said—and, no doubt because of the noise at the time, this does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—
"I claim the right to speak. Yon have no right to do this. You are doing something which has never been done before. I ask the Lord Chancellor what is his authority for putting a Motion for which there is no precedent and for saying that it cannot be debated."
The following words appeared in several newspapers but not in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They are the reply of the Lord Chancellor to my question. He said—
"I am acting on my own responsibility."
At this stage my noble friend Lord De La Warr said to me: "You have a right to speak on the Motion." Accordingly I continued, and I used these words, which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—
"I protest as strongly as I can against this precedent on this Bill. I have most convincing arguments to advance. I am giving reasons.…"
Several NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD ARNOLD: I am coming to that. I am trying to state it as fairly as I
1118
can. I am doing my best to do so. It is not very easy, when any one is suddenly closured, a thing which has never been done before, and when you feel that you have a great deal to say of importance. I do not think there was anything wrong in saying that I had most convincing arguments to advance. I went on to say—
"I am giving reasons why this Bill should be held up, and I protest as strongly as I can."
It was very difficult to make my remarks heard above the noise made by Peers standing by the Throne, and as I had asserted my right to speak and since it was clearly impossible to carry on an unequal contest further, I resumed my seat.
That is my view of what happened, and I submit that the matter is all the more grave because, at the point when I was closured, I was putting a highly important constitutional argument in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. I distinctly stated that I was doing this after discussing the matter with a great constitutional authority. I had also intimated at the very outset of my speech that I was going to put certain considerations against the Bill, most of which had not yet been raised. I said—
"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 clays 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.…"
I said these words for good reasons, which I then gave. Therefore I have made it as clear, I think, as words can make anything clear that mine was in no sense a speech of repetition, but that I had new and important points to bring forward; and that was very true, as I shall prove to your Lordships.
Quite apart from the constitutional argument that I was advancing when I was closured, and that was absolutely in point on the Third Reading of this Bill, I was going to call attention to two very important matters. The first had to do with the terms put forward by the owners of Durham and Northumberland. Do not have any apprehensions that I am going to make now the speech that I could not deliver on Thursday. It is

1119
really not so. I am not going to do that. I am only going to deal very briefly with two points in the mining situation which are really very vital to the proper consideration of this Motion. But, as I have said, my whole speech will not be long. To return to the Durham owners, I must make it clear that these terms had only appeared that very morning—that was Thursday. The terms imposed terrible conditions upon the men and, indeed, it was only a little before six o'clock on the Thursday evening—that is, just about half an hour before the Third Reading debate commenced—that further details reached me, and I realised more than ever what an appalling state of things this Bill would bring into being.
These Durham terms, published that morning, put the working time at eight hours, and yet for nearly sixty years the coal hewers in Durham have not worked more than seven hours, and in many cases decidedly less. You are probably aware that some of these mines are amongst the hottest in the country, the temperature being very high, that extraordinary exhaustion is imposed upon miners, and that the men in these mines have to work practically naked. A most respected miners' leader has given an account of the conditions under which he worked. He said that the sweat used to squirt from the lace-holes of the boots—
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: May we appeal to the noble Lord's mercy not to give us his speech, which we are not discussing? The Motion has to do with the point of order, and it would really be merciful upon many of us if his Lordship would spare us this.
EARL RUSSELL: But clearly this is really a perfectly ridiculous appeal. My noble friend below me has been accused from all quarters of the House, including the Liberal quarters, of making an obstructive speech. He is proving to your Lordships that he was bringing forward new points which had never been mentioned before. That is directly relevant to the charge that has been made.
LORD ARNOLD: I distinctly said—probably the noble Viscount did not catch what I said—that I was not going to make that speech. I was only going to
1120
deal briefly with two important points, which could be in no sense regarded as repetitions or obstruction, because, as I have made clear to your Lordships, these Durham terms had only been published that very morning. Personally I think that for men to have to work under the conditions that I have been outlining—I am not going into further details if the noble Viscount does not like them, but there are some very ghastly details—that this should be so at all is terrible enough, but to increase their working day on the average nearly one and a half hours and make it eight hours, which the Bill of last week made possible, and of which provision the owners have instantly availed themselves, seemed to me to be a horrible state of things, more especially as, on top of that, there was a 10 per cent. reduction of wages. I thought it was right that these facts should be put before your Lordships.
After all, what is the position? The Government themselves had hung up the Bill two days before because they were not satisfied with certain terms. But those terms are much less hard than these Durham terms, which had only appeared that morning and which, as I say, put back conditions for these poor men, working under these terrible conditions, nearly sixty years—practically put back the social life of that County, or large parts of it, for sixty years. I said there was the strongest possible case for the Government yielding—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he aware that when the Eight Hours Act was in force no Durham hewer ever worked for more than six and a half hours?
LORD ARNOLD: I thought I made that clear. I said that no Durham hewer had been working more than seven hours, and many decidedly less.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: And yet there was an Eight Hours Act in force.
LORD ARNOLD: These terms that have been put forward—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Are permissive.
LORD ARNOLD: I have seen the notices, and my information comes from

1121
the miners' leaders. If the notices are not intended to operate—is that what I understand from the noble Marquess?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord knows quite well that the Bill is permissive, and that hewers in Durham have never worked more than six and a half hours. I leave it to the noble Lord.
LORD ARNOLD: I made it clear that this was not my point. How can terms be permissive when published at the pithead as the terms on which employment will be given, and if the men do not accept them they do not get the job? I cannot see anything permissive about that. I say this was absolutely new and vital material which I was going to put before your Lordships when I was closured. I will not go into the second point, although it was important and had to do with the effect of the Bill on the national agreement. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the Bill upon the national agreement, and he had really mis-stated, of course not intentionally, what would be the position. I wanted to put this right, because it was the thing for which the men had fought for twenty years. It was absolutely vital to them and it was a serious thing if it were to be undone by the operation of the Bill. I could not put those points because I was closured.
Now look at the Parliamentary position. A word has been said about the Committee stage by the noble Earl who spoke last. Your Lordships are probably aware that in another place the Labour Party took no part in the Committee stage. It was the express wish of the Miners' Federation that there should be no debate on the Committee stage. Your Lordships may say: What has that to do with us?—but that was the position. We did not put down any Amendment, and did not discuss the Motion to go into Committee. There were also other reasons which I will not go into, because it might reveal a breach of confidence, but there were good reasons why we did not put down Amendments on the Committee stage. Some of us were anxious to speak, but we decided on the balance not to do so. The debate on the Third Reading lasted only one and three quarter hours. If the noble Marquess had asked me,
1122
through the usual channels, if I was willing to adjourn for dinner I should have been perfectly willing, but that course was not offered to us. Again, I was fully prepared to sit on the following day, and so were my noble friends, but that course was not offered to us. It was not vitally necessary to get the Bill that evening, and certainly not before dinner time. The Government themselves held up the Bill only two days before for reasons which seem to us to be not nearly so substantial as those which we had to advance.
It is all very well to say that this. House has control over its own procedure, but that is all the more reason for that procedure being carefully fashioned after mature thought and long discussion in this House. New procedure should not be made hastily in a few minutes. I submit, and I think it is a very relevant argument on this matter, that the very fact that this House has no set rules and has control over its own procedure makes it all the more necessary to consider and protect the rights of minorities. If it is argued that last Thursday the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor were only acting in accordance with the sense of the House—that has certainly been suggested—the reply is that that does not justify what was done. The sense of the House is, of course, a euphemism for the majority, and the majority is practically always in favour, if a Conservative Government want it, of closing down the debate, if the hour is getting late. Therefore, with a Conservative Government in power the minority will always be helpless, when the Closure is put and carried by the majority vote.
The next point has not been made at all fully, but it is of great importance. Consider how totally different the history of this matter stands in another place, and how totally different is the procedure there, in order that minorities may be protected. Let me remind your Lordships what a long struggle took place in the House of Commons before the Closure was set up at all. I am not binding myself to the absolute accuracy of every one of these details, because I have not had time to do all the research I should like, but I believe what I am saying to be correct. Obstruction was begun in the House of Commons, under

1123
Mr. Parnell, in 1877, and went on for four years. It became very serious in 1881, when it was not, I believe, uncommon to have sittings of 24 hours. I do not understand what the noble Lord meant when he said that he had never witnessed such obstruction as occurred, after one and three quarter hours of debate, in which much of the time was occupied by speakers on the other side of the House. Early in 1882, after further obstruction, Mr. Gladstone made his first proposal for simple Closure, and although he had a big majority the House refused to accede. A special Autumn Session had to be called to discuss the matter, and the Closure was only carried in a very modified form. Even after that, for four or five years it was virtually not applied. The Speaker at that time had to put the Closure on his own initiative, and he was so sparing in its use, and there was such great protection for minorities, that he only nut the Closure twice in five years.
In 1887 a Conservative Government introduced a stricter form of Closure. It was only carried after fourteen sittings, and I understand that throughout, in another place, minorities have had protection in the absolute and impartial discretion of the Speaker. It is clear that the House of Commons, even forty years ago, was much more tolerant of speech than your Lordships were last week, and it is extraordinary to compare the years which it, took another place to get any form of Closure at all with what was done last Thursday when the. Closure was manufactured and applied in a very few minutes. It cannot be denied, I think, and this is one of my quarrels with the wording of the Amendment by the noble Viscount, that the Government broke the traditions of this House and sought to set up a new and arbitrary precedent, without notice, and in the Amendment you are asked, after only a few hours of discussion, to confirm and adopt this precedent. It seems almost incredible that this House will agree to that, and if it does I associate myself with everything which the noble Earl has said. The simple truth is that your Lordships' worst enemy could desire nothing better than that you should pass this Amendment to-day.
When I asked the Lord Chancellor what his authority was for putting the
1124
Motion, and for saying that it could not be debated, he said he was acting on his own responsibility. That point has been dealt with. The noble Earl dealt with it, and indeed the Lord Chancellor admitted himself that he has no more power than any other Peer, and that it is not in his province, on his own authority and responsibility, to put an unprecedented Motion, and then rule that it cannot be debated. I submit also, speaking as temperately as I can, that it is the duty of the Leader of the House to protect the minority and not to take, suddenly and without warning, the course he did. I have no hesitation in saying, after a fairly long Parliamentary experience, that if we had procedure such as obtains in another place the Closure could not have been put after one and three quarter hours' discussion, because the Speaker, whose duty it is to protect minorities, would not have allowed it. The action of the Leader of the House, and of the Lord Chancellor, was all the more unjustified, I think, because—I do not think this can be emphasised too often—although Labour Peers are very few in number, we do represent a large and growing body of opinion outside. I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that he did not know of any Legislature where the Closure could be debated. I will not pursue that in detail, but I think it is the case, at any rate, that in the Senate of the United States very clear notice has to be given on the Order Paper that closure may be applied. At any rate, considerably more notice has to be given, I understand, than in another place here.
Just a personal word. The noble Earl who spoke last said that noble Lords here anticipated that I was going to speak for my usual time, which was one hour. As a matter of fact the longest speech which I have made in your Lordships' House has lasted just about three-quarters of an hour. This Session has lasted nearly six months, and I have made an estimate, and I find that the amount of your Lordships' time which I personally have occupied in the course of those six months is only about two and a half hours. That is to say, that on the average I have spoken somewhere about half an hour per month. On the other hand I am, or I try to be—and often at very great inconvenience—a regular attendant at your Lordships' House. I am here practically

1125
every day when the House is sitting, and as a rule all the time that it is sitting, and I have listened to many speeches from that side of the House, long speeches, over an hour sometimes. Therefore, I do not think that the action of last week can be justified on the ground that it is my habit to take up too much of the time of your Lordships' House, and I am convinced that it cannot be justified on any ground. I would suggest very strongly that the wisest course to adopt is that the unfortunate incident should be terminated on the quite definite understanding that it does not establish a precedent, and that result can best be attained by voting for the Motion of my noble friend and by rejecting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I ask leave to say a few words upon this question, as I suppose I have had more experience of the Closure than any of your Lordships. The Closure, as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has just said, was introduced the Session before I entered Parliament, and I witnessed its development. It started very slowly, but it increased in pace, and during the last Parliament over which I had the honour of presiding it became a matter of almost daily procedure. I may say that I hardly ever granted the Motion "that the Question should be now put" without considerable misgiving. I never liked the Closure. I never liked obstruction, although I must confess that occasionally I had a hand in it myself in my earlier days.
I consider myself a pretty good judge of obstruction, and I must say, notwithstanding what we have heard this afternoon that, at all events in my judgment, there was obstruction on Thursday last. But even if there was obstruction does that necessarily call for the immediate application of the Closure? Good heavens! if in another place every occasion of obstruction was immediately met with the Closure the number of occasions upon which the House would divide upon the Closure Question would be duplicated, triplicated, and repeated far more often than it is now. I do not believe that any of your Lordships look back to what occurred on Thursday last with any particular pleasure. I think that in whatever part of the House we sat—and I was present during all the
1126
proceedings on Thursday—we shall probably regret what occurred, and we should be glad to wipe out the whole of the proceedings.
I cannot help thinking that the real cause of the trouble was that the Government was not in a position to put down as the first Order the Coal Mines Bill Third Reading. It was a rule which was always followed in the other House that whenever any matter was contentious it was put first. There were reasons for that which I need not go into, but that seems to me to be a sound general rule of procedure. I understand that in this House the Government have not the power of putting down the business in the order in which they would like it to be taken. Well, if we are going to pull about the Standing Orders of this House I believe that the whole question would be solved by simply giving to the Government the power of arranging their Orders of the Day in the order in which they desire them to be taken. If that had been done the Coal Mines Bill would have been taken first on Thursday, noble Lords who wished to discuss it would have discussed it and they might have taken an hour and three-quarters or they might have taken two hours and three-quarters, or more, and it would not have been necessary to apply any closure, for the dinner hour would not then have been reached.
I venture most humbly to submit to your Lordships that if you are going on this occasion to adopt as a new part of your machinery the application of the Closure it should be done only after mature consideration and under a properly drawn and well-considered Standing Order. I will not go into the question as to whether the Closure was necessary or not last Thursday, but it was introduced on the spur of the moment, and if it is going to become part of the procedure of this House I cannot help thinking that we may very much regret that it was not more fully considered. Speaking for myself, I should feel considerable difficulty in voting in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord FitzAlan: I do not like, on the spur of the moment as it were, to approve what was hastily done on Thursday last; and as a way out of the difficulty I would suggest that the noble Viscount

1127
should withdraw his Amendment, and that the noble Earl should also withdraw his Motion—that would mean that this House declines to pronounce any opinion upon what occurred on Thursday last, and does not wish to recur to it or pronounce any judgment upon it—and that the Government should introduce a Standing Order, which would give them permission to arrange their own business in their own way. I feel pretty confident that then we should never hear of any obstruction again, at all events for a great number of years, and that the whole House would have a full opportunity, and a better opportunity than it sometimes has now, of discussing the questions that come before it without any fear of the limitation of time.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, most weighty wards have fallen from the noble Viscount, and I rise at once, as representing those with whom I act, to say what is our attitude towards them. We all feel that the situation is one which is probably best dealt with in the way that the noble Viscount suggested. To accept the Amendment would be to commit ourselves to the proposition that the imposition of the closure was a proper thing to do on Thursday last. On the other hand, I quite recognise that, with two Motions standing side by side, one an Amendment to the other, it is not your Lordships' desire to pronounce either on one side of the other. The suggestion of the noble Viscount, as I understand it, is that neither Motion nor Amendment should be carried by your Lordships, but that the Government should proceed to the real root of the evil, and that is to take powers to control the order in which business comes.
I did not speak earlier, because I wished to listen to what was said in this debate, but it is perfectly plain that the real root of the trouble was that this Bill was not put down first on Thursday. If it had been there would have been no question, we should have disposed of it quite early. It is perfectly plain that, whether there was a fear in the minds of noble Lords opposite that the speeches of my noble friends Lord Arnold and Lord De La Warr would be too long, they were speeches with a great deal in them. The points about the Durham terms are very serious, as was shown when the
1128
noble Marquess found it very difficult to answer "Yes" or "No" the question put by my noble friend Lord Arnold to him to-night.
But this House is governed by certain Rules. When your Lordships sit judicially early in the day you are governed by strict rules which you have imposed upon yourselves. There is the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti. If it was not so the power of dispensing justice here on Appeals would long ago have been taken from you. Upstairs in Committee your Lordships sit under strict Rules, to which you adhere and which were adopted and imposed for the sake of justice. Here, in this House, you must have Rules which you follow, and after listening to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I must say this. While I recognise that this House, differing from other bodies of the kind, controls its own proceedings and can in emergencies do a great deal, for instance, if a Peer went mad or got drunk, it has no power to move the closure simply so-called. For such a power there would be required the right to stop a Motion without debate, and that is just what your Lordships have excluded from yourselves.
I waited anxiously to see whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would produce any scrap of authority for the proposition that you can stop a Motion without debate. No doubt you can move any Motion; but can you move it and have it put without debate? After a close study of those things, I say, No. I do not want to pursue these matters further. I rose only to say a few words, and I rise to propose to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that we should act on the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and that we should deal with this debate in the way he suggests—neither on the Motion nor the Amendment.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HALDANE: But let us proceed, if necessary, to strengthen the Standing Orders and to put them in order so that the House may have control of its own business and be able to put down urgent and important Bills in the first place.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the

1129
debate has taken a new turn in the last few minutes, on which, of course, I rise at once to reply. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words before I indicate the attitude His Majesty's Government will take with respect to the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who spoke from the Cross Benches. Before we indicate our view perhaps I may reply, very briefly, to some observations which have been made this evening.
I think your Lordships will recognise that in these matters a very heavy responsibility is thrown upon the Leader of the House. We have no Speaker. We have always repudiated the idea that we should be controlled by a Chairman. But the order of the House, its dignity and the maintenance of its traditions are in the hands of your Lordships, and although I should be the last to suggest that the present occupant of the position of Leader of the House is competent for his work, as a matter of fact the responsibility does rest upon him of giving a lead to the House when the moment arrives, and he is called upon to act in an emergency. That there was an emergency upon Thursday evening I think must be accepted, We have heard not merely what the partisans upon either side, if I may say so, have said, but judicial personages like my noble friend the noble Viscount, with great experience have pronounced that in their judgment, whatever the intentions of noble Lords may have been, there was obstruction. That is a new thing; a totally new thing. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has not been so long in the House that he should lay down the law.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have been a long time in the House.
LORD ARNOLD: I can give the noble Marquess a precedent, if he will allow me. There was obstruction in 1904.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord has had ample opportunity of addressing your Lordships. The particular thing which I observed on Thursday night. I believed to be wholly unprecedented, and it called for action on behalf of your Lordships. I will not say "immediate action," but after they had endured a long time it called for the action of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said that he
1130
would have agreed to almost any course. I beg your Lordships to remember that no intimation had been made to me through the usual channels that there was any desire for a long debate; no communication had come to me. Noble Lords opposite knew exactly when the Royal Commission was expected because that was communicated to them according to the ordinary courtesy that prevails between us. But they did not reply that it would be too soon or anything of that kind. Moreover, the burden of their argument was that there ought to be an Amendment in the Bill at the last moment. That was the argument submitted by the noble and learned Lord. Did he put an Amendment on the Paper? Does he not know that no Amendment can be put on Third Beading without notice?
LORD PARMOOR: After Third Reading; not on Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord has been in this House a considerable time and he knows the procedure, and he knows that the procedure he suggested was impossible.
LORD PARMOOR: Not by leave?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Absolutely impossible!
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Marquess will pardon me for one moment; it was only possible after Third Reading, and after the Third Reading was the time to put it down.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is settled practice in your Lordships' House that no Amendment can be moved after Third Reading except on notice. That is the settled procedure which is absolutely consecrated by precedent. But noble Lords opposite did not even move the adjournment. They did none of those things. All they relied upon were long speeches delivered in the teeth of what was obviously the sense of your Lordships' House. I am not going to be long, but I must say one word about what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said concerning Standing Orders. He said that nothing was lawful in your Lordships' House unless it was within the Standing Orders.
LORD PARMOOR: Nothing inconsistent with them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Everybody knows that it is open to a noble Lord to move that any other noble Lord be no longer heard. That is not in the Standing Orders.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: But it can be debated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not to be found anywhere in the Standing Orders. It belongs to the inherent power of your Lordships' House. That has been always the case, and there is no such position as the noble and learned Lord made out. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has consulted Erskine May.
LORD PARMOOR: Very carefully.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If he has he will see that the right of a Peer to address your Lordships depends entirely upon the will of the House. What about the noble and learned Lord's suggestion as to the inherent right of any Peer to address the House whenever he likes?
LORD PARMOOR: It is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the contrary, it depends on the will of the House.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It can be debated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is an old tradition of your Lordships and a very right tradition. Noble Lords have naturally some feelings of irritation. I do not complain of that at all; but they must know that in your Lordships' House, which is very elastic in its rules, everything must ultimately depend upon the general sense of the House—not the sense of a bare majority, but the sense of the almost universal body of the House—not confined, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell knows, to a Conservative majority, not at all confined to them. Every Liberal Peer in the House voted with the Government in that Division on Thursday. There was no question that the overwhelming sense of the House was against the prolongation of the debate and was in favour of bringing the House to a Division. That is really the governing consideration in your Lordships' House.
1132
If noble Lords will take the trouble, as I have done, to consult the occasions upon which the Motion that a Peer be no longer heard has been put, they will see the sort of conditions under which that was done and the grounds upon which it was put forward.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Nobody said it could be done without debate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I want the noble and learned Viscount to realise is this. Here is an observation of the Duke of Richmond when he made that Motion in 1892. He did it upon the ground that it would not be consistent with the dignity of the House if the procedure went on any longer and, therefore, he moved that the noble Lord be not heard. It was upon the ground—the express ground which I alleged at the time—that noble, Lords were, intentionally or not, violating the traditions and dignity of the House that I appealed to the inherent right of your Lordships, the right enshrined in the pages of Erskine May. The right of a noble Lord to speak depends upon the choice of the House. Why is that? Because it is certain the House will never act unfairly in matters of this kind.
I would appeal to the noble Lords opposite and ask them whether they have any ground for thinking that the present occupants of this Bench have ever treated them unfairly in debate all through these years? I knew I could appeal to them. I am sure it is true that we have not, and I am certain that in the future as in the past they will always be treated with absolute fairness. But if they go and set themselves, in the teeth of the obvious and overwhelming sense of the House, to use the forms of the House in order to destroy the dignity and proper conduct of the business of the House, then the House does have in its own power the right to intervene. That I believe to be the true atmosphere of the House of Lords. It is not the same with the House of Commons. The House of Commons, as is stated in all the text books, is bound by rule, which is interpreted by an impartial Speaker. The House of Lords rightly is not bound by rules. What it does is to act quite fairly in accordance with the general sense of the House and with the traditions and dignity of the House. That is why we acted and why I believe we were per-

1133
fectly right in acting. A suggestion has been made by my noble friend, Lord Ullswater. He says that he thinks that it would be a far better course if the Motion were withdrawn and the Amendment were withdrawn.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure whether I interpreted the noble and learned Viscount aright when he spoke just now and whether, on behalf of his friends, he accepted that suggestion.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to say a word about it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There it is.
EARL RUSSELL: Will the noble Marquess excuse me? He has taken a great deal time before he came to explain his attitude. Surely I may say a word.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not going to stop the noble Earl. I only say his remark explains my action in approaching the suggestion—that I was not quite sure whether it was accepted by noble Lords opposite and whether the noble and learned Viscount could speak with authority for the small number of his followers. If the noble Earl is not prepared to withdraw his Motion I am certain my noble friend behind me will not withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: He agrees.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He does agree. It takes a little time. We understand that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, agrees to that.
EARL RUSSELL: I am really very sorry, but I would much rather explain my own attitude myself, if the noble Marquess does not mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will give way to the noble Earl in one moment. The attitude of His Majesty's Government is this. If the noble Earl is willing to withdraw his Motion we have no wish to o on with the Amendment, but if the noble Earl wishes to proceed with his Motion then, of course, my noble friend
1134
proceeds with his Amendment and we vindicate the action we took on Thursday last.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think myself that the course which has been suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is probably the one which will best consult the future dignity of this House and I am very glad to hear that the noble Marquess is prepared to adopt that course. May I say that I do not wish to follow the noble Marquess in the rather, provocative opening to his speech, but I should like, referring to that opening, to say that when he talks about obstruction by long speeches I must remind him of what I said in opening that there were seven or eight speeches, three of which, were from the other side, that were got rid of in the first hour and that is certainly not a long time. The only speech that could be called long was that of my noble friend Lord De La Warr and it only lasted forty-live minutes. How long Lord Arnold's speech would have been I am not in a position to say. The noble Lord twitted me for not staying to hear it. Why should I? I was in agreement with my noble friend Lord Arnold. I was not one of the persons differing from him and I was aware that there was not going to be a Division.
This is the difficulty. I desire to appeal to the noble Marquess opposite, and ask him whether, by consenting to the withdrawal of this Motion, we are to be taken also to have consented to the establishment of a new precedent in this House. That, I confess, would leave me very uneasy. If the noble Marquess would go so far as to say that the Motion which was made on Thursday will not be treated as a precedent which can be followed in the future, then I should feel much easier in my mind, but if this new rule of closure is to be made on the principles which were applied on Thursday, then I am sure that I would very much rather that the Amendment were carried by noble Lords opposite. I can conceive nothing that would do them more harm both in this House and in the country. From a Party point of view it would be a clear advantage. My concern—I think the noble Marquess will agree with this—my concern, like his, is for the dignity of the procedure of your Lordships' House and I should be most anxious to agree to the course

1135
he suggests, but I think one ought to have an assurance that the Motion of last Thursday will not be treated as a precedent.
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble Earl wants me to address myself to that question.
EARL RUSSELL: If you please.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All I can say is that every noble Lord will interpret what has happened in his own way. I do not imagine that the noble Earl will be converted in any way. Of course, I cannot say for a moment that the Government will retire or retreat at all from the line they have adopted.
EARL RUSSELL: In that case I really do not see how we can be asked to with-draw the Motion because we protest against the closure on minorities. In that case we certainly must go to a Division. It is impossible to withdraw it. If the noble Marquess would move an alternative that the debate be adjourned, or something of that sort—but if what has taken place is to be treated as a precedent
how on earth can the noble Marquess ask us to agree to it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite sure that I follow what the noble Earl said. Of course the position is not the same if both Motions are withdrawn, as if the Amendment were carried. That is true. The proceedings of this evening would be wiped out and the position of the parties will be exactly as they were before we began our proceedings.
EARL RUSSELL: Let me say one word. This is precisely the position that I put down my Motion to challenge, and if the noble Marquess is not prepared to say that we may not expect that precedent to be repeated, or at any rate that the Government will not rely on that proceeding in the future—if he will not give us any satisfaction of that sort how can we withdraw our protest?
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 113.

CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Haldane, V.

Olivier, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Arnold, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lindsey, E.

Inchcape, V.

Lovelace, E.

Knutsford, V.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Lucan, E.

Leverhulme, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Peel, V.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mayo, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Midleton, E.

Portland, D.

Morton, E.

Annaly, L.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Armstrong, L.

Powis, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Bath, M.

Scarbrough, E.

Biddulph, L.

Camden, M.

Selborne, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sondes, E.

Carson, L.

Stanhope, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E Clanwilliam.)

Airlie, E.

Yarborough, E.

Albemarle, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ancaster, E.

Allendale, V.

Danesfort, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Darling, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Bradford, E.

Chaplin, V.

de Mauley, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Churchill, V.

Denman, L.

Denbigh, E.

Devonport, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

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

Falmouth, V.

Dynevor, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V. [Teller.]

Elphinstone, L.

Eldon, E.

Erskine, L.

Grey, E.

Hood, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Haddington, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Iveagh, E.

Forester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Forres, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Mildmay of Flete, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gainford, L.

Newton, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Hanworth, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Saltoun, L.

Harris, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.(L. Mereworth.)

Shandon, L.

Hawke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Jessel, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Southwark, L.

Kenyon, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Stanmore, L.

Kilmarnook, L. (E. Erroll.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Strachie, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Latymer, L.

Queenborough, L.

Teynham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Wavertree, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wharton, L.

Leigh, L.

Romilly, L.

Wittenham, L.

On Question, Motion, as amended by the Amendment moved by Viscount FitzAlan of Dement, agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is that these words be there inserted: "It is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the Leader of the House in moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question 'That the Question be now put '."
Motion, as amended, put.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, if it is permitted to say anything upon this Question, I should like to ask the House to pause before committing itself to the contents of this Motion. It occurs to me that the best way to do that would be to move that the debate be now adjourned. Personally, as I said a few moments ago, I think that, if we are going to adopt a system of closure in this House, it should be done with more deliberation than we have yet been able to give to it. After all, in the House of Commons the question of closure is limited by all sorts of considerations. It has to obtain the assent of the Speaker and it has to have the support of a very considerable number of members of the House—100 out of 600. If this closure which was established on Thursday last is going to be the rule of this House, it means that a very small proportion of the members of this House will be entitled to move the closure at any time of the proceedings.
I have not yet had a great deal of experience of this House, but I do not believe that your Lordships will really be
1138
prepared to accept such a very drastic closure as that. It requires, therefore, a great deal more consideration than can be given to it. I would suggest most respectfully to His Majesty's Government that the best thing to do would be to take a little further time to consider the situation generally, and whether or not it would be desirable to introduce a Standing Order under which the Closure could in future be applied. I believe the only way at this stage of the proceedings in which we can hold it up without coming to a final decision is to move the adjournment of the present debate, and, if I am in order, I should like to do so.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am most anxious, if I possibly can, to carry your Lordships with me in all these matters. After all, the Leader of the House is no good unless he can command the general confidence of your Lordships, and I should be very anxious indeed, if I could, to come to an agreement. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has moved the adjournment of the debate. I do not think that this would be a very wise course, because it would mean that we were unable to come to a decision.
Now that your Lordships have rejected the words of the noble Earl opposite I feel, at any rate, that we have eliminated altogether the censure that he proposed that your Lordships should pronounce upon the conduct of His Majesty's Government. Just before the Division the noble Earl, or some other noble Lord, made an appeal to me that these matters should not be taken as a precedent. If I had made that concession before the Division I should certainly have been looked upon as running away from the, line that I had adopted in asking your Lord-

1139
ships to reject the Motion of the noble Earl. But I certainly have no wish to see such a Motion as I made ever repeated, and I earnestly hope that there may never be cause to repeat it. I do believe that such restrictive Motions are had for the House, and I think that the conduct which led to it, if I may say so very respectfully to noble Lords opposite, is also very bad for the House. For my part I do not want that which we did on Thursday to be a precedent. I make that concession to noble Lords. But I think, having said that, that it would be wiser, if I may say so, if my noble friend did riot proceed with his Motion for the adjournment but allowed the proceedings to be wound up.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: What will become now of the Motion standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent, which has been put from the Woolsack? Will that be withdrawn? If it could be withdrawn, I should be quite content to withdraw my Motion for adjournment, but otherwise I do not see what is gained.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Motion of my noble friend is that the House approves the conduct of the Government. We can hardly shrink from that, but I have said that I do not desire to make this a precedent and I think that this is really all that the noble Viscount, with his great authority, wants. He is afraid of our establishing by a side wind a closure system in this House. I have no desire to do that, and I do not take it that we have established in any sense a closure system in this House by what has occurred. That seems to me to be quite sufficient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words that may possibly be of assistance to the House. There is no doubt whatever that there has been an attempt to censure, not only the conduct of the Government but, if I may say so, my own conduct in the Chair; and if your Lordships were by any means induced not to approve that conduct I should take it as a very serious matter. For myself, therefore, though I do not wish to put it on personal grounds, I think it would be right that your Lordships should proceed to deal with the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord
1140
FitzAlan of Derwent. At the same time I say quite frankly that I do not look upon the proceedings of Thursday last as a precedent; that is to say, I hope and believe that the very special and peculiar condition of things which then occurred will not occur again. The passing of this Motion would not in the least prevent our considering the question of amending the Standing Orders of this House. I would suggest to your Lordships that the best way of declaring your opinion is to dull with the Motion of the noble Viscount.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if only the noble Marquess could have seen his way to make, before the Division, the statement that he has just made, that he would not regard this as a precedent, I should have been most willing to agree to both the Motion and the Amendment being dropped. But, if he wants to put this Motion on the records of the House, is he quite right in saying that all that it does is to approve the action of the noble Marquess and of the Lord Chancellor? It does a great deal more than that. After saying that—
"It is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House …"
it goes on to say—
"in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion …."
and so on. Surely that is establishing a closure system, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said—an extremely ill-defined and extremely unwise system. Could not the noble Marquess agree, for the sake of giving time for reflection, that the debate be adjourned sine die, and then either bring up a Standing Order or leave the matter there?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be most reluctant to bring up a Standing Order. I do not want a Standing Order. I do not want a closure in your Lordships' House. Nothing excepting the emergency of the moment would ever have brought me to consent to it. I am quite sure that your Lordships will believe that. I think that after what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said it is clear that what we ask the House to do, and what I think we want them to do, judging from the Division, is to say that they do

1141
not disapprove of the conduct of the Government. As to the other part of the Motion, that it is the inherent right of the House to see that its proceedings are conducted with dignity and in accordance with tradition, I am surprised that the noble Earl should call such a declaration in question, for it is obvious on the face of it.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, after the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount on the Woolsack I ask leave to withdraw my Motion for the adjournment. I will simply add that I think the best course, if your Lordships had seen your way to adopt would have been the course which I first suggested—namely, that both the Motion and the Amendment to it should be withdrawn.
Motion for the adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill is moved I should like to consult noble Lords in all parts of the House. The arrangement is to come back after dinner, and if your Lordships are anxious to discuss the Bill on this stage that course must be pursued, and I should ask your Lordships to adjourn until half past nine. If it is preferred to take this stage without discussion, and to take the discussion on the Motion, to-morrow, to go into Committee, then we should not have to come back to-night.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It will be understood that there will be no objection taken to a full discussion on the Motion to go into Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should add that I was going to ask your Lordships to agree to all the stages of the Bill being taken to-morrow night. If you will allow me to state them, the reasons for that are these. The West Ham
1142
Board of Guardians have no money left at all, and, therefore, within a very few days indeed—I believe at the end of this week—all relief must come to an end, unless the Government give them more money, which they will do nothing with except to squander. Perhaps that is a little provocative, and I ought not to have used the expression at the present moment. At any rate they would use it in a manner not approved by the Government. Therefore it is very necessary that the Bill should become an Act of Parliament this week, and for those reasons I ask you to accept this procedure.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to all the stages being taken to-morrow, and I do not propose to object to the Second Reading of the Bill. I have it in mind, however, to put down certainly one Amendment to the Bill. If we agree to the suggestion made by the noble Marquess that would not be very easily possible, unless the noble Marquess will agree to consider any Amendment which I move to-morrow without it being printed and on the Order Paper.
TEE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I propose that we take the Second Reading to-night without discussion, and take the discussion on the Motion to go into Committee. There will be nothing to prevent the noble Earl putting down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The discussion may he as full as if we had the Second Reading Motion before us?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, namely:—

E. Beauchamp (Chairman),

V. Allendale,

L. Templemore,

L. Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield),

L. Biddulph;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at half-past eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Debate on the Motion, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill be brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 29th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; to be resumed on Tuesday next.

BURTON-UPON-TRENT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Swadlincote District and parts of the rural districts of Repton and Hartshorne and Seals, all in the County of Derby, and part of the rural district of Tutbury, in the County of Stafford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ORFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban districts of Leiston-cum-Sizewell and Saxmundham and parts of the rural districts of Blything, Plomesgate and Woodbridge, all in the Administrative County of East Suffolk:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WORTHING ELECTRICITY (EXTEN- SION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the parishes of Rustington, Angmering, East Preston, Kingston, Ferring, Goring-by-Sea, Clapham and Patching, in the rural district of East Preston, the parish of Findon, in the rural district of Thakeham, and the parish of Sompting, in the rural district of Steyning West, all in the Administrative County of West Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Thursday, July 22) put off to Tuesday, July 26.