Sitting of 19 July 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway Bill,
London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill,
Southern Railway Bill,
Lords, Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords],
To be read a Second time To-morrow.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
Ordered. That, in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal (General Powers) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211, 230, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill on Wednesday.—[The Chairman of Trays and Means.]
EDINBURGH CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS, AND SEWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will recommend that the terms of reference of the recently appointed. Tariff Board which is to investigate the cotton textile industry should be extended to include an investigation into the hours and condi-
    862
    tions of labour, with a view to special consideration of the protection of these interests?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The specific terms of reference of a Tariff Board appointed by the Government of India is a matter which my Noble Friend prefers to leave to the discretion of the appointing authority.
    Mr. GUEST: Is it not possible to suggest the advisability of having the hours of labour and conditions included in the inquiry, as well as the purely capitalist side?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by the purely capitalist side. As my answer shows, my Noble Friend does not contemplate making suggestions to the Government of India as to the method of procedure before the Committee. No doubt it will be possible for those interested in the industry, either workers or employers, to give evidence before the Committee if they should wish to do so.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the words "cotton industry" cover any suggestions as to the way the industry is financed?
    Earl WINTERTON: That, as the hon. Member is aware, rests upon the interpretation by the chairman of the terms of reference to a committee appointed either in this country or elsewhere.

    OPIUM (ADVANCES TO POPPY GROWERS).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount, if any, of money advanced by the Indian Government to poppy growers in the last three years, with a view to the production of opium?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    following is the replay:

    Season.

    Total amount of advances for provision of opium.

    1922–23

    …

    …

    Rs. 1,38,23,611

    1923–24

    …

    …

    Rs. 1,54,40,417

    1924–25

    …

    …

    Rs. 1,47,51,490

    MORPHIA, CODEINE AND HEROINE.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what amount of morphia has been manufactured in India during the last five years, and what amount of codeine and heroine?

    Year ended.

    Morphine Hydrochlorate.

    Morphine Acetate

    Codeia.

    Heroin

    lbs.

    ozs.

    lbs.

    ozs.

    lbs.

    ozs.

    October, 1921

    …

    —

    —

    16

    15

    Nil.

    (refined).

    October, 1922

    …

    34

    6

    —

    —

    Nil.

    (refined).

    October, 1923

    …

    130

    6

    —

    —

    Nil.

    (refined).

    October, 1924

    …

    424

    15

    —

    31

    2

    Nil.

    (refined).

    (refined).

    4,050

    4

    —

    100

    0

    Nil.

    (crude).

    (crude).

    October, 1925

    …

    140

    6

    14

    12

    2

    2

    Nil.

    (refined).

    (refined).

    2,000

    0

    —

    —

    Nil.

    (crude).

    Total-Five years

    …

    730

    1

    14

    12

    50

    3

    (refined).

    (refined).

    6,050

    4

    —

    100

    0

    (crude).

    (crude).

    EDUCATION (NATIVE STATES).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the latest available figures showing the percentages of boys of school age attending school and the annual expenditure per school child in the Native Status of Baroda, Jaipur, Travancore and in British India, respectively?
    Earl WINTERTON: Approximately 36½ per cent, of the boys of school-going age in British India were under instruction in 1921–22, the date of the last quinquennial review. The average annual cost per scholar in the same year was Rupees S in the case of primary school pupils, and Rupees 40 in the case of secondary school pupils. I am not in a position to give corresponding statistics for the States mentioned in the question, as the details asked for are not given in their Administration Reports.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not these figures compare badly with the number of children in Turkey?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    following is the reply
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not responsible for Turkey, but it may interest the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the House, to know that they are very much better than is the case of Russia.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Does the Noble Lord claim credit for Russia?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it possible to get the figures for the Indian Native States anywhere else than from the "Statesman's Year Book"?
    Earl WINTERTON: While I sympathise with the request of the hon. Gentleman I do not see how it will be possible, without very great labour and expense, to get the figures. The question of education in the Indian States is purely a matter for the administration of those States. In order to make a useful comparison one would require to have the figures in all the Indian States, and not merely those in the question, but I will consider the matter.
    Mr. THURTLE: Upon what facts did the Noble Lord base his comparison with Russia?
    Earl WINTERTON: Public figures as supplied by the various authorities.

    OPIUM (EXPORT TO GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what amount of opium is sent to this country from India; and for what purposes is it used?
    Sir H. BARNSTON (for Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS): 116,000 lbs. of raw opium were imported into this country from India in 1925. 16,000 lbs. Were exported during the same year. The Indian opium retained in this country is used for the manufacture of morphine and other drugs and in medicinal preparations.

  IRAQ.

    JEWISH EMIGRANTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that about 140 Jewish families from Iraq and Kurdistan are stranded at Bagdad on their way to Palestine, where they are desirous of settling; that these settlers are possessed of sufficient means, having sold up all their property, but are being discouraged by the delays and are being put to considerable expense; what are the reasons for these delays; and whether he will give instructions for permits to be given as soon as possible to these people?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has communicated with the Palestinian Government concerning the delay in issuing permits to the Jewish immigrants held up in Iraq?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have now received reports on the subject from the High Commissioners for Iraq and Palestine. Lord Plumer informs me that the eases referred to are under investigation by the Palestine Zionist Executive, who will, presumably, make formal application to the High Commissioner in the matter as soon as they are in a position to do so. It is doubtful, I understand, how far the families concerned possess sufficient independent means to qualify for admission to Palestine, otherwise than under the Labour Schedule.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself do anything to help these unfortunate people?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I have to consider whether these people would be described as eligible immigrants. Therefore, the question arises whether they have the necessary means so that they should not become a burden on the community there.

    RAILWAYS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate cost of the railways built in Iraq by His Majesty's Government; what is the value of the rolling stock supplied for those railways by His Majesty's Government; whether these railways and rolling stock have been handed over to the Iraq Government or are to be handed over; whether they are to be paid for by that Government; and, if so, on what terms and under what conditions?
    Mr. AMERY: The Iraq railways were valued in 1922 at, approximately, £3,750,000. The valuation included items of, approximately, £287,000 for locomotives, £404,000 for goods rolling stock and £186,000 for coaching stock. The ownership of the railways is still vested in. His Majesty's Government. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Cardigan on the 16th June, the question of their future disposal is still under consideration.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Are the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman of total capital value based on wartime estimates, or are they for normal times?
    Mr. AMERY: That is a very important point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question down.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons are employed on the Iraq railways; how many of these are British or other Europeans; and whether the railways showed a profit or loss during 1925 and to what extent?
    Mr. AMERY: The latest available returns give the total number of persons employed on the Iraq railways, including

    867
    those engaged on capital works, as 9,302. Of these, 284 are classified as British (including Anglo-Indian) and other European nationals. With regard to the last part of the question, there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure for the year 1925–26 of about £23,800.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask to whom that surplus went? Did it go to our Government or to the Iraq Government?
    Mr. AMERY: At present the railways are the property of His Majesty's Government, and are being worked by the Iraq Government, who utilise such surplus as they can make towards the re-equipment and extension of the line.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that. in the case of these railways, built with our money, we are not getting interest on the money lent. but that the Iraq Government are making what they can out of it?
    Mr. AMERY: The Iraq Government are enabling the railways to continue functioning. The railways are seriously in need of capital, and if we are ever to make any interest or profit on our ownership of the railways we shall have to find the capital necessary for their development.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: What has been the total surplus since the railways started?
    Mr. AMERY: I should require notice of that question.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that these railways arc not paying interest to anybody?

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

    COLONIES, PROTECTORATES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the persons who will represent the Crown Colonies, Protectorates, and mandated territories at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    Mr. AMERY: I shall represent the Colonies, Protectorates, and mandated territories at the Imperial Conference. I shall have the assistance of my hon.
    868
    Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in keeping in touch with the interests of the Colonies and other dependencies, in particular on all economic questions.

    DELEGATES.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether all the delegates to the Imperial Conference have now been appointed?
    Mr. AMERY: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to give the names of all the delegates to the forthcoming Imperial Conference, as the necessary particulars have not been received, but an announcement will be made in due course.

    DESERTED WIVES (MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will place before the forthcoming Imperial Conference the question of the legal disabilities of married women whose husbands have deserted them and acquired domicile in an overseas part of the Empire?
    Mr. AMERY: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the question of maintenance of married women in the circumstances mentioned. In that case I would call attention to the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920. Reciprocal legislation has now been passed throughout Australia, in New Zealand and in the Union of South Africa and in practically all the Colonies not possessing responsible Government and all the Protectorates. In the circumstances it would appear to be hardly necessary to bring the general question before the Imperial Conference.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the Imperial Conference consider the case of women who desire to take divorce proceedings against their husbands who have deserted them and gone to an Overseas Dominion, but who at present are debarred from taking proceedings in the Courts at home, owing to the fact that their husbands are deemed to be domiciled overseas?
    Mr. J. JONES: We in West Ham have suffered from this —[Horn. MEMBERS: "Order!"] My question is whether the Minister will be prepared to bring before the Conference the question of men who

    869
    have deserted their wives and families being proceeded against in the Courts of the Dominion to which they have gone?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. That question was discussed fully in 1923, and legislation to meet that case has been passed in most parts of the Empire, but, in so far as difficulties still arise, the question can be brought before the Conference.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how Canada stands in this matter?
    Mr. AMERY: Owing to certain differences between the Provinces and the Dominion Government, the Provincial Governments have so far not seen their way to pass the necessary legislation.

    CANADA.
    Viscount, SANDONasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the situation in Canada and the importance of the Prime Minister or some other responsible statesman being present, he will suggest postponement of the Imperial Conference till two or three weeks later?
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he has taken any steps to resolve the uncertainty as to whether a Canadian representative will be able to attend the Imperial Conference; and whether he has taken the sense of the other Dominions as to whether or not it would be desirable to postpone the Conference till the political situation in Canada has become more, stable?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

    AGENDA.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether, in addition to the subjects already agreed upon for discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, it will be open to the representatives of any of the nations taking part to bring forward any further questions of Imperial interest?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It will be open to any of the Governments taking part in the Conference to bring forward further questions for consideration.

    RHODESIAN RAILWAY—LAKE TANGANYIKA ROAD.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all-weather motor road communication is now being established between Northern Rhodesia and Lake Tanganyika; if so, what is the route; what are to he the terminal points at both ends; how much it is to cost; how it is being financed; what is the expected date of its completion; and whether branch communication of a similar nature is being tapped on to it from Lake Nyassa or from Nyassaland?
    Mr. AMERY: If my hon. Friend refers to communication between the Lake and the Rhodesian Railway, I may say that it is proposed to improve the existing dry-weather road from Kashitu via Mpika and Kasama to Abercorn, and to extend it to the Lake. My right hon. Friend has not yet received detailed estimates of cost or time of construction, but the former will probably be about £20,000, which it is desired to borrow under the proposed guaranteed loan. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not possible to make it an "all-weather' road?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir; I think that is the object.
    Viscount SANDON: But I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say a "dry-weather" road?
    Mr. THURILE: Will the owners of the land adjoining this road be asked to pay towards this expense?
    Mr. AMERY: I think the land is in private or native ownership along the length of the road.

  CHINA.

    WEIHAIWEI.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the objections to leaving any place in suspense as to its political future for a long period of time, he will consider suggesting to the League of Nations that Weihaiwei should be definitely mandated to Great Britain in trust for China for a specific period?
    Mr. AMERY: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the objection to which my

    871
    Noble Friend refers, but the position of Weihaiwei is necessarily a matter between His Majesty's Government and the Government of China, and he does not feel that any form of application to the League of Nations would be likely to improve the position, which must be regarded as a part of the general situation in China.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not the fact that administration there is being seriously hampered by this uncertainty?
    Mr. AMERY: We should be very glad if the situation could be cleared.
    Viscount SANDON: As the League of Nations exists to safeguard the interests of the people of each locality, should not something be done in this case?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not sure that the League of Nations would clear the situation.

    BOXER INDEMNITY (APPLICATION).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any statement regarding the result of the mission to China to inquire as to the views held there regarding the application of the Boxer indemnity funds; and whether His Majesty's Government have assented to any departure from the principles laid down in the Chin% Indemnity (Application) Act?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The Report of the delegation to China will be submitted to the Buxton Advisory Committee at an early date. One of the delegation's recommendations has already been approved by the Committee and adopted in principle by His Majesty's Government, subject to Parliamentary approval. This is that, after the general lines of expenditure have been laid down, the control and administration of the fund should be entrusted to a joint board of trustees in China. The board would submit an annual statement of receipts and expenditure to the Governments of China, and Great Britain. This decision will render necessary an amendment of the Act, and legislation will be introduced in due course.
    Mr. LOOKER: Will the Report, after it has been submitted to the Advisory Committee, be made public? Will it be laid on the Table of the House, or in some other way be made available for consideration by Members of the House?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No doubt it will be made public. Some of it has already been published.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will there be Chinese members of the board referred to?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir; there are going to be three, I think.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made since the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 in removing the disabilities of subjects of the British Empire in obtaining workmen's compensation under different Empire jurisdictions?
    Mr. AMERY: As regards the Dominions no change in the law, so far as I am aware, has taken place in pursuance of the Resolutions passed at the Imperial Economic Conference. of 1923, but the subject is one which may come up for) discussion at the forthcoming Conference in connection with the general question of Overseas Settlement. As regards the other parts of the Empire a Workmen's Compensation Ordinance has recently been passed in Trinidad and legislation on this subject is under consideration in certain other Colonies. Generally speaking conditions existing in the Colonies and Protectorates are so widely different from those of more highly industrialised countries as to render inapplicable legislation of the type appropriate to the latter.

    PATENT DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken in any of the self-governing Dominions or the Crown Colonies to implement the provision of the scheme which was enunciated by the

    873
    British Empire Patent Conference in 1922, as approved by the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923, to achieve Imperial co-operation in the registering of patent designs and trade marks?
    Mr. AMERY: The Resolution of the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 to which my hon. Friend refers was to the effect that the conference felt unable to make any recommendation so far as the self-governing Dominions and India were concerned, but that it was very desirable that the scheme recommended by the British Empire Patent Conference of 1922 should be adopted by the Colonies and Protectorates. Copies of this Resolution were sent to the Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates. Legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the conference of 1922 has been adopted, with few exceptions, by the Colonies and Protectorates.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the judgment in the Irish Free States Courts to the effect that a patent granted in Great Britain is invalid in the Irish Free State?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I should like to have notice of that question.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (MILITARY DEFENCE BILL).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will give the House particulars of the Rhodesian Military Defence Bill;
    (2) whether the Rhodesian Military Defence Bill includes a conscience clause and exemption for objectors to military service?
    Mr. AMERY: I fear I can hardly summarise the provisions of this Bill, but I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The Bill which has not yet been discussed in the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly, includes a provision permitting the exemption from combatant service in time of war of a citizen who bona fide belongs and adheres to a recognised religious denomination, by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war.
    Mr. CAMPBELL:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Dutch East
    874
    Indies they have had military service for a great number of years; that the men have to serve out there either in—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the paper.

  KENYA.

    DEFENCE FORCE.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Indian and native volunteers will be allowed to enrol in the defence force which is being formed in Kenya Colony?
    Mr. AMERYNo provision has been made for non-European membership of the Kenya defence force.

    WATER-PIPE TENDERS, NAIROBI.
    Captain BENNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Nairobi Municipal Council advertised for tenders for water-piping; that the German offer was £1,800 less than the British figure on an estimated £4,000 purchase; that the Nairobi Council decided to accept the German tender provided the terms of the proposed loan of £10,000,000 to East Africa contain no stipulation that goods purchased by means of this loan must be obtained in the United Kingdom; and if he will say when it is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House the terms upon which this proposed loan will be made?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no information regarding the first part of the question, beyond what is in the local Press. As regards the latter part, the advance to the Nairobi Municipality will be met from a future loan by the Kenya Government which will form part of the Colony's borrowings for services other than transport, and has nothing to do with the proposed East African guaranteed loan. The proposals of the Government with regard to the latter loan will be available to the House at a very early date.
    Colonel APPLIN: May I ask whether it is not the first principle of Free Trade to buy in the cheapest market?
    Mr. AMERY: I never suggested that my hon. and gallant Friend who asked the question could have any other purpose in view.
    Mr. RADFORD: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in deciding the terms of the £10,000,000 guaranteed loan, he will take into account the feeling in this country that we should not guarantee any money which is not to be expended in this country?
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the Minister consider giving the same terms to West Ham?

  EAST AFRICA.

    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (AAIANI COLLEGE).
    Mr. SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the importance of scientific research in connection with the profitable development of the tropical Colonies and Dependencies of East Africa, he will press forward the reestablishment of the college at Amani, which needed to supply the necessary information and advice for which at present no adequate facilities are available?
    25. Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a director has been appointed to the Agricultural Research Institute at Amani, Tanganyika territory; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to make this appointment at. an early date?
    Mr. AMERY: I will answer these questions together. Everything possible is being done to expedite the appointment of a director and the re-establishment of the Amani Institute.

    LOAN BILL.
    Sir SYDNEY HENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the Report of the Committee, presided over by Sir George Schuster, appointed to determine the priority of works to be constructed under the East African Guaranteed Loans Bill; and whether he will order the Report to be laid as a White Paper before the Committee stage of the corresponding financial Resolutions is taken?
    Mr. AMERY: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    BANKRUPTCY LAWS (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any steps have been taken, in consultation with the Dominions, by which there will be such reciprocity of bankruptcy administration throughout the Empire as will ensure the assets of a debtor being distributed equally among the creditors wherever situated?
    Mr. AMERY: Despatches were addressed last year to the Governments of the Dominions and to the Governments of the Colonies and Protectorates inquiring whether the provisions of the legislation in force were similar in this respect to the law in this country under which equality of treatment is assured to creditors wherever situated. From the replies already received, it would appear that there. is a considerable measure of uniformity on this point throughout the Empire.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Will this question be discussed at the imperial Conference
    Mr. AMERY: In so far as the necessity may arise from want of uniformity I have no doubt it may be discussed, but, as I point out in my reply, there is already a considerable measure of uniformity.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    MINERS (EMIGRATION).
    Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) what special facilities, if any, will be afforded to coal miners who may wish to migrate from this country in the near future;
    (2) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the probability of a large permanent reduction in the number of coal miners employed in this country in the near future, the Government will consider the possibility of facilitating the migration to undeveloped mining areas in the Dominions of such British miners as may desire to avail themselves of these facilities?
    Mr. AMERY: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer question 31 together with one which he has addressed to the Prime Minister on a cognate subject, and which the Prime Minister has asked me to answer on his behalf. The

    877
    possibility of finding employment overseas for miners in their own trade has been considered, but I fear that there appears at present to be little prospect of any opportunities of this nature. The possibility of affording special facilities for the settlement of miners overseas as workers on the land is receiving consideration. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir Samuel Chapman) on the 14th June, any scheme of this nature would require the full approval of the Oversea Governments concerned.
    Mr. GUEST: Would it not be desirable, in view of the urgency of the problem, that a special statement should be made as to what the special facilities for miners will be, as there are likely to be such a large number unemployed?
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the Minister also consider the question of the Cornish miners, who are real miners and much more efficient?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring this question as a specific issue before the Imperial Conference?
    Mr. AMERY: Oh, yes, I will be glad to do so. As to the Supplementary Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), I believe the Cornish miners are finding considerable openings at this moment in the expanding gold fields of Canada.
    Mr. GUEST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of an arrangement being come to before the Imperial Conference meets, or will it have to wait till then?
    Mr. AMERY: If we could make arrangements I would gladly complete them before the Conference met but I do not wish to give an answer that would encourage false hopes.
    Mr. HARDIE: Before sending miners abroad to work on the land, will not the Government consider putting them on the land at home?
    Mr. AMERY: Any scheme for the training of miners to make them suitable for settlement on the land would give them an opportunity of finding an opening on the land here.

    DEEP-SEA FISHING.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a brief statement as to the effect of the coal strike on deep-sea fishing operation and fish supplies?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Throughout the coal stoppage special consideration has been given to the needs of the deep-sea fishing industry which has been allowed the maximum possible share of the limited supplies of British coal available. The industry themselves have also shown great enterprise in obtaining coal supplies from abroad. As a result, supplies have so far been well maintained. The diminution in the catch of trawl fish as compared with the corresponding period of last year is only about 13 per cent. and prices have, on the whole, not increased materially. The catch of herrings is considerably larger than in 1925. Although this result is eminently satisfactory from the national point of view, it has involved very considerable sacrifices on the part of the fishing industry who have had to pay greatly increased prices for their fuel and are probably making little or no profit from their operations.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question may I submit that in the way it is framed it is not, properly speaking, a question at all, but a request for a statement, or a sort of fishing inquiry, and if questions of this kind are allowed asking for a general statement it will be an abuse of the way questions are framed and the time of the House taken up.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Minister can be trusted to give the right answer.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of coal being charged to herring fishermen is 63s. per ton, and does he think that that is a proper price, in view of the fact that it is being shipped in German ships on the other side at 18s. to 20s. per ton?
    Mr. GUINNESS: That has nothing to do with us. There is not now any Government control, but they make their own arrangements.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one

    879
    of the Forth ports alone there are 60 trawlers laid up because they have to pay 55s. a ton for coal, and they cannot go to sea with coal at that price?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Dutch ports are full of British trawlers trying to get coal, and they are prevented from doing so by the miners?
    Mr. J. JONES: Why cannot we pay 65s. a ton for British coal
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Do landings by foreign trawlers form a material factor in the recent supplies?
    Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will try to get some figures.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: In view of the price of coal mentioned by hon. Members below the Gangway, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would pay for the Government to give a little to the British miners by granting a small subsidy in order to get the miners back to work?

    MISERS' DEPENDANTS (POOR LAW RELIEF).
    Mr. LOWTHasked the Minister of Health how many boards of guardians have decided that relief to dependants of miners who are involved in the present dispute should only be given on loan; how many boards of guardians have decided that each person relieved shall be required to sign an undertaking as to repayment; and how many boards have decided that in the event of the non-fulfilment of this undertaking application should be made to the Justices, under Section 59 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, to attach the wages in the hands of the master or employer towards the repayment of the loan?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am afraid that this information is not available.

  AGRICULTURE.

    IMPORTATION OF CARCASES (PROHIBITION).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is
    880
    aware that the steamer "Cambrian Countess" has just delivered 250 head of cattle from the Argentine at Zeebrugge, and that a British veterinary surgeon, appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, has subjected these animals to examination and has certified them to be free from disease; that the animals have been slaughtered and sent to the London market, via. Harwich, as fresh meat at considerably less than home-produced meat; and. having regard to the need of reducing the cost of living, whether he will permit similar regular shipments subject to the same veterinary inspection?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The vessel in question had sailed from Argentina before the date on which the Importation of Carcases (Prohibition) Order came into force. In view of the special circumstances of the case, careases from this cargo were allowed to enter the country subject to a special veterinary examination of the animals both before and after slaughter. I regret that cannot see my way to accede to the suggestion contained in the last part. The importation of live animals from South America is prohibited by Order on account of the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in some parts of that Continent and the establishment of a slaughter house at Zeebrugge for the purpose of this trade is an evasion of the Ministry's Order. There is also the additional risk that infection might be brought from Belgium where foot-and-mouth disease is particularly rife at the present time.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the steps he took in this case were safe, and if they were safe in this case why should they not be safe in similar cases?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is very usual when an Order is suddenly imposed to give a period of grace, and the fact that I made that concession is no reason for withdrawing the whole of the Order, the necessity of which has been shown.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the most scrupulous care was taken in the inspection of these animals? Is he not aware that a competent veterinary inspector went to Zeebrugge and examined these animals as they were slaughtered, and that as they were

    881
    slaughtered they were put into trucks—North Eastern Railway trucks—and sent to Harwich and the London market? Every one of these animals had been passed by the inspector—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Will he tell the House why he will not allow similar shipments under similar inspection?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice ought to be given of that question.

    SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY (MOLASSES).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that by wasting 2 cwts. Of extractable sugar in every 102 cwts. of molasses under the present sugar subsidy scales factories are enabled to make a net gain of 410s. 5d. per 102 cwts. of molasses, taking into account both sides of the production; and whether it is proposed by the Government to alter the scales of subsidy to prevent this?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware that molasses may contain a small proportion of extractable sugar which if recovered would reduce the rate of subsidy on the remaining molasses, but for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 17th May last, I am not prepared to consider any alteration in the scales of subsidy on molasses.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to go on facing a loss of 5s. 5d. per cwt. to the Exchequer?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's definition of molasses as waste, because it is applied to many useful purposes.
    Mr. HARDIE: When the right hon. Gentleman stated that molasses was waste—
    Mr. GUINNESS: I did not say so.
    Mr. HARDIE: I want to ask if there is this difference between one and the other why the Government cannot take steps now in the treatment of molasses to make power alcohol?
    Mr. GUINNESS: These scales of subsidies are very complicated. They were very carefully discussed when Parliament passed the Subsidy Bill, and I am not
    882
    prepared to reopen the question of subsidies now as between sugar and molasses.
    Mr. HARDIE: Why cannot we have an answer to a question so plainly put? Are we to understand that the Government, in giving the subsidy, have made no provision for the treatment of molasses for the production of power alcohol which would give a big profit to the industry?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his attention has been called to the statement to the effect that German factories have increased their extraction from beet by 7½ per cent. by improved scientific methods, and does he not think that some method ought to be used to compel British manufacturers to rise to that standard as a condition of obtaining the subsidy?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Certain processes of extraction yield in this country a greater sugar content in the molasses than others, but on the whole I do not think the present scale works inadequately, and I do not propose to alter it.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the amount of alcohol yielded by each gallon of molasses?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Molasses varies very much in their sugar content, but if the hon. Member wants any information as to the polarisation perhaps he will put down a question.

    HOME-GROWN TOBACCO.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of acres. of tobacco leaf under cultivation in this country?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The acreage under tobacco in England and Wales in 1925 was about 20 acres.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much tobacco was yielded per acre?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask who smokes this tobacco?
    Mr. J. JONES: We know who likes to advertise it?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself smoke this British-grown tobacco?

    KENSINGTON GARDENS (ROAD IMPROVEMENT).
    Colonel VAUGHAN - MORGANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state under what legal authority it is proposed to appropriate a strip of Kensington Gardens for the widening of Kensington Road, in view of Section 19 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, which provides that no land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment shall be taken for road purposes, without the sanction of Parliament, unless an adequate area of land is given by way of compensation?
    Major BARNSTON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS): Section 19 of the Act has reference to orders made by the Development Commissioners for the compulsory acquisition of land. It does not apply to the case in question where the strip of land was voluntarily surrendered in order to assist in a desirable road-widening scheme.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Member assure the House that advantage will be taken of this public improvement to straighten out the rather mean diagonal ending to the Broad Walk in Kensington Gardens, so that it may be straight and More suitable for the fine thoroughfare it was meant to be?
    Major BARNSTON: I understand that that matter is under consideration.

    COASTAL WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, the Government proposes to take to prevent the pollution of coastal waters by oil from oil-burning vessels; and if any new Regulations have been issued, or are contemplated, by his Department with this end in view?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The text of the Final Act of the International Conference at Washington is with the printers and will shortly be laid before Parliament. The Conference recommended the delimitation of zones in coastal waters
    884
    and on fishing grounds, normally 50 miles in width, within which the discharge of oil or oily mixtures should be prohibited by international agreements and action. To the Final Act was annexed a draft of an International Convention to give effect to this recommendation, and this is being examined to see whether it is acceptable in its present form.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Member lay as a Parliamentary Paper the Report of the British representatives at the Conference?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If I receive one, I will certainly do so, but I do not know that there is one in existence at the present time.

    COPPER AND ALUMINIUM (PRICES).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the price of copper and aluminium per ton in June last year and June this year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: During June, 1925, the closing quotations for electrolytic copper, as given in the "Metal Bulletin," varied between £62 10s. and £64 5s. per ton, and during June, 1026, between £64 and £65 10s. per ton. English aluminium was quoted at £118 per ton during each of these months.

    ARMAMENTS (STATE AND PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. SNELLasked the Prime Minister what proportion of the various forms of armaments required by the nation is made by the Government factories and by private firms, respectively?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the hon. Member's question depends, of course, on the definition of the term "armaments." In a matter of this nature, it would, obviously, be contrary to the pubic interest for me to enumerate in detail all the various forms of armaments and then furnish figures showing the exact proportion in each form which is derived from private firms arid from Government factories. I have, therefore, for the information of the hon. Member had the figures computed on a reasonable interpretation of

    885
    the term "armaments." On this basis of calculation the proportion—over the whole range of war material, excluding ships and aircraft but including their armaments—works out to approximately:

    Government factories

    …

    …

    1

    Private firms

    …

    …

    2

    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he defines the word "armaments"?
    Captain BENN: Are we not under bond, according to the Covenant of the League of Nations, to exchange information as to the amount of our armaments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question also.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Surely, there is no need to put down a question? The Prime Minister has taken exception to the definition of the term "armaments," but he has used it himself.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that to enumerate what is included in the term "armaments" would take a quarter of an hour's time.
    Mr. MACLEAN: It would be well spent time.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SEPTEMBER ASSEMBLY (BRITISH DELEGATES).
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the names of the delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The delegation of His Majesty's Government at the Assembly of the League of Nations in September will be

    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,

    Sir Cecil Hurst, Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office,

    The Earl of Onslow, Under-Secretary of State for War,

    Commander Hilton Young, M.P., and Dame Edith Lyttelton.

    MANDATORY SYSTEM.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister what is the policy of the Government in reference to the mandatory system; and, in particular, whether it is in accordance with the formal declaration made by M. de Caix at the meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the 19th February last?
    Mr. AMERY: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to carry out in each case the terms of the different mandates in the various categories of territories committed to their charge by the principal Allied and Associated Powers. I have noted the declaration made in connection with the Syrian Mandate by M. de Caix on behalf of the French Government, which embodies principles similar to those followed by His Majesty's Government in regard to Iraq.
    Captain BENN: Do the Government accept the general principles that were laid down by M. de Caix as principles governing the mandatory system?
    Mr. AMERY: Those principles were, as I understand, laid down with reference to Syria and the "A" category of mandates. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, mandates differ very widely in their character. If he will look at what M. de Caix said, he will see that they will not apply in exactly the same form to "B" or "C" mandates.

  THAMES BRIDGES.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (CONSTITUTION AND REFERENCE).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister if he can now inform the House as to the constitution of the. Royal Commission on Bridges over the Thames in the London area and also as to the terms of reference to such Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that the Commission is now complete, and the following gentlemen have been appointed members:

    Lord Lee of Fareham (Chairman),

    Sir Willoughby Dickinson,

    Lord Hambleden,

    Professor Charles Inglis,

    Sir William Plender,

    Lawrence Weaver.

    887
    The terms of reference are as follow:
    "To survey the whole problem of cross-river traffic in London; to report what provision should be made to meet future requirements, and, in particular, to consider the proposals made in connection with Waterloo and St. Paul's Bridges.
    "Having regard to the urgency of the question, the Report should be completed at the earliest possible date."
    Sir W. DAVISON: Have the times of the sittings of the Commission yet been fixed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is in the hands of the Chairman. Of course, the ruling paragraph is the last one.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will this Commission have the right to inquire into up-and-down river traffic as well as cross-river traffic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I can hardly say how wide an interpretation the Commission may put on the word "cross."
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: Will the Royal Commission's terms of reference include finance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have read out the whole of the terms of reference.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Port of London Authority, and others who are concerned with river traffic as a whole, are exceedingly anxious about the question of the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I dare say that may be so.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Commission be empowered to report on the question of Charing Cross Bridge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The words are, "the cross-river traffic." Of course, a bridge anywhere would be included in that.

    WIRELESS STATION, DAR-ES-SALAAM.
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the. Postmaster-General whether it is intended to erect a wireless telegraph station at Dar-es-Salaam; and, if so, when it is likely that the work on this station will be commenced?
    Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The Government of Tanganyika Territory intend to erect a wireless station at Dar-es-Salaam during the current financial year.

    TRADE UNIONS (PENALTIES ON MEMBERS).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour the names of the trades unions which imposed penalties of fines, expulsion, or refusal or benefit to their members on account of their action during the general strike; what were the numbers affected in each case; what were the amounts of the fines; whether these penalties have now been withdrawn; and, if not, what action he proposes to take to see that no victimisation takes place?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving details of 37 cases reported to my Department where trade unionists were said to have been threatened by their union, or branch of their union, with penalties of fines, expulsion or refusal of benefit. In the majority of the cases the threat has been withdrawn, usually on instructions from the executive of the union. Some of the complaints arose from misunderstandings, and these have been cleared up; in the cases still outstanding my Department is in communication with the unions concerned.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the Railway-men's Union included?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. In the case of the Railwaymen's Union, eight cases were reported to the Ministry of Labour, the complaint being that these men had been expelled by branches subject to the decision of the executive of the union. The present position is that the executive of the union decided that the men should not be deprived of benefit or expelled from the union, and instructed the branches to this effect.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Where a member refuses to pay, is the union legally entitled to deprive him of the whole of his benefit and turn him out of the union?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the cases included in the list are outstanding?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. Of the 37 cases to which I have referred, 21 have been settled, and 16 are now outstanding.
    Mr. J. JONES: If a member of a trade union disobeys an order of his executive council, and if at the same time a member of the legal fraternity does something un-

    CASES arising out of the GENERAL STRIKE reported to the MINISTRY OR LABOUR where TRADE UNIONISTS were said to have been threatened by their BRANCH WITH PENALTIES OF FINES, EXPULSION OR REFUSAL OF BENEFIT.

    Union.

    Number of Men involved.

    Action of Men during General Strike.

    Action of Trade Union.

    Present Position.

    National Union of Railwaymen.

    8

    Remained at work or returned to work during the strike.

    Expelled by branches, subject to decision of Executive of Union Out-of-work pay also withheld in two cases, and Union contributions refused in one case.

    Executive of Union decided that men should not be deprived of benefits or expelled from Union and instructed the branches to this effect.

    Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.

    3

    Returned to work during the strike.

    Out-of-Work pay said to be withheld by branch whilst men on short time following the strike.

    Out-of-work benefit to all members temporarily suspended since 29th May by decision of Executive of Society. No benefits withheld by branch from the three men concerned, who, in fact, received benefits from branch subsequent to 29th May to which they were not entitled under the Executive's decision.

    Transport and General Workers' Union.

    9

    In six cases, the men remained at work or returned to work during the strike; in one case, the man joined the Special Constabulary; in one case the man was a volunteer motor driver, and in one case, the man assisted his son on a motor lorry.

    In two cases, the men were expelled by the branches concerned; in five cases a shop steward refused to accept Union contributions; and in two cases strike benefit was withheld by the branches concerned.

    The five cases of refusal to accept Union contributions, for which the branch were not responsible, have been adjusted. In the other cases the Department is in communication with the Union.

    Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers

    6

    Remained at work or returned to work during the strike.

    Fines varying from 21s. to 31s. 6d. have been imposed by the branches concerned.

    In two cases, the fines have been remitted by the Union; in the other cases the Department is in communication with the Union.

    professionally correct, is he not subject to penalties?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down on the Paper.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say up to what date that information applies?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Up to Saturday last.
    Mr. JONES: Lawyers can blackleg, but workmen must not!
    Following is the statement referred to:

    Union.

    Number of Men involved.

    Action of Men during General Strike.

    Action of Trade Union.

    Present Position.

    Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers.

    1

    Being unemployed he worked as a volunteer during the strike.

    Fine of £5 imposed by branch.

    The Department have been in communication with the Union and have informed the man of the procedure to be adopted under the Rules of the Union for appealing to the Executive against the decision of the branch.

    Amalgamated Society of Woodcutting Machinists.

    3

    Remained at work during the strike.

    Fine of £1 imposed by District Committee.

    The Department is in communication with the Union.

    Electrical Trades Union.

    2

    Remained at work or returned to work during the strike.

    Expelled from Union by branch.

    In one case, the Executive has instructed the branch to cancel the expulsion; in the other case the Department is in communication with the Union.

    Coal Trimmers' Union.

    1

    Served as Special Constable during the strike.

    Strike benefit withheld by Union.

    Strike benefit subsequently paid, as the man received no pay for duties as Special Constable.

    Constractional Engineering Union.

    1

    Served as Special Constable during the strike.

    Strike benefit withheld by Union.

    Strike benefit subsequently paid, as the man received no pay for duties as Special Constable.

    Yorkshire Miners' Association.

    2

    Served as Special Constable during the strike.

    Strike benefit withheld by Association.

    The Department is in communication with the Association.

    National Amalgamated Society of Operative House and Ship Painters and Decorators.

    1

    Remained at work during the strike.

    Fine of £2 5s. imposed by branch.

    The Department is investigating the case.

    MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILD (F. C. JOYCE).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that Frederick Charles Joyce, now of 65, Heap Street, Oldham, is a mentally defective child with spinal curvature; that his father was killed in action in 1915; that his mother has since died and that he, his brother, and a sister are living with their mother's sister, Mrs. Sparkes, at the above address, which is an ordinary four-roomed house; that Mrs. Sparkes' family, consisting of a husband and six children, live also in this house, one of the children suffering from tuberculosis and another being mentally defective; that for the last two years the War Pensions Committee has been trying to get Frederick Charles Joyce removed
    892
    from such unsuitable surroundings in vain; that they have been assisted in these attempts by the local education authority; and whether the Board of Education will arrange for the accommodation of this child in an institution?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The case of this boy has been already brought to my notice. I am making inquiries to see if anything can be done in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, and I will let him know the result.

    INCOME TAX AXD SUPER-TAX.
    Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken or contemplated with a view to

    893
    tightening up the existing Regulations on Income Tax collection, especially in regard to the removal of large fortunes at present beyond the jurisdiction of the Treasury and the semi-permanent residents of this country who at present avoid Super-tax by alleged Continental domicile?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The question of evasion of taxation by such methods as those suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, as well as by other methods, is engaging my attention.
    Colonel DAY: Has any census ever been taken of British residents in the Channel Islands who are out of reach of Somerset House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of evasion by change of residence or domicile to the Channel Islands has been for more than two years under strict examination by the Treasury, and no doubt very accurate information is available on that subject, though whether it is in a form that can he published or not I do not know. The hon. aria gallant Member may rest assured that I am endeavouring most strenuously, by negotiations with the Islands and otherwise, to make sure that this legal defect does not arise.
    Sir HENRY CRAW: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the Report which was presented to the Government by a Committee at least two months ago?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; I have considered that Report, and I have moved my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to address a communication to the Islands on the subject. There ns, however, at the present moment a hiatus in the correspondence, which I hope may be bridged.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the same hiatus be given to the West Ham Board of Guardians?

    TROOPS (COLONIAL CUSTOMS ALLOWANCES).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Customs allowances are made to the troops in the Colonies and the mandated territories?
    Mr. AMERY: In the majority of the Colonies where troops of His Majesty's Regular Forces are stationed the local Customs legislation allows for the exemption from liability to payment of import duty of provisions, accoutrements and stores in general if imported for the use of His Majesty's Forces. In certain of the Colonies concerned, where only a very few articles, such as tobacco, liquors and motor spirit are dutiable, exemption in respect of one or more of such articles is afforded in the case of consignments for the use of the Forces. The only mandated territory concerned is Palestine, where personal effects, furniture and equipment imported by members of His Majesty's Forces are exempt from liability to duty.

    FRENCH WAR DEBT AGREEMENT.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the sum of £53,500,000, a non-interest-bearing debt in the French War Debt Agreement, is made up?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This is the equivalent of the gold transferred to this country by France in 1916 and 1917 against the advances made to France by His Majesty's Government under the Calais Agreement of 24th August, 1916.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is this gold actually now in the country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The gold is now in the vaults of the banks in the United States.
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of £53,500,000, a non-interest-bearing debt of France to Great Britain, is held by the British Government in gold in London, or whether the whole or any part of this gold is now in New York or elsewhere; and whether it is included in the £180,000,000 of gold reserve of this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The gold in question was sent to America during the War. It is not and never has been in the gold reserves of this country.
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the arrangement of 12th July, 1926, the failure of Germany to transfer receipts under the Dawes plan to the French

    895
    account would be regarded as cancelling an equivalent amount of the French debt to this country or postponing the repayment of an equivalent amount of the French debt to this country, or whether such default would lead to the reopening of the whole question of French indebtedness to the British Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the text of the correspondence presented to the House and to the statement which I made on the 13th July in answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. It will be seen that in the event of a substantial failure of German receipts, we have recognised the right of the French Government to ask for a reconsideration of the debt settlement in the light of all the circumstances then prevailing, but that the result of such reconsideration is in no way prejudged, and we are not committed to the cancellation or postponement of an equivalent proportion of the French payments. Indeed I am not sure what "an equivalent amount" would mean in such circumstances.
    I may add that the wording of these letters was very carefully considered, as the House will readily believe. I do not expect it could be improved upon by any explanation which I may endeavour to give in the course of the Debate or at Question Time. Indeed, I think it right, as I have given an answer on the subject, and have had supplementary questions put to me before, to place on record the view of His Majesty's Government that nothing that may be said in this House in Debate will be held to be capable of being read in connection with the wording of the letters or in any way to alter the interpretation put on the letters should this contingency ever arise. It would be very undesirable that all sorts of statements should be made about the meaning of the letters, and afterwards it should be held that that should imply some alteration in the text of the letters themselves. The letters stand, and will not be altered or affected by anything that may be said by Ministers on them.
    Captain BENN: If the letters are being interpreted in an opposite sense in the two countries, is it not to be permitted to ask the author of one of the letters to explain what it means?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think so, and the procedure I have suggested would meet that. The Minister might be asked for an explanation and he might reply. I am only making it clear that that explanation will not affect the meaning of the letter, whatever it may be found to be, should the time come when it has to be interpreted.
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way and in what form the sum of £4,500,000, due in 1926–27, the sum of £6,000,000 due in 1927–28, and further payments in future years, from the French Government under the agreement of 12th July, 1926, is to be transferred from the French to the British Government in London?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As stated in Article I of the Agreement, payment will be made in sterling at the Bank of England half yearly. The French Government will have to provide the necessary sterling in the same way as they and other Governments have to provide for any other international payments for which they are liable.

    GREEK WAR DEBT.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the war debt due from the Greek Government to this country; and whether any proposals have been made to His Majesty's Government as to the terms of settlement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The net amount of the Greek war debt to this country is approximately £20,000,000. Negotiations for the settlement of the debt have recently been proceeding, but are at the moment in suspense.

    CUSTOMS INSPECTION (VICTORIA RAILWAY STATION).
    Colonel DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the inconvenience occasioned to Continental travellers arriving at Victoria station owing to the lack of facilities for Customs inspection of luggage; and can he cause increased facilities to be afforded, with a view to overcoming the existing delays?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that travellers are obliged to wait for a certain time before they are able to take away their luggage; but the hon. Member will realise that some time must be occupied in unloading and sorting out the baggage according to registered numbers. These arrangements and the provision of accommodation for Customs examination at Victoria Station, are matters for the railway company, with whom, however, the Customs authorities are in close and constant touch with a view to preventing avoidable delay.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the baggage arrives in advance of the passenger, it is put into a small room and it takes sometimes an hour or two hours to sort it out?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of that, but I will make inquiries, and if that is so, I will see if something can be done.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only passed into the room in the event of it not being claimed the evening of the arrival of the train? If it is claimed on that evening, it can be got in half an hour.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That was my impression. Sometimes a thousand pieces come in, and whether there is a Customs examination or not it takes time to get them sorted out.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes registered baggage leaves the passenger on the way over here, though it is loaded on the train, and by the time he arrives it is stored away in the room.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That shows that it is unwise to part from your baggage.
    Colonel DAY: How is it possible for a person who registers his baggage in Switzerland, to stay with it throughout the whole journey?
    Mr. SAMUEL: He should travel by the same train.

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXIMETER CABS.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a Report from the London Traffic Advisory Committee regarding prowling taximeter cabs; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to deal with this nuisance?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. I understand that the London Traffic Advisory Committee have been so pressed with other matters that they have not yet been able to complete their consideration of this question, which is one that presents considerable difficulty. I am hopeful, however, that they will be in a position to report to me on the subject before very long.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct their attention to the methods employed in the United States, where there is a very largely increased use of the telephone and taximeters are not allowed to prowl?
    Colonel ASHLEY: They are considering all those points.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be better to look after affairs according to the English manner, and will he do what he can in regard to slow-going traffic and horse-drawn traffic?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prowling taxicab is a great convenience to a great many people?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any reason why the prowling taxicab should not prowl?

    MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES (FIRST-AID OUTFITS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the frequent accidents that are taking place to motor omnibuses and similar vehicles, he will undertake to introduce legislation by which any such vehicle carrying more than 10 persons should be provided with a first-aid outfit?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As I have stated before, I have already considered this question, but I am not satisfied that the provision of a first-aid outfit on public service vehicles is of sufficient urgency to justify the introduction of legislation for this purpose.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these vehicles are now going into much more remote parts of the country further away from medical help, and first-aid would prevent suffering and probably avoid casualties?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The matter shall be considered, but I have no power at present to deal with it without legislation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If ships carrying passengers have to have these first-aid outfits, why not chars-a-bane?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If something happens to a ship in the middle of the sea there is no other help. On land there is very often a first-aid station or a doctor near at hand.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Not in the Highlands.

    KINGSTON BY-PASS ROAD.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Transport whether the delay in the completion of the Kingston by-pass road is due to failure to obtain permission for the building of the necessary bridges to carry the road over the lines of the Southern Railway; what steps are being taken to have these bridges built; and whether he can state when he expects the road to be opened to traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Some part of the delay is due to the necessary negotiations between the highway authority and the railway company. I am glad to say, however, that the requisite agreement has now been prepared and tenders obtained for the construction of the bridges. Several sections of the road are now ready to be opened for traffic, but a year may elapse before the entire length will be available.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think some part of this complaint could have been ventilated on the Floor of the House if the Southern Railway Company's Bill had not been closured the other night?
    Mr. PENNY: I intended to raise it during the Debate, but there was no possibility of getting in, and for that reason I have asked the question.

    NAVAL MISSION, GREECE.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Naval Mission that was sent to Greece to assist in the reorganisation of the Greek Navy has now returned to this country; and, if so, for how long a period were the naval officers concerned in that country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the members of the Naval Mission arrived at Athens on 23rd April, 1925, and left on 22nd May, 1926.

    WEST HAM (NEW BOARD OF GUARDIANS).
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. W. THORNE:
    "40. To ask the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the number of commissioners he has selected to give out relief in the West Ham Poor Law Union, their names, profession, and salary; if he can now state what will be the maximum scale of relief and what will he the amount paid out in kind and money and the amount of the loan, if any, that will be granted to the West Ham Poor Law authority; if he can state the amount of interest that will be charged; and whether the total expenses of administration will have to be paid by the West Ham Union ratepayers?"
    Mr. J. JONES: May I put the Question standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne)? Can it be answered in his absence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member for Plaistow asked the hon. Member to put the Question?
    Mr. JONES: Yes: he asked me yesterday.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put the Question.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Order which my right hon. Friend has issued under the

    901
    Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, in the case of the West Ham Poor Law Union under which the following gentlemen are appointed guardians—Sir Alfred Woodgate, Mr. Alan Beal, Mr. John James Scott. The guardian first named is a retired Civil Servant. The other two are serving Civil Servants. No definite arrangement with regard to their salary has been made. The scale of relief and the amount paid in kind and in money will be matters for the determination of the new board of guardians. The amount of the loan to be granted to them will depend upon the extent to which the expenditure of the guardians is found to exceed the amount that can be reasonably raised by poor rate, and the interest to be charged on any such loan will depend upon the market rate at the time the loan is advanced. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JONES: Can the hon. Member say Who is to be responsible for raising money for the new board of guardians?
    Sir K. WOOD: The ordinary law will operate with regard to this board of guardians as in regard to the one which they have superseded.
    Mr. JONES: Can the hon. Member tell us what he means by the raising of the rate? Does he expect that local authorities are going to levy a rate for a body over which they have no control?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is provided for in the Act.
    Mr. JONES: It is not in the Act.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the Minister consider it proper that a Civil Servant who has retired and is drawing a pension should be placed in a position to draw another salary—I understand these guardians are to be paid salaries—from a particular place where the board of guardians have been swept out for alleged corruption?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I think so. This gentleman has exceptional qualifications for the task, and I have no doubt that he will carry out his duties very successfully.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the hon. Member consider it right and proper that a civil servant whose period of retirement has arrived and who is now in receipt of
    902
    pension for the work he has done for the State, should be placed in a fresh situation and be paid an additional salary?
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the Minister say whether this gentleman will receive his pension as well as the additional salary?
    Sir F. HALL: Has not the gentleman earned his pension for the work he has done in the past?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have already replied. The question of remuneration is still under consideration.
    Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. I should like to know whether it is possible for me to move the Adjournment of the House on this matter? It is very important to us, because it raises more issues than that of the board of guardians. They are not the only body concerned.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. The action taken is in pursuance of the Act recently passed.
    Mr. JONES: I do not pretend to know the law. It is a good job for me that I do not. I should like to ask this question: What is the position of the local authorities who are levying rates? Have they to obey this new board of guardians?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point is provided for in the Act.
    Mr. JONES: No, Sir, it is not. We have taken legal advice on it.

    LIQUOR IMPORTS, UNITED STATES.
    Colonel GRANT MORDEN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for for Foreign Affairs if any negotiations are being undertaken by His Majesty's Government with the United States Government with reference to imports of liquor into the United States, and if he will give an undertaking to the House that no further Treaty involving the searching of ships outside territorial waters and ports in the British Empire will be conceded without consultation with this House?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have not heard anything about this question. It has not reached me.
    Colonel MORDEN: Surely the hon. Member must be aware that a very im-

    903
    portant Commission of the United States is in this country headed by—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Must I read the question again?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister says that the question has not reached him.
    Colonel MORDEN: I handed it in before 11 o'clock this morning.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It has not reached me; I will make inquiries.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAAIES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
  CLASS II.

    TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £193,382, 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 other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."—[NOTE: £120,000 has been voted on account.]

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: It is understood that part of the discussion this afternoon is to be devoted to an examination of the debt settlement which has been concluded between M. Caillaux, the Finance Minister of France, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, acting on behalf of this country. Since the Agreement was signed, very important events have occurred in France, and it may be argued by some hon. Members that a Debate on the settlement to-day is futile or unnecessary on account of the fall of M. Briand's Government. It appears to me that, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say that he proposes to negotiate a new settlement more favourable to the British taxpayer, this Debate is certainly necessary. If he says that these are the terms which he proposes to offer to the French Government and the French Finance Minister, if and when the new Government is established, I think the Committee would do well to take advantage of this opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity that they will have, of examining the terms of the settlement before they are finally ratified on our behalf by the Government. I admit that for one who is not expert it
    914
    is a somewhat long task to examine financial documents of this kind, but I am very much encouraged by the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the City only last week, in which he explained the principles of high finance in words of one syllable. Among the maxims—I must say the speech gave me great encouragement, and it must have given encouragement to millions—there was one which was particularly apposite to this Debate. He said:
    "Pay your debts, pay them quickly, and let your word he your bond"
    A very excellent maxim! It appears to me that the ordinary taxpayer, not the financier, when he reads those words and approves their high moral tone, will be inclined to ask whether the Chancellor regards them as applicable solely to the taxpayers of this country, or whether he intends them to apply to taxpayers and debtors in all countries alike. The ordinary individual observes that this country is a creditor to her European Allies to the tune of about £1,200,000,000 or £1,300,000,000, and a debtor to the United States for about £800,000,000 or £900,000,000, and, so far, the only thing that has happened is that we have acknowledged our own Debts, paid our own way, but we have not yet received any similar benefits from our own debtors.
    The average taxpayer is beginning to realise this. He wants public economy for the relief of industry from taxation and the advancement of social purposes, but in the Budget there is that irreducible item of £300,000,000 for Debt services, and the ordinary individual is beginning to realise that part of this is due to the Debt incurred on behalf of those Allies. That being so, he feels that the question of public economy and a reduction of the Budget burden are wrapped up in a. proper settlement of the debts owing to us. He thinks, also, that a nation like ourselves, a creditor for this immense sum to the chief countries of Europe, is in so strong a position as a creditor as to be able to secure important advantages from that position. Let me take two illustrations. He sees that foreign tariffs are a great obstacle to the increase of the British export trade. He is told that a small duty on goods coming into this country would form a very valuable weapon by

    915
    which to open the door of foreign markets to our trade, and he thinks that if a small duty would be of such immense value then, surely, a creditor's position, especially when such vast sums are involved, would give us a similar advantage. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have done nothing to use the power which this country possesses as a creditor nation to reduce foreign tariffs and improve markets for British goods in any other part of the world.
    He is conscious also that our greatest interest to-day is disarmament. It is not only a financial but a moral question. He observes that these countries owe us so much money. In the case of Italy we have remitted six-sevenths of the debt; in the case of France three-fifths, and he inquires whether any of the power in our hands has been employed in order to reduce armaments or to induce a desire to reduce armaments. He reads Mr. Houghton's report, which presents a picture of Europe at the present time, and he observes that on the very day when Count Volpi returns with his terms Signor Mussolini makes his speech about peace in the shadow of the sword. Nothing done, no advantage, no pressure to reduce what is undoubtedly a serious menace to the peace of Europe in Italian interference! He is told that we must leave a certain amount of our money in France, and that the French are building a big Air Force. The Secretary of State for Air tells us that we must leave our money in France for them to build an Air Force, and find fresh money ourselves because we cannot afford to let them have a bigger Air Force than our own.
    The non-financial, the casual observer, sees these things, and wonders whether full advantage has been taken of our creditor position in order to obtain these undoubted benefits. It may be said, any settlement is a good settlement provided it is a settlement. What we require is to prevent the French franc going the way of the German mark, to stabilise affairs in France so that ordinary trade relations may continue and improve to the mutual benefit of both nations. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer brushes aside the questions of tariffs and disarmament saying they are
    916
    not in his sphere—and I must point out that he is negotiating not as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as the representative of the British Government—I am sure he will not launch the same criticism against an examination of the settlement as a settlement. Is it a final settlement, and one which is going to give what the business world regards as the supreme thing—namely, a stable condition of affairs in France? What happened on Saturday in the French Chamber has made it clear that for the time being we cannot hope to see a settled state of affairs in France. What the outcome will be it is difficult to say, but from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fate of the French Ministry is clearly a point against his settlement because it leaves the situation unstabilised. Although we may settle with the French, if the French do not settle with the Americans on the basis of the Mellon-Beranger proposals, it is clear that France will not achieve that position of stability which it is our first interest to secure.
    There is in this Agreement what is, in effect, a safeguarding Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question Time, made a most remarkable statement—I do not know quite what to call it—a cautionary phrase, and one which I have never heard used by any one on the Treasury Bench before. He said that nothing he may say in Debate has any bearing on the meaning of the documents he intended to defend. That was the net result of his statement. There are two letters appended to. this Agreement. There is a letter from M. Caillaux to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to M. Caillaux. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced in advance that no explanation he can give can in the least affect the meaning of these documents. What is the use of control by the House of Commons, if there is such control, and what is the use of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being here to explain his documents? He might just as well have sent the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade, or any other Minister, because he says that nothing he can say can in the least affect the meaning of these two letters.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The Treaty stands on its own merits, and it is not affected by any statement made about it. The validity of the document rests upon its terms. I only pointed that out for greater precaution.
    4.0 P.M.
    Captain BENN: It means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives one explanation here and someone else another explanation elsewhere, and the question remains absolutely unsettled. The French explanation is a different one. The French newspapers explain it in a totally different way, and we are to get no satisfaction to-day because we have no power of amending it. There is, I believe, what is called a pari passu phrase on which he acts, and which I understand means that we do not permit the French to pay more to the Americans than they pay to us. It is perfectly true that in the temporary settlement made by M. Beranger at Washington, and in the settlement made by M. Caillaux with the Chancellor, the amount of cash, so the experts say, is about the same, but what a vast difference is made in the settlements of one containes a safeguarding clause, and the other contains no safeguarding clause. M. Caillaux, in introducing the safeguarding clause, was clearly of the opinion that he was securing a substantial financial concession. Therefore, the first point that arises on the safeguarding clause is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not consider the introduction of that clause into the British agreement is a violation of the pari passu principle upon which he has hitherto acted.
    The safeguarding clause provides conditions under which the French can cease to pay without defaulting. The conditions are not that the French can say "We have not the money, and we are not in a position to pay," but "Germany has defaulted." If Germany defaults, then apparently, as I read the letter, and no explanation that can be given can possibly allay any suspicions that I may have, because no explanation can vary the terms or meaning of the letters, France need not pay. As I understand it, the test is purely to be Germany's default. You may have a rich France able to pay and yet not willing to pay because she says that, according
    918
    to the Caillaux letter, there being, default on the part of Germany, she is not called upon to pay the instalments that otherwise would be due. I cannot express an opinion as to whether or not the annuities under the Dawes Scheme are liable to be paid. They amount to £125,000,000, and this burden is put upon the backs of the German people. When the American Debt settlement was made, Mr. Bonar Law spoke strongly of the immense burden which was being cast upon the people of this country by the payment without any relief from other sources of the £33,000,000 which was the initial instalment. If £33,000,000 is a. burden which we cannot bear unaided, then you will see that £125,000,000 is a burden that Germany cannot pay unaided. I do not know whether she has the means to pay, or what the future may be in that regard, but, if she defaults at any time, then the whole of this settlement is reopened. One of the most remarkable features of the Dawes plan was that no term of years was set to the payments. I thought that was so, and I looked up the Debates and found that the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) raised the point at once. The Prime Minister confirmed the fact that there was an arrangement for payments for six years, but that there was no term of years set to the payments.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Or to the amount.
    Captain BENN: Or to the total amount. All that was settled was the initial amounts of the annuity rising to £125,000,000, but no term of years was mentioned and no capital sum to be discharged was named. This agreement with M. Caillaux does settle the term of annuities for the Germans to pay. It is not merely a French debt settlement, but also a German reparation settlement, because clearly if at any time within 62 years the Germans fail to pay the Dawes annuity, then the whole of the settlement with M. Caillaux comes to an end. Therefore, if we examine this settlement from the point of view of the man who says it is worth while being generous to France so long as we get this tiresome problem out of the way, we find, far from that being a justification for the settlement, on the contrary, the moment Germany defaults, it not only re-opens the question of the French payments, but

    919
    —and this is its most objectionable feature—it brings us as joint creditors with France into a political quarrel with Germany. If Germany defaults to us, we can deal with that as a bad debt, and if France defaults to us on her own responsibility we can deal with that as a separate thing, but under this agreement, if Germany defaults, France defaults as well, and France and ourselves become joint creditors able to bring pressure to bear upon Germany to make her pay up.
    That is the situation in which we found ourselves in January, 1923. One of the most unsettling features of this so-called settlement is that it unites us once again with France in bringing pressure to bear upon Germany to pay annuities which may or may not be within her capacity to pay. I have left out of account whether these big countries should continue for a series of years to raise and pay these immense sums of money which represent no transactions on credit. It seems to me, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so in the city, that within some reasonable period the nations of the world must come together and revert to the policy of the Balfour Note, namely, universal cancellation of these debts.
    Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.
    Captain BENN: That may come, but in the meantime, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that he has settled this question, then I say, before he can claim that, he must answer the question put to him, and must broadly explain how far the safeguarding Clause is not likely at a most critical moment to vitiate the finality of the whole scheme.
    Mr. HILTON YOUNG: A great deal of what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) will meet with general agreement, but I confess that there was one passage in which he held out a prospect which will fill a cautious mind with consternation. I understand it to be his opinion that we should have made use of our position and influence as a creditor in Europe to intermeddle with the domestic politics of the debtor countries. I understand that it is really his opinion, for instance, that we should have made use
    920
    of our position as a creditor of Italy to have persuaded our late Italian Allies to send M. Mussolini about his business, that, similarly in France, we should have made use of our position as a creditor there to enforce upon our French friends the putting down of so many squadrons of aeroplanes, and that, as regards all the minor nations, we should have intermeddled with them to the extent of altering their fiscal policy.
    Captain BENN: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leaders of this new policy claim that right of intermeddling by what they call tariffs?
    Mr. YOUNG: I am aware of no such thing. I am, however, fully aware that no suggestion could be more directly calculated to reduce Europe to confusion and to bring ourselves into hatred. If in private life my creditor were to come to me and say, " I will remit part of your debt if you will change your place of worship, and if you will put down your motor car," I know that I should send him about his business, and I believe that, is precisely what would happen if this attitude were to be adopted in the public life of international affairs.
    There are two aspects of this question of debt settlement. There is the arithmetical or business aspect, and there another and far wider aspect introducing much greater considerations. If we take the question of the French Debt settlement merely on its business aspect, I do not think that it is possible to look upon it as, and I do not think its supporters would claim that. it was, a, brilliant settlement. The French are to pay one-third of what they owe, and, for as long as it is possible to foresee, we and our descendants will pay £24,000,000 a year on behalf of the French taxpayer. That is not a brilliant settlement.
    Nevertheless, I believe ft is prudent, for this reason. We ought to concern ourselves more as business men—and I am dealing with the business aspect—with new business than with old debts. Truth to tell, of our two ledgers, our commercial ledger, the ledger of the nation as a great industrial unit, is of very much more importance than our ledger of public finance in which the taxpayers appears. If we are to compare Great Britain with anything, we ought

    921
    not to compare it with a retired colonel living at Cheltenham upon his interest; we ought to compare it with a manufacturer to whom orders matter more than interest. For the benefit of trade it is clearly prudent policy to promote stability, and you can best promote stability in this region by promoting a settlement of these debts. the depreciation of the French franc is coming near to upsetting the apple-cart of European trade. It is a great danger. It is not only its immediate effect upon French trade. The depreciation of the French franc does, indeed, bring the French exporter into competition with us to our disadvantage, and it does, indeed, make it difficult for us to import into France, to our disadvantage. But that is not the real gravity of the matter. It is true, again, that the depreciation of the French franc has a sort of reflection on the Italian lira and the Belgian franc, disturbing the trade of those countries with us. Why it is so would take too long to explain, if anybody could explain it, and I do not think that anyone can exactly explain it. We only know that it is so by some sort of economic sympathy. The real gravity of the situation is the lethargy which the uncertainty of the future imposes upon the trade of Europe. People remember only too well the effect of the great crash of the German mark, and they feel that there may be a similar crash of the French franc. They fear, not only economic and commercial disturbances, but political disturbances in France, and a shaking up of that great system which is based upon the stability of France upon the continent of Europe. All these things are inimical to the progress of trade.
    There is another thing worth a single observation. All this uncertainty based upon the depreciating franc reacts upon the opinion of the United States. What is much needed in order to get Europe going again upon a normal basis is the help of American credit, and American credit is withheld because of these unstable conditions. For that reason, there is the strongest motive of policy why at the present time we should do our share to help to check the fall of the French franc and to re-establish normal conditions. What has been done has not stabilised the French franc. We do not know whether the settlement is
    922
    going to be accepted by the ensuing French Government, but we do know that a settlement upon some such basis is a condition precedent to the stabilisation of conditions by checking the fall of the franc, and we hope that the ensuing French Government will follow up the offer that has been made. Thus something has been done by means of this preliminary Agreement to restore French credit abroad. But not all has been done that might be done. I do not think that the warmest admirer and the most constant friend of France could honestly say that by means of such a settlement French credit is made as good as ever it was. It is not so. You cannot reestablish your credit as good as it ever was by a settlement of 6s. 8d. in the £. That is the first prominent feature. The second feature is this. If you want to reestablish your credit by a settlement of your debts, you must make your promises to pay absolute, and not conditional upon somebody else paying.
    What was the nature of our settlement with the United States—that transacted by the Prime Minister? That it was an absolute settlement. There is the great difference, as regards the re-foundation of credit, between our attitude and that of France. We claim to receive from our debtors only as much as we pay to our creditors. The French agree to pay only as much as they receive, and in that way credit cannot be re-established. One might most earnestly say, if there were any chance of a voice being heard, to our friends of the French nation, "Do not miss the chance to re-establish your credit in this settlement by maintaining that safeguard clause, but strike it out, and so base your credit's restoration firmly." After all, this has to be remembered, that though we may agree to this settlement as being necessary for the checking of the depreciation of the franc, yet it is owing to the error, to the financial fault of the French, that the franc is depreciating, and that the settlement is forced upon us. it is because of errors of financial policy across the Channel that the position is brought about in which such a settlement has to be made. I think we may fairly contend, when we are discussing this settlement in our own Legislature, that such a settlement as this does impose upon the French State

    923
    a most solemn and absolute obligation now to take all possible and all necessary means in order to rehabilitate its currency. It is an obligation which they owe to the rest of Europe in return for a favourable settlement in order to save it from those disasters which are implied in a catastrophe to the frane.
    But this is an occasion of rather wider moment than even the 'settlement of this particular French Debt. It is the last of the great outstanding settlements of War debts which bad still to be made. As we hope that it will go through, and as it is the last of the great arrangements, things may perhaps be opportunely said now which it was not opportune to say before, when it was possible that by saying them an atmosphere might have been induced which would have been unfavourable to further settlements. What is the general position that has been created as a result of this debt settlement of ours? It is this: We have stood up to every obligation in its most severe form, on the one side of the book, and, on the other side, we have shown every possible lenity and consideration to those who owed us money. So it is. It was perfectly right to do that, because credit is the life-blood of this nation. In order to restore our credit, to re-establish it and to re-establish the credit of our customers, that was a sound policy. We have re-established our own credit by severity to ourselves. We have assisted to re-establish the credit of our customers by consideration towards them. But the resulting situation has certainly got in it elements that for the British taxpayer are somewhat grim.
    The certainty of the situation is that in a few years we shall be paying £38,000,000 a year to the United States. What have we to set against that? I take the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a possible, ultimate, credit item against this £38,000,000 of £33,500,000, based upon his assumption that Germany may pay three-quarters of the total reparations due under the Dawes settlement. Yes, but what is the feature of that account? It is this: That our own payments are absolute and immediate. They have already begun. What
    924
    we are to receive is ultimate or hypothetical. It has not yet begun, and it may not begin unless things go better than at present seems possible. That is a grim situation, and there is that other feature of it which is so difficult wholly to bear with that patience which should be shown in such high affairs—that all this burden that we are bearing, we are bearing upon a bill that we backed for our Allies. We are not bearing it for any direct advantage that we have had ourselves. We are in the rather ridiculous position of an innocent who is called upon by some harsh creditor to pay up on the bill which he has backed for his friend.
    Then we turn to the other side of the picture—to the United States. I certainly do not think it is useful or helpful in these Debates to exacerbate feeling by dwelling upon inequalities of sacrifice, but still the facts remain. They cannot be put in a better or more vivid manner than they were by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Debate on this subject, when he said that within a short time all the money that is being received and paid for reparation will be drawn away to the United States and go into the pockets of tile United States, very largely at our expense. That is the situation. I do not think it serves any useful purpose not to say, at any rate once, that in that there is something amiss. What is amiss is this—that throughout we have looked upon these debts as implying something more than merely commercial debts, but in the United States they have been looked upon as implying nothing more than a strictly commercial basis. It may be said, and it is said as part of the United States case, that great remissions of debt have been made, and since great remissions of debt have been made by the United States it cannot be justly charged against their policy that throughout they have regarded the debts upon a strictly commercial basis. I do not think that that answer is a good one. Whatever remissions of debt have been made, have been made on a basis which is as commercial as the actual extraction of the debt, the basis of ability to pay. No commercial creditor extracts from his debtor more than he can pay, for that would mean the debtor's bankruptcy and that there would be nothing for the creditor.

    925
    The remissions made on that basis have been made in as commercial a spirit as the actual enforcement of the debt.
    That treatment of the debts has its implications. We have to present the citizen of the United States with an alternative, and it is this. Either in coming into the War the United States had with us a common cause, a common motive, and a common ideal. If they had, then it was right and necessary that there should be some community of interest, a pool of interest; and if there was such a community and pool, in the right and in necessity, then it is impossible to deal with such debts, contracted under those conditions, on a strictly commercial basis. What is the converse? It is this: That if you do deal with War debts upon a strictly commercial basis, that implies that there was no community of resources, in right or necessity, and, if that be so, then the implication must be that the motive of the United States in coming into the War was not a motive of a common cause and common interest, but a mere mercenary motive of selling her services to the Allies. Which was the truth? Well, we know that the truth is that the United States came into the War because she had a common cause with us and common ideals. Her interests, her sense of humanity, were outraged by the submarine campaign. Her most important headings of national policy were outraged by the interference of the Germans in Mexico and in South America. But, greater and deeper than that, she came into the War because of her deep sense that the vital principles of democratic government and of liberty were at stake.
    If at this time there is a body of opinion in the United States which insists upon the strict commerciality of War debts, surely they are doing the gravest historical wrong to the reasons for which the United States came into the War. They are misrepresenting the true spirit of their great nation. It will be recognised that when we in this country for once in a way, upon a rare occasion, say this about our post-War financial relations with them, we are doing it in no spirit of appeal for compassion or pity. We have our difficulties, we have the vast expenditure of wealth, far greater than that of any other nation in the War, and
    926
    the immense consequential difficulties in our million and a-quarter of unemployed; but we are prepared, and we shall ever be prepared, to face direct obligations. It will be a very evil day when any British Minister goes cap in hand to the Government of the United States and asks for remission or for more favourable treatment of these War debts. It is not for more favourable treatment that the matter is worth expressing, but for the sake of Anglo-American relations, which cannot be expected healthily to flourish in the future unless it is recognised on the other side of the Atlantic that there is a case, and a strongly felt case, as to the moral implication of these matters held in this country, which must not pass entirely in silence.
    There is a little rift in the lute of Anglo-American relations. It is a rift that has been made by a small minority in the United States, as we believe, who make of the ledger a bible and of commercialism a god. We know that that is not the real feeling of the United States. We know that in course of time the true heart of the people will express itself. But in the meantime, there is the situation to be faced. One tie of friendship and understanding between the two countries has, I think, been a little loosened. It is the tie that might be the strongest of all, the tie of common memories of the War. It has been a little loosened, and it only remains for us to tie others- stronger elsewhere—if that field of friendship has been constricted, to enlarge fresh fields of friendship elsewhere, lest we drift apart. It is quite certain that the two Continents cannot do without each other. A great allowance has to be made on the one side for the pride of youth in the new world, and on the other side for the pride of age in the old world. When all these allowances have been made—and we must constantly make them—the truth remains that no race of humanity can possibly disregard the common, moral sense of all mankind. We learned that lesson in the War; we learned it in the example of the terrible downfall of the military Empires which tried to disregard the common moral sense of all mankind. If there be a small section in the United States that has not yet learned it, we may be confident that they will be taught it by

    927
    their future, as we in Europe have been taught it by our past.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) justified the Agreement on the ground that it was much better to look after new business than to look after old debts. He expressed the opinion that this was a just and prudent settlement, and based that opinion on the hope that the terms of this settlement might help France to re-establish her financial position. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hopes that the Agreement made last week in London is appreciated by the French people or is likely to have any effect at all in bringing the French Government to realise the seriousness of their position and the absolute necessity for taking drastic steps to improve it, I am afraid the hopes of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have no real foundation in fact. There seemed to me to be one or two inconsistencies in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He admitted that this debt agreement is a composition with our debtor representing about 6s. 8d. in the £, and then he went on to say, a few sentences later, that the way to establish one's credit was by paying one's debts. I do not think the credit of France is likely to be established or that the credit of France stands higher to-day than it did a week ago, because of the Agreement that was signed last week. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer probably appreciated the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Bean), who introduced this topic, more than the speech which followed it, for I cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon this Agreement with any satisfaction.
    I spoke at some length upon this matter some months ago, and on that occasion I used rather severe language in regard to the agreement which had been made 12 months before. I remember that upon that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following me, said that his official position prevented him from giving expression to similar sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be in the position of the clergyman who, owing to his holy profession, was prevented from expressing his feelings in strong language and paid a layman to do it for
    928
    him. The Agreement made last week does not differ very materially from the Agreement which was made with the same French Finance Minister 12 months ago. It will be remembered that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke on this matter some months ago, he said two or three matters had been left over for further consideration. These matters have been considered and settled—on paper at any rate—in the Agreement signed last week. The total amount which is to be paid by France spread over a period of 62 years remains the same. The payments during the last four or five years have been fixed on an ascending scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a suggestion had been made to him 12 months ago by the French Minister, that the payments by France should be dependent upon the receipt of reparations from Germany. The right hon. Gentleman expressed himself, on that occasion, as being strongly opposed to such a condition. It is quite true that no such condition is embodied in the text of the Agreement, and I fear I do not take that very serious view which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith appears to take, of the two letters which have been exchanged between M. Caillaux and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know why the French Finance Minister insisted upon these letters. He had to take something back to France to save his face; something that might help to secure a ratification of the Agreement by the French Chamber, but I do not regard the letter which has been signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being in any way binding on any future British Government.
    Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No, not binding to this extent, that a future British Government would be under any obligation on account of this letter. Of course, they would be under an obligation to consider the matter, but I do not regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pledge as being an obligation upon any future British Government to make the failure of German reparations a reason for a modification of this Agreement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously future British Governments are bound by the Agreement and by the letter if the

    929
    Agreement is finally ratified by France. They are bound by both, but they are not bound beyond that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are not bound to modify it.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the right hon. Gentleman himself in the second sentence of his letter says:
    "His Majesty's Government must maintain the position that the settlement which we have arrived at of the French war debt to this country depends like that debt itself, on the sole credit of France."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that in the event of the failure of German reparations the British Government of the day would be prepared to consider any representations which might be made.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But not to modify.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it is most important that this statement should be made that while a future Government might be under an obligation to consider representations which were made by France for the modification of the Agreement, British Governments would not be bound to modify the Agreement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL indicated assent.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it is most important, that that additional safeguard should be made clear. The Agreement which the right hon. Gentleman has made fails to satisfy many of the conditions which have been laid down by himself and by previous British Ministers. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not contend that he is maintaining by this Agreement the principle of the Balfour Note. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me quoted certain figures which were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke a few months ago. Taking an Agreement under which we were to receive at the outset £4,000,000 a year, and assuming that that agreement with France matured, they would pay us £12,500,000 a year and we would get from German reparations a figure which was fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at £15,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very sanguine if he thinks Germany is going to be able to pay reparations which will give to this country, whose percentage is 26, a sum of £15,000,000 a year.
    MT. CHURCHILL: That would be our share of three-quarters of the full Dawes annuities.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not change my view in the slightest. I am sure nobody thinks it is possible either for Germany to pay a total sum of £125,000,000 a year, or that such a sum could be sent across the exchanges without upsetting the whole financial arrangements of Europe. If our share of German reparations were £15,000,000 a year, we should get about £33,500,000 a year, and we should he paying the United States £38,000,000 a year, and so, if France paid us, if Italy paid us, if our smaller debtors paid us, then the right hon. Gentleman, by this arrangement, is not carrying out the principle of the Balfour Note. He is not getting from our Continental debtors a sum which would be sufficient for us to pay the debt which we owe to the United States. Further, he insisted in many of the Notes which he has addressed upon this debt question—and he somewhat emphatically identified himself with it when he spoke a few months ago—on what he calls the pari passu principle. That is to say, that no one of out. Continental debtors must give more favourable terms to others of her creditors than she is giving to us. That principle has been,. I was going to say, flagrantly violated, but it has been violated to a considerable extent in the settlement which the right hon. Gentleman has made with Italy and with France. This is quite clear when we come to compare it with the settlement which has been made by America with Italy, which has been ratified, and the Agreement recently reached in Washington between the French Minister and the American Government which still remains unratified by France.
    Let me give the House some figures. I hope I shall be able to make them clear. Take our French Debt. Deducting the gold, the amount of the French Debt is £600,000,000. Under this Agreement the total payment which will he made by France to this country over a period of 62 years will be £775,000,000, which is a little more than the capital amount of the Debt. Take the French Debt to America. It was a little more than ours—£680,000,000. Under the American Agreement, France is to pay on an original debt of £680,000,000,

    931
    over a period of 62 years, a sum of £1,370,000,000. That is to say, America is going to get twice as much, including interest, as the original amount of the Debt, or of the Debt at the time the Agreement was made, We are getting under this arrangement only £175,000,000 in 62 years more than the amount of the Debt at the time of the Agreement.
    I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and that the amount that we shall get from France, if this agreement be carried out, gives us more the first few years than America will get under the French-American settlement, That is quite true, but it is not very much of an advantage. We, in the first five years, will get under this agreement with France, provided they pay, £40,500,000, and America will get £32,000,000, but after the first 15 years the amount that France has to pay under the American agreement rises very rapidly indeed. Exactly the same thing applies to the Italian Debt. The Italian Debt to Great Britain was £550,000,000 and to the United States it was £420,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer settled with Italy for a total payment of £254,500,000 over a period of 62 years. What is the bargain which the United States have made with Italy, a bargain which, I believe, has been ratified by the Italian Government? We are getting less than half of the total sum that Italy owes to us; America is getting £495,000,000 on a debt of £420,000,000. It is quite true again that in the first few years we get more than Italy pays to the United States under her agreement with America. In the first 15 years we are to get £61,000,000 from Italy, and America gets £38,000,000, but in the second 15 years, while her payments to this country remain the same, she pays to America £82,500,000, in the third 15 years she pays to us £61,500,000 and to America £135,500,000, and in the last 17 years she pays to this country £71,000,000, and to America £239,000,000.
    Now America is getting from France, may I repeat, or will get from France if France pays, under the American-French settlement, more than twice the amount of money that France owed to the United States, and America is getting from Italy
    932
    more than Italy owes to the United States. We are getting from Italy less than half the amount of her debt, spread over a period of 62 years. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he has made a good bargain? How can he say that he has carried out the principle that he himself has laid down, that there must be equal treatment between all the creditors of these debtor countries? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the "Times" newspaper after the visit of M. Caillaux to this country in August of last year a very definite pronouncement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not to the "Times" alone.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It says it was given to the correspondent of the "Times"
    Mr. CHURCHILL: And to all the other correspondents.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Then the right hon. Gentleman had a sort of mass meeting, I suppose?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: This is the statement.
    "His Majesty's Government have from the outset made it perfectly clear that any arrangements which .lied: can conic to with France must be governed by the principle so often declared that they must receive from France proportionate and pari pussu payments to any she may eventually make to the United States in the settlement of her War Debt. It would be no service to Europe, already so previously stricken, if the sacrifices of one creditor of France merely conduced to the advantage of another. Any agreement which could be entered into between Great Britain and France at the present time could, therefore, in this respect, he only of a provisional character, pending the outcome of other negotiations."
    I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman will say. He certainly has not adhered, either in the Italian Debt settlement or in the new agreement with France, to the conditions which he laid down so emphatically in that communication, and it is important to remember that the Italian Debt settlement and this new agreement with France were made after that declaration had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall await with interest this afternoon to hear what justification he has for having departed, and having departed to such a great extent, from a principle which he himself says has been so often declared. The Chancellor of the Exchequer

    933
    certainly cannot be congratulated upon his success as a financial negotiator. He is a very poor hand at striking a good bargain. He simply crumples up every time that he comes into close contact with the representative of one of the Continental debtor countries.
    What happened a year ago? He first of all laid it down, in regard to the French payments, that the sum was to be £16,000,000 a year. Then M. Caillaux came over, they had negotiations, and the right hon. Gentleman finally reduced the figure to £12,500,000. But, as he said, in another of his statements to the Press, he had agreed to reduce the figure to £12,500,000 on the distinct understanding that that payment was to be upon the sole credit of France, and the question of reparations from Germany was ruled out of consideration altogether. Nearly 12 months passed, and France did not ratify the agreement. They changed Finance Ministers about half-a-dozen times in that period. Now M. Caillaux comes over and interviews the Chancellor of the Exchequer again. He does what one of the previous French Finance Ministers with whom the Chancellor had negotiations failed to do—he has succeeded in inducing the Chancellor to give way upon every one of the three points that were left over in the negotiations 12 months ago. He has given way on the pari passu principle, he has given way on the Balfour Note, and he has given way upon insisting that the payments should be begun by £12,500,000 at least.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There was never any suggestion that they should begin at once. It was always understood there would be a lapse of time, and exactly that arrangement was proposed by me a year ago.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: And now the right hon. Gentleman has given way in regard to the debt resting upon the sole credit of France, in the Note which he has exchanged with M. Caillaux. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these negotiations has been beaten at every point. What is the effect of it? If all this were coming out of the pockets of the right hon. Gentleman, I would not complain at all, but he has done this at the expense of the British taxpayer. What does that mean? Our Continental debtors owe us £2,000,000,000. That sum
    934
    was borrowed from the British taxpayers, and is part of our internal debt. We are paying 5 per cent. interest upon it. We are paying £100,000,000 a year upon it, every penny of which has to be raised from taxation. £100,000,000 a year is equal to nearly 2s. in the £ on the Income Tax. He will get, if this French agreement matures, £12,500,000 from France, he> will get £4,000,000 from Italy, and we will say about £2,500,000 from the smaller debtors; that is, less than £20,000,000 a year, because in this connection we must leave out any reparations that are paid by Germany. What we shall be getting from our Continental debtors on account of the £2,000,000,000 that they owe to us will be less than £20,000,000 a year, and the British taxpayer will be raising every year during these 62 years £100,000,000 a year.
    But there is one other important fact that remains for consideration. At the end of 62 years, when Italy has paid that £250,000,000, or less than half the amount of her debt, and when France has paid practically only the capital amount of her debt to us, this country will not be relieved from the burden of that £2,000,000,000 of money which was lent to our Continental Allies during the War. We shall not have paid off this money. At the present rate of sinking fund we shall not pay off our internal debt for 150 years, and, therefore, during these 62 years, the British taxpayer will be finding something like £80,000,000 a year, and at the end of that time, when no further payments are received on account of these debts, still will have to continue to provide interest, and sinking fund upon what remains of the internal Debt. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done.
    5.0 P.M.
    The American debt settlement was a most unfortunate thing in this respect. It vitiated the whole situation in regard to inter-Allied debts. If it had not been for the American debt settlement, the door would have been open for the complete cancellation of all these debts, but when we were bound to pay to America for the next 62 years a sum of money like £38,000,000 a year, we were bound to look elsewhere to see if we could get something that would at least go a little way to meet the payments which we had to make to the United States of America. If it had not been for the American debt

    935
    settlement, I believe the cancellation of all these debts would have been a, very simple matter indeed. A moment or two ago I said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very poor hand when it came to bargaining, but certainly that cannot be said of the United States of America.. Under their agreement with us, they are getting £38,000,000 a year and huge sums from France, Italy, and very considerable sums from the smaller Continental debtors. In 15 years' time America will be taking from Europe, if these agreements still survive, £80,000,000 a year on account of war debts. That means that it will take the labour of 320,000,000 workers in Europe to pay the annual tribute to the United States of America. America will be getting far more than in all probability Germany would be paying altogether in reparations 15 years hence. That is the position.
    If it comes to that we are burdened with the whole of that, £2,000,000,000 of debt, and America, the richest country in the world—a country whose national income according to recent official figures is increasing at the rate of £2,000,000,000 a year and whose capital wealth is increasing at the rate of £10,000,000,000 a year—America who came into the War nearly three years after the outbreak of hostilities, will be taking the whole of the reparations made by Germany and not one of the European Allies will be getting a single penny. Well, that is a position that cannot permanently continue, and it is not to the interest of America that it should. 1 believe—I do not say there is a rapidly growing feeling—there is certainly a change of opinion taking place in the United States in regard to these debts. Senator Reed who is usually regarded as the spokesman in the Senate for Mr. Mellon has recently said that he expected the time would come when the European debtors would approach the United States and ask for some revision of the Agreement. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) that it would be much better that the United States of America should do the generous and magnanimous thing and not place upon this country the humiliation of having to come cap in hand to ask for a revision of the Agreement.
    936
    I think I have said about everything that needs to be said upon this question this afternoon. Perhaps I might add this. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me justified this agreement with France by saying that it might help France. It would help to rehabilitate her economic and financial position. There might have been something in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if he had advanced it two or three days ago, but really it does look as if France is incapable of setting her own house in order. I have a suggestion to make, and, however disagreeable it may be, I am inclined to think that it will come to this: The whole of Europe has a most vital interest in maintaining the financial stability of France. One recoils from the prospect. of what would happen if the French franc followed the way of the German mark, and it looks like it very much. Therefore, proceeding on the assumption that France by her own efforts either will not or cannot establish her financial position, Europe will have to go to her assistance as the countries of Europe came to the assistance of Germany, Austria and Hungary. I am inclined to think it might eventually come to a Dawes Scheme for France, and, unless some such plan as that be adopted, I would not be disposed to give very much for the payments on even the modified terms which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has embodied in his Agreement with the French Minister.
    Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: The Committee is dealing with a very difficult question to-day, and I think we are all united in wishing that a few days ago some scheme such as this would help France to recover her position. I am sorry to say I am somewhat in agreement with the last speaker. I do not. want to lose hope that France. will be saved from herself, but in the taking of such measures as those suggested I fear we shall be met with difficulties which we have not met with elsewhere. France is not only an extremely proud country but a victorious country in the late War, and the lessons the League of Nations has had to give to other countries could not be given to the country which considered herself the principal victor in the late War. But that it might have to come to some sort of arrangement such as was outlined by the last speaker, I am sorry to say I was forced to believe. It is impossible for a Government, or politicians, or

    937
    financiers to prevent a people from eventually knowing the state in which the finances are and it has been for many years now, not perhaps originally the intention but in effect the result, that no one has dared to tell the French people 50 per cent. of the truth of their position.
    I would welcome this solution of the French Debt if I thought it was going to have the desired result. But one of the first real problems to be settled is that any agreement between debtor and creditor must be so clear and so final that there can be no doubt as to what is intended. We should always be inclined to remit rather more of a debt than we thought absolutely necessary so as to give the debtors a chance to take hold, but there are one or two things in this Agreement which seem to me not to give the desired assurance of what we shall expect in the future. The Chancellor has stated that this was to be a complete cleaning of the slate between Great Britain and France—and I believe the Agreement is to a certain extent a cleaning of the slate—but the letters attached to the Agreement seem to me to make the Agreement of little or no value. Are these letters rightly understood by us? I am not quite sure they are, because though I may not have failed to hear what the Chancellor said, I certainly failed to understand what he meant. He had a question put to him from the other side. On this side I am afraid we did not understand the Chancellor's answer. We gathered that these two letters had been carefully drawn up by the greatest experts there were, but the impression left on our minds was that nothing could be said in this House in criticism of them. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman gave me the impression—wrongly, no doubt—that the experts were so clever that he himself was not prepared to understand the letters and was going to leave them to the experts.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend is raising a difficulty on a small point. The explanation is a very simple one. A great deal may be said in the course of the Debate, but the letters stand by them. selves; and, speaking for this House, what I am anxious to make clear is that nothing said in the course of the Debate will be quotable against this country at any future time should the question of
    938
    the interpretation of the letters arise. That is my only object.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I want it to be definitely understood that, as far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for my party, we are not in the slightest degree bound by these letters to concede such demands.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is contained on the face of the documents themselves.
    Mr. GRENFELL: If the House understands these letters and their intention, I will pass from them. I should like to refer to another point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is in regard to the question of the £53,000,000. I do not know whether anyone really understands that question. As far as I understood it, at the time that gold was sent over here, it was sent over for reexport. Is it perfectly understood that this gold has never been in the Bank of England or in the Treasury, but that it has gone to another place and never come back? How shall we he able to prevent the reopening of that question, as the French Minister has continued to do for the last two or three years? That seems to me to be a not unreasonable query. We are told that these things will be left entirely as they were before this Agreement in respect to certain matters, including this gold, but if, by leaving them as they were before, there is left any doubt in anybody's mind that we ought not to return the £53,000,000 which has been deposited with the British Treasury, then there is not an absolutely final settlement.
    I think the agreement with M. Caillaux distinctly lays it down that there is no such final agreement as between the two countries. As 1 understand it, that £53,000,000 in gold has gone. It might originally have gone from France direct to America to be disbursed there; but it has in fact gone to America. It did actually come to England on its way to the United States. Now, as I understand it, at some future time, France may buy back that gold and it will be sent back to France. Io it possible, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has strained every nerve to put England again upon a gold basis, that having handled this matter in a way of which we are justly proud, so that the £ can face the dollar and did so during the strike and even stare it out of countenance; is there, I say, after all

    939
    this, any risk in the future of having to depart from that gold basis? To-day, in the strike, or lock-out, or whatever we may call it, we are losing the benefit of exports of at least 30,000,000 tons of coal and the result of the strike or lock-out is that many of our industries are idle and the adverse balance of trade against this country increases every day. That is a serious thing. It will be a still more serious thing if during the next three or four years the export trade of this country gets into a worse state than it is to-day, and we should keep on losing gold, and if once again the sterling were to fall as before. I should like in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether, in the event of France becoming more prosperous, they could ask for the return of that £53,000,000 in gold, and only pay us in sterling.
    I welcome the Agreement with M. Caillaux if it can be made sufficiently definite. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor will not give way quite so much to the next Finance Minister of France, whoever he might be. Reference has been made to what has been termed the échelle or ladder of payments, but I am very much afraid that with each succeeding visit of a French Finance Minister we shall find more rungs cut away until nothing remains but a couple of bare poles. That will not be much good in settling our debt to America. In 1871 Germany thought by imposing a war debt of five milliards upon France that France would not be able to recover for a long time. France paid off this debt long before it was due. I believe France to-day to be richer in every way than in 1871. At any rate, France has increased her production of iron, steel, coal and fertilisers, and made herself self-sufficient and independent of imports. When she has got to the end of this process she will be the most self-sufficing country in the world. It may be that you twill find France in a few years able to dominate the world situation, helped by her arrangement with Great Britain.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) on his return to the House. We appreciate what we have heard from him this afternoon. The apprehensions which he has expressed are those which are largely
    940
    held by business men all over the country. We have been brought no nearer the restoration of confidence, or a greater degree of stability by the Agreement to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set his hand. We judge of this Agreement, not only by the Clauses in it, but by the two letters which have been exchanged. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that he would not under-estimate the value of those two letters; indeed, he regarded them, if I understood him aright, as dominating the whole Agreement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, agrees that his letter was penned quite explicitly. It is desirable to point out what these letters really mean. Up to the present we have had no interpretation, and the House is labouring under the disadvantage of having no statement as to what the agreement purports to be, or as to what the letters qualify.
    Like other people, I have read carefully these letters again and again. The first thing that strikes me is that M. Caillaux does not use the same language as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To begin with, M. Caillaux refers definitely to a " reservation." The whole of his letter is a reservation. He puts that reservation forward as one of the essential features of the Agreement into which he has entered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, says that the settlement at which we have arrived on the French War Debt depends, like that Debt itself, upon the sole credit of France. That is not what M. Caillaux says. Which version to-day is the true one? Are we to be pinned to the letter of M. Caillaux or to the letter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It appears that the real reason for the matter being dealt with by the exchange of letters is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and M. Caillaux could not agree to put their names to an additional clause as they did to other portions of the agreement.
    There is a real difference in these two letters. Under these circumstances, I think the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in saying he would have been a foolish man to have pinned himself to this agreement.. What does each letter mean? In the first place, the phrases which are used are quite indefinite. They have no technical interpretation, so far as I know, and, if one

    941
    may take the English translation, they do not certainly provide us with any assured position as to the future. For instance let us take M. Caillaux' letter. There are in it the words "cease completely," referring to the German reparations. What does "cease completely" mean? Does it mean, if there has been default in one year, that thereupon you have to say they have "ceased completely"? Does it mean that there must be default year after year in order to say that they have "ceased completely"? How long has the default to go on in order that you may say that the payment has "ceased completely"? Suppose there is default one year and resumption of payment the next I Are we, then, to say they have not "ceased completely" There is nothing to tell us in either of these two letters what is meant by that dominating phrase.
    We come to the next point, namely, to "reconsider" if the payments have ceased completely—whatever that may be. What does "reconsider" mean in this letter? Does it mean that the payments from France to England are to be held up? If so, how long are they to be held up? Are they to be postponed during the default of Germany with her reparations year by year, or for how long? Does it mean that they are to be held up altogether until a new Agreement has been negotiated? Every one of these questions ought to be answered. I venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there has not been a. less definite financial document in our time—so indefinite that it gives us no guidance for the future and will also give very little help to the successor of the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I can understand it, it does nothing more than leave the French Government free in the future to deal with this subject very much as they please.
    Finally, there comes the question what is meant by "reservation"? Does "reservation" merely mean that the whole subject is to be re-discussed? If so, on what basis? Is that discussion to go on for an unlimited time, with an unlimited number of Ministers, and on entirely undefined conditions? M. Caillaux's letter I have no doubt was intentionally not too definite. It was left vague. I do not blame him for it. It suited him to be vague. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
    942
    has done nothing to make clear what is vague except in his own letter to say that we can rest this on the sole credit of France. That is exactly what M. Caillaux has not said. Indeed it appears to me to be contrary to what he has said. In these circumstances we can only look to the two letters which are appended to the negotiated agreement. I join in declaring with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London that these two letters really dominate the whole transaction. Under these circumstances, I think we must acquit the Chancellor of the Exchequer of playing the part of a Shylock; rather would I suggest to him that he would be better termed a vendor of rose-coloured spectacles.
    Mr. J. JONES: An Antonio!
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole of this transaction is only another illustration of the position into which we get by these international debts. The payment of these immense sums of money from one nation to another over a long period is well nigh impracticable. As to the right hon. Gentleman, he has endeavoured to make some sort of a bargain. The French themselves have not tackled their own financial position with anything like the same courage as the people of this country. Those in authority have not told their own people, especially the peasants, the truth about their financial position, and on top of that there comes an entirely unreal agreement which means—one can really gather nothing definite—that we are discussing to-day a document which may or may not be ratified by the French Chamber, but will, whether we ratify it or not, certainly be of little benefit to this country, and may at any time be thrown out by one of the parties concerned.
    I know how easy it is for him to be apprehensive about the accusations that he has not make a good bargain for this country. I do not think he has made a good bargain for this country. No doubt he did his best, but his best is producing little or nothing. Would it not have been much better to face the international situation over a very much larger field, and with the application of those large principles of which, at times, he has such a facile command? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I mean. In dealing

    943
    with the American Debt the right hon. Gentleman might, as a good many other people have done, have discussed the figures, the terms, the period—the elements of a purely financial transaction. It was carried through by the Prime Minister, and he has approved it and it has up to the present been all to the credit of this country. But there are other elements passing through the minds of the American Government and the American people. They are rather shy about allowing their bonds to play any part in European antipathies; not that they are shy about being involved in French credit or German credit or Dawes plans, or whether or not we can make transfers, but they have a sentimental interest—it may be nothing more than a sentimental interest, but it is a very powerful interest—in the limitation of armaments. The right hon. Gentleman is quite as capable of stating the case for disarmament as any one of his colleagues, or any Minister in Europe, if he cares to do so. If he and his Government had concluded a programme on effective, even on aggressive lines, for military disarmament in Europe, there would have been a considerable change in American opinion ere this.
    One can easily understand the attitude of the American people and the American Government. They would say at once, if asked for a remission of Europe's debt: "How do we know that what we have remitted will not be used merely in order that you may extend your Votes for the Army, the Navy or the Air Forces? What part shall we be taking in the pacification of the world if we merely place at your disposal, larger stuns of money than you could have anticipated would have been available? " If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a new gesture and to do it effectively he can, I am sure—not now, I admit, but in course of time; while he is in office—play a prominent part in making disarmament an important part of the policy of this Government., and if it plays an important part in the policy of this Government, that may have a profound effect on the policy of European Governments, for, after all, European opinion is led very largely by what is thought and done in this country. If the right hon. Gentle-
    944
    man cares to take a bold line there, I venture to say that he will not have to bother about niggling agreements in future with those who have been our Allies or those who may be our creditors. He will, by facing the whole situation anew, with a new system of budget-making in Europe, be assisting not only our own financial situation, but the whole stability and solvency of European Governments, and he will be able to make an advance, and not on financial lines alone, which will be greatly to his credit. It may be that these considerations are not purely financial, but as he knows, no one better, financial considerations and sentiment are very much interwoven, and I trust he will not altogether despise the hint he has heard, not for the first time, as to the way in which America may be approached.
    I should be the last person, or one of the last persons, in this House to suggest that we should go down on our knees to America to ask for any modification even of the Agreement under which we now labour, but do not let us despair altogether of the American Agreement finding revisers, and not only on this side of the Atlantic. The payments to America. may not be altogether fur her good. There is one clause in the American Agreement which is already causing a good deal of disquet in the United States, and I admire the Prime Minister's foresight for having inserted it. It is the Bullion Clause. Those payments of bullion to America may have a disturbing effect on her finance, and it is quite possible that in years to come America herself may wish for a termination of this Agreement almost as much as we should wish for it ourselves. When that time comes we can do something by way of taking a lead in disarmament proposals in Europe to satisfy American sentiment, and lend countenance to her desire to do something towards assisting one of the greatest moral movements of the world.
    Sir F. WISE: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) in the difficulty of the problem of carrying out these different international transactions. One might almost say they are untried factors, because there has never been such large inter-allied debts in the whole

    945
    history of the world. I agree with him that something new ought to be placed before Europe and the United States of America, and I feel it might easily come from our Chancellor. I believe he would obtain credit for any new proposals in the shape of the cancellation of debts. Our debt to the United States is rather different from the debts owing by other countries, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea knows, the British Empire has the largest production of gold in the world, and in London we have the market for gold, and we can send gold across the Atlantic in payment of our debt to the United States of America. That is a great advantage, and one which other countries have not got. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) in regard to Clause 7, which deals with the £53,000,000 of gold. It states in Clause 7 that this is open to a further settlement, which means that this is no definite settlement of the debts between ourselves, France, Italy and so on. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was beaten at every point—I think those were his words—because 1 agree with the settlement made by the Chancellor except for Clause 7, and except for the letters, which are most important and are very difficult to understand.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne valley discussed the larger problem of the £2,000,000,000 which this country was owed, but I feel, saying it with all due respect., that he does not realise the difficulty or impossibility of the transfer of this amount, although it may extend over 62 years. It can only be transferred in goods. If we eliminate gold and services, these international payments can only be made by exports, including invisible exports, being greater than imports. The only other way is by the creditor nation investing money in the debtor nation, which is what America is doing at the present time by buying up German securities and investing money in Germany. Since the issue of the Dawes Report, the United States have invested in Germany about £200,000,000. Of course, that helps Ger-
    946
    many's credit, and she can make her Dawes payments as long as the creditor is investing' in her country. That gives her currency in New York and the debts are paid accordingly. In a speech at the Mansion House last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was doubtful whether anyone had mastered the mysteries of finance. I can quite understand that to anyone who has not been in finance all his life there are great difficulties in dealing with these intricate problems, but, very nearly, it all comes down to a question of supply and demand. Whether it is a question of getting your rate for a Bill or whether you are granting a loan, it very nearly all comes down to supply and demand. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) was kind enough to refer to a previous speech a mine when I said that there was no amount mentioned in the Dawes Report and no duration of the loan. I remember criticising it in the House. I could not understand any business men making a bargain of that sort, even with Germany, or believe that the Dawes Scheme could ever be carried out when we come to the larger payments in 1928 and 1929, or a, few years after.
    It is quite impossible for any business men to think that a large sum of £125,000,000 can be easily transferred across the border. By next September the Dawes Plan will have been working for two years. Up till now it is more or less a test period. There is a moratorium going on at the present time, and it is in the transition stage, but when we come to 1928 and 1929, and the £125,000,000 has to be paid, I feel confident that before that date some alteration may be made. Indeed, I do not think I am very far wrong in saying that an alteration has already been made in the Dawes scheme. About a fortnight ago the Reparation Commission allowed the Reichsbank to issue 100,000,000 marks in Treasury bills, which was not in accordance with the Dawes Report. The alteration has already been made, and it is only a case of time, I contend, when the scheme itself will be altered.
    With regard to our debt to the United States of America, its payment entirely depends on our keeping the market for gold. As long as we can keep the market for gold our payments can be made, but

    947
    what would have happened in 1925 if we had not had the market for gold? We paid the United States of America £10,000,000 in gold on account of that debt. If we had not had the gold, we should have been compelled to go to them, cap in hand, and say, "I am very sorry, we cannot carry out our transactions. It is no fault of our own. Our Budget balances, and we are doing fairly well, but we cannot transfer the money across the water." The Fordney tariff kills any big attempt on our part to get goods into the United States. In 1925, too, we were lucky that the price of rubber was so high. We sent large quantities of rubber across the border, and that helped to pay the debt, the balance being paid in gold.
    The amount Italy owes us this year is £4,000,000. The lira exchange is about six or seven times more than the gold value. Think what that means to Italy. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the agrement with Italy, allowed Italy to have the call on £22,000,000 Of gold. similarly to the arrangement made with France. I criticised it at the time, but a back-bencher does not get much reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not complain, but I like to put my views forward, and I know it is a weakness for this country to give an option to Italy to take that gold from us, and there is sure to come a time when we shall actually want it in this country.
    With regard to France, the French financial position is the crux of this Agreement. We have cancelled 63 per cent. of her debt to us. I welcome that, because these debts have to be paid in goods, but I think that if I had been making the bargain the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, I certainly should not have given to France that option on the £53,000,000 gold, and I should have taken an option on some of France's gold. France has £200,000,000 of gold and I feel confident that if France will only use that gold she would be able to get her credit back again and thus stop the headlong fall of the france which cannot bring prosperity and must only end in the ruin of the country. The exports of France are less than her imports, including visible exports, and there is no doubt that if this continues the franc will fall still further and go almost the same way
    948
    as the German mark. Reference has been made to the arrangement for the French Debt with the United States, which I understand is not ratified by France, but I would like to point out that France has no safeguarding letter from the United States in the same way that we have given her as to the Dawes Report and payments, and I contend that it is a weakness on our part to have given that letter when other countries have not received it from us. If that is so, I really think it was a weakness on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give that letter to. France.
    The whole problem of thess debts comes to the transfer of the money. The Prime Minister on Saturday—he was dealing with the coal position—said:
    "The facts must be faced. You could evade some of the facts all the time and all the facts some of the time, but you cannot evade all the facts all the time."
    That is very true about the transfer of money from one country to the other. There are economic facts. Unless you have been dealing with these currencies as I have one does not realise the difficulties and problems of transferring money from one country to the other. The transferring of these large sums may demoralise your currency. The amount due to the United States of America over the 62–years period is £3,000,000,000. Anybody who thinks this amount can be exchanged into the necessary dollars cannot really know very much about the financial transfer currency position. There have been many discussions and many conferences, but the transference of the money really does not appear to have been discussed. Statesmen and politicians can arrange matters such as we are dealing with to-day, but they cannot really deal with the transference of this money. I feel confident that if the transference was understood and realised by the big magnates—I am sure it is realised by the hon. Member who represents the City of London—that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea for a. reopening of the inter-Allied debts would be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is also one other point as far as Britain is concerned. There have been discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and conferences on the question of the capacity

    949
    to pay. I contend that, as far as this country is concerned, capacity to receive is almost as important, if not of more importance. Supposing France was giving us a larger amount than £4,000,000 a year. It would only mean more goods coming in, and that might mean more unemployment, and we want to get the men and women back to work which is fruitful for the benefit of this country.
    In conclusion, may I say that although I am pleased with a portion of the settlement in regard to France I am very disappointed with these two letters which have not been given to other countries and I am more disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given France the benefit of option on £53,000,000 of gold. I feel that Britain has set a fine example to the whole world in giving up large amounts of debt which is really literally due to us. We depend to a large extent on the United States of America which is fat and is getting fatter, and I do think that something reasonable in the shape of the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for West Swansea that things might be altered would be a benefit to the peace and prosperity of this country.
    Mr. GILLETT: I have listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, more especially in regard to what he said about the transfer of these debts. They are the things most likely to injure the arrival of goods from one country to the other and this is interfered with by the erection of any kind of technicality. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) put before the House very clearly the fact that if you want to pay any of these debts there must be a possibility of certain goods being transferred. Some of these countries, whilst asking for these large sums to be transferred to them, are erecting tariff walls which make it difficult for the goods to be sent from European countries in payment of these debts.
    With reference to what has been said about the letters, I confess that I have a certain amount of sympathy with any Chancellor of the Exchequer who attempts to deal with this problem, because undoubtedly the French people are passing through such a trying time that the French Ministry is not in a position to negotiate on this question, and
    950
    any French Minister who comes over here is thinking more of what the effect of the negotiations in London will have upon the temporary political position in Paris as we have seen during the last week or two. What has been done here recently in that respect has been something intended to win votes in the French Chamber, but it is impossible to negotiate between two countries when one is in such a serious position as the French Government is at the present time.
    I do not want to say anything that would seem to be unfriendly to the French people, because we recognise the great sacrifices France made during the War, and anything this country can do to assist France in her difficult time of reorganisation I am sure every hon. Member would be only too glad to do. At the same time we have to bear in mind that we are passing through difficulties ourselves, and even before the present stoppage in the coal trade we were faced with nearly one million unemployed. We see trade going on in France where there is less unemployment, and naturally people ask when they look at the seeming prosperity of France whether it is not possible for them to make a contribution for the repayment of the French Debt which would have its effect upon the taxation of this country. Many of us are aware that in this inflation of currency France, like Germany, will have to pay for the financial policy she has pursued during the last few years. When we turn to the negotiations, I should like to ask why those negotiations had to take place at all at this time. Surely it would have been wiser to have intimated to the French Minister that it was not desirable to have any negotiations at all at the present time, and he might have been asked to postpone his visit until some other time.
    When we consider what has been actually arranged it seems to me that the meetings are hardly justified. I confess that I have not seen the difficulty in regard to the two letters in the White Paper to which some hon. Members have referred. I agree with the criticism that it is a pity that those letters ever came into existence, and it is a pity that the conference was ever held. Reading these letters, the meaning seems very clear to me. We have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrawing one condition after another, and he said that the Dawes

    951
    payments are quite distinct. We never know before any settlement is made what the exact terms of the settlement may finally be.
    6.0 P.M.
    When we turn from this problem of the European debt and look at these countries every hon. Member should ask himself this question: How is our industrial system ever going to be continued if great European wars are going to take place? With industrialism and militarism, how are those countries going to exist side by side, because the financial system is going to collapse utterly if we continue the military system of the past. With our vast expenditure in the past, there is no doubt that our financial system could not survive another great war. There is no doubt whatever that, as far as the people of the United States are concerned, one of the reasons why they insisted upon the payment of the war debts by European countries was that some of them felt that if they did not pursue this policy European countries would only spend the money piling up armaments. One hon. Member said, "Why should we ask questions of this kind of those who owe us money?" The French people, however, are engaging in military operations in Syria and other parts of the world. Why should not that expenditure be saved in order that we may be repaid some of the money that is owing to us? I can think of another illustration. I put a question this afternoon as to the amount of the Greek Debt, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that it was about £20,000,000 sterling. The position at the present time, as far as Greece is concerned, is just the same as that of any of these other countries. Greece is hardly able to pay its way. Why might not we have made representations to Greece in regard to limitation of the armaments of that country? We did, however, absolutely the reverse, because we sent out a naval mission to reorganise the Greek Navy—in other words, we were practically encouraging the expenditure of money on armaments in Greece, while at the same time we were asking Greece to make an arrangement for the repayment of £20,000,000 sterling which is due to this country. It seems lo me that that is an illustration of the
    952
    way in which we face up to this problem of European debts. I cannot help thinking, as I look at the tragedy of Europe to-day, that some of these problems will have to be considered at the same time as the problem of debts, and the nations will have to ask how long this can possibly be permitted.
    Look at the position in Europe to-day, and ask what victory has meant to the victors in the last Great War. France was one of the victors; Italy was one of the victors; Belgium was another of the victors. Look at their financial system to-day. It is true that those who were defeated have paid the penalty, but the financial loss seems to be almost as great upon those nations that were victorious in the Great War as upon those who were defeated. The result is that Europe to-day is in a semi-bankrupt condition. It has not even learned the wisdom of, and is unwilling to, face up to the one great problem, the problem of disarmament, without which we are never going to get any settlement of the debt problem. We in this country have faced up to our burden of debt. The result is exemplified in our unemployed and in the state of our industry to-day, and I confess I wonder how long we are going to be in a position to carry the burden of debt that we are bearing at the present time. It raises questions which every thinking man is going to ask, and which are closely connected with the problem that is before this Committee at the present time. Until we have an answer to these questions, we are never going to solve our debt problem. It seems as though the War had left neither the victors nor the vanquished in Europe anything but a mountain of debt and the memories of their dead.
    Mr. ALBERY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) made a very forcible statement at the end of his speech. He put very strongly the position as it is represented at the present moment by our indebtedness to America, and I hope that that will have very wide publicity. At the same time, most of his argument was directed to showing that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an extremely bad bargain. Personally, I am always rather sorry to hear the word "bargain" used when we discuss these inter-Allied

    953
    debts. I think "settlement" is a much better word. Although the right bon. Gentleman gave a great many figures, there were certain facts which he seemed completely to leave out of account. One has to remember that, in endeavouring to arrange these international settlements certain definite attitudes have been taken up by the different nations concerned. We, for our part, after the War, openly declared that we intended to redeem our promise, that we intended to honour our word, and to pay whatever sums we had undertaken to pay. But, among all the nations which took part in the War, with the sole exception of the United States of America, we were the only nation that felt able to take up that attitude.
    France and Italy said what practically amounts to this: "We also desire to pay our debts. We acknowledge our debts, but we are unable to pay." Germany, owing to the heavy burden which was put upon her as the result of the War, practically decided to go through the bankruptcy court. That is practically what Germany has done. Russia repudiated her debts altogether. It seems to me that in negotiating the settlement of a debt with, on the one hand, a solvent country as the debtor nation, and, on the other hand, a debtor nation which pleads inability to pay, it is hardly possible to expect that anything like similar conditions can be arrived at. As regards the settlement which we have made with America, I differ rather from the remark made by, I think, the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. Grenfell), to the effect that it would be infra dig. for us to re-open the matter of our payments to America. It seems to me that, from the moment when we expressed our determination to do our best to pay, there is no indignity whatever in pointing out to that country at any time which may be opportune that the settlement which we made, because of the bond we had given, was, nevertheless, in all the circumstances of the case, an unfair settlement. We stuck to it because we said we would pay, but. we never believed that it was a fair settlement, and we do not believe that to-day. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why at any time that may be opportune we cannot take up that question again and put it to them, when they are, perhaps,
    954
    in a better frame of mind to understand our point of view that the settlement was, in fact, not a fair one after all.
    As has been frequently stated, America came into the War at a very much Tater date, and it was pointed out, I think, in the Debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, that when she came in she was unable at once to send large numbers of soldiers and so she sent her money—in other words, she lent it. It seems to me, however, that from the moment you come into a war you become a partner in that war, and in that respect the position as between France and this country and America and this country is entirely different. France and ourselves shared the difficulties and the troubles of the War from the very beginning, and personally I should never consider any settlement that we could make with France, provided that it imposed upon her in relation to payment within her means, as being too easy. The United States came in at a. very much later date, and were at first only able to take their share in the partnership by providing money. I cannot help thinking that the day will come when that country will realise that the money lent for that purpose, once America was in the partnership, should be no less freely given than were the lives of England and France.
    The only other point that I wish to touch upon is this: I have always wondered why it has not been possible for England and the United States of America to act jointly in making an attempt to settle with France her Debt to the two countries. In acting jointly, it seems to me that they ought to have made some reasonable offer, and that, coupled with that offer of settlement, there should have been some offer which would have helped France to put her financial resources into a better state. I frequently feel that in negotiating separately we have placed France in a very difficult position. It is more difficult to settle with a creditor when you have another creditor waiting for you round the corner after you have done with the first. I do not know whether it is too late now. I hope in any case that the settlement that has been made will eventually be made good, but, if it should fail, I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether we cannot approach the matter

    955
    from the other point of view, jointly with America, and offer at the same time some assistance to that great country which, after all, was our very faithful and loyal Ally during those bitter years.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present,
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I am indebted to the hon. Member who called the count for providing me with an audience larger than I should, perhaps, have otherwise had. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) said he was unable to understand why we did not act jointly with the United States of America in the collection of our debt from France. He appeared to think that it would be better and more desirable if we, as two creditor nations, were to co-operate in a settlement of debt problems. I have no authority or claim to speak on behalf of the United States of America, but, nevertheless, I think I am in a position to dissipate the hon. Member's wonder. The United States has consistently refused to act in co-operation with this or any other European country, and has rather preferred to take full advantage of its superior position, achieved because it came into the War half-way through, and was, therefore, in a much better financial position than ourselves to set itself on a pedestal and refuse to cooperate at any time with us or any other nation.
    This country is in a position to speak plainly on these debt problems. So far as the financial position is concerned, we are in a worse position than any other country, but, so far as the moral position is concerned, I fail to see any reason why we should be mealy-mouthed in our criticism on these matters. I have always complained from my place here because this country has appeared to me never to take any notice of the propaganda that was being conducted by foreign nations, but always appeared to tolerate without reply all kinds of propaganda which came from France and the United States, never raising a voice on behalf of the claims of this nation at all. It has, therefore, been a matter of small surprise to me that our claims have gone by default while we have been compelled to meet all our obligations. So
    956
    far as the Agreement which is now before this Committee is concerned, I am going to say, quite frankly, that it is a very unreal discussion of that Agreement in which we arc taking part to-day. I believe that the Agreement itself can be interpreted to mean two diametrically opposed things. I believe, further, that it will never be ratified by the French Government in its present form, and that this question of debts will never be finally solved until it is solved as a whole. In this connection one can almost use the phrase which has been used in another connection, "The debt problem is solved; long live the debt problem." Every time it is solved, it only comes up for settlement again.
    I have said that we have allowed our claims to go by default. I have been reading during the last few days some of the statements made in the United States with regard to the problem of debts, and I find that no less an authority than Mr. Mellon, the Secretary of the United States Treasury, stated that:
    "American loans to England were not so much to provide war supplies as to furnish sterling for home and foreign needs, and to save England from borrowing hem her own people."
    If that is true it is certainly news to me. I have made some small study of the problem, and I have always understood that these. borrowings were made to provide munitions for ourselves and for our Allies. This kind of statement has been made repeatedly during the last few years in the United States, and I should like to ask whether any single step has been taken in foreign countries to make our position known. In common with other Members of the House, I have seen leaflets and propaganda documents from France and other countries, including some very able documents emanating from the Italian Manufacturers' Association. Have we done anything to represent our point of view abroad at all? Then I noticed the other day that Mr. Ford, whose incursions into European politics have been somewhat unfortunate, made this statement:
    "The only reason the United States could not cancel her war debt was that the effect on the creditors would be bad. They would probably only plunge into deeper debt."
    I will not say with what grace that comes from a gentleman who must derive a large part of his fortune from the amount he receives from British markets all over

    957
    the world, but I should like to ask whether any attempt has been made to controvert that attitude of mind so far as this country is concerned.
    It is not only America, however. The French Minister of Finance, M. Beret, has been making repeated statements in public to the effect that France is already paying large sums of money in settlement of debt. He stated, I think last May, that France is paying 120,000,000 dollars per annum in liquidation of her foreign obligations. That was a statement that struck me as being most inaccurate, and I should like to ask whether, if it is accurate, Great Britain has received any part of that sum at all. I do not think our attitude towards France in remitting three-fourths of the debt does us any good in this country at all. No one who has made any study of the French Press in the last few days can but be aware that there is not the smallest feeling of gratitude in France for the amount of money we have relinquished at all. I am not saying that is a reason why we should make our claims more rigorous. The suggestion I wish to make is that the core of this problem is not in France, nor in London, but in Washington. I have never been able to agree, though I feel he is a far greater authority on the subject than I am, with the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), who always says in these Debates that he doubts whether our capacity to receive is sufficient to enable us to receive this money from other nations. I look upon it in simpler and perhaps—though I hope not—in less accurate terms. If we can receive larger sums of money from our Continental debtors, or pay less to our American creditors, we are going to be able to reduce our taxation. That seems to me the primary effect of any alteration in our present debt arrangements.
    Sir F. WISE: It is not money that comes over here. It is goods.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I am glad to have this opportunity of receiving some information from the hon. Member. Does he mean to suggest—because if he does not he is not controverting my argument at all—that if we ceased paying this money to America, and if we began to receive larger sums, from our European
    958
    debtors, we should not be able to reduce taxation? I believe that would be the first effect were we to alter these debt arrangements in a manner more favourable to ourselves, that we should be able to reduce our taxation, and I think that is the first need of prosperity for our industry.
    I cannot help feeling a little bitterness when I regard the attitude of the United States towards these matters. Take their effect on unemployment first of all. It is possible to regard unemployment in two ways. There is the theoretical student, who gets his Ministry of Labour returns every week and ponders over them in a. comfortable armchair. I am not saying he has any less realisation of the problem than other Members, but some of us, perhaps the majority of us, regularly go to our constituencies. I go to mine every Friday night, and I get a procession of men, and some women, whose life has no brightness or happiness or joy in it at all, because they have been out of work for the last four or five years. I know that is only a microcosm of what is going on all over the country, half a million on the official figures, and this suffering and distress are not confined to the labouring classes at all. I have a certain number of my own friends, and no doubt other Members have also, who have been accustomed, and are well qualified, to hold good appointments, but owing to the industrial depression are at their wits' end to know what to do and are beginning already to feel the pinch of want. No one who comes in close contact with the problem can regard with approval the attitude of the United States towards the debt problem. Mr. Mellon has also said common sense, and not sentiment or charity, has been the basis of the administration's financial policy to Europe. He also said a few months ago that America has extracted the most favourable settlement that she could obtain short of force. I do not know whether Mr. Mellon is proud of his achievement in that direction but it appears to me that the United States Government has been influenced too much by the parochial minds of the permanent officials of the United States Treasury. They seem to be altogether unaware of the growing feeling all over the world against the rapacity of the United States. I am not going to say

    959
    anything unduly offensive about the United States Government, I think there is a good deal to be said in their favour, but in this manner there is small credit due to them. That same Mr. Hoover who a short time ago made a bitter complaint because the price of rubber to the United States was too high, has now been compelled to advise American manufacturers not to mark their goods "made in America" because of the unpopularity which that would bring upon them in the European market. I think if the people of the United States realise that and realise that whenever any figure of Uncle Sam appears on French platforms or at the Folies Bergeres or other places, it is greeted with loud hissing and hooting, they would not be entirely happy. Indeed we have every reason to feel that they are not feeling happy. I should like to read something that appeared a short time ago in a United States journal, because it expresses far more succinctly than I can my own views on this debt problem. This appeared in the "Manufacturers' Record" of Baltimore last year. Dealing with the debt problem under the heading "Do we not owe to the Allies more than they owe us?" it said:
    "For two years the Allies had bought from us foodstuffs and munitions of war to an enormous amount at exorbitant prices. During 1913 and the first half of 1914 industrial depression of the severest kind was sweeping over the United States. It looked as though a large proportion of our industrial interests were beading for bankruptcy. We were having the largest number of failures recorded in our business history."
    That was just before the War.
    "The War instantly created a tremendous demand from the Allies for everything we could sell, and almost overnight the nation turned from extreme industrial and financial depression to abounding prosperity. Literally our business interests were being fertilised by the blood of millions of soldiers who were dying on the battlefields of Europe."
    That I believe to be a sane and sound attitude to take towards this debt problem, and my complaint against this Government, as against its predecessor, is not that they were ashamed to go cap in hand to the United States Government, but that they have been ashamed to get up and make a plain statement before this House as to what they consider to be the true merits of this question. I am going
    960
    to make it myself and say that unless the United States alters its attitude in this matter it will incur, not only the intense dislike of the whole world, but the intense disapproval of future generations of Americans themselves.
    Captain EDEN: It is natural, and perhaps inevitable, in the course of a Debate such as this that there should be varied criticism of the actual contents of the Agreement which we are discussing. Once or twice to-day criticism has been more directed against some matters which have no direct concern with this Agreement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the Debate uttered a complaint which seemed to be that this country had not interfered, by virtue of the fact that it was a creditor country, with the internal politics of those that were debtor countries, and particularly with those countries where he, himself disliked the particular form of Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), whose speech lacked those exclamation marks in acidity with which he usually punctuates his speeches, complained, of course, that the Chancellor had made a bad bargain. I think the Committee will agree that if we who are here to-day could transfer ourselves next week or whenever it may be—some day I trust—when the French Chamber discusses this Agreement to that Chamber, we should then hear criticisms from them very similar in nature but different in point of view. They would complain that France is paying too much. But from whatever angle we view the Agreement I do not think there can be any doubt but that it is a step forward to have secured an Agreement at all, and our real regret' is that this, which should have been of real benefit to France and to her credit, should have come at a moment when she is undergoing another of her numerous political crises. That is a real misfortune which gives the Debate a tinge of unreality. I believe this subject should be regarded not solely, or indeed chiefly, from the point of view of a financial question. It is something far more than that, and its good or its ill should be assessed from a very much wider point of view. The solution of the inter-Allied debt problem is more even than a solution of a very complicated financial entanglement.

    961
    I do not think anyone can deny that of recent years, since the War, the indebtedness of the Allies between themselves, the indebtedness of France to us, and the lack of any final agreement, have been a source of irritation 'between those countries—continual irritation and pinpricks from day to day, to put it no higher than that. I do not suppose there is any Member of this Committee who has travelled in France in recent years who has not frequently noticed that France's indebtedness to us was a subject of anxious comment and conversation. We have had further illustration in this Committee to-day of the resentfulness which some hon. Members feel in regard to our financial obligations and the way in which they have been treated by the United States of America. Indebtedness —particularly unsettled indebtedness— creates friction. There can be no question that if we are to judge this Agreement rightly, we cannot do it only on the basis of hard cash, but also from the point of view of the effect it will have, not only on our relations with France, but also on our relations with other countries in Europe. That is the only fair and just way in which to judge the Agreement. It is very natural that there should have been irritation. It is not pleasant to owe money to, or to be owed money by, one's friends, find it is not pleasant for one nation to one money to another friendly nation. Financial arrangements of any kind between friends are more likely to irritate friendship than to cement it. It is a good maxim never to borrow money from your friends. It is far better to be in debt to your tailor or your dentist! The same argument applies equally among nations. It is a good maxim never if you can help it to borrow money from your allies. You had better borrow it from neutrals, or even from those who are or were your enemies.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he announced this Agreement a few days ago, made an interesting additional announcement which is not in the Agreement, with regard to the terms which he had arranged with the French Government for compensation to British subjects and British firms who had suffered as a result of the War in France on account of enemy action. It would be of interest to the Committee if we could have some details of this particular
    962
    agreement, and if we could be told, for instance, within what time the compensation is to be paid. I do not think it will be disputed that any country which accepts taxation from a citizen, be he of whatever nationality, by accepting that taxation, itself incurs certain obligations which it must ultimately discharge. I am glad that the French Government has undertaken that obligation, and that we have done the same. I take it that in our case the liability will not be anything like so large. It would be interesting to know what in each case the liability is estimated to be.
    When we cast our minds back over the course which this country has persistently pursued since the Armistice in the matter of inter-Allied indebtedness, we have no cause to be ashamed of that policy. I do not think that all other countries can say the same. We have from the first refused to act as a Shylock towards Europe. We have refused to dun our friends and Allied nations, tied to us by every bond that should sanctify friendship, and I trust that that will always be our course. This indebtedness can only really be judged in relation to the cost of war in other directions. We in this country poured out treasure, not only of money, but of endeavour and of blood and limb. Our Allies did the same. It it not amiss perhaps for us to ret-all the fact that France herself in life and limb sacrificed an even higher proportion than we did. We can only assess this matter in relation to these other and far greater losses. The financial loss, serious as it may be, which will have to be met for more generations than ours, is only one part, and the least part, of the toll which war exacts from those who indulge in the evil. In that light, the Committee should judge this Agreement. We may not agree with every item in it. We may wish that more be gained for this country, or that there had been something of a contingent nature, perhaps, which would have been of use to us if ever again the subject of indebtedness is opened with the United States of America. In the main, I think the House will be glad that an Agreement has been reached and that a source of possible friction between us and France has been removed. By doing that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Government, which might have concluded this or a similar Agreement, will have given

    963
    strength to the friendship which has endured for many generations between the two countries, and which we hope will gain strength and force in the years that are to come.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I do not think one need be unduly critical of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this Agreement. As I have listened to the Debate, I have been thinking of the many things which have been said in the past, and some of the curious contradictions in the position of various hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. There was a time when the allied nations, as victors in the struggle, were going to obtain such a tremendous indemnity from the defeated nations that all the victorious Allies would live happy ever after on the proceeds of their victory. As time has gone on these anticipations have been doomed to disappointment. Now we have come to the stage when the allied nations have been busy trying to come to some sort of settlement with regard to the financial problems with which they are faced. I look upon this Agreement as an attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do a good turn to a sorely tried French Minister of Finance. It has been suggested that the Agreement might be all right if it were not for the two letters that have been written, and the contradictions of the two letters. That may or may not be the case. Certainly there is a different stressing in the letters. In one letter one aspect is stressed and in the other letter a different aspect is stressed.
    Some of the financial experts are a little distressed. As I read Article I, with regard to the years 1987 and 1988, I am rather surprised at the fears, the pessimism or the optimism of certain hon. Members as to what is going to happen in those far-off days. It seems to me that this Agreement is simply one further confession of the fact that these international financial problems are insoluble. There is also implied in this Agreement an admission of the failure of the social and political economy in each of the European countries. There has been a great crisis in France, with the franc going from had to worse. I have always taken a somewhat heterodox view in regard to these financial questions. It is on record that in a previous
    964
    contribution to a Debate on this question, I suggested that the franc would go smash. I am surprised to-day to hear some hon. Members saying that they shudder at what is going to happen in Europe if the franc follows the course that the mark has taken. I do not shudder. I think the hon. Members who speak in that way will have much more cause to shudder when the pound follows the franc. I am convinced—I was right in my estimate in regard to the franc, and I believe I shall be right in my estimate in regard to the pound—that the pound will follow the franc. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems amused at that statement. He will not be so amused if he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it does happen. He will then, possibly, look as worried as the 12 or 14 French Finance Ministers have been.
    Behind all the demands to settle the international financial relationships, there is also the fact to be taken into account of the domestic internal debts. I believe that every one of these countries which is saddled with these preposterous, ridiculous, post-War debts of thousands of millions of pounds will be in financial crisis until the debt is wiped out. During the War, Lord Birkenhead said that he believed the time would come when all the debtor nations would be forced to repudiate their National Debt. He said something like that. Ever since then, the European nations concerned have all been engaged in a very difficult struggle in regard to their financial arrangements. Suggestions have been made for the mutual cancellation of external debts. With regard to the internal debts, the suggestion has been to adopt a capital levy. No country has shown a disposition to accept any of these suggestions. The only way that seems to be possible is the inflation method. France is going to go through that, and we in our turn will have to go through it. There are indications that Italy, with its lira, and Belgium with its franc, are following that course, and I have no doubt that when America has settled with all the other countries, America will go through it, and we shall not be able to have the support of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, who came to our rescue when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was returning to the gold standard.

    965
    With respect to the two letters, it is an extraordinary position that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a warning that this country in the future is not to be bound by anything that may be said by himself or possibly the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in connection with this Agreement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I speak subject to correction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he will allow me to finish possibly he will find that I am quoting him correctly. He has said that these two letters represent the dominating considerations in connection with this Agreement and he wanted to make it plain to the Committee that no matter what was said here to-day, we in this country were committed to this Agreement, and anything that could be said by himself or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if it were counter to it, could not be of the slightest importance. I do not want to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer any further, and per sonally I do not thing it is of very much importance.
    The French have said that if they do not get payments under the Dawes plan they will not be able to pay. They are looking at things from a very pessimistic point of view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing this country, is not able to agree that the Dawes payments have anything to do with our debt to France. We have changed, and changed, and changed, and whether it is in these letters or not, whatever is in the letters, the financial circumstances of the future will determine whether the Agreement will have to be altered or not. Consequently, I am not in the same state of excitement as some hon. Members. It reminds me of the story of the Aberdeen picture house manager who came to London thinking he might be able to get some tips to help him to extract the baubees out of the people of Aberdeen. He went into a picture house, and the one thing that struck him was the notice, "People over 80 years of age admitted free." He thought it a fine idea, and when he got back to Aberdeen he posted that notice in his own picture house. He looked at it, and then his Aberdeen caution overtook him and he decided that he would change it a little, and the notice was: "People over 80 admitted free if
    966
    accompanied by their parents." These letters contain something like the qualification which the Aberdeen picture house manager made. Believing that the franc is going to hell, and the pound is going after it, I do not lay any great stress on these financial arrangements. I believe the capitalist system is going, and as one who believes in Socialism in our time—I am not greatly worried about these arrangements, but if they make things easier for the time being I can welcome them.
    Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: I rise to offer a few words of comfort to the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who has been prophesying that the pound sterling is going to depreciate the way of the mark and the franc. Be need have no apprehension in that direction, because the pound sterling has already been stabilised on a gold standard in this country. The return to the gold standard has perhaps escaped the lion. Gentleman's attention because if he wants to exchange paper for gold, instead of getting a pound at a time, he, has to expect an ingot worth about £400. There are other reasons why our sterling currency is not going down hill. This Empire is tile greatest producer of gold, of which the bulk is being raised in Australia and South Africa, and the principal owners of these mines are in England. Therefore, the flow of gold bullion into this country to support sterling is more constant and more certain than the flow of gold into any other country. The United States of America at the present time holds a larger accumulation of gold than necessary to support the credit of its paper money, but that is due to exchange operations and not to the productiveness of its own gold mines. But there is another reason why the hon. Member above the Gangway need not be apprehensive. Into this country there is a constant flow, not only of gold but of capital based on gold, of the accumulated savings of those who have worked and produced abroad and denied themselves premature spending. This accumulated wealth is coming to the banking house of the world from all corners of the earth. There is coming into this country, not only the much debated annual invisible income, but also a less debated and a very much larger invisible

    967
    amount of transferred capital, which no statisticians have yet attempted to estimate or have succeeded in accounting for. Why do the accumulations on a gold basis come into this country? Why do the successful Americans, the wealthy Argentines and other foreigners who have made large fortunes outside settle here? Why the successful Colonials come to end their days in the old country? Why do the merchants from every nationality follow this example? Why do they bring their wealth based on gold to London? The reason is that the whole world knows that London is safe, and that there is no chance of the extreme Socialists coming into power in this country for at least the next generation. That is the reason why capital, seeking safety, is constantly flowing into this country to make our gold standard safe. The common sense of the English people, their traditions, their habits, and their adherence to religion, these safeguards which the Communists have been unable to shake, continue to give confidence to the whole world, and therefore to the stability of British sterling.
    May I now say a few words on the more general aspect of debt accounting? The initial cause of our troubles with regard to these negotiations for the repayment of outside loans is traceable to a departure in war time from the sound previous policy of the British Treasury with regard to guaranteeing loans to foreign countries rather than lending direct. That policy, as exemplified in some of the former Egyptian and Turkish guaranteed loans, this country should not have lent to France and Italy when it had to borrow from America. America should only have had a guarantee. If we had guaranteed for Italy and France loans to be procurable by them directly from America, instead of having become an intermediate lender, our difficulties would not assume their present aspect. The policy put. forward by the Earl of Balfour, and which goes under his name for the solution of this problem by all round remissions, would have been a much easier one to push forward. That mistake of lending borrowed money has been made, and the consequences appear now to be irretrievable. How can we expect the French to pay? They are only likely to pay us in two ways; by gold or territory. They might
    968
    pay us by exports, but that presumes that the balance of exports or of possible exchange is going to be sufficient. Of that, however, there is not any prospect.
    But there is a worse difficulty. The French Government cannot get gold from its own people for the support of internal credit. The French Government is unable to enforce payment of taxes paid in inconvertible paper, and I want to ask the Chancellor what is the value of bargains made with such taxpayers and for them by Ministers who are constantly being made and unmade and constantly changed and repudiated? Will these bargains of fallen Ministers be worth anything unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to tell us what he knows and believes to be the mentality thereon of the people of France? What does the Chancellor believe will be paid by the French? What does he believe the Italian people will he able to pay, and what does he believe the German People will be made to pay? These various promises are of very little use in adjusting the finances of this country and in helping us to make up our mind as to what we shall have to continue to submit to in the way of taxation apart from these promises. I believe the French people, if they wanted to pay—I am not questioning their intention— cannot pay in gold or exports and we do not want territory from them. In return for promises, what are we to expect? The sooner we realise that, the better for us and the fewer will be the delusive debates of this nature. At the end of the War we were in a position to say to France, "Together we won the War; we have spent so much blood and treasure in acquiring Alsace-Lorraine, of which we give our share to France, as a consequence that spoil of War at least should have been put to our credit." We gave that to France, apparently for nothing. What we should have asked for in return was a cessation of further intrigues and diplomatic action against our prestige and commerce in any corner of the world.
    That would have been a valuable asset, almost as tangible as territory, and I submit that, as there is still time to get something for the credits we are discarding, we should ask France and Italy, in exchange for the hundreds of millions of pounds of English gold which we give up, to stop the undermining of

    969
    our Empire and all intrigues which are contrary to our interests in the Mediterranean and the East. Such an assurance would he a substantial quid pro quo, and perhaps the only quid pro quo which French statesmen can promise in the name of their taxpayers with ability to perform for us at the moment. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will try to obtain assurances of practical value of non-interference by France and Italy, promises that can be fulfilled—namely, a cessation of intrigues and threats which impede the work of those who are British Imperialists, who have worked for the Empire all their lives and are appealing to others to do likewise. Where our interests overlap those of Italy or France, we should ask that there will be a constant manifestation of practical and real friendship and a scrupulous abstention from overt or secret action against us, as an acknowledgment of the stupendous remissions at the expense of the British taxpayer.
    7.0 P.M
    Mr. M0NTAGUEThe lunatic asylums of this country are filled with people who claim to be authorities on money, credits and things of that kind. As I am in no hurry to enter a lunatic asylum, I do not claim to be -a financial expert. As a layman, I have been interested in those speeches which contain what may be described by the fashionable world of to-day as innuendoes against America. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) quoted from a Baltimore paper, in which a writer admitted that America had been filling her pockets at the time that the soldiers were fertilising the battlefields of Europe. The idea that one derives from the speeches made on that subject is that the American is a bit less of a humbug than we arc. Why should anyone expect moral interest or sentimental interest from the Americans, who were not so directly affected from the standpoint of safety as Europeans and people in this country, when they are doing no more than the people of this country, to whom we owe the vast bulk of our national debt, did while the War was in progress? I remember during the War that the people in this country with money were called upon to do their bit, and it was regarded as quite a virtue that they should have done their
    970
    bit during the War. They did. They lent their money at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. I have yet to learn that these patriots, these people who asked the soldiers to go and defend the honour and integrity of this country, are more prepared to accept a farthing less off the interest on the money that they lent to their own country than the Americans are prepared to accept any less advantage from the present financial situation. It is a piece of humbug to talk about the Americans being any different from ourselves and the people of this country when it comes to finance, and especially War finance.
    There are one or two other considerations which appear important to me. One consideration is that all through this Debate all the Members, with the exception of one, to whom I have listened have been discussing this question entirely from the standpoint of the taxpayer and the financier. There is surely another aspect to be taken into account, and that is the question of how far it is possible for this country to absorb the payments that may be made by Italy or France or other countries to us. I want to know where the working man comes in. I have recollections of the effect of reparation coal. We realise the position of the coal industry at the present time. One of the great difficulties of the coal situation is that we have lost our export trade owing to agreements with regard to coal obtained from Germany. It is rather an amazing thing, it is one of the things that one finds throughout the whole of the capitalist system, one of the absurd things of capitalism, that if we gain as a nation by accepting or retaining goods we do not pay for we are at the same time injured. That is one of those things that metaphysicians would call antinomies, which are second cousins to paradoxes. It is not the only absurdity of the capitalist system, but, absurdity or no, it is a fact that we have to consider, the fact that when we are paying to America we are not paying gold, we arc not wrapping un sovereigns or bullion in cotton-wool and sending them over to America in payment of our debt to her, but we are in the long run paying that debt in goods and those goods are made by British factories and British labour.

    971
    I know there are many other things to be said by people much more qualified than I ion on a subject of this kind. There is the fact that the whole of this Debate is proceeding with hardly a word being said as to the immediate or the ultimate effect upon British labour of accepting or obtaining large sums from other countries and not having to pay out such large sums to those to whom we are indebted for war debts. Some consideration should be given to that aspect of the case. Personally, I am not so interested in those financial considerations, which to me seem more like the clamour of a thieves' kitchen than anything else.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I said last week that I hoped that the settlement which had been reached with France would gain a measure of general approval from the House and from the country. Nothing that has happened since has in any way disappointed me. Certainly nothing that has happened in this Debate has led me to feel that there is any large, deep, strong volume of Parliamentary opinion marshalled in condemnation of the course which the Government have thought fit to adopt. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in his speech stated quite truly that this debt settlement corresponds closely to the partial and provisional arrangement effected last year between M. Caillaux and myself. I then told the House that there were three outstanding questions. There was the question of the transfer clause, there was the question of the échelle, the ladder or moratorium, and there was the question of the safeguard clause. Now, in the period, almost a year, that has passed, these outstanding matters have been settled without alteration to the rest of the previous Agreement. They have not by any means all been settled, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to the disadvantage of this country. So far as the transfer clause is concerned, we were always ready to agree to that. We have inserted a similar provision in the arrangements with Italy, and we see no difficulty or inconvenience in that. So far as the ladder or échelle is concerned, the figures which I proposed a year ago to M. Caillaux—I gave him a confidential note in writing of what we had in mind—have in effect been
    972
    agreed to for the earlier years. These have been settled in accordance with our views, a view I must admit from which at the time he did not express any marked dissent. Lastly, there is the safeguard letter.
    Before I come to the safeguard letter, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the subsidiary and separate agreement which has been made about the compensation of British nationals and British firms domiciled in France whose property was destroyed either by the enemy gunfire or by the Allied artillery or aeroplanes. This was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick (Captain Eden), who spoke earlier in the afternoon, and who expressed satisfaction that the Government should have been able after this lengthy period to effect a solution on this point. The French Government will treat the British sinistés as they are called, those firms or individuals who have been damaged, as if they had been French nationals. That is to say that they will compensate them for the value of the damage they have suffered as assessed in France. These sinistrés will receive, just like the. French nationals, either cash, i.e., francs, which have a value in France entirely different from what they have in exchange, or bonds. At any rate, whatever happens to the franc, these people will be paid the same as the French, The French Government has assured us that it will endeavour to deal promptly with these claims, which have been long outstanding. The estimate of the amount due is uncertain, but the French Government puts it at about 150,000,000 francs. I think it is satisfactory that that outstanding question should have been settled in this way.
    I come to the question of the safeguard letter. It was the demand last year of M. Caillaux and the French Government that there should be a definite clause inserted in the agreement making the payments by France to this country depend upon the payment of German reparations. We have consistently declined to admit any such clause into the agreement. One of the reasons why we scaled down the debt payments of France to £12,500,000 was in order that these payments should rest upon the sole credit of France and should not be contingent upon, or directly proportioned to,

    973
    the payments which France received from Germany. I am not for a moment going to conceal from the House that we have made a concession on this point, and one which, if all other things had been equal, we would rather not have made. Do not let us exaggerate this concession, or attempt to draw from it conclusions which are by no means warranted. The letters are, of course, to be read together with the agreement, and there can be no question of our receding from our responsibilities as described in those letters. I am asked what these letters mean. They mean what they say, and the language of these letters was, as 1 told the House earlier, naturally considered very carefully not only in the Treasury, but also by the Cabinet, which weighed the whole matter with close and prolonged attention. These letters undoubtedly give France the right, if there is a total suspension or a suspension of the payments by Germany to the extent of more than one-half, to raise the question of her capacity to continue to pay the annuities which are set out in the general agreement. That is what is intended.
    In these circumstances, which we have no reason to believe will occur, France will be entitled to come forward and raise the question whether the annuities should not be modified, but we shall remain perfectly free to argue the contrary case, to argue that there is no case whatever for modification, if we are satisfied that the circumstances so warrant. We do not know what the circumstances may be five, 10, 13, or 20 years hence. We can form no opinion about that. It may well be that France will be as prosperous as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) anticipates, that her great wealth in minerals and her self-contained economic strength may have placed her in a position of great prosperity. At least we all hope so. If at that time failure in the payment of German reparations occurs, and France invokes this exchange of letters, it would be easy and open for us to argue, as we should do, that in view of her prosperous position and our much less prosperous position, and in view of the fact that we too were sufferers to a large extent from the cessation of German reparations, and indeed for our part were under the continuing obligation to make payments to
    974
    the United States—it would be perfectly open to us to make all those points and to argue the matter out. Therefore, our obligation in the matter is only to admit that it may be reconsidered, we remain with the issue not prejudged, and we are perfectly free to measure the event justly and fairly according to the circumstances of the time.
    It may be said that we might make our case, and that France might not agree with it, and, owing to that, she might make default in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. There is nothing whatever to prevent France taking that line, if she does not agree with us, at any time. There is nothing that can prevent a great nation from taking its own decisions in regard to payment of its obligations.
    Our object in coming to this settlement at this time has not been, as some have suggested, a desperate effort to save the franc and other foreign currencies from depreciating. I hope that the gradual clearance of these debt disputes and their passing into a state of settlement will be a favourable factor in the general recovery of Europe, but His Majesty's Government have sought to judge this matter entirely upon the basis of what would be in the best interests of this country, what we think the best settlement that we are likely to get, and what also conforms with our ideas of a fair settlement, taking all these circumstances, moral and material, into consideration. The question which the House should consider in this matter is whether it was to our interest to effect such a settlement at the particular moment last week, or whether we should have done better to have left the matter open, whether we should not have had a chance of making a better settlement in two or three years if we had left the matter in a quite unsettled condition at the present time. I admit that that is a very arguable question, and that there are some who think that perhaps it would have been better to have asserted our rights to the full, to have consented to no mitigation whatever of them, and in default of agreement by the debtor States to have continued to maintain our full claim unimpaired. But the Government did not take that view.
    In our view the interest of this country, not less than that of Europe, requires

    975
    a clearance of these matters from the field of inter-European discussion. Moreover, the position of these debts, as they continued unfunded, was continually deteriorating. Every six months £15,000,000 sterling, or £30,000,000 a year, was added to the French Debt. That sum increased every year as the capital was swollen by the arrears of interest. To allow such a debt to run on indefinitely without encouraging the debtor to fund was to cause a situation when figures would be reached so utterly absurd or so utterly impossible of being coped with, that a complete loss of the debt would probably have been the result in the end. Therefore, we considered that it was a high matter of public policy to arrive at a settlement within a reasonable time. We could have arrived at no settlement with France at this particular juncture, I am sure, unless we had consented to that exchange of letters, which, as I have said, offers to the French Government of the future an opportunity, in the event of the failure of the Dawes receipts, of raising the question whether the annuities should be modified or not. It would have been a great pity, when everything else was settled—I only put this question of the bitters before the Cabinet after all the other points were settled—for us to have allowed the whole Agreement to break down rather than have this exchange of letters.
    As a matter of fact I do no b believe that the letters will in any way alter the actual facts of the situation as they now exist or as they may exist. I think it is highly probable that, whether letters had been exchanged or not, the default of Germany in regard to reparations would have led to demands for reconsideration of the annuities by our foreign debtors, who are also beneficiaries from German reparations. They would have raised the question at once, and we should have had an opportunity of arguing the matter with them. That is exactly the position created by the letters, but it is established in a form which meets the strongly-expressed desire of the French nation, and it is a question which we have settled in a manner which has certainly been regarded by them as a concession.
    Now I come to the question of how far this agreement with France, and to a lesser extent the agreement with Italy,
    976
    conforms to the so-called principle of pari passu, of which, I believe, I am the author. The expression pari passu was used and the principle propounded, not in order to set up a meticulous rule, but as a general guide for the policy which we had decided to pursue. It would have been absurd for us to have taken up the position that everything in the settlement between France and Britain must correspond exactly with everything in the settlement between France and the United States. That would not have suited the circumstances which exist between the two countries, or the interests of either Government. We are quite entitled to vary the conditions as much as we choose without violating the self-imposed principle of pari passu, as long as it can be shown that, taken broadly, taken globularly, the settlement is, broadly speaking, of equal value to the creditor countries.
    Mr. WALLH EA D: The pill is equally nauseating.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Let us look at the Anglo-French settlement compared the Franco-American settlement. The right hon. Member for Coble Valley (Mr. Snowden) tested it by a very fallacious method. He took the original total of the debt; then he added up all the annual payments year after year for 62 years; and then he made a comparison between the two, and showed by these gross totals that Great Britain got a very much smaller sum of money from France than the United States would get, having regard to the respective debts. Obviously you cannot think of money without also thinking of time. Tine and money are largely interchangeable terms. The question which must be asked in regard to the payment of a debt is net merely how much are you to get, but when are you going to get it. It is not a matter of sentiment or of the opinion that you may hold as to the probabilities of he payments being made at very remote dates. It is purely a question of figures. I have had the figures worked out, and I will give them to the House. The French Debt to the United States, on 15th June, 1025, was £827,000,000. In that total are included not merely War debts, but post-War debts for very large quantities of stores taken over on a valuation by France from the American Army.

    977
    On the same date the net Debt of France to Great Britain was £557,000,000; that is to say, excluding the £53,500,000 of gold, of which I will speak later. The present value of the French Debt payment to the United States on the MellonBérenger Agreement, calculated at 4¼ per cent., is £412,000,000, or 49 per cent. of the Debt. The present value of the French Debt payment to Great Britain, calculated at 44¼ per cent., is £262,000,000, or 47 per cent. of the Debt; so that the difference, measured by the test of figures, between the settlement we have effected with France and the settlement the United States has effected, is the difference between 47 per cent. and 49 per cent. Therefore, we have departed, if we have departed at all, from the principle, or the ideal, of pari passu, only to the extent of 2 per cent. There is no real argument about these figures; they have been most carefully studied, they will be made public now, and they can be canvassed and examined by the vigilant armies of financial critics outside this House, who scrutinise every statement which is made by the Minister responsible.
    Practically, the two settlements, judged by present values, are equal in regard to the proportion of payments, but that is not everything. Although the French Debt to the United States, compared with the French Debt to Britain, is, as eight to five, payments will be made to Great Britain and the United States as follows: In the first five years the United States will receive £32,000,000 and Great Britain £42,500,000. In the first 10 years the United States will receive £94,000,000 and Great Britain £105,000,000. It is only after the 10 years that the United States Agreement pulls up, and over the whole period of 62 years effects this slight gain of 2 per cent.—of 49 per cent. as against 47 per cent. I do not think there is much to complain about in regard to that matter.
    There is another fact which I should like the Committee to note—the modification of the American attitude towards the French Debt since the arrangement to which T came last year with M. Caillaux. When that arrangement was announced there was a considerable outcry in the United States against the extraordinarily lenient terms which we were accused of
    978
    having accorded to the French, and the most strenuous assertions were made that nothing of the sort could be expected from the United States. However, the United States has negotiated an agreement with France, which France has not yet ratified, and that agreement, as I have said, judged by actuarial tests and present values, is substantially the same in every respect, except one which I am coming to, as that which we have negotiated. I think, therefore, we have been of assistance to the French, in leading the discussion of the French Debt with the United States into channels which are less onerous to them. If that should have been the result of the steps which we took, I, for my part, am heartily glad.
    But it will be said: "Surely the safeguarding letters constitute a departure from the theory of pari passu?" I agree, in so far as those letters alter the solid facts of the situation and of the future; in so far as giving France the opportunity to raise the question of modification, in itself, in certain circumstances, alters the position materially— to that extent we have shown ourselves somewhat more conciliatory to French opinion than the United States have yet proved themselves to be, but one does not know how the discussion which is still proceeding between the French and American Governments will terminate. One does not know whether, in the long run, the French will be found to have accepted an agreement with the United States which has not, at least, the same slender safeguard from their point, of view as His Majesty's Government have been willing to concede; but however that discussion may end, I am satisfied that no material interest of this country has in any way been prejudiced thereby. Therefore, I make quite plain my contention that we have, throughout these arrangements, in regard to the settlement of France with Great Britain and the United States, maintained and achieved the principle of pari passu.
    When we come to the Anglo-Italian settlement I must admit that pari passy is rather more difficult to explain. I quite agree, and I make no secret of it to this Committee, that we attached greater importance to getting substantial payments in the earlier years than we did to having written up on the tablets of the distant future some enormous pay

    979
    ments to be handed over to our great grandchildren. We thought that, on the whole, it would be better to take a fiat £4,000,000 on the sole credit of Italy than to give many years in which there would be practically no payment, and have very large payments at the other end of the term. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley is not at all unconscious himself of the fact that this is an argument which is evenly balanced. It all depends on what view you take of these debts and of the settlements which are being made in rgard to them. If you believe that for three whole generations, taking each generation as 20 years, these payments will be regularly, strictly and punctually made, that no change will sweep across the world in that period and that no alteration in the views of different nations will arise in all that lapse of time, then, undoubtedly, so far as the Italian Debt is concerned, the Americans will have done better than we have done. If, on the other hand, you take the view that perhaps in ten or fifteen or twenty years you will have a revision and a. review of the whole of these relations arising out of the Great War, then in 15 years we shall have done better than the Americans have done with Italy. Of these two views, I am bound to say His Majesty's Government is inclined to the latter.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Repudiation and confiscation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; forgiveness and modification by general consent. I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell). I join with what was said by an hon. Member opposite in tendering him congratulations on his restoration to health, and on his presence here among us being marked by a speech which showed that his mental vigour has benefited by the repose which he has been forced to enjoy. My hon. Friend asked me about the gold Clause and what it means, and he put this argument to the Committee—that we have taken on the obligation to pay back £53,500,000 of gold to France, in return for £53,500,000 sterling, whenever she may wish to pay that sum. He said if things went badly with this country in the future; if we had a trade balance continually adverse; if we were driven off the gold standard; if the exchange with
    980
    the United States went against us, and if sterling fell markedly below the value of gold, then, there would be a heavy loss to this country in delivering £53,500,000 of gold were it demanded. It would, indeed, be a serious matter if we had committed ourselves to any such obligation, but we have not clone so. It is not the case that we are bound by the agreement to refund £53,500,000 of gold against the repayment of an equivalent amount in sterling. We have no obligation to do that. Under the arrangements which have hitherto ruled, France was entitled to reclaim the gold only after the complete repayment of 'her debt to us. The Agreement of last week does not alter the status quo in any respect, but merely provides for a further Agreement before any repayment is made. We have, therefore, our hands entirely free in this matter, and, if any request is made to us at an inconvenient moment to pay back the gold in return for sterling, it is open to us to say, "We do not agree to do so. "That is perfectly understood. Obviously, if the exchange were in the condition which my hon. Friend has indicated as a possibility of the future, but which certainly is not a possibility which we consider to he at all likely—there is no reason why we should look forward and take such a despairing view of the future of our country—hut if, as I say, such a situation did occur, it is obvious that no Government would make an Agreement for the restoration of the gold at a period when it would be detrimental to our finances.
    Sir F. WISE: Does the same arrangement apply to Italy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was just. coming to that. My hon. Friend knows the subject so well that he anticipates almost every thought which one has upon it. I was coming to that point, however, and for greater accuracy I have provided myself with a copy of the Italian Agreement. It is quite true that the Agreement with Italy is different. Italy has a right to purchase for sterling over a long period of years, in small parcels, the £22,000,000 of gold which she deposited with us. Clause 7 of the Anglo-Italian Agreement shows that the right to purchase that gold for sterling is spread in small instalments over a large number of years and, in cones-

    981
    quence, even if there was an adverse exchange and sterling was at a disadvantage compared to gold, the fraction of loss which would be calculable on each of these instalments would be so small as not to be a serious burden upon this country. So that, whereas in regard to the French gold we have not committed ourselves in any way to restoring it against sterling, in regard to the Italian gold, in which we have conceded that principle, we have protected ourselves by stating that the repayments shall only be in small instalments over a number of years. I hope that is satisfactory to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and also to ray hon. Friend the Member for the City of London—I hope it relieves his anxiety and will cheer his spirits.
    I would remind the Committee once more, in judging these matters, of the fundamental issue. It all depends on the view you take of the position of debtor nations as compared with creditor nations and the view you take of their relations. If you believe that the creditor has the power to exact whatever he chooses up to the utmost letter of his bond, then you may, of course, condemn the Government for not having demanded from their European debtors the full payment. But you cannot at the same time condemn this Government on that ground and condemn a previous Government for having submitted to the wishes of their creditor, in the case of the United States. Either a creditor has the power or he has not. If the creditor has the power in the one case, it is reasonable to argue that that power applies to all other debt settlements. As a matter of fact, it is not the creditor who has the power. Where it comes to transactions between nations, and you cannot recover by distraint from them, the debtor has the power. If the debtor chooses to face the lasting injury to his credit, to his future borrowing powers, and to his good name which follows from repudiation, or if the circumstances are such that the debtor has not the strength to meet his obligations, then it is perfectly clear that the creditor must defer to the decision of the debtor. It is no use scolding me—though I admit hon. Members opposite have not scolded me much—for not extracting more from France and Italy and the small Allied debtors, when all the time they regard it
    982
    as perfectly reasonable and excusable that I should have failed totally to get one single farthing of the enormous debt of £800,000,000 which is owed to us by Russia.
    A much more serious issue was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and also, to some extent, though in much more guarded terms, by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), when the hon. and gallant Member complained of our not having succeeded in securing from European nations some reduction of their armaments or some reduction of their tariffs, under the pressure of our debt settlements. I am quite clear that it would be a most perilous departure from the paths of sound finance if one nation, finding another owing it money, endeavoured to use that debt, especially a debt contracted as it was in the conditions of war, as a means of invading the sovereignty of the debtor nation and interfering in their domestic concerns or in their national affairs, and the right hon. Member for West Swansea got on very dangerous ground when he suggested that we should deal with this question in a much larger spirit, and when he suggested, as far as I could understand it—if he did riot mean this, I do not know what he did mean—that we should endeavour to placate the United States and win their good will and induce them to think so highly of our conduct that they would reduce our debts if only we made reductions in our armaments; presumably, he meant in the British Navy. My right hon. Friend knows that we would not tolerate any interference in our affairs, even if we were not able, as we are able, to pay all our obligations whenever they mature.
    My right hon Friend the Member for West Swansea fell into the usual error nowadays of wishing to have the argument both ways. He began by reproaching me for not being what he called a good Shylock. Probably I am not a good Shylock, but it is not reasonable to reproach me with that in one breath and the next moment use a lot of fine language about the folly of attempting to pass these immense sums across the exchanges, and so on. My right hon. Friend must make up his mind whether he is reproaching me for not having extracted much larger sums from our

    983
    European debtors, or whether he wishes to stand forward on the broad Liberal lines of being a critic of these immense war obligations. He cannot press his arguments—at least he ought not to; I will not say he cannot, because he has done it, but he ought not—if he has a desire for logic and consistency.
    I come, in conclusion, to the Anglo-American Debt settlement, which has been mentioned several times and about which I must say a word. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is in his place, and undoubtedly he will deal with that arrangement, but no one had more power than my right hon. Friend on the morrow of the Great War. I do not say he could have succeeded, but no one had a better chance of getting this debt question on to a good foundation than he had. I am not criticising him at all. It is only that I do not consider that he is entitled to be very severe in his criticism. On the morrow of the Great War and the great victory, when President Wilson first came over to Europe, and all the comradelike sentiments were in all the breasts of the Allied nations, there was an opportunity, in my opinion, to plead for the principle of equality of sacrifice, which would take into consideration not only the money that had been spent, but the blood that had been shed, and also, on the other side of the account, the territory that had been obtained. I believed at the time—and I expressed my opinion in public at the time, though it did not influence those who settled the destinies of Europe—that that principle was one of the first importance which we should endeavour to achieve. But now that time has gone, and we have settled our debt with the United States, I do not think that it is any use our indulging in recriminations with the people or with the newspapers of the United States over that Agreement which we have made, but I must refer to the statement which is attributed to Mr. Mellon, Secretary to the Treasury of the United States, in the newspapers of this morning, because I think it would be a great pity if misunderstanding should arise on these points. Mr. Mellon is reported to have said, in a statement which, I understand, was a written statement:
    "It must be remembered that England borrowed a large proportion of the debt for
    984
    purely commercial, as distinguished from war, purposes—to meet commercial obligations maturing in America, to furnish India with silver, to buy food to re-sell to the civilian population in order to maintain the exchange. American loans to England were not so much to provide war supplies as to furnish sterling for home and foreign needs, and to save England borrowing from her own people."
    There really is a complete misapprehension of the facts of the case, and so serious is this misapprehension that it makes me almost doubt the authenticity of the passage which I quote. But what are the facts? We are only dealing, let the Committee remember, with the period after the United States came into the War. There were no loans before then between the Governments. Great Britain, like all the other Allies, spent vast sums of money in the United States an food as well as on shot and shell, but all the loans of the United States to the Allies were, by Act of Congress, specifically limited to the purpose of prosecuting the War. That was the language of the Act of Congress, and the United States Treasury required, and obtained, justification for practically all their advances to us, every cent of which was spent in the United States. Every cent was spent under the supervision of the United States Treasury in what was, according to their view, not ours, the furtherance and prosecution of the War, and every cent was spent in the United States. Between 1917 and the end of the War, that is, during the period of American intervention, we spent over 7,000,000,000 dollars in the United States, arid of that sum ire borrowed 4,000,000,000 dollars, and we provided the 3,000,000,000 dollars additional spent in the United States from our other resources. Against the 4,000,000,000 dollars that we borrowed, we spent over 1,500,000,000 dollars on munitions and over 2,500,000,000 on cereals and other essential foodstuffs, so that on these two heads alone, munitions and vital foodstuffs for the armies and for the populations, we spent a sum which equalled the whole sum that we borrowed from the United States.
    As to the special in stances cited by the distinguished foreign statesman whose name I have mentioned, there, again, it seems that he has been either misreported or misled. We spent on the commercial maturities during this same period only 354,000,000 dollars out of a total of

    985
    7,200,000,000 dollars which we borrowed or provided from our own resources, or rather less than one-twentieth of the total dollar expenditure for which we were responsible; and as to the silver loan for India which is referred to, that, as everyone knows, was treated quite separately from the War Debt, and fully repaid by this country in 1923. I hope I shall not be thought to have been wrong in stating these facts, because, while there is certainly a good deal of ill-feeling and resentment about all these questions connected with the repayment of War debts, it is very important that that resentment should not be increased by any misunderstanding of what are the actual facts of the situation.
    I think I have answered the greater part of the questions put to me, and I would only, in conclusion, say that if we should succeed, as we have done on paper, by these settlements, if they should be carried out, and we should succeed in obtaining from reparations and from debt payments the sum of £33,000,000 a year after 1930, and have to pay £38,000,000 a year to the United States, that is a very much closer achievement of the principles of the Balfour Note than anything which would have been thought possible in the Cabinet which was responsible for the issue of that Note. It was a hope and an ideal and a policy and a principle, but that we should have succeeded in translating it into effective agreements which, if carried out, will so nearly as that balance the payments we have to make by the receipts which we obtain, is a fact with which—I speak for myself—I think we ought not to be discontented, any more than we ought to be discontented with the general policy which has guided this country in relation to the European debts. It is the old traditional policy of Great Britain and it is based on a very long view of the future of Europe and of our country in relation to Europe. Let us have some trust in time, and give time a chance to do its work, not only in the Old World, but in the New; let us so act that time will be upon the side of easier and wiser solutions than have yet been reached and than yet exist in the world in respect of the War debt payments; and let us have confidence in the teaching of facts, in the lessons of experience, which over a long period
    986
    of years are certain, in my judgment, to produce immense alleviations of the situation which at the present time presses with iron severity on the warracked nations of Europe.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not Lave intervened at all, certainly at this hour, had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman very wantonly attacked me when I have not given him the slightest provocation. He said that, I presume in 1919, he delivered sonic speech in which he appealed to me to do my best to secure an agreement among the Powers in regard to these debts. Seeing that he was a colleague of mine, it appeared to be hardly necessary for him to deliver his speech when he could have met me, but my own recollection is that my right hon. Friend was too occupied with incurring fresh debts on a military enterprise to think of liquidating past ones. I have no recollection of this very wise suggestion which he made on that occasion. As a matter of fact, I think M. Clemenceau and I did approach President Wilson on that occasion, but President Wilson was not in a position, in view of the fact that there was to be a Presidential election in America, to enter into any negotiations on the subject. But I did approach him and press him.
    Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, he has put his finger upon the one mistake which has landed Europe in all this trouble, that is, the funding of our debt to America. It was done against the advice of the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Bonar Law. That statement, has been made repeatedly in public, and it cannot he contradicted. That was the mistake. I am not going to blame the right hon. Gentleman, although I do not approve of the bargain he has made. He has had to enter into these negotiations with that blunder already made. It is a great misfortune that we should have had to discuss the debt settlement to-day, having regard to the trouble which has arisen in France since this Vote was put down, but it was too late to make other arrangements. I should have been in favour of postponing it but for the fact that this is not the first time the trouble has arisen in France. The right hon. Gentleman made this bargain a year ago, and now he has made the same bargain with the same Finance

    987
    Minister a year later. Whenever the French are in difficulties in regard to payments, they change their cashier. That is what has happened on this occasion. You have to deal in France with this peculiar position, that you have great material prosperity—greater apparent prosperity than in this country. There is no unemployment and, on the whole, there is a balance on French trade. All the factories are going, new ones are springing up, and the account. I get from every part of France is one of new buildings, great prosperity, and, at the same time, this failure to pay debts.
    The right hon. Gentleman says, time is a great factor. It is a year since we made this bargain and now, what has happened? He is very satisfied on the whole with his bargain. But let him look at the actual figures. There is, first of all, no agreement between us and the French. In regard to what has been done, the French take a view of the transaction different from that of the right, bon. Gentleman. The official communique to the French Press is headed:
    "Payments of France conditioned by the Dawes plan."
    It is a communique sent out by the Quay D'Orsay or the French Finance Minster. That is not the view taken by the right lion. Gentleman. He says, "All we have agreed to is that if the Dawes payments fail, we discuss the whole situation later on." He has given us a figure relating to the operation of the payments to be made by France. He says, France pays 47 per cent. of the debt. That is not the view of France, which is a figure of 37 per cent. If that is the case, this is how we stand. The right hon. Gentleman is going to pay the United States of America 76 per cent. of her debt and we have been doing it for two or three years; France pays the United States 49 per cent. of her debt. France pays to us—when she does pay—37 per cent. Well, now, that is a bad bargain. It is not a question of Shylock, it is a question of a decent business arrangement. Italy pays 24½ per cent. to America, but to Great Britain 18 per cent. of the debt. There is a part in Mr. Mellon's speech which the right hon. Gentleman has not quoted in which he says that the United States has not exacted a penny of the War debt from any country except Great Britain. The only debt exacted from
    988
    Italy is the post-War debt, which is a commercial one. We are not exacting anything in respect of the War and yet the whole financial burden has to be borne by Great Britain in respect of the War debt.
    All I can say is that the thing has been thoroughly muddled from the first moment that agreement was made. It has been a great misfortune, but the right hon. Gentleman is not entirely to blame. What is the position in which he finds himself? We pay in respect of the debt which France owes us, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said, 6½d. in the £. We are going to receive ¾d. in the £. Ultimately we hope to get 26½d. in the £ while we are still paying 66½d. in respect of the very money we advance to France. This twopenny-halfpenny agreement is supposed to he a good arrangement when we have to pay all this heavy burden on debt to the United States. It is an arrangement which is a thoroughly bad one. It is quite true it is better you should have the best payment at the beginning, but we shall be getting gradually out of this trough. The whole of these years we have had nothing from our debtors. We have paid the United States the heavy sum of £33,000,000, when France is prospering and she has no unemployment, and Italy is being pointed to by the friends of Mussolini in this country as a country of prosperity, though when it comes to the question of debt they do not want that mentioned. Here you have this inconsistency, that we shall be receiving payments only after we have got through all our difficulties. While we have to face all these difficulties, we shall only he receiving 6¾d. in the £. The whole mischief arises nut of this settlement with America. I agree it is a great misfortune the whole of these debts could not he wiped out.
    Mr. REMER: Why did, you not wipe it out?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I? Will you tell me when and how?
    Mr. REMER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for not making such an arrangement.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In order to make an arrangement you have to get the creditor to agree. The hon. Gentleman, if he knows anything, knows perfectly well

    989
    that we were in debt to America for £1,000,000,000, and we had to get the consent of America to begin with. That consent America would not give. During the whole time I was Prime Minister I was against entering into any arrangement and tried to secure a general arrangement that all the debts, including German reparations, should be wiped out. 1 think it was a very unfortunate thing that President Wilson was not in a condition at that time to enter into negotiations, because he had been stricken down. We were in a good position when the Balfour Note was written. There was £2,00000,000 due to us and £3,000,000,000 due to America, while there was £3,300,000,000 due from Germany. We were in a position of being able to go to America en quite equal terms. We were not going to beg them to let us off our debts. We said to the United States that we would wipe off all our debts if America would do the same. It would have been a mercy if that had been done. Up to the time of the Balfour Note and the negotiations we should have held-out and we had held out. We refused to do anything, and we were insisting on a conference, but in spite of the peremptory instructions by Mr. Bonar Law, this arrangement was entered into which has led to this manœeuvring and antagonism in Europe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says a time. will come when all these countries will see the wisdom of getting out of it. That is a long way ahead, and we shall have solved our difficulties by then. But at this moment it would have been invaluable if that had been accomplished. The whole of the trouble was that we funded our debt without a general conference to clear up the whole situation. I do not feel, having regard to the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman was confronted, and the fact that he has to deal with a situation as .he. found it, that I can criticise him with the severity I should have liked. He had to make the best of a very bad situation for which he was not responsible. The Prime Minister is alone responsible for the muddle over the debt question.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I am driven to the conclusion that with all this debate on the debt settlement, there is connected a good deal of hypocrisy and humbug from the other side of the House. It is
    990
    all very well to hear the statements, and the references to what might have happened in the past; but in 1919 the disapprobation came from the opposite side of the House; though, again, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has got to bear his share for the muddle which he now denounces. Whatever attempts he made towards a settlement in those days, he received no help from the opposite side of the House. The difficulty was that the party opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, had so poisoned the minds of the people of this country against their enemy, Germany, that a reasonable settlement had become absolutely impossible. That stupid policy came from Press and platform, and was a great difficulty then. It is one against which we are now having to contend.
    We are paying now for the sins and iniquities of the violent anti-German propaganda that was carried on immediately succeeding the Armistice. It is no use taking it out of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I am not concerned to defend him, but I like to see a little fair-play, and I do not want to see hon. Members on the other side piling on the agony because they now agree, or seem to agree, with the settlement put forward by their so-called statesmen. The right hon. Gentleman himself was very rightly denounced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke about the difficulties of 1919; but fancy the present Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about an early settlement in Europe on an honest and a decent basis! in view of the fact that, after the War, had ended, he was engaged in stirring up strife over the whole of the Eastern part of Europe because of his dislike for those in power in Russia. The same stupid policy is still permeating all his acts. I wish he were here Le hear what I have to say, for I should like him to know what I think, arid not only what I think but what people outside this House and this party, with whom I am associated, think.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing whatever to bring about a settlement with Russia. He talks about the settlements he has brought. off. I do not call them settlements at all. He

    991
    stands opposite and talks about Russia paying her debts. What are the settlements of which lie speaks? The idea of Italy getting off in the way she has done with 18 per cent. of her total indebtedness. and France who herself admits that it is 37 per cent. We ought to endeavour to get a settlement of the Russian Debt in order to alleviate our unemployment; yet we continue to he told that Russia has refused to pay her debts. That is a monstrous misrepresentation. The people who have stood out against paying until the last moment were Italy and France, and this after Russia herself had been asking that we might state what our terms were in order that they might consider the advisability of a. settlement of their debt.
    The question of national sovereignty was spoken about by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Again, that sits very badly on him. There is this outstanding fact that we have to face. We are making arrangements to settle the whole of these colossal debts at an enormous sacrifice to ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman has said something about considering the tender feelings of the people who owe these debts, but what of the English people, our own nationals, who have to pay? Ought we not to do something in this country to ease the burden of our own nationals, the burden of our own citizens, who hold the National Debt in their hands? Why should we let off everybody except our own people no matter how badly or how hardly pressed? We cannot get back more than three-farthings from Italy, while we ourselves have been paying 6d., and we are taking a few coppers from France. We are demanding the full pound of flesh so far as our own working classes arc concerned and they are worse hit than any other working class in Europe. Our working classes here are worse off than the French working classes who are well off; in fact the biggest import of France is alien labour for the purpose of assisting their labour and bringing about their enormous output. France is a tremendously rich country. The working classes there are well off, while on the other hand our working people are to be compelled to find an enormous sum
    992
    of money to pay the debts of France, and Italy, and half the world beside.
    The right policy would have been an all-round cancellation of debts. At the moment I suppose it was not possible! I refer to the years 1918 and 1919. I protest, and shall continue to protest, against our people here being compelled to shoulder the burdens of people who are far better off than themselves. We cannot obviously pay £300,000,000 off our National Debt without feeling it. It comes out of the production of the worker himself. One reason why our working people's wages are depressed and their standard of living coming down is because of the colossal amount they have to pay of National Debt, part of which is French and part of which is Italian. In the name of the working people I represent, and of the party, I protest against settlements of this description.
    There is another thing in this connection, and that is the question of the relative value of the pound to-day as corn-pared with the pound three or four years ago. The difference makes a definitely heavier contribution from our own working people. While I am open to correction on this point— and I trust if wrong I shall be proved wrong—may I point out that the working people—and I come in contact with a few of them—that they alone practically are bearing the whole brunt of this burden. They arc hearing it all upon their shoulders. The policy of this country has been a devilish policy from the working-class point of view, and although that term may shock the ears of the Bishop of Durham, it is as nothing to the havoc which has been created in the lives of our own working class by the policy pursued by hon. Members on the benches opposite.
    Mr. HANNON: Why do you refuse to protect British labour?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: it would be entirely out of order for me to enter into the question of Protection. I have done my level best, by demanding a reduction in the rate of interest, to protect British labour from the exactions made upon it.
    Mr. HARDIE: By usurers.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I have protested against the action of British usurers, as my hon. Friend remarked, in continuing

    993
    to take 5 per cent., worth to-day 8 per cent. as compared with 1919–20. That constitutes an enormous burden for our people. I want protection to begin at home. The British working man wants protection from the home usurer, and I believe that when he is protected in that way he will look after protection for himself in other directions. Like charity, protection should begin at home. I know that in saying this I am straying from the subject under discussion, but the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) is always thinking of the foreigner —
    Mr. HANNON: I am thinking of my own people.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: You always think that the foreign working man, because he produces goods, is an enemy of the British working man. I say that foreign statesmen in Italy and France, in attempting to evade their responsibilities for debt, and putting it all on the shoulders of the British working man, are laying a burden on his shoulders out of all proportion to what he suffers from the competition of foreign workmen. I sincerely hope that before long we shall see on the Treasury Bench a Chancellor of the Exchequer who will begin to deal with our creditors in our own country, who will show some mercy to the people at home in respect of the heavy toll taken by our loan owners. France and Italy can be let off, and the. working people here are left to shoulder the burden, because nobody thinks of extending mercy to them. The reason for that is not far to seek. There is a sum of £300,000,00e going into the pockets of people here—
    Mr. HANNON: Do you want to deprive British small investors of what is due to them?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The plea of the widow and orphan leaves me very cold indeed, because from figures supplied to us we know that fifteen-sixteenths of our National Debt is held by a very small section of the community. Economists who do not belong to my school of thought have told us that. The amount that goes to the working class as interest is relatively small, and I see no advantage in trying to save a few shillings for the working classes while allowing them to be robbed by home Shylocks, who will have their pound of flesh. That is where pro-
    994
    tection should begin. If you begin the protection of British working men from the exactions of the home profiteer and the home financier, I will consider with you how we should protect ourselves against the exactions of the foreigner. We can join hands there provided you will begin at home first. Before very long some Chancellor of the Exchequer will sit on the Treasury Bench who will think more about the British working man and the burdens piled upon him than of allowing the foreigner the opportunity of escaping his burdens.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Bowyer.]
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: in accordance with arrangements made with the First Lord of the Admiralty, I propose to raise to-night the question of the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire." In answer to a question in this house On 1st July by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that information on all important points concerning the "Hampshire" had already been published. I wish to quote a letter which was referred to on that occasion. It is a letter dated 17th June, and addressed to Stoker F. Lot Sims, of London:
    "The Admiralty are inquiring into the circumstances connected with the loss of H.M.S. "Hampshire" in June, 1916, and desire to avail themselves of your recollection of such facts as Came within your experience.
    2. Their Lordships would he glad, therefore, if you would attend at the Admiralty (Naval Law Branch), Whitehall, at an early date. in order that this matter may he discussed with y011. It would be of advantage if, in replying to this letter, you could suggest a time. convenient to yourself.
    By command of their Lordships, CHARLES WALKER."
    On the 14th May, Mr. W. Wesson, of Portsmouth, was written to:
    "The attention of the Admiralty has been called to an article which appeared in a

    995
    newspaper called the 'Referee' on Sunday, 22nd November last, in regard to the loss of H.M.S. 'Hampshire,' and which included a description referred to as the personal story of one of the survivors.' (See extract enclosed.)
    It appears from the wording of this personal story that it is based on an account you gave in June, 1916, of your experiences on the occasion of the wreck, and of which the Admiralty received a copy at the time, but that the account has been altered and garbled to suit the purposes of the newspaper.
    In particular the last sentence in the version printed in the 'Referee,' viz.: At least 200 men must have got safely off the vessel and reached the shore, and I fully expected Lord Kitchener to have been among them,' does not appear at all in the account you gave in 1916, and the Admiralty would be glad to know whether this particular sentence is based on any statement that you have since made to the Referee ' or to any other person."
    That is signed by "0. Murray." Both these letters are proofs of the fact that the Admiralty, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman, has been pursuing investigations, although it was definitely stated on the 1st of July that all important information had been given. Both those letters prove that this quesion, instead of being set aside as something of no consequence, was being followed up in the way I have shown. The reason the Admiralty did not receive the answers that might have been expected was clue to the fact that the letter was addressed to the party named on the assumption that they were particulars of survivors who had given records of their knowledge and who, if they were provided with the opportunity we have been asking for along with other survivors of appearing in a public inquiry would have been able to present substantial evidence bearing on most important points, some of which I will enumerate. First of all there were the points: (1) What was the course of action taken by Colonel Harris, who was commander of the troops in Orkney on the night of the wreck, and what orders were given with a view to rescue operations? (2) Was the Colonel before leaving questioned on above point and with what result? (3) Why has Lieutenant Vance of the Glasgow Police Force riot been questioned as to his reports expressing dissatisfaction with the orders given in the matter of rescue operations?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Would the hon. Member mind saying what that report is, and what is the date of it?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have not the date, and we want to find out.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman what is this report he is quoting, and will he give the date of it?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am not quoting from it.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then what the hon. Member is saying now is not a quotation, but an idea out of his own head.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am asking why was Lieutenant Vance not consulted on these reports. The Admiralty have disputed any knowledge of these reports, but evidence will be brought before the inquiry we are urging in the public interest to show that Lieutenant Vance did submit such reports, and that such reports had in them a reference to dissatisfaction with the rescue operations. (4) Why have the messages sent between the shore and Flag-Captain Allen not been published: (5) There should be made known the exact number and class of vessel which the Parliamentary Secretary stated were seat out from Stromness within half-an-hour of the wreck. He mentioned a destroyer and other craft. One yacht was observed 24 hours there after eight miles away from the shore. (6) Why was the rocket apparatus not used, and what were the provisions for medical attendance? (7) Was there no evidence of internal treachery? The "Daily Express" of 17th April reported that
    "In view of recent statements regarding circumstances in which Lord Kitchener lost his life, the Government have decided to prepare a full statement of official information on the subject. The task is already in hand at the Admiralty, and Members of Parliament, including Sir Newton Moore, who have been pressing for a full narrative have been asked to take no further steps for the time being in view of this decision."
    This is confirmed by Mr. le Maitre, Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty. We have a further confirmation of these facts in the statements which have been presented not only through the columns of that particular paper, but also from public

    997
    platforms all over the country, and particularly in the City of London, when several Members of the House of Commons were present, and where the survivors themselves put in an appearance, those survivors being invited to come forward under the conditions of a public inquiry to give every information available concerning those important points. The First Lord of the Admiralty, after some of the questions had been put in the House, had indicated to him personally that he did not put any particular stress upon those contributions because of the feeling that they were more drawn up upon imaginative statements or exaggerated statements by those who had some direct connection therewith. So far as I am concerned, as a public representative, I am satisfied that there are due grounds for urging this matter upon the Admiralty, and some of the relatives of the late Lord Kitchener himself are taking a particular interest in having this matter pushed. I have the signature of one of those relatives to the effect that he himself is perfectly satisfied that the evidence that is forthcoming is of the greatest importance.
    My submission is—not simply an account of the pausing of that distinguished soldier, but on account of the other live, that were involved in the great disaster and the accumulation of evidence that has been forthcoming—that we are in duty bound to urge the Admiralty to take this matter in hand and give the fullest opportunity for every statement that can be substantiated. The First Lord, on the 1st July, when we were putting questions to him, defended himself on the ground that he had no interest personally in obviating any investigation that could stand the test. I accept that so far as He personally is concerned, but I do submit that the Admiralty, of which he is the distinguished head under the present Government, are adopting a patchwork procedure, a guessing procedure, an altogether unsatisfactory procedure. If the statements produced are in any degree whatever entitled to recognition, I submit that there is only one course to take, and that is the course that has been urged by hon. Members of this House. Instead, they have written the letters to which I have referred, and then, of course, the men not wishing to make in a detailed fashion their own
    998
    deliverances which would be available, the idea is to frame up a sort of ground for not pursuing the inquiry any further.
    In all the circumstances of that great tragedy, and when it is stated, as we are stating with such grounds, that there are substantial facts which can be submitted by those who were survivors of that great disaster, I say that the Admiralty, and particularly the First Lord of the Admiralty, for the very reason that he has no personal ground for evasion, in view of such appeals, with such indications as we have given here to-night, ought, in the public interest to take this step. It is not sufficient to say that it is 10 years since the event took place. It is sufficient for us to know that it did take place, and, in view of what we have found, and of the fact that relatives of the late Lord Kitchener say that they themselves are satisfied that justice was not done concerning these rescue operations, and that there were most unsatisfactory conditions prevailing in connection with the disaster, it is our bounden duty to call upon the Admiralty now to institute a public inquiry to enable us to gain the fullest information on the subject.
    Mr. HANNON: This question is one with which I have had some association sine this deplorable disaster took place. When the "Hampshire" went down, I was Secretary of the Navy League, and, while I was acting in that capacity, a great deal of correspondence came into my office on the subject of this very terrible incident, which disturbed the mind of the whole community at the time. Since that time, I have, under pressure of the excited imaginations of many correspondents, had to examine for myself, as far as I could, through the Admiralty and otherwise, whether there was any ground whatever for the variegated statements which from time to time have been given to the public on this subject. I am perfectly satisfied that, throughout the whole of the discussion which has taken place during the past 10 years on the subject of the loss of the "Hampshire" and the lives that were sacrificed at the time, the Admiralty has acted with entire propriety, and has endeavoured to give the public the fullest satisfaction within the limits of the information at its disposal.

    999
    For a considerable period a correspondence has been maintained in one of our Sunday papers on this subject, and I had an opportunity, a short time ago, of putting a question to my right lion. Friend the First Lord, because of a letter which appeared in the "Times" over the signature of Sir George Arthur. As my right hon. Friend will remember, Sir George Arthur, who was the biographer of Lord Kitchener, addressed a letter to the "Times" on a certain statement made to him by the late Lord Long of Wraxall, who at the time was occupying the position which is now occupied by my right hon. Friend. The reply that my right hon. Friend gave to me on the occasion, when I put a question to him in this House, seemed to me to be perfectly satisfactory, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), in the whole of the statement he has made to the House this evening, has not, in my judgment, submitted one single cogent, helpful, constructice piece of evidence upon which the Admiralty could be asked to undertake a roving examination of this long past question. I venture to suggest that it is not fair of hon. Members, on correspondence in newspapers and wild statements of persons who arc sometimes led far beyond their judgment on incidents of this kind, to ask the First. Lord to establish an inquiry. I know that a meeting was held at the Cannon Street Hotel, which I was asked to attend, but I was so satisfied in my own mind that the whole of this agitation had no real substance behind it that I could not consent to have any part in the demonstration, which, in my judgment, was wholly unjustified.
    We know that the hon. Member for Dundee has great enthusiasm, and always displays the greatest sincerity and honesty every time he addresses this Assembly. We have the greatest respect for his attachment to ideals and to the views which he holds, but he has not given to the House to-night one single item of evidence that he has any real background whatever for this demand that the Admiralty should institute an inquiry, in the wild statements made by a number of people who allege that they have some knowledge of the circumstances in which the "Hampshire" was lost. I think that the whole of this terrible tragedy has been analysed to its
    1000
    very roots so far as the Admiralty could possibly do so, and I sincerely hope, in the public interest, that the First Lord will not consent to an inquiry of this kind, but will be satisfied with the statements that he has already made public on the subject. The suggestion that the relatives of Lord Kitchener entertain the view that the " Hampshire " was lost in circumstances which involved grave neglect on the part of His Majesty's Government at the time has no substance in fact, and we ought not to be invited to undertake a roving mission of inquiry without much more substantial evidence than has been shown in the arguments in this House to-night of the hon. Member for Dundee.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman who has raised this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House is, I am sure, actuated merely by a desire to arrive at the truth, but, for some reason or other, he seems to think that it cannot be arrived at by getting answers from me. He continues to pin his faith to the unsubstantiated attacks made in a certain newspaper, and entirely refuses to accept as truth what I submit in answer to his questions. He accuses me to-night of two contradictory actions. He complains that those who work at the Admiralty under me had asked for information on certain points which have been raised in questions in this House. On the other hand he accuses me of not being anxious to produce any information. They cannot both be true. He has referred to a certain man of the name of Sims who was quoted in the newspaper referred to as one of the survivors. When he asked a question I asked him if he would take the responsibility for the authenticity of the letter that was quoted over the signature of Mr. Sims. I think he misunderstood my reply and kept on talking about a letter from Sir Charles Walker, the authenticity of which 1 have never denied. Obviously it was only my duty to try to find out the truth. My desire from start to finish has been to find out all the truth I can, not to believe unsupported evidence published in a newspaper, a great deal of which I know-to be untrue, but to see how far the information the Admiralty have published from time to time is either corroborated or refuted by anything of more modern date. I do not see why the hon. Member or the House should blame me for doing

    1001
    my best to give a truthful answer to the questions they raised. One of the accusations against me in this campaign, which has been carried on in a most scurrilous way against me personally, has been that I have attempted to have questions put off which Members of the House have desired to ask. I have never attempted anything of the kind, as you, Sir, know, and it is not for me to do so. The censorship of questions lies entirely in your hands, and to say that I am trying to evade a quetsion because certain questions that Members have wished to ask have been declined by you is not a very fair way of dealing with me. I might add—it is a sign of your impartiality—that when I tried to get a question asked on this very subject myself in order to elucidate a point which I thought required elucidation, again you ruled that it was not a proper question to put, so I cannot be accused of seeking to avoid giving information or asking any questions that were put.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has been dealing with him scurrilously?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I did not say anything of the kind. I said the paper from which he gets all his information has treated me as one of the most evasive, shifty and lying individuals that could have been found in the Admiralty Office.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now come to business and answer the questions I have put to him.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not precluded from pointing out the source of the supposed information, which, so far as I have been able to investigate it, is almost invariably wrong. Let us realise what the hon. Member is asking me to do. He has not produced a single point of valuable evidence here. He seemed to be about to do so when he appeared to begin to quote something that Inspector Vance said. I asked him where he got the quotation, and he did not know.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is what we are asking you.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Anyone can read a newspaper and bring forward any pre-
    1002
    posterous statement and say, "Why do you not answer it?" If the hon. Member comes here with any substantial case" he ought to be able to prove it.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: We want the publication of the report. The First Lord has continually endeavoured to state that there is no trace of the report. It was submitted to the representatives of the Admiralty at the time.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I say perfectly plainly that it was not. Let the hon. Member show me the report. Let him give me any proof that there was such a report. Inspector Vance is not an official of the Admiralty but of the Home Office.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: You tried that before.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Again it is suggested that I am trying to evade it. If I say I asked Inspector Vance what happened, I shall be accused of having done something I ought not to have done. But I have taken the trouble to ask about Inspector Vance and he made no such report on the "Hampshire."
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Has he made the statement?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He has.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: When?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He made it to the Admiralty.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: When?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give the exact date, but quite recently.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Let us have the date,
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Before I give any date, let the hon. Member give me the date of this report.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am here not putting forward the charges. I am putting forward the statement that information of the most reliable character has been given concerning the various points I have submitted The evidence will be forthcoming in due course when you give us the opportunity. I am asking you to answer why these particular things that I have put here to-night have not been published.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I ant not going to have any inquiry until some prima facie evidence is produced. I asked for the report of Inspector Vance. Inspector Vance, according to his own statement, has made no report on the loss of the "Hampshire." it is no use my talking if the hon. Member chooses to believe this newspaper instead of me. I do not ask him to believe me, but I think hon. Members in the House—
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I take that for the moment, but let us have the other points.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: One at a time. I have done my best to find out the truth, and my evidence is that Inspector Vance made no such report. That deals with him. Then the hon. Member said Colonel Harris had made some statement in corroboration of other vague charges. After some difficulty I got into communication with Colonel Harris, who declared that he had no recollection of any such report. That confirms what I had from Inspector Vance himself, that he made no report.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Did he make no report on the question of the rescue operations?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The accusation was that there was unimpeachable evidence that this report was made. 1 say show me the unimpeachable evidence. It is said that Colonel Harris, who was in command of the troops in Orkney, sent for Inspector Vance and questioned him as to the report he made in regard to the "Hampshire," and that this interview took place in the presence of two officials. I have inquired of Inspector Vance and Colonel Harris, and neither of them know anything of any report of the kind. I am not going to encourage the slinging of mud at those who at the time were responsible for what happened in Orkney. I am not going to open an inquiry until they produce some evidence which would give me at any rate a prima facie case for putting this country to the trouble and expense of such a proceeding. All the evidence that I have goes to show that these statements are wrong. The hon. Member asked me what vessels went to the rescue.
    "The first message received was 'Vessel down.' A telegram from Birsay reached
    1004
    the Commander of the Western Patrol at Stromness at 8.31 p.m. The captain of 'Jason II' and the skipper of 'Cambodia' were actually in the office of the Commander waiting to hear whether their vessels were required, and they left on the instant. Captain Walker then, without a moment's delay, got into touch with the Vice-Admiral by telephone, and received orders to send out every available vessel and to go out with them himself, and to make arrangements for motor cars for a shore rescue party. Captain Walker quickly put that business in hand, and then put to sea in the ocean-going tug 'Flying Kestrel.' Four destroyers of the Grand Fleet were always at short notice for dealing with emergencies. These four vessels, 'Owl.' 'Unity,' 'Victor,' and 'Lucifer,' were at once ordered out by the Commander-in-Chief. Their logs show that the three latter left between 9 p.m. and 9.10 p.m., and 'Owl' at 9.20 p.m., steaming 20 knots. The Vice-Admiral also ordered the yacht 'Zaza' and the trawler City of Selby,' then at the North of the Orkneys, to proceed southward to the scene of the accident, Five other destroyers from the Grand Fleet, 'Oak,' 'Opal,' Munster,' 'Menace' and 'Napier' got up steam and left, 'Oak' at 2.30 a.m., and the others at 3 a.m. to search for survivors."
    That disposes of the statement made by the hon. Member that, no efforts were made to send help.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: How did these destroyers manage it when the destroyers attending the "Hampshire" had to withdraw?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The reason why the destroyers attending the "Hampshire" had to withdraw was that they could not against the wind keep up the same speed as the "Hampshire." Therefore, either the "Hampshire" had to slow down, which would have been a very dangerous course to take, owing to the possibility of there being submarines about, or the destroyers had to go back. The "Hampshire" signalled to the destroyers that she must go on and that they had better not try to keep up with her. That is a very simple explanation. I wish the hon. Member would not surround the whole thing with such an extraordinary atmosphere of suspicion. He suspects that someone at the Admiralty has something to conceal, and he suspects that everything that was done was badly clone. I wish he would clear his mind and get it into his head that there was a great storm going on at the time.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I understand all about the storm. It was the trouble behind the storm.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Neither the hon. Member nor myself can guide a storm. I have read enough in regard to the vessels that put out to the rescue to prove that there is not a vestige of truth in the accusation that sufficient efforts were not made to reach the "Hampshire," and to get on to the scene of disaster in time to rescue, if possible, those who might have been saved. Another statement made by the hon. Member is that there was internal treachery.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Yes. Was there any internal treachery?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am satisfied that there was not. I have made every inquiry. There was an old story about the "Hampshire" to the effect that an infernal machine was found on board and that two men had been shot in consequence of that discovery. That story was very often told. There is no truth whatever in the story.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have not heard of it before.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then I do not know what my hon. Friend means about internal treachery.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Were not two aliens on board the ship?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir, not according to my information.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I suppose they are both drowned?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Of course, if they are both drowned it is not possible to find out whether the hon. Member is correct in his statement. I think the story that he has in his mind is the story that did go about at one time, and which has been proved to be untrue, that an infernal machine was found at Belfast in the "Hampshire."
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR indicated dissent.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not know, but his friends who give him this information have built all this charge on that foundation.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That foundation as it turned out is quite untrue. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Admiralty would not know if two spies had been
    1006
    shot on the "Hampshire" a short time before. I take full responsibility for saying that there is no truth whatever in that statement. The hon. Member put a number of minor questions, which was not able to put down, Some of them were new to me. I was not able to follow them. One was as to certain dates. He said that Lord Kitchener's relatives were very anxious to have a public inquiry.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Yes.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is a very odd thing, if that be so, that I have never heard from them to that effect. One would have thought that if they felt so very anxious to have an inquiry that they would have written to me or taken some means of communicating with me on the subject.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Perhaps they may do it now?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should be very glad to receive any information which they have. I ask the House to realise that I am only too anxious to find out exactly what happened. It is very odd that after ten years this great agitation which has made such an impression on the hon. Member's mind should take place. The hon. Member has referred to an answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that all the information that we have has been given
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is your own statement.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I agree with the statement. It was actually given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It was your own statement on the 1st July, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). It appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That may be so, but the question was put at an earlier date, and an answer was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. That answer was right. All the information of any consequence at all has been given. It has not been given, perhaps, all at once, but it has from time to time since the event occurred been published in one way or another. Since this agitation has been raised, it has been my endeavour

    1007
    to try to find out whether any of that information is wrong or whether there is anything to add to it. The result of my inquiries is, that that evidence and that information has been corroborated by a few other facts that have come to light since, but that nothing new of any importance has come to light since the time when those statements were made and published by the Admiralty. A public inquiry on evidence like that would be .n outrage on the procedure to which we arc accustomed in this House. I am very sorry that the hon. Member should have allowed himself to be so entirely credulous about the things he reads in the public Press, and I regret that he prefers to believe them rather than believe me. I cannot help that. He is a free man and entitled to his opinions. But I ask him to consider what would be the effect if every time some newspaper started a earn paign of this kind, without any evidence, the House of Commons were to demand that the taxpayers should be put to the expense of an inquiry in the hope that it would result in somebody being found to blame.
    Does he really think he has done his duty sufficiently by raking up these totally unsupported statements? He says, "Hold a public inquiry, and I will give you all the evidence I have." Let him produce the evidence, or prove that any information which has been published by the Admiralty is wrong, or anything I have said is wrong, and if he can I shall be the first to acknowledge it. But do not let him pursue a policy which really would be fatal to our interest Is a House, and fatal to the interests of any Government Department, and take the responsibility for statements about which he knows nothing, which have never been proved either to himself or to me, or to anybody else, and in this way raise questions which can serve no useful object but which are extremely painful to those who are concerned and which, I think, might in the interest of good feeling be left where they are until, or unless, some real, substantial evidence is produced. If it can I shall not hesitate to investigate whether there is any truth in it. I hope the hon. Member will acquit me of any desire to avoid this question. I have answered every question that has been
    1008
    put to me perfectly frankly and plainly, and I am ready to answer more, but I am not ready to put the officials of the Admiralty to the pain and trouble of an inquiry unless something more substantial than anything I have heard to-day can be produced to justify such a course.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have had some considerable experience—
    Hon. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again except by leave of the House.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask leave of the House to speak again.
    Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has already made a very exhaustive speech, during which he has produced a whole series of questions for the consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I submit that it would be trifling with the House to allow him to embark on another speech.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely it is very ungracious on the part of the hon. Member to refuse the hon. Member who raised this question the right of making a few observations which might settle all this trouble.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no objection.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I know, but I am putting it to the House that it is ungracious on the part of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to object to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) making a few observations on the statement which the First Lord has just made.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is only by leave of the House, and the hon. Member must ask leave.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I ask leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"]—to make a few observations on the statement which the First Lord has just made. I have no desire to trifle with the House. I have undertaken a serious responsibility in this connection. I have had experience of this kind of thing on public boards and I quite understand the difficulty of those who represent official departments. All I am

    1009
    going to say now is that I am still satisfied that there is a. very substantial portion of evidence that. could be submitted, and that it should be given in the proper form; that the men who have been pensioned by this Department should stand secure in their pensions while they state the facts. Surely any man representing the Admiralty would want to see that done. That is the proper course. How. ever, it is refused. I leave it there. I have done my duty.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak also by leave of the House. I could not make my answer any plainer. The hon. Member has produced none of the evidence upon which he relies for accusing members of the Admiralty, dead or living, of misconduct in their duty many years ago. I never expected to convince the hon. Member. He does not believe me.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: When you have received the evidence I will be convinced.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: When I ask the hon. Member to give me the evidence he will not do so. The suggestion is that the survivors -of the "Hampshire," who gave their evidence before the Court of Inquiry, gave false evidence.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No, not false evidence.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If it was not false evidence, what is there to inquire about?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: There is additional evidence on the points you have not answered to-night.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not want to keep the House any longer, but quite plainly the only inference of the last words of the hon. Member is that those who gave evidence before the Court of Inquiry gave false evidence.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I never said that, and you must not put words into my mouth.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is altogether too effervescent.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is natural if you get words put into your mouth.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must listen to the reply.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is most extraordinary that hon. Members opposite think they can accuse us and those whom we support of any sort of misconduct, but if we defend them we are said to be aggressors and provokers, and are constantly interrupted when we are replying to the case that is made. The obvious inference of the last words of the hon. Member is that those who did give evidence before the Court of Inquiry gave false evidence.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Nothing of the sort.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And that if they were asked again they Would give something different. They gave their evidence immediately after the event. Lots of things have happened since then, and it is not likely their memory would he better now than it was then. I still say the hon. Member must produce proof that misconduct can be properly charged against any official at the time. I have been quite prepared to inquire into all charges, and I have found there is no truth in any of them, but. I am not going. to have an inquiry on statements, unsupported by evidence, such as the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes past Nine o'Clock.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MEDICAL STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MEDICAL STAFF).
  NURSING HOMES.
  NURSING HOMES.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (JUNIOR DIVISION).
  OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (JUNIOR DIVISION).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (TRADE).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (TRADE).
  PRISON VANS.
  PRISON VANS.
  ALIENS (REPATRIATION).
  ALIENS (REPATRIATION).
AGRICULTURE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, KESTEVEN (RENTS).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, KESTEVEN (RENTS).
  IMPORTATION OF CARCASES (PROHIBITION).
  IMPORTATION OF CARCASES (PROHIBITION).
  LIVE STOCK.
  LIVE STOCK.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  NATIONAL DEBT AND COAL SUBSIDY.
  NATIONAL DEBT AND COAL SUBSIDY.
INDIA.
  CURRENCY COMMISSION (REPORT).
  CURRENCY COMMISSION (REPORT).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  MADRAS PLANTERS' LABOUR ACT.
  MADRAS PLANTERS' LABOUR ACT.
  COTTON-TEXTILE INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).
  COTTON-TEXTILE INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.
  PALITANA DURBAR AND JAIN COMMUNITY.
  PALITANA DURBAR AND JAIN COMMUNITY.
  CHOLERA.
  CHOLERA.
  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  BRITISH HONDURAS CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION.
  BRITISH HONDURAS CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION.
  EAST AFRICA (GUARANTEED LOAN).
  EAST AFRICA (GUARANTEED LOAN).
  AUSTRALIAN FLOUR.
  AUSTRALIAN FLOUR.
  DOMINION PARLIAMENTS (MINISTERS' AND MEMBERS' SALARIES).
  DOMINION PARLIAMENTS (MINISTERS' AND MEMBERS' SALARIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to.

UNION OF BENEFICES AND DISPOSAL OF CHURCHES (METROPOLIS) MEASURE, 1926.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved by the Lord Bishop of London on Thursday last, to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure, 1926, be
2
presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I was so much interested in the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London last Thursday that when I went home I provided myself with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT and spent Sunday evening reading the speech. The right rev. Prelate on that occasion spoke with two voices. The first voice assured your Lordships that if there was one person in this world who was anxious to preserve the ancient churches of the City of London it was the right rev. Prelate himself. He loved them; he had assisted to restore them and it was a great mistake to suppose that he would do anything which would in any kind of way injure them. What he wanted to do was to protect them, supposing that in the future there should be a bold, bad Bishop of London. The right rev. Prelate supports this Measure in order to restrict the efforts of the bold, bad Bishop who may come after him. Lest it may be suggested that I in any way misrepresent the right rev. Prelate I have provided myself with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT and I will read short extracts from his speech to show that what I have just said is absolutely accurate.
The right rev. Prelate began by saying:—
"My Lords, the first thing I want to remove from your Lordships' mind is that

3
this is a Bill for the destruction of a great many City churches. It is nothing of the kind."
Later on he said:—
"This Bill is a Bill for stopping the Bishop of London being an iconoclast."
That is the bold, bad Bishop who is to succeed him, I suppose—
"For myself it is the last thing I want to be. I love these City churches. I have restored many of them, I have opened them, and I would not have one of these monuments of beauty destroyed.… Therefore I say this particular Bill, instead of being a Bill for pulling down a number of churches, is a Bill to restrain the Bishop of London from being rash, foolish and iconoclastic."
Why do we want to restrain a Bishop? That is the last thing I want to do. Why not leave the matter as it is? Why not leave in force the Act of 1860 under which, as my noble friend the Earl of Crawford told you, in the last sixty years, I think he said, thirty churches have been removed.
That is the voice of the right rev. Prelate at the commencement of his speech. But if you look a little further, you will see that after these opening remarks the voice changes, and it becomes a voice compared with which Lord Phillimore is a moderating agent. The right rev. Prelate says in effect, "There are forty-six churches in the City of London; twelve are quite sufficient." Now if you deduct twelve from forty-six that leaves thirty-four. Lord Phillimore desired to destroy nineteen, but, as I read the right rev. Prelate's speech, he desires to destroy thirty-four.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Oh no.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I will read what he says:
"But do we want forty-six churches, forty-six organists, forty-six choirs to minister to them? About a dozen churches would be sufficient."
If the English language means anything that means that a dozen churches would be sufficient and that therefore the difference between twelve and forty-six—thirty-four—are unnecessary. The right rev. Prelate went on to say—
"The men and women for whom the churches were built do not live in the City now. The people for whom they were built are in Dagenham, Tottenham and Edmon-
4
ton. We want to carry the ministrations of the Church down to those places. It is there that the people now live for whom the churches were built."
I do not quite know how he arrived at that conclusion. Then he said:
"We have to consider that the Bishop of Southwark, who may not have time to speak, and the Bishop of Chelmsford have to build twenty-five churches almost at once and do not know where to turn for the money."
That is the bottom of the whole thing. As my noble friend Lord Hunsdon said, £1,500,000—I think that was the amount of money—can be obtained for these churches. The Bishop of Southwark and the Bishop of Chelmsford have to build twenty-five churches and do not know where to turn for the money, so City churches are to be destroyed. That is what it comes to, because, unless they are destroyed, you cannot get the money and use it to build churches in places where the residents will not give a shilling. Therefore, because certain people will not give a shilling to provide churches for themselves, churches in the City of London, which in the old days did provide money for building churches, are to be destroyed in order that the money may be found.
The right rev. Prelate talked about a body of thirty ordinary members, of whom twenty are Church people who, if they all vote the same way, would be in a majority. It is very unlikely that twenty Church people would all vote the same way. Probably they will hold many different views. Why is it supposed that twenty Church people, unless they have some connection with the City of London or some love for the past, will vote against the destruction of these churches? Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon is a Churchman. He is in favour of destruction. Lord Phillimore is a Churchman. He is in favour of destruction. Therefore I venture to say that if you refer the question of the preservation of City churches to twenty Church people selected from all sorts and kinds of people in the kingdom you will certainly not have a protective body. So far, I think, I have shown that the right rev. Prelate began as a dove but turned into a wolf, and that he did, as a matter of fact, speak with two voices.

5
Now I turn for a moment to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon. My noble friend says:
"I imagine that your Lordships, like myself, will stand by the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee."
I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Let us consider for a moment what happened with regard to this matter in the Ecclesiastical Committee. We met and considered whether or not we ought to go on with this Measure at all and we came to the conclusion that it was a Measure which we ought not to deal with, but which ought to be dealt with by a Joint Committee of both Houses. We passed that, and the Legislative Council, as I think they call themselves, sent it back to us and said: "Oh, no, we will not accept that. We think you are bound to give a decision one way or the other." So we had another meeting in order to give that decision. There are thirty members of the Ecclesiastical Committee. At the meeting at which this Measure was approved there were only thirteen present. Out of those thirteen only nine voted for it and four against. I think it will be seen that the Ecclesiastical Committee was not very anxious to pass the Measure or more than thirteen members would have been present; and they would not have said—as they did when a larger a lumber was present—that they really had no proper jurisdiction in this matter and that it ought to go before a Joint Committee of both Houses. The whole of the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon was devoted to showing that there were too many churches on a small area and that about £1,500,000 would be obtained if this Measure was passed. That shows that the last voice of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London and the voice of my noble, friend below me are united in the hope of getting a considerable sum from these particular sites.
Lord Selborne said exactly the same thing. Lord Selborne went on to defend a rather curious provision in this particular Measure. On page 8 of the Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure, 1926, you will find this subsection:—
"If the Commission report to the Bishop that it is undesirable that a scheme under this Measure should be framed, no further proceedings shall be taken in pursuance of the report; but without prejudice to the
6
appointment of another Commission under this Measure in respect to the same proposals, if the Bishop shall think the appointment of such Commission desirable."
Therefore the Bishop, being defeated before one Commission, can go on appointing various other Commissions until he gets one that will give a decision his way.
My noble friend Lord Selborne alluded to that point last Thursday. Referring to the constitution of the Commission, he said:—
"The Corporation has half, the diocese has half, and the Chairman, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, has the casting vote. Can your Lordships conceive a more independent or more impartial tribunal?"
And he went on to say:—
"'But,' say my noble friends and the critics of the Measure, 'the Bishop can again bring the matter forward, and he will bring it forward, again and again, until at last he gets a Commission that will recommend the demolition of the church.' What a travesty! What an absurd picture! Even if the Bishop of London were so unreasonable—"
here I would recall your Lordships' attention to the speech of the right rev. Prelate, who considers it necessary to bring in something to restrict the Bishop of London—
"—or so absurd, is he likely to get his way by such methods as that? Are the two members of the Committee appointed by the Corporation of the City of London likely to change their minds because the Bishop plagues them again and again on the same subject? Is the Chairman of the Commission, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, likely to be so weak-minded that he will give way altogether, not because he is convinced, but merely because the Bishop of London, like the importunate widow, has come to him so often with the same question?"
The Commission will consist of two people appointed by the Corporation of London, two appointed by the other side and a Chairman, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with a casting vote.
What does that mean? The two different parties are cancelled out and the whole thing is in the hands of the Chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He will be the person who will decide. Lord Selborne asks if it is likely that the Commission would change their view. I think my noble friend is right in asking that. But what Lord Selborne has forgotten is that Lord Chancellors change. There may be a new Lord Chancellor—in fact, there will be. I do not know how

7
many Lord Chancellors we have had in the last five or six years, but there have been a number of changes. There will be a new Lord Chancellor, and the Bishop will go to him and say: "I want another Commission appointed. Will you appoint your man?" The new Lord Chancellor will appoint somebody else, and you cannot tell whether that new man will or will not have the same opinion as the original Chairman. Accordingly, I again come to the conclusion that, however they may attempt to disguise it, this is a Measure to provide money to build churches for people in other parts of the country who will not provide the money themselves.
Let me point out what has been spent on these churches by the City Corporation. I have here a letter from the Record Office in Guildhall, dated March 13, 1925, and addressed to Mr. Chamberlain. I will not trouble your Lordships with the whole of the letter, but it is to the effect that the Act of 1667 enabled the Mayor and Corporation to impose a coal duty, and the sum of £265,467 3s. was devoted to the re-building of parish churches. The letter went on to say that this sum—
"was worth very much more than the same sum to-day; moreover, it was a burden on every hearth and furnace in the City, and was borne by Nonconformists, Roman Catholics and Jews as well as by members of the Church of England."
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I ask noble Lord a question? Was it levied on the hearth, or was it levied in the Port of London on every ton of coal that came in?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Let me quote from the letter in answer to that point:—
"The Act of 1667.… enabled the Mayor and Corporation to set an impost of 1s. on every chaldron of coals entering the Port of London, to assist them in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public works.…"
These people spent their money on building these churches. In the churches are the monuments and the bones of the people who in the past helped to build up the City of London and make it what it is to-day. Are these to be destroyed merely because, in some other place, there is not a great number of churches and the people are so indifferent as to whether there are churches or not that they will not put their hands in their pockets to provide them for themselves?
8
I have here an extract from a report which appeared in the Press on Saturday of an exhibition at St. Dunstan's in the East at which the Secretary of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings spoke, and at which the Rector, the Rev. Arthur G. B. West, said—and this is important to show what is done with the money at the present moment in these churches—that of the income of £6,000, £4,500 went to their ancient school of St. Dunstan's College at Catford and £1,000 a year, through the City Parochial Foundation, to the Bishop of London to be spent on other parts of the diocese. He went on to say that since the War he had held no Sunday services, but he contended that the churches should bring the daily inhabitants to church on the other days of the week, and he stated that there was an average of two hundred people in the church all the year round on week days. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Measure.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, this matter appears to me so important and so difficult that I claim the indulgence of your Lordships in asking leave to break silence for the first time in your Lordships' House. I was one of those who gave what assistance I could to the passing of the Enabling Act. I am not sure whether I spoke, but I remember using all the influence, such as it was, that I possessed in favour of that measure, and as soon as it was passed I was appointed by Mr. Speaker to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and I held my position upon that Committee until such time as I left the House of Commons. In these circumstances I approach the Measure that is before this House with every desire to see it passed if it is right that it should be passed, because I recognise to the full the difficulty in which the Church of England is placed in getting Measures which touch and concern it in its domestic affairs passed by a busy Legislature.
At the same time I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will forgive me if I say that I do not take the same view that he took as to the powers and duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee. He said to your Lordships:—
"Was not the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament established for the very pur-

9
pose of safeguarding the rights of Parliament and the powers of Parliament and the public interest?"
I agree. But then he goes on to speak as if the matter was concluded once a Measure had been passed by the Ecclesiastical Committee. For my own part I do not accept that view. It appears to me that the Ecclesiastical Committee has duties of great importance to perform, but it cannot be said that its decision is intended to be irrevocably binding upon either House of the Legislature. Its duties are to draft a Report "stating the nature and legal effect of the Measure, and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects." Testing this Measure by that standard, I will say at once that, if I had been a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee before whom this Measure had come, I should undoubtedly have joined with the minority and voted with the four and not with the nine. For my part I deeply regret that a Measure of such deep importance, arousing not unnaturally so much concern, should have been dealt with by a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee who exceeded by one, and one only, the quorum necessary for dealing with the business at all.
May I explain what I mean by the ambit of matters which ought to be dealt with by a Measure? It appears to me that, if you examine the Enabling Act, and if you take the Preamble, it was to deal with matters touching and concerning the Church of England. It is true that it does not say the Church of England alone, but for my part—I may have been wrong—I thought the ambit of the Enabling Act was much narrower than appears to be contended for now. I can give an illustration of what I conceive to be the true powers, or true limits, of the Enabling Act. Last Thursday the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, asked and received from your Lordships sanction to pass a Measure to get rid of some inequalities and some, I may almost say, absurdities, in reference to the collection of First Fruits. That is a matter from which the Church, and the Church only, has suffered for many generations. I may congratulate your Lordships on having passed that Measure, because I have observed that more than 520 years ago that system of collecting First Fruits was
10
described in language quite strong—so strong that, to use a phrase used in another place on certain occasions, have for greater accuracy obtained the exact words of the Act of Parliament. In the sixth regnal year of Henry IV, Cap. 1, an Act was passed which described the system as "a horrible mischief and a damnable custom." Five hundred and twenty years ago that was the description of it, and we may be glad to think that a Measure has passed this House to get rid of what was, undoubtedly, a real burden upon the Church of England.
But consider this present Measure. Does it concern the Church of England alone? It has two parts. I know that it deals with the question of the union of benefices, but it gives powers, wide and extensive, for the purpose of removing churches, and I will quote the lines of Mr. Gladstone's hymn when he speaks of those sacred places
"Where many a generation's prayer
Hath perfumed and hath blessed the air."
Are these edifices and their preservation matters which concern the Church of England alone? The very interest and deep concern awakened in large numbers of His Majesty's subjects at the very thought that a number of churches may be pulled down at once shows that the preservation of churches is a matter which arouses keen interest and warm sympathy among many of those who are, perhaps, not regular adherents of the Church of England. They may not be constant in their attendance at the services in those churches, but, believe me, they have a regard, a respect, and a veneration for them which is, in itself, I believe, a part of the English character.
Those churches which have, lasted for so long a period, and which it is now possible may be removed, hold the bones of the great grandfathers of the present generation, and I believe it is to the credit and honour of the present generation that they are not comforted by the fact that they are told that the sites will be so valuable that, it may be, the compensation for the sites may be put upon the three per cent. tables, that you may quantify the value you obtain at so many pounds per foot super, and multiply that by terms of thirty years' purchase. I believe Englishmen, as a whole, would desire to reject any such attractive sug-

11
gestion when they come to think of what is the importance of these churches as a centre of their life and their religious life.
We are told, no doubt, that a number of these churches are but little used. I am not quite sure how far that goes. Some of the City churches have now become attached to one dominion or to one colony. Some offer facilities for private prayer and rest in the course of the day, and for my own part I should be very sorry to test the value of churches by considering whether or not they are well attended on a Sunday. Perhaps one of the remarkable features of the present day is the fact that in the midst of the busy turmoil of business life you will find so many who are ready, in the middle of the day, at all seasons of the year, to take some opportunity of resting awhile apart, and meditating, in the City churches. It appears to me, therefore, on this first point, that it is impossible to say that this Measure is one which so touches the Church of England and its domestic affairs as to be one which ought to be passed as a Measure through your Lordships' House.
I come to the next question, as to whether intrinsically it is a scheme which ought to be passed. Here I deeply regret that I shall have to vote against the Measure, because it bears the trace of the care, the careful drafting, and the accurate thought of Lord Phillimore.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No, it does not, indeed. I had nothing to do with it. I never touched it.
LORD HANWORTH: I am sorry. I thought the noble and learned Lord had inspired it, because the Measure is a well-drawn Measure, and he will not think me impertinent if I associate with his name something like accurate thought and careful draftsmanship.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, but I never had anything to do with the Measure. I never spoke on it, or voted on it, or had anything to do with it.
LORD HANWORTH: I am sorry that it has not that merit. But let me just
12
consider the Measure itself. The Second Schedule determines the bodies and persons, fourteen in number, upon whom notice of a scheme has to be served. To take one only of these bodies, notice of a scheme must be served upon the Commissioners of Works. Why? Because it is obviously a matter of such public concern that that public authority ought to have notice. When you regard the table it appears to me that intrinsically the scheme itself bears conclusive evidence of the fact that it does not touch or concern the Church of England alone. It appears to me of a far more wide-reaching character. I may point out one point which I think requires some amendment. I observe that all the documents, as I will call them, are to be disposed of under the scheme as may be thought right by those persons who frame it. I think the more modern way in which to deal with those parish registers and the like, is to put them in charge of those who have charge of public records, as has been done in the Law of Property Acts.
But we have either to pass this Measure or to reject it. It is not possible to meet the very important points which have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. If it were possible under the Measure to offer some amendment it would be possible to reassure the public by indicating in a table or schedule that a certain number of churches were quite beyond the powers of those who are entrusted with the execution of the measure under the Act. We cannot amend it. We have to say whether this Measure should be passed or not and for my part, after having given grave and careful consideration, with every desire to meet the difficulties which beset the Church in getting its private Measures passed, I cannot find it right to vote for this Measure. It appears to me that the Enabling Act was intended for the passing of such Measures as would be more properly described as matters for Private Bill legislation—matters which are not usually dealt with by Public Bills. But if that be an insufficient test, even applying a wider and more liberal test to the legislation brought up from the Assembly, this Measure appears to me to have naturally aroused so much opposition that it is impossible to deal with the matters in it except by an Act

13
of Parliament. No other course would have the authority to compel the assent of people at large, and I can well believe that it is on that ground that so much concern is aroused. For these reasons I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I must vote against the Measure.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, my excuse for addressing you on this occasion is that for a long time I have taken rather a great interest in this subject. I quite realise that any one who comes forward here and ventures to suggest that any old building should be moved or, still worse, destroyed, comes as a suspect; he is looked upon as a mere empty-headed utilitarian who cares nothing for beauty and nothing for antiquity. He has, in fact, to fight sentiment, and when you come down to fight sentiment no argument, or even common sense, will prevail. I listened with very rapt attention to the charming and appealing speech made by my noble friend Lord Crawford. He is deservedly recognised as a great authority upon art, and his love for the antique was shown by the two stories he told us. But sometimes these very artistic people look at a thing from the way they want to see it: like the futurist, who complimented a host upon a lovely picture of his wife which he had seen, and to his dismay was told it was only a plan of the drains; like a case only a year ago in this House, when we discussed a small bit of asphalte about the size of an ordinary dining-room, which the City Corporation described as a "lung of London," 25 feet by 40 feet; like Ruskin, who described what is, I suppose, the most beautiful chapel in England, King's College Chapel, as a dining-room table turned upside down, with the four legs standing in the air; even like my noble friend Lord Crawford, who described one of our most respected, if not one of the oldest members of this House, Lord Phillimore, as blithe and debonair. Artists see what they want to see.
But let us come down to the common sense of this matter. If these churches are all so beautiful as they are described by the artists and by the City Corporation, why have the City Corporation never protested against their being obscured and built out of sight? It is impossible now to see many of them at
14
all. Walk down Cornhill: the whole of St. Michael's, Cornhill, is built out of sight. Seventy yards further up the stucco front of St. Peter's, Cornhill, is covered by a haberdasher's shop. All Hallows, Lombard Street, about which we have heard so much, can only be approached by a little alley. If there was ever anything beautiful in it it is impossible to see it now, because buildings are so close to it that the whole perspective of the architect is entirely destroyed. My noble friend Lord Hunsdon, who, as the son of his father, Lord Aldenham, has been brought up since his cradle with a knowledge of church architecture, has described to your Lordships the crowd of churches which are to be found in the area of nine acres of ground—an area, as he put it, about the size of an ordinary, good-sized garden. There are six churches so close that you call throw a cricket ball from one to the other.
But Lord Hunsdon is not the only love of beauty who has drawn attention to this. Pepys, in his "Diary" in 1667, after the Fire, wrote:—
"These churches which are being built are plainly not chosen with reference to the convenience of the City. They stand in a crowd round Cornhill."
To that Lord Crawford replied that he did not mind the churches being huddled together; and then, with the artistic indignation of which he is such a master, he said:
"Are there too many masterpieces in the National Gallery? Are we too rich in statues in the British Museum?"
No, I do not say that we are. But he happens to be a trustee of both, and I am perfectly certain that if his old masters were hidden away so that they could not be seen, if they were hidden away so that they could not be enjoyed or used by the people, he would very soon move them somewhere else where they could be seen and enjoyed. He would enlarge his gallery or move his pictures to a larger one, and the same thing, of course, applies to the statues.
If this Measure passes it does not mean necessarily—and too much stress is put upon this—the destruction of a church or the destruction of anything that is beautiful. It is possible, and it has often been done, to move a building stone by stone and put it where it can be seen and where it

15
can be admired. Take, for instance, Crosby Hall. Crosby Hall is a beautiful building; but by degrees it was built out of sight and any one standing in Crosby Square could not see it at all. That building was moved stone by stone and is now a home for University women. Its beauty can be seen, its architecture can be seen, and it is now used instead of being disused. I saw a very memorable building only yesterday, when I was at Trinity College, Cambridge. That building was moved—that beautiful gateway leading into Bishop's Hostel, which stood at one time twenty yards further in the square, was moved back, I think, by Henry VIII into its present position. Over and over again beautiful buildings have been moved to places where they can be seen and used properly.
Did the Corporation of London protest against the moving of Crosby Hall, or are their protests limited to the moving of a church? I think the Corporation of London come to this House with a very ill grace when we think of their conduct in connection with Temple Bar. In all England I suppose there was hardly a building of greater historical importance and even of greater beauty than Temple Bar. But it got in the way of traffic, and was removed without all this screaming about beauty. It could have been re-erected on the Embankment. It could have been re-erected at the entrance to the Temple. But it was swept away, and the stones of Temple Bar lay in a dust heap on the Embankment until a private individual, Admiral Sir Hedworth Meux, was patriotic enough to collect them and erect them as an entrance to his own house. It seems very odd, therefore, that there is this indignation on the part of the Corporation at the idea, not necessarily of pulling down but of moving a church.
If I may state my own view, it is that any old building ought from its very antiquity to be protected. It would be perfectly lamentable if every generation were to destroy the buildings of the generation before it. The present generation is not at all necessarily a better judge of what is beautiful than the generation that went before it. Therefore, I should vote against this Measure if I thought it made it easier to pull down or to move a building without
16
proper protection. But no church can be moved, no church can be destroyed under this Measure until those who are the leading artists, the leading societies for the protection of buildings, the president of this and the president of that have expressed—I do not say necessarily their approval, but until their opinion has been heard. I think, therefore, we are secure that nothing shall be done that is likely to endanger any church in the City without, to put it vulgarly, such a row being made that it would soon become impossible. All these great authorities have the opportunity of making their voices heard and many of them are on the Committee which has to decide the question.
But, as I say, I think we have made too much of the pulling down. This Measure does a great deal more than that. It enables the benefices to be united. I will not repeat what the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said, but, speaking as a Bishop and as Bishop of London, his opinion, surely, carries a great deal of weight in this House. But, shortly, this state of things exists, and I wonder whether any one can think that it ought to go on. We have forty-seven parishes with forty-seven incumbents, and, after Lord Phillimore's Committee had taken evidence, it was decided that the whole of the work those incumbents do could be done by twelve men. In the whole of these forty-seven parishes there are only 11,000 residents. Many of them are only temporary residents, and there is no question of their having homes there. Many of them are only caretakers. Yet £40,000 a year net, it is much more gross, is paid to these incumbents for ministering to the religious wants of 11,000 people. The incumbents, of course, do not live in their parishes. Why should they? They live out at Wimbledon or Sutton or somewhere else. There is nothing for them to do, and they do not live in their parishes. Only last week one of them, as my noble friend Lord Banbury has already mentioned, said that he did not think that all the City churches need be open on Sunday: he had not had any Sunday service in his church since the War! Does it not make the blood of some of us boil when we hear of a man receiving £437 a year for doing nothing on Sundays? What is he doing on week-days? The right rev.

17
Prelate told us that he had also given leave to another clergyman not to hold the morning and evening services on week-days because he had to read the service to one verger.
I am sorry to detain your Lordships but I have been boiling over with this subject for a long time. What parish work can a clergyman do who has only 262 parishioners? What parish work can he do if he has only 215 parishioners and gets £900 a year for attending to them? What parish work can he do if he has only 85 parishioners and gets £845 a year for attending to them, or 120 parishioners and receives £900 for attending to them? I am giving your Lordships facts. I have had a very amusing correspondence with some of these gentlemen and they tell me that I attach too much value to parochial work. Well, they certainly take too much value for it. But they say: "Look at the work we do going in and out in the parish." I am seventy years of age. I have spent four or five days a week in the City during forty years of my life and never in all those, forty years have I seen a clergyman going in or out of any office with which I have been connected, though there have been hundreds of clerks in it, and I do not think he would have been welcomed if he did go in and out. The religious work, the religious life, the religious anchor of the people working in the City is in their homes, with the clergyman of their own parishes, not with a perambulating man who has nothing to do on Sundays and very little to do on week-days.
Your Lordships have been reminded by the noble Lord the Master of the Rolls of the luncheon hour services. I have been to many of them. You can count on your fingers the men and the women who attend those services. I am not sneering at the wish of any man or woman to go into a church in the luncheon hour, as one clergyman said, for rest and refreshment—I do not know where the refreshment comes in, but for rest—and it is a very nice and charming thought that men should care to do that, but we do not want forty-seven churches in a few acres of ground for that purpose. We do not want to pay £40,000 a year so that people can go and sit in churches. The incumbents may be in the churches during the luncheon hour, but it has not been my fortune to meet them there. I am often in these churches. The incum-
18
bent may be hidden away in the vestry but he is not seen. I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that I am trying to minimise the value of some churches for this purpose, but we do not want forty-seven.
Since the question has been raised frantic endeavours have been made to show how very attractive these churches are at mid-day. Concerts have been held, sacred concerts. There was a sermon on the devil, I remember, which I went to hear myself; I thought the preacher might be making personal allusions. There were lectures on poetry. One incumbent asked me to come and hear him play on the harp, practising, I suppose, for the future. But we do not want the clergy of the Church of England to receive £40,000 a year to get up concerts. It was not for that that the churches were built. The churches were built for the better service of God and they are not being used for that purpose. People do not use the churches for the purpose for which they were built. Does it not seem hard that they should come here and say: "We do not want them, we do not use them, but you shall not have them." That is a dog-in-the-manger policy which has never been very popular in this country up to now.
In conclusion—I am sorry I have been so long—I would say that here we have at long last the Church awake and alive to this scandal. I know, if I may say so, that the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of London has had a very, very anxious time considering this matter. Here we have the Church of England coming to this House and saying: "Do give us the opportunity to unite these benefices. Do give us the opportunity to use our possessions for the purpose for which they were meant. Do not leave them where they are, useless. Give us the opportunity of using them for the benefit of the worshippers." Provided—and I use that word with intention—provided that protection is taken that the beautiful shall not be interfered with, I think we take a very great responsibility if we refuse the request of the Church.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I will try, in reply to my noble friend who has just spoken, to attain to an average

19
degree of common sense and to indulge in as little sentiment as possible. I would pass by for a moment his criticisms of the City. I am not here to defend the City and if the City, as he said, has in the past been guilty of certain lâaches, surely all the more we ought to support them when they have done their duty, as they have on the present occasion.
I have two reasons, if I may say so, for addressing your Lordships on this subject. One is that I speak as a London citizen, who has had something to do with London Government, who knows his London and loves his London, and desires to make all the protest that he can before this Measure, fraught with such destruction to some of the great buildings of London, passes into law. My other reason is this. It has been my daily business during nearly two years to be made familiar with the growing extent to which not merely learned societies, which do a very good work, and highly qualified persons learned in architecture or in the spirit of the past, but also large and growing masses of His Majesty's subjects are becoming more and more sensitive in these matters, more and more devoted to ancient buildings and more and more determined to stand up for them from whatever quarter an attack may be made upon them. I get daily letters when, perhaps, some old dwelling-house is going to be taken away to America. The noble Viscount says, in effect: "What does it matter? Take it down, stone by stone, and set it up somewhere else." Yes, and lose the whole spirit and feeling associated with the locality in which it is placed.
I get these letters daily whenever there is some abbey or old building about to be removed. I am constantly asked to take them under the protection of the Government and I only regret that the powers that have been so far entrusted to the Government by Parliament are not strong enough to take them under a greater protection than can be offered now. In listening to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London it seemed to me that he was almost insensitive to, and scarcely realised, the force and the strength of this feeling. What did he tell us? He said that he had been attacked as an
20
iconoclast, that he had been caricatured in papers with a pick-axe or a hammer destroying ancient buildings, and he treated it all as mere chaff and thought nothing of it. I can assure the right rev. Prelate—and I say so most earnestly—that he is deeply mistaken if he thinks that feeling which he so lightly passes over can be treated as chaff, or that it has not a very profound reaction in the hearts of many people both in London and in the country at large.
I was rather surprised in listening to the right rev. Prelate to note the curious view that he took of this Measure—that it was to restrain some iconoclastic Bishop from doing away with these churches in this country. I am rather surprised that before he made that statement he had not altered the Preamble to the Measure. What does it say?
"To facilitate the union of benefices and the disposal of churches."
The very preface to the Measure says that it is to make more easy and not more difficult the disposal and the destruction of these City churches. I want to say that that Preamble is perfectly correct and that the right rev. Prelate is entirely wrong when he tries to suggest to your Lordships that it is going to put difficulties either in his own way or in the way of some subsequent Bishop when he wants to pull down one of these City churches.
I will be quite frank on this matter and I will say that if he wants to be restrained, if he represents himself as a sort of ravening wolf going about seeking how many churches he can devour, I would much rather he withdrew this Measure and that we should deal with the right rev. Prelate without this Measure at all, because I think we are strong enough to deal with the Bishop if he has not these curious conglomerate Committees to assist him. Our quarterstaves are, I think, strong enough to beat down the crozier of the Bishop and we will challenge him on that. I am afraid that if this Measure passes and if you have these committees with this sort of hunt-the-slipper business, you will never know where the Church is. The matter is handed on from Board to Commission, from Commission back to Board, and public opinion is harassed by this complication of Committees. It does not know to what point

21
it should direct its attack. On the contrary, these matters complicate and confuse public opinion.
As I shall show in a moment, some of the statements of the right rev. Prelate upon these Committees and how they work are—I can only say so with great respect—somewhat misleading. The right rev. Prelate first of all told us that none of these churches are to be destroyed until we have a decision from the Fine Art Commission. That is a most extraordinary statement. If it were true I would not get up in this House and oppose this Measure. I do so because that statement is not true and because all that the Fine Art Commission can do is to make recommendations and, if in its discretion it thinks fit, pass them on to the Bishop. That is what the right rev. Prelate calls a decision of the Fine Art Commission. It is all the more curious because some correspondence passed between my office—before I was there—and those who were engaged in drawing up this Measure, urging that the Fine Art Commission should be the arbiter of the pulling down of any of these churches. That was refused, but the right rev. Prelate now comes here and tells us that this recommendation is to be the decision of the Fine Art Commission.
He also tells us that nothing of this kind can be done without the assent of thirty-five men on the Board. If these thirty-five gentlemen have to be unanimous I would not take the trouble of speaking on this Measure. I should feel perfectly secure, first of all because there is a representative of the office of the First Commissioner of Works on this body and, also, because it includes representatives of the Society of Antiquaries and one or two other bodies. It is because a large majority of the people on this Board are not only—I say respectfully—under the influence of the Bishop of London but that many of them are interested parties in the sense that they want to have some of this money to build churches in their own district, that I say it is not fair to come to the House of Lords and say that nothing can be done without the assent of this Commission.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: May I ask the noble Viscount where does he find in my speech anything about the decision of the Commission? I said the
22
Bishop has to consult the Fine Art Commission; but there is nothing about a decision.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will read the sentence.
"We are not touching any of them until we have had a decision from the Royal Fine Art Commission."
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: That means their decision as to what were their views on the subject; it did not mean that they were to decide the question finally.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I read that as a final decision of the Fine Art Commission. If the right rev. Prelate only meant their recommendation I am quite satisfied. I think that though the right rev. Prelate did not feel fully the weight of the hostility of public opinion to the destruction of these churches, yet he has recognised it to some extent because of the very complexity of the machinery of these Committees which gives an opportunity to some of these persons to be heard. But whatever they say, whatever their recommendations, whatever their views, can be overruled by the Bishop himself. Now, I wish to make this proposition, which I believe to be true, that this Measure is of no use and means nothing unless it is a general attack on the great majority of the churches in the City of London. I know it is said that it is not so.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The machinery and salaries are redundant, not the fabrics of the buildings.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that in a moment. The point I am dealing with now is that of getting money from the sale of these sites. I would not rise to attack this Measure if I thought it was merely one for making a certain number of persons do a little more work. If it was a Measure for taking some of their stipends, and using the money in other ways, I would not say a word about it. But the whole value of this Measure is the value you will get from the sale of the sites on which these churches stand. I believe that in other places the right rev. Prelate has put the position in this way. He has said, in effect, "It is very difficult for me to raise money for the building of

23
these churches"—which I have no doubt are badly wanted—"in Walthamstow and other places, because I am always told the Church must realise its assets and so we are going to realise these assets by selling the sites of these churches." That is part of my fear of this Measure. Suppose they only dealt with three or four churches and sold the sites: the same argument would be applicable and the same gentlemen who said "Realise your assets," would say "You cannot expect us to contribute to the building of these churches in other parts of London until you have realised more of your assets." I foresee a great danger that under the pressure of that kind of opinion the right rev. Prelate might very well be forced to the destruction and absorption of these churches. He told us, and I have no doubt with perfect truth, that he has an affection for these ancient buildings, but he made a statement, which I thought extraordinary, that there were too many organists and ministers and so on in these churches and that about a dozen would be sufficient.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I am sorry to have to interrupt again. What I said was that twelve churches would be sufficient for the week-day services. That does not mean that we should pull down the churches. We should have one parish church for the services, but we should leave the other buildings, and if we could have a service in the one church only we should get the money, £23,000 a year, from the other incumbents. That is what I said.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am drawing what seems a plain inference from what the right rev. Prelate said. I dare say he does not mean it, but I am saying that in asking for subscriptions he will be driven to that action by public opinion. If he has publicly stated that for this purpose twelve churches are sufficient. I am bound to say that I think the position of the other thirty-four churches will be one of great jeopardy. He will have given an argument which will be fastened upon, that for this purpose it is not necessary to have more than a dozen churches. We have been told that some of these churches are redundant, but there are redundant churches in other parts of the country. For instance, there are a number of redundant churches in the City of Norwich, but no one ever complains of
24
that redundancy because the site values would not realise very much. You have in the City of Norwich thirty-three churches. That is the great glory of Norwich. It is not said that because they are redundant the land should be disposed of, partly because the sites have not a very large value as compared with the City of London, and partly because in the Bishop of Norwich we have a man devoted to these ancient buildings.
I should like to remind the right rev. Prelate—I think it is worth a little serious consideration—that in the year 1913, when a Committee was sitting to consider what powers should be granted in the case of ancient buildings and monuments, the Committee actually voted for including churches in occupation in the Bill. It was only when the Bill was actually being drafted that pressure from the Bishops resulted in that part being withdrawn on an undertaking—or a promise, I do not think it was an undertaking—that they should appoint advisory committees in the different dioceses who should advise them when something of that sort arose. After all, no considerable funds for the building of churches will be raised except by the sales of the sites on which these churches stand.
Let us think for a moment what these churches are. The great bulk of them, as your Lordships know, were built after the Great Fire, when an opportunity was given to the greatest architect and one of the greatest men that we have ever had in this country to re-build these churches on a settled plan. One would have thought that in many countries they would have sacrificed almost anything before destroying the unique work of the greatest architect that the country had ever possessed. We are always trying to retain our great pictures and our great sculptures, and I do not see why this invidious distinction should be drawn between the sister arts, why we should try to retain pictures and statues and should be indifferent, if money has to be raised for other churches, to the work of our greatest architect. I should have thought—I say this as a layman, with very great respect to the Episcopal Bench—that these feelings of love for ancient buildings and love for history, the æsthetic feelings excited by these buildings, were themselves the hand-

25
maiden and the assistant of the religious sentiment and were not to be lightly undervalued.
Again, several of your Lordships who have spoken of churches being pulled down in other parts of the country do not seem to me to have fully realised the unique position in this respect of the City of London. I have seen, as have many of your Lordships, every city in Europe, and I say that there is no city in the whole of Europe where you have this extraordinary combination of businesses, merchants' offices, insurance offices and banks, and at the same time these churches built in with them, living with them, making, if you like, a sort of appeal from the material side to the spiritual side of the City of London. This is the unique glory of the City of London, and I am afraid that this glory is being jeopardised by the attacks in this Measure. The other day I was having a discussion with a distinguished Indian on our civilisation, and he was pressing the point that we were very materialistic compared with the idealists in India. I took him for a walk in the City of London and pointed out to hint the great offices, the great banks and business houses. But he was not interested in those; he was interested in the churches, and he was immensely impressed by the testimony that these churches, sandwiched in, if you like, crowded into the City of London among the business houses, bore to the more spiritual and ideal side of our British civilisation.
I believe that, along with a good deal of indifference, there is in our British hearts a very deep and profound affection for these ancient and beautiful monuments of the past. In this House there are, many of your Lordships who have had to part, with a pang, with some house with which you and your families have been connected for centuries past, and many of your Lordships are yourselves the faithful guardians of many ancient buildings and ancient monuments. I trust, therefore, that you will join with those who are attempting to preserve for another generation this unique position of the City of London. Let us wait, if you please, for another five years. Possibly in another five years the site value of these churches will have further appreciated and their value will be still greater for conversion and for the building of
26
churches in other parts of London. But for the moment respect a great and deep force of public opinion; for the moment, my Lords, I urge you to let the churches stand.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, as I ventured to tell your Lordships a little while ago, I had no part or share in the preparation or passing of this Measure. It is not the product of the wicked Phillimore Commission; it is the product of a noble Lord whom we all esteem and whose words the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, quoted with such unction—it is the product of Lord Hugh Cecil. But, though I had no part in it, I venture to ask your Lordships to listen to me for a few minutes while I give you reasons for supporting this Measure. Its only advantage is the advantage that it substitutes a better tribunal for the narrow veto of a minute vestry and possibly an interested patron. Otherwise the law remains as it stands, except that the absence of those vetos is counterbalanced by a system of checks upon which I propose to dwell a little later. It is in these circumstances that it seems to me that the claim of the City is unwarrantable, one might, almost say arrogant. They desire to be treated differently from every other city and town in the kingdom.
I have a great respect for the City of London, but is it greater than Liverpool plus Birmingham plus Manchester plus Leeds plus Bristol plus all the towns and counties and cities of this kingdom? Have not Exeter, Canterbury, York, Norwich (to which the noble Viscount who has just spoken referred), Winchester and Oxford beautiful and interesting churches? But your Lordships made no difficulty, and the other House made no difficulty, in passing a Measure for the union of benefices which gives the same power of disposing of churches with far less safeguards than this Measure proposes. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, raises the constitutional question and talks of Private Bills being passed, I am afraid it means that he has not studied any of them. There is a Union of Benefices Measure which covers every other place in the country except the Metropolis, and your Lordships and the other House passed that Measure without hesitation.

27
It is remarkable that the point should be raised that it is, as it were, ultra vires to have a Union of Benefices Measure touching the City churches, for this is the very instance that was given by Lord Hugh Cecil in the discussion on the Enabling Act in the House of Commons. It was proposed to make an Amendment restricting the action of the Assembly to measures touching the Church of England, and Lord Hugh Cecil said this:—
"Who is going to decide whether a particular Measure is or is not prejudicial to the interests of a person who is not a member of the Church of England? Obviously all Measures which directly or indirectly affect the general rights of property of the community might come within the scope of this Amendment. Supposing we deal, as I hope we are going to deal, with the City churches. We shall have to deal with ancient lights when we destroy a church and sell the site. That affects the rights of property of everybody all round, and some of those affected may not be members of the Church of England."
It will be seen that Lord Hugh Cecil gave as an example this very possibility of dealing with the City churches.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, speaks of what happened before the Ecclesiastical Committee. The noble Lord is a member of that Committee, as I am, but I think he was not present at, or has forgotten, the most important meeting of that Committee—the meeting which, no doubt, led to the small attendance at the last meeting. We did in the first instance suggest that the Measure should be considered by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. When we found that that would not do we had a discussion as to whether we should hear the Lord Mayor or his representatives in person, as they desired. After discussion and debate we said we would hear the Lord Mayor or anybody he sent to us, and the Corporation sent two eminent and respectable members of the Corporation. I am afraid I do not remember their names, but they spoke very kindly and nicely to us, and we listened to them and to every objection that they put forward. Those objections, however, were so flimsy and frivolous that nobody attended any more, except those who wished to have it passed.
What are the objections which the Corporation raised? It was the claim, which at one time would have been called outrecuidance, of the Corporation to be
28
separate from every other part of the Kingdom. Beyond that, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, who also opposed this Measure, said that these churches were built out of the coal dues levied on everybody for the purposes of the City, and that it would be a breach of trust to pull them down. The Legislature settled that years ago. It passed a temporary Act in 1855, and a permanent Act in 1860, under which twenty of these churches have been pulled down. Was it a breach of trust to pull them down? The Legislature sanctioned it. Did not Lord Marshall speak with complacency of the existing Acts, under which, if necessary, churches could still be pulled down? Where is the breach of trust? When they speak of the coal dues being levied on Roman Catholics and Jews, and so forth, they forget that at the time when the coal dues were imposed everybody, in theory of law, belonged to the Church of England. It was before the days of the Toleration Act. Every church, except a few built out of national money, has been built or has been repaired out of local rates or private benefaction, and to remove any church from any place involves interfering with the original destination of the church. If that is a breach of trust. Heaven help us! for we have been doing it under the several Union of Benefices Acts ever since the beginning of the late Sovereign's reign.
Then there were what I will call the technical objections, and one has been repeated by Lord Banbury to-day. It is the power of the Bishop to come again and again if rebuffed once. If he did, I suppose, to apply the old legal phrase, he would be rebuffed toties quoties. I will tell your Lordships why I imagine that provision was inserted. In common with the Lord Chancellor, and with others whom your Lordships are accustomed to call Law Lords, I have sat in the judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeals under the Union of Benefices Act for the rest of the country. Such appeals are made in the last resort to His Majesty in Council. There have been a great number of unions, amounting almost to a hundred, made under that Act, but not many where a church has been pulled down. That is the confusion of thought—that this is a Measure for pulling down churches and not for uniting

29
benefices. Under the Union of Benefices Acts, however, a great many have been united, and in some dozen cases, possibly, people who were not anxious to have union have appealed to the Privy Council. On at least two occasions we have come to the conclusion that the union would be right, but that the way in which it was going to be worked was wrong. We have said: "Go back and amend your scheme," and of course this power which is given to the Bishop is a power, if the scheme is in general good but wants amendment, to bring up a fresh scheme.
The other objection was that the Benefices Board was called in twice. It is called in the first, time to make observations and comments upon a scheme, and I can imagine it saying, "You ought to unite St. Antholin and St. Bridget, but not pull down the church, or you ought to unite three benefices and only pull down one church." The Bishop then sends the matter to the Commission, and the Commission, remember, consists of two representatives of the City of London, two representatives of the Diocesan Conference, not necessarily clergy, and a Chairman with a casting vote, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Suppose it does not comply with the suggestion of the Benefices Board: if anybody appeals the Benefices Board has its revenge. The Benefices Board says: "Now we are sitting in appeal upon you, and we turn down your scheme," because the Benefices Board is to come in twice. No other objection to the scheme was raised by the two gentlemen who came before us. But the two gentlemen who came said something more. They said: "We do not deny that we believe there are five or six churches that ought to be pulled down." Those were the representatives of the City who came to us against this Measure. They frankly said or one said and the other assented—"We believe there are five or six which ought to be pulled down." I think I heard the right rev. Prelate say that five or six was about the number which he expected might be pulled down.
Let me pass from the City with this observation. Your Lordships have not been told of the third Act of Parliament already passed with regard to the union of benefices in the City. There was an Act of 1855, a temporary measure. There
30
was an Act of 1860. What did the latter provide? It provided that if a church was pulled down another should be erected in the Metropolis or in its vicinity. In the year 1898, I think it was, Parliament thought those words too narrow. I am afraid I have mislaid my copy of the actual words but their effect is this: If any benefice is wholly or partly within the Metropolitan Police District it is to be accounted as within the vicinity of the City. I do not know if your Lordships are aware how far the Metropolitan Police District goes. I know it in the Hertfordshire direction, where it extends to Elstree and I think possibly beyond. So, as late as 1898, the Legislature thought that the extended way in which people were living out of London and working in London required that their churches should be placed where they lived outside the limits of the City of London.
About two years ago I was asked to speak at a meeting about the League of Nations in what, I think, is one of the finest halls in London, though it is not generally known. It is called the Palmadium, and is in the North of London. I had never heard of the district, and I am ashamed to say I have forgotten it. I said to someone who knew that part of London: "What is that district, and what sort of people am I going to speak to? "He said: "It is a dormitory." The City of London at this moment is ringed round with dormitories, that is to say, with places to which the true citizens of London, who do their work in London, who earn the wealth of London, who make the character of London, either working in the City of London or in the adjacent City of Westminster, after they have done their day's work return to their homes and their families, and spend their evenings and their Saturday half-holidays, and also spend their Sundays. Those are the true citizens of London, for whom you should have churches built, and for whom you cannot have churches built unless you do something of this kind.
Is my Lord Marshall a citizen of London? Is my Lord Banbury a citizen of London? Do they live in London? Did Lord Marshall, except when he filled the high and honoured office of Lord Mayor, ever live in London? Do any of these people who come here and speak live in London? Not they. They are only

31
citizens of London, partly because they belong to one of the City Guilds, but really because they work and do their business in London. They want their churches outside. Why should not these other people have their churches outside? Heaven forbid that people should not go to daily service or at any rate Saints Day services! Heaven forbid that they should not turn into churches and say their prayers! But, after all, do you want 47 churches, and two within a few yards of each other, in order that people may attend a daily service or say their prayers?
Now I come to the scope of the Measure itself and to the much-abused Phillimore Commission. I do not think when the Lord Bishop asked me to be Chairman, that he was conscious—certainly I was not conscious—of the iconoclastic tiger within my bosom which seems to have been descried by some people who have spoken. But I had worked on the Bishop of London's Fund, the fund founded by the late Archbishop Tait when he was Bishop of London, and continued ever since, for providing for the spiritual destitution in the Metropolis, and that, I suppose, was the reason why I was asked to take the chair. But I was only one of many. The next on the Commission was probably the greatest archæologist in England, a man who has the greatest sympathy for archæology in England, who has been in your Lordships' House, though he has now retired, the venerable Bishop Browne, the first Bishop of Stepney, and therefore the first Suffragan of East London and Canon of St. Paul's. It included also Lord Hugh Cecil, whom your Lordships have heard quoted with approval, Sir William Collins—who did not go so far as the rest of us in wishing to have so many churches pulled down, and who dissented on another point with regard to the persons who ought to have the custody of the monies; all the others agreed and they were honoured City names—Sir Rowland Blades, Mr. Buxton, the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, who has addressed you, Sir Francis Green and Sir Lulham Pound, the son of a previous Lord Mayor. They were all citizens of London; they all knew what London wanted, and they were also religious men and Church people.
I am afraid that the noble Viscount the First Commissioner of Works has left
32
the House. I wish he were here, because I have several things to say about him. What struck us was the great spiritual waste, the number of incumbents who were doing no work. It was not their fault; they were almost broken-hearted because of the little they had to do. I think there are fourteen parishes in the City of London in which the population is under 200. There are only four in which it is over 1,000. It was my duty to attend many of these churches on weekdays and on Sundays. One I never could get into at all, it was always locked up, Sundays and weekdays. But on one occasion I went to a church served by an old Oxford acquaintance of mine, who, like so many of my contemporaries has by this time gone to his rest and his reward, a good man, not in the least likely to offend people—one of those whom Lord Marshall would call of the right sort. This was the congregation at morning prayer: my friend, his curate, four men in surplices, paid of course, six or eight choir boys in surplices, paid of course, a pew opener or verger, paid of course, my wife, who went with me, and one other woman. That was the congregation in a beautiful church served by an excellent and attractive man. That, of course, is perhaps an extreme case, but you heard the Bishop of London say, and we have heard it read out by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, that there are churches now in which the Bishop is obliged to say to the clergyman: "I dispense you of your duty of reading Sunday service, because I know it is a mockery: there will be nobody there."
It was that spiritual and temporal waste which struck us. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has evidently never read the Report of our Commission and, I should have said, has neglected many sources of information which might have been open to him. I think I am right in saying that, after providing for all whom we thought ought to be provided for, after making four large parishes and starting each of them with five or six clergy there was to be saved £24,000 a year in the incomes of clergy and the sites of parsonage houses—that is, without touching the churches at all. What struck us was that the first thing to be done was to save that amount of income for church purposes elsewhere.
Nobody will ever pull down the nineteen churches which we had the courage of our opinions to recommend. I am

33
quite sure of that. The opposition we raised was enough to show that is impossible, and I dare say it is extremely undesirable. But that some churches ought to be pulled down, some churches with no merits, was conceded by those two gentlemen who came to us, and I think would be obvious to anybody who studied the City. But we were in this position. The previous Bishop of London had appointed a Commission in 1899 on the same subject. I do not remember all the members of the Commission, but the Chairman was Archdeacon Sinclair. There must be still people in the City of London old enough to remember him and to remember that he was a great Conservative light in the City of London—I think he took rather an active part in Conservative politics. That Commission recommended the union of seventeen benefices and the pulling down of ten churches. When we came to our Commission we found that only four had been pulled down. One, St. Katherine, Coleman Street, which we included in our nineteen because it was not entirely finished, was in process of being united and pulled down, as it has been since.
From 1899 to the publication of the Report of our Commission two or three years ago, in spite of all these powers and the recommendations of the previous Commission that seventeen benefices should be united and ten churches pulled down, only four unions had been made and only four churches pulled down. Why? Not because of their intrinsic merit, but because of the little local feeling of the small vestries in whose power Parliament has up to this time put the veto. Your Lordships may imagine what a vestry in one of these parishes would be. As your Lordships know, limited companies and corporations are not represented as ratepayers on vestries or on parochial church councils; I am not sure that I can tell your Lordships which body now exercises the functions for this purpose. The greater number of the buildings in the City belong, of course, to limited companies. The vestrymen must be very few. Those who take any interest in church matters must be fewer still. Naturally and properly, they have local patriotism. Two of them will have been elected churchwardens, and magnify their office, as every good Englishman always does and makes the best of it. And to that little body is to be given
34
the power of saying that a great public improvement shall not be made. Remember that you cannot have a union of parishes—not the pulling down of the church—unless you have the consent of this vestry.
The other person who has the right to consent is the patron. Does the church exist for the patrons or do the patrons exist for the church? Is it possible to say that the veto of patrons and the veto of a narrow little vestry shall prevent a great public improvement? What is substituted for it? A Commission, so chosen that it will be most fairly chosen; an appeal to a Benefices Board which, no doubt, contains a great number of Church representatives but on which all these great, art bodies are represented and which, if the matter passes through the crucible of the Commission, will still have the power of stopping it; and, finally, there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Are these not, safeguards enough?
Now I come to the last class of people whose sympathies I think ought to be respected as much as any—the people who have the religious feeling. It is too late to say that because a church has once been consecrated it can never be pulled down. I have here a very charming book by Miss Margaret Tabor, which was my companion when I visited the City churches. From it I learn that only eight, of the twenty-one churches which survived the Great Fire are standing today; thirteen of them have been pulled down. I learn also that twenty Christopher Wren churches have been pulled down. Great man as he was, Sir Christopher Wren was always making experiments and most of his experiments are great and good; but some are not worthy, I take it, of being preserved. However, that will be for this Commission to decide and for this Commission to veto. Lastly, is there not something much more important than the consecrated clod of earth or the walls and stones of the building—the soul of man? As the great Greek historian once said: "It is men that make the city, not empty walls or ships devoid of crews."
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that some of the speakers who have criticised this Measure have had in their

35
minds a scheme which is not embodied in this Measure or intended by the promoters. It is not a Measure for the destruction of City churches. The main purpose of the Measure is to unite a number of City parishes which should not exist as separate and distinct parishes. The right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of London pointed out in his opening speech that there are no fewer than forty-six churches, with forty-six choirs, and forty-six organists, and over sixty clergy ministering to a resident population of something like 13,000 people. It would be perfectly possible to reduce the number of these parishes by uniting them and so to save large sums of money and manpower without destroying a single church. One of the main desires of those who wish to secure the passing of this Measure is that they may be able to deal adequately with what has been regarded by many people as something like a real scandal. Some of your Lordships will remember that in the days of the agitation for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England the extravagance and luxury of the City churches with small congregations were mentioned again and again on Liberationist platforms.
There is another practical difficulty which is caused by the present ecclesiastical position in the City. When some of us are appealing for money we are told again and again, especially by City men, that they are not prepared to subscribe largely to our funds until we have dealt with the wastefulness which is found in the provision for the spiritual needs of the City. It is perfectly true that if this Measure is carried through, as we hope it will be, a certain number of City churches will be dealt with by the method of removal, and their sites sold. I would not touch one of those churches which had any historical value or any artistic beauty; but I think it is generally admitted that there are five or six which are of no historical interest and have no artistic value. We desire to see those churches dealt with as part of a larger scheme so that the money obtained from the sale of the sites may be used for the building of churches in those new districts which are so rapidly springing up in Greater London.
I wonder whether your Lordships realise the urgent problem which we have
36
to meet in the poorer dioceses. During the last few years new towns have been springing into existence. There is a district I know which had a population of 1,000 people only five years ago. Within that one poor district a town has grown up—Bellingham—with a population of 12,000. On the Downham Estate the London County Council are building in the same parish houses for 35,000 people. In another district where there are now only fields with no church near, the London County Council have purchased 1,000 acres of land on which they propose in the next few years to build houses for something like 35,000 to 45,000 people. Without any exaggeration it has been calculated that in Greater London south of the Thames houses will be built in the next few years to accommodate a population as large as that of the City of Hull, the City of Bradford, or the City of Newcastle-on-Tyne.
We are told that the people in these districts ought to build churches for themselves, and we are sometimes told that temporary churches might perfectly well be built to meet their spiritual needs. I am prepared to admit that there are some districts in which temporary churches might well be built. I have worked and worshipped for many years in one of these temporary churches myself. But I am convinced that if you build a temporary church in a well-to-do suburban district it will become after a short time so uncomfortable, so hot in the summer, so cold in the winter, and so mean in appearance, that the people will raise money as soon as they can and build part, at any rate, of a permanent church. But most of these new districts are of a totally different nature socially. The people who are moving into these new districts are coming from the poorest parts of London. They are moving into those districts from Bermondsey and Rotherhithe and other districts equally poor, and it would be perfectly impossible for those people, when they have moved into these new districts, to do more than provide for the actual upkeep and expenses of their church.
Year after year will pass and they will be unable to save money for the building of a permanent church. The temporary church will become more and more dilapidated, more and more uncomfortable, and round about it there will be

37
splendid schools, magnificent cinemas and great licensed houses, but the one public building which will be utterly mean will be the church which ought to be a witness to all that is beautiful and true and dignified. It is for this reason that we desire, if possible, to obtain some money from the sale of some few churches which, I think it is universally agreed, are not beautiful, are not of historical interest and are not used to any extent from one end of the year to the other. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will pass this Measure.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, it is most unfortunate that a Measure nineteen-twentieths of which your Lordships would desire to support should be embarrassed by this clause with regard to the destruction of churches. The rest of the Bill, with regard to which Lord Phillimore gave a full account, is, I think, entirely non-controversial and would have the support of the whole of this House. The Bill is blocked by what we consider to be the proposals of the Lord Bishop who has framed this Measure for safeguarding the fabric of the City churches. On that aspect of the question I was going to endeavour to answer some arguments that were used by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but these have been to some extent dealt with by the First Commissioner of Works. I want, therefore, to take the House back to the very forcible statement of the basis of the case which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Chipstead.
In the first place the noble Lord and Lord Banbury of Southam pointed out that the fabric of these churches was built by the citizens of the City of London and that the churches were put in trust for religious purposes. Those noble Lords did not go further, as I should have done, and point out to your Lordships that whereas these churches now have very much less value for religious purposes than they originally had, they have their value, which is estimated not on their value as buildings, not on their value as places for religious worship, but on their value as sites. Now to that value, neither the Church of England nor religious activities have contributed one farthing. The money value of the sites of these churches has been created by the citizens of London who have established businesses in the City. Consequently,
38
when the City of London say: "We desire in the interest of our citizens to retain these churches as monuments," they ate not really depriving the Church of England of anything to which it has an equitable claim or of anything which it has done something to create. The whole of the site value equitably belongs to the citizens of London, or, I would rather say, to the community generally. The citizens of London have a right to that, but the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said that so far as the City were concerned they entirely waive any financial interest in the sites.
We come then to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and it is a point which was also dealt with by the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London. He said, in effect: "So long as we have this asset of £1,500,000 we are subject to continual attacks and solicitations." What we want to do is to relieve the Bishop of London from that kind of perpetual solicitation and to put him in a position to say: "Really you are quite mistaken; this £1,500,000 does not belong to us." If the Church of England wishes to have buildings for its use it must do as the Church of England did in times past and its congregations must build those churches. We want to deliver the Church authorities from this nightmare, from this chimerical idea that they have a claim to this £1,500,000 in any way—a claim to take it out of the sites of these churches and to spend it elsewhere—because that £1,500,000 does not really exist as an equitable property of their own.
It has been stated again and again that only four or five churches are required and that those are very ugly ones. We ask: Why, then, do you want a power of appointing perpetual Commissions to dispose of churches? It may be that the application in respect of one church will be turned down and that an application will not be made again in respect of that particular church, but the fact that you establish a permanent Commission, or give power to appoint a Commission whenever a question of destroying a church is raised, perpetually exposes you to that attack and solicitation to which reference has been made. You will be appealed to in this way: "Please let us have another church." When you have taken four or five

39
churches you will still be exposed to the same argument on behalf of congregations. You will be asked: "Why do you not sell a few more?" The Commission, on the whole, is fairly plausibly constituted, with representatives of the City of London and a Chairman to be appointed by the First Commissioner of Works, but we are distrustful of Commissions. We have had the example of a Commission presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, with regard to which he has disclaimed so vehemently the motives alleged against him.
We know that that Commission actually scheduled, in the list of churches which they thought might be destroyed, such a church as that referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, the church of St. Magnus the Martyr. I know there is no chance now of St. Magnus the Martyr being destroyed, because there was recently put in it a new organ and it was reconditioned. But that is one of the churches which was scheduled to be destroyed. I do not know whether your Lordships have read a recent poem called "The Waste Land," by one of our modern poets, dealing with the ghastly aspect of our modern civilisation. One of the little oases of that civilisation is in Thames Street—
"Where the walls of Magnus Martyr hold Inexplicable splendour of Ionian white and gold."
The splendour and effect of these architectural works of art are inexplicable and cannot be reproduced.
Another church mentioned by the Commission as one that could be scrapped was St. Dunstan's in the East. It has been mentioned as a church not used for public worship but for daily meetings. If any one of your Lordships will turn in out of the mean and dreadful commercial streets that surround it you will feel an immediate temperamental revulsion at the mere effect of the delicacy and grace of the interior; and it is not so distinguished a church as are many other churches.
We do not trust any permanent Commission that may be set up to act whenever the Bishop wants to say: "Now let us set up this Commission again." I would much rather, if it be possible to do it, come to some kind of concordat. Let
40
us have a final Commission and let the Bishop say: "Those are the four or five churches that we want to scrap, and no more." Let us have finality in this matter and let us agree what churches are not wanted. There must be finality and not this perpetual encroachment and solicitation in regard to works of art which cannot be restored. The City has again and again told you that it intends to oppose to its utmost this destruction of its churches.
I think we should have great regard to the argument used by the noble Viscount the First Commissioner of Works. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, has taunted the City with having been neglectful of works of art in times past and with having scrapped Temple Bar, and with having possibly put up some ugly buildings, but the fact is that at the present time the whole community is immensely more sensitive to this kind of desecration than it has ever been before. You have an immense body of public opinion behind the City at the present time in its attempt to save these works of art, and the City, knowing that there is this feeling behind it, is opposing the establishment of any tribunal that will enable this destruction of City churches to go on. I suggest that a modus vivendi might be arrived at in order to bring about finality in this matter. It is most distressing to those of us who are going to vote against this Measure that we should have to hang up the operation of the Benefices Measure in other respects than that of which we complain.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee I venture to rise because so many of those who have opposed the Measure have made statements representing it as something totally different from the Measure which was passed by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure is, in the first place, one for the union of benefices, but I think I am right in saying that hardly one speaker against the Measure has said a single word on the question of the union of benefices by which it is possible to save £23,000 without affecting one of the churches which have been made the subject of so much discussion and oratory to-night.
I would like also, with great respect to Lord Marshall of Chipstead and to Lord Banbury, to say that I think the argument

41
advanced on behalf of the City Corporation—who are always heard by your Lordships' House with great respect—rests upon an absolutely false foundation. The argument put before the Ecclesiastical Committee was the same argument as has been advanced this evening—that the City, after the great Fire of London, charged itself with a duty of 1s. per ton on coal and that, out of every 3s. so raised, 1s. 6d. was devoted to secular buildings and ls. 6d. to the churches now under discussion, including St. Paul's. That assumption I believe to be absolutely erroneous. I interrupted Lord Banbury in order to ask whether the expression he used that the duty was levied on every hearth and furnace was correct. He then had to admit that the duty raised was 1s. on every ton of coal landed in the Port of London. What was landed in the Port of London was used over an area, perhaps, of 50 miles, so that the money was not paid entirely by the City. It was paid largely by districts in Surrey and Essex and by other districts whose people, apparently, are to have no advantage from it or control over it at this moment because the City has had the advantage of it for 250 years. If I may carry the argument a step further, I would say that if benefactions given 250 years ago for a particular purpose are not merely not to be diverted from that purpose but are only to be allowed to be used for that purpose in the very place in which they have been used in the past, then in that case Charterhouse School would never have been moved, the Bluecoat School would never have been moved, and the endowments of various hospitals would fall. We should be in a state of hopeless confusion if such an argument prevailed. I do not think such a claim as that would hold good for one moment.
I wish to say one word with regard to the speech of my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, who was fortified by two or three other speakers and by the noble Viscount who sits below me. The noble Earl speaks with great authority on this question and he has the sympathy of every man who wishes to see higher and artistic feelings given full weight in a particularly material age. But I do think that those who have spoken against the Measure would have much more weight with your Lordships if they had spoken against the actual provisions of the
42
Measure and not against a bogey of their own which they have set up and which is not in the Measure at all. Lord Crawford said he tested this Measure by the Report of Lord Phillimore's Commission, but the Report of Lord Phillimore's Commission has been considered and a totally different scheme adopted. He read out the names of 19 churches as if they were all threatened; whereas it is a question of 6 not of 19. I am sure that he, with his keen and critical mind, would not hold that all these churches were of equal merit and that the destruction of them would be as galling to an artistic man as the destruction of the very best.
The Lord Bishop of London, speaking solely of that union of benefices which is the main object of the Bill and has been so much ignored, said he could carry on the work of the forty-six churches in twelve churches, and he could therefore save and use for Greater London a considerable revenue. Not only did Lord Banbury assert that in those circumstances what he was really seeking to do was to destroy thirty-four churches, but when the right rev. Prelate had interrupted Lord Peel and pointed out the mistake into which he had fallen, Lord Peel—as I thought most ungenerously—retorted that he would probably be carried away in the long run and destroy the whole lot, although he had pledged himself that such a course was not in contemplation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: There is one other remark I would like to make, and that is that I wish your Lordships before the Division could be wafted for five minutes into one of these churches which it is thought might well be pulled down. I have taken the trouble to attend service in some of these churches. It is nothing less than a scandal to see the clergymen, choir and officials of the church, with a congregation of perhaps half-a-dozen charwomen, who could equally well have walked one hundred yards to another church. If your Lordships went to see some of these churches—I am speaking of four or five—you would find them entirely concealed by large adjacent buildings, and with the interiors so darkened that one can scarcely read at mid-

43
day. You would find they contained enormous galleries which are not an ornament, which were probably put up in times of stress long after the erection of the church, which are never used by anybody, but which cannot be pulled down. They would find windows, in some cases put up to the memory of some deceased City fathers, which are entirely out of character with the church. There is no good element in some of these churches and to say that they must be sacrosanct seems extremely hard in face of the decision of the large majority of the Church Assembly and the considered Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. There seems some idea that the Ecclesiastical Committee is too ecclesiastical in its composition. It consists entirely of members of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons, who are not even necessarily members of the Church of England. Unless we consider the presence of Lord Hugh Cecil on the Committee as giving it an ecclesiastical tinge, I do not think that there is anything which differentiates it from any other Committee of your Lordships' House.
I should like before I sit down to ask whether your Lordships are going to leave the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Southwark in the dilemma which will be caused to them if this Measure is rejected to-night. You cannot get away from the fact that a large population outside the City considers itself aggrieved by this great scandal of unemployed clergy at a time when they have no place in which to worship and when 10,000 or 12,000 of them find it difficult to raise £200 or £300 a year for a clergyman. I cannot help feeling that, if we by our vote to-night show that we have no sympathy except with the status quo, it will be widely felt that the great power and influence of the City has been successfully used in this House in order to check the proper aspirations of the poverty-stricken and teeming masses outside but within gunshot of the City. This is a moment when I believe that every sound Churchman who wishes for peace, order and good government desires to see the strengthening rather than the weakening not only of the Church of England but of all other religious denominations. It is because I believe that the rejection of this Measure will not merely be a weakening of the Church but will perpetuate what is
44
really a scandal that I urge your Lordships to pass this Resolution.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, I came down here this afternoon without any intention of taking part in this debate, and I rise now only because I think that there are some considerations that your Lordships ought to bear in mind in determining how you will vote upon this Resolution. I believe I am historically right in saying that the Enabling Act originated in the following set of circumstances. It was found that there were measures affecting the Church for which time could not be found owing to the pressure upon Parliament, and this very peculiar form of legislation was devised in order to give the Church a proper means of carrying measures affecting the Church. I think that primâ facie it was intended that Measures which were passed under this scheme should be Measures affecting the Church, and the Church alone. I have sat on the Ecclesiastical Committee for some years and I have always approached these Measures upon the footing that, if a Measure is one which affects the Church and the Church only, the Church is the authority that can best determine what is desirable for the benefit of the Church; and accordingly I have always wished to send such a Measure through unless, of course, I could see any real objection to it That view was always confined to Measures which really affected the Church alone. It is our duty on the Ecclesiastical Committee to advise, among other things, whether—I forgot the exact words—the interests of those of His Majesty's subjects—
LORD PHILLIMORE: The constitutional rights.
LORD WRENBURY:—the constitutional rights of other subjects of the Crown were affected; and of course we do that. But it appears to me that we really ought not to send on to Parliament a Measure which, in the circumstances which I am going to describe, never could be properly sifted and examined. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that on the Ecclesiastical Committee we have no power to amend. Here in this House this afternoon your Lordships have no power to amend. We have to deal with a Resolution approving the Measure as presented to Parliament. The Church simply

45
sends up its Measure and the Ecclesiastical Committee and either House of Parliament must either accept it or reject it, and can do nothing else with it.
To my mind one of the most valuable stages in a Bill is the Committee Stage. Upon the Second Reading the principle of the Bill can be either approved or disapproved. On the Committee Stage it is competent to a man who considers that the principle of the Measure is sound to move Amendments for the purpose of altering its particular scope and effect. There is no such machinery under this scheme. This is a very peculiar form of legislation. The Church Assembly passes the Measure in such form as it thinks right, and the authorities to whom it subsequently comes cannot amend it, but must simply pass it or reject it. Suppose you have a Measure which, like this Measure as it appears to me, affects very largely His Majesty's subjects. We know that in this case, through the discussion that has taken place here and through all that has appeared in the newspapers, many people pay great attention to this matter. If this were a Bill which came before Parliament in the usual way I cannot suppose that it would be allowed to go through without Amendments being moved to it by parties who take one view or another. That is not possible under this procedure.
Your Lordships will see that I am really arguing that this is not such a Measure as ought to be passed through in this form of legislation, and that, I confess, is my view of it. I may add that, when the matter was first before the Ecclesiastical Committee, I do not think that I am going too far when I say that such was the opinion of the Committee. For that reason they prepared a Report in which they did not express, as under the Act of Parliament they are bound to express, a view either for or against, the Measure. They recommended that it should be brought before the House simply for the purpose of asking the House to appoint a Select Committee or a Committee of both Houses, which could take evidence upon it, hear the parties interested and determine the matter one way or the other. We sent that Report to the Church Assembly, and the Church Assembly replied, quite rightly, as it seemed to me, that we had not finished our work, that we had not neither accepted or rejected the Measure. They
46
called upon us to finish our work, and accept or reject it.
It is in these circumstances that the Report was made which now comes before your Lordships' House. In that state of things there was no power to amend the Measure and there was no power to hear those interested in it—at least we so decided. The Act of Parliament provides that the Ecclesiastical Committee may determine its own procedure, but the Committee have taken the view—in my view erroneously—that they have no power to hear evidence. If this were a Bill, introduced in the ordinary course, it would be competent to the House, if it thought proper, to send it to a Committee which would take evidence upon it. We cannot do that under this procedure. In this form of legislation there is no means whereby any person can come forward and challenge a Measure by moving Amendments, as can be done in the ordinary course of procedure on a Bill.
Whether the scheme of this Measure is right or wrong, I do put it to your Lordships that this is not a matter that ought ever to be sent up for the Royal Assent in the form in which it is presented to Parliament. The matter has never been thoroughly sifted, and under this form of procedure it never could be thoroughly sifted. An appeal was made to us to hear the Corporation of the City of London and the artistic societies. We yielded to the extent of hearing the Corporation of London—that was with some difficulty—and we declined to hear anybody else. The Committee took the view that they could hear no evidence upon the matter. In these circumstances the Measure, whether it be right or wrong, affects a large number of His Majesty's subjects who take a very great interest in it and have not had the opportunity, which would be given in the ordinary passage of a Bill through Parliament, of airing their views, or putting them forward by way of Amendment or of giving evidence if necessary, so that the whole matter could be sifted. No previous speaker has dwelt upon this view of the matter, and it is for that reason that I rose to address your Lordships. I ask your Lordships to take the view that, whatever you may think of the merits of the Measure, under this procedure, by which a Measure cannot be sifted in the way that I have

47
described, it ought not to go forward under a Resolution of this House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I desire to say a few words—they shall be very few at this hour of the evening—mainly by way of illustration concerning some of the considerations that have been set before us. I should like to say a word about the scheme of the Corporation of the City of London to retain these churches, as one noble Lord put it, as monuments. They are monuments, and they are much more. They exist for the benefit of the spiritual welfare of the City of London. The Corporation of the City of London would maintain them within the borders of the square mile over which they directly exercise control, but the Corporation of the City of London, a body of which we are all extraordinarily proud, and for whose example of civic patriotism we are very thankful, very often looks outside its own borders in the interests of people who work within its borders.
It did so a few years ago. On all hands the communities of the country were being called upon to build houses for people who had no houses. The Corporation of the City of London, I think, had no very grave housing difficulties within its own borders, but with that patriotism which it has always shown it went outside its own borders and bought a very large estate at Ilford in the diocese which I represent, and upon that estate it made a housing scheme. The whole rationale of the scheme was to help the citizens of London. Only last week I held in my hands the deed of conveyance of a piece of land in the middle of that estate, by which the Church in Essex purchased a bit of that land at about three times the price given for it by the City Corporation. It was not really the fault of the Corporation, because Parliament compels the City Corporation to obtain the highest price, and the Church of England was not going to allow church people in this locality to be without churches merely because of the price which had to be paid for the land. If the City churches were built for City people, and if on the showing of the Corporation the City is interested in Ilford, eight miles outside its borders, is there any real reason why these churches, which are not being adequately and properly used, and why these men and officials,
48
who are not being provided with sufficient work, should not be transferred, as on the showing and example of the City itself the citizens of London must be transferred, to the housing estate of the City Corporation?
The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, asks—and that more than anything made me feel that I should not keep my mouth shut this afternoon—why were these churches to be taken away and given to people who will not give a shilling? I think he said it twice. I am going to ask him to envisage the situation. Most of the members of this House were born in parishes where they found parish churches and parsons and all the luxuries of religious worship. Will you pass to the great housing estate of the London County Council at Beconfield? A few years ago there were only three hundred people on the estate. To-day there are between forty and fifty thousand. Within three years there will be probably 150,000. There is no church, no parsonage house, no parson, no wardens, no anything. I started a mission in the district last November. We borrowed a choir and wardens for the opening service and even had to borrow offertory bags, in order to give the district a start.
How can anyone accuse those people, who are without any of the advantages of other parishes, of being in a position in which they say they will not give a shilling? Give them a chance, and I am confident that they will maintain what you have given them, but in their present circumstances it is impossible for them to initiate. When you compare the City of London and its forty-seven churches with these great housing estates, which we find springing up all over our dioceses, is there any good reason why some effort should not be made to use these churches and endowments for the purpose for which, I believe, in the first instance they were intended? The argument against that is that we shall pull down beautiful churches. As the law stands, outside the Metropolitan area it is perfectly possible to pull down redundant churches.
Again, may I be allowed to illustrate? In the parish of East Ham, the largest parish in this country, with its 56,000 people, there is an old parish church, built 600 years ago, which holds just one hundred people. There is also a modern

49
church capable of holding 350 people, and one of the ugliest buildings you ever saw. A little while ago a very large church was built in close proximity to these two churches, and it became obvious that one or other was useless, and two years ago, under the law of the land, it was decided to pull down one of them. There was no need to consult artistic societies as to which should be pulled down. From the merely utilitarian point of view the modern church, which held about 400, would have been more advantageous to us, but we, of course, pulled it down because most folk who are keen upon the spiritual calibre of this country are interested in those great and valuable things represented by art and antiquity. Of course we pulled the modern church down, because public opinion would have been against us to such an extent that it would have been impossible to do anything else.
If the conflict which arises between us to-night were a conflict between ancient buildings and the building of character those who went into the Division Lobby to-night for ancient buildings would be a very small crowd indeed. Of course we should put character first. If the character of the British people were at stake we should sacrifice even Westminster Abbey. Some people seem to think we are anxious to sacrifice such buildings for utilitarian considerations, but that is not the conflict. Westminster Abbey is British character done in stone. So are some of these ancient buildings in the City of London, but if you let British character pass, and allow great towns to grow up around London, untended and uncared for, never given a chance, amid pagan surroundings, no Act of Parliament, no Royal Commission or House of Lords will be able to make these buildings safe. If you want illustrations go to Russia and you will find there. Practically there is no such conflict here. This Measure does not permit it. It is a reasonable and guarded Measure to enable the Bishops of the London area to fulfil tasks of tremendous responsibility in seeing that whole populations shall not be allowed to grow up without those spiritual values impinging upon their lives which by any test help in the building of character. This Measure is not a Measure for pulling down churches, though it may happen that one or two insignificant buildings
50
will disappear, but it is a Measure for conserving and using our resources in the best interests of the community. It is for that reason that some of us are exceedingly anxious that this Measure should pass.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should not have spoken but for one or two things that have been said in the debate, and also because I find there is a feeling that if I did not speak I might be supposed to be lukewarm or half-hearted in the matter. I should like to refer to the very weighty and important speech which we listened to from Lord Wrenbury. I am not now able to discuss the general question of the range and importance of the Enabling Act, and of the procedure which that Act brought into force, and which is now operative, but I must correct what is, I think, one misapprehension which might arise from some words that Lord Wrenbury used. If I understood him aright, he said that the Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee, once it had this matter before it, had no choice, no means of discussing its provisions with anybody, except within its own borders, and that they must therefore accept or decline it.
LORD WRENBURY: No, I do not think I said that. I said that the Act of Parliament provided that the Committee should fix its own code of procedure, and in my view it was competent to hear any one, and to hear witnesses if it liked, but unfortunately it had not taken that course.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I certainly misunderstood the noble and learned Lord. I thought he was objecting to the condition of matters under which the Ecclesiastical Committee was bound to do its work, that it could not get the proper opportunities—
LORD WRENBURY: In the view of the majority of the Committee that is probably so; in my own view it is not.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I can only say that when we send a Measure from the Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee we not only hope that the Ecclesiastical Committee will, if it thinks it desirable, confer with us upon

51
points of detail which seem to it to need amendment but we actually ask that in sending up their Report they will do so if they feel any difficulty. Therefore it cannot be said that the Ecclesiastical Committee is barred from informing itself on particular details which may be obscure in the form in which it is sent up.
That, however, is by the way. All I want to say is that I do believe we have been largely proceeding in the debate of these two evenings upon a false issue. It began at the beginning, and it has been carried on all through. I listened with the greatest admiration and respect to the eloquent, forcible, and moving speech of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. I should like to say that I think I could go with him almost entirely in every word he said. Throughout my public life and before it I have been one of the keenest advocates of keeping up and supporting all our old buildings, even at the risk of great disadvantage, great cost, even great public inconvenience. I could give examples to your Lordships if it were necessary. But what I do object to is that in the speeches which have been made any reader from outside would have imagined that the speakers had before them as a thing to opposed what is called the Phillimore Report of so many years ago. We talk about 19 churches being pulled down. That Phillimore Report is as dead as any document of antiquity could be in a matter of this kind. I say it with affection for my noble friend, who has himself admitted to-night that he does not in the least believe that there is any light left in that Report.
Therefore what you are contending against is not a Report which recommended the pulling down of a number of churches; it is a Report which has recommended—and the Measure has been passed on that Report—a procedure whereby a great deal of money can be set free for such purposes as we have just heard described in the speech to which your Lordships gave close attention by my brother the Bishop of Chelmsford. What you are asked to do is to say whether you will pass a Measure which allows money to be forthcoming
out of the endowments, machinery and activities—if you can call them so, they are activities without the possibility of making them really active—belonging to the City churches, and, by uniting some of the parishes and therefore being empowered to close some of the churches, you should be enabled to use that money for the needs of other parts of London.
It is heart-breaking for those who have responsibility for collecting money and for those who have responsibility for administering Church affairs to find the argument brought up time after time: "Look at the City of London; see what is going on there," and to be told, "That is the way you want things to continue." You find there little churches where excellent men are quite unable, from the mere lack of people, to find congregations. I have a friend, an extremely good man, a very good preacher and a very capable man, who told me that after five years incumbency of a City church he was obliged to give it up "notwithstanding the fact," he said, "that while I have been there I have doubled the congregation. When I went there, there were three; now there are six." That is heartbreaking to a man and it is a terrible responsibility and anxiety to the Bishop and others who are concerned. We therefore ask that by a Measure of this kind money may be set free. Incidentally it is said: "You may pull down some of these churches if you wish." Nobody believes that that can or will be done now in any case, except that there may be three or four churches where, by common consent, there is no value in retaining them for any purpose. Beyond that I believe those churches are as safe as they could possibly be—quite as safe as they are under the existing law. I do not believe you are imperilling them in passing this Bill, but you would be taking a great responsibility if you withheld it from those who want to administer in a different way the vast funds which are locked up in the City of London as it is to-day.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Northumberland, D.

Portland, D.

Beauchamp, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon.[Teller]

Broadford, E.

Dartmouth, E.

Chelmsford; L. Bp.

Lamington, L.

De La Warr, E.

London, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Southwark, L. Bp.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Lucan, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Muir-Mackenzie, L.

Midleton, E.

Annaly, L.

Newton, L.

Powis, E.

Arnold, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Selborne, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Oranmore and Browne L.(L. Mereworth.)

Spencer, E.

Charnwood, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Phillimore, L.

Westmeath, E.

Darling, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Wicklow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Roundway, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

de Mauley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Desborough, L.

Sempill, L.

Cross, V.

Dynevor, L.

Southwark, L.

Falmouth, V.

Doverdale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Emmott, L.

Strathspey, L.

Haldane, V.

Forester, L.

Teynham, L.

Hambleden, V.

Forres, L.

Thomson, L.

Knutsford, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Leverhulme, V.

Gainford, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Argyll, D.

Novar, V.

Marshall of Chipstead, L. [Teller.

Peel, V.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Merrivale, L.

Aberconway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Askwith, L.

Northbourne, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Olivier, L.

Shaftesbury, E.(L. Steward.)

Ponsonby, L.(E. Bessborough.)

Bathurst, E.

Biddulph, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Blythswood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Iveagh, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ernle, L.

Riddell, L.

Morton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Onslow, E.

Faringdon, L.

Strachie, L.

Strafford, E.

Farrer, L.

Suffield, L.

Yarborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Hanworth, L.

Waring, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hemphill, L.

Wavertree, L.

Burnham, V.

Kylsant, L.

Wittenham, L.

Churchill, V.

Lawrence, L.

Wittenham, L.

Incheape, V.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Wyfold.

Lee of Fareham, V.

Leigh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.