Sitting of 4 March 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
BANK OF ENGLAND (NATIONALISATION) BILL (Standing Orders applicable thereto not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 24th day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Bank of England (Nationalisation) Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

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

    SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for education grants have been made to the Special Grants Committee during the last complete year for which figures are available; and how many have been successful and how many refused?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I understand that during the 12 months ended 20th February last, 4,295 applications were dealt with by the Special Grants Committee under their Regulations. In 1,511 cases grants were made, and in 2,784 cases the applicants were found ineligible by the Committee.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the general purposes committee of the Monmouthshire War Pensions Committee have made
    1576
    an application to the Special Grants Committee on 28th September, 1925, for a grant on behalf of Phyllis Muriel Powell, residing at 30, Victoria Road, Six Bells, Abertillery, and that the application has been refused on the ground that her father was a miner; that her father, Private Philip Powell, No. 1085, Monmouthshire Regiment, was killed in action on 6th May, 1915; that the statement that miners do not send their children to secondary schools is resented as untrue; and will he have this application reconsidered?
    Major TRYON: I understand that the case referred to was found ineligible for a grant, not for the reason stated, but because the Special Grants Committee were not satisfied, in accordance with the regulations governing the matter, that the cost of the education proposed could and would have been provided by the father having regard to his circumstances. I am, however, inquiring into the circumstances of the case and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. BARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the father of this child died in action, that it is presumed that the father would not have provided decent education for his child, that we repudiate that assumption and that we demand that the children of deceased ex-soldiers shall have the best education possible?
    Major TRYON: I shall be glad, as the hon. Member has already been told, to take into consideration any point in favour of this case that he may bring forward.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the country in connection with the education grants made by the Special Grants Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether any alteration is needed in the Regulations?
    Major TRYON: As the hon. Member already knows, the question of education is one of the first points on which I ought to consult the new Central Advisory Committee.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman not satisfy the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) that he will give careful consideration to this very distressing case?
    Mr. KENNEDY: Does the right hon. Gentleman review the decisions of the Special Grants Committee, or does the Committee act independently?
    Major TRYON: I must have notice of that question.

    ROYAL SCOTTISH FUSILIERS (ALEX. MORRISON).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Alex. Morrison, No. 265,419, Royal Scottish Fusiliers, of 175, Queen Street, Govan, had his pension assessed at 80 per cent. (Form M.P., M.S.D. 62) by a medical board on 19th January, 1925, but on 28th January, 1925, was informed by the regional director (M.P.A. 5/2) that his pension was fixed at 30 per cent., and was granted under the dispensing warrant as an act of grace; that he was again examined by a medical board on 27th January, 1926, and again had his pension assessed at 80 per cent., and, on 9th February, 1926, was again notified by the Ministry that his pension was fixed at 30 per cent.; and that the Form M.P.A. 5/2 states that the amount awarded is in accordance with the degree of disablement found by his last board; whether he can state the reasons for the reduction of the assessments of the two medical boards from 80 per cent. to 30 per cent., and why a pension so assessed should be stated as granted, not as a right, but as an act of grace; whether he can state the dispensing warrant that gives such power; and whether he will now issue instructions for the payment of the pension as assessed by the medical boards which examined this pensioner?
    Major TRYON: In the short time available I have not been able to look into the full facts of this case. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that this case has been before the Ministry of Pensions for a year, in regard to the first point, and considering that the last letter sent by the Ministry of Pensions to this particular individual is dated the 22nd February of this year, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to go into this matter and to give me an answer now?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member does not realise that this is a matter which
    1578
    comes under the Scottish regional system, of which I understand he is a supporter. This question only reached me yesterday, and so long as Scottish Members insist on the files being kept in Edinburgh, it is obviously impossible for me to reply at Westminster to a question at a moment's notice?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that these files are supposed to be complete, with all the information necessary, cannot they be sent in less than two days?
    Major TRYON: We only received intimation of the hon. Member's question yesterday. We sent for the files, and the hon. Member will receive the information as soon as possible.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the information could have been got by telegram?
    Major TRYON: It is not possible to send files by telegram.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am not asking for files to be sent by telegram. If the hon. Member would not be so previous he would know what is my submission. Would it not be possible to get the information contained in the files sent by telegram to the Minister?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his question answered. He puts another question, and mixes it up with others. Is it possible for the Minister of Pensions to get an answer by telegram?
    Major TRYON: I would not like to answer such a question, with so much detail in it, without satisfying myself, after examination of the files, respecting all the information for which the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question, whether he can state what is the dispensing warrant that gives the power claimed by the Minister in this case?
    Major TRYON: I am certainly not prepared to make a partial statement on the case of any individual pensioner, without having all the information in the case.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the Ministry takes on itself power to put upon a man's

    1579
    paper, who has been assessed at 80 per cent., that they can alter the assessment to 30 per cent. under a dispensing Warrant, as an act of grace, surely I have the right to ask what dispensing Warrant gives them that power. Why cannot the Minister answer now?
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. MACLEAN: I must press for an answer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has said that he cannot answer to-day. The hon. Member cannot press it any further than that now. Colonel Day.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The answer to this part of my question does not require waiting for files to come from Edinburgh. The Ministry have claimed that they have the right under a dispensing Warrant. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to state to the House what Warrant gives him power to change an assessment by a medical board into a lower assessment, and to do it as an act of grace.
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. MACLEAN: [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I want an answer to that question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not remain standing when I am on my feet. It is one of the first Rules of this House that, when the Speaker rises, hon. Members must be seated. The hon. Member cannot press his question now. The Minister has stated that he cannot answer without further information. The hon. Member can get that information by repeating the question on a future date. Colonel Day.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to put a point of Order?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Yes. No one has greater respect for you, Mr. Speaker, than I have. My point of Order is contained in my question, in which I ask
    regarding a dispensing Warrant. The answer to that does not necessarily mean waiting for a reply from the regional officer in Edinburgh. The Minister ought to be able to reply.
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. MACLEAN: I insist upon an answer being given.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I insist upon an answer.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to persist in disregarding the authority of the Chair. Colonel Day—
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I want a reply from the Minister.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"
    Mr. MACLEAN: We are not going to be refused information by the right hon. Gentleman.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must order the hon. Member to withdraw immediately from the Sitting of the House for persistently refusing to obey the Chair. Will the hon. Member please leave the House?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am not leaving the House until I get a reply to my question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then I must name the hon. Member to the House for persistently disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Neil Maclean, the Member for the Govan Division of Glasgow, be suspended from the service of the House."—[Sir William Joynson-Hicks.]
    The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 63.]

    AYES.

    [3.1 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Bethel, A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Radford, E. A.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Raine, W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ramsden, E.

    Bourn, Captain Robert Croft

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Briant, Frank

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Burman, J. B.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

    Campbell, E. T.

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

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

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

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Skelton, A. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Chapman, Sir S.

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smithers, Waldron

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cope, Major William

    Loder, J. de V.

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

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

    Lougher, L.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lumley, L. R.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    MacIntyre, Ian

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

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Grace, John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Perring, William George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

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

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    NOES.

    Baker, Walter

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Purcell, A. A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cape, Thomas

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

    Clowes, S.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Compton, Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawson, John James

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Lee, F.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Welsh. J. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    March, S.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Montague, Frederick

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenall, T.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kirkwood.

    Mr. SPEAKER (addressing Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member will please leave the House.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I accept the decision of the House, but the matter does not finish here.
    The hon. Member then left the House.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (POOR RELIEF).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that at the present time there are 56 ex-soldiers and sailors, with 168 dependants, in receipt of Poor Law relief at Bristol on account of sickness, and that of this number there are five men in receipt of dis-

    1583
    ability pensions on account of War service and other men whose pensions have been stopped or their appeals disallowed; whether he is aware that the Bristol Guardians have expressed the opinion that it is unsatisfactory that an ex-soldier in receipt of a disability pension should be compelled to apply to the guardians for assistance in the case of sickness, and, further, that persons compelled to apply to the guardians for help on the account of illness and broken health should be entitled to have their cases reconsidered by the Minister of Pensions; and whether, in view of this expression of opinion, he will take steps to have the whole position regarding the relief of ex-service men reconsidered?
    Major TRYON: I have received representations from the Bristol Board of Guardians to the effect stated in the question. I would remind the hon. Member that my duties are confined by Statute to the provision, subject to the Royal Warrants and War Pensions Acts, of compensation and of medical treatment for disablement caused by war service only. So far as any of the cases referred to are of this type, it is open to the board of guardians to take the action indicated in the Circular addressed to all boards of guardians by the Ministry of Health in October, 1923. Any assistance that may otherwise be required by ex-service men in consequence of ill-health or unemployment necessarily falls to be provided under the arrangements in operation for the civil population at large, which are outside the purview of my Department.
    Mr. BAKER: Having regard to the many distressing cases where men are unable to find employment as a result of their disability, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing fresh legislation?
    Major TRYON: I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, because if we were to take employment into account some pensions might be increased, but a large number of pensions now being paid would cease.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In view of this kind of case, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to appoint a Select Committee to investigate these cases?
    Major TRYON: I am not prepared to adopt a suggestion which would mean that a large number of people who are getting pensions would not continue to receive them.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What right has the right hon. Gentleman to prejudge what the decision of the Committee would be?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have debated that matter.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men resident in the Poplar, West Ham, and Stepney unions are in receipt of indoor or outdoor relief and are not receiving any unemployment pay from the Labour Exchanges; the number of widows, orphans, or other dependants of deceased or disabled ex-service men resident in the above unions in receipt of Poor Law relief; and the number of disabled or other ex-service men who are in receipt of relief in the same unions?
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men in the Manchester and Salford area now in receipt of Poor Law relief; and how many of these are drawing this relief as a result of being refused unemployment benefit?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The information for which the hon. Members ask is not available. A return containing some of this information was obtained in 1924, but I do not think that the value of the return was such as to justify the considerable trouble and expense to the Poor Law authorities which the preparation of further returns would involve.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will not the local authorities give the right hon. Gentleman the information if he officially asks for it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe question on the Paper is as to how many ex-service men are in receipt of indoor and outdoor relief, and so on. The unions can only give the information after very careful investigation into the cases, which would involve considerable labour.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest unions in London can give him this information without any extra expense, and they have

    1585
    done so, and it costs nothing extra at all. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question?
    Mr. COMPTON: The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) received these figures last week in the case of Nottingham; why are they refused to me in the case of Manchester and Salford?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because they are not available without further expense.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what authority he has for saying that it would cost money for the unions to give this information? What unions have told him that he cannot get the information without extra expense?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the information which is given to me by my Department.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire in his Deparment on what authority be was told that the production of this information would cost extra money? Is not this House entitled to have the information asked for in the question? Why does he hide it?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland gave us figures relating to one of the biggest parishes in the country, that is, Glasgow; and why cannot he give the information asked for?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The circumstances are generally different in Scotland from what they are in this country.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister has a right to refuse to answer a perfectly simple, straight question that I have put to him?
    Mr. COMPTON: If I put this question down again next week, shall I then have an answer to it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member can have the same answer next week as he has got this week.
    HON. MEMBERS: Birmingham insolence !
    Mr. LANSBURY: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you, how, as a matter of
    1586
    fact, can order be maintained? There has been one scene here this afternoon because a Minister refused to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no! "]—questions which were capable of being answered. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly simple question, and in the most contemptuous manner he refuses to answer it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is for Ministers to decide what answers they give to questions. No point of Order arises. I have allowed the hon. Member to repeat his question, and the Minister has not thought it proper to answer.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. If Order is to be maintained in this House, ought not Ministers to be courteous in their manner towards Members who put questions, and give an answer to them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Some questions Ministers can answer; others they cannot.

    ARREST OF MR. S. CLARKE RICHARDSON.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, on Saturday, 23rd January, Mr. S. Clarke Richardson was arrested and taken to Notting Hill police station and detained for several hours under suspicion of the crime of stealing his own motor-car, registered No. YK7403, notwithstanding the fact that he continually protested his innocence, and offered evidence of many well-known persons who could testify to his bona fides; and will he issue instructions that persons so detained in future shall be charged so that they shall have an opportunity of providing bail?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In this case the owner of a stolen car gave the police a wrong number which happened to be the number of Mr. Clarke Richardson's car. The police took every possible step to get at the facts quickly, and treated Mr. Clarke Richardson with every consideration. When Section 45 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, comes into force, it will be possible to admit a person to bail before accepting a charge, and in the meantime it is not desirable to issue instructions of the kind suggested.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the owner of the car was communicated with the engine number and the chassis number that he gave to the police were entirely different from those on Mr. Richardson's car, and that in spite of this fact Mr. Richardson was still kept in custody for several hours?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If a gentle man gives a wrong number of a stolen car, and someone else is found in possession of a car labelled with the wrong number, the fault is obviously that of the original person who gave the wrong number.
    Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that the engine number and the chassis number given by the owner of the stolen car were entirely different from those of Mr. Richardson's car, and that when the police had verified this from the owner they still kept him in custody?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That hardly arises out of the original question. All I can say is that I am informed that Mr. Richardson received every consideration while detained by the police.
    Colonel DAY: Will he say when the number of the stolen car was withdrawn by the police, because five days after Mr. Richardson was nearly arrested again for being in possession of his own car?
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act of last year could be anticipated to meet such a case as this?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This House passed an Act that is to come into force in the middle of this year, and there is no power until that Act comes into force.

    SALE OF LIQUOR (VILLAGES).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any representations in favour of the removal of the limitation of licensing hours in villages; and whether he will state the attitude of the Home Office towards this proposal?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conference of Conservative Associations said that this was the best way to fight Socialism? In these circumstances will he consider it?

    MINES AND QUARRIES, DENBIGH (FATALITIES).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, whilst the death rate from accidents within the mines in the County of Denbigh in 1923 was 1·37 per 1,000, the fatal accidents in side the quarries in the same County were 2·11 in 1922 and 2·53 in 1923; and whether any steps are being taken to protect the workmen by means of new regulations as suggested by the Royal Commission?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines that the hon. Members figures relate not to the County of Denbigh but to the Lancashire and North Wales Division of the Mines Inspectorate, which is, of course, a very much larger area. He also tells me that the figures are not quite accurately quoted, and that he will send the hon. Member the full statistics. As regards the second part of the question, most of the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been embodied in Special Rules, which have already been established at 14 of the quarries in the County of Denbigh, and will shortly be established at the others.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it not a fact that fatal accidents inside the quarries are double the fatal accidents inside the coal mines?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that I was answering this question as a matter of courtesy for the Secretary for Mines. The question ought to be addressed to him. I will tell my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said.

    BROMBOROUGH DOCK (ACCIDENT).
    Mr. GRACEasked the Home Secretary if he has received any representations with regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Shipley about a fatal accident which occurred at

    1589
    Messrs. Levers' new dock at Bromborough, and to the reply given by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 26th November, 1925; and whether he can give any further information on the subject?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I brought the case at once to the notice of the Cheshire County Council as the authority responsible, and the Council have since reported that the firm of contractors engaged in the construction of the dock, by whom the boy Ellis was employed, have been prosecuted and fined. It is right to add that Messrs. Lever Bros. were in no way responsible for what occurred.

    POLICE PENSIONS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to ameliorate the position of pre-1919 police pensioners whose rates of pensions appear unfavourable as compared with the rates of policemen retiring at the present day?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I cannot hold out any prospect of further legislation.

    LUNACY ACT (PRINCE AHMED SEIF-ED-DIN).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether steps are being taken to effect the arrest of William Pilbean and Alexander Bastone, attendants on Prince Ahmed Seif-ed-Din, when he escaped from incarceration; and at whose instance is this action being taken?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: After consultation with the Board of Control, I referred this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and on his application the Hastings Justices recently issued a warrant for the arrest of the two men referred to for offences against Section 323 of the Lunacy Act. The men are believed to be out of the country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWOTHY: On whose initiation is this arrest being effected? Who has brought the matter forward?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot say without notice.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That inquiry is in the original question.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very sorry, and I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I admit that it is in the question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put the question down again for this day week, I will answer it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or communicate it.

    HIGHBURY FOOTBALL GROUND.
    Mr. DENNISONasked the Home Secretary (1) if he is aware of the large number of ambulance cases dealt with at the Highbury football ground on the 24th February; and if he will take steps to ensure better regulation of the traffic and the safety of the spectators at football matches;
    (2) if he is aware that the authorities of the Highbury football ground continued to take entrance money from the public on the 24th February, whilst at the same time the ground was so overcrowded that the exit gates were opened to allow hundreds of persons to get away; and will he take steps to prevent such an occurrence?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will answer these questions together. About 55,000 persons entered the ground, which has a capacity of 70,000. About 100 ambulance cases were dealt with, but with one exception they were all quite slight, and were mostly cases of fainting. The police report that the traffic arrangements worked smoothly, and no street accident was reported. It is true that about 100 persons left the ground by gates which were specially opened for them, because they found themselves in positions where they could not see the game. But this does not appear to have been due to the ground being overcrowded as a whole. I do not think the occasion suggests the need of any action on my part.
    Mr. DENNISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the authorities allowed persons to enter and to pay for admission to the ground at the turnstiles at the time when the gates were open to allow those who were in to go out, and actually those who paid for admission were passing through the turn-

    1591
    stiles in order to be put out by a backway through the exits? Is there any means by which they can get their money back?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as the last point is concerned, that is not a matter for the Home Office. The people concerned might apply to the County Court.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this is not an isolated case, but one of many occurrences of the kind, and in view of the great demand for seats at the forthcoming Cup Final, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that on all future occasions some action is taken different from that taken in the past?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am always anxious to assist football and other sports, but I do not know what power I have in these cases, when so many thousands of people desire to see a match. I have no jurisdiction over the accommodation.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of certain occurrences in Edinburgh at a similar gathering of a football crowd? Will he have inquiry made to see if any steps can be taken?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    LEAD PAINT (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to introduce a Bill during this Session to give effect to the International Convention on Lead Paint?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I stated in reply to a recent question by the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle, I hope to re-introduce very shortly the Bill I presented last Session.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it understood that the Bill to be introduced will not ratify the International Convention?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the hon. Gentleman makes any remarks about the Bill he had better wait until he sees it.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has just replied that he intends to introduce a Bill which means that the Convention will not be ratified.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary when he can publish some of the documents recently seized at Communist head-quarters?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This matter is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will there be an opportunity for Debate?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a question for the Leader of the House.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (TRAFFIC REGULATIONS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Home Secretary how many persons are in possesion of the official tab to facilitate their progress in traffic; and whether he will circulate with the answer the names of each of them, together with a statement of the Regulations governing the use of the tab?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number is 73. I will have circulated a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The orders to the police are under revision. The effect is that the carriages of pass holders are not to be required to fall into any line of waiting vehicles that may have been formed by the police, but, as far as possible, are to be allowed to pass at once to their destinations. The revised Order will make it clear that the passes do not exempt holders from compliance with any general Regulations for "one-way" traffic circulation.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Seeing that the Regulations are under consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in any new Regulations that these tabs are not transferable to members of the families of those to whom they are allotted?
    Major CRAWFURD: Is it perfectly clear that the possession of these tabs will not enable the holders to drive against the traffic?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is exactly what I meant to say. It does not exempt the owners from compliance with any general regulations.
    Major CRAWFURD: Is it not the fact that in a recent notorious case, when a member of the Government was concerned, he was driving against the traffic?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the House will not wish me to go into that case. With regard to the other question I am asked, I have no idea that these tabs are used by the families of the holders. They certainly ought not to be.

    INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary the total number of industrial accidents, fatal and nonfatal, reported during 1925?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total number of persons reported as killed during 1925 by industrial accidents in factories, docks and other premises under the Factory Acts, in mines and quarries, and in the railway service, was 2,471. The number reported as injured by accidents on premises under the Factory Acts was 158,778. The figures as to non-fatal accidents in the other industries mentioned are not yet available, and the figures just given are provisional.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not the very large total of accidents point to the necessity of passing a new Factories Bill immediately?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is argument.

    EXECUTIONS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to consider the suggestion that after conviction for murder the date of the subsequent execution should not be announced beforehand?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. Legislation would be necessary, and I do not think the suggested change is desirable.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a change of
    1594
    this kind might do much to prevent many entirely unfounded statements being written?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be glad to do anything I could to remedy what I think is a scandal in regard to this matter, but my hon. Friend will see that the families of the condemned man must have reasonable information as to the date of execution, and that information will pass into the possession of several other people. I think if I were to attempt to stop information or announcements from reaching the public, it would only involve attempts to obtain it from irregular sources.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not that occur in many other countries?
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain T. J. O'CONNOR:
    "26. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an article in a newspaper, dated Sunday, 28th February, relating to a condemned prisoner, containing, among other matters, extracts from a letter said to have been written by the prisoner's father and posted in France, and delivered on Friday, the 26th ultimo, and an account of a conversation between the prisoner and the governor of the gaol which is alleged to have taken place on Saturday, the 27th ultimo, and other' statements by the condemned man on the same day; and whether he will inquire if this information reached the newspaper through the officials of the gaol and take such action as may appear necessary?"
    Captain O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. The question which appears on the Paper is entirely different from the question which I put down, and it has been altered without any communication with me. The question on the Paper does not ask for the very material information which I wanted, namely, whether these statements are true or not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid hon. Members often submit questions which are not in order, and assistance is required to put them in order. Notice is always sent to the hon. Member. If he wishes to withdraw the question now and put it again in another way, he can do so.
    Captain O'CONNORAs that is the explanation, Sir, may I indicate the nature of the question which I desired to put?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If there be any irregularity in the question, I cannot allow it to be put now. Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to put the question which is on the Paper?
    Captain O'CONNOR: I should like to put this question, and reserve my right to put the other question on another occasion.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not seen the newspaper article referred to, but I am informed by the Governor of the Prison that the account of an alleged conversation between him and the prisoner is a pure invention. No information of any kind was communicated to the newspaper by the officials of the prison. The House will allow me to add that the statement which appeared in the Press on Monday, that I had seen somebody connected with the recent case, is also a pure invention.
    Captain O'CONNOR: Does not that emphasise my point that it was necessary to include the name of the paper in the question and that its omission makes the question pure nonsense? Is it not also the case that the imputation which is suggested in the last part of the question against officials of the gaol, would not have been made if the question which I put down could have been asked, namely whether these statements were true or not?
    HON. MEMBERS: What is the paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We do not allow any newspapers to be advertised on our agenda.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether any action can be taken to prevent these untrue and scandalous reports being published in regard to executions of prisoners?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have consulted my legal advisers in regard to statements in the newspapers concerning recent executions. At present, as the law stands, I have no means of prosecuting or of otherwise dealing with these statements.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can recommend an amendment of the law to the House?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider what it would involve.
    Captain O'CONNOR: In view of the fact that this article contains what are supposed to be specific extracts from a letter sent to this condemned man, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these extracts are actual or whether they are pure fabrications?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite impossible for me to say. When I say I have not seen the newspaper article, it is quite true that I have not seen it, and therefore I do not know what extracts it contained.

    SHOP HOURS.
    Mr. RADFORDasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the Memorandum which was recently laid before him by a deputation of Members of this House, urging the extension of the present shop hours in respect of the sale of tobacco, sweets, etc.; and will he, before he comes to a decision upon the question, take into account the feeling in all parts of this House, and throughout the country, that the present hours of shop assistants should on no account be increased?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir; the interests of those engaged in these trades, whether as employers or assistants, will be taken into account before any decision to extend the hours is arrived at.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation of shop assistants before going any further in this matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly; but I do not think, having regard to the legislation before the House, that the hon. Member need trouble either himself or myself with a deputation on the subject during this Session at all events.

  EDUCATION.

    PLAYING FIELDS.
    Mr. W. HIRSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Bradford Education Authority has decided

    1597
    not to proceed with the acquisition of playing fields owing to Memorandum 44; and whether he will reconsider this policy?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am not aware of any such decision on the part of the Bradford Authority, nor have I received any proposals from them for the acquisition of playing fields.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Education whether, since in pursuance of Memorandum 44, he has deterred the Norwich education authority from purchasing a new playing field necessary for elementary school children, he will reconsider his attitude in view of the fact that if the purchase is not effected at once it will become impossible, as the land is being sold for building purposes?
    Lord E. PERCY: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the playing field near the Wensum View School. He is mistaken in suggesting that I have deterred the authority from securing it. I am, in fact, approving its purchase.
    Mr. PETHWICK-LAWRENCEalso asked the President whether he is aware that the Tunbridge Wells education authority have interpreted Memorandum 44 as preventing them from proceeding with the provision of playing fields; and whether, in view of the importance of these fields being provided, he will interpret the memorandum otherwise to this authority?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir; I have received no communication from the authority on this subject.
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has given approval to the Tynemouth Local Education Authority to purchase additional fields for organised games for school children?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have received no proposal from this authority to purchase additional playing fields.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Nottingham local
    1598
    education authority will be allowed to proceed with the provision of a playing field for schoolchildren in the southern part of the city?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am still in communication with the authority about the proposal that the City Council should transfer this site to the education committee.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: will the right hon. Gentleman kindly bear in mind the urgent need for playing grounds?

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' ESTIMATES.
    Mr. STAMFORDasked the President of the Board of Education whether the local authorities have now completed the revision of their education estimates; if he will state the amount of reduction shown in the revised estimates submitted; and the main services on which the reductions have been effected?
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he can now publish, under their appropriate items, the nature and amounts of savings proposed by local education authorities in their revised estimates for 1926–27;
    (2) if he is now in a position to state the total reduction effected by the local education authorities in their revised estimates requested under Memorandum 44?
    Lord E. PERCY: As the reply consists largely of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. COVE: Can the Noble Lord say what is the total figure?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member had better wait and see all the figures.
    Mr. COVE: May I ask whether the statement in the Press that £2,500,000 has been saved is correct?
    Lord E. PERCY: It is not.
    Following is the reply:
    Revised estimates have been received from all but two authorities. In the case of these two the unrevised figures have been used for the purposes of the following table, which indicates the result of the revision and which shows, also, for

    1599
    purposes of comparison, the pre-audit figures of the actual expenditure of

    LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY EXPENDITURE.

    A.—Elementary.

    —

    Actual (pre-audit) figures of Local Education Authorities'
    Expenditure for 1924–25.

    1926–27.

    Local Education Authorities' Forecasts. November.

    Local Education Authorities' Forecasts, as on 3rd March, 1926.

    £

    £

    £

    Salaries

    …

    …

    41,102,000

    42,004,000

    41,538,000

    Loan Charges

    …

    …

    2,871,000

    3,000,000

    2,972,000

    Administration

    …

    …

    2,677,000

    2,814,000

    2,766,000

    Other Expenditure

    …

    …

    8,077,000

    9,046,000

    8,628,000

    Special Services

    …

    …

    2,793,000

    3,421,000

    3,313,000

    Totals

    …

    …

    57,520,000

    60,285,000

    59,217,000

    B.—Higher.

    Training of Teachers

    …

    …

    327,000

    347,000

    333,000

    Secondary Schools

    …

    …

    4,793,000

    5,495,000

    5,343,000

    Technical Schools, etc.

    …

    …

    3,116,000

    3,539,000

    3,445,000

    Loan Charges

    …

    …

    733,000

    947,000

    921,000

    Administration

    …

    …

    669,000

    721,000

    705,000

    Aid to Students

    …

    …

    1,624,000

    1,869,000

    1,781,000

    Other Expenditure

    …

    …

    213,000

    230,000

    235,000

    Totals

    …

    …

    11,475,000

    13,148,000

    12,763,000

    C.—Totals: Elementary and Higher.

    Totals

    …

    …

    68,995,000

    73,433,000

    71,980,000

    OPEN-AIR SCHOOLS, BRIGHOUSE AND IPSWICH.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to permit the Brighouse Education Authority to obtain the grant upon which it reckoned, prior to Memorandum 44, to meet the cost of maintenance of the new open-air school which has been erected with the approval of the Board; if his attention has been drawn to the suspension of work on an open-air school at Brighouse; and whether the delay in completing the school is the result of any action taken by his Department?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not wish to prevent the opening of any school now in course of erection, but I do not know what maintenance costs the authority proposes to incur on this school, and I must therefore consider the revised esti-
    authorities for the last completed year, 1924–25.
    mates for 1926–27 before pledging myself to the payment of a grant of a particular amount. As regards the second part of the question, I have no knowledge of the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The third part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet decided to sanction the provision by the Ipswich Education Authority of an open-air school for 200 physic ally defective children; and, if not, when a decision will be made?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am approving the purchase of a site for this school, but no proposal for the erection of buildings is before me.

    RURAL EDUCATION (PAMPHLET).
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Education what steps he has taken to bring the Board's pamphlet on

    1601
    rural education to the notice of persons interested in the question?
    Lord E. PERCY: In addition to being circulated to Government Departments and the Press, the pamphlet was issued to the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal Agricultural Society, the National Farmers' Union, the Central Landowners' Association, the Land Union, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and the Workers' Union, to all local education authorities in England and Wales and the Isle of Man, and to the various associations of local authorities and associations of teachers. The pamphlet has, of course, been put on sale, and can be purchased from His Majesty's Stationery Office sale offices in London, and elsewhere, or through any bookseller. I shall welcome suggestions from hon. Members as to the best means of promoting in rural areas a study of the problems indicated in the pamphlet.

    CENTRAL SCHOOL, NOTTINGHAM.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Education if he has reached a decision with regard to the final plan and estimates submitted to him for the erection of the Old Basford Bar Lane Central School, Nottingham?
    Lord E. PERCY: I should be prepared at once to approve this project, so far as it relates to the replacement of unsatisfactory accommodation in existing schools, but the project as submitted appears to be based on assumptions as to a probable increase in school population for which no sufficient evidence has, as yet, been supplied to me. In these circumstances, I should be glad to see the authority's programme for the years 1927–30 before deciding the question.

    DENTAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether the policy of the Board is to discourage local education authorities from initiating schemes for dental treatment in elementary schools where such schemes are not at present in existence?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. The comparatively few authorities who have not yet started a school dental service will, no doubt, consider the matter when framing their programmes.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it the policy of the Minister to discourage such dental centres being organised in districts where children are suffering for want of treatment?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think that a dental service is most desirable in all areas.

    MINING INSTRUCTION.
    Mr. CLOWESasked the President of the Board of Education how much has been provisionally allocated to local education authorities by the Central Miners' Welfare Fund Committee for providing buildings and other facilities for instruction in mining; whether, in view of administrative Memorandum 44, local education authorities will, in fact, be allowed to use these grants or others which may be made; whether they will be allowed to supplement these grants by such small sums as may be necessary to enable a working scheme to be carried out; and whether the maintenance and other current expenses of a building erected by such grants will be allowed by the Board?
    Lord E. PERCY: I understand that the sum which, on the 1st of this month, stood provisionally allocated to local education authorities by the Miners' Welfare Committee for buildings and other facilities for higher instruction in mining, amounted to £155,990. Of the projects involved some would entail considerable capital expenditure, in addition to that to be met from the Miners' Welfare Fund, and substantial additional annual maintenance charges. Generally speaking, such projects can suitably be deferred for inclusion in the programmes for 1927–30 which I have asked authorities to submit to me, and I understand that the Miners' Welfare Committee are prepared to let their allocations stand in the meantime; but if, in any particular case, the authority think that, notwithstanding the considerations mentioned in administrative Memorandum 44, the project should not be deferred to the period covered by their programme, it is open to them to submit their views for my consideration.

    MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the Report

    1603
    on recruiting for the Army for the year 1925, showing that 52,207 candidates for enlistment were rejected as unsuitable on physical and medical grounds; and whether, in view of this state of physical degeneracy, he will make it clear to local education authorities that nothing in Memorandum 44 is to be taken as discouraging any expansion of the school medical service?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the Report referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18th February last to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), a copy of which I am sending him.

    LECTURE (SIR HENRY NEWBOLD).
    Mr. SPENCERasked the President of the Board of Education whether the lecture delivered by Sir Henry Newbold at Nottingham on 19th February was arranged and financed by the Board of Education; and whether similar lectures are being arranged at other large centres?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have no information about the lecture to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will send me particulars I will look into the matter.

    GRANT SYSTEM.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a resolution, passed unanimously on 19th February by the authorities' panel of the Burnham Standing Joint Committee, reminding him that the participation of the local authorities in the Burnham award was expressly conditional upon no alteration being made in the present grant system to the prejudice of the authorities; and whether he pro poses to give the definite assurance asked for in the resolution that the grant system will not be altered to the prejudice of the local education authorities?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have received the resolution referred to. I appreciate the conditional nature of the agreement upon which the Burnham scales are based and the maintenance of those scales is a prime object of my policy, as is shown by the Regulation which I have recently issued. I do not think I can usefully say more at this moment, but the matter will, of course, not be overlooked in the discus-
    1604
    sions which are now taking place with local authorities in regard to the grant system.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GOSPORT.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Gosport Education Committee has postponed proceeding with a new school for 620 children owing to Memorandum 44; and whether he is prepared to give special consideration to the needs of this locality?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have received no intimation from the authority that they have decided to postpone this proposal; in fact, they made special reference to it in submitting their revised estimates, which are now under consideration.

    GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL, NORWICH.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Education whether, as a result of Memorandum 44, he intends to prevent the Norwich education authority from having a new secondary school to replace the old secondary school for girls, owing to the actual contract not yet having been accepted?
    Lord E. PERCY: The authority have informed me that they have decided to postpone this project for one year, and have included it in their programme as a matter to be dealt with in 1927–28.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this decision is the result of Memorandum 44?
    Lord E. PERCY: I really cannot say, but if the hon. Member saw the number of urgent secondary school projects, he would not be so ready to press the claim of a particular secondary school for this year.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the number of secondary schools which would have been built or would have been projected but for this circular?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly that is a matter of opinion.

    ORTHOPÆDIC TREATMENT, EAST SUFFOLK.
    Mr. PALINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has issued any instructions which have caused the East Suffolk education authority to abandon the provision of orthopædic treatment for children?
    Lord E. PERCY: The authority have not informed me that they do not propose to proceed with their scheme for orthopædic treatment, but I understand that they decided, in making the revised estimates which I asked them to submit, not to include provision for this scheme during the coming year.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the issue of Memorandum 44 had anything to do with this decision.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make any representations to local authorities?
    Lord E. PERCY: I particularly asked the authorities to take these proposals into consideration in connection with their programme, and this, I believe, the authorities are doing.

    YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. AMMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that neither he nor the local education authorities have any power to deal with such cases as page boys under the age of 18 who are employed from 9.30 a.m. to 10,30 p.m. in places of public entertainment and van boys of 15 employed from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., and who are therefore unable to attend any place of continued education, he is prepared to advise the Government to grant facilities for the discussion of the Education (Employment of Young Persons) Bill?
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that boys of 15 are employed at night clubs as page boys as late as 3 a.m., and that boys and girls of 15 are being employed in shops and restaurants between 56 and 59 hours per week, exclusive of meal times, and that in some instances van boys are employed from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m., he will at an early date introduce legislation to prevent such conditions of excessive hours of work continuing among young people in the future?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to these questions. I recognise the need for fuller powers to regulate the classes of employment referred to, and the question will receive
    1606
    my careful consideration, but I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of the Government being able to deal with the matter this Session.

  HOUSING.

    SUB-LETTING (ASSESSMENTS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if he will, in view of the profiteering by tenants of houses, who sublet their rooms at extortionate rentals, suggest to local authorities that the assessments of such property be reviewed, in order that the rateable value of the property shall be increased so as to be in proportion to the amount of income received by the tenant?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no control over the proceedings of the assessment authorities, and do not think that I could properly adopt the course suggested in the question. If any person is aggrieved by the amount at which any property is assessed, it is open to him to object to the Assessment Committee.

    HAWRIDGE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is a serious shortage of housing accommodation in Hawridge, in Buckinghamshire, and that the chairman of the parish council, acting at the request of the rural council, has made every possible effort to obtain land and has failed to do so; and if he is prepared to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but if the rural district council think that I can be of any service to them, and will communicate with me, I will arrange for all possible advice and assistance to be given to them.

    LAND PURCHASE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if in all cases where local authorities are the purchasers of land, the assistance of the Government Valuation Department is available; and, if not, will he make representations to the Board of Inland Revenue that such assistance should be available in the interests of local economy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The assistance of the Valuation Department is now available only where State moneys are involved, or where sanction by a Government Department is required. The Government cannot at present see their way to extend this assistance.
    Mr. THOMSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in the light of economy that would come to the local authority?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (CONVALESCENT HOMES).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if, in considering the distribution of surpluses of approved health societies, he will take into account the necessity of the provision of sufficient convalescent homes and the granting of full maintenance allowances for the families dependent on the sick persons, so as to ensure that the patients take full advantage of convalescent treatment till full recovery is reached?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It rests with each approved society having a disposable surplus on valuation to decide what additional benefits are to be provided for its members out of that surplus. Among such benefits are included the provision and maintenance of premises suitable for convalescent homes, and the payment of the whole or part of the cost of maintenance and treatment of members in convalescent homes, the latter of which is one of the most widely adopted benefits. I am satisfied that societies generally are fully alive to the advantages of convalescent home treatment. There is no provision in the Act for the payment of maintenance allowances for the dependants of sick persons, but while an insured person is being maintained in a convalescent home, he would ordinarily be entitled also to sickness or disablement benefit, which would be available towards the cost of the maintenance of his dependants.

    MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called
    1608
    to the case of a lad of 17, who is mentally deficient and was charged at Stratford, East, police court with an assault on a child of five; if he is aware that the same lad was charged with a similar offence on a previous occasion but, owing to the failure to find a suitable home, was discharged; and if he will see that sufficient homes are provided for these cases, so that deficients who are a danger to children shall not be allowed to repeat their offences?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the latter part of the question, I have already informed the Board of Control that they should press local authorities to fulfil their duty under the Mental Deficiency Act of providing suitable and sufficient accommodation for mental defectives ordered to be sent to institutions. As regards the particular case, the Board of Control have agreed, in the exceptional circumstances, that if the Court orders this youth to be sent to an institution, he can be received into the State institution at Rampton, which has been provided for mental defectives of dangerous or violent propensities.

    GRADED MILK (LICENCE FEES).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of the abolition of the fees charged for certificates to supply graded milk, as these prove a burden to producers, who endeavour to supply a pure article in poor, and especially agricultural, districts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the reasons given in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on the 11th ultimo, I am not at present prepared to abolish the licence fees for graded milk.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health how many cases of small-pox were notified in certain large towns, including London, in the years 1897, 1898, 1890, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Reports

    1609
    of the Local Government Board for the years in question, which contain in Appendix L such figures as are available for the years in question.

    LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplates the consideration of proposals for leasehold enfranchisement?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): This difficult and complicated question is not escaping our attention.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the instructions to be given to our delegate on the Council of the League of Nations on the question of the enlargement of the League Council beyond the admission of Germany?
    Mr. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether the Dominions will have an opportunity to discuss any proposed change in the constitution of the League of Nations Council before this country is committed to any change?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to await the Debate this afternoon. Representatives of the Dominions will be at Geneva, and every opportunity will be available for discussion with them.

    SEA FISHERIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the £1,000,000 to be devoted to assisting the marketing of Empire products will include assistance to the British sea-fishing industry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As has already been stated, His Majesty's Government will make an announcement on the whole subject shortly.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYCan the right hon. Gentleman inform me
    1610
    whether the question of sea-fishing is receiving the same sympathy from the Government as the question of home agriculture?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We spread our sympathy over everything.

    HOUSE OF LORDS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are considering any proposals for the reform of the House of Lords?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 22nd February in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day).

    LOCARNO TREATY (DOMINION VIEWS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are yet in possession of the views of the Dominions on the Locarno Treaty; and, if so, whether he can embody them in a White Paper for the information of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The position remains as described in the reply of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) on the 9th February. It is not possible at this stage to lay papers.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any intention of ever laying papers on this important subject, so that we may know what the Dominions do think?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That rather depends on what is in the papers, and they are not completed yet.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Health what is the average weekly amount at present being paid for widows', orphans', and old age pensions by the Ministry under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, as pensions for widows, orphans, and the aged?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average weekly amount at present being paid in

    1611
    England and Wales under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, as pensions for widows and orphans is, approximately, £100,000. Old age pensions at age 65, are not payable before the 2nd January, 1928. Old age pensions payable at age 70, by virtue of the Act, are not payable before 2nd July, 1926.

    TUNIS (ARREST OF LIEUTENANT MACNAMARA).
    Lieut.-Colonel A. POWNALL (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest in Tunis of a young Englishman holding the King's commission and named Macnamara, who has been put into detention without trial for over a fortnight, and whether he will take the necessary steps to procure his release?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the extraordinary treatment of Lieutenant Macnamara by the French authorities at Gabes, in Tunisia, and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): My attention had already been drawn to the case before the appearance of the correspondence in this morning's "Times." His Majesty's Consul-General at Tunis, who has been in constant communication with the French Residency-General since the facts were first brought to his notice, has been instructed by telegram to render every assistance to the accused. I am inquiring of the latter's relatives whether they wish the Consul-General to engage counsel for his defence.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman have some inquiry also made into the conduct of the Judge of first instance, who appears to have recommended this unfortunate prisoner to lead a chaste life?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope I may be permitted to observe discretion when an Englishman is in trouble, and has yet to come up for trial.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we will take the Motion to take Private Members' time on certain evenings: the Report stage of the Air Estimates, Votes A, 1, 4, 2 and 3.
Tuesday: We shall take the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, Second Reading; Supplementary Estimate for Northern Ireland Grant-in-Aid, in Committee; Trade Facilities Bill, Committee; and, if time permit, other business on the Paper; while at 8.15 there are Private Members' Motions.
Wednesday: We shall take the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Labour and Northern Ireland Grant-in-Aid; Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, Committee; Trade Facilities Bill, further stages; and other business on the Paper, if time permit. At a quarter-past eight, there are Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: We propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and consider Votes A, 1, 10, and 2 in Committee. The Navy Estimates, I hope, will be available in the Vote Office to-morrow.
Mr. MacDONALD: Referring to Thursday's business, I understand that the Economy Bill is then to be introduced. There is some doubt about the circumstances in which it will be introduced. Is it the intention of the Government simply to hand it in at the Table, or to move for leave to introduce it?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand it is to be handed in at the Table.
Mr. MacDONALD: Further, may I ask, supposing the Debate to-day should end before a quarter-past eight, what business do the Government propose to take?
The PRIME MINISTER: Supposing the Debate does end before 8.15, I propose to proceed with the Orders as they stand on the Paper. The first Order is the Ministry of Labour.
Motion made, and Question put.
"That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of
the House), and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may he taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 130.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL.

    SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[The Prime Minister.]
    4.0 P.M.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The forthcoming meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva have aroused so much interest in this country, as in others, and so much anxiety, that His Majesty's Government have felt that not only was it right that some statement should be made on their behalf before their representatives leave to attend, but that an opportunity should be given to the House for a discussion of that statement. I can only say, for myself, that I feel it is much easier to increase the difficulties with which we shall in any case be confronted at Geneva than to lessen them by any words that I can say; that I am conscious of the delicacy of the occasion; and that I hope I may succeed in giving some satisfaction to the House without increasing anybody else's difficulty, and that the House itself will be mindful of the situation in which we are all placed, and careful in what it says of the susceptibilities of other Powers. The meetings which are to take place next week are twofold. I am not sure that it has been realised in all quarters that the Council meeting is a meeting held in the ordinary course of its procedure—one of the four quarterly meetings held in the year, and held on the date on which it is customary to meet. It is only the Assembly which is summoned specially for an extraordinary session in consequence of the application made by Germany to join the League of Nations.
    I think the House is already aware that His Majesty's Government have selected my noble Friend Lord Cecil and myself to represent His Majesty's Government as the principal delegates to the Assembly, and I shall go to this meeting of the Council as I have made it my business to go to every meeting of the Council since I became Foreign Secretary. It has been a wish very close to my heart that in my tenure of the office of Secretary of State for Foreign
    1656
    Affairs I might carry the general sentiment of the nation with me, and that nothing in my language or my attitude might make the issue of foreign affairs a party issue between parties in this country; and, if I feel that about foreign affairs in general, I feel it even more strongly in what concerns the League, for support of the League, adherence to the League, and development of the League is a policy which is common to every party in this House, and, I think, to every section of opinion in this country.
    I must confess that it is not without great anxiety that I have watched the progress of the international controversy which has arisen on this occasion. Whatever view may be taken of the particular questions which are at issue, it has seemed to me that the case for or against a particular proposition is often argued on wholly wrong grounds and on grounds which strike at the very spirit and essence of the League. The League was established to find by common agreement, and after common consultation, a solution of difficulties which it might otherwise be impossible to solve by peaceful means, and for anyone to argue for or against a particular policy in relation to the composition of an organ of the League on the ground that it will strengthen this party or that party within the League seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the constitution of the League and of the spirit of the League and to be a danger to its continued usefulness. We meet there, no doubt, coming with many different and often conflicting views and claims; we meet there, naturally, inspired by the feelings of our own country, the traditions of our own country, and mindful of the national interests that we have to guard. But if the League is to continue to grow in influence and power, as I am happy to think that it has grown, and grown more rapidly of late, we must, when we get there, talk, as M. Briand says, not merely our own national language, but we must talk the language of Europe, and, indeed, the language of the world; and it is in proportion as we succeed in that effort that we shall overcome our difficulties and realise the hopes of the world when the League was founded.
    It seems to me that there has been too little recognition of that point of view in much of the controversy that has been

    1657
    carried on in the public Press of different countries, and if that or if extreme forms of controversy represent the real and unchangeable mind of the nations among which it appears we might well take a gloomy view of the situation. But I am encouraged to hope for better things from the moderation of the statements made by the representatives of the nations who are perhaps most closely concerned. Whether I look at the speech of Dr. Luther, the Chancellor of the German Reich; whether I look at the speech of the President and Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, or of those of the Foreign Ministers of Belgium or Poland, I find, in all of them, evidence of the same sense of the difficulty and the delicacy of the situation, proof of the same moderation of outlook, and of the same earnest desire to arrive at an agreement which we can all of us accept.
    Let me say, at this point, that for myself and for the Government we share the regret that is so widely felt here that the large issues as to the composition of the League should arise on this occasion and should have to be discussed now. We did not raise them; we did not instigate anybody to raise them at this time, and since I have been attending these meetings I have sought as far as was in my own power in such conversations—and there have been many conversations—to postpone these larger issues to a later date. If, therefore, they are now to be discussed, it is not the fault of His Majesty's Government. It will not say that it is the fault of anybody. It was, perhaps, inevitable. I think it was inevitable. After all, at each meeting of the Assembly the composition of the Council comes under review. The temporary seats have to be filled by reelection or new elections; and sometimes in the Assembly itself, and more often in the lobby, there is much talk about what is the proper organisation of the Council, whether it should be enlarged, and, if so, in what way, how the temporary seats should be allotted, and for what periods they should be held.
    It must be remembered that in the main the claims which are now put forward for representation or for altered representation on the Council are not now raised for the first time. They have been heard of before; they have been discussed before; some of them have been voted on, and it is, I think, natural
    1658
    that those who have cherished these hopes and have pressed their claims and have been put off time and again because it was felt inexpedient to make any change in the composition of the Council at that moment, should now renew their claims when, owing to the entry of a fresh nation the whole question—I will not say the whole question—owing to the entry of a new nation not merely into the Assembly but into the Council and owing to the proposed allocation to that nation of another permanent seat, the question does appear upon the agenda and must come under discussion. If it had been realised more widely that this was, as I think it was, inevitable, I do not think that the same colour would have been given to the discussion that it has taken upon itself.
    If I rightly understand the causes of the anxiety that have been shown and the mind of the British nation, it is not that we are unalterably opposed to any change of the council or to any addition to it, not that we desire here and now a priori to reject a particular claim without discussion; but it is due to their surprise at having these questions opened now, to the fear lest through opening these questions you endanger the results of Locarno and perhaps, above all, to a sense that there is something in the air which is not fair play, something of which one of the Powers might rightly complain and which is repugnant to the spirit of the game as we are accustomed to play it in State affairs no less than in other activities of our lives.
    Dr. Stresemann in a speech which he made the other day drew attention to the portrait of Lord Castlereagh in the Foreign Office room in which the Treaty of Locarno was signed. He called attention to it in order to draw an inference, and I think he drew the right inference, that the policy of Great Britain now is the same as that which Lord Castlereagh pursued after the Napoleonic Wars, adapted to the circumstances of the present day, and using the League of Nations as its instrument where he had to use a conference of the great Powers. What was that? It was, in the first place, to protect the world against a repetition of the evils which it had suffered and the dangers from which it had just escaped, and having obtained security against that repetition then he

    1659
    welcomed back the enemy of the day before into the concert of nations, and he worked steadily for reconciliation, friendship, and in time, cordiality.
    That I believe to be the policy, and those are the objects which induced His Majesty's Government to send me to Locarno, and that is the policy we embodied in the agreement at Locarno, and to us it is a cardinal and essential feature of our policy that the work of Locarno should continue, that the spirit of Locarno should prevail, and that the reconciliation in which we have made progress perhaps of greater value than is always recognisable from day to day should continue towards the goal which we have set before us. It is, therefore, and must be, a guiding principle for the representatives of His Majesty's Government in the discussions at Geneva that they should be parties to nothing there which endanger the success of Locarno, or which would make it impossible for Germany at the last moment to enter the League of Nations even when she presents herself at its door. It was an essential feature of British policy and our assent to the Treaty of Locarno and the guarantee of the League of Nations that Germany should give to the world the assurance of peaceful intentions and the guarantees of security that are embodied in the Covenant of the League. Therefore the Government regard it as of the first consequence that that resolution should now be fulfilled, and that nothing should interfere at the last moment which prevents her carrying out the intentions she has expressed.
    With that guiding line, I turn to consider the more detailed question, the minor question of the organisation and the composition of the Council. I am sure there is a much greater variety of opinion at home than on the other side, and there is a variety of opinion amongst the different nations who are members of the League. There have been moments, as news reached me from one quarter of the world after another, when it has appeared to me that there were as many different opinions as there were nations members of the League. There are differences which are the outcome of national conditions, particular national dangers, and particular national fears. There are differences which arise out of
    1660
    the geographical situation and geographical groupings, and there are difficulties which arise from the quarrels of yesterday not yet forgotten, and from the suspicions of yesterday which are only too ready to revive in every quarter at the slightest provocation, and above all, when any rash or provocative word is spoken by a statesman or written by a publicist in a hasty article in a daily paper. How all these differences of opinion arise, no man can say. It is clear that if there were no machinery for their solution except an exchange of diplomatic notes, there would be little chance of agreement, and it is for that very purpose that the League of Nations in its Assembly and its Council were created in order that they might afford the opportunity of personal intercourse, of easy and friendly exchange of views, and in order that in that exchange of views and personal intercourse methods of solution might be sought and found which would never emerge from controversial wrangling.
    The one thing, the one solution the British Government will not lend itself to under any circumstances whatever is that it will be no party to trying to recreate in the Council of the League camps of opposing forces which were the curse of Europe before the War. I have said that several times, and I repeat it to-day, partly because it must be a second essential principle of any policy pursued by any representative of this country. I repeat it also in order once again to draw attention to the futility of any such attempt. Of what use is a majority on the Council to anyone? Of what use is a vote more or less when, unless upon all essential matters the Council is unanimous, the Council can take no decision and come to no results? There are those in this country, perhaps, as in other countries who see the weakness that this need of unanimity may be on some critical occasion, and who are apt to think that it would be better that the Council should decide by a majority. There may be exceptional occasions in which there is reason for adopting some such course, but very exceptional I think they must be, because, if you once agree that the Council is to decide by a majority, then indeed it must become an object to every possible nation to secure a majority for itself, and the election of members to the Council will no longer be

    1661
    directed by the wish to make the Council as strong, as widely representative, as authoritative and final as possible, and it will become the subject of constant lobbying to obtain majorities for this or that purpose. It is, therefore, in my opinion, essential for as long a time as possible, and until changes take place which I do not expect to see, that this rule of unanimity should be preserved if for no other purpose than to prevent that kind of intrigue, and prevent the Council being denatured for the purpose of creating a majority in order to obtain a particular decision.
    Having said that I doubt if there is anybody who has at any time represented the British Government who is prepared to say with confidence that the form first given to the Council was the form that it must always retain, or that there should be no alteration in it, either in its permanent seats or in its temporary seats, except particular additions which were foreseen as presently to come even by the original founder. It is not even true that the Council remains what it was as originally created, because two additional temporary seats were added. But the Assembly has gone on for good reason on the whole year after year re-electing the same States to the temporary seats and postponing the decision about how these seats are eventually to be made to circulate among the powers who do not have a permanent seat. But you cannot postpone it indefinitely. The impatience of the Assembly with the simple re-election of the same members has been growing, and I doubt very much whether the Assembly would have been content to re-elect them last year, if it had not been in the knowledge that the whole subject was shortly to be reviewed again.
    It is impossible, and undesirable if it were possible, for the representative of one country to attempt to lay down in advance a plan of action for the Council or the Assembly on such a matter as this, which is essentially one for common discussion, and for a solution which shall be the result of the interchange of ideas and the free play of thought and interests within the body of the Assembly and the Council. What is our object? It is clearly our object that the number of the Council should be kept within manageable bounds so that for practical working purposes it
    1662
    may be an effective instrument. On the other hand, it is equally important that the Council should be sufficiently numerous to make it fairly representative of the whole body of States incorporated in the League, and authoritative, within its own proper sphere, as to the opinion of that body. When you come to the permanent seats in particular, any increase in their number must, of course, be examined with a very particular scrutiny. There is greater objection to according permanent seats than to according to any particular nation a temporary seat, which it is in the power of the Assembly to refill at whatever time it thinks it necessary to do so, when, perhaps, the particular reasons for putting that State on the Council have ceased, whether they be national or whether they be, as they may sometimes be, personal in the character of the personal contribution which the State brings to the Council, and when, perhaps, the very reasons which impelled the Assembly to put the State on may now lead the Assembly has gone on, for good reason on the whole, year after year re-electing the the past the position that there should be no addition to the permanent seats except on the entry of Germany, of the United States of America, or of Russia. Discussions have taken place before now. Rather more than four years ago there was such a discussion in the Council. It was a private one, and I do not feel at liberty to say anything about the attitude taken by other Powers; but at that time the British Government supported the claim of Spain, and I see nothing in what has happened since which should make His Majesty's Government change their attitude to that claim on principle though the time when that claim should be pressed is a different question, with which I am not dealing at this moment.
    On the question of time, I have spoken earlier. Having dealt with the question of time, and having said, although I failed to make my meaning clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that, if it had lain with us no question of other alterations would have arisen—having said that, I am now dealing with the general principle which should govern selection for the Council, not with the moment at which changes, if there are to be any changes, should take place. But I should be astonished to hear that any

    1663
    British representative at any time—the right hon. Gentleman's or any other—would have been prepared to say that the claim of Spain was not worthy of consideration, or to stand alone in the Council to reject it No British Government, and I speak with some knowledge, has been prepared in all circumstances and at all times to confine the permanent seats on the Council to the particular number originally allotted, but I agree, as I have said, that any extension of the permanent seats must be justified on the merits of the particular case which is being argued. It must be viewed with great jealousy, because you cannot have a large extension of these seats, and they can only be given in special circumstances and for special reasons. It is less objectionable in some ways to add to the non-permanent seats. There are States which are clearly not qualified for a permanent seat, but which, at any particular moment, it may be greatly in the interest of the Council and greatly in the interest of peace to have represented within the Council, there to argue out their differences in that atmosphere of conciliation and camaraderie which does prevail among the Council members, and which has done so much to secure our past agreement and will be so valuable for securing future agreement.
    If I may summarise what I have said, it is that the guiding principles for the representatives of His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting are that nothing should be done to jeopardise the results of Locarno; that nothing should be done that gives any Power the right to say that it has been unfairly treated, or entrapped into a decision the consequences of which it did not understand; and that additions to the Council must be jealously watched. They can only take place if the whole Council is unanimously in their support, but, if the whole Council were unanimously in support of a particular claim, we should have to judge the claim upon its merits, but we do not say, and are not prepared to say a priori, that no such claim can be admitted under any circumstances whatever.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I should like to be clear. Does the right hon. Gentleman says that no such claim can be admitted in March?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. Under-any circumstances whatever. I am not prepared to say. I want to be quite frank. His Majesty's Government would have preferred that these further questions had not been raised at the present time. No action can be taken upon them except by common accord at the Council, by unanimous vote of the Council. But, if the way of peace is found, after consultation, in an agreement of all the Council for a particular admission, we should certainly not reject or oppose that admission now on the ground that we should have preferred to have discussed the question in September.
    This morning I received a message from the German Ambassador that he was anxious to see me. He came, on the instructions of his Government, to say that they desired that a meeting should take place between their representatives, myself, and those of other Powers—a Locarno conversation—before the Council entered on its discussions; and he was instructed to inquire whether I was pre pared to agree to such a meeting, because in that case the German representatives would come in time for it to take place before the Council met. I replied that I accepted the proposal with great pleasure, that I regarded it as absolutely vital that, before any discussions took place in the Council, we who had signed the Treaty of Locarno should meet and freely exchange our views in continuation of those free and friendly conversations which took place at Locarno itself. I reminded him that so strong was my feeling on that point that I had already—I think a fortnight ago, though I have not verified the date—communicated to the German Government my earnest hope that we might meet at Geneva for such a conversation before any decisions were taken; and I added that at the same time I had expressed the same hope to the other Powers who signed the Treaty of Locarno, and that I thought I was not misinterpreting their views if I said that they were as desirous of such a meeting as I was. If I have pleaded with my countrymen—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, because it is very crucial, does that mean that, in the absence of an agreement between all the parties, of which Germany would also

    1665
    form one, the British representatives will not vote for the addition of a member to the League?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to go beyond the statement which I have made, after full consideration by His Majesty's Government, that it is for us an essential principle that the fruits of Locarno should be reaped, that the work should be consummated, and that nothing should be done to prevent Germany from entering the League. If I have pleaded' with my countrymen that some latitude should be allowed in discussion and in negotiation to its representatives, it is not, I would beg the House to believe, because I am filled with conceit at my own knowledge personally; it is because, if each of us takes up a rigid attitude before we get to Geneva, we shall come, and can come, no nearer to agreement at Geneva than now. I want to stretch out my hands to others, and to see them stretch out their hands to me—not to have my own tied to my side, so that the most friendly gesture that I can make is a futile one. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the same plea is put forward by those other representatives, and they also, and for the same reason—because we want an agreement and peace—have refused to bind themselves hand and foot before they start on their journey, but have reserved liberty of negotiation and of discussion, without which nobody can ever reconcile differences. M. Vandervelde, I observe, in a speech which he made the day before yesterday, after explaining the general view of the Belgian Government, said:
    "He would not ask the Chamber to come to a conclusion, and would not do so himself, because it was essentially desirable that we should go to Geneva without any preconceived plan, to seek, in a spirit of reciprocal conciliation the solution most favourable to a good international understanding."
    I believe that to be the spirit. He indicated his general attitude, as I have indicated the general attitude of His Majesty's Government. He indicated the difficulties he felt, as I have indicated the difficulties which are felt by His Majesty's Government, and he ended by appealing, as I do, that the Chamber should come to no decision, and stating that he himself would come to no final decision, but that we should be left to put our contributions into the common
    1666
    stock, and, meeting there as friends and colleagues at this great Council of the Nations, seek a solution which shall not renew or prolong difficulties, which shall not recreate or increase suspicion, but shall make this meeting at Geneva one more step in that progress of reconciliation and appeasement to which all of us are now committed.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I have listened with the most anxious sympathy to the speech the Foreign Secretary has just delivered. I have done so with a sincere desire to find agreement with it. I regret to say that is not possible. It is impossible for two reasons. The description of the situation given by the Foreign Secretary lacks a little in realistic detail. The difficulty in which we find ourselves has not been created by a spontaneous uprising on the part of certain countries putting claims in for permanent seats on the Council of the League. That is not what is disquieting us. No one is disquieted if Spain, in pursuance of a long and back-dated claim, is raising the question again. We are not disquieted because Poland feels that its present position in Europe is such that it would be better and more convenient for it if it had a permanent seat in the Council of the League of Nations. That is not it at all. We are disquieted on account of the circumstances in which the whole thing has arisen. We are disquieted because we have noticed from day to day those countries being encouraged to go on not, it is perfectly true, on account of anything positive that our Government or any other Government appears to have done—at any rate I only refer to our own Government—but on account of the things they have not done. They have allowed Poland to pursue its inquiries, to make its approaches to Government after Government, and all the time they have stood by. They have no opinions upon it, and now we are told that on account of the very delicate and very difficult situation that has arisen by these claims being carried to a point which involves the honour of the nations making the claims, it is inexpedient and it is wrong for this House to tie the hands of the Foreign Secretary at Geneva. That is the situation we have to face and that is a situation which I think

    1667
    this House has a perfect right to profoundly regret.
    The right hon. Gentleman said this is no party issue. It is not. I decline to make it a party issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The usual sneer comes, but if any hon. Member would read the newspapers of the country, would read the speeches that have been made by men of all parties who desire to support the League of Nations and to protect its future efficiency and well being, they would find that in the position I take up there is no party distinction. Conservatives have been as enthusiastic and as sincere as we have been, and Liberals have been the same. I have never known in all my life a situation which has so united the nation as the issue we are discussing to-day has united the nation. We can run this doctrine of a free hand a little too far. As a matter of fact, no one knows what it means. Every man who represents a nation in places like Geneva, or anywhere else, knows perfectly well that he has to abstract himself every now and again from himself and remember the elements whom he is representing. To that extent there is no such thing as a free hand.
    A free hand, free within limits, laying down your goal, laying down your purpose, removing suspicion and enabling people to understand what you are driving at, and then asking for that confidence which will enable you to negotiate to that end and use to the greatest advantage your opportunities, may be a perfectly sound request and, as far as I am concerned, I hope I shall never refuse it to any Englishman going to represent the nation on such an important body as the Council of the League of Nations. But is the right hon. Gentleman free? There is a freedom to two bodies, or to two allegiances. He may go away to-day saying he has a free hand from this House. Is he free in relation to any pledge or any promise that he has given with reference to what he is going to do at Geneva? I put that question because no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that that question has been canvassed in every newspaper in the country. Has he pledged himself to Spain? Has he pledged himself to Poland? I am going through the whole category. Has he pledged himself to Brazil? When he
    1668
    talks about a conversation with Germany and suggests that during that conversation he is to discuss with them the business of the Council of the League of Nations in respect of the claims of these States, is Germany going to initiate the conversation or is he?
    I was not able to follow precisely how much meaning there was in the German Ambassador's dispatch. I was not able to follow what he meant in detail. Did Germany raise this question of Spain, or is Germany going to be pressed to agree to A, B or C being admitted with its consent?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If I said a word that indicated that this message from the Ambassador implied that there was a change of German policy, I misled the right hon. Gentleman. It does not imply any change of policy, and there cannot be any change of policy until they meet and their representatives discuss the matter. It amounted only to a desire for free conversation with France and ourselves and the other Locarno Powers before the Council entered upon the discussion of those matters at all.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am very glad of that, but my impression was that it was embedded in an argument that seemed to indicate that there had been some change, and I am sure we are all glad that that has been removed. Apparently what has happened is that, on account of what is going on, Germany has become apprehensive. This communique is not the expression of Germany's spontaneous desire to have this thing discussed but, owing to the propaganda of some countries, the negative position of other countries and the positive pledges perhaps of some countries—"Well, I will wait and see how things go on, and I will not make up my mind until the last minute"—that sort of negative encouragement given by other countries, Germany at least, quite properly, has become apprehensive of the situation and asked for a conversation to take place.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman misinterprets the intentions of the German Government. Some time ago I expressed to the German Government and other Governments the hope that such a discussion would take place. The German Government heard nothing further, and I understand it was

    1669
    because they had heard nothing further of this hope that they would also desire a conversation that they now inquired whether I was prepared to meet them, because, if so, they would arrange their arrival at Geneva accordingly.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am only dealing with the conversation so far as it was indicated by the Foreign Secretary that at this conversation the question of further admissions to the Council was discussed. That is really the point. That is the situation, and that situation has given rise to disturbance in our national mind and in the national mind of every other country. We know what some of the Baltic States have done and said, and we know the position Germany has taken up regarding the whole thing.
    5.0 P.M.
    My first point is this. Assuming the changes are required—and I am going to deal with that as a second point—can anyone imagine a more inopportune moment than this even to talk about it? Can anyone imagine a more unfortunate diplomatic method than when you are admitting this new State, with all the circumstances that you have of a State that has been an enemy and very largely an outcast until quite recently? You gave an opportunity for mischievous Newspapers on the Continent, in particular, and they took it, to say: "This is a makeweight: this is a counterbalancing arrangement. Because Germany is in, we must defend ourselves on the Council." That has been said; that has been debated. Even apart from that, every one of us will agree that that is so wicked that it ought not seriously to be taken into account. The whole circumstances are such that the inevitable appearance of a diplomatic move like this is to indicate a suspicion that the Council of the League of Nations must be protected against Locarno. It is not carrying out Locarno; it was never discussed at Locarno; it was never sought, so far as I know. I have never even heard it publicly or privately whispered. Nobody at Locarno during the Conference said, "Of course, Germany, when you come in, others will come in at the same time." No, the Locarno spirit, the Locarno goal, was: "Get Germany in." That was the specific point and the specific goal, unless there were some very secret conference and understandings—which I do not allege for a moment. Un-
    1670
    less that were the case—and I do not believe it—there was not a single diplomatist and national representative who left Locarno who knew, who even expected, that before Germany came in all this question would be raised; and that it would be partly settled, at any rate, at the same time that Germany came in.
    The Spanish claim! I have had to go into it. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Spain has not been asleep all these years, since 1921 or 1922, I think he said, when she first preferred a claim for a permanent seat. It is not quite correct to say that ever since 1921 the policy of the British Government has been that Spain should be admitted to a permanent seat. Spain has been at it all the time, and it is a grave injustice to the Spanish claim if that claim is going to be used as part of a bargain. It is a grave injustice for Spain to enter the Council of the League of Nations under the suspicion that has been raised on account of the way these matters have been handled during the last few years.
    The opinion of our people—surely every public representative is perfectly willing to agree—the opinion of the public is twofold. First of all, it desires that the British Government this month in Geneva should deal with one question only, so far as admission to the Council of the League is concerned. We want to abstract that from everything else. Surely hon. Members of this House will recognise that that is a big enough and solemn enough event to stand apart from everything else. If we want to signalise the admission of Germany into the fellowship of Europe, as we are going to do next week, will it not diminish the importance and solemnity of that occasion if it is brought in alongside of minor acts, or an act of the same kind? Our nation, I believe, feels that. It is an instinctive, dramatic, commonsense view that, if we are going to have the full, hearty co-operation of Germany in the future decisions of the League of Nations, the claims of Germany alone should be considered this month. The others can be postponed to a later date. That is the first thing.
    The other point is this, that I believe our country, without being able, perhaps, to go into all the details of the reform of the Council of the League, and so on, does feel that our Government ought to

    1671
    take up a very firm attitude at Geneva; that next week the general reform of the Council ought not to be mixed up with the admission of Germany. There is a very important sequel to that, as everyone knows who has attended the Council of the League of Nations. Unfortunately I never have, but I have followed it. I attended, not the Council, but the Assembly; but I followed the transactions of the Council very closely, both through representatives whom I had to appoint myself and through the representatives of foreign States. The sequel is that, when the reform comes, it must not come as a result of any sort of bargaining of one Power off against another Power. That is the second point that I should like to urge on the House.
    I do not quite know what the decision of the Foreign Secretary is going to be about September. I do not know if he is going to nibble at it in March, and then nibble at it again in September. I do not know whether he is going to bring in one Power in March and say that he will give that Power a permanent seat, and then give the Power that was expecting a permanent seat, not a permanent seat but a temporary seat created by a permanent seat given to another Power. That is a bad way of facing a position like this, and it will not redound to the authority of the League of Nations. Surely, if the Council of the League is going to be reformed at all, it ought to be reformed after full all-round consideration and upon a unified plan. There is not going to be anything of that. If, next week, a bargain is going to be struck and a certain change is made, in September the consequences of that bargain will have to be worked out. If State A is admitted now, for instance, with an inquiry in September or before September, you will have to inquire whether State B is in the same condition as State A or whether State C is in the same condition as State B.
    The present plan may be quite imperfect,—I think it is very imperfect—but the moment you begin a new principle of a recognition of a new category or class of State, then you cannot stop there. Spain's grievance up to now may have been great. Spain's grievances against Great Britain, France and Italy, and so on, may be great, but the moment when
    1672
    the representatives of a new category of States, whether Spain, Belgium or Holland, are introduced into that League, with permanent seats on the Council of the League, the claims of the whole category will have to be considered. If you do not meet them, you will do a grave injustice, which will be most keenly felt by those States. But if you do admit that category of States next week, you cannot in September turn it out of a permanent seat again. You will be committed to a particular permanent change in your Council, and every man who sits on that Council and who has experience of its working will know perfectly well that it is an exceedingly bad method to act in that way. Your problems in September, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be very difficult, supposing you are going to consider the composition of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I join with him most heartily in this, that whoever tries to straighten out the conflicting opinions as to how the Council should be elected will have a very difficult job. Practically every State has its own view. Nevertheless, it has to be done.
    There is another point. You have your permanent and temporary seats. Are we sure that we have divided those categories wisely at the present time? That matter ought to be very carefully considered. Take the question of how the temporary seats are allotted. Is the method right? I think most people say it is wrong. Moreover, is the duration of office right? I think again, most people say it is not. Have we devised the means by which valuable personalities may retain seats on the Council or be in some way influential in guiding, guarding and advising the Council of the League? I do not think we have. But all these things have got to be considered. The size of the Council has got to be considered. If you increase it now by one seat, let the House remember, you are not increasing it by one seat at all; you are increasing it by the first of a series of seats. There, again, comes in the consideration of what the size ought to be. If action be taken next week you have actually committed yourselves, you cannot get out of it; and you have got to go blundering along for another 10 years with your Council.
    My plea, on the second point, is that those of us who feel most keenly that the

    1673
    Council requires revision as to its composition and its working, are most violently, if I may use the word, opposed in our minds to anything being done next week which is going to tie our hands in the future considerations of how that Council is going to be established. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to, and he does not come here and say, "I will only agree to the admission of a new Power to a permanent seat, if I am convinced that, everything taken into account, it can be fitted in into a unified conception of the reorganisation of this League." He has never said so. He has said that we are in difficulties and in trouble.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
    Mr. MacDONALD: He did not use those words, but that is the impression. I do not want to use words with which he does not agree: but he said, "I did not raise this; I did not want to raise it. I am rather sorry it has been raised, but it has been raised, and I have now got to deal with it and try to smooth it over." This is the position; they are dealing with the reorganisation of a Council already formed, on the moral authority of which and on the effective working of which, primarily, must depend the effective working of the League of Nations itself. Everybody admits that a revision is necessary. Every State has its own views on the matter. Lo and behold! We are told to-day that the revision should begin on no plan, on no principle, with no full consideration, but merely to get certain diplomatists out of difficulties, and to undo the evil that has arisen out of the slackness and out of the mishandling of the situation in Europe. I cannot agree to that, and I hope that the House of Commons will indicate that it, supporting the Nation, does not agree with that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I confess to a feeling of profound disappointment and uneasiness after hearing the speech of the Foreign Secretary. I think it is a very serious thing for the House of Commons to part with the Foreign Secretary when he goes to Geneva without something more definite than he has given us. Not only has he given us nothing definite, but he has absolutely refused to give us the one definite answer that matters. I was one of those who
    1674
    welcomed Locarno. I have never used any words except words of laudation, praise and gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the services which he rendered there. Not a single word of detraction or, I think, of qualification, have I uttered either in this House or outside. Therefore, I feel that I have a right as a Member of this House to beg of the right hon. Gentleman not to destroy his own masterpiece.
    What will be the result of his speech? This is not a party matter, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is to the eternal honour of this country that such pressure as has been brought to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman has not been party pressure at all. Anybody who reads the article in the "Times" to-day can see that. It has not been a party matter. In fact, it is the only case in my recollection where the public have taken the conduct of Foreign Affairs out of the hands of the Foreign Office. I ask the House of Commons, without distinction of party, what is it that the right hon. Gentleman is pledged to do or not to do if he goes to Geneva? Is he pledged not to vote for Poland? Is he pledged not to vote for Spain, nor for anybody else as an addition to the Council of the League, whether Germany protests or not? Supposing Germany says, "This is a breach of faith. This is not the bargain that we made with you. You have broken it." Is the right hon. Gentleman pledged, in the face of the House of Commons, of Europe and of the world, to vote against this proposition? No, he is not. He is distinctly and emphatically refused to do so.
    The right hon. Gentleman talks about a free hand. What has a free hand to do with it? where is the free hand? There are four great Powers in that Council. Their united weight is simply overwhelming as against the small Powers. Italy has pledged herself, in violent language, to vote for Poland. There is no free hand there. France has done so in the very courtly language which M. Briand always uses, but it means exactly the same thing. Japan says that she will go with the majority. What is Britain going to do? She will make the majority. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying, "I am going there to ratify the general agreement which we will arrive at." Britain cannot take that part in the Council of

    1675
    the League of Nations. She has to go there to express an opinion. Her faith is involved. Her honour is involved. It is the point of honour that has seized upon the conscience of the people of this country, and she cannot say, "I wash my hands of the whole thing, and if France agrees to it, if Italy agrees to it, if Japan agrees to it, and they can bully Germany into surrendering to it, then we will acquiesce." That is a poor, miserable policy. It is not worthy of this great land that really fought the battle as much as anybody and made it possible to win it. She is entitled to an opinion, and it is her opinion that will decide it.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman again, "Has he a free hand?" I am going to press him. I am not going to say of the right hon. Gentleman that he went to M. Briand and Count Skrzynski and said: "I, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, pledge myself that when the proposal comes forward that Poland shall be added, I will vote for it." That is not what happened. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman has a strong opinion. He, therefore, is not free. He goes there with a strong opinion in favour of adding to the Council. He has done more than that he has expressed it. He is tied, doubly tied, by his opinion and by the public expression of it. Is he not tied beyond that? I think we are entitled to ask that in this House before he goes. The right hon. Gentleman saw M. Mussolini at Rappallo. He discussed with him, undoubtedly, the whole affairs of Europe, everything that is common to Italy, to Great Britain, and the peace of Europe and it was announced by the Italian newspapers that M. Mussolini was extremely delighted with the conversation that took place. Is it possible that they never referred to this question? Is it conceivable? Of course, they did. They were discussing the whole affairs of Europe, and this question must have come up. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it did not. I will not say another word.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It did not.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well. We have now had an answer about M. Mussolini, and I stated that if the right hon.
    1676
    Gentleman said that it was not referred to, I would accept it. Therefore, I have nothing more to say. Now I come to the discussion with the French Foreign Office. It is very remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman passed through Paris and had a conversation with the French Foreign Office if nothing was said at all about Locarno or about the application of Poland and Spain. Still, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that M. Briand did not refer to it, I will accept that.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It did form part of our conversation.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is right. Very well. That is the advantage of a simple interrogation. M. Mussolini never said a word about it, M. Briand did. Now I come to the next point. Is it conceivable that in a conversation on a subject of this kind that the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate to M. Briand the opinion which he expressed at Birmingham afterwards? That is, not a pledge, but an indication of opinion. It is a very, very fine line to draw between them, because the French newspapers afterwards treated it as a pledge. When the Birmingham speech was delivered and reported in France, what was the comment of the French Press? The comment of the French Press was this, that "the right hon. Gentleman the British Foreign Secretary, as usual, stands by his word." They, at any rate, were under the impression that the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to M. Briand was the same as the opinion he expressed in public to his own countrymen at Birmingham, and they regarded it as an understanding between the two that there would be a favourable acceptance of the proposal to add to the League.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, thinks that what appears in the foreign Press about an English statesman is really authoritative with regard to what he says. I think it is important for my credit in this House that I should say, coming as I did from five weeks' holiday, where I received no papers, that my first words to M. Briand were that I could take no decision upon any question until I had come back to this country and consulted the Government. I sought to learn the views of the French Government and the

    1677
    arguments by which they supported those views. I told him that I could give no pledge on behalf of His Majesty's Government as to the action they would take.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman certainly gave no pledge. I said so, but I said that he must have indicated an opinion. M. Briand expressed his views. Is it conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman did not give his views to M. Briand? Of course, he did. He made them public in this country. What I want to point out is this, that his expression of opinion to his own countrymen, in public, at Birmingham—and he also gave it in a speech here, reported from the House of Commons—made it clear as to what his view was as to the addition to the Council of the League of Nations. He must have given the same opinion to M. Briand. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not going with a free hand. He is going there with an opinion which he has formed. He is going there with an opinion which he has expressed. He is going there with an opinion which he has expressed not merely to foreign statesmen, but an opinion which he has indicated in public to his own constituents and to Members of the House of Commons, and we are entitled to ask this, "Is he going to give force and effect to that opinion when he goes to Geneva next week?" He says that he will not give an answer.
    The discussion will come, first of all, in a private conference, where, by the way, Poland will be represented and Spain will not. That is, a private conference of the signatories to the Locarno Pact. Then there will be a discussion in the Council of the League. What line will Great Britain take there? Italy will be in favour of adding Poland; Spain will be in favour of an additional member; Brazil will be in favour of an additional member, and Prance will be in favour of an additional member. What will, the right hon. Gentleman say? I think we are entitled to ask that before he goes there. There is no doubt at all that British opinion is against it. I am not going into the question of the reconstitution of the Council of the League; that
    1678
    has nothing to do with the case. It may be desirable to add permanent members to the League. I doubt it, but that is another matter. There is Russia, and the United States of America; I hope they will both join the League of Nations. If they do not you never can make an all-powerful League to enforce peace in the world. That will come, although I think this sort of thing is postponing that day.
    It is not a question whether you are going to add temporary or permanent members to the League. The question is what are you going to do next week at this extraordinary meeting which has been summoned for the one purpose of putting through the bargain with Germany. That is the point. The effect of an attempt to add members to the League before you put through your bargain is having a worse effect in Germany. See what the effect is in this country. The effect in this country undoubtedly is to give a sort of sense that we are not quite keeping faith with Germany. What must be the effect in Germany? Germany is not unanimous on this subject. Joining the League is an unpopular thing for any government to force upon its public opinion. There is a very great distrust of the League of Nations because of the Silesian episode, and for other reasons. The Government of Germany have faced a good deal of genuine distrust and a good deal of genuine patriotic sentiment in accepting the Locarno Pact and undertaking to join the League of Nations. In 1922, I pressed the then German Chancellor to make application for Germany to join the League of Nations. I urged him to do it. He said, "I dare not face German public opinion. Sentiment is so strong against the League of Nations." It is still there. The German Government faced it, and we ought to. remember that and not make it difficult for the Government to carry the thing through. It has undoubtedly strengthened nationalist opinion in Germany, strengthened it very considerably. Even the most moderate expression of opinion in the Nationalist Press is taunting the Government as a result of what has happened since Locarno. They are saying, "is not this what we told you? We knew perfectly well they could not be trusted." There is poison in the loving cup; the poison of suspicion.

    1679
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman should not he, in justice to the House of Commons and in justice to public opinion which has treated him very well without distinction of party as the result of his Locarno efforts, say, "Whatever my private opinion is, I am not going there to save my own face. I am going there to safeguard the public faith of this country, of Great Britain, of this nation. This time I will vote against any addition and I shall simply vote for the inclusion of Germany in the League." Keep faith with Locarno, and, not merely keep faith, but keep the impression of good faith. I think we are entitled to ask that that should be done. He cannot go there and say he has no opinion, and wait until he sees whether there is unanimity of opinion. There is no doubt at all what will be done. Great pressure will be brought to bear on Germany. And what for? To alter the agreement into which she has entered. That is not fair. She is in a very difficult position at the present moment, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. She cannot afford to quarrel with the nations of the world. Industrially, she is is a very bad way. Financially, she is in a worse way. She has 2,000,000 of unemployed, and taking those working part-time, you have 5,000,000 in Germany who are either totally out of work or partially out of work. And wages are low.
    Germany undoubtedly depends for keeping alive upon the credit she will receive, and she cannot afford to quarrel with the Powers. Is it fair to take advantage of that situation and ask her to extend the agreement signed months ago which she regarded as a complete one. Let her into the Council of the League, then you can discuss the questions of Spain, Brazil, and Poland. She will be there on equal terms. If you do not do that Locarno, in my judgment, will be in vain. I have always said that Locarno was a magnificent beginning; but it is only a beginning. Whether it will fructify depends on good will and confidence amongst the Powers. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the spirit of Locarno. The wine of Locarno is already badly corked, and it is entirely due to a very unfortunate series of incidents. If the right hon. Gentleman goes there expressing the undoubted opinion of his countrymen on this subject, then this
    1680
    episode will do good. It will show that British opinion means to have a square deal with Germany, and it will also show that Great Britain is going to pursue her traditional policy of fair play in Europe.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary expressed a hope that nothing will be said or done in this Debate which would embarass him in a difficult task or complicate a position which is already complicated enough, and I hope nothing I shall say will have that effect. But I do feel that the opinion should be expressed from this side of the House, as it has been from the benches opposite, that there is a number of Members, a very considerable number, who, without wishing in any way to tie the hands of the right hon. Gentleman or extract from him any pledge which might make subsequent negotiations impossible, yet feel very strongly indeed the hope that it may still be possible, even now, for the British representatives when they reach Geneva to take the line that they consider that this meeting was convened for one purpose and one purpose only, and that they must confine themselves to that purpose. I do not propose to discuss at any length the question whether additions to the permanent membership of the Council are desirable or not. That is a question which we might debate for a long time, but it is not the main issue this afternoon. But I may, perhaps, be permitted to say as one, and, I think, the only one in this House now, who was present and assisted, although in a menial capacity, at the original framing of the Covenant, that everything that has happened since confirms the view taken then, that once you depart from the principle that the permanent membership of the Council shall be reserved for the great Powers, who, after all, have the responsibility, and foot the bill, you may become involved in absolutely endless difficulties. One can foresee endless claims, and all of them good claims.
    We are not concerned with that question this afternoon We are concerned with the question whether any additions to the Council, which may or may not be desirable, should be made now or in September next, when in the normal course of affairs they could have been made—and not until then—and which are

    1681
    only possible now because of this special meeting convened for one purpose, the admission of Germany. On that question there is something in this country nearly approaching unanimity. We are not concerned with the rival merits of this country or that. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the impression should get abroad that we in this country are opposed to the claims of one particular country or another, or one group of countries, or any country in the world. We are not quarrelling with the claims of any one country, but we feel strongly that this is a question of principle. It is a question of keeping faith and not a question of expediency. We are concerned with the vital question of whether the admission of one country, which has been agreed upon, which every country concerned has promised and pledged itself to support, shall be made the occasion for bargaining and compromise. That is a question of principle which vitally affects the whole future of the League, and that is the question with which we are concerned this afternoon. It seems to me that our representatives would be on perfectly sound and unassailable ground if they took the line at Geneva that they cannot at this next meeting go outside the purpose for which that meeting is convened, but that at the proper time, and in the normal course, they are willing to consider, and sympathetically consider, any claims which may be made; but that this meeting was convened for one purpose and they cannot go outside that. That is a sound position to take up and one which we should take up. It is one which could not be resisted, because every country concerned has pledged itself solemnly to support the admission of Germany next week.
    There is one other consideration which I will put before the House. This House, after all, has the ultimate responsibility for any decision which the British representatives may reach. It has in the past always had an opportunity of refusing to ratify a decision. The right hon. Gentleman went to Locarno with a free hand. He achieved a very brilliant and conspicuous success, as everyone concedes. There was no school of political thought which hesitated about ratifying the decision which he reached there, but this House, while it gave him a free hand, did not surrender its power of veto. If it had been
    1682
    so minded it could have refused to ratify the decisions which were reached at Locarno. That is not so in this case. In this case the election of a member or members to permanent seats or semi-permanent seats on the Council of the League of Nations is a question over which this House has no further control. When the right hon. Gentleman has left for Geneva on Saturday the House will have nothing further to say on the decision he may reach. It may or may not like the decision arrived at, but it will have no control over it whatever, it will have to put up with it. For that reason I submit that while we do not want to tie the right hon. Gentleman's hands, while we do not want to commit him to pledges which may be inexpedient, we ought and I think we have every right to express clearly and unequivocally the opinion of this House of Commons. I believe there is no doubt whatever that the opinion of this House is that, whatever may be decided later on about the composition of the Council, the British representative ought to make it absolutely clear that he is not prepared to go outside the purpose for which this forthcoming meeting was convened. That purpose was the election of Germany and the election of Germany alone.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise with considerable anxiety to take part in this very important Debate. I realise fully, as a junior Member of this House, the very grave danger of letting slip some unfortunate word which may not bring oil to the troubled waters, but may injure irrevocably the situation not only in this country, but all over the world. I have no intention of uttering any word which might possibly have that result. I want to direct the attention of the House to the vital issue which underlies our discussion. I suggest that we have here a very grave constitutional issue coming to the front, an issue which affects the whole constitutional safeguards of this country. We all recognise in this House the very considerable difference between foreign affairs and home affairs. The difference which comes most easily to the notice is this: In home affairs we can discuss and re-discuss, we can go into details, we can bring up all sorts of issues relevant and, with the connivance of the Chair, irrelevant, and no harm is done. We can use words which may be misrepresented,

    1683
    and still no final difficulty results. When we come to foreign questions, on the other hand, we recognise the need for reticence, for guarded speech, lest some inappropriate word used in this House may do detriment not only to this country but to the interests of the whole world.
    That is why Foreign Secretaries have claimed, and have been given, a much wider latitude in their affairs than those who deal with home affairs. But that is not the only difference between home affairs and foreign affairs. There is another difference. If we make a mistake in home affairs, if we carry some Clause in a Bill which works badly, we find that out as time goes on, and we have ample opportunity of altering our mistake. But if we do something detrimental in foreign affairs the path of return is not so easy; it may be quite impossible for us to retrace our steps. We may have committed ourselves to a policy which will have repercussions for years and decades, and in the end may produce the most disastrous consequences to this country. That is particularly true when the issue under discussion is one of the magnitude of that which we are discussing to-day. Who knows but that a false move to-day, may have, not next year, not perhaps within 10 years, but within 20 or 30 years' time, the most serious consequences to Europe and this country? Questions of war and peace may be involved in our decision on a matter of this kind to-day. Therefore, while it is true that we give a Foreign Secretary, and rightly give him, a free hand up to a certain point, I think the corollary of that freedom is that the Foreign Secretary should interpret the general spirit of this country, and should interpret it faithfully and carefully, in his dealings with foreign questions.
    That is the issue which arises now. I have discussed this question with regard to the extension of the Council of the League with a great number of people. I have heard views put forward authoritatively inside this House on behalf not only of the party to which I belong, not only on behalf of the Liberal party, but on behalf of all parties in the House, and I have never, with the exception of the Foreign Secretary himself, heard a single dissentient voice. I have read the papers of this country, the Liberal papers and Conservative papers as well as Labour
    1684
    papers, and I have never seen a single statement by any editor contrary to the view which I believe is almost universal in this country. That view is that it is most undesirable and inappropriate that at this particular time any country other than Germany should be brought into the Council of the League, whether that country be Poland on the one hand or Spain or Brazil or any other country on the other hand. If the Foreign Secretary comes to us and says, "I want a free hand to go along the line which the country desires; I want a free hand to take my own method of pursuing that line," I think everyone would agree that that was a sound and reasonable proposal and in line with the constitution of this country. If, however, the Foreign Secretary says, "I want to have a perfectly free hand to go and disregard entirely the almost unanimous opinion of the people of my country, the almost unanimous feeling expressed by the House of Commons," then I suggest that we are establishing a very dangerous principle in our constitutional usage—a principle which seems to me to be fraught with the most serious consequences.
    These consequences may be of the utmost moment so far as the particular issue is concerned. But they go a great deal further. If the expressed wish of the House of Commons, as far as the House is enabled to express it at all, is in one direction, if that expression is in accord with the almost universal feeling in the country, and if a Foreign Secretary claims the right to go contrary to that opinion, and if he not only claims the right but in the event should prove that he has gone contrary to that opinion, then I think that is a most dangerous thing. Some of those who sit on these Labour Benches are called revolutionary, and hon. Members who sit opposite hold that they maintain the Constitution against the revolutionary elements here. But what can be more dangerous to the Constitution than to suggest that a Foreign Secretary should go in the teeth of the expressed public opinion of this country and of this House? If that be so, if the Constitution be flouted in that way as it would be flouted, I see quite clearly the dangers of the Constitution being subject to revolution because an action by the Foreign Secretary, which may involve

    1685
    this country in utmost peril in future, taken against the wish of this House and of the country as a whole, cannot be allowed to be in keeping with the permanent Constitution of this country; the Constitution must be altered and altered revolutionarily, if that doctrine really be the Constitutional Law of this land. Therefore. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that it is of profound importance that they should make it quite clear that, in their view, the Constitution of this country does not permit of such an action, whatever their view may be with regard to the merits of the individual case before the House.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: It is perhaps advisable that someone who takes a very different view from the views expressed in recent speeches should represent another aspect of the picture. It has been amazing to me the way the pro-German propaganda seems to have succeeded in capturing the British public and a large number of Members of this House.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Oh!
    Sir A. MOND: I will repeat it. It is a remarkable thing that in this House and in this country it is almost looked on as lèse-majesté, or a terrible thing, for anyone to put forward any case which might appear at the present moment as not pleasing to the German Government or the German people. The claims of our Allies are things to be treated only with scorn. I am speaking of some cartoons that have appeared in the Press. Yet only a few years ago we were contending against Germany for our very existence. There is another side to the picture which has been painted, another aspect of the whole case to be presented. There are some of us who have been by no means happy with the entanglement of this country in European intrigues and European complications. From the beginning we have foreseen, from the time of the negotiation of the Pacts, of which Locarno was the continuation, that we should find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day, of being dragged into complication, intrigues and antagonisms which are not of particular concern to the people of this country and still less the concern of the British Empire.
    1686
    The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke of America joining the League. It struck me that America, looking on from across the Atlantic, would find in the discussions going on the very best reasons for not having joined the League. What is the unfortunate position that we are placed in now? We are placed in the position of quarrelling with our former Allies—France and Italy—in order to support our former enemies. And the instruction which many members of the House wish to give to the Foreign Secretary is that when he gets to Geneva he is to say to those who fought shoulder to shoulder with us during a long War for our very lives, "I am instructed to tell you that, whatever your views and wishes are, the British House of Commons and the British people are not prepared to listen to you, are not prepared to pay any regard to your views, and I insist on your voting in a certain way." I think the Foreign Secretary is absolutely and perfectly right in declining, on the broadest ground of national policy and in the interests of this country and of the Empire, to have his hands bound in that way.
    6.0 P.M.
    Public documents do not seem to express private conversations. I hold the Treaty of Locarno in my hand. No one is pledged in that document that Germany should have a seat on the Council or a permanent seat. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derby (Marquess of Hartington) said that every one of the signatories had agreed to this bargain. If that be so, how is it that M. Briand and Signor Mussolini and those who signed the Treaty of Locarno do not take the same view? They do not take the view that they are debarred from considering the addition of other permanent members to the Council, if Germany comes in. They are signatories to the Treaty of Locarno, as was the Prime Minister of Poland himself, who is now making this claim. The Amendment which the Labour party have placed on the Paper seems to assume that such a condition is part of the Treaty of Locarno itself. There is not one phrase in one single Clause of it, to the effect that Germany should be a permanent member of the Council. That may have been part of an arrangement made behind the scenes. I know nothing of it. It may

    1687
    have been part of such an arrangement, but the point which I want to make clear is that it is not part of any document, nor has any signature been given to it. There is not in existence any legally binding document which confines the Council at this meeting merely to the election of one Power. Therefore, it is absurd to talk about breaches of pledges when pledges have never been given in any formal or binding manner. If such pledges were given, they must have been given privately. They may have been given in conversation, but we have no official record of them.
    In that case, do hon. Members realise how serious is the accusation against M. Briand and Signor Mussolini and M. Benes, if it is said that at this meeting the Council may consider nothing else except the admission of Germany, not merely to the League itself but to a permanent seat on the Council—a thing which was reserved from the beginning to whom? To the Allies who fought in the War and who signed the Treaty of Versailles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hold the documents in my hand, and I challenge anyone of my hon. Friends opposite to contradict me. I have here the first Constitution of the League in support of my words, and I say that it is a serious matter. Does it occur to us who it was who fought side by side with us during the War, and who fought against us in the War? I want to point out how serious it is that a right hon. Gentleman who has a great position should get up in this House and say that a particular step on the part of England in this matter would be a breach of a pledge. If it is a breach of a pledge on our part, it is equally a breach of a pledge on the part of the Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of Italy. That pledge was either given by all or by none.
    It seems to me that the view taken by some hon. Members is extraordinary. They talk rather lightly about the League of Nations as if we were the only people in it, when in fact we are only one State out of 50 and have only one vote, and it is suggested that we ought to tell the League what to do and direct their operations and instruct our delegate to instruct them how they are to proceed and thus tie his hands behind his back. But we
    1688
    are not in that position at all. Great Britain is only one Power in the League and only one member of a Council of 11, and the result of such action might be a result which we would all deplore. It might lead to a refusal to allow Germany to join the League at all if there was a refusal of requests for admission to the Council from Poland or Spain or other Powers. What would happen, supposing those Powers succeeded in blocking Germany's admission to the Council or even Germany's admission to the League? Is that the result which we would wish to achieve? Is that really the position which we wish to see created?
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said the wine of Locarno was badly corked. I thought it was an unfortunate phrase to use. I do not think it is for us to begin to use expressions of that kind. The Treaty of Locarno has never been very popular in France or Italy or in various Continental countries. We, taking perhaps a more extra-European view, and therefore anxious for a settlement of tumults and rumours of war on the Continent, made enormous efforts which everybody recognised at the time to induce a friendly atmosphere. It is surely unwise for us to say that those efforts, which were largely the efforts of our Foreign Secretary, have already begun to fail. I know the clever lawyers who are awaiting the opportunity created by such statements and the clever, caustic Gallic writers of the French Press who would be anxious to take advantage of such statements. Surely there never was an occasion when in the general interest it was more necessary for us to walk warily and act moderately than in this case. Surely it never was more necessary that we ought not to put the Foreign Secretary in the position of a delegate, on the pretext of some imaginary private conversation. Surely we ought not at this stage to lay it down that our representative on the Council is to insist that the Council must not do something which it is perfectly entitled to do under its constitution, but must do something else.
    Many of those who write and speak on this subject seem to have given little attention to a detailed study of the constitution of the League, the nature and position of its Council or what has happened in the past. I have heard astonishing references made to the pro-

    1689
    posal that Spain should be a permanent member of the Council. Spain was one of the original non-elective members of the Council. She has been a non-permanent member of the Council ever since the League has been in existence. Let us put ourselves for a moment in the position of the leaders of a great nation on the Continent, and ask ourselves how we would feel if some outsider, who had never even been a member of the League, suddenly came in and took precedence of us and was placed in a position of honour and distinction above us on a body of which we had been members since its inception. Not merely is the outsider in this case to take precedence, but she is to be placed in such a position that, by her own vote, she can prevent others from obtaining membership. We can, therefore, understand that Poland feels doubtful, if Germany is one of the permanent members of the Council, as to her prospects of ever becoming a permanent member of the Council. If we were in the position of that country, would we feel happy and satisfied? If Britain were in that position, there is not a member of this House who would not make speeches very different from those which we have heard just now.
    Mr. J. JONES: You would not be here at all.
    Sir A. MOND: Well I am here, and I say that this House and this people would never tolerate being put into, the position which I have described. When you have these difficulties, these national aspirations and the national pride of great countries to deal with, surely the Foreign Secretary naturally and rightly must feel his way and see what is the best way of achieving the fundamental object in view, namely, that the Treaty of Locarno should be ratified, that Germany should become a member of the League, and that Germany should have a seat on the Council. That is the fundamental policy, but to say to the Foreign Secretary that we shall agree to nothing else, even if it means that the Treaty is to become waste paper, is surely one of the most unreasonable propositions ever put before this House and one of the most impracticable and unstatesmanlike suggestions ever made. We may some day wonder whether we are right in continuing to give so much time, sadly wanted
    1690
    for our own affairs, in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable jealousies of the States of Europe. I sometimes wonder whether we would not be more usefully occupied in considering the development of the great Empire to which we all belong [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is no laughing matter to those who care about the future destinies of this country. It is no laughing matter whether or not on these questions and disputes we are not alienating, not foreign Powers who only come to us when they want something, but those who came to our aid spontaneously, who stood by us and helped us, and who would have stood by us to the very end. This is a really difficult and anxious problem, and the less we interfere the less difficulties we create. The less responsibility we take—I say it deliberately—in European affairs, the better. We should free our hands and turn our way across that highway of the seas which is our true road and not into the turmoil of European affairs, fluctuating and continually changing, in which we stand to be shot at by everybody, blamed by everybody, and loved by no-one.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I gather from the speech to which we have just listened with so much interest that the British people are not unanimous on this question. The right hon. Gentleman rather rubbed it in. He says that if there is a false appearance of unanimity on this question it is solely due to the wonderful success of the pro-German Press in this, country. At any rate, we now understand that the son of Dr. Ludwig Mond does not take the same point of view as this House of Commons and we also understand that the right hon. Gentleman who, I believe, does represent Carmarthen or at any rate has not yet ceased to act as representative of Carmarthen is making an admirable recruit for the front bench opposite! I only regret that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were not privileged to hear the new voice and to appreciate what it really meant and how valuable will be the new recruit. The Foreign Secretary is here now, and I think we might therefore press him on one or two points in the hope that before the Debate closes he or the Prime Minister may enlighten us. I gathered—and it seemed to be the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, most of which

    1691
    we had heard before—that the German Ambassador has invited the Foreign Secretary and the representatives of certain other Powers to a pre-Geneva Conference. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—I do not know if he had any special means of information—that the various Powers asked to this pre-Geneva Conference were those who would be on the Council. Is that so? Because it is very important that we should know as soon as possible what Powers are to be consulted in this preliminary Conference, whether they will include Spain and not Poland, or whether the Conference will be confined to the permanent members of the Council, otherwise the great Powers of Europe.
    Obviously, it is of vital importance to the success of the negotiations at this preliminary conference that there should be present as few Powers as possible and also that the Foreign Secretary should have what he asks for and what I fear he is not getting, namely, a free hand. Let us assure him that we on these benches would be quite pleased that any man representing Great Britain at this Conference should have a free hand, within limits, and within such information as he is able to get from meetings and such Debates as this, and such a Press as we have seen during the last three weeks. If it were Lord Cecil of Chelwood who was to represent the Government, he would have a free hand. If it were Lord Grey, he would have a free hand. But our complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is not going with a free hand, but with his hands already tied by his previous statements in this country, and at Paris to M. Briand. That is our difficulty. We feel that the hands of this country are being tied, that the right hon. Gentleman, by his plea for freedom, is going there with his pledges made, with his previous conversations and speeches on record, and with his mind, apparently, made up.
    What we want before this Debate closes is to get a clear indication from the Prime Minister himself as to what his views are on these various points which have been discussed, unfortunately, by the right hon. Gentleman with M. Briand, and, I believe, with the Polish
    1692
    Prime Minister as well. What we want to know is, not whether there have been any definite pledges, but whether the point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, either about Poland, or, more particularly, about Spain, has the approval of the Prime Minister, and whether, when he goes back, he goes back unregenerate, unreformed by the expression of public opinion, unreformed by the expression of the opinion of his colleagues in the Cabinet. It is for that reason we say that the vitally important speech in this Debate is yet to be delivered. It is to come from the Prime Minister. Is he going to hand over this country to the tied hands of the Foreign Secretary, going to a free conference, as to which there have been no pledges whatever made to the public, and as to which the public knows nothing except what they have heard to-day? Is he to hand over the whole future destinies of this country to a Foreign Secretary who has, in a perfectly upright and straightforward way, given his honest views to M. Briand, given his honest views in the speech at Birmingham, and who is notorious—almost, I should say, famous—in sticking to his views against all obstacles? Are we going to have our affairs at this critical moment handed over to a gentleman of known obstinacy in retaining his opinions?
    There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman set a magnificent example to every member of this House, and, I think, improved the traditions of this country. In the year 1917 he was Secretary of State for India, A report was published on the Mesopotamian muddle, which reflected, indeed, not in one particle upon the right hon. Gentleman, but upon other people concerned with the Government of India before he took charge. So punctilious was he on a point of honour, that he resigned his post. No one in the House of Commons expected it, but he did so because he held that there was a censure passed upon him. I ask him now, is not this an occasion as vital for the future position of the country? I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to know that when he goes to Geneva, if he goes to Geneva, he will, whatever the result of this Debate may be, continue to put forward at Geneva the views he has already put forward in private conversation and public speeches. It is not fair of him to

    1693
    do so. He knows in doing that he is not carrying out the views of the House of Commons or of the public at large. I doubt if he is carrying out the views of his own colleagues. If he does that, I think he will stultify the other great action of his life which reflected so credit ably upon British statesmanship.
    The real difficulty is that in the interpretation of the Locarno spirit England stands on one side, and the Continental nations on the other. We did take up that burden of Locarno, knowing what a serious responsibility it was, but because we believed it would lead to peace, and the abolition of exactly that spirit which is now being shown by all the nations. I opposed it. I thought the burden was too heavy. The nation as a whole took up the burden, although it involved risks of war, because it believed it would make for peace. In all the correspondence in the Press, in the French Press, the Italian Press, the Spanish Press, even in the German Press, we have seen how this Locarno spirit can be twisted into exactly what we wanted to avoid. How is it possible for us to maintain our point of view, which we know is the right point of view, that Locarno was intended to bring people together, and not to build up a fresh series of alliances? Is it possible to maintain that English point of view, unless we have at the Conference a man who is imbued with the British point of view, that fair-play comes first, and that, whether countries have been in previous times allies or enemies they are to be measured at that Conference by their contribution to real peace, instead of to a reconstruction of the old balance of power within the Council of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think it will be necessary to delay the House for very long, But I think the Debate has reached a point when it is advisable that I should intervene. The first observation which I would make is this, that, although a great deal has been said about the impropriety of a statesman being allowed to speak for his country with what is colloquially termed "a free hand," those words are urged with much greater force by the right hon. Gentlemen when they sit on Opposition than they urged them when they were in office. It is not two years ago when I remember the Leader
    1694
    of the Liberal party, the Earl of Oxford, making an observation about the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party, who at that time was Prime Minister. On the 9th July of the year before last, he said:
    "The one thing that emerges perfectly clearly is that the Prime Minister is going to Paris. Why he is going to Paris, or what he is going to say when he gets to Paris, and, still more, what he is going to say when he comes back, all lies on the knees of the gods."
    So, to a certain extent, that kind of criticism is common talk. All the same, I would like to state here categorically, first of all, that, contrary to some belief and much desire, there is no difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the other members of His Majesty's Government. Contrary to what has, perhaps, sometimes happened before, we have complete trust in one another, and, when the Foreign Secretary and Lord Cecil go to Geneva, the first thing, the paramount thing, to which they will devote their attention is to see that Germany becomes a member of the League, with a seat on the Council. That is the primary business. That is what they hope to achieve. It is quite true that there is a solid public opinion in this country. It is quite true that a solid public opinion, not necessarily agreeing with ours, exists in other countries, and it is quite true although some Members of this House are apt to forget, that we are, after all, great as our influence may be, only one Power at Geneva among many. We cannot, therefore, always get our own way, and it is impossible to avoid a consideration—and sometimes a delicate consideration—of the desires and ambitions of other countries.
    It has been said—and how simple it would be if it were possible!—that we ought to have seen to it that no question was coming up in March but the question of the admission of Germany. I wish that were so. The Foreign Secretary has told the House that he used his every endeavour that it should be so. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to infer that it was within the power of the Foreign Secretary to attain that which he desired in this matter. I submit that it is not within his power. This question of the enlargement of the Council by the admission of new members is no new question that has suddenly appeared

    1695
    upon the horizon since Locarno. It is an old question. Poland, Spain and Brazil have been urging what they consider their claims, and discussion has proceeded on and off, long before Locarno to the present day, and, of course, before this Government came into office. It would have had no effect if we had said we would not consider certain subjects, if other people chose to raise them. We cannot be the arbiters of the agenda at Geneva, and, I submit to the House, that we could not have helped matters at all had we said, two or three months ago, that we, for our part, would not consider any other subject than the admission of Germany, and that if any other country had brought forward this claim, we should then and there have black-balled it at Geneva. Had we said that, we could not have prevented the subject being brought forward, and I ask the House to consider whether a definite statement of that nature would help or prejudice what we all desire to see, and that is, the free and unconditional entrance of Germany to the Council of the League of Nations?
    It is quite obvious to anyone who has been present during this Debate that there are—quite unfairly, in my view—suspicions about commitments and so forth. I think this partly arises from the fact that, perhaps, those who criticise and indulge in that form of criticism have much keener and cleverer minds than we on these benches have, and are always suspicious of more simple people when they embark upon anything. I will tell the House perfectly plainly what is our position in regard to Spain. We believe in continuity of foreign policy. We believe it is a good thing that a change of Government should not necessarily mean a change in our foreign policy. I have renewed that support of Spain which was given to her under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George). There is no condition attaching to that as to time or occasion. We have given no pledge apart from that to any country of any kind, and we are under no obligation to any country.
    My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who spoke last, made some observation about the speech
    1696
    of my right hon. Friend at Birmingham. Not myself being suspicious, I took that speech for what it was intended to mean. My right hon. Friend felt that he ought to place before the country the reasons why the discussions which will almost certainly come up at Geneva are going to come up. He placed these reasons before the people, and explained to them what the case was. That is very different from committing the Government or himself to the view that all he said by way of explanation was right. I think it was his duty to do what he did in view of the fact that so much discussion has been aroused in this country on the subject. The agitation that has sprung up on this matter has made the task of my right hon. Friend much more difficult. When he was at Locarno, there was no question of there being separate camps in Europe. All met on terms of equality, with no thought of one side getting the better of the other. The result of the agitation, and the exchanges taking place between the journals of the civilised countries of the world has certainly had the effect of causing—temporarily I hope—a kind of schism between those who would feel they would like to range themselves on the side of France, and those who felt they would range themselves on the side of Germany. It has begun to create two camps—a fatal thing. The most difficult task of my right hon. Friend when he goes to Geneva is to try, before these things have gone too far, to obliterate them, and to bring back that spirit which he did so much to create and foster in Europe.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon spoke about our bullying Germany. He is a master of phraseology. But until he used that word, I confess that it had never occurred to me that there was the remotest possibility of anything of the kind occurring. Nothing of the kind will happen, so far as we have any power to prevent it. My right hon. Friend is working for a solution which will be acceptable to all the nations. His work, as I have said before, has been made twice as difficult by the kind of agitation that has been raised, because there has crept once again into the common parlance of Germany and the world, those phrases which have done so much harm in the past, "If such a thing happens, it will be a victory for Germany," or, "a victory for France—

    1697
    fatal words! But I myself have every confidence that my right hon. Friend, in spite of these difficulties, these aggravated difficulties, will be able to achieve the primary object of his visit to Geneva, and that is to get Germany into the League and into the Council.
    Going back to what I was saying a little earlier in my remarks, we should all have rejoiced had that been the only business to be done. I have explained to the House how in my view it was impossible for us to prevent what has occurred. It is not our fault; but will anyone say that, supposing at Geneva all the nations, including Germany, agreed on some point, we have at once to say: "No, we are only here to consider the election of Germany, and we refuse to do anything else"? It is in such cases as that that I consider it impossible to fetter my right hon. Friend with instructions as to what he is to say in any one of the score of difficult positions with which he must be faced. He knows the feeling of this country. He knows the feeling of the Government. He knows the feeling of the House of Commons. He knows What is his primary task. But I must say that I do feel this: that when I look back at the immense service which he rendered to this country in the work he did so recently, where he used his own discretion—in constant communication with his own Government—I am a little puzzled that there are so many Members of this House who should turn round and say that he cannot be trusted as Foreign Secretary to go to Geneva unless he can tell us categorically and exactly what he is going to say, whether "Yes" or "No" to any one of the propositions put forward.
    His Majesty's Government are sending him and Lord Cecil in the fullest confidence that they will deserve the confidence of the country no less than that of the Government. I am convinced that when they return the Members of this House who, perhaps, are inclined to be too suspicious and critical of their good faith and ability, will be the first to acknowledge once more that they have held high the honour of the country, and have built one more stone in the Temple of the Peace of Europe.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We have just heard a full statement from the Prime Minister, and the fact that the party opposite are a united as well as a simple party. I can only conclude that he added the latter statement because we have just heard the simplest of the new recruits. I suppose in a few weeks' time, when the Australian cricket team arrives, we shall be putting people in to the first wicket with a view to what they call "playing themselves in." The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) who does not represent Carmarthen, who places the national interest before any party consideration, and who feels that an election in this period of the history of the Government would be against the national interest, has started this afternoon "to play himself in." But there are a large number of people who previously heard his views on the league of Nations and would like to have the opportunity to be a bowler as soon as possible.
    There is one fact, and a very significant fact, and it is this: the Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva, not as representing this country alone; he is going to sit as the representative of the British Empire. Significantly, we know that there has been an exchange of telegrams and communications, and we know that the Prime Minister of Australia less than a few weeks ago said that so far as Australian policy was concerned he was not going to trust it to British statesmen. Not a word has been said this afternoon of the Dominion point of view on this all-important question. After all, that is from the Empire party! If we were sitting on that side, and had forgotten to mention one word about Empire, I can imagine the kind of speeches that we would have heard in regard to ourselves. The fact remains that, although the Dominions are concerned, whatever their views may be, whatever expression has been given by them, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is to be given a free hand.
    But the Prime Minister said that, so far as the Foreign Secretary was concerned, he was not going to bind him as to what he was going to say when he got to Geneva. With the greatest respect, that is not the complaint. No one on this

    1699
    side of the House, neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald), nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), has ever asked, and no one asks, what the Foreign Secretary is going to say when he gets to Geneva. We are much more concerned with what he is going to do. It is all-important, because it is no good to talk glibly in this House about, "We are one Power." Since when? In the Counsels of the League of Nations, in contributions to the world's affairs, is it to be assumed that Great Britain is a mere cypher? I put it to the Foreign Secretary that our complaint is that he, by his action, by his refusal to state definitely a British point of view, has encouraged all this intrigue and suspicion. When he returned from Locarno, when this House welcomed him, when this House said, in substance, "We appreciate what you have done," and when this House asked "What is the position of Germany?" so far as this House is concerned, and so far as the country is concerned, there was only one interpretation of what he said, and it was a simple one—that at the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations Germany was to be admitted as an absolute right, and that no question of any other nation's membership was involved. That was what we understood, that was what the country understood, that was what Germany was led to believe.
    The Prime Minister asks: "What causes all this suspicion?" The action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He goes to Birmingham—I am summarising, and if I am wrong he will correct me, but I have refreshed my memory—and addresses his constituents and makes the forthcoming Conference the one and only subject of his speech. He opens by saying, first, that Germany will be welcomed, that Germany will be admitted—that is beyond doubt; but then he goes on to say: "But the second question to be discussed at Geneva is the new composition of the Council." That was the first indication, that was the first thing that created in the minds of everybody a
    1700
    suspicion that his hands were already tied. If any proof of that be needed, it is to be found in his refusal to answer the very pregnant question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. When he put a specific question this afternoon as to his attitude the right hon. Gentleman positively refused to say. So far as our party are concerned we regret the necessity of a division. We regret it because we believe that it is a good thing to keep foreign politics and especially the question of the League of Nations outside the party arena; but the answer, and the general attitude of the Government today, are such as to render it imperative that we, at least, must be free from any responsibility, and we are going to show it in the Division Lobby.
    I do not think we need waste time on the question of the composition of the Council. I think it is merely playing with the question to talk about Poland, Brazil or Spain—they are occupying our attention at this moment. All we are concerned with, all we ask for, and all we will register our protest in the Lobby upon, is this simple and direct issue—that at the forthcoming meeting the entry of Germany should be the one and only matter for consideration. We do that because we believe the nation's honour is involved, because we believe that any departure from that issue will be looked upon as a breach of faith, because we believe the good name of this country is involved, because we believe the right hon. Gentleman has not got a free hand, because he is already tied, because he has already committed himself, and committed himself in a way that is not consistent with the views of the great mass of our fellow countrymen. That is the reason why we will go to a Division, and in doing it I wish to indicate quite clearly our regret at the course, but, certainly, we believe we are registering our protest in the best interests of the country.
    Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 224.

    Division No. 64.]

    AYES

    [3.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Albery, Irving James

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lougher, L.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Lumley, L. B.

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

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Elveden, Viscount

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

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

    MacIntyre, Ian

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Astor, Viscountess

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Fielden, E. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Forrest, W.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Merriman, F. B.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gates, Percy

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Berry, Sir George

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Mline, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Bethel, A.

    Grace, John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grant, J. A.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Blundell, F. N.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hanbury, C.

    o'Neill, Major Rt. Hon, Hugh

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harland, A.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Perring, William George

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

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Preston, William

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ramsden, E.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

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

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

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Ropner, Major L.

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

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Christie, J. A.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cope, Major William

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Wise. Sir Fredric

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

    Withers, John James

    NOES.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sexton, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, Walter

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

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

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clowes, S.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lansbury, George

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Connolly, M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cope, Major William

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Montague, Frederick

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dennison, R.

    Morris, R. H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D

    Palin, John Henry

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G M.

    Paling, W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

    Gosling, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

    Groves, T.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Resolution agreed to.

    Division No. 65.]

    AYES.

    [6.54 p.m.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Harney, E. A.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Baker, Walter

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Char'es W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

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

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cove, W. G.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Mackinder, W.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Palin, John Henry

    Whiteley, W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Windsor, Walter

    Gosling, Harry

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wright, W.

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

    Riley, Ben

    Young Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenall, T.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Scurr, John

    Groves, T.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Albery, Irving James

    Campbell, E. T.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

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

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Balniel, Lord

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Christie, J. A.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Bethel, A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gates, Percy

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Goff, Sir Park

    Blundell, F. N.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Grace, John

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cope, Major William

    Grant, J. A.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Brass, Captain W.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

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

    Harland, A.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Haslam, Henry C.

    1702

    1703

    Hawke, John Anthony

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Hilton, Cecil

    Merriman, F. B.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Homan, C. W. J.

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

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

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Oakley, T.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

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

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Jacob, A. E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Warner, Brigadier-General w. w.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Phillpson, Mabel

    wells, S. R.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Preston, William

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Raine, W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Loder, J. de V.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Looker, Herbert William

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Withers, John James

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Salmon, Major I.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Lougher, L.

    Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sandon, Lord

    Wragg, Herbert

    McLean, Major A.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Savery, S. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major Hennessy.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the following Bill introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the said Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society (Substituted Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the case of the Rhymney Valley Water Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Thurtle; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Tinker.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [1st March].
  Order read for Further Consideration of Eighth Resolution.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

  CLASS VII.
  8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Noncommissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid."
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to leave out "£10," and to insert instead thereof "£5."
  I suppose everyone in the House will agree that it is not anything to be surprised about that the House has devoted so much attention to the question of unemployment, and that we should be taking advantage of this Estimate to raise once again questions connected with the administration of Unemployment Insurance and also in regard to the expenditure that this Vote involves. I think it would be well in the House understood in regard to the amount that is being taken as savings, namely, £439,000, that that is part of the big sum that was voted last year for the purpose of keeping up the training establishments for unemployed ex-service men and disabled ex-service men. The fact that £439,000 is being saved out of an estimate of £1,264,000 proves, I think, the futility of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues for dealing with the men who were injured during the War and who have come back to a country where they find them-
  1706
  selves disabled and practically no provision being made for them.
  Members who have been in the House since the War will remember that one of the things held out for disabled men was that there should be a scheme of training, and from the training the men received they would be able to get employment in one way or the other. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly how this saving has been effected, also why the saving should be effected, because there is not a Member of the House, whatever sort of division he may represent, but knows perfectly well that under every Poor Law authority there are numbers of disabled, and some them totally disabled, many partially disabled, men who are having to live on Poor Law relief because of the failure of the Government to make any sort of provision for them. I believe that this scheme broke down mainly because the Government and those responsible since the War have never been generous enough to find sufficient money. One of the hon. Member's opposite, who site for St. Pancras, took the chair at a meeting of disabled men in St. Pancras which I had been asked to address. We were both at great pains to tell that meeting of disabled men that provision for them would never become a party question, and in my innocence I told them that I believed the country would never allow disabled men to become legal paupers. I take no notice of that word "pauper" myself, and only use it in the ordinary sense in which it is used. I told them that we should never consent to them becoming chargeable to the ordinary Poor Law of the country. Since that time the whole system of making provision for the training of these men and giving them a start in life has been gradually going down, until to-day, I believe, there is scarcely anything very much being done for them.
  I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how this money has been saved and more particularly the districts in which it has been saved. If he tells me there is no further need for training, or that it is no use training the men, that there is no work for them when they have been trained, I will tell him that His training was never really effective. Men were sent out long before they had finished their proper course of training. They were sent out only as improvers and

  1707
  very often to jobs where they could not earn a decent wage or live at a decent standard. In these circumstances, I think, before this Vote is passed, with this tremendous sum £439,000 taken from £1,264,000, we should know very much more about it, and whether the Minister and the Department are going to leave the whole of the disabled ex-service men to the tender mercies of the Poor Law. We ought to know where this Vote goes through what the policy of the Minister is in relation to this amount. I would remind the House that again and again we have had speeches from all parts of the House urging that private employers shall be compelled to do certain things in regard to disabled ex-service men. I think charity ought to begin at home, or justice ought to begin at home, and that this House ought itself to carry through the policy that was initiated at the beginning.
  I would put in this further plea. I believe that it is quite true that numbers of these men could have been given a start with anything like a generous allowance from the State, and might have been given a chance in the country. I know the right hon. Gentleman will probably say how much has been lost on small holdings and so on that the Government have started, but I must not discuss that in this connection, except to say that I am certain that we should prove that even in that expenditure, if it had been more wisely organised, we would not have had the failures we have had. But in connection with these men, I maintain that the need is almost as great to-day as when the claim was initiated, and that by saving this money, and, as I expect, in the next Estimate making less provision for these men, all that you are doing is throwing them on to the Poor Law and making them live lives that most of us would not dream of for ourselves. That is the first thing.
  The next item is A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances. I have looked up the original Vote in connection with that, and I find that it has to do with what is called out-stations. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what that really means. Apparently part of the money that is spent on out-stations is spent in Northern Ireland, and I should like to know how much of this extra sum is going to Northern Ireland. Apart from
  1708
  that, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what these new clerks and new officers are being called upon to do.
  In common with his colleague the Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman is not always willing to give full information, and one of the reasons that he gives us is that the cost of getting information is so great and the information, when it is obtained, is not worth the time, trouble and expense. I would like very much to know what these officers are doing, why it is that we should be denied information in regard to individual cases when these cases happen to number 20 or 30. The Minister is willing, apparently, to give information with regard to a single case. I want to ask him why, if we are entitled to get information about a single case or a dozen when there is a grievance brought to his notice, we are not entitled to the information if the number proves larger. When I saw this Vote I could not understand why, if we voted money for these extra officials, clerks, or managers, or whatever they are, it should be with a less number unemployed. He is boasting that there are fewer unemployed. Why should it be necessary to have this staff and at the same time tell us that we cannot get the information?
  Then I want to raise a rather more serious question. I have asked him across the Floor at Question Time to tell us what instructions are issued to officials of this character, and he tells us that the circulars to committees are in the Library or available to hon. Members. I want to claim from him that every instruction that is given to his officials ought to be open for Members of this House to see. I think the giving of secret instructions in any public Department, unless it is one perhaps connected with foreign affairs or the Secret Service, ought not to be tolerated. With the new administration of the Insurance Act after last Session, it seems to me that we are more than ever entitled to know what it is that the right hon. Gentleman has instructed his officials to do. It cannot be gainsaid by anybody that a very much larger proportion of women have been denied unemployment benefit during the last year. Of the number who have applied there is a bigger percentage knocked off. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what instructions he has given

  1709
  his officials with regard to women, and especially with regard to women engaged in seasonal occupations. I am told that at the Exchange in one district in East London which the right hon. Gentleman knows from correspondence we have had with each other, seasonal workers, especially women, are treated as if they had committed some kind of crime by applying for unemployment benefit when the season has ended. Take one industry, the furrier trade. That trade ends so far as the season is concerned, somewhere, I think, about Christmas time. The getting ready of fur coats goes on all through summer. What I want to ask is, has the right hon. Gentleman instructed the Employment Exchange officials that women employed in the fur trade, when they come up, are to be told to go to domestic service. I know that women at the Mansell Street Exchange have been told that. I am certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the authorities at the Employment Exchange can produce a list of genuine places at which these women could be absorbed in the labour market.
  The Minister of Labour wrote me a letter about one particular case, and in that case the girl was never sent to domestic service at all, but was sent to work at a week-end cinema. Her parents happened to be Sabbatarians, and would not allow her to go to work on Sunday and so she refused this week-end job, with the result that she was denied the standard benefit to which she was entitled. I am now speaking of standard benefit. It is a well-known fact that a number of places where these girls are offered work are public-houses and places of that kind where the parents do not wish their children to go. I cannot believe that the officials at the Employment Exchanges would be taking up this attitude unless they had received some circular or instruction to keep down the cost of unemployment insurance. I believe that the officers are taking their cue from the policy of economy laid down by the Government, and they are trying their level best to carry out what they conceive to be the wishes of their superiors. I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he has given no sort of instruction directly or indirectly in regard to these women.
  1710
  I want to raise another question. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to questions put to him as to the people who are pushed off, will know that to-day I have received a long letter from him in respect to complaints as to what these women have been told in regard to their dependants, their mothers, fathers or husbands. Where standard benefit is concerned, I want to challenge the right of the Minister of Labour, or the right of his officials, to inquire of any woman, married or single, as to whom she is depending upon for her living. If a woman has paid for her insurance, she has a right to get the benefit of that insurance, and the inquiry as to where her husband is, or whether her father or mother is alive, or whether her parents can keep her, are questions which ought not to be asked. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is with his authority that these women are asked these questions when asking for standard benefit for which they have paid. I am not speaking merely on hearsay evidence, and I can produce, not a dozen, but many more cases, because at my own home, together with a trade union organiser, I took down the other day the names of between 50 or 60 of these cases. It is true that some of them were people not entitled to standard benefit, but a great number of them were so entitled, and there was not one of them who did not tell us that one of the first questions asked them was, "What are your conditions at home?"
  The next point I wish to raise is the question of those genuinely seeking work. I have said what I want to say about domestic service, but I put to any unprejudiced man or woman in this House a case of this kind. Here is a young woman engaged in some seasonal occupation. She goes up for benefit, and from the first moment she is told that she is "not genuinely seeking work." It is perfectly right to say that a woman in a week or fortnight should be asked, "Have you looked for work and where," but I deny altogether the right to say that from the moment she is out of work she should be treated as a waster or a loafer, and that is what is happening. In proof of that, you can take the figures of the women who have been knocked off. When the right hon. Gentleman is challenged on this, the only answer I can get from him is that these people

  1711
  have been before a Court of Referees, and they have decided so and so. The women I am talking about are those who went before the Court of Referees, and they tell me that they were hardly asked any questions at all, and most of them are not as glib as Members of this House, and they are not always able to state their real position.
  I am sorry they do not all belong to some trade union. I know hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always denouncing trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If you like I will withdraw that statement and say that occasionally we hear trade unions denounced. The right hon. Gentleman knows that a woman or man who goes to an Employment Exchange, or who goes before a Court of Referees is often very considerably penalised if he or she does not belong to a trade union. I know they have a right to go before an Umpire, but I think it is quite time they had a right of this kind whether they belong to a trade union or not. I do not believe that the women whose cases I have mentioned would have been turned down by any judicial Umpire. These poor women are not able to speak for themselves, and yet they have been turned down in shoals. The Minister of Labour, instead of telling me that he would investigate these cases in the future, has not done so, and I want him to say definitely that he will have the matter gone into over again, and that he will instruct all his officials that these applicants are to have the benefit of the doubt. At the present moment the scales are weighted against such applicants and they are treated as if they were applying for Poor Law relief.
  The right hon. Gentleman stands up at that box and says that this is an insurance scheme. If that be so, then all I can say is that a decent insurance society would treat insured persons not as if they were applying for something to which they had no right, but as if they were asking for something which they had a right to receive. It all depends upon the attitude of mind of the officials as to how the applicant is able to answer the questions put. I am speaking as a person not unacquainted with this kind of work. On boards of guardians you have to do a lot of this
  1712
  kind of work, and I know you can frighten the applicants by the manner in which you put a question. I maintain that insured men and women should be treated just as ordinary decent citizens going up for their rights, and they should always have the benefit of the doubt. Instead of that, they are always treated the other way. The insurance officer should not always be finding reasons why these people should not have the allowance, but they should try to find reasons why they should have it. I do not understand that the Insurance Acts were passed for the purpose of satisfying our consciences, but I think they were passed to help to maintain the physique and the moral of the people who are insured. The right hon. Gentleman ought to issue instructions to his officers along those lines.
  I will tell him another thing. They ought to, be told that they are at work because there are unemployed people, and they should also be told that it is not a crime to be out of work, and that there is nothing criminal in applying for what you have paid. These officers ought to be told that but for the unemployed even they might be on the street. I think that might be written up in every Employment Exchange, so that every Exchange Manager could read it every morning, and realise that his position is what it is in life because of the great volume of unemployment in the country.
  I want to say one other thing with regard to these women. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the other day about the case of a young woman who was denied unemployment benefit because she was told that she was not genuinely seeking work. A relative took up her case, and after a good deal of correspondence succeeded in getting the case re-opened. In the end the woman was told that she was not genuinely seeking work She appealed to the Court of Referees, and they decided in her favour She went to the Employment Exchange to get her money, but she was told that the order had not come down for her to be paid. This kind of thing went on for some weeks, and then she wrote to the Minister but got no answer for three or four weeks, and at the end of that time she was told that she was not able to get unemployment pay because her employer had not put the stamps on her card.

  1713
  It took from December till now for this news to be brought to the girl. I think it is a piece of gross mismanagement that she should first of all be told that she was not genuinely seeking work, and that then this next question should be raised; and, I understand, she has not been paid the unemployment pay up to this time. What I want to know is how it was that the Exchange officials did not know at the beginning that these payments had not been made, and whether the person who did not put the stamps on the card has been prosecuted or not. It seems to me that the authorities ought to have known at the very beginning. The main point, however, that I want to make, is the number of weeks that it took to get an answer to the question why she was not getting the money. I think it took from a month to six weeks to get the official answer that it was because the stamps were not on her card. Cases that come to Members of Parliament can get ventilated in this House, but there are thousands of cases about which people do not write to Members of Parliament.
  I conclude where I began, with the fact that a relatively speaking large number of women are being struck off the unemployment pay roll, and to my own knowledge, and the right hon. Gentleman's own knowledge also, numbers of these are women who are entitled to standard benefit, but who, from the first moment of unemployment, are charged with not being genuinely seeking work. I maintain that that reveals a condition of affairs which demands inquiry, and I want to press for an inquiry, at which I myself or someone on my behalf can be present, into the whole of the cases that I have put before the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Mansell Street, because I am convinced that there has been gross miscarriage of justice to these women. They paid their money, and the Exchange has said to them, "We have nothing for you." Even in the small schedule of 13 cases which the right hon. Gentleman sent to me, six of which he admits were entitled to standard benefit—
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)indicated dissent.
  Mr. LANSBURY: But the right hon. Gentleman does admit it. I can show him the schedule. Six of them were entitled to standard benefit, and the others had exhausted their benefit. There
  1714
  is Jessie Brill, who had not exhausted her benefit; Rose Buckman had; Rachel Cohen had not; two others had and two had not; Anne Magnus had not, and Leah Rubens. There are six out of the 13. The right hon. Gentleman need not hunt for the schedule; here it is. It is the one that I received yesterday. That being so, I want to insist that this is an injustice. This is only a small number of the women whose cases I have sent to the right hon. Gentleman, and he may get up and give me other cases but that is not the point. If it were only one case, that one person has a right to get what she is taxed to provide for, and I maintain that the condition of things revealed at this one Exchange proves the truth of our statement that the right hon. Gentleman or his Department is robbing people of that which they paid to receive. That being so, I do ask him—and I not only ask but demand—that he should investigate the matter under such conditions that the women can be heard. I accept altogether his statement as to his investigation of the complaints. I am not going to raise them any more—I mean the complaints I have put before him in regard to the treatment of women by the officials. I accept his statement that the matter has been taken up, and that those particular officials have been advised as to what they should do; but I would press him to send out a notice on the lines I suggested a minute or two ago.
  On the question, however, of the entitlement of these women who have been struck off from the first moment of unemployment, I do demand that the right hon. Gentleman should have an inquiry, at which I myself shall either be represented or be present, because I made the charge and I want to see it through. The women have been treated officially by the Department, in my judgment, in the most scandalous manner. One woman, in the hearing of my wife and the trade union official, said, "I am penniless; I have got no friends; I have got nobody to help me. I cannot get what I paid for. I would like to know where I am to go, except to the streets"; and everybody knows that that is the last refuge of girls and young women who have nowhere else to go. I do feel that the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with women to-day, is dealing with them in this fashion for two reasons. One is that they are women,

  1715
  and, therefore, more defenceless than men, and the second is that large numbers of them are not organised, and it is easy to economise in that way. It is for this reason that I move a reduction of the Vote.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so for several reasons, one of which has been fully and adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question in particular, which I hope and believe he will be able to answer, namely, have any instructions been given to local unemployment committees to apply a sort of third degree to any one of the women applicants for unemployment benefit? I cannot conceive that the right hon. Gentleman would be responsible for that sort of thing, but only last Monday morning a woman called at my house who had been contributing to the Insurance Fund since the first week it commenced, and who has never been out of work for a single week during the whole period until six weeks ago. She has been informed by the local Exchange people that, unless she has found work by the end of this week, there will be no unemployment pay for her. Obviously, having paid these insurance contributions for several years, and having fallen out of employment through no fault of her own, no woman ought to be subjected to this intimidation. She has been told that she can possibly have an engagement as a domestic servant if she is willing to come to London, but here is a woman with a girl under 14 years of age, who must of necessity remain where she is at present residing, in order that she may be able to care for that girl. She cannot accept domestic service unless her prospective employer would be willing to accept the daughter also, which is not so in 999 cases out of every thousand. Therefore, the local Exchange people ought not to be threatening this woman with the loss of her unemployment pay unless she finds work at the end of this week.
  Then I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what proportion of the £230,000 referred to will go to members of travelling committees, who, after local unemployment committees have dealt with various cases, come along and inter-
  1716
  vene and make decisions of their own over the heads of the unemployment committee. Should this expense be incurred in that way, I should feel disposed to vote against any money being spent in that direction at all, in view of some of the decisions that we know have been passed. I also want to refer further to the question of additional temporary staff, as affecting some of the temporary staff who have been engaged by the Ministry for several years. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman last Monday evening the case of some women who have rendered splendid service to his Department for periods varying from five to ten years. They are now at this moment in fear and trembling that some young trainees are coming to take their positions as permanent members of the staff. It seems to me that, if there is any appreciation at all of really valuable service rendered, particularly by women who are unmarried, there ought to be no shadow of doubt in their minds, so long as they are capable of giving efficient service to the Department, lest they are going to be dismissed because they are called members of the temporary staff, and replaced by younger persons who have been successful in getting placed upon the permanent staff.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had these cases to deal with personally, would never dream of dispensing with the services of a woman who was rendering valuable service and was equally efficient with any new person who might come along; and what he would not do in a private sense I think he ought to endeavour not to do in a public sense, as the head of a great Department of State. I would like him not merely to tell us that these women have had an opportunity of sitting for an examination which may have been passed by any efficient servant, but I think he ought to tell us, seeing the services that have been rendered by these people, that, so long as they are efficient and highly capable, they are not going to be dispensed with at all. As to the additional temporary staff who must be put on when large collieries go out of production, or when a large works closes down temporarily, I know it is absolutely necessary, in a case of that description, to employ some

  1717
  temporary staff to deal with an immediate emergency which no one could possibly foresee; but the temporary staff who have been engaged for many years, and have given every satisfaction to their over-officials, ought to be assured that they are not going to be dismissed, but that, so long as they can give efficient service, they are going to be maintained as members of the permanent staff.
  Then I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the seeming contradiction in terms comes about where, in the first item, Subhead A, we are told that the £230,000 is required because of a greater volume of unemployment as compared with the Estimate, whereas under Subhead I we are told that £450,000 is required because there are more people employed than the Estimate provided for. It seems to me to be rather a contradiction in terms that we should want £230,000 more for temporary staff to deal with a greater volume of unemployment, while, on the other hand, there appear to be more people employed, and a greater amount of money is required to be paid to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, according to the sums paid by employers and employés. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how these two sets of figures come about.
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. Last week a question was submitted by the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and a statement has been sent to me, in reply to a question, that 104 ex-service men in Nottingham are receiving Poor Law relief who have been refused extended unemployment pay. How does it come about that 104 people can qualify for Poor Law relief, and yet not for unemployment extended benefit? If they are not seeking work and cannot comply with the conditions laid down by the Unemployment Acts, how is it they can satisfy the guardians that they are entitled to Poor Law relief? I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak for the guardians, and to that extent he is excused, but it seems to me that if they can qualify for Poor Law relief, being ex-service men, they ought also to be able to qualify for extended unemployment pay.
  Then I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he and the Postmaster-General cannot provide some
  1718
  machinery to obviate what has been taking place for several years past. A man accepts temporary employment for so many hours each day of the week and at the end of the week receives wages less than a week's unemployment pay would be. He accepts this temporary occupation, for which the wage is less than the unemployment pay, and he is the last man to be considered at the Employment Exchange when a permanent post comes along. He is penalised because of his anxiety to accept the first opportunity that comes his way. It seems to me it ought not to be beyond the wit of man so to arrange the work that must be done that a person shall have such remuneration, after he has performed his daily task, as is at least equivalent, if not superior, to the amount of unemployment pay had he done nothing during the whole week. I think some of these questions really ought to be answered before the right hon. Gentleman gets his Vote.
  I recognise, of course, that his task is an extremely difficult one. He has local Exchanges all over the country, and human beings have to be dealt with in every one. The circumstances in no two cases are quite the same, and to that extent uniformity is well nigh an impossibility. But I think on the general basis of fair play a great deal more justice could be meted out were the regulations and the instructions from headquarters fewer. After all, people charged with the duty of examining local cases invariably know the men and women, and, if there be one thing more than another that disturbs men and women who have been out of work for lengthy periods, it is to have passed through the very fine sieve of the local unemployment committee only to find that a travelling board, very often of young men, inexperienced in the peculiar conditions operating in the district, supersedes the unemployment committee and reverses their decision. Some of these decisions are certainly not in accordance with any sort of sympathy or justice, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, first of all, that it is not his wish that men or women should be intimidated so long as they are honestly and fairly doing their best to comply with the requirements of the Unemployment Acts, and secondly, that it is no part of his policy that men who perform any task imposed upon them shall work during a

  1719
  full week and at the end of the week receive less in wages than they would were they totally unemployed. Thirdly, I want to suggest that the local unemployment committees ought not to be superseded in the way many of them are by the travelling committees, and, fourthly, and perhaps most important of all, the temporary civil servants, who have rendered valuable and efficient service for a number of years, should be given the security they are entitled to, and not be dismissed with no hopes for the future merely because some young trainee comes along and takes their position. I remember, as a Member of the Estimates Committee last year, that the right hon. Gentleman's officials were all of opinion that, if their permanent staff was increased, probably the work in many directions would be performed more efficiently, although he can never dispense with the need for an occasional increase in his temporary staff. It is the permanent staff that can be permanently increased, including some of these people who have done such valuable service, and they ought not at a moment's notice to be replaced by the young people with a real future before them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Before I put the Amendment, I must remind the House that this is a Supplementary Estimate. It does not open the whole question of policy, and what is said must relate to the particular items in the Vote.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Must it be closely related to the Vote? You have already heard two speeches on which you, Sir, must form your own conclusions. Seeing that you have allowed those two speeches, would another hon. Member be allowed to follow exactly the same lines as the two speeches you have already heard delivered?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member may take it that that is so. I have been listening, and I did not interfere with the speeches that were made because I thought they were attached to the question of the first item, being an increase of officials falling under this Vote.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: My reason for asking was that I thought your last remark
  1720
  was intended to infer that those who are now going to follow would be limited to narrower lines than the two previous speakers. I only wanted, because of the part of the country I come from, to safeguard my own rights.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I want to call attention to this vague phraseology of genuinely seeking employment. I have no complaint against the Minister and his staff, who have given me very kind replies, and treated me courteously when I have put cases before them. But they are getting very numerous in my constituency, and I must take this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister himself. Will he tell me what he means by "genuinely seeking employment"? It may give a lead to the rota committees and the local referees who have to give decisions. When I was in my constituency some time ago, replying to a speech of the Minister of Labour, I was approached by several men and women who had been refused extended benefit. I said to one of them, "If I put the case before the Minister of Labour, I am sure he will give it his serious attention," and I asked him to tabulate the names of places and firms that he had approached with a view to genuinely seeking employment.
  I will give his name privately, but will not mention it now in case people in my constituency may think I am treating some with more favour than others. I will simply give a list of places this person visited with a view to seeking employment. He went to Mr. Amery, a saddler, in Market Street, Pontypool. He went to Mr. ft. G. Fickling, saddler, 33, Commercial Street, Pontypool. He went to Messrs. Liscombe, saddlers, in Newport, Mon.—that would be eight miles away. He went to Edgar Probyn, saddler, next to the Post Office at Pontypool. He went to the Co-operative Society, Abersychan, near Pontypool. He went to Mr. Amery and the Co-operative Society and Mr. Fickling a second time. Failing to get anything in the saddlery trade, he went to Partridge. Jones and Company, Limited, Llanerch Colliery, Abersychan. Failing there, he tried to get into the building trade, and went to W. A. Davies, building contractor, at Abersychan. Then he went to Mr. Branch, a building contractor, Abersychan, to Messrs. Arthur, builders,

  1721
  Abersychan, and then to Partridge, Jones and Company again. What more could this man do than go to all these firms and ask for employment? They said, "We have no work for you, because we have already such a large number of unemployed in the district." Further, this is a disabled soldier, and firms tell him if they cannot find work for physically strong and healthy men, they cannot find work for disabled soldiers. He has no chance in competing in the market at all. I ask the Minister to give us some help in this matter. If he will give us his opinion and say he thinks this is a case where the man ought to have been paid extended benefit, it will give a lead to these rota committees, and the Court of Referees, and people in different parts of the country. This is only one case out of several. I have sent cases of women to the Minister. I hope he will give me some definite assurance that he is going to try to remedy the Regulations that are sent out from his office, and try to do some justice not only to the unemployed, but to these ex-service men who have been turned down.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. KELLY: I hope the Minister in his reply will explain to us how much of this money is required for the upkeep of those officers of his Department who are being sent round the country, not for the purpose of assisting committees to place people on benefit, but to overturn many of the decisions of the local committees and deprive people of the benefit to which they are entitled. I would like to know how many of these officers are being engaged in order to carry out the Regulations set out in the circular which is headed, "L.E.C. 82, Sub. 21." What instructions are given to those people to interpret that circular? I would be ruled out of order if I went over some of the questions which were put to the Minister in July, when Unemployment Insurance was being considered and which have not yet been answered, but I must ask the Minister how he has arrived at the figures contained in this circular.
  In that Circular he has laid it down that, in considering who are entitled to benefit, they must take into account the family "incomings." That is the word used. If these incomings are equal to 10s. per week per head, then the committee would be entitled to make a
  1722
  recommendation depriving the applicant of benefit. If the incomings equal 13s. per week per head then the Circular reads that, in the event of incomings such as that, only exceptional circumstances attaching to a family would warrant the benefit being given. I ask the Minister if he can explain how anyone in this country could live on anything approaching a reasonable and decent standard on 13s. a week? Yet these people are supposed to have sufficient to maintain themselves and to have a margin in order that they may go without this unemployment benefit.
  It is a sorry farce that this country has come to when a Department of State sets forth that a standard of life of 13s. a week is sufficient. That is the Circular which is in the hands of the local employment committees. But there is even worse in the Circular. Even the 10s. is considered something, that is too high in some parts of the country, and the Committee is told in paragraph 4 that a lesser standard will be appropriate, for example, within a rural area. I hope the people in the rural areas will note the standard of life which the Ministry of Labour considers will suffice them for maintaining a reasonable standard of existence. If less than 10s. per week per head is coming in, the people in rural areas—they are not agricultural labourers, because these are debarred from the Act, but people who happen to be living in a rural area—will be debarred from benefit by the Regulations. I am amazed that, in view of the state of trade, the shortage of work and the number of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own, such restrictions should be placed upon them by the Ministry of Labour.
  Then we have those officers who are debarring people from benefit because they say they are not genuinely looking for work. I am amazed at every officer in the Ministry of Labour who is asking men and women to go from gate to gate and from shop to shop begging for employment at this time. What did you set up Exchanges for but in order that this method of scrambling round the workshop gates should cease; yet the Exchange asks men and women to go from gate to gate and from shop to shop begging to be employed. Unless they can come with a list showing that from day to day they

  1723
  have visited some employers to ask for work then they are debarred from benefit. Imagine asking engineers at this time to go from shop to shop, and shipyard workers to go from yard to yard, when it is well known that there is no work for them to do. The same is asked of people in the cotton trade, of people in the asbestos industry, when through slackness of trade these people are only put off for a short period. Unless they can satisfy the local employment committee that they have been tramping the whole time they are debarred from benefit. Worse than that, even if the referees agree that they are entitled to benefit we have the insurance officer coming along and overturning the decision of the referee or of the local employment committee. I hope the Minister is going to realise some of the difficulties we are faced with at this time, and I really hope that something of human feeling, something of a real demonstration of understanding that he is dealing with men and women will cause him to bring about the withdrawal of these Regulations which are not a credit either to the Minister or his Department.
  Then I would like to know what is meant by this expenditure that he is asking for in respect of Industrial Court. Are we to understand that there is a greater sum required for the Industrial Court? I would like to know why, seeing there is an Industrial Court, the Minister does not make greater use of it in order to encourage inquiries with regard to those industries where disputes are pending. Why cannot he ascertain the real position in these industries so that, when the time of trouble comes, as it is now coming upon him, he will have some knowledge of what is taking place? Then we should have some explanation of this expenditure which he speaks of as being required for local education authorities. What is this sum required for? Is this an increase as compared with the expenditure of previous years? There is one other point that I hope the Minister will give some explanation of and that is juvenile labour. If there is one problem that appeals to every member of the community, it is that of the young people who are leaving our schools and who can-
  1724
  not obtain useful employment. What steps has the Minister taken, what efforts is he making in order to bring to the notice of employers in various industries the fact that there is this great army of juvenile labour ready to enter the commercial and industrial life of this country?
  It is saddening to see so many of these young people drifting into a state of life that is not to their advantage and who, between the ages of 14 and 19, have not work which enables them to train so that they may take their proper place when they reach manhood and womanhood. Does the same difficulty still exist between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education with regard to the placing of these juveniles? It is a saddening spectacle to find a quarrel going on, as it has been going on since 1911, between the Education Department and the Board of Trade, in the first instance, and the Ministry of Labour in later days as to who should be responsible for the placing of juveniles into employment. Have they now cleared up that difficulty, and is there any better prospect of employers being brought into closer touch with the Ministry so that these young people may have a clearer opportunity of finding employment? Is any of this expenditure the right hon. Gentleman is now asking for to be utilised for the purpose of enabling some of his officers to get back to their duties after they had to leave them because of the insanitary and inadequate premises in which many of them had to work? I referred to one case where the chief constable of a certain town, when he was called in to the exchange because a great many people were signing on, had to smash the windows of the exchange in order to obtain ventilation.
  I would ask the Minister to say that it is his intention and determination to have his staff housed in premises and working in premises that have some degree of health in them and are fit for use as Employment Exchanges.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business, set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8. further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I desire to take this opportunity, the only opportunity that we have, to raise complaints on railway adminitration whilst this Bill is before the House. Hon. Members will be somewhat confused owing to the fact that other hon. Members and myself have our names down on the Paper for a Motion to reject the London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Company's Bill. We have now transferred our attack to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill. We find that the fares affecting the population in this East London area are concerned with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, because the District Railway has running rights over that portion of the line. Therefore, we propose to make our statements on this Bill, and we do not propose to repeat them on the Second Bill. We take this course with the object of saving the time of the House, and we think that that will meet its convenience.
The Metropolitan District Railway are concerned with that section of traffic from Barking to Bow Road over the line of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and serve the very thickly-populated area of West Ham, East Ham, Barking and East London generally. If you take the population living in that part of London, their wages and incomes, on the average, are smaller than the wages which prevail throughout other parts of London. Because more or less a standard of poverty exists there, the people live more thickly together, and the volume of traffic over this section of the line is heavier than we find in other suburban areas in and around London. Therefore, we consider that the population in the East End of London is less able to meet higher fares, and that, so far as any cutting of fares are concerned, they should have consideration, because of the general level of income and wages in that area. Where a railway company gets a larger volume of
1726
traffic over a small area because of the density of population, we claim that the railway rates should be arranged on a competitive basis.
The statement issued by the Metropolitan District Railway Company shows one of the causes of anomoly in the East End of London. In that statement they admit that from Charing Cross to Upton Park or East Ham and Barking there are five separate sections of railway line and four distinct and separate administrative controls over that short line of railway. If private enterprise thinks it legitimate to organise its business on these inefficient and out-of-date methods, and that it is desirable to have anomalies and complexities in railway organisation, they have the power to continue it, but we are entitled to claim on behalf of the travelling public that the public should not suffer from this duplication of control and duplication of railway administration.
I should like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that from the Mansion House the District Railway ceases. From the Mansion House to White-chapel the Metropolitan Railway comes into existence, and from St. Mary's to Whitechapel the District Railway again assumes control. From White chapel to Bow Road the London, Midland and Scottish and the District Railway are jointly in control, and from Bow Road to Barking the London, Midland and Scottish takes supreme control. The trains that run over the whole of the service are District Railway trains, and the users who get into the trains at any of the stations are, so far as they are concerned, travelling on one railway and under the one administration.
I will give a few particulars of the anomalies that exist in regard to railway flares. I frankly admit that our case is not based on the percentages generally which Parliament has given to the railway company. We do not contend that the railway companies are exceeding these percentage rates, but we do claim that London traffic should be co-ordinated and that generally the same principle should prevail over a line of this description. I do not want to worry the House with fares from the East End of London to the multitude of railway stations that exist in the West End and in the City, but I will give several local examples. In 1917, a 50 per cent. increase of railway rates over the pre-

1727
War figures prevailed. In 1920, a further increase of 25 per cent. was put on. In 1923 the 25 per cent. was taken off, and, generally speaking, the railway rates should now be the same as they were in 1917. I want to say, in fairness to the District Railway, that west of Bow Road the fares are competitive, and compare very favourably with the fares on Omnibuses and trams and other transport in the City of London and other parts of London.
The anomalies in the railway rates from the East End of London to the centre arise because of the principle upon which the London, Midland and Scottish Railway base their fares. From East Ham to Whitechapel, in 1917, the single fare was 6d. and the return fare 9d., so that there was a reduction of 3d. on the return fare. In 1923, although the single fare reverted to the 1917 figure, namely 6d., the return fare was 10½d., or 1½d. more than it was in 1917, on the 50 per cent. increase basis. I am not concerned with the wages of the men, but with the anomalies of, the position. So far as wages are concerned, the greater the volume of traffic we can get on to the railways the better, I assume, it will be for the railway staffs. From East Ham to Aldgate East the single fare was 6½d. in 1917; to-day it is 7d.; the return fare was 10½d. in 1917, it is now 1s. 0½d. To the Mansion House the single fare, in 1917, was 8d.; it is now 8½d. The return fare was 1s. 1½d. in 1917, now it is 1s. 4d. To Charing Cross the single fare was 9d. in 1917, it is the same to-day; but the return fare was 1s. 4½d. in 1917; to-day it is 1s. 6d.
Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, There is nothing in this Bill relating to fares, and the hon. Member knows that fares are under the control of the Railway Rates Tribunal. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing railway fares on the Second Reading of a Bill which has nothing to do with fares?
Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry that issue has been raised. I am a supporter of the Bill, but it is the duty of Parliament, before it gives further authority to any railway, to deal with any matter that may arise.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: On that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—on the ques-
1728
tion of fares. Does a railway company run its business for fun or for fares?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): That is not a point of Order. With regard to the question put me by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), it has often been held in debates of this kind on Bills of this sort that the inclusion of fares is in order.
Mr. BARNES: I want to deal with the cost of travel from the East End of London to the City by omnibus and train. If a user takes an omnibus from East Ham Town Hall, the centre of the borough, to Aldgate, the fare is 5d. If he then takes the train from Aldgate to Westminster, or Charing Cross, the fare is 3d.; a total fare of 8d. for omnibus and train combined. If the same user takes the train at East Ham Station and goes right through to Charing Cross or Westminster the fare is 10d., or 2d. more than the fare for omnibus and train combined. If you come from the outskirts of East Ham and Plaistow, the fare to Aldgate by omnibus is 4d., and from there to Wesminster, 3d., a total charge of 7d. The train fare from Upton Park to Westminster is 10d., a difference of 3d. over the same journey.
Let me deal briefly with the question of workmen's fares. Generally, from that part of London to the City, with few exceptions, they are 100 per cent. more than they were in 1914, and I think we have a legitimate case against the railway companies on that ground, because the volume of traffic, both workmen's traffic and the ordinary day traffic, has considerably increased, and increased out of all proportion to working expenses. Therefore, that part of London should have some concession in regard to fares in view of the increased volume of traffic. I appreciate the fact that railway companies have great difficulty in grappling with the big traffic problems which arise in London owing to the fact that London business is confined to within two or three hours. A tremendous population comes from the suburbs into the centre, and has to go back again. I do not really expect the railway companies to organise their business on a two-hour basis. I realise the difficulty. But nevertheless, the conditions of travel from that part of London are supremely uncomfortable, and I submit that it strengthens our demand for cheaper travelling facili-

1729
ties and also our contention that we should not be penalised for other sections of traffic in and around London.
There are anomalies in the East End of London, and the fact that our travelling rates per mile are higher in that part than those which prevail generally on the electrified transport system in London is due to this, that from East Ham and Barking to Bow the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company fixes the charges, or its proportion of the charges, on the principle of main line traffic. The underground railways, starting from Bow, fix their railway rates and travelling rates on the principle that in London you have competitive forms of traffic, and a large body of traffic going for short distances. Therefore, the principle of main line rates does not apply to London, and generally their rates are lower per mile than main line traffic. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway have, unfortunately, refused all concessions to this general principle upon which traffic rates have been built up in London, and therefore, we in East London think it is time the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway endeavoured in their section of the line to fall into the general scheme of things which prevail around London.
I know it is argued that if the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company gives a concession on the section of the line over which the District Railway trains operate, it will affect their traffic receipts and their mileage charges to Fenchurch Street Station, but I submit that there is practically no short journey traffic to this station on the London, Midland, and Scottish line. Anyone from Plaistow, East Ham, or Barking, going to the City uses the District Railway section, and the population which travels over the London, Midland, and Scottish line to Fenchurch Street Station comes from points beyond Barking. We think we have a very sound case in this connection. Our opposition is not factious, and it is not to try and get the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway to depart from their railway rates over areas beyond what is called the special London problem, but we submit that the railway company, if it means to impose its control over a section of London traffic, should realise that that section involves a vast number of the poorest people in the community and should at
1730
least modify their administration in order to meet the legitimate needs and pockets of the people it serves.
Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment
I do so, not because I wish to make rash charges, but because I wish to put one or two points which I hope will be received favourably by the promoters of the Bill. We want the Company to consider in its narrowest aspect the question of fares on this side of London. I should be failing in my duty if I did not plead here on behalf of the great number of my constituents who use this railway and come to town from Plaistow and Bromley and West Ham. My claim is that they ought to be able to travel in decent comfort and cheaply. Here are some figures which I have extracted from official documents: From Plaistow to Aldgate East the pre-War fare was 3½d.; in 1917 it was 5d. Apart from precise percentages the fare to-day should be on a par with that of 1917. But the fare from Plaistow to Aldgate East to-day is 5½d. From Plaistow to the Monument, Cannon Street, Mansion House and Blackfriars, the pre-War fare was 4½d., the fare in 1917 was 6½d.; to-day it is 7d. From Plaistow to Westminster the fare in 1917 was 8d.; to-day it is 8½d. The fact is that the Company is drawing from many thousands of travellers about one halfpenny more than it is morally entitled to.
Then as to return fares the position is extremely strange. Between Plaistow, West Ham, Bromley and Westminster, I think it is true to say that to-day there remain only three stations to which and from which we can get return tickets. The Minister of Transport might be able to tell us why this railway has holus bolus done away with return tickets. You cannot get a first-class return ticket from Westminster to Bow Road. You are asked to take two single tickets, and that means that the public do not get the pre-War advantage of a reduction on the return fare. If the Minister cares, he can go and try to take a first-class return ticket from Westminster while I am speaking. He will find that he cannot get the ticket. I took that matter up with the representative here at the Fees Office. He was amazed. I had correspondence with the Transport Department. I was amazed, too. I was informed by the company that the

1731
demand for first-class return tickets had been so slack that they had abolished them altogether. The law of supply and demand may apply to groceries and other things, but I do not know why it should apply to first-class return tickets.
Then, on third-class return tickets we do not to-day get the rebate that was customary in pre-War days. If we are compelled to take two separate tickets, or a return ticket at double the single fare, an unfair advantage is being taken of the travelling public. The fare from West Ham to Aldgate East was 3½d. pre-War; in 1917 it was 5d.; and to-day it is 5½d. From West Ham to the Monument, Cannon Street, Mansion House and Blackfriars the pre-War fare was 4½d.; in 1917 it was 6½d.; and to-day it is 7d. From West Ham to Westminster the fare was 5½d. pre-War; in 1917 it was 8d.; and to-day it is 8½d. From West Ham to Liverpool Street the pre-War fare was 4½d.; in 1917 it was 6½d.; and to-day it is 7d. From West Ham to King's Cross the fare was 5½d. pre-War; in 1917 it was 8d.; and to-day it is 8½d. These differences are matters of interest. In each case an extra ½d. is taken from the travelling public. From Bromley to Aldgate East the fare in 1917 was 3½d., and to-day it is 4d. From Bromley to Blackfriars the fare in 1917 was 5d., and to-day it is 5½d. From Bromley to Westminster the fare in 1917 was 6½d., and to-day it is 7d. From Bromley to King's Cross the fare in 1917 was 6½d., and to-day it is 7d.
There must be some method of adjusting these things. It is our duty to come here when we know of these—I will not say abuses, but instances of misunderstanding, and to appeal for fair consideration. Before we give a railway company or any other company fresh powers this House ought to make up its mind how the corporation concerned has used the powers it already possesses. I think I have heard the right hon. Gentleman for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) deliver some good speeches in this House from that point of view—that if a man was given a good job and did not do it satisfactorily he should not be given another job. If it be proved that this particular railway is not doing its duty or its best to cater for the travelling public, the Minister of Transport has said that he would bring
1732
his influence to bear on the company to remedy grievances. There is a very serious state of affairs on this particular railway to-day. This House should jealously guard its powers with regard to the defence of the travelling public, however humble they may be.
On this railway there is not only strap hanging under pre-War conditions, but a sort of warehousing of the travelling public. Passengers are not so much packed in like sardines as hustled in, and the men who used to close the carriage doors are not now there. I believe for reasons of economy. It is not economy; it is folly, to take away men who otherwise would be assisting people in and out of the trains; it is not catering for the general safety of the public but is doing all to hinder them. I put this point to the Minister of Transport the day before the system was introduced. His reply was that we must allow sufficient time to see if the thing worked out as intended. The working out of that system has been inimical to the general interests of the public. Two-thirds of the doors on this railway are not closed by the platform staff, for the good reason that there is not sufficient plat form staff to do it. I am not going to say anything against the courtesy and general efficiency of railway servants. I have a genuine respect for all people connected with the railways. But if directors or anyone agrees to abolish the services of workers who were doing useful work, it is our duty to protest and to appeal for amendment in the common interests of the travelling public.
Therefore I trust the Minister of Transport will deal with this matter, and will state to the House his view on the withdrawal of these men. Does he think it safe that tired, overworked and jaded girls returning from work should be compelled to stand in the corridors of these trains with the doors open. It may be said why do they not close the doors? But any hon. Member who puts that question, should himself travel on these trains at any time between five o'clock and half-past six, and he will find that there is not room on the trains to move much less to close or open doors. I do not say that the railway company has a light task, but I feel that a little more attention should be paid to the travelling public, and that they should not be

1733
hustled along the platform, and into the trains, and then left without any assistance whatever, I also suggest that during the mid-day change over, the trains should be cleaned. I travel on this line nearly every day. I do not travel first-class, and I know the inconveniences. A large number of the trains on reaching Bow Road, turn round instead of proceeding to Barking. Why do they not take advantage of the opportunity of the stop at Bow Road to clean and ventilate the trains after the morning traffic in readiness for the evening traffic? Tens of thousands of people use these carriages in the morning, but the trains are put into service again in the evening without having been cleaned or ventilated.
That point should be impressed on the Minister in the interests of public health. We are endeavouring in a peaceful manner, across the Floor of the House to urge the necessity for a reduction of the overcrowding and a general attention to the needs of the travelling public. These matters may appear trivial to hon. Members, but they are not trivial in the eyes of the people concerned, to whom the matter of 6d. a week in fares is of some importance. If the company and the Ministry will take up these matters with a serious desire to remedy the grievances I have mentioned they will have done a great deal in the view of the travelling public, and their efforts in that direction will be respected and appreciated.
Sir ROBERT HORNE: On a point of Order. Which Bill are we discussing?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The first Bill on the Order Paper—the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.
Mr. SPENCER: I make no complaint whatever of the tone of the discussion up to now. Undoubtedly those who have moved the rejection of the Bill are justified from their own point of view in doing so, but anyone unaccustomed to the discussions of such Bills in this House would be surprised to know that we are dealing with a Bill which proposes to give additional branch lines to important collieries in Nottinghamshire. I rise, naturally, to support' the Bill because I have first-hand knowledge that these branches are very much needed. Those who have knowledge of modern collieries and their equipment will agree that the more railways you can get to a colliery, the better for the col-
1734
liery. The modern colliery requires 300 or 400 trucks per day. If there is an insufficient service it is found that at periods of extreme activity a colliery which might be able to work a full day is only working half-a-day because of the shortage of trucks. Miners are accustomed in the summer months to work short time, especially in the soft-coal collieries. The hard-coal collieries are sometimes more fortunate, but the soft-coal collieries usually work only three or four days a week in the summer time. When winter comes the collieries expect to work the fullest time, but sometimes the colliery companies are unable to work the full day, even in winter, owing to insufficient railway service.
I support the Bill on three grounds. I do so first, in the interests of the workmen themselves. Anyone acquainted with the subject knows that if you have an inadequate service, the workmen can only work half or three-quarters of the time which they might work with an adequate service. I know cases where with only one line the colliery may perhaps get an adequate service for part of the year, but for the rest of the time the service is not adequate, and if there is the least disturbance on the single line which supply the trucks, then the service breaks down and the men have to go home. If men have limited incomes for a great part of the year, they look to the winter months to make up for the lost working time, and the colliery companies look to that period to make the pits pay. If the colliery companies are unable to work full time in the winter owing to lack of service, it is very irritating to the men. In a mining district when it comes near to Christmas a greater trade is being done, but while there are greater services in other respects on the railways at that time, the last people to whom they attend are the colliery companies, and just at the moment when the men want to work full time to supplement their wages, we find sometimes that a week before Christmas pits which could work five and a-half days are working but two or three days because they cannot get the trucks. A Bill of this character designed to ensure a better service in this respect ought to have our fullest support.
There is also the interest of the public. Not so long ago, just before Christmas, there was almost a famine for coal in London, and at the same time men were

1735
working only three days a week because of the scarcity of trucks. Therefore, in the interests of the British public, we ought to have as good a service as we possibly can, and if you destroy these Bills you are doing the greatest possible disservice to the men who are working, and who will work, at these collieries. I know the Welbeck Colliery very well. It is my duty as a mining leader to look after the men's grievances at that particular pit, and I know that just before Christmas they were losing time because they could not get empty wagons, or the full ones taken away. If they can get this extra line, the possibility is that before next Christmas, if the line be constructed, the men will find that the short time which they have had in the past will be remedied, and, as a miners' leader, I put in for the moment a plea for the colliery companies, who often lose money in summer, and ought to be able to recoup themselves in winter. But if trade is curtailed through lack of service, even colliery companies cannot make up for the loss sustained in the summer months. Therefore, I submit to the House, on three grounds—on behalf of the workers, the directors, and the community who want the coal—we ought to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. THOMAS: With a view of showing what a completely united party we are, I want to say at once that anyone who objects either to criticism or to points being raised on this matter is taking a wrong course. I myself have opposed Bills, not on the merits of the Bills, but because I refuse to give additional powers to someone who, in my judgment, has already abused the powers conferred. Therefore, I not only do not complain, but I congratulate both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment in taking up a proper constitutional and Parliamentary position in the interests of their constituents, and I do hope that that principle will be recognised all round. At the same time, I want to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the situation to-night and that of last night. Last night opposition was raised on a Bill, and the effect of the opposition and of the criticism must result in the particular matter in dispute being recon-
1736
sidered. In other words, we objected to a Railway Superannuation Bill because it was a bad Superannuation Bill. I am not arguing the merits, except to say that that was the ground of the objection. The railway company very foolishly refused to take my advice. I always advise them rightly, but they would not take it.
9.0 P.M.
The short case for this Bill can be stated in a sentence. No one in this House objects to the merits of the Bill. The miners would be the first to say to the railwaymen, "You with a guaranteed week have no right to do something that will prevent us from having a full week's wages." That summarises the case for the Bill, so that there can be no doubt that the defeat of the Bill would not only be bad, would not only prevent employment, but would seriously injure the already difficult and delicate mining situation. With regard to the rates, I want to make it perfectly clear, if it were possible to determine the rates here, which I am sure it is not, I should be the first to object. I object because I have a moral obligation and a duty to the railwaymen of this country. I often see newspapers come out with a tirade about railway rates. They never think that every newspaper is 100 per cent. above pre-War. The same people who denounce railway rates, if they go to their own commodities, will find they show much above 100 per cent. increase. There is too much humbug talked about this. A large number of people who talk about railway rates to-day have to keep in mind that the money has got to come from somewhere, and the railwaymen are not going to be sweated merely to provide cheap railway rates. I want to make that perfectly clear on their behalf.
There are, of course, a lot of amateur railway managers. It is an extraordinary thing to hear the experts on railways. You have only to listen to debates in this House to know what experts they are. If they had only been railwaymen for two months they would not have delivered the speeches they have. For instance, I heard to-night that we want to increase travel on the railway. Let me give two actual experiences of how that worked out. Last year Wembley was going somewhat badly I wanted it to go well, and I was told

1737
that if we could get a reduction both in the railway rate and the entrance fee for Wembley, everything would be well. I met the railway companies, and, after a long argument, I persuaded them to extend the London zone about six miles out. They reduced their fare 3d., and we reduced the exhibition fee 3d., and the result was we got 6d. knocked off. The first fortnight there was an increase of something like 100,000, and, when the figures were shown, people said, "Here is a magnificent result. This is the result of reducing railway travel by 3d. and the exhibition charge by 3d.! Here is a brilliant success!" A month went on. There was a further increase, and I was just congratulating myself on a magnificent stroke of business, when the returns for Wembley came in, and showed a decrease. Then I said, "Where is all this 100,000?" We discovered that the people found that our reduced inclusive charge to Wembley from the wider zone was 4d. less than a return ticket to London, and they were taking Wembley tickets to London instead of the ordinary. That only shows how you can be had.
Mr. BARNES: I rather suggest that that indicates how unreliable is the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. THOMAS: I rather put it, if I made a bull, what would happen to you? Of course, I want a cheap transport system, but I do not want it at the expense of sweated conditions of labour. Neither does anyone else. I believe the cheapest and most efficient transport system will be unified nationalisation. But we have not got that. Whilst we have not got it, I put it to the Minister of Transport, who is not responsible for fares—which is a matter for the Railway Rates Tribunal—what are the factors which most influence the Railway Rates Tribunal? To put it quite seriously, they have to consider, not what were the fares in 1917, but that they are more now. [An HON. MEMBER: "That does not matter!"] It does matter. They have to consider that railwaymen's wages are 100 per cent. up since 1917.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: And the miners' wages?
Mr. THOMASI am dealing not with the miners, but with the railway men.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the lawyers! How much are they up? They get more than they deserve.
Mr. THOMAS: These things have to be considered by some tribunal. It has got to be a tribunal that will consider all the factors. It has got to be a tribunal that will consider railwaymen's wages as well. Therefore it is because this is a good Bill, because it will provide employment for the people who are now unemployed, because it will help the miners who are now suffering, because it will facilitate trade, and because, above all, the objections raised cannot be remedied in this House, I would ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill. I am quite sure that my hon. Friends have ventilated their grievances. They have shown their constituents what zealous, interested and deserving representatives they have. They have given me the opportunity of showing to the railwaymen what an excellent representative I am in supporting the Second Reading.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to say a word or two on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company's Bill on behalf of the West of Scotland. I do not want to oppose this Bill. I do not want to be misunderstood in any way; but there are certain grievances which we have in the West of Scotland regarding this company. We have brought these to the notice of the House on several occasions. I am pleased to see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I hope he will give us his support on behalf of the West of Scotland, because this is going to affect the West of Scotland very materially. We have a great amount of unemployment in the West of Scotland. Here is a glorious opportunity for the railway companies in the West of Scotland, and particularly the London, Midland and Scottish to employ thousands of engineers who are unemployed. I put forward this matter to the Minister of Transport when Labour was in office. I got the manager of the tramways department in Glasgow to make out a drawing of the whole underground railway system in Glasgow to prove to the officials in the Transport Department that we had in Glasgow a tube system, only the motive power was steam. In that respect it was different to the tubes in London. In the

1739
underground railway in Glasgow there is nothing but soot, and everything that goes to make a journey uncongenial for the traveller.
Here is an opportunity for the Government, in conjunction with the railways, to convert this system into an electric system for 30 miles in and around Glasgow. This would employ the unemployed engineers at the work they are best qualified to do, so that when the wheels of industry are set going again—as we hope they will be some day—the men will be qualified to take up their proper work. If you put them on to road schemes, or any other scheme, they are bound to lose the cunning of their right arm. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead can have no objection to supporting me in that, and he will thus render the West of Scotland a great service.
There are one or two points I want to raise, and I shall not detain the House long. The first point is that you would think that when the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company come before this House to ask us to pass this Bill that they were the most agreeable individuals with which to deal. The fact of the matter is that they are most difficult to deal with when we go and ask them to carry out the obligations which they agreed to years ago. Before Labour was so powerful as it is in the country to-day, they were allowed to strike bargains, and never needed to keep them, because this House always, up till now, looked well after the interests of railway directors and shareholders. It has been left to us to come along and get what we can here on the Floor of the House of Commons in order to keep these nice, fine men, that you had heard complimented even on the Floor of the House of Commons, up to the scratch, and see that they kept the bargains and pledges made years ago which they have never kept.
There was one outstanding pledge of the London, Midland and Scottish Company whose railway went through from Glasgow to Craigendoran on the Clyde. The main line went through Dumbarton. They promised they would put up a bridge over the level crossing. They never kept their word. Dumbarton Town
1740
is putting down a housing scheme. The level crossing did not so much matter before, but now the housing scheme is in operation you have children going to school and crossing this level crossing on the main line at the peril of their lives. The railway company promised to put a bridge across. They have never done it. I do not wish to harrow up the feelings of the House to-night. I am only asking for common justice, and for the House to remember that you have a main line, with a level crossing, and children requiring to cross every hour of the day. The only reason why the bridge is not put up is that it would cost money, proving conclusively that profits are of more interest than human life to railway directors and shareholders. I do not wish to say anything more on that. I leave it with hon. Members, and they can sleep on it. The next thing to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is a serious matter concerning workers in the shipyards. This is not out in India, or Russia, or Egypt, no, nor in the Ruhr Valley, nor in Kenya, either: this is in the Clyde Valley.
Mr. D. HERBERT: Where is that?
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Well, if the hon. Member does not know where that is, he has no right to be here. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the geography of the British Empire—anyone with an elementary knowledge of the activities of the Clyde group on the Floor of the House of Commons—knows perfectly well where the Clyde is.
Mr. D. HERBERT: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I knew myself, but I wanted to know if he could tell the House.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: And if the hon. Member is not satisfied with that explanation, he can go out and make a hole in the Thames. Coming to the point where I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Herbert), I wish to say a word or two on workmen's fares. It is something affecting very seriously the people whom I represent. I can remember when I worked at John Brown's on Clydebank, and how I had to rise at half-past four in the morning—[Interruption]—that is something you never did in your life—to get down to Clydebank. Then, and until the War, we travelled from Park-

1741
head, which is at the extreme east of Glasgow, to Clydebank, a distance of 13 miles, for 1s. a week. That was the return fare. I think all here, even those who are interjecting, who have just come in with their boiled shirts on and their black suits, will be anxious to support me in my appeal on behalf of the shipyard workers of the Clyde. They are highly skilled men, there are no higher skilled men in the world, and they are working for £2 15s. a week—some of them less; but I am not exaggerating the conditions—that is the highest pay. Others are working for 38s. 7d. per week. I leave it to the House to say whether that is an adequate wage for a man who has a wife and family to support. It would not be pocket money for a day for some hon. Members opposite; but these men have to maintain a wife and family on that sum. What do the railway companies charge these men for travelling? Before the War it was 1s. a week return, and now the charge is 3s. per week. Fancy 3s. being taken off £2 a week.
That is what the railway companies do and then they have got the brass face to come to this House and lobby us and ask, "What complaints have you? Is there anything we can do to mitigate your complaints or get over the difficulties?" When I put these cases to them they say, "Oh, that requires a Trade Board.' It requires something else. It requires only that the railway companies should be willing. It requires only that Members of this House should be in earnest in the statements they make. At Election times it is not only Labour Members who plead with the workers to send them to the House of Commons. Even the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R, Horne) makes appeals to the working class in Glasgow.
Mr. HERBERT: And they send him here.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: And they even send the hon. Member who has been interjecting and interrupting me to the very best of his ability, though he is making a very poor job of it. One and all who come here have appealed to the working classes. They have assured my class of what they would do if they were on the Floor of the House of Commons.
"Now's the day, and now's the hour."
1742
I am giving them, one and all, an opportunity to make good their pledges; to stand by the working class, and see that these extortionate charges for railway fares are done away with.
Mr. MARCH: It is very peculiar, under the Procedure of this House, that when a Bill is submitted and a Member wants to say anything, he has either to move an amendment or move a resolution to reject it, and then when we follow that procedure we are found fault with for doing so. I want to submit a few points in connection with grievances we ourselves suffer while travelling on railways, and also to submit the grievances of those whom we represent. Not a day or a week goes by without complaints from some one or other of our constituents about the conditions on the Underground Railway. The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) has given various details of fares which, in the opinion of those who use those railways, are an anomaly, and has also complained of overcrowding on those railways and of the uncleanliness of them.
There is another point I want to raise. I have had a number of people complaining who have to get in at Aldgate East to go round to King's Cross and on to Hammersmith. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) complained about the railways not being able to pro vide trucks owing to these crossings. I am not objecting to these crossings being made. I am not objecting to the Metropolitan District Railway Company get ting the Bill to have these alterations of these stations, which I know are urgently needed, but I am raising the question in connection with this Railway Bill because of the complaints of people in connection with their travelling. When the Metropolitan District trains are run from New Cross to Aldgate East—
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are we not discussing the London, Midland and Scottish Bill; not the London Underground, which is coming on later?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that we are discussing the two Bills in a general discussion.
Mr. NAYLOR: Arising out of your statement, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are we to understand that there is to be no Debate upon the London Bill at the conclusion

1743
of this first Debate on the London, Midland and Scottish Bill? That was not the understanding with which we started.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are we discussing both Bills at once?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood that the discussion would take place on both Bills at once.
Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. My understanding—I may be wrong—was that the reason why we were discussing this Bill, and the line as referred to by the hon. Member, was that it so happened that the London, Midland, and Scottish control this part of the line. We were not discussing the Metropolitan Bill. This part of Aldgate to King's Cross while it was part of the Metropolitan line the control of it was in the hands of the London, Midland, and Scottish Company. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood it also applied here. I certainly did not understand that we were taking the two Bills together.
Mr. THOMAS: Did not the Mover of the Amendment make it perfectly clear that he was in error in the original objection?
Mr. NAYLOR: There are some Members who want to raise points on the London District Bill. Are we to understand on your ruling that, if we wish to raise these points, we must do so in this first discussion before the Vote is taken?
Mr. BARNES: The discussion effecting both the District and the London, Midland and Scottish arrangement was confined to the East London difficulties alone. There was not an understanding that Members who have points to raise on these railway systems other than applied to East London, should be governed by that arrangement, which applied to East London only.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am prepared to support the London, Midland and Scottish Bill, but I have grave doubts about the other Bill. I object to any discussion on a blend of Railway Bills.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We were dealing with the two Bills as if they were one. They are separate questions, and the Question will be put separately from the Chair.
Mr. NAYLOR: May I put one other point? If a Member wishes to raise a point about the London District Bill, should we be in order in doing that in the first discussion?
Mr. MARCH: I understand that is so. I want to take my discussion of the Bills which are before the House as from Aldgate eastwards, because, unfortunately or fortunately, the Underground Railway Companies have not come down to my constituency round Poplar yet. The complaints that many of my constituents have are that they get into the train at Aldgate East or come from Whitechapel and have to go round from Aldgate East to Aldgate, King's Cross and Hammersmith, and they are hung up in that branch sometimes as long as a quarter of an hour.
Mr. CHARLETON: May I point out that the length of line to which the hon. Member refers is not in either Bill.
Mr. MARCH: I am talking about the Metropolitan Electric Railway or wherever it is on.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the question of the grievances on the particular lines would be in order.
Mr. MARCH: We want to air our grievances, and I understand that this is the time to do so when the railway companies are bringing in Bills. The grievance that my constituents have is that they are not able to get through, as they consider they have a right to, from Aldgate to King's Cross and Hammersmith. Frequently their trains are hung up from that branch to Aldgate East and Aldgate at least a quarter of an hour in the morning. That means losing time when they get to their destination.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am rather in a difficult position, having to rely on the Member speaking to confine his remarks to the question under discussion. The question of fares generally of the railway company would be in order, but not the grievances on the particular lines.
Mr. MARCH: These people have paid their fares. The difficulty is that you have to get from one railway to another. Sometimes you are on the London, Midland and Scottish or the District, and another time on the Metro-

1745
politan. I understand that there is a Metropoltan and District Railway Bill coming before the House to-night, and we are to debate those two Bills in this one discussion. That is what I am trying to do, and I hope I am succeeding. I do want to ventilate the grievances my constituents have, and I want the Metropolitan and District Railways to see whether they cannot alter them. I believe that when they have heard the discussion that is going on to-night in connection with their system they will see that something is done to remedy it. If we do not ventilate the grievances when those Bills are before the House, the railway companies would think that everything was in apple-pie order, everything was flourishing and that there were no complaints from anybody. They have only to ride down from Aldgate on the District Railway. Scarcely a week goes through without someone complaining. Very rarely is there anybody on the platforms to shut the door and if you want to save yourself from being blown out you have to shut the door yourself. That is not the right thing to do. Having paid your fare, I think you have a right to a seat. Some do not have the opportunity of getting their seat going to their work. It used to be straphanging at one time, but now they are packed more like sardines. We want that remedied, and I hope this discussion will help towards that end.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to state one or two grievances from Glasgow and district. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is well aware, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway have assumed a larger responsibility for Glasgow, and I want to raise two or three grievances relating to Scottish travellers. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway have issued figures showing that there has been a decrease in third-class passengers, and an increase in the first-class passengers, but the most striking decrease of all is in regard to workmen's tickets, and the amount of the decrease runs up to something like 4,000,000 passengers.
Like the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I have worked most of my life on the Clyde. When I had to travel from Glasgow to Renfrew before the War, the fare used to be 1s. per week; now it is 3s. Therefore you are asking the workmen to pay 200 per
1746
cent. more in fares, although his wages have only been increased by 50 per cent. On the other hand, the first-class traveller has only been asked to pay 75 per cent. more, while the workman has to pay 200 per cent more. No one desires to have a cheap transport system at the expense of sweated workmen, but there is plenty of room without taking a penny off the railwaymen's wages to equalise the fares between the first-class passengers and the workmen. It is not fair to ask the workmen to pay 200 per cent. more while the manufacturer who may be charging 100 per cent. more for his goods is only asked to pay 50 per cent. more.
Another grievance is that on our Glasgow stations if a passenger brings his wife on the platform to see him off she has to pay 3d. for the privilege, and I think Glasgow is the only city in the country where such a charge is made. I travel from a Glasgow station almost every week, and sometimes my wife sees me off on the train, and she has to pay 3d. to come on the platform. With regard to people going abroad, there is no place like Glasgow which is contributing, unfortunately, so largely to the number of people who are leaving Scotland, and a good many go from St. Enoch's Station, in Glasgow, to Greenock to join the boat, although I know a good many travel via London to Australia. Only last Friday a man living in the constituency represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead was going off to Australia, and he had no less than 12 people to see him off. It was probably the last time they would see him, and yet everyone of those poor people, coming from a very poor district, had to pay 3d. each to go on the platform. I think it is a shocking state of things when you have a Government in office which is professing to try and get cheap passages for these people that you should penalise a man in this way, because if that man was leaving a station in any other town in the country but Glasgow his friends could get on the platform for 1d. Can anyone tell me why this is so?
I am told that the figures show that more people emigrate from Glasgow than from any other town in the Kingdom in proportion to its population, and yet the railway companies are allowed to penalise them in this way. I think all

1747
hon. Members are agreed that if possible the relatives of such men ought to get on the platform free, but even if this cannot be done in Glasgow surely the charge should be the same as in every other town in the country. I went to see a man off to Canada the other day at Princess Dock in Glasgow and no charge was made to me to get on to the dock, although they limit the number to so many per day. Surely on a passenger train in the case of people going abroad, the railway company ought to allow them to go on to the platform at a cheap rate.
There is another matter I wish to mention. I am a teetotaller and I am told I am rather bigoted. I often require a drink of water when travelling for nine hours in a train during the night and yet I cannot get a drink of cold water on the train, and even if I wanted something stronger I could not get it. To provide drinking water on a train during a long journey does not place any hardship on the railway employés, and I think we should see to it that passengers are provided with a supply of decent drinking water. In these things the railway companies are going back. I remember that the first time I ever came to London, in 1920, there was a supply of drinking water on the train by which I travelled, but now the trains that carry a supply of drinking water are getting fewer and fewer. Surely these grievances can be remedied without sweating people?
May I just, in conclusion, put two more grievances? The first is as to the booking of seats. I have no great objection to the booking of seats, but I do object to porters in the railway hotels being given the right to book seats without any arrangement being come to. The other day, I went up to Glasgow by the 1.30 train from Euston, and, when I went to get a seat, I found that every one was taken. I do not grudge the booking, because, in that case, at least, the man has made an effort, but on other seats all I could see were empty bandboxes, and I saw people come up half an hour after I had arrived, and think they had a right, because an empty bandbox was on the seat, to take it before myself, who had been there half an hour. If people want seats in that way, they ought to pay their shilling and book them
1748
properly, but to give a hotel porter at Euston Station the right to take up all the seats because he is a hotel porter, and because someone can tip him, is not the way in which the railway company ought to conduct its business.
Only last Friday, when I went up and claimed a seat on which there was an empty bandbox, the porter came along and was most abusive that I should dare to claim that seat. As a matter of fact, I complained, but the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham, when he comes to this House to speak on a railway Bill, gets far less abuse than I got on that occasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did they say to you?"] I was told that this seat had been booked because he had come and put an empty bandbox on it. I told him I was there, and, until the station master or someone in authority told me to shift, I was not shifting. The point is this, and here I am quite serious. I remember that, when I was travelling with my tools from job to job, I found that poor people very often give in to that kind of thing, because they never get a chance, and the railway company ought to put a stop to it.
In regard to the other grievance, I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. It is with regard to our service of underground railways. The Minister of Transport says he has no control over the railways, but he has the same control as the sanitary authorities have over housing conditions, and, so far as sanitary arrangements are concerned, surely he has sufficient control to see that a train which is moving about is at least kept in a sanitary condition. The trains on our underground system are very dirty indeed. I do not blame the railway company, because it is like a slum house, and, no matter how much attention a woman gives a slum house, she can never keep it properly clean. This is a slum railway, and, no matter how diligent the railway servants are, the conditions under which they work do not allow them to keep it clean. Manchester and Liverpool, which are smaller towns than Glasgow, have suburban electric services. Why has not a great city like Glasgow a suburban electric service? It is almost a slight on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, who has been here all these years. With all the influence

1749
that he has—and he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer—Glasgow remains the only big town that cannot have a suburban electric service. Why should we have this dirty service? Why should it not be swept away, and a good and efficient service substituted, which can give good travelling and at the same time please the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby by giving his members conditions of decency in which to work?
Mr. FIELDEN: We have heard a good many reasons against passing the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member for East Ham., South (Mr. Barnes), who moved the rejection, based his objection to the Bill on the question of the fares that were charged. He thought the fares ought to be reduced. I would remind the House that in 1921, when the Railways Act was passed, a tribunal was set up called the Railway Rates Tribunal, to settle the rates and fares that the railway companies were to charge. That tribunal has not finally reported as to what the rates and fares are to be, but it is sitting and is constantly reviewing the question of rates and fares, and it will review it at any time a complaint is brought by any person with regard to the question of rates and fares. I submit to the House that that tribunal, which was set up by this House, and which is now sitting, is the proper tribunal to go into the question whether these particular fares ought or ought not to be reduced, and I do not think that anything more can be usefully said to-night on that question.
The other points that have been raised come, I think, mostly from the North. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the question of electrifying the underground railway in Glasgow. That is a matter which has had, and is still having, the attention of the railway company. It would undoubtedly help employment, but I cannot make any promise as to whether we shall see that change-over from steam to electricity within the immediate future. I think there is no doubt whatever that we shall see it at some time, but the matter, I can assure the House, is receiving the constant attention of the railway company.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will use his influence in that direction?
Mr. FIELDEN: I shall certainly support the change-over when I am convinced that the time for it has come. It will, undoubtedly, come some day, but I cannot say when it will be. It is, however, receiving the constant consideration of the railway company. With regard to the question of the level crossing at Dumbarton, that is a matter I know nothing about, but I shall be very pleased to make inquiries into it. I cannot express any opinion at the moment on the question of workmen s fares, pre-War and post-War. It seems to me a very large increase, but there, again, I take it, the Rates Tribunal will be the proper authority.
Mr. BUCHANAN: As far as my information goes, the Bates Tribunal has never considered this question.
Mr. SPENCER: Can the hon. Member say that the usual facilities for workmen's trains will be given on these branch lines?
Mr. FIELDEN: The two new branch lines, I understand, are for mineral traffic only. With regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I can only say that the General Manager wrote him on 18th February, when he put down his objection to the Bill, and asked if he would kindly let him know the nature of his complaints.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I have seen your representative outside, and I had negotiations with the company previously. My reason for not replying was that I raised every one of the points 12 months ago. There was no use writing again.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. FIELDEN: I only pointed this out because I wanted the House to know that the railway companies are very anxious to meet all complaints and give explanations as far as they have power. We do not in any way resent discussion on an occasion like this. We very often find that these complaints have some foundation, and when we know of them we can make arrangements which will do away with them. With regard to the complaints as to drinking water which were made last year, I made inquiries and examination was made on many of the trains, and they could not find that drinking water was absent. That is the reply we received. Of course it does not follow that there were not other trains

1751
where lack of these facilities still continued. The question in regard to the decrease in workmen's fares is very easily answered. It is due to the depression of trade. As to other questions raised by the hon. Member last year and this year. I am sorry that what has been done has not satisfied him. We inquired carefully 12 months ago into the question of platform tickets, and the reply we received from Glasgow was that they thought they should continue to be charged at 3d., but I will gladly undertake that the question shall be again looked into to see whether an alteration can be made.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Member receive a deputation from Glasgow Members on the question?
Mr. FIELDEN: Personally I would do anything I could in the matter, but possibly it would be better to have the deputation in Glasgow than in London.
Mr. NAYLOR: The matter I wish to raise is on the London Electric Bill. My excuse for raising it is that part of that Bill affects certain rights of the people in the borough of Southwark, which I represent. I gather from Clauses 6 and 14 that it is proposed to build an underground station at a point where six roads converge at the Elephant and Castle. I want some assurance from those who are backing the Bill that certain rights of passage through the subways already in existence are not to be interfered with through the passing of the Bill. At present these subways are very largely used by a great number of people, who find it more convenient and safer to cross underground than to cross the very heavy traffic roads. The station is to be built where the subways intersect beneath the surface of the road.
Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. May I ask which Bill we are discussing? It has been ruled previously that matters concerning fares can be discussed on both Bills at once, but there are other matters concerning the station at the Elephant and Castle with which the London, Midland and Scottish have nothing whatever to do. The matter is local entirely to the District Railway. Those who are responsible for the railway companies would have very great difficulty if all these different subjects
1752
concerning quite different Bills are not treated separately, as we have to have separate Divisions.
Mr. NAYLOR: The Deputy-Speaker has already given his ruling on the matter, and he has made it clear that the discussion of the two Bills is proceeding together.
Mr. THOMAS: On that point of Order. It was agreed that the connection between the two Bills on the question of fares was such that, taking the general opinion of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker interpreted the matter by suggesting that it would save time if we took the two discussions together, although obviously there must be two Votes.
Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that that was what was said by Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did think myself, with the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), that a general discussion covering both Bills should be limited to the question of fares, but as the matter has proceeded, I think we had better go on as we are doing.
Mr. NAYLOR: I was pointing out that the erection of this Underground station at this particular spot would interfere with the right of passage through the subway. I want some assurance from the hon. Members who are backing this Bill that the roads will not be interfered with. At the moment there are six heavy traffic roads completed at the very spot where this station is to be built, and if these subways are interfered with in any way it means that the passage right through from one side of the circus to the other will no longer be free. We may suppose that the railway companies will preserve the centre and confine it entirely to the purposes of the railway station. What are the companies going to do in this matter? Are they going to block the passageway to this particular spot or not? I understand that, according to both Section 6 and 14, they are asking for the right to build this station on that spot, and as you cannot build a station without blocking the way I want to know what becomes of the right of the people in the neighbourhood of Southwark to pass underground through the passageway—a right' which they possess at the moment, but that this Bill may conceivably take away.

1753
I have looked through the Bill carefully to see whether this right is safeguarded in any way. According to Subsection (3) of Clause 14, the Postmaster-General's interest in certain cables is protected by that Clause, and the company has no right whatever to interfere with the cables. I think the Postmaster-General is entitled to that protection, but what I am more anxious about is as to whether there is going to be a protecting Clause in this Bill safeguarding the rights of the people of Southwark and the surrounding districts in order that they may have a free passageway underneath the ground and avoid crossing these dangerous roads. In the interest of the women and children of that thickly-populated neighbourhood, it would be a serious matter if they were unable to make their way through the passages as they already exist. If the hon. Members who are backing this Bill are able to give me an assurance that those rights are not to be interfered with in any way and that some provision will be made in order that the passages may be preserved, nothwithstanding the fact that they are building a station on that spot, then I shall be more satisfied and, possibly, will find myself able to support the Bill.
Mr. PENNY: I should be very adverse to opposing a Bill of this nature. I am referring to the London Electric Bill. But I do wish to call attention to an important matter of principle arising in connection with the operations of the two companies promoting this Bill. The promoters are technically known to us as the London Electric Railway Company and the Metropolitan District Railway Company, and the Bill confers upon them the right of constructing works and raising additional capital. We may be told by the promoters of this Bill that this House has nothing to do with any company other than the two companies promoting the Bill, but I want the House to consider who are the real promoters, what they propose to do, and what they are doing at present. The real promoters of this Bill are the underground combine—a combination of companies the object of which is to control the London traffic They have already succeeded by combination and by agreement in turning themselves into one separate company for dealing with
1754
London traffic, whilst representing to Parliament when they come, that they are separate and distinct bodies.
At a general meeting of these companies a week ago they met as one body; they were comprised of five different companies—the London Electric, the Metropolitan District, the Central and South London, the Central London and the General Omnibus Company. They met under one Chairman who addressed them as one body. In 1915, by a private Bill, they obtained sanction for pooling the revenue receipts so that if one company made a profit it should be set off against a loss of another one or other of the companies. Possibly that was justified at the time by the fall in traffic receipts and the desire to have a co-ordinated service of traffic. I also think that in this connection the public benefited and they will still further benefit by the promotion of this Bill, but I do think that Parliament is entitled to consider, and in fact Is. bound to consider, what are the activities of the combine as a whole when two of the partners come to this House for further powers.
We must be very careful in supporting a policy where it means the pooling of revenues for the specific purpose of supporting traffic if these revenues are going to be devoted to purposes absolutely unconnected with that public service. The Bill will empower one company to raise capital to the extent of £1,000,000, and will also give facilities to the other for raising almost £2,000,000. It will undoubtedly enable the combine to increase its revenue, and we really must consider the different activities of the subsidiary companies. I would suggest to the House in the interests of the travelling public, apart from all other considerations, that they should take care that only such powers and privileges be granted to these companies as would be given to other public service companies such as the railways, and that the monopoly or special facilities which will be given them for carrying on business shall not be used for any other purpose, so that they will not in any way be going behind the powers which Parliament has given them. By Clause 47 of the Bill, they are empowered to purchase large areas of land and to let land off for houses, offices, etc. Is it the intention of the company to start as an estate company or to go into land speculation?

1755
There is another very important point, in connection with one of the subsidiary companies, namely, the London General Omnibus Company, who form one of the combine and work with another company formed by the combine, the Associated Equipment Company. This company was brought into being for the specific purpose of building omnibuses for the London traffic, but it has not confined its activities to that object. For several years past it has gone outside that area of activity and has entered into competition with ordinary private motor vehicle manufacturers. These powers were not given to these companies for that purpose. This company has half a dozen branches in this country and a dozen overseas. Parliament did not give powers to this company to enter into competition with private enterprise in this way. They have a monopoly and special facilities, and I want Parliament to consider that point of view. I should like the promoters to give some assurance or undertaking that they will cease these activities, whereby they have an unfair advantage. That could easily be done. I think the promoters have been approached in this respect, but so far they are not willing to give ground. I hope they will consider this point of view. This is a good Bill and it is going to do good general public service, and I should be very averse to opposing it, but I do put forward this question of principle for the House to consider, because it is of a very important and far-reaching character.
Mr. THOMAS: Does the hon. Member expect this House, or would he ask Parliament, to say to any business concern, "You must only invest your money in a given concern in a district?"
Mr. PENNY: I do not think Parliament is called upon to give powers to a company to enable it to compete on what I would call unfair terms with an ordinary outside industry.
Mr. MACKINDER: I do not think there is any hon. Member on this side or in any part of the House who will vote against either of these Bills. I do not intend to vote against them, but I think this is the time when we have an opportunity, and we ought to take advantage of it to offer what criticisms we may have of the railway companies that serve us. I have a complaint
1756
against the London Midland and Scottish Railway. I put this complaint to a kind gentleman, at any rate he looked a kind gentleman, who sat under the gallery two years ago, and this gentleman with the kind face promised me that he would have the grievance put right. It is not a big grievance, but it is a very important one. I refer to the travelling facilities between Manchester and Leeds, York and Bradford. On Sunday there are only slow or semi-slow trains, and the journey between Bradford and Manchester on Sunday occupies 2½ hours and there is not a single lavatory compartment on the line.
When one goes along the train and sees first-class compartments with lavatory accommodation and one finds that the third-class compartments have no such accommodation, I suggest to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, who have the finest rolling stock in this country, that they ought to transfer some of that rolling stock to the line between Yorkshire and Lancashire, and give some of the poor people an opportunity of travelling in decency, if they cannot travel in comfort. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite below the Gangway, who looks almost as kind as the gentleman who promised to look into the matter two years ago, should go into this matter and give us that little bit of decency and comfort in travelling that we people in Lancashire and Yorkshire ask for.
Sir HERBERT NIELD: I am glad to have an opportunity of raising a voice on behalf of the London Electric Metropolitan and District Railway, whose Bill I back. The objection with regard to the fares I appreciate, and I have not the least doubt that the company will carefully look into the objection raised as to overcrowding. I am not at all sure that they can help themselves in this matter. My own experience on leaving this House late, and having to change at Charing Cross, is that I sometimes meet one of the most turbulent crowds possible coming from a football match, who want to get into the carriage when I want to get out, and it is difficult for the company to deal with those who come from theatres and music halls and make definite arrangements to prevent overcrowding. That disposes of those two objections.
Mr. BARNES: It does not dispose of of them.
Sir H. NIELD: It disposes of them from the point of view of argument. I am authorised to assure the hon. Member for South East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) that the subways at the Elephant and Castle will not be interfered with in any way at all. The surface may be slightly interfered with, but the public use of the footpath will continue as at present, and the hon. Member can rest assured that his constituents are protected in that respect. There is one objection to the Bill at which I positively am aghast. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) should be a member of my own profession after the ingenuity he has shown in making a case. He professed himself in favour of the Bill three times during the process of his argument, but at the same time I could see that he desired to raise prejudices on the other side of the House with regard to this company when he referred to the Clause which deals with the buying of land.
I look at Clause 77, to which he referred, and find that it enables them to deal with land which is already theirs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members opposite are not disposed to treat that argument seriously, then I do not propose to refer to it any more. He seemed to me to represent that two or three firms of lorry constructors in the Thames area think they have been unfairly treated by reason of the London General Omnibus Company contractors, a totally separate company, registered not under this combination at all but under the Company's Act, a private company called the Associated Equipment Company, a Company which we all know from their advertisement of lorries going over a slope with a sunset behind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, we know all about it!"]—I do not think there is very much you do not know; but there is positively no connection between the Associated Equipment Company, and the company that is promoting this Bill, none whatever.
The London General Omnibus Company is certainly one of a combine, but, except that they make contracts for the delivery of lorries, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Associated Equipment Company, save that the capital is
1758
largely held by the Underground Electric Railway. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Is it a crime to hold capital in a manufacturing and industrial company? I am frank with hon. Members opposite when I tell them that it has a large interest financially. When I hear those cheers I am tempted to ask, is it a crime for a financial company to finance an industrial company, and thereby give employment? That is really the only objection which is urged against the Bill. The Bill seeks not only to give employment but to improve the Charing Cross and Piccadilly Stations, and to improve certain centres where the population has great difficulty in moving about. Who that remembers the old Westminster Station as it was in years gone by can be other than pleased with the perfect transformation of that station into another building? So it is all the way along with the improvements projected in this Bill. I am interested in the Bill because this is the line that approaches my constituency. It is a line which helps to lessen the difficulties of transit. It gives considerable advantage to residents around London, and I hope there will be no Division against the Bill, because everyone who has hitherto spoken, including even the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny), has desired to see it passed.
Mr. EVAN DAVIES: I do not intend to take up very much time, but this is the only opportunity that a Member of the House has to call attention to a particular grievance in his own constituency with regard to a railway company. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway has one or two branches in South Wales. Looking at it from the general point of view, that may be an anomaly, and the company may not be so keenly interested in these South Wales branches as in the great main lines of the Midlands and the North. I wish to draw attention to certain grievances, so that the company may pay some attention to them. The company has a branch from Abergavenny to Merthyr. From that branch there is another branch running right down to Newport. I want to call special attention to one of the towns in South Wales which is affected. Tredegar is a town with a population of 37,000. It is a large industrial centre, and the people have a pride in their town. If there is one eyesore in that particular community it is

1759
the station of the London, Midland and Scottish Company. The station is a wooden structure which has been there for about 60 years. The population through representative bodies has sent to the general manager and to the directors of the company time after time a request that some consideration be given to this eyesore in the town.
I have no personal complaint to make against the general manager of the company. I think that from the standpoint of personality he is an amiable gentleman and very eminent in his work. But when I had an interview with him he told me that boards of directors are made up of cold-blooded Englishmen, that when it was necessary to spend large sums of money for the improvement of a station, in any part of the country, if those directors could not see that a bigger revenue would come for the expenditure incurred, they neglected those parts of their area which did not bring in as big dividends as other parts of the area which they controlled. I want to urge the necessity for paying some attention to places like Tredegar, where a better station is absolutely necessary if the town is to have the appearance as it should have. I ask the promoters of the Bill to get into touch with the directors of the company, in order that some attention may be given to these points. Otherwise, the only opportunity we shall have of emphasising these matters will be to block any future Bill.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have listened with great interest to this Debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on having been able to travel 26 miles a day on six days a week for 1s. a week.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that the hon. and learned Member's reputation as a King's Counsel depends on his accuracy. I said from Glasgow to Edinburgh. As one who has resided in Glasgow his knowledge of the distance might be a great deal better.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I understood the hon. Member to say that the distance he travelled was 13 miles each way.
Mr. BUCHANAN: That was the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Perhaps I have confused the two hon. Members. They resemble each other so much in their sentiments as well as their utterance, that it is difficult to disentangle them. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs on the fact that he travels 13 miles in one direction and returns home again—which is another 13 miles, making 26 in all—and that he is able to do so for 1s. a week. All I can say is that he owes the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) a considerable sum of money. I agree it is a great hardship that shipyard workers getting a small wage of 55s. per week should have to pay 3s. a week for travelling the same distance. The trouble is that the shipyard workers are in an industry which is exposed to competition—like the miners—and are not in the sheltered position of the railwaymen, who have a monopoly and in regard to whom the directors and the trade union leaders meet together and carve up the public to suit themselves. In places where there are about as many trains a day as there would be on a moor, you find different sets of men being put on for eight hours a day, when they are really more gardeners and crofters than they are railwaymen.
Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. This matter affects 600,000 railway men and they ought not to have false statements made about them and I am not going to allow it. It is not true that in small stations and remote districts, as frequently alleged, the eight hours' day is operated. We have come to an agreement and there is a spread-over of 12 hours and not eight, and if my hon. and learned Friend dares to go to a Scottish constituency and say what he has said here—well, they will correct him.
Mr. SPEAKER: What I have to say is that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is out of order in pursuing this question. We cannot discuss, on a particular railway Bill, a matter which is general to all railways.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am dealing with the particular grievances of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs in the matter of fares. I am delighted, however to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby,

1761
and I think he ought to thank me for giving him the opportunity of explaining away a misconception which is very widespread, and I am glad to hear that the railway unions have at last seen reason on this point. I do not think they did so at the beginning when these arrangements were made. As I say, there is a great hardship in regard to these fares, but, after all, people have to pay for the value they get, and I do not believe that even under the present fares there is an overcharge. I come to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) in connection with this Bill of the London traffic combine.
It is no use their sending out circulars that they have no connection with their neighbours next door. They have got an extraordinary monopoly of the whole traffic, and it is extremely well worked. I have not seen anything so clever as the way the London combine have got together. Everyone remembers what happened when the independent omnibuses came along. The streets were then choked with omnibuses, and the chairman of the combine wept tears. It reminds me of the story of the cannibals who pleaded for leniency on the ground that they were orphans, having eaten their parents. Even then they could not beat the independent omnibuses off the streets. A strike took place, and we saw the chairman of the London traffic combine coming out of the inquiry and objecting to all independent omnibuses.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is really getting too wide of the subject.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: They have got the control of the omnibuses and they are getting a monopoly of private business. I am not interested in the motor manufacturers, but I would like to see fair-play, and I do not think it is fair that a company who have the monopoly of a huge system of transport, and are quite entitled to build their own omnibuses, like the railway companies build their engines, should dump and engage in the general market. It is not fair to others. The Associated Equipment Company can charge what it likes to the traffic combine. None of these combines interested in transport ever show large profits; they are much too astute. But by aid of this monopoly, they are able to come into the
1762
market for the manufacture of motor omnibuses and other heavy transport, and I say that, having given this monopoly, it is up to us to protect the ordinary private citizen from its grip. They ought to give the Government an assurance that they will confine the building of omnibuses to their own market and not invade the markets of other manufacturers who have no such protection. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill. I think it is going to improve the working of that great monopoly, but there should be an undertaking in order to protect other, companies.
Sir R. HORNE: I shall not detain the House more than a few moments in my reply to the speech which has just been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). His facts in regard to the matter with which he has been dealing are about as accurate as those in regard to the employment of the railway porters. I am at a loss to understand what he means by what he regards as the monopoly combination that has been able, as he says, to strangle the public. In a few moments I wish to point out that the Associated Equipment Company to which my hon. and learned Friend referred is not a statutory company any more than many other companies which carry on business. And I would further inform him that the London Omnibus Company is in exactly the same position. It has not come before this House for any privilege whatsoever.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is part of the Combine.
Sir R. HORNE: What my hon. and learned Friend calls the combine, is the Underground Electric Railway Company of London. That also is a company that enjoys no statutory power from this House, and has not to make any more returns in connection with its duties or obligations than any other company which is operating under the Companies-Acts. Anything in regard to the Underground Railway Company, which is the centre of what is described as the monopoly, must be complained of in the ordinary way.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: The right hon. Gentleman has completely forgotten that they have a Parliamentary power of pooling which they got in 1915.
Sir R. HORNE: In any complaint my hon. and learned Friend has on that score, he should not forget that the pooling was allowed so that the traffic arrangements of this City should be properly dealt with. What Parliament has done the hon. and learned Gentleman can take means to make Parliament annul if he can convince Parliament that it should be done. But that is not the kind of Bill that we are here discussing.
Now let me say in the few moments I desire to speak how this Associated Equipment Company came into being. It began as an equipment company for the purpose of providing the London General Omnibus Company with the omnibuses which they required for their business. I repeat again it is not under the jurisdiction of this House except as a company which is obliged to observe the Companies' Acts. The London General Omnibus Company was perfectly entitled, if it liked, to allow the Equipment Company to sell omnibuses to other people. If my hon. and learned Friend is going 10 say that any company should be restricted, and should not be allowed to put its surplus cash where it likes, and so exercise its legitimate powers—
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the shares in the Associated Equipment Company are held by the combine companies or that the combine is the company? That is the crux of the matter.
Sir R. HORNE: The shares of the Associated Equipment Company are held by another company under the Companies Acts. But, as I have said before, if my hon. and learned Friend wishes to invade the rights of any company acting under the company's statutes to invest its money as it likes, he will have to reorganise the Companies Acts under which we carry on business in this country. Let me say how it came to be that the Associated Equipment Company really developed to the extent it has done. A great demand was made upon it in the War to furnish omnibuses for the Government. I am sure everybody who was in France must know that, because he will have seen the enormous number of omnibuses which the company had to supply in order to meet the country's need. At the end of the War it was left with a very much bigger organisation than was required for the
1764
purpose of supplying the London Omnibus Company with its omnibuses. Is it to be said that under these circumstances it is bound to turn off its workmen and restrict its operations because of some fanciful idea my hon. Friend has that it is in some way dumping omnibuses at cheap prices on the British market? If it is dumping omnibuses at cheap prices, the British market is getting the advantage.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Through the monopoly.
Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend says "Through the monopoly." I wish to assure the House that in saying so he is talking with complete inaccuracy. The Associated Equipment Company has received no advantages at all from any association with what he calls a monopoly.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that it come out—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Mr. Speaker, are we to listen to these two men discussing these things?
Mr. MACQUISTEN: The right hon. Gentleman is evidently not aware that—
Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). One of our colleagues to-day was treated very drastically for an infringement of the rules of the House, very drastically indeed. We are going to ask you if the rules of the House are going to be applied as stringently to all Members, whatever their standing may be in the House, as they are to Members of the Clyde group?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot listen to an imputation of that kind.
Mr. MAXTON: Is it in order for a right hon. Member and an hon. Member to continue this wrangle about the General Omnibus Company when we are discussing two railway Bills.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am anxious to find out what is the connection between this Equipment Company and the company promoting this Bill. I am unable at present to see it.
Sir R. HORNE rose—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I name Sir Robert Horne.
Sir R. HORNE: I am very sorry that this controversy, which has been quite appropriately named a wrangle by the hon. Member opposite, should have occurred, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend should be so impatient of any reply to his remarks. When an attack of this kind is made, in very general language, some reply ought to be made. It is impossible to make a complete reply. I entirely sympathise, Mr. Speaker, with the point you just put to the House as to the connection of this particular controversy with the Bill before the House. Frankly, I can find none myself, but there was a series of speeches culminating in the vicious attack, the vicious and inaccurate attack, which has been made by my hon. Friend, to which I felt bound to reply.
Mr. SPEAKER: I may say that the right hon. Gentleman has convinced me that all that part of the Debate really is out of Order, and in future I shall know that there is no connection between these different companies.
Mr. J. HUDSON: On a point of Order which arises out of the decision you have just given. Is it not clear that under this Bill money may be raised and used, as Clause 43 says, for purposes to which it may be properly applied? Is it not clear also from this Bill that all sorts of arrangements are made for consolidating the capital holdings of these two companies, and out of those capital holdings money may be provided for the particular company which has been the subject of discussion? Indeed, would it be possible for the capital of the company under discussion to come from any other quarter, except from such companies as we are dealing with in connection with the Bill now before the House? I hope you will make it possible for further reference to be made to this matter. I have had very strong representations, curiously enough, from my constituency in Huddersfield to raise this issue in connection with this Bill. I hope it may be in order to do so.
Mr. SPEAKER: In connection with this company?
Mr. HUDSON: Yes.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I have been convinced that that really is quite outside the scope of the Debate. On these Second Readings we can deal only
1766
with grievances which it is within the power of the company concerned to remedy. It is quite clear to me that it is not within the power of either of these companies to remedy the grievances which have been alleged.
Mr. HUDSON: Is it not possible, under Clause 43, for the capital which will be obtained in connection with this Bill, or some of it at least, to be invested in the work of the company under discussion. If that be so, is it not possible to discuss the work that the company would carry on?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that any money which is raised under this Bill could be used in that way.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: In the course of the traffic inquiry it was proved—
Mr. MAXTON: That is not a point of order, you know that well enough. It is a speech.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I wish to know if it is not a fact that in the course of the traffic inquiry that the capital—
Mr. MAXTON: That is not a point of order.
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with matters that were raised at the Traffic Inquiry. I can deal only with the Bill before us. It is quite clear to me that there is nothing in Clause 43 which can give power to this company to deal with the Associated Equipment Company, nor has it any existing power. It is quite clear to me, and I cannot argue that question with the hon. Member any further.
Mr. LANSBURY: No one has replied yet for the companies. I want to know what answer is going to be given in reference to the fares on the other side of Bow Road, and what answer is going to be given as to the speeding up of the trains also on the other side of Bow Road. The whole of that section of the line from the City down to Barking is perfectly disgustingly run by the companies concerned, and we are informed when we have complained that it is due to the mismanagement and the refusal of the London, Midland and Scottish Company to deal with the signal arrangements the other side of Bow Road.
Mr. D. HERBERT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley entitled to speak twice?
Mr. LANSBURY: It so happens that I have only spoken once on this Measure. The question before the House is the Second Reading of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, and I am opposing it because of its control over a section of the line which, if properly worked and managed, would relieve the congestion on the other part of the line over which it has running powers. As happened last week in the case of another private Bill, no one has attempted to answer the case put forward against this Measure. I want to know why electric signalling has not been put into operation between Bow Road and Barking, and I also wish to know why the fares are so heavy on the other side of Bow Road. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Macquisten) talks about the fares in Scotland, but I would like to remind him that the fares on the Underground are very heavy indeed between Barking and Bow Road, and it has already been shown in this Debate how iniquitous are those fares, and they press very heavily on people who are paid much less wages than the miners and workers in Scotland. There is much overcrowding of the trains at night time and during the rush hours.
Nobody seems to bother whether this is due to monopoly or not, but the fact remains that nobody in this House in authority troubles to say anything about it. When questions are put we are told that representations will be made to the company, but nevertheless the inconvenience continues, and I hope those of us who are opposed to these Measures will take a division on the London Midland and Scottish Bill in order that we shall know which hon. Members are satisfied with the condition of things now prevailing on this railway. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Margesson) knows that his late constituency made representations about this company, and yet after all these grievances have been put forward nobody interested has had the decency to stand up and assist us in compelling the company to do justice in regard to these matters. For these reasons I hope a Division will be taken, and then we shall see who are on the side
1768
of monopolies and who are on the side of the common people.
11.0 P.M.
Major GLYN: May I be allowed to say, on behalf of my hon. Friend who has already spoken as representing the railway company, that all these matters have been taken into consideration, and that the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), as regards signalling, has been approved, but sufficient time has not elapsed for it to be put into operation? I suggest that the Committee stage will afford the proper opportunity for that question to be raised.
Mr. HAYDAY: I only rise to raise one small point. For a number of years there has been submitted, by questions on the Floor of this House, to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, the wisdom or desirability of opening a closed entrance at Nottingham Station. This is an old grievance. The entrance in question was closed during the War, and it ought really to have been opened immediately after, in order to restore facilities to a large number of the travelling public. If there is anyone in the House who is in charge of this matter, I would put it to them that they might now well recognise the patience that has been displayed in connection with this matter, and take it into consideration, and, I hope, favourably consider the re-opening of this entrance.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON ELECTRIC AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SUPPLY.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Resolution,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course

1769
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid."
Question again proposed, "That '£10' stand part of the Resolution."
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS LICENCES.
  WIRELESS LICENCES.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
AGRICULTURE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  SMALL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  ADVISORY ECONOMISTS.
  ADVISORY ECONOMISTS.
  CO-OPERATIVE MILK DEPOTS (LOANS).
  CO-OPERATIVE MILK DEPOTS (LOANS).
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MILK (TUBERCLE BACILLI).
  MILK (TUBERCLE BACILLI).
  ARMY REJECTIONS.
  ARMY REJECTIONS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (COMMISSION).
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (COMMISSION).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  TUBERCULOUS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOUS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).
  INFANTILE MORTALITY
  INFANTILE MORTALITY
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
HOUSING.
  BRICKS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN)
  BRICKS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN)
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEME, ST. PANCRAS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEME, ST. PANCRAS.
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (LOAN INTEREST).
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (LOAN INTEREST).
  HOUSING SCHEMES, LIVERPOOL.
  HOUSING SCHEMES, LIVERPOOL.
  ONE-ROOM TENEMENTS (STATE-AIDED SCHEMES).
  ONE-ROOM TENEMENTS (STATE-AIDED SCHEMES).
  STATE-ASSISTED HOUSES (RENTS).
  STATE-ASSISTED HOUSES (RENTS).
  ACTON (ONE- AND TWO-ROOM TENEMENTS).
  ACTON (ONE- AND TWO-ROOM TENEMENTS).
  OFFICE OF WORKS HOUSING ESTATES.
  OFFICE OF WORKS HOUSING ESTATES.
  LIST OF OFFICE OF WORKS HOUSING ESTATES.
  LIST OF OFFICE OF WORKS HOUSING ESTATES.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEME, THAMES DITTON.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEME, THAMES DITTON.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  PACKING STRAW.
  PACKING STRAW.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  COAL AND IRON COMPANY, CONSETT.
  COAL AND IRON COMPANY, CONSETT.
  EXCHANGE FACILITIES, WORKINGTON AND ROSYTH.
  EXCHANGE FACILITIES, WORKINGTON AND ROSYTH.
  DAWLISH (APPLICATION FOR GRANT).
  DAWLISH (APPLICATION FOR GRANT).
  HELENSBURGH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
  HELENSBURGH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  ENGINEERING TRADES DISPUTE.
  ENGINEERING TRADES DISPUTE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (WALES).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (WALES).
  WAR OFFICE (CIVILIAN PHARMACISTS).
  WAR OFFICE (CIVILIAN PHARMACISTS).
  INSPECTORS OF TAXES (SALARIES).
  INSPECTORS OF TAXES (SALARIES).
  TEMPORARY CLERKS DISCHARGED AND NEW ENTRANTS.
  TEMPORARY CLERKS DISCHARGED AND NEW ENTRANTS.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE (WOMEN COMMISSIONERS).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE (WOMEN COMMISSIONERS).
  EXAMINATION (TEMPORARY EX-SERVICE CLERKS).
  EXAMINATION (TEMPORARY EX-SERVICE CLERKS).
  NATIONAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.
  NATIONAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (WOMEN'S ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (WOMEN'S ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH).
  LIFE SAVING AT SEA (AWARDS).
  LIFE SAVING AT SEA (AWARDS).
  BREAD PRICES.
  BREAD PRICES.
  PILOTAGE CERTIFICATES (ALIENS).
  PILOTAGE CERTIFICATES (ALIENS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED INVALID CHAIRS (TAXATION).
  MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED INVALID CHAIRS (TAXATION).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (WEDNESBURY).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (WEDNESBURY).
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (CONTRACTORS).
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (CONTRACTORS).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (BREACHES OF DISCIPLINE).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES (BREACHES OF DISCIPLINE).
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MARRIED QUARTERS, EGYPT.
  MARRIED QUARTERS, EGYPT.
  INFANTRY DEPOTS, WESTERN COMMAND.
  INFANTRY DEPOTS, WESTERN COMMAND.
  BENGAL-NAGPUR RAILWAY.
  BENGAL-NAGPUR RAILWAY.
EDUCATION.
  TECHNICAL COLLEGE EXTENSION AND NEW SCHOOL, SUNDERLAND.
  TECHNICAL COLLEGE EXTENSION AND NEW SCHOOL, SUNDERLAND.
  SCHOOL FOR DEAF AND DUMB, MARGATE (VACCINATION).
  SCHOOL FOR DEAF AND DUMB, MARGATE (VACCINATION).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  VISITORS (TAXATION).
  VISITORS (TAXATION).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS).
  LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS).
  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
  ROAD FUND.
  ROAD FUND.
  CANADIAN LOAN (NEW YORK ISSUE).
  CANADIAN LOAN (NEW YORK ISSUE).
  GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENTS.
  GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENTS.
  DECIMAL COINAGE.
  DECIMAL COINAGE.
ROYAL NAVY.
  RECRUITS (STANDARD OF FITNESS).
  RECRUITS (STANDARD OF FITNESS).
  ROSYTH DOCKYARD (DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN).
  ROSYTH DOCKYARD (DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN).
  FRANCO-TURKISH AGREEMENT.
  FRANCO-TURKISH AGREEMENT.
  SOVIET UNION ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
  SOVIET UNION ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
  STREET SOLICITATION.
  STREET SOLICITATION.
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).
  MOCK AUCTIONEERS.
  MOCK AUCTIONEERS.
TRANSPORT.
  DISUSED RAILWAY TRACKS.
  DISUSED RAILWAY TRACKS.
  ROAD VEHICLES BILL.
  ROAD VEHICLES BILL.
  FERRY ROAD, MONIFIETH.
  FERRY ROAD, MONIFIETH.
  STREET LIGHTING.
  STREET LIGHTING.
  LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (LEASES, HARTLEPOOL).
  LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (LEASES, HARTLEPOOL).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): An Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, on this Bill I had intended to put a question to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack upon one of the clauses but it would have delayed the proceedings on the Bill if I had done so before, and with his kind consent I am going to ask a question on one of the clauses now. It is on the seventh clause of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount, on the Second Reading, pointed to the fact that
430
the clause was lone of great importance, and I think he even went on to say that if the House desired it on another occasion he would say something further upon the subject. The clause is so important that I venture to ask him if he would be good enough to give some further exposition upon it, although in the direction in which the chief importance lies I do think that the clause is an improvement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord's request in a very few sentences. Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1914 (the present Act) a trader becoming bankrupt for a second time who is found not to have kept proper accounts is liable to prosecution. Both the Committee which reported some years ago, the Committee of 1908 and the recent Committee on this Act, recommended that the same provision should apply in the case of a first bankruptcy. That is the effect of this clause. The result, if it is passed, is this: if a trader, becoming bankrupt, is found not to have kept proper accounts during the two years preceding his bankruptcy he is liable to prosecution. But that provision is safeguarded in more than one way. In the first place, he cannot be prosecuted unless the Bankruptcy Court so directs. Secondly, he cannot be prosecuted in the case of a first bankruptcy unless his total unsecured liabilities exceed £500. The amount is £100 in the present Act and it is proposed to raise that to £500, so that this strict provision will not apply to very small traders. There is a third safeguard—namely, that if it be proved that the omission to keep accounts was honest and excusable then he cannot be prosecuted. There is this further provision on the time when the new rule is to come into effect, that it shall not apply for two years. So if a trader on the day of the passing of this measure begins to keep accounts and keeps them until he is unfortunate enough to become bankrupt he would not be liable to prosecution under the Act. As the proposal is in favour of honest traders—honest traders on any large scale do keep accounts—and it is desirable, in bankruptcy matters that material should be available for seeing how the business is carried on, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that explanation.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the explanation he has been good enough to give to the House. It does represent what I had thought the clause meant and, if I may respectfully say so, I think the clause is a great improvement on the existing law.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BISHOPRIC OF SHREWSBURY MEASURE, 1925.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Bishopric of Shrewsbury Measure, 1925, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, it falls to me to move this Motion because I happened to be chairman of the New Sees Committee of the Church Assembly by which the Measures for dividing dioceses that seemed over large were prepared and submitted to the Assembly. This is the last of a series of such Measures and that committee has now been discharged as having done its work at least for the time being. Of the others that came forward most were entirely non-controversial and no argument against their passage was advanced. There was one in which there were serious considerations to be weighed, and I wish to begin now by freely admitting that this is also one in which there are serious considerations upon the other side to be weighed. It is not one of the quite clear and non-controversial issues. So far as my personal part in the matter is concerned, I should like to say that it was with some hesitation that I came to the conclusion that this was the wisest course to recommend to the Assembly and now to this House, and I have a good deal of sympathy for the arguments that are raised from the diocese—or, to speak more correctly I think, from the County—of Hereford. But I did come to that conclusion on the Committee and everything I have seen argued with reference to this Measure since then has confirmed that opinion.
The New Sees Committee, which was charged to survey the diocesan areas of the country, was confronted with the fact that in Lichfield there are 472 parishes with 455 beneficed clergy, some of the parishes being united, and a population of practically one and a quarter millions. Not only so, but this population is not gathered together in any one centre, which makes it possible to conduct the administration of a thickly populated diocese with ease, hut is scattered in two main directions and also projects over an area which may be called an appendix to the main body. That area is Shropshire. After a survey of the whole problem the New Sees Committee came to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with the problem presented was that embodied in the Measure before your Lordships. This proposal was accordingly made to the Assembly. Opposition was expressed from representatives of the diocese of Hereford, but, as I have said, subsequent study of the matter shows that the bulk of that opposition—not quite the whole of it, as the name of the noble Lord who is to move the rejection shows—comes from only one part of the diocese of Hereford—enamely, the County of Hereford.
In view of the strength of the feeling which existed the Assembly referred the consideration of the problem to a fresh committee. I wish to emphasise that it was a fresh committee and not the old committee reviewing its own work. An entirely new committee was appointed and it was welcomed by one of the leading representatives of the opposition in Hereford as being powerful and well-balanced. That committee considered no fewer than five alternative ways of affording relief to the diocese of Lichfield and it found that to every one of them there was greater objection than to the particular proposal embodied in the Measure. They had been specially asked to report to the Assembly on alternative methods of dealing with the problem and they reported that all the available alternatives were inferior to that which was proposed. The Assembly then went forward with the detailed consideration of the Measure and passed it by a large majority. The proposal, briefly, is to make three dioceses out of two, and it must be judged, I would submit, by its effect both upon the whole of the area

433
concerned and upon the general wellbeing of the Church. If it is carried we shall have three dioceses composed as follows:—Lichfield will have 331 benefices, a population of 1,226,000 and an area of 1,100 odd square miles; Hereford will have 205 benefices, a population of 116,900 and an area of 923 square miles; Shrewsbury will have 296 benefices, a population of 246,000 odd and an area of 1,300 square miles.
One criticism which occurs to anyone on hearing these figures is that, in fact, the relief afforded to Lichfield is so small as hardly to be worth making, but that disappears when the actual conditions of the Lichfield diocese as it will be are carefully examined. In the first place, it will be a county diocese, consisting of the County of Stafford, its see town will be in the centre of it and, on the whole, perhaps its best railway centre as well as its geographical centre. It will have two great blocks of population, one in the north and one in the south, but each of them within easy reach of the Bishop from the see town, and also the see town will be within easy reach of the rest of the diocese for the purpose of diocesan gatherings. It will therefore, in fact, become a very workable diocese in its general nature, whereas the present appendix, as I have called it, which consists of North Shropshire is peculiarly difficult to manage, as I think the Bishop of Lichfield will tell us, both from the point of view of being easily reached from his own centre and from that of bringing into that centre those who should represent the interest of the Church in that region at diocesan gatherings. This Measure, therefore, simplifies the problem of the diocese of Lichfield by removing an excrescence it makes a county diocese for Staffordshire and it leaves the see city in the middle. The diocese of Shrewsbury will I think by general consent be a quite admirable diocese. It again will consist of a county, its centre will be the obvious centre for that county and easily accessible to the inhabitants of every part of it. I do not think that any doubt has been raised about the excellence of the diocese of Shrewsbury, that is, the County of Shropshire, regarded in itself.
At this point I would like to say a word or two about the principle of county dioceses. Of course that principle cannot be erected into a binding rule.
434
There are some counties much too large to be comprised within a single diocese—for example, Yorkshire—and there are some where the population makes it undesirable—fer example, Lancashire. But there is a great advantage none the lees in making the boundaries of a diocese co-terminous with those of a. county where it can reasonably be done in the light of other considerations, because the people of that area are already, through the development of local government, used to acting together and to meeting in the centre of the county for the transaction of bushiest. It is a great advantage when the two areas can coincide. Certainly it cannot be made a binding rule, but it is a consideration of very real weight, more especially if we are concerned not only with the mechanical efficiency of administration regarded from the Bishop's site, but with the great stimulation to the general life of the Church that, as I believe, already comes, and will I am sure come in still greater measure, from the development of organs of self-government within the Church through parochial councils and through the representation at the diocesan conferences.
That is a matter of the very first importance and one of the first facts that strikes anybody who studies the present situation. North Shropshire has very great difficulty in taking full part in the affairs of the diocese of Lichfield, and it would find equal difficulty in taking part in the affairs of the diocese of Hereford if it were united to the existing diocese of Hereford, as has been proposed. I would urge most earnestly that this aspect of the matter may be considered quite as fully as the ease with which the Bishop may move about from parish to parish. It is quite as important that the people should be able to reach the diocesan centre as that the Bishop personally should be able to reach the people.
From the point of view of the County of Hereford there is, no doubt, a real objection. It is true that if there had been no problem concerning the diocese of Lichfield and the archdeaconry of Salop—North Shropshire—no one, I imagine, would have proposed to touch the existing diocese of Hereford. The question that has to be considered is whether the advantages to the Church in

435
the whole area, and indeed in its whole life, to be derived from this Measure do not outweigh such loss as there may be in the reduction of the diocese of Hereford to a smaller size than I imagine most people would have desired if that were the only question at issue. But even apart from the gain to the Church in the other two areas, there is great advantage in there being some small dioceses. I do not at all advocate the general reduction of dioceses to a small size, but the Church of England is now very much more than a national body; it is a world-wide Communion with world-wide responsibilities, and the various departments of its life make a great claim upon its leadership.
There are various ways in which that claim can be met. The present method is to select a Bishop who has a diocese too large for his present attention and to ask him also to take charge of some vast department of the Church's work as well. That seems to me to be a method which no one is likely seriously to defend. Another is the method followed in the Roman Catholic Church of setting up a congregation and having heads of congregations who have no direct spiritual responsibility in the form of any cure of souls. Some of us have thought that one of the great advantages of the whole tradition of the Church of England is that it has refused to divorce administrative responsibility from direct spiritual concern with the cure of souls, and that this has kept us, on the whole, in more living touch with one another throughout the whole Communion and has made the discipline of the Church less mechanical and more spiritual.
But, if neither of those methods is to be adopted, the only other method in an Episcopal Church is that there should be some dioceses which do not claim the whole time and attention of their heads so that these may be enabled to take a larger share in the central affairs of the Church. And once that principle was understood the diocese in question would tend to gain, because it would be sure of the appointment of a man of first-rate ability to supervise its life—on the ground, partly, of the other responsibility which he was also to discharge. We have most urgent need for posts in which there can be diocesan Bishops sharing in the consultation of the Bishops who are able
436
to maintain genuine scholarship. I know that when such a belief is mentioned the diocese is likely to reply: "You mean us to be subjected to a whole succession of dry-as-dusts." That is the conception of scholarship which our national system of education has succeeded in implanting in the minds of most Englishmen, but not to speak of any who are now living. I have never heard that the diocese of Durham complained of having to submit to the rule of Lightfoot and Westcott, or that London found that Creighton's scholarship was a drawback. Those Bishops to whom the Church has had most reason to be grateful for their learning have been most eminently successful in diocesan administration.
There is one small mistake which is made very commonly and which it would be perhaps well to remove: that is the mistake of supposing, though I cannot imagine that any member of your Lordships' House would suppose, that the cathedral of Hereford is a financial burden upon the diocese. The cathedral is maintained from its own revenues and no penny of diocesan funds goes to the support of it.
The opposition to this proposal comes not from the diocese of Hereford, but from the County of Hereford. At one time it was proposed to exclude from the operation of the Measure fifteen parishes in the southern part of Shropshire. These were to be left in Hereford, but when asked for their opinion fourteen of them asked to be transferred to Shrewsbury. Therefore, whether we think of the Bishop's spiritual care of the diocese or of that great possibility of added vitality in the Church which is surely coming from the fuller participation of the people in the councils of the Church, parochial, diocesan and national, it seems to me that the balance is strongly in favour of the Measure, although I do not deny that there are real objections to it.
The case, it seems to me, may be summarised in this way. If passed it will bring great gain to the Church in Staffordshire and great gain to the Church in Shropshire; there will be some loss, though I believe it will be small, to the Church in Herefordshire, but even apart from the fact that this loss will be outweighed by the gain in the other two great areas, it seems to me that it will be more than compensated for by the

437
advantage to the Church of having such posts that a Bishop can occupy while maintaining the great traditions of scholarship or administering some great department of the Church's life. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Bishopric of Shrewsbury Measure, 195, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, although I believe a seconder is not necessary in this House, I should like with your permission to say a word or two in support of the proposal which we have just heard. There are three Counties mainly interested in this particular scheme: Staffordshire, Shropshire and Herefordshire. I am speaking as a layman of Staffordshire in the diocese of Lichfield and as such I should like to support this proposal as strongly as I possibly can. It will be argued, and perfectly fairly argued, that we in Staffordshire are very well off; that we retain our cathedral, which we look upon as one of the beauty spots of the diocese; that we retain our Bishop, and what is more retain him relieved of much of the old work that he has had to do and in a position to perform the duties of his high office with greater benefit to the diocese and greater satisfaction to himself. In addition to all this, we retain our history, and the history of the diocese of Lichfield is a very interesting one. The immortal Samuel Pepys tells us that on one famous occasion the Bishop of Lichfield, in the cathedral of Lichfield, in his own presence, was excommunicated by his Dean. I think that is a matter of Church history which is almost unique, and I think if it were possible nowadays the rather sombre life of the Cathedral Close would be considerably brightened. But those days are past. We do not excommunicate our Bishops. Some of us at least realise their value and appreciate the work they do, and when opportunity comes to relieve them of a portion of their over-work, we endeavour so to relieve them, as we are doing by this Measure.
I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with figures. We have had a good many issued on both sides, and I
438
do not doubt that when you received the notice from the Hereford side and read it through by itself you at once said: "This is unanswerable." When, however, you got the statement made by the other side, and read it by itself, you must equally have said that that was unanswerable. As it appears that there is a little difference of opinion as to how the respective figures have been drawn up, it is obvious that some explanation should be given. Now we have heard front the right rev. Prelate the advantages that will accrue to Staffordshire in the first place and to Shropshire in the second, and I think there is little or no doubt that both those Counties will be much benefited by the Measure.
I have read with great interest the debate that took place in another place recently, and to one statement that was made I must take exception at the earliest possible moment. It was said by the Member for Hereford that
"The people in the Staffordshire diocese had no interest in the matter except to get some relief for their Bishop, and it was merely a secondary thought to bring in Shropshire, which was suggested by the Bishop of Lichfield in order to put up a sort of smoke screen."
I resent a statement of that kind. My father for many years was one of the most consistent supporters of the Church in the diocese of Lichfield, and from the earliest days it has always been a question of the desirability—it was no more in those days than "desirability"—of relieving Lichfield of some of its work by the creation of a Bishopric of Shropshire. Therefore even in those days it was the accepted solution of a difficult problem.
Those who are opposed to this proposal here and in another place contend that Hereford will, from their point of view, be left too small, but they also add that there will be no relief to Lichfield. I think that the right rev. Prelate who moved the Motion in the first instance has shown very clearly that there will be considerable relief to Lichfield. The figures show that in the present. diocese there are 438 benefices, and in the new diocese there will be 330; therefore there will be a relief of 138 benefices. Now, the whole contention of the other side seems to be that relief depends entirely upon the population that will be withdrawn Nothing of the kind. Population

439
is, of course, important, but, as has been pointed out, accessibility to the centre of the diocese is also very important, and surely the number of benefices contained within it is also an important matter, which ought to be considered.
With regard to population, Staffordshire is a very thickly populated district, with two great centres of industry, one in the north in the Potteries, the unique possession of the County of Staffordshire, and the other in the Black Country, with Wolverhampton as its centre, where there is a very large population. Obviously if you were to scatter all that population in a country diocese, it would be a very difficult matter for the Diocesan to reach them all, but, as they are concentrated in large centres, the difficulty disappears. I have no doubt that my right rev. friend the Bishop of Lichfield will tell us what is the point of view of a Bishop with regard to the relief that he is going to get. I do not think that a layman can really say in what that relief consists.
During the debate in the House of Commons it appears that it was thought that, as it happened that by the present scheme the boundaries of three counties would be coterminous with their dioceses, there was a general idea of making that a principle. That is not so. As the right rev. Prelate has pointed out, there is a great deal of advantage in having your county boundary coterminous with your diocesan boundary for many reasons which will be perfectly obvious, and I own, myself, that the idea has a great attraction. It seems to me to be a good survival of the old feudal days of Church and State; we should see the Bishop of the diocese supported by his Suffragans at the head of the Church militant on the one hand, and the Lord-Lieutenant supported by his deputies at the head of the State pacific on the other. As I say, the idea has a great attraction, and I am sure it will be found to be of very great advantage in the working of the diocese.
I should like to refer to the question of the Church Assembly. In another place the hon. Member for Hereford made a rather extraordinary statement. He said he had been a member of the Church Assembly for five years, and that he was a member of the Sees Committee when
440
the question of the Shrewsbury diocese first came up. He said:—
"I was a member of the committee, and I found myself in a minority of one, and I think I remained in a minority of one the whole time. The whole way through the influence and weight of the committee appointed by the Assembly carried the Bill through stage by stage. Whenever it was referred back to another committee we found that to a great extent the influencing personnel were the same. I felt the whole time that the dice were loaded against me, if I may say so without meaning any offence, and there was no chance of obtaining a reversal of the decision originally come to."
I have had no experience of loading dice, but I have always understood that dice were loaded by unscrupulous minorities in order to endeavour to get round the objects of the majority. It seems to me to be rather a waste of time to load dice merely for the suppression of a minority of one. And I think really the case of the Member for Hereford was very much like that of the Scottish juryman, who complained that it was impossible to come to an agreement because all the other eleven jurymen were so obstinate.
I am not a member of the Church Assembly, but I am perfectly confident that the Church Assembly in considering these matters would never allow any personal sentiment or personal prejudice to interfere with any decision they might come to, which, we feel perfectly sure, would be in the best interests of the Church as a whole. I remember very well that when I first got into Parliament, which is now nearly fifty years ago, measures dealing with the Church had no chance of passing. They were in the same position as Private Members' Bills, and they had to go through the ordeal of the ordinary Private Members' Bills, with all the snags and quicksands which those have to encounter. Therefore, although many, if not most, of those measures were designed for the removal of blemishes on the constitution of the Church and, one would have thought, would have been generally supported, there were a good many members of Parliament at that day who were keenly interested in disestablishment and—realising I suppose that disestablishment would have a much better chance the more blemishes there were on the Church—there was very little prospect of getting any measure dealing with the Church through Parliament at all. Then came the Enabling Bill, and the Church

441
Assembly, whose duty it is to take over the preliminary stages of these measures, Parliament retaining its power in the long run of rejecting or accepting any proposal that is made.
I would suggest to your Lordships, as we have been told that all the possible alternatives have been considered over and over again by the Church Assembly, that every possible argument against this proposal has been heard, and that in the end they have come to the conclusion that the Measure that they have submitted to you for your approval is really the best in the widest interests of the Church. It is always difficult for the ordinary speaker to convey the impression he desires, but the impression I wish to convey to your Lordships to-day is this: We in Staffordshire rejoice at seeing the relief for which we have looked for so many years almost within our grasp; we are grateful to the Church Assembly for having brought it so close, and I do hope that the cup will not be dashed from our lips at the last moment by the rejection of this proposal. One fly in the ointment is the fact that, while we admittedly benefit, there is another diocese for which we have affection and respect which considers itself very hardly used. But let me express the hope that it will be found in the working that this prejudice is not so great as they fear and that the proposal which is now before your Lordships will prove to be really the best in the truest interests and welfare of the Church as a whole.
LORD FORESTER,LORD FORESTER, who had given Notice that on the Motion that the Bishopric of Shrewsbury Measure, 1925, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent, he would move, That the Measure be not so presented, said: My Lords, it is on behalf of the diocese of Hereford that I make this proposal, and before proceeding to place my arguments before your Lordships I should like to say, in view of what happened this day week in another place, that I have been assured by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that this Measure is an entirely non-Government Measure. Your Lordships are absolutely at liberty to vote how you like.
I speak as a Salopian. People call us "proud Salopians," and I am proud of being a Salopian, but I do not allow my pride in my county to permit me to do an
442
injury to anybody else. Proud as I am to be a Salopian, I am every whit as proud to have the honour of belonging to the ancient and historic diocese of Hereford. I am sorry that the protest against this Measure has not fallen to one more worthy than a humble back bench member of your Lordships' House; but having been boon and bred in the diocese of Hereford and having lived there all my life, I hope to be able to convince your Lordships that there is in that diocese the most genuine, the most wholehearted and the most uncompromising opposition to this Measure.
The diocese of Hereford consists of the County of Hereford and the southern portion of the County of Shropshire. It is a well-defined diocese. It is practically defined by two arms of the river Severn, one arm of the river Wye and, on the other side, it lies next to the Principality of Wales. The diocese has existed for 1,250 years in what is practically its present form and if this Measure is not passed through your Lordships' House we are hoping in May next to celebrate in a fitting mariner the 1,250th anniversary. I submit to your Lordships that before such an ancient and historic diocese as that of Hereford is forcibly and ruthlessly broken up some definite and cogent reasons should be given as to why it should be done. The only reason I have been able to discover is that it would be for the relief of the diocese of Lichfield. Yet the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, whom I am very glad to see in his place Liter his illness, said this at the summer session of the Church Assembly—that the purpose they had in view in the Measure was not the relief of any diocese or any Bishop, but the more efficient doing of the Church's work, and it was only because the relief of the diocese of Lichfield was a means towards that end that they cared about it at all. I venture most respectfully to disagree with the right rev. Prelate on both those points. Not only do I submit to your Lordships that he is in need of relief and that he urgently wants relief; but I also submit to your Lordships that it is not for the general good of the Church that he should obtain that relief by doing injury to any other portion of the Church, no matter how small it may be.
May I tell your Lordships that I speak as a Churchman, as a member of my

443
parochial church council, as a member of my ruri-decanal council, as a member of the diocesan conference of Hereford and as having been elected to the Church Assembly at the last election? I must say one word about that election. The diocese of Hereford sends six representatives to the Church Assembly. There were thirteen candidates for those six seats at that election. All the candidates put forward their views and five of the six who were elected to the Church Assembly were elected solely because of their opposition to this Measure. They not only showed their opposition openly to the electors of the diocese, but the Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire sent round a circular asking the electors of the diocese to vote for them. That shows, I think, the direction in which the local opinion of the diocese of Hereford leans.
The scheme for the formation of a Shropshire Bishopric first saw the light in 1888 when Bishop Percival was Bishop of Hereford. Conditions in those days were entirely different from conditions to-day. The Church of Wales had not been disestablished and Bishop Percival was hoping to develop to the west and south. But I am sure that in those days Bishop Percival would never have given his sanction to such a Measure as this. But the Measure wan brought, forward after the New Sees Committee had been appointed by the Church Assembly. Unfortunately for us in Hereford two or three members of that committee were very great protagonists for this Shropshire Bishopric scheme, and I have no doubt they were able to persuade the New Sees Committee, which in those clays consisted of men who were very keen on small dioceses, that the creation of this Shropshire Bishopric was a right and proper way of relieving the diocese of Lichfield.
The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, has mentioned the hon. Member for Hereford and has told your Lordships that he was in a minority of one on that New Sees Committee. He was in a minority of one on. that committee, and when he ventured to protest against this forcible expropriation of the diocese of Hereford, he was told: "It is no good your protesting at all; there is no opposition at all in Hereford. The Bishop of Hereford is in favour of the Measure." The Bishop of Hereford is their trump card, and I think
444
it was very well put in another place the other day when the same hon. Member for Hereford suggested that the Bishop of Hereford had been got at when he was a young and innocent Bishop. We of his flock, although we entirely exonerate him from any endeavour to sell his birthright for a "mess of pottage," cannot overlook the fact that he has offered to give half that birthright away, and to throw in a "mess of pottage," consisting of £400, which your Lordships, if you have studied this Bill, will see in Clause 3; and, being a man of honour, he cannot go back on what he has once given his word to. The Bishop of Hereford will no doubt speak, and tell your Lordships his views himself. He has told us already in Hereford that, although from a broad-minded point of view he will support this Measure, he will feel he has lost one of his hands if he does so. But I will leave him to tell your Lordships about that himself.
The proposed division of the diocese of Hereford was not really brought to our notice in the diocese of Hereford as a practical proposition until the Hereford diocesan conference in October, 1921. It was brought forward then, and the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who was still in his innocence, allowed one of the other side, one of the North Shropshire people—in fact, the secretary of this Bishopric Committee—to address that meeting on the favourable aspects of the Shropshire Bishopric. The result was that the meeting rejected almost unanimously the scheme offered of a Shropshire Bishopric, but they were so eager not to discountenance any idea of relieving Lichfield that they carried an amendment, with only nine dissentients, asking the New Sees Committee to take up the reconsideration of the scheme, with a view to relieving Lichfield without reducing the ancient see of Hereford to the limits of one of its arch-deaconries. In the Winchester case, when the noble Lord, Lord Daryngton—I do not know whether he is in his place to-night—was able to move that Measure, he told your Lordships that one of his principal arguments was that the Winchester diocesan conference had passed a scheme almost unanimously, with only six dissentients. Look at the difference. Winchester diocesan conference passes the scheme with only six dissentients;

445
Hereford diocesan conference rejects the scheme almost unanimously, with only eight assentors.
There were various meetings after that, but as the right rev. the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Earl Lord Dartmouth, have alluded to them, I will pass on to another Hereford diocesan meeting took place in 1924. The Church Assembly had then given the Measure their general approval, and so great was the resentment of the people of Hereford against that approval that at their diocesan conference I was asked to move, and did move, a resolution regretting the action of the Assembly in giving general approval to the Measure, at the same time adding a rider that with a view to the speedy relief of the diocese of Lichfield the conference reeommenchel that the archdeaconry of Salop should be temporarily transferred to the diocese of Hereford. That was carried by 191 votes to 67. Those are the only two occasions on which this Measure has been before the Hereford diocesan conference, and it was rejected by those enormous majorities. A week afterwards, on October 22, 1924, a great mass meeting was held at Hereford, convened by the Lord-Lieutenant and attended by the Mayor and nearly all the clergy in the diocese of Hereford. That meeting passed a resolution with only one dissentient against the proposed reduction of the diocese.
The Church Assembly saw there was this local opposition, and they thought it better to obtain more local opinion. They decided to obtain this local opinion by a plebiscite of the incumbents and of the parochial church councils on two alternatives—namely, A, the Measure as it is -now before your Lordships; and, B, the proposal to add the archdeaconry of Salop to the Hereford diocese. The most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York and the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham pleaded to that Assembly, and pleaded in vain, that if they were going to submit alternatives (and there was more than one alternative) they should place all the alternatives before all those who were going to vote upon them. But the Assembly thought differently. One might also have thought that in common fairness they would have asked for this plebiscite from the diocese of Hereford alone, as being the diocese chiefly
446
affected by this proposal to dismember it. The voting on the plebiscite then took place and, as was generally expected, the vote in the diocese of Lichfield was pretty unanimous for the Measure which is before your Lordships.
But I would point out that before that vote took place the diocesan conference held at Lichfield forestalled any parochial discussion that there might have been by deciding that no plan would conduce to the efficiency of the Church which would create a greater number of parishes than the Lichfield diocese contained. That eliminated altogether Scheme B, and only left Scheme A, or this Measure, upon which to vote. I will now give the figures of the vote in the diocese of Hereford The voting was 105 for the Shrewsbury Bishopric, and 207 for the amalgamation of the two counties, a majority of two to one against the Bishopric. Then the Measure was postponed for revision in the Church Assembly, till eventually it was passed in the summer session of 1925. After having been passed by the Church Assembly it went to the Ecclesiastical Committee, and I wish to point out that in the Committee's Report, which was in favour of the new Bishopric, it is stated: —
"The Measure does not prejudicially affect the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects and the Committee consider that it is expedient, that it should become law."
We wore quite ready in the diocese of Hereford to send up a petition to this Ecclesiastical Committee, but we did not know when it was going to sit. I submit to your Lordships that the Measures does prejudicially affect the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects in the diocese of Hereford. We were not even given a chance to lodge any protest whatsoever.
After that it went up to another place. The debate in noel her place occurred after eleven o'clock in the evening and there was not much chance for the Measure to be discussed at all. I attended the debate, because I wanted to hear what points were made for or against it, and I fortunately found my right rev. friend the Bishop of Hereford there. We sat together and listened to the debate. I had to wait some time before I could get up to the gallery, because there was a Division going on in the House of Commons and one has to wait until the

447
Lobbies are cleared. I saw two or three hon. Members whom I knew and could not help hearing remarks from others. Apparently, in the other place there were only two alternatives—one was: "Shall I go home to bed?" and the other "Shall I vote for Bridgeman's Bishop?" We all know that the First Lord of the Admiralty is a popular man, and deservedly popular. He is a great friend of mine. In fact, I have the honour to acknowledge that he is a connection of mine, and I hope that the fact of our not seeing eye to eye on this Measure will not prejudice our friendship. But I submit to your Lordships that this is not a question which should be solved on the popularity or not of an individual, however famous that individual may be.
The noble Earl has told you something about the debate, during which the hon. Member for Hereford, as he has said, moved the rejection of this Measure. I thought he moved it in a very moderate manner. He was supported by the non. Member for Oxford University (Sir Charles Oman) and several others, but there was a galaxy of talent in opposition. Not only the First Lord of the Admiralty but the ex-SolicitorGeneral, and last but not least the noble Lord, Lord Hugh Cecil, to whom we all look up in the Church Assembly. It was rather too late to use arguments at that time of night, but one argument of the First Lord of the Admiralty was that if the Bishopric of Shrewsbury was created the poor people of Shropshire would have a diocesan centre to which they could get. If the First Lord of the Admiralty's constituents are not too proud to come to us in Hereford they can have that diocesan centre to-morrow, whereas if this Measure is passed they will have to wait for several years. The ex-Solicitor-General, in a rather long legal argument, tried to put before us that Parliament should practically abrogate its authority over Church matters, a rather curious argument, I thought, to come from those Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Hugh Cecil, put one of the strongest arguments that I have heard, if you reverse the argument, against this Measure. In fact, he threw what I should describe as a boomerang. He said, and I think it is worth while quoting what he said:
"Do you really think you could shift the diocese against their will? If you take the
448
people from one bishopric and transfer them to the jurisdiction of another, it will create the same sort enthusiasm as was felt in the case of "Germany and Alsace-Loraine."
I submit to you that we do not want to force North Shropshire to come into Hereford if North Shorpshire does not want to do it, but you want to force South Shropshire out of the diocese of Hereford and to join her to this Bishopric of Shrewsbury. If you do that you will create exactly the feeling that the noble Lord described in the other place a week ago to-day.
I should like to refer briefly to a serious question which will arise in the Hereford diocese as regards finance if this Measure becomes law. The figures I have obtained from the secretary of the Hereford Board of Finance show that administrative expenses in the last financial year were £898—say £900—and income £7,900—say £8,000. Thus the expense ration is about 11 per cent. But if the diocese of Hereford is reduced to the County of Hereford its income will not exceed £5,000 and with the expenses as they are now the ratio would be 18 per cent., which is ridiculous for a small diocese such as Hereford would become. How do our opponents, the promoters of this scheme, propose that we should make up for the loss? There is a peculiar feature about the diocese of Hereford, together with those of Worcester and Gloucester. There is a very celebrated musical festival held triennially in each of these places, called the Three Choirs Festival, from which a grant is made annually to the widows and orphans of the clergy of the diocese. A member of the Assembly, in the summer session of 1925, proposed that we should take what we get from that festival—from £120 to £180—to make up the loss that the Hereford diocese would suffer from the taking away of South Shropshire. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that he was trying to rob the widows and orphans of South Shropshire. I am sure that he did it in ignorance, but I am quite certain that Hereford, even if it could, would not consent to this for one moment, and I do not think that the widows and orphans of the clergy in South Shropshire would appreciate it.
The further argument was used in the Assembly that it was necessary to put the Measure on the Statute Book, even if they could not raise the funds for a period of years, because the controversy

449
ought to be terminated. We also, in the diocese of Hereford, desire that the controversy should be terminated. We ask your Lordships to terminate it by voting against; this Measure, so that we can live and worship God in peace and so that our Bishop, instead of losing one of his hands, may even have that hand made stronger and that in this coming May he may be able to invite the most rev. Primate, as I believe is his intention, and our late rev. Father in God, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham, if they will honour us with their presence on that occasion, not to give us funeral orations but to give us addresses of rejoicing and thanksgiving for the deliverance of our ancient and historic diocese from the hands of the would-be despoilers. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Motion of which the noble Lord has given notice is not an Amendment but a direct negative. The right course for the noble Lord to adopt would be to vote against the Motion before the House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate who moved this Resolution made a speech of great ability and of great moderation. I ask your Lordships' permission to intervene for a few moments as one who for some short time had the honour of presiding over the Bishopric of Hereford. Such was the kindness and loyalty that I received from that diocese that I cannot regard without emotion any proposal which affects its future and its interests so deeply as does the Resolution which is now before your Lordships' House. It was admitted frankly enough by the right rev. Prelate that this Motion is in certain respects unique. This is the only occasion on which Parliament has been approached with a proposal to break up an ancient see without any pretence that the interests of that see will be advanced and in the teeth of the most determined and persistent opposition in the see itself. That circumstance alone is a matter of so much gravity that I think it alone might fitly determine the vote which your Lordships will give on this Resolution. I will at least advance this proposition in respect of it, that in the teeth of those unique circumstances the
450
reasons to justify breaking up the ancient diocese ought to be exceptionally strong.
May I interpose two remarks on the Bishopric of Hereford? It is at this moment, in point of population, absolutely the smallest diocese in England—Sodor and Man is, of course, smaller, but it may very fairly be left out of account. There is another circumstance concerning Hereford which is not perhaps so often borne in mind. Hereford has the distinction of having the very largest number of communicants in proportion to population of any diocese in England. I ask your Lordships to notice, therefore, that the proposal is not only to break up a very small diocese but to break up against its will a very efficient diocese. I am grateful to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, that he at least abstained from adopting a tone which has too often been observable in the discussion of this proposal. He at least did not suggest that those who are opposing the Resolution that he moved are any less than himself actuated by a desire to promote the spiritual interests of the Church. If, indeed, the considerations to which we have to call attention are comparatively pedestrian and humble, questions of finance, of area and the like, this does not for one moment affect the broad view that we are throughout following as our principal consideration—namely, the spiritual well-being of the diocese and of the Church. But there is no clear voice from on high to determine these practical issues as to what is best for the Church, whether a policy of large dioceses or of small ones. We have to creep our way towards a conclusion with such lights as we have and the conclusion that we finally reach as to the spiritual benefit will be a conclusion dictated by a great many contributory considerations which converge to a single end.
The reasons for this Measure are two, as the right rev. Prelate has indicated. There is the relief of the large diocese of Lichfield, and there is further—a point upon which he dilated—the desirability for many reasons of multiplying Bishops in the Church of England. With regard to the first point, I will not long detain your Lordships. There are at least four ways in which Lichfield can be relieved. You can add one or two Suffragans. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is that this proposal to add Assistant or Suffragan Bishops, as we call them,

451
should be summarily put aside as if it were not worthy of consideration. The method of Suffragans is not only a convenient and economical method but it has been the historic method, both before the Reformation and since, of administering the larger dioceses. Sixteen out of the thirty-eight dioceses of England, if my reckoning be right, and I think it is, have the assistance of Suffragans already. It is a most admirable system, as I can personally testify, having myself the advantage of a most excellent Suffragan. Then, again, you may add Northern Shropshire to the already small diocese of Hereford, and thereby, your Lordships will note, precisely the same extent of relief is given to the diocese of Lichfield as would be given if this proposed scheme were adopted. Again, you may make some other division of the diocese of Lichfield which would not leave it so extremely large and as it would be left if this proposal were adopted. Finally, there is the proposal before your Lordships' House, contained in this present Measure.
The proposal, I say, to enlarge Hereford by adding the rest of Shropshire would give precisely the same extent of relief to Lichfield as is now proposed. What is alleged against it? We are told that there is the county feeling of Shropshire and the distance of North Shropshire from Hereford. I am glad to observe that very little emphasis on the whole is being laid in this debate upon the county sentiment, for, indeed, it is an irrelevant consideration. The diocesan boundaries of England antedate by many centuries the county boundaries. The dioceses in England of which the limits are coterminous with county limits are very few—if my recollection be right, there are eight or nine, all of modern creation, in which the diocesan and county boundaries coincide. The general rule of the Church of England is that the diocesan boundaries do not coincide with the county boundaries. I put that consideration aside as of little value when properly looked at.
Then we are told that the distance from Hereford will be prohibitive. Distance is a waning argument. The means of communication, not merely for Bishops but for the humblest people in His Majesty's Dominions, are becoming so much greater every year that distance is an argument of relatively very slight value. As was pointed out by Lord
452
Forester just now, there is no reason why, by a simple practical expedient, diocesan gatherings should not be held in Shrewsbury as well as in Hereford. Then we are told, and this is the gravamen of the whole argument, that the Church Assembly Committee has considered the whole thing and that the Church Assembly itself has come to its decision—that all other schemes are rejected and we must accept the only scheme that is left. Here, I think, with great justice, the Hereford diocese feels that it is not being fairly treated. The committee did come to its task with a prejudiced mind already made up on the main question of multiplied dioceses. Undoubtedly the Church Assembly is in favour of multiplied dioceses and this is an appeal from the Church Assembly to Parliament.
Is that appeal legitimate? What is the meaning of our discussion if it is not? Why then should anybody object to an appeal of the aggrieved diocese of Hereford to the wisdom of Parliament to remedy what they feel to be a grave hardship? Some of the opponents of the Measure have been at no pains to conceal their views. I take the case of Lord Hugh Cecil. Nobody feels greater admiration than L feel for his distinguished character, his high devotion to principle and the great part which he has played in the ecclesiastical life of the country, but he is a man of strong conviction, and like most men of strong convictions he desires those convictions to prevail. He is a centraliser. He wants to have the Church of England governed, no doubt in the light of his wisdom, from the centre. I can imagine the noble Lord, as he contemplates that, muttering to himself an adage of ancient statecraft "Divide et impera."
Here I admit, quite frankly, that the fashion at present is to multiply Bishops, but I am old enough to have seen fashions in the ecclesiastical world rush like a Scottish river in spate and then a change has come. Not very long since it was the fashion to break up the larger parishes. Now the wisdom of Parliament is engaged in uniting parishes and I believe the time is not far distant when there will be a reaction against this multiplication of small Bishoprics. This policy of small Bishoprics is a survival of the policy of

453
the past. Archbishop Usher, in the seventeenth century, in an endeavour to propitiate the Puritans of that time proposed that the rural deanery should be the diocesan unit, and I think that the partisans of small Bishoprics, without knowing it, are harking back to that Puritan plan. The truth is that they are not quite certain what are to be the functions of a Bishop, whether he is to oversee or whether in the literal sense of the word he is to be a pastor.
I see that fantastic calculations are being made as to how long it will take a Bishop to visit and preach in every parish of his diocese. Those calculations leave me absolutely unmoved. This House is rich in men who have had great experience in administration, and I put it to them, whether it is not sound administration that a superior officer must not do the work of his inferiors but that there must be reasonable devolution of tasks in which each man must attend to his proper task. That is the only way in which efficiency can be secured. If a Bishop is himself to visit and preach in, every parish in his diocese then his under-officials are superfluous. The Bishop of Manchester advocated the multiplication of small dioceses on the general ground of the prospective needs of the Anglican Communion, and he pointed, with something like envy, I thought., to the Roman method of congregations, but I think he was mistaken as to the Roman principle which he had in mind. The Roman precedent which is being followed is that of creating Bishops in partibus Those considerations, I submit to your Lordships, are irrelevant to the present position. We are concerned with the Church of England, and with what is best for the Church of England, and these great questions must be solved independently. Then I want to ask your Lordships to look at the question of finance, although I almost do so with diffidence. I should have thought that it must be apparent to everybody that economy, not only in the State but in the Church, is in the present circumstances so necessary as to be almost of cardinal importance. If so, what is to be said of a proposal which, whatever other merits it has, is open at least to this objection, that it is a most costly and most extravagant method of dealing with the particular subject? I
454
should have thought that the Bishop of Lichfield would have been the last, person to be not concerned with that consideration. I have reports from newspapers of his Lordship speaking in this way. I gather from the Guardian that the Bishop of Lichfield writes in his diocesan magazine that:
"There is serious and pressing danger of our work being crippled for lack of means. Last year only 60 per cent. of the parochial quotas were paid"—
and the Bishop's appeal apparently brought in something like half what it was commonly expected to yield. And does he propose to alleviate this distressing financial position by superimposing a fresh demand of 850,000 on the diocese?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: Yes, he says. Well, I can only congratulate the country that he is not Chancellor of the Exchequer. But let us pass away from that financial digression. There are other needs far more urgent than the multiplication of Bishops which ought to claim the consideration of the Church of England. There are two in particular. The poverty of the clergy, in spite of all our efforts, is the worst handicap of the spiritual work of the, Church of England to-day, and to pour out money upon creating new Bishoprics when the poverty of the clergy is as cruel as it is, is to my mind a wholly indefensible proposition. Then again, the Church of England is suffering desperately from the poverty of the intellectual equipment of its clergy, and we are compelled to recruit for ordination from sections of the people who have very poor educational opportunities, so that the task of equipping those men for the work to which they are devoted becomes more, urgent and more costly. If I had to choose between those three great spiritual objects—the creation of a new Bishopric, or the due payment of the working clergy, or the duo education of ordination candidates—I should without hesitation say that both the two latter have superior claims.
But it is said—and I have no doubt his Lordship in due course, when he intervenes, will say it—"Oh, but to create a new Bishopric is to open new streams of Anglican liberality and to

455
raise more money than could in any case be obtained without the new Bishop." I believe that expectation is built upon a double fallacy. First of all, it carries over from certain notable examples of the past a precedent which is probably not applicable to this case. Where there is a great city you have a sentiment—shall I call it municipal pride, municipal self-respect, or what you will?—and if you can yoke that sentiment to a project of episcopal expansion you do, no doubt, have access to an amount of money which mere considerations of spiritual benefit or duty would not influence. But in this case you have not in Shropshire any such great city. You have a County—from what I know of the County of Hereford I expect it is much the same in the County of Shropshire—which is financially very hard hit, and is not at all in the, position of being able to raise large sums for any new object.
And the other reason is this—and I say it with regret and pain. There has been a great change in the attitude of the English people towards the Church of England. Thirty years ago, when great Bishoprics like Liverpool, Newcastle, and Birmingham were created, the Church of England was still, and was proud to be, the Church of England, the great national Church. To-day it is increasingly denominational, increasingly it is thinking of itself and for itself, and, though I do not question the sincerity and the zeal which this narrower loyalty inspires, I do say that it is a great weakening and shrivelling of the Church's influence. I do not believe that the appeals put forward to-day from the Church Assembly—which has with due modesty changed its name, and no longer affects to call itself the National Assembly, but the Church Assembly—will have the same effect as those of former times. This proposal comes forwards at a singularly unfortunate time. The number of working clergy in the Church of England is falling dramatically. This year it will have fallen by something like 300 or 400 clergymen, and that process shows as yet no sign of ceasing. Is this the time, then, when the rank and file of the clergy are rapidly diminishing in numbers, to multiply superior officers? Surely the proposal is in itself most untimely, even if in itself it be wise.
456
The opposition of Hereford is, as far as I can judge, as nearly a unanimous opposition of the whole community as you could imagine. Now the strength of the Church of England in the past has been its local attachments and loyalties. There is as we are often reminded, no corporation of the Church of England known to the law, but a congeries of corporations—corporations parochial, corporations diocesan, and so on, which together make up the Church of England. As I look back over the years of the ministry which I have had the honour to fulfil In the Church of England—and if I live to next year that ministry will have lasted for forty years—as I look over those forty years there is no circumstance which afflicts me with more sorrow and consternation than the widening of the breach between the Church of England and the people. Is this the way to do something to bridge that chasm, when the whole population are really concerned and moved over an ecclesiastical proposal? Is this the way to remedy that deplorable tendency? Surely the case of Hereford, when you look at it, is irresistible. And so I ask your Lordships on all these grounds, financial grounds, local grounds, sentimental grounds, all converging to the supreme issue of spiritual influence, to reject this measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, it is not a very easy matter to follow my brother, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and I shall not attempt the splendid rhetorical flights to which he has treated us, but shall deal in a plain and simple manner with some of the immediate facts that we have to face with regard to this proposed Measure. First of all, I want to say that this is not a question between big Bishops and little Bishops, or big dioceses and dioceses in the abstract. It is simply a question of one particular case. And I think it is universally agreed by those who know the facts—the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, has stated it pretty plainly—that the diocese of Lichfield ought to be much smaller than it is. I avoid the expression that it needs relief, because I do not want to come pleading to your Lordships in forma pauperis that I am a much over-worked man and want to be relieved of part of my job. I do not regard it in that way at all. As long as I have to try and administer an impossibly big diocese I shall do it to the best of my ability.

457
But the point is this, that in the interests of the efficiency of the work of the Church things are not being properly done in the diocese of Lichfield, and I am grateful to the Bishop of Durham for having pointed out the financial position of the diocese at this present moment. It is perfectly true that I pointed out in the diocesan magazine that the financial position is deplorable, and I put down that financial failure in very large degree to the unwieldy character of the diocese. I believe that if and when Staffordshire has a Bishop to itself and Shropshire has a Bishop to itself the work of the dioceses will progress so favourably, and the interest in religious matters generally and in the work of the Church in particular will so greatly increase, that our financial difficulties will be removed.
On this point I should like to deal with what was said by the right rev. Prelate on the subject of finance. I am rather surprised that he should have done so, but he seemed to assume that the amount available for religious purposes in general, and for the purposes of the Church of England in particular, is a fixed quantity, and that if you give so much more for the endowment of a Bishopric you have so much less for helping the poor clergy or for the training of candidates for the ministry. I should have thought that no one would have known more surely than the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham, that there is no such fixed amount, and that everything depends upon what people are interested in. If people are interested in football they will spend £5,000 in gate money at one big match. I am not blaming them a bit; they do it because they are interested in it, and when people's interest in and their care for the Church and what it stands for is increased and intensified the money will be forthcoming. That has been proved to the hilt by experience.
I notice that the Lord Bishop of Durham deprecates allusion to previous new Bishoprics. He says that Liverpool and Birmingham were founded a long time ago when the whole attitude of people to these matters was different. How about the diocese of Sheffield, which was founded only twelve years ago? I cannot think that the attitude of English people in general towards the Church has so changed during the past twelve years as
458
to make the Sheffield precedent irrelevant. Any one who knows that diocese—I worked in the diocese of York for some time—will know that money for Church purposes, including the poor clergy, has been forthcoming in far greater abundance since the new diocese of Sheffield was established. Then the right rev. Prelate says that in that case there is the pride of some municipality to back it up. What about the pride of the county? I do not know anything greater than the pride of the Salopian in his County and I think that the people of Staffordshire have the same pride in their County. I believe that is quite as strong a motive as municipal pride and I have lived in Liverpool and I know something of what municipal pride can be. Therefore I think that the financial argument breaks down. If it could be proved that by raising money for a new Bishopric you were lessening the amount of money available for the improvement of clerical stipends, I should think for some time before recommending such a Measure as this. But I am convinced that the greater the interest we can arouse the more readily will money be forthcoming for the objects.
The right rev. Prelate who moved the Motion pointed out that it is not only a question of the Bishop being able to get round his diocese—and in spite of the Lord Bishop of Durham, I think it is rather a good thing for a Bishop to get round his diocese. I can get round my diocese pretty well. I will not say exactly how long it takes me to travel the forty-three miles from Lichfield to Shrewsbury because might get my chauffeur and myself into trouble; but I can get to Shrewsbury very easily in my motor-car. But what is the position of Shrewsbury people who have to get to our diocesan centre for diocesan business? Your Lordships must realise that the last ten years have seen an enormous increase in the interest of members of our Church in the administration of the Church. The parochial church councils have done a great deal in that direction. It is people of the poorest class who in many ways are the most interested and I am thankful to say that they occupy a place—I wish it was a larger one—on our parochial church councils and diocesan conferences. It is all very well to talk of travelling from Oswestry to Stafford by motor-car, but everyone has

459
not a, motor-car, and in spite of what his Lordship of Durham said our railways and motor omnibuses are not improving to such an enormous extent as to render it easy for poor people to make the journey. I may point out that the journey from Oswestry to Stafford is an expensive one for a poor man. I want, therefore, to make it clear that in pleading for the creation of this new diocese we are thinking not simply of helping the Bishop to do his work better, though that is important, but of enabling the representatives of the diocese to take their proper and constitutional share in the work of the diocese.
I pass now to what is, of course, the great difficulty in this matter—the position of the diocese of Hereford. I speak with all possible respect for and sympathy with my neighbours in that diocese. If it were proved that real substantial injury and not merely injury of a sentimental kind were being done to that ancient diocese, I should hesitate very much in pressing for this Measure. We have heard a great deal about the injury that will be inflicted in Hereford by reducing its size. I cannot quite understand what the injury is supposed to be. It may be said that the Bishop will not have enough to do, and I think that my brother of Manchester has given a perfectly good answer to that. But I wonder whether it has occurred to noble Lords why people from more or less distant dioceses are hardly ever in their places in this House. It is not because we do not take an interest in the business of the House. It is simply because the work we have to do in our big dioceses makes it absolutely impossible for us to be here. As the right rev. Prelate has said, if it is worth while to have a few Bishoprics where scholars can perform their scholarly work and men can do work of special interest for the Church, it is worth while also to have a few dioceses the Bishops of w1hich can attend to their duties in your Lord-ships' House. I wish I had a diocese with 200 parishes in it because I could really get something done.
That brings me to another very crucial point. When we are talking about the size of dioceses and the difficulties of administering them, a great deal is said about the population. I am not saying that the population is not an important
460
item, but I say with some experience as a diocesan Bishop and as a Suffragan that what makes a Bishop's work difficult is not the number of heads in the population of a diocese, but the number of parishes and especially the number of clergy in it. A small country parish can give a Bishop as much trouble and occupy as much of his time as a big centre of population. Your Lordships will pardon me a personal word or two. All my experience as a parish priest was in big towns and I certainly look at these things from the point of view of the big towns. But my thirteen years at Lichfield have taught me not to despise the country parish. I believe that the strength of the Church of England lies very largely in our country parishes and it is as important for the Bishop to attend to them as it is for him to attend to the towns. There is very little more work in confirming 200 candidates in a big church in a town in the Potteries than in confirming 20 in a small church in a country village. As I have already said it is not the population of the towns that makes the difference to a Bishop, but the number of parishes and clergy. And it is the area of a diocese which affects its administration and renders it easy or difficult for representatives to get to and from the centre. The area of Herefordshire is considerable—very nearly a thousand square miles.
If the Bishop does not suffer harm from having a small diocese, where does the harm come in financially? The noble Lord, Lord Forester, mentioned that the administrative expenses would be very much the same. I do not think they would be. In some respects I think they would be lessened. I should like to correct what I think is a misapprehension with regard to what some advocates of the Measure said in respect of that £200 from the Three Choirs Festival. I do not think they have for a moment suggested that this £200 should be taken away from the widows and orphans. What they said was this, that hitherto £200 had been given from the proceeds of that festival to the Shropshire part of the Hereford diocese, and that if Shropshire becomes a new diocese this £200 will come back to Hereford. That will mean that the Hereford part of the diocese will not have to give so much as it has hitherto given to that particular purpose if the £200 were available from the Three Choirs

461
Festival. The money the diocese has given for that same purpose will not be wanted in the same way. That is what was meant. But if there is a financial loss it will not be more than £300 at the outside apparently, and that does not seem a very serious matter
I recognise what the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham says with regard to the excellence and efficiency of the Hereford diocese. Their record with regard to their communicants and the work of the parishes is an excellent record, but I cannot see that that record will in the least suffer, or the efficiency of the work in any way diminish, if South Shropshire goes with North Shropshire to form a new diocese. I do not think the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham was quite right when he said that there was virtually a unanimous opinion from the Hereford diocese in the plebiscite, to which I will allude in a moment. Fifty-four per cent. of the parishes in the Ludlow archdeaconry of the Hereford diocese voted in favour of the Shropshire Bishopric—a clear majority—and even twenty per cent. in Herefordshire were on the same side. It was not unanimous. I can quite recognise the very strong sentimental objection that there is, and I think we have to weigh that natural sentiment as against the real efficient working of the Church in that big Midland area.
Now I wine to the alternatives. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham suggested that there were plenty of alternatives, and asked why did not we adopt one of them. First, with regard to Suffragan Bishops. I have one advantage over my brother the Bishop of Durham. He never was a Suffragan Bishop, I have been one. I think I spent three of the happiest years of my life as Suffragan Bishop to the Archbishop of York. I learned a great deal about a Bishop's job. It was a happy time. I had lots of pleasant things to do, and whenever anything unpleasant had to be done I had to push it on to the broad shoulders of my Bishop. He dealt with it. A Suffragan cannot deal with matters of discipline and so on. They have to go on to the shoulders of the diocesan Bishop. I hope I relieved my Diocesan of a certain amount of his work, but I did not relieve him of a great deal of his responsibility. Now I
462
have the happiness of having a brother, who is in every way a brother, the Bishop of Stafford, as my most excellent Suffragan. I do not know what I should do without him. But having a Suffragan like that simply means that there is more work being done. It does not mean a great relief to the Bishop of the diocese. And this is the important thing, however many Suffragans you have you do not with these overgrown dioceses get rid of the difficulty of getting your representative laity from the different parts of the diocese to the centre. That is the real difficulty that we have to deal with.
There is the alternative of putting the whole of Shropshire and Herefordshire together and forming one enormous diocese. What does that mean? You talk about relieving the Bishop of Lichfield. You want to save the Bishop of Lichfield's life, but perhaps it is not much good saving the Bishop of Lichfield's life in order that you may kill the Bishop of Hereford. I know that my brother of Hereford very likely will say that he is equal to managing such an enormous area. He is a young and a vigorous man, and I know he would do the best he could, but wait till he gets as old as his brother of Lichfield. He may then think differently about it. In all seriousness, five hundred parishes are too many for one diocese, and you are only removing one anomaly to create an anomaly even greater. As for the area to be covered, if you do have your second diocesan centre at Shrewsbury, and it succeeds, it seems to me it will only show how very much better it would be to have had a separate diocese as well.
I think your Lordships know that there was a plebiscite of the whole of the two dioceses concerned. With regard to this proposed alternative the figures were very clear. They were: for the Shrewsbury Bishopric, 499; for the alternative of the united new diocese, 238; majority for the Shrewsbury Bishopric, 261. In Shropshire the figures were: 196 in favour of a Shropshire Bishopric and 69 against. In Hereford the figures were: for the Shropshire Bishopric, 34; for the new joint diocese, 46. As for the meeting that dealt with the question of alternatives, it had for its chairman a former member of this House whose death we all lament, the late Bishop of Southwell, one of the best you

463
could find. Seven of the representatives came from Lichfield, twelve from Hereford, and seventeen from outside. I am quite certain that that committee had the greatest possible desire to deal with the whole matter fairly, and they decided that this alternative scheme was really a hopeless scheme.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham says that there are other ways out. It is very easy to say that, but those who are on the spot, and have gone into it, pretty carefully, cannot see any other way out. I think your Lordships will see this. If you throw out this Measure—I hope you will not—then you may possibly have this alternative scheme put before you. You will then hear something about forcible expropriation. You will forcibly expropriate 144 parishes of North Shropshire, taking them from a diocese to which they do now belong and putting them into another diocese to which they do not want to belong. I do not think that would he a method which would commend itself to your Lordships. I have spoken perhaps at unnecessary length after the excellent speeches that we have had. I hope your Lordships will pass this Measure, not simply that you may relieve the diocese of Lichfield, but that you may enable the work of the Church of God to be more efficiently done in this great and important. area of the Midlands, so that we may do our part there, as we want to do it, not simply for the good of the community there but also for the good of all people to whom the Church of Christ appeals.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I will only keep your Lordships three minutes, but I must take this opportunity of speaking on behalf of the laity of Hereford. Herefordshire is badly represented in your Lordships' House. Had it been better represented I can assure you that nothing would have induced me to take part in a debate which has not only interested us but kept many of your Lordships in their places. The fact remains that the laity of the County of Hereford have the greatest sympathy with Lichfield. There is no doubt whatever that it needs relief. There is also no doubt that the Bishopric of Shrewsbury would be a very ideal, if somewhat costly, addition to the episcopacy of this country. But, on the other hand, it has been thought to be curious that part of the present diocese
464
of Hereford, that part in the County of Hereford, should be against this Measure, and that the part in Shropshire should be for it, or not totally against it. It is perfectly clear that that little portion of Shropshire, it is really half the County, which now belongs to Hereford, is happy in either case. It is happy in the present diocese. It is not going to be left alone in any other diocese that may be formed.
But, on the other hand, the County of Hereford is going to be left very much on its own. Is it curious that it should want to protest as forcibly as possible againt the taking away of its brother in South Shropshire? I have not the ability to talk in detail about the various considerations so ably put before you by the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham and the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and by the mover of the Measure. I only wish to tell you that the laity of Hereford are dead against this Measure. They form a very large part of this diocese and it will be totally and absolutely against their will if this Measure is passed.
TEE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position. If I spoke according to my personal liking I should be one of the opponents of the Measure. If I were to voice the opinion of the greater part of the diocese I should take the same course. I do not think I need elaborate that point. Opinion in the County of Hereford is almost unanimous. Opinion in the south part of Shropshire is about evenly divided. There is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the House. It is this, that in the removal of South Shropshire from the diocese of Hereford to the new diocese of Shrewsbury a very large proportion of those removed would be removed with their consent. At least between 50 and 60 per cent. of the population has signified its approval through the Church Council. I think the inclusion of Staffordshire in the plebiscite gave a somewhat wrong view of the whole situation. Church people in the County of Hereford are in this position. They felt that if this Measure is passed they would either have an overpaid and underworked Prelate, or they would see too much of him, and they voted very largely against the division, I think, on that account.

465
The diocese will be very much on the small side, and I do think that that ought to be taken into account in the consideration of the matter by your Lordships, but I am bound to say that viewing the position as a whole I am prepared to vote for this Measure. It has been said that I was caught young and that I was caught when I was ignorant of the situation, but I would ask your Lordships whether it is not better to form an opinion on a dispassionate view before controversy is raised. I had the opportunity of looking the matter before controversy was raised, and no new facts have been brought to light. I therefore appealed to the diocese of Hereford to suffer gladly for the good of the Church as a whole, and I ask that that interpretation should be put upon my action. I cannot follow the example of the right rev. Prelate, my predecessor in the see, in his opposition. I believe it is not altogether improper to quote Latin in your Lordships' House, and therefore I would say that. I think of him as saying:Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo, which I think may be interpreted as: "If I cannot get my way in the Church Assembly I will try my chances in another place."
I want to make it perfectly plain that the Church Assembly did take very great pains over this Measure. It considered it more often and at greater length than any other Measure and after that painstaking consideration I think I am amply justified in my position. Taking the area as a whole, I think the Measure provides for an improvement on the present situation. You have at present an unwieldy diocese. In that diocese you have in North Shropshire a geographical excrescence. By this Measure you remove that excrescence and reduce its field to a workable area. The Measure creates an almost ideal diocese in the County of Shropshire, with the county town as a centre. It does reduce Hereford to a size which I believe, in comparison with the other dioceses, to be one which will raise very serious difficulties, but it will not make the diocese unworkable. Against the present arrangement with an unwieldy diocese you will get two easily workable dioceses and one which, though small, is not unworkable. On that ground think this Measure is
466
worthy the support of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to begin the few remarks I have to address to you by commenting on the words that fell from the noble Earl who laid stress upon the fact that the Ecclesiastical Committee have found no fault with this Measure in sending it to Parliament. So far as the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee goes, my impression is that its duty is to prepare the matter for Parliament and in no case to replace the decision of Parliament. Therefore the matter conies before your Lordships to-day as an open and undecided matter so far as you are concerned.
I must take this opportunity of correcting a little misapprehension which was expressed on the part of the most rev. Primate, when the Diocese of Winchester (Division) Measure was under discussion. The most rev. Primate made these remarks about a speech that I had made on a previous occasion. He said:
"The Bishop of Norwich, the other night, quoted Archbishop Benson's advocacy of large dioceses as an argument against this proposal, as though he had ever said or thought that the argument in favour of large dioceses as against small ones was an argument against all division. Any one who would refer to the words as quoted by the Bishop of Norwich the other day will see how carefully guarded they are."
The words that I quoted made it perfectly evident to any one who had heard or read them that I was following the lead of the great Archbishop, and he spoke—I will quote the words in a moment—in the sense that, though divisions might be desirable, yet one, must not go too far.
These are Archbishop Benson's words:—
"I continued to press the Church to keep it diocesan centres very strong, not comminuting their resources, not reducing the size of the dioceses so that the strong influence of each ceases to radiate through all."
Then, referring to the contrary policy, he added:—
"Vigour and character were not in hand for so many posts of leaders. The old policy of England must be nowhere forgotten, that sub-division should cease"—
of course, that does not say that subdivision should never begin—
"before dioceses became too small for the influence of each to radiate through all,

467
before the administration anywhere becomes so narrow as to represent only local patriotism."
I think your Lordships will agree that the proposal before us is to reduce the diocese of Hereford below the water-line marked by Archbishop Benson, and I am glad to have the opportunity to-day of reminding your Lordships of his exact words as they stand regarding sub-division—and the inadvisability of the proposed division.
I think very little good comes of using peremptory language against those who favour the old English system of large dioceses. It is often said that Bishops of large dioceses prefer to act upon their prestige, as being important men in the Church, in contrast with the humility of the Bishops in smaller dioceses, but I do not think for a moment that in practice this consideration really carries any weight. Perhaps it is the bigness of the men that matters more than the bigness of the diocese. Bishop John Wordsworth of Salisbury, by whom I was ordained Deacon and Priest and consecrated Bishop, was against the division of his diocese, saying—and this is a point that has not yet been raised in these debates—that it was equally important that the Bishops should know one another as brothers as that they should know the clergy. By this, no doubt, he meant that if we are to have unity and coherence in the Church of England it will be largely promoted by common counsels among the Bishops, and this becomes impossible when the number of Bishops is so great that they represent rather a board than a brotherhood. And yet I can remember hearing the noble sermon that was preached by the most rev. Primate in Salisbury Cathedral when he mentioned that this great Bishop was able to give as accurate an account of any matter concerning his diocese as any Bishop of whom he ever made inquiries. So well did the Bishop of this large diocese know every detail, that he was a pattern of efficiency, and we are all aware of the splendid work that he did for scholarship in this very large diocese. I think that we may set this against the hopes and the prophecies of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I do not believe for a moment that the foot rule of the number of candidates for
468
confirmation, and so on, proves that active spiritual life is greater in small dioceses than in large ones. If in large dioceses you have two confirmation centres in every rural deanery, that surely must be fully adequate to the convenience of the candidates. I have been Bishop of an undivided diocese and of a divided diocese. In both I came to think that the true vigour of the Church comes through spiritual and devoted clergymen and not from the multiplication of church officers and committees which more numerous dioceses necessarily involve. It is the self-sacrificing lives of the clergy themselves that count for most, and there are many ways of cheering them on in their work, open to Bishops of large dioceses or of small dioceses, and they are helped more by such encouragement than by constant interference as if they were not able and efficient to stand by themselves.
I am delighted that my right rev. brother, the Bishop of Durham, alluded to the fact that in large dioceses, as is so frequently forgotten, it is much easier to keep the Bishop in the background when he ought to be kept in the background. Constantly when I am quite at leisure and have plenty of time I ask the advice of the wise Rural Dean of the district as to whether a particular complaint is such that it ought to come to my notice. I know that if it is brought to my notice this will make a big thing of it, and perhaps start a party and a rift in the parish, whereas if a few friendly words spoken by the Rural Dean can deal with the situation no quarrel arises. But in a tiny diocese, as the diocese of Hereford will become, being simply the same size as the archdeanery of Hereford, one really does not see how there is room for devolution and people will say to the Archdeacon of Hereford that they must have the personal opinion of the Bishop in such a small diocese.
The one thing that has emerged in the years since we took to this rapid division of dioceses is this. The proposal has been put forward that the smaller dioceses should pool their finances and that the Bishops of them should pool their patronage. This is a. kind of contradiction of the very idea of the formation of small dioceses. If they cannot pool together in this way, we shall be soon he out for a Measure for the union of Bishoprics. For a Bishop to know in-

469
timately every member of the lay flock of his diocese is obviously quite impossible. For this to be the case you must divide every diocese by twenty, thirty or fifty. It is a matter of degree, and, if one presses Bishops who defend small dioceses by asking if they really mean that they get to know every layman in their diocese, of course they admit at once that it is an impossibility.
More generally I believe that whether a Bishop knows his clergy well in their churches and their homes depends less upon their number than upon his own power of observation, his memory, his breadth of heart and his paramount determination in spite of central engagements, to stick close to his diocese. I believe very strongly in the personal touch, and no Bishop of a large or small diocese will be content if he is not constantly visiting different churches and flocks. Simplicity—not prelacy—and sympathy will carry the day, and thanks to the means of getting about, to which the Bishop of Durham alluded, we are getting closer to one another every day. I fully believe in the human touch of fellowship, and I believe that this depends far less upon the area to be covered than on the personality and habits of the Bishop; for in the advancement of the Kingdom of God, the erection of new machinery for new and smaller Bishoprics will not go nearly so far as having a Bishop with a big heart. We are in a real danger, not so much of petty dioceses but of a petty spirit of exclusive diocesanism, and the increasing number of Bishoprics has already made the Church of England less coherent in its aims and outlook.
New dioceses, of course, there must be. I took pains to be present to speak against the division of the Bishopric of Winchester, but I supported the case of the Bishopric of Derby. This is a different case to all others. Here we are compelling a Bishopric to divide itself. No one who listened to my brother of Hereford just now could think that he was very enthusiastic over the proposal, and it has already been pointed out to your Lordships that precisely the same relief could be given to the Bishop of Lichfield if the Bishop of Hereford took the northern as well as the southern part of Shropshire. We should get the Bishop of Lichfield relieved in that way to precisely the same extent. We need not
470
break up the diocese of Hereford, and we should not add one more see to the Church of England. I venture to put these remarks briefly before your Lordships, and I should be extremely sorry if you supposed that the Bishop of Durham was the only Bishop who still supported the ancient practice of the Church of England. I am heart and soul with him in the belief in these large dioceses, which have great capacities of their own denied to the little Bishoprics.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have no personal inclination to take part in this discussion to-night, after all that has been said, but I find it is expected, and perhaps reasonably expected, that I should say something upon a matter upon which there is so marked and wide a difference of opinion. Happily, the statistical and geographical details have been already handled by those closely and competently conversant with them all, and I need not touch upon those matters in their detail. Your Lordships who have listened carefully to the discussion, and who have read the papers which have been circulated, probably have had no difficulty in owning to a judgment as to where the balance falls in regard to these details, geographical, financial or statistical. You will admit that opportunities have certainly been given for having the facts properly marshalled to-night. Nobody who has listened to the speeches, or read the papers, can have any doubt that the two sides to the proposal have been placed before us, and that strong and weighty arguments can be used upon either side. We have had those strong and weighty arguments put before us to-night by men peculiarly qualified and peculiarly entitled to put them before us.
To take the episcopal speeches only, the Bishop of Manchester holds the position of Chairman of what is called the New Sees Committee in the National Church Assembly, and in that capacity he speaks with unique weight and authority upon a subject of this sort. On the other hand we have had from my brother, the Bishop of Durham, a speech of characteristic force, eloquence and cogency, which he is peculiarly entitled as well as qualified to give from the fact that he was Bishop of Hereford for several years. I have listened to the

471
speeches with great care, although I was already fairly familiar with the subject. I appreciate the weight of the arguments brought forward by the Bishop of Durham, and with some of them I think I entirely agree, though by no means all of them, because I think he went off upon some generalities, upon which I should rejoice to have an opportunity of combating what he said.
To my mind his arguments fail to outweigh the facts adequately put before us by the Chairman of the New Sees Committee, who reminded us of the care with which the matter again and again has been discussed in the Assembly, which has sent up to us for our consideration—not necessarily adoption—a report as to the conclusion which the Assembly reached. I do not remember, in the course of the Assembly's life in its present, form, any subject which has been more thoroughly debated and re-debated, referred back and discussed afresh, than this particular subject, and it is impossible to forget the amount of attention that was given to it by those qualified to do so before the Assembly came to vote.
It is upon the vote of the Assembly and its bearing upon what we are doing to-night that I desire to say a few words. When, seven years ago, it was my privilege to stand here and propose the Second Reading of what was called the Enabling Bill, upon which the whole procedure now being followed is based, I ventured to stress the point that in bringing about this new legislation we were not taking away the power of Parliament to decide things for themselves. Not only is the power of Parliament left unimpaired, but we made it as clear as possible that in the actual procedure to be followed Parliament has the final word. I had hoped that that was quite clear when I was introducing the Bill, but it was challenged at the time by Lord Haldane and Lord Birkenhead, and I therefore accepted an Amendment, moved on their behalf, that the clause should take the form in which it now appears—namely, that there should be a Resolution by each House of Parliament before a Measure could become law. Therefore let no one say we are asking Parliament to give up its right and power of considering properly for itself any one of these proposals which come before us.
I stressed that at the time the Bill was introduced. I adhere absolutely to what
472
I then said, and I fail entirely to follow my brother of Durham, who appeared to me to say that we were being asked to-night to waive the power of Parliament, and to make submission to the Assembly without the right of thinking for ourselves. No one, so far as I know, has ever challenged our right to think this matter out, to vote for it, and to speak for it in this House, but obviously the degree of information which we possess entitling us to judge for ourselves on the particular vote that we are to give on these ecclesiastical matters will considerably vary according to the nature of the subjects which come before us and the amount of consideration that has been given to them. We have passed through Parliament in all during these years—and this is rather a surprising feat, considering what was prophesied at the time seventeen different Measures, and while I venture to say that every one of them is now accepted by almost everybody as right, hardly any one would have passed if we had not had the Act which gave us that power.
It has worked extremely well, but this is to be noted about it. The Measures are to be divided into two categories. There are those which deal with large general questions concerning the Church's life as a whole and concerning parish life, urban or rural, as a whole. These are subjects upon which every member of your Lordships' House or of the other House of Parliament is perfectly competent to make up his own mind from the general knowledge he has of our social and ecclesiastical surroundings, and to vote according to the conclusions to which he naturally has been led. There are such matters as the formation of parochial church councils and the powers they are to have, or the manner in which the laity are to be represented in diocesan gatherings and the like, and the way in which they are to be elected and the procedure that is to be followed. Or, again, the union of benefices. Is it, or is it not, a good thing to unite benefices together? Ought a general Measure to be passed for promoting that end? There are many more such questions—even dilapidations, though it sounds a dull subject, is one which concerns a great many other people besides the clergy, and one upon which any member of either House of Parliament is absolutely, not only entitled, but

473
probably qualified to have an opinion, and to give his vote accordingly. On those subjects I should regret extremely were this House or the other House to fall into the mistake of supposing that, because a matter has come, up from the Assembly, recommended by the Assembly or its Legislative Committee, they were therefore bound to vote for it. I do not think so at all. En this debate I think that, every member of this House is entitled to have his opinion.
But I have stated that the Measures fall into two categories. Those of a general kind are undoubtedly matters upon which we are all entitled and competent to form an opinion for ourselves, and I welcome the discussion of such questions in the House. The more they are discussed the better. I think it is a remarkable fact that we have had almost entire unanimity in passing hitherto the various Measures which have conic up. That has not been because they have not been explained and considered, but because they have conic up after reasonable discussion and are presented here in a. reasonable way.
Then there is another class of Measure, which deals with ecclesiastical, or geographical, or statistical details of some kind, of which it is almost impossible for any one, unless he will give full time and attention to the subject, realty to understand the ins and outs sufficiently well to be able to judge for himself and independently whether this proposal or that is the better one. There are a large number of such Measures. Take the re-arrangement of the lectionary—a matter which concerns everybody, indeed, but extremely technical, and requiring an amount of detailed study to which few ordinary members of the House would be able to give the time. Or take the question of the exact power and rights of the Ecclesiastical Commission as to the disposal of the money placed in its hands as a trust, or the exact mode of constituting diocesan boards of finance—all of these are Measures that we have passed— how should such a board he constituted, what exactly should be its powers in its diocese in local and central things? These are mast difficult and most technical matters, and yet extremely important.
Above all, there is the group of Measures—not a few—which are
474
concerned with the re-adjustment of boundaries, including sometimes the question of forming new dioceses. If any member of your Lordships' House had given detailed attention to these subjects—and we have heard to-night from the speeches, not from Bishops only but from laymen as well, what detailed attention has been given—then I should hope that every such member of the House would feel in no way influenced, except as a portion of the argument which he is weighing, by the fact that this has passed through the Assembly or through the Ecclesiastical Committee, but would vote independently on the subject. But I cannot suppose that that is common to most of us. The details of the portions of Shropshire and Hereford which are dealt with in this Measure, the way in which the parishes would be affected by this change—.all those are extremely difficult questions, and from the very arguments we have heard to-night we have seen how easy it is for competent men to take quite different opinions on the subject.
When it comes to technical things of that kind it does seem to me that most members of your Lordships' House will do wisely if they look to the recent history of the consideration of the subject. And if any one will follow in detail the amount of care that was given to this subject, first, in committee, then in the Assembly, then hack again to a great committee specially formed to consider it, then hack to the Assembly as a whole, and how each one of the various propositions possible was weighed, he must feel that he is rather a brave man if he thinks he can judge better than those who so weighed it, and that he can form without having deeply studied the subject, an independent judgment of his own. Therefore I venture to suggest that, unless noble Lords have given such detailed study to the subject, they will judge rightly if they fall back upon the guidance given by the Assembly which considered the matter so carefully—not because your Lordships are bound to do it, but because, by that means, you are best assured of dealing with what has been weightily and wisely considered. For that reason I hope you will feel it right to give a vote in favour of the Resolution.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—
[From Minutes of March 3.]

MONTROSE BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Duke of Sutherland), and reported from the Committee.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Spencer, E.

Faringdon, L.

Stanhope, E.

Greville, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Harlech, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harris, L.

Argyll, D.

Hill, V.

Hatherton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Hemphill, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Heneage, L.

Bath, M.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Cambridge, M.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Kilmaine, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Kylsant, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

London, L. Bp.

Lambourne, L.

Chichester, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Dartmouth, E. [Teller.]

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Monteagle of Brandon, L

Eldon, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Fortescue, E.

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

Grey, E.

Aberconway, L.

Harrowby, E.

Askwith, L.

Phillimore, L.

Lichfield, E.

Barnard, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E.

Berwick, L.

Stanmore, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Charnwood, L. [Teller.]

Wenlock, L.

Midleton, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Wharton, L.

Selborne, E.

Daryngton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Peel, V.

Leigh, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Durham, L. Bp.

Merthyr, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Newton, L.

Airlie, E.

Avebury, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Ancaster, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Beauchamp, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Clarendon, E.

Carson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cawley, L.

Raglan, L.

Kimberley, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rathcreedan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Darling, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Morton, E.

Doverdale, L.

Sempill, L.

Northbrook, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Emmott, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Strafford, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Southwark, L.

Forester, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)

Chaplin, V.

Gainford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hanworth, L.

Sudley, L.(E. Arran.)

Churchill, V.

Hawke, L.

Sumner, L.

Hampden, V.

Hindlip, L.

Thomson, L.

Hood, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Trevethin, L.

Wargrave, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENERAL. POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CHOSEN SYNDICATE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.