Sitting of 5 May 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol Cemetery Bill [Lords],
Bristol Water Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ilfracombe) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    SHAMEEN INCIDENT.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason it has been judged desirable to delay the presentation to Parliament of the papers respecting the first firing in the Shameen affair of 23rd June, 1925, until 10 months after the event occurred?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): The papers have been published in response to a request made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence on the 22nd of February. My right hon. Friend authorised it as soon as he had been able to satisfy himself by reference to our representatives in China that the publication was not likely to be injurious to the public interest.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not rather useless to have Questions put and answered when we do not know what they are
    266
    about? Ought we not to have the Questions themselves read?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We can only produce our printed Votes at the moment under very unusual circumstances. I asked yesterday for the forbearance of hon. Members in the present situation, in which it has not been possible to print and circulate a sufficient number of copies.

    SITUATION, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received any recent advices as to the situation at Shanghai; and, if so, of what nature?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The reports received from Shanghai indicate that the general situation there is normal and that trade shows a tendency to improve. Anxiety has been manifested in some quarters lest attempts be made to renew last year's disturbances either on the 1st of May or on the 30th of May. But both foreign authorities and responsible Chinese in Shanghai are alive to this possibility, and will no doubt have taken all possible precautions with a view to the avoidance of any untoward incident. The 1st of May has passed, so far as I am aware, without any sort of disturbance, and I greatly hope in the interests of all concerned that there may be no cause for future apprehension.

  MANUFACTURE OF ARMS (CONTROL).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in consequence of the condemnation of the evils of the private manufacture of arms and munitions of war, which was drawn up by the temporary mixed Commission of the League of Nations in their Report, any initiative will be taken by His Majesty's Government to bring about a discussion of this question at the forthcoming preparatory conference on disarmament; or whether any steps are being taken to deal with the evil in this country?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Report merely tabulates the objections which have been raised in various

  267
  quarters without expressing any opinion on their force. The Council of the League of Nations, at its December session, appointed a. committee of inquiry to make the necessary investigations for drawing up a draft convention for the control of the private manufacture of arms, and there is consequently no reason for any independent action by His Majesty's Government.

  RUMANIA (SUBMARINES).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the sale by the French Government of a number of submarines to the Government of Rumania, being a contravention of the terms of Article 18 of the Washington Naval Convention of 1922, by which each of the contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale, or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power, any of the signatories of the Washington Convention have made any representations to the French Government on the subject?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) on the 21st of April on this subject, to which there is nothing to add.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent Notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Royal Italian Government have been communicated to the Royal Abyssinian Government?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 26th April, the Abyssinian Government have been informed of the substance of the Notes recently exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, and they are aware that the texts will shortly be communicated to them.

  OTTOMAN LOAN (CYPRUS TRIBUTE).
  Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the Government in regard to the 1855 Guaranteed Ottoman 4 Per Cent. Loan and the Cyprus Tribute?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government trust that the decision of the Mixed Court of Appeal in the cases of the 1891 and 1894 loans will induce the Egyptian Government to release the sums which are due by them in respect of the 1855 loan and which up till now have been placed in a blocked account. No communication, however, has as yet been received from the Egyptian Government on this subject.
  Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the French have paid their portion of this loan?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will be relieved of any financial charge owing to the successful appeal in favour of the holders of Ottoman bonds secured on the Egyptian tribute?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The case won by the bondholders on appeal in the Egyptian Mixed Courts related to the loans of 1891 and 1894, which are not guaranteed by His Majesty's Government, and accordingly the resumption of payments for the service of these two loans will not relieve His Majesty's Government of any financial charge.

  CONSTANTINOPLE LOAN (GALATA BRIDGE TOLLS).
  Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Municipality of Constantinople is now handing over the revenue from the Galata Bridge tolls, which form the security for the Constantinople Loan of 1909?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I believe so, according to the latest information in our possession.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GERMAN DEEP-SEA DIVING APPARATUS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty were satisfied with the test of the German deep-sea diving apparatus used in attempting to salve His Majesty's submarine M1; and whether an apparatus is to be acquired for the use of the British Navy if required in the future?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The trials to which I referred to in my answer—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, col. 1405) to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha)— have not yet taken place, but are expected to be made shortly. Until the trials have been held, I am not in a position to reply.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me when he is in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will; but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will remind me in a short time.

    VICTUALLING ALLOWANCE.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Vote II, Sub-head C, of the Naval Estimate provides a victualling allowance at the rate of 1s. 5½d. a day for each rating not victualled on the standard ration and messing allowance scale, he will state how the profits arising from this victualling allowance for ratings who are compulsorily messed under the general messing system are disposed of?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The victualling allowances to which the hon. Member refers does not apply to general messing. Under this system of messing there is no money allowance; the Admiralty provide a suitable standard of messing.

    ENGINEER OFFICERS.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the terms of the commissions issued to engineer officers previous to the issue of the A.F.C. 3,241, 1925; and, in view of the fact that those now being issued mean that these officers are not now legally in command of the personnel of their own
    270
    department, and that they are not entitled to command of technical establishments of schools of instruction of engineer officers and men, he will give the matter his attention?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Existing officers employed on engineering duties have different forms of commission according to whether these were issued to them as assistant engineers, engineer sub-lieutenants, sub-lieutenants (E) or mates (E), on the one hand, or as sub-lieutenants on the other had. I regret, however, that I am not able to follow the conclusions which my hon. Friend apparently draws from this fact. The legal powers and position of naval officers do not depend upon the wording of their commissions, but on the King's Regulations and the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act, and the last part of his question does not therefore arise.

  LABOUR RETURNS.
  Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to see that the figures of persons employed and unemployed in industry are so tabulated and returned in future that the figures applicable to all industries that are safeguarded under Parts I and II of the Safeguarding of Industry Acts are available as well as the similar figures for industries protected by the McKenna Duties?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): This matter is by no means free from difficulty. Since the point was raised last week, I have had no opportunity of discussing it with my right hon. Friend, but I will do so as soon as circumstances permit.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the cost of relief work schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee at the present time; the number of men employed; and similar figures for a year ago?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The total estimated cost of schemes approved during 12 months ended 31st March, 1926, was

    271
    £16,399,275, as compared with £19,689,990 during the year ended 31st March, 1925. The number of men employed on the 27th March, 1926, on schemes assisted by the Committee was 33,596, as compared with 44,400 men employed on the 28th March, 1925.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of their being nearly 1,000,000 unemployed, might not this 33,000 be increased?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is obviously a question which I cannot answer.
    Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that a great number of unemployment schemes have been turned down, would it not be a relatively easy matter to increase this number?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That, again, is a matter I cannot deal with in answer to a question.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the growing demand for the services of girls for home employment; and, seeing that the payment of unemployment benefits to girls fit and suitable for this work is injurious to their own future as prospective wives and mothers, will he consider what steps he can take to encourage them to seek employment when it is open to them?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware that there is, and has been for a long time, a shortage of resident domestic servants. All vacancies in domestic service notified to the Exchanges are offered to suitable unemployed girls, and each case of refusal of such employment is dealt with on its merits by the statutory authorities under the Acts.
    Colonel APPLIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether these girls are not all infants in the eye of the law, and therefore have to look for sustenance to their parents?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir; that is not so.

    POOR LAW RELIEF, POPLAR (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 2,309 ex-service men, together with 6,585 women and children dependent upon them, making a total of 8,894 persons,
    272
    have been obliged to accept Poor Law relief from the Poplar guardians; that most of the men are able-bodied and willing to work, but no work is available; and what steps he proposes to take to secure the removal of these men and their dependants from the care of the Poor Law?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of these figures. As the hon. Member is aware, the Unemployment Insurance Scheme provides a large measure of assistance for unemployed persons in the insured trades. No further provision is contemplated.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it an honourable thing that that large number of men who fought in the War should now be compelled to go to the Poor Law in order to Live—8,000, with their dependants?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

    BENEFIT (OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT).
    Mr. MACKINDER (for Mr. ROBINSON)asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of the officials at the Brighouse Employment Exchange in urging unemployed persons to emigrate; and whether, in those cases where the unemployed person refuses to emigrate, he will take action to ensure that such person shall not be deprived of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: In accordance with the instructions the opportunities of settlement overseas are brought to the notice of all suitable unemployed persons. No undue pressure is exerted on any applicant either at Brighouse or elsewhere, and the question of benefit is not in any way affected by the attitude of the applicants towards overseas settlement.
    Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the answer given the other day that more applicants are waiting than can be taken, is it worth while offering overseas employment when the Government cannot give them transportation?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think it is right to tell these applicants what the opportunities are and what are their chances.
    Mr. MACKINDER: But there are no opportunities.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIRSHIP HANGAR, KARACHI.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air the approximate price likely to be spent on the construction of the new airship hangar at Karachi; and the proportion of such amount that will be spent on materials of British manufacture?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me, I will give him an answer after Questions.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: On a point of Order. Would it be possible, either now or at any other time, to move that Oral Questions, of which the House has no possibility of knowing even the substance, should be treated as Non-Oral Questions and answered in the Parliamentary Papers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are questions which have been on the Order Paper for some days past. I am sure I have the support of hon. Members in what I have said about putting down fresh questions.
    Colonel DAY (Later): I understand the right hon. Gentleman has now got the answer to this question.
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is £170,000, and to the second, £90,000, these figures being approximate estimates. The difference between them represents the cost of freight, insurance, import duties, foundation work and erection at site.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this shed will be completed?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; not without notice.

    PILOTS (INSTRUCTION).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will, with a, view to the greater safety of Royal Air Force pilots, cause instructions to be given that will result in such officers being given more adequate instruction on the type of machine they are to fly before being allowed to change over from one type of machine to another?
    Sir S. HOARE: The Regulations contain explicit instructions on the point
    274
    raised by the hon. and gallant Member. Briefly, they are to the effect that before a pilot flies an unfamiliar type of aeroplane, he must either be given dual instruction in its use before flying solo, or, if it is a type in which dual instruction cannot be given, must satisfy his Commanding Officer that he is accustomed to flying corresponding types, and must also be given ground instruction by a responsible officer conversant with the type in regard to its characteristics in flight, and the systems of engine and petrol control which it embodies. I am advised that a pilot of average experience should find little or no difficulty in changing from one type of aeroplane to another, since the principles of flying and flying control are the same for all types of aeroplanes. This is borne out by experience, and I do not consider that further instructions on the subject are necessary.

    WAR-TIME CONTRACTS (AERODROMES).
    Mr. MACKINDER (for Mr. ROBINSON)asked the Secretary of State for Air what action is being taken to effect a settlement in the case of the 10 war-time contracts for the construction of aerodromes that have been the subject of comment by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his Reports on the air services for many years?
    Sir S. HOARE: The 10 war-time contracts are all in respect of one company. This company obtained leave to bring a Petition of Right in 1920, but did not present it. In October, 1923, the company was allowed by the Court to present the Petition in an amended form. The case has not yet come before the Courts, but it is expected that it will be heard shortly. Unsuccessful attempts to effect a settlement by negotiations have been made from time to time, the last being in March, 1925, when an offer made on the advice of counsel was not accepted by the company's solicitors.

  FLYING ACCIDENT, KING'S LYNN.
  Lord FERMOYasked the Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been called to the fatal flying accident which occurred at King's Lynn on Sunday last, the machine in question belonging to Messrs. Lloyd Aviation Company; whether he is aware that this machine also contained a pleasure passenger and,

  275
  as advertised, was giving an exhibition of crazy flying over the town; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?
  Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the passenger was carried at his own request and was not fare-paying; crazy flying was advertised to take place, but the accident occurred during the first stage of this flying; the exhibition was being given from a licensed aerodrome outside the town.
  As regards the third part of the question, the accident is now under investigation by the Inspector of Accidents, and I am awaiting his report.
  Mr. PALING: May I ask whether in the case of people who are carrying passengers in this way any regulations are issued for the safety of the passengers?
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, there are very stringent regulations, and I am having an investigation to see whether the regulations were carried out or not in this case.

  DESERTED MARRIED WOMEN (DISABILITIES).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the disabilities of married women whose husbands have deserted them or have acquired domicile overseas; and if he will consider introducing legislation to remove these disabilities?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, provides means for the transmission of maintenance orders to those parts of His Majesty's Dominions where the necessary legislation has been passed with a view to enforcement against defendants there.

  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary for Scotland what proportion of the £2,750,000 agreed to be lent by the Public Works Commissioners
  276
  for land settlement in Scotland had been expended; and the amount of funds, either under the Land Settlement Act or otherwise, remaining within the control or at the call of the Board of Agriculture for land settlement purposes?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Under the provisions of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Acts, 1919 and 1921, the Board of Agriculture have borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners a sum of £2,158,185 of which approximately £2,078,500 had been expended at 31st March last. The funds available for expenditure on Land Settlement schemes after that date consist of a balance of borrowed monies amounting approximately to £79,500, together with an annual provision within the limits of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund amounting in the current financial year to £175,000.

  CUSTODY OF INFANTS ACT.
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the father of a child making an application for custody under the Custody of Infants Act is obliged to make such application to the High Court; and whether, in view of the Act allowing the mother to make such application for custody and access to a police court, he will consider legislation with a view to the present Act being so amended as to allow equal rights to the father?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer to the reply I gave on the 17th February to the hon. Member for the Penryn and Falmouth Division (Mr. Pilcher). It is still too early to consider whether it is necessary or desirable to propose legislation.
  Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that several magistrates in London have expressed the opinion that through this confusing Act it is impossible to mete out justice?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not exactly the statement of the magistrates, but remarks have certainly been made which are rather derogatory to the legislation already passed. I am considering very carefully whether any amendment of the law is necessary.

  MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES (DUTY).
  Colonel PERKINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider extending the Ways and Means Resolution in respect of commercial vehicles to include marine and stationary oil and petrol engines; and whether he is aware of the strong opinion of all British builders in favour of this course?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): My right hon. Friend has noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

  INDUSTRIAL CRISIS.

    STOCK EXCHANGE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of closing the Stock Exchange during the present emergency has been considered; and whether any decision has been come to?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; there is no such proposal.

    "BRITISH GAZETTE."
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter that is very important to-day, and may very likely become more important as the days go by, namely, to whom questions may be submitted on the Government's latest White Paper, the "British Gazette"?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I sent you notice, Sir, some two hours ago, of a Private Notice question to the Home Secretary, of which I have also given him notice.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That will be called immediately.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether a Government newspaper, known as the "British Gazette," is being published; whether he takes responsibility for the statements contained therein; and whether the cost will come upon the Home Office Vote?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government will take full responsibility for the matter contained
    278
    in the paper, and, as the paper is being published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, the cost of the publication will be borne on the Treasury Vote.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: That being so, may I ask to what Minister questions are to be addressed?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that at present the right hon. Gentleman might address them to myself; if any other Minister is prepared to answer them, I will let him know.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask under what powers or Regulations this publication is made?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the Home Secretary tell the House where this excellent publication can be purchased, because local newsagents, on inquiry being made of them this morning, said that application must be made direct to the Commissioner?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is a further question on that point.
    Mr. THURTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to page 4, upon which there is an article attacking the trade unions, and will he say when it became the function of the Government to carry on propaganda of this sort?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, in regard to particular questions, to put them down. Obviously, I cannot answer them without notice. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), the Government are acting under the authority applicable to every Government from time to time.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does that apply to the paragraph dealing with the white elephant?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the first indication of the Government taking a step towards Socialism that the Government are now running the Press of the country, and not leaving it to private enterprise?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question on which all Members may have their opinions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would you be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to take a Motion for the Adjournment of the House? I am not particularly anxious to move that, if the matter can be discussed at a reasonable hour. As long as there is an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable hour, I shall be quite satisfied.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it will be open to discussion, if desired, during the course of to-day.
    Major COHEN(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he can arrange for every Member of Parliament to have a daily copy of the "British Gazette"?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arrangements have already been made for a daily supply of copies of this newspaper to the Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. COMPTON: Will the Home Secretary arrange for an extension of the Zoo notes, to tell us all that is going on there?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the price at which this "Gazette" is sold to the public is reasonable, having in view the gross profiteering in the "Daily Herald" and "Worker's Weekly"?
    Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this is a newspaper, or whether it is a Government White Paper; and, if the latter, are we entitled to read the matter in the House of Commons?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I suppose it is a newspaper in the sense to which the hon. Member refers, but, if matters arise out of it, and the Government are responsible, it is always open to hon. Members, by question and answer or otherwise, to deal with it.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Further on the point of Order. When I get a White Paper from the Vote Office, it says on it:
    "Published by His Majesty's Stationery Office."
    I see, immediately below the title of this new publication—this socialised periodical —a statement that it is published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and the point to which we want to refer is this: In order to consider Government matters we have to read White Papers in this House, and does not that apply to the
    280
    socialised newspaper introduced by the Conservative party?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it arises in the Debate, I think it can be referred to.
    An HON. MEMBER: Another constitutional practice gone!

  ALLEGED FRAUDULENT COMPANIES.
  Mr. COMPTONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition from the Lancashire Small Shareholders' Association praying him to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into certain alleged fraudulent companies recently promoted in connection with the cotton industry in Lancashire; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. One of the companies concerned is at present being wound up compulsorily in the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, and it is accordingly the duty of the Official Receiver to make full inquiry into the causes of the failure of the company and into the circumstances connected with its promotion and formation and the conduct of the business. I propose in the circumstances to await the result of the Official Receiver's inquiries before taking any action in the matter.
  Mr. COMPTON: Am I to assume that, with regard to the statement in the petition to the Prime Minister, if the promoters were prepared to prove that 149 fraudulent companies had been promoted during this period, the Government would then be prepared to take action after the Official Receiver has made his pronouncement?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: As I said in my answer, we are awaiting the result of the Official Receiver's inquiry.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  City of London (Various Powers) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Leicestershire

  281
  and Warwickshire Electric Power Company to raise additional capital; to confer further powers upon the company; and for other purposes." [Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]

  LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords.]
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  INDUSTRIAL CRISIS.
    EMERGENCY POWERS.

      HOME SECRETARY'S STATEMENT.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. JoynsonHicks): I beg to move,
      "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Orders dated the 30th day of April, 1926, and the 3rd day of May, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the Provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act."
      These Regulations have been on the Table of the House since Monday, and I need make no apology for moving them. As hon. Members know, under the Act of 1920, it is open to His Majesty by Order-in-Council to direct that a state of emergency has arisen, and, when that state of emergency has arisen, the Government have power, by an Order of the Privy Council, to enact certain Regulations to enable the work of the country to be carried on; and, to ensure that the Government cannot act without the assent of the House of Commons, the Legislature has enacted that any Regulations made by the Privy Council under the provisions of the Act of 1920 must be forthwith laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that, unless they are approved by Parliament within seven days, they cease to have effect. Consequently, as soon as the Regulations were made, at the earliest possible moment, on Monday, I laid them on the Table of the House and put down a Motion yesterday in order that they might be considered and that the House might pass the Regulations and authorise the Government to exercise the powers conferred on them for a period of one month. These Regulations are purely temporary. They cannot be worked beyond the period of a month, unless a further Proclamation takes place and a further Order of the House of Commons is passed to enable their working to be continued for a further period of a month. I need hardly say the Government, and I am sure the whole House and the country, hope it will not be necessary to extend the period beyond the month for which I am now asking.
      292
      I should like also to point out that these are not new Regulations. They are Regulations which have been passed, except in one or two eases, on previous occasions. In 1924, when there was a threat of a strike in the omnibus and tram world, the present Leader of the Opposition, who was at that time Prime Minister, made some observations upon the necessity of enabling the work of the country to be carried on. I want to put the matter before the House in the most dispassionate form, and therefore I am going to found myself very largely on the view in regard to necessity which the right hon. Gentleman very properly put before the House two years ago. He said:
      "We should do our best to advance public convenience while the dispute lasts. The first step that will have to be taken is to issue a Proclamation that a state of emergency exists."
      I need hardly say the present Government agree with that, and they have issued a Proclamation exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said would be the first step. I hope neither side will take that as being provocative:
      "The Government must be armed with the powers which are required should the dispute spread, or should public convenience demand some action which can only be taken under the powers given to it by the issue of the Proclamation. The major public services must also be continued, and the Government, any Government, all Governments, must give protection to those engaged in their legal occupations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1924; col. 1682, Vol. 171.]
      That is a very fair statement of the position the present Government take up, and I ant certain the right hon. Gentleman, with the authority he has as Leader of the Opposition, will confirm—we know him well enough to know that he would not do otherwise—the view he took when he had the responsibility of Prime Minister. There is nothing in these Regulations which prevents a man striking if he desires to do so. Regulation 21 has a proviso that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Regulation by r; assn only of his taking part in a strike or peacefully persuading any other person to take part in a strike.
      Mr. MONTAGUE: Then why publish this article? Why attack trade unionism?
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure in a matter of this kind the House will

      293
      desire that what are practically legal questions should be debated regularly. I understand the question of the publication is to be raised a little later on in the day, and if any attack is to be made on the Government in respect of anything published in the newspaper—
      Mr. THURTLE Mr. THURTLE rose.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The matter can be raised later on.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Most of these Regulations are to enable the Government to take possession of land, buildings and various undertakings which they desire to keep in operation for the benefit of the nation as a whole. [Interruption.]
      Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must remember that we are dealing with very serious matters. I shall endeavour to give an opportunity for all points of view to be heard.
      Mr. POTTS: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is discussing the whole matter in one speech and one statement. Would it not be better to discuss the matter Clause by Clause I By discussing it on general lines, we should pass over many subject matters which ought to be discussed on their merits. They ought to be discussed Clause by Clause and paragraph by paragraph right through.
      Mr. SPEAKER: There will be an opportunity.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, the effect of these Regulations must necessarily be to be put inconvenience on a great many shoulders, and I am going to ask the House and the nation as a whole to allow us to place this inconvenience upon those shoulders in the interest of the community as a whole. A great many of these Regulations are what we may call common form, and have always been used in an emergency of this particular kind. I ought, however, to say a word about Regulation No. 21, which deals with acts inciting to mutiny, sedition or disaffection. Its provisions are merely an adaptation of the existing Common Law. There is no difference between the Common Law and sedition as comprised in Article 21, but under this Regulation offences of that kind can be dealt with summarily
      294
      instead of by indictment, which would entail a long delay, perhaps of some months, and it is desirable that when the public mind is inflamed, matters of this kind should not be allowed to drag on after peace is declared, but should be dealt with summarily and quickly.
      Another Regulation which might be criticised is No. 33, dealing with the right of arrest without warrant. I want the House to understand that there are an enormous number of cases which have been dealt with without warrant. It is no new thing in law. There are very numerous occasions when any constable may arrest without warrant, and even private persons may arrest without warrant. For instance, if the hon. Member who interrupted me sees anyone about to commit a felony, he not only may, but it is his duty to arrest. He may arrest a person intending to commit a felony. He may arrest anyone trying to steal his property on his own land. He may arrest anyone attempting to commit an indictable offence by night. The powers of an ordinary police constable to arrest without warrant are very wide indeed. A person who is reasonably suspected of having committed a felony may he arrested without warrant. A person loitering about at night and expected to be about to commit a felony or to commit an offence against the person may be arrested by any constable, without warrant. On the whole, this Regulation does not to any large degree extend the right and the duty which rests upon the police constables to arrest without warrant anyone having committed or who is suspected of being about to commit an offence. Hon. Members, of course, will understand that when a man is arrested, either with or without warrant, it does not mean that he is sent to prison without a decision of the Court, It only means that in time of emergency and excitement when an offence has been committed or is about to be committed a constable may arrest forthwith. He has then to take the arrested person before the magistrate, and the arrested person has the same right in regard to defence which appertains to all citizens who are dealt with on ordinary charges.
      I will now direct the attention of the House to Regulation 24 and to Regulation 33 (2A). Regulation 33 (2A) was

      295
      made on the 3rd May, and is printed on a separate paper, and the other Regulations were made on the 1st May. The power which is given in 33 (2A) is not as new a power as would seem. Under the Regulation, a constable is empowered to interfere in order to prevent any offence being committed and to protect the community from the commision of any offence. I do not desire to shirk the fact that this Regulation does give very great power to the Secretary of State to deal with newspapers. It gives power to him to direct the police to enter into any building
      "suspected of being used for the purposes of printing, producing, publishing or dispersing any document calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition or disaffection among any of His Majesty's Forces or any Police Force or any Fire Brigade, or among the civilian population, or to impede, delay, or restrict any measures taken for securing and regulating the supply or distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or other necessities, or for maintaining the means of transit or of locomotion, or for any other purposes essential to the public safety or the life of the community. …"
      I am not going to shirk the fact that that Regulation gives to the Secretary of State very great powers indeed—
      Mr. BATEY: Mussolini!
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am going to ask the House of Commons to confer those powers upon the Secretary of State, because I say, quite definitely, that in the interests of the life of the nation those powers are necessary at the present time. Regulation 24 gives me certain other powers. It gives me power to direct that a service is of vital importance. In connection with any service which any Secretary of State directs is of vital importance, we may call upon the Forces of the Crown to assist in carrying on those services. I desire throughout any trouble that may arise to tell the House of Commons from day to day what I am doing. The House of Commons is entitled to know and the country is entitled to know. Therefore, I am going to tell the House that, acting under the provisions of Article 24, I have already made four Orders. I have directed that the supply of electricity is a vital necessity. I have directed that the maintenance of the electrical and mechanical plant and
      296
      machinery of the Port of London is a vital necessity. I have further directed that the transport of motor spirit is a vital necessity, and that the continuance of the railway service is a vital necessity. The House will see that the Government —[Interruption.] I do not want to say anything provocative to-day. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will desire me to say what is being done. It is the first duty of the Government to keep the House of Commons informed as to what actions they are taking.
      Mr. MARCH: Through the "Gazette"?
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am doing it now. If hon. Members opposite do not desire to hear what steps the Government have taken, it is quite simple for the Government, under the powers conferred upon them, to take the steps without telling the House of Commons.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: You do that, and that will put an end to you.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is only fair to the House that I should state what has been done under these Regulations. In the first place, having made these Regulations, I have been in communication with the railway world. Perhaps the House will desire to know that although the country is in a very serious condition—I do not wish to minimise that, because a considerable stoppage of the railways has taken place throughout the country—the position in regard to the railways is improving. [Interruption.]
      Mr. MACKINDER: It cannot get worse.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I say the position is improving. In regard to the omnibus service of London, it is much better to-day than it was yesterday. One of the tube railways is carrying out a service. Electric light and power stations in London are all working well, with the exception of five which are not satisfactory. The great bulk of the electric light stations throughout London are working admirably. We are employing naval ratings, and we have applied for volunteers to take the places of those who have declined to carry out the work of supplying London with electric light and power. On the stations which are now working and supplying both light and power to London we have only used up to the present 33 per cent. of the naval ratings who are in London ready

      297
      to be used for this purpose, and we have only used 12 per cent. of the volunteers who have enrolled and are prepared to assist in carrying out these services. There are also—I am only too glad to state it—a large number of loyal men who are carrying out their duties.
      Mr. TAYLOR: Loyal to whom?
      Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: To whom are you loyal? [Interruption.]
      Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask hon. Members to maintain order. Do let us hear both sides.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said that there were five stations which were not carrying on quite so satisfactorily. These are stations which are run—I do not wish to mention names—by some of the municipalities. There they have decided that while light shall be provided for the community during the night time, no power at all and no light shall be permitted during the day. The House will see that great inconvenience is caused in these districts. In one of these districts there happens to be a large number of bakeries which are run by electric power, and when that power is not available the bakeries cannot continue for more than a day or two unless fresh arrangements are made for the baking of bread in that district. The London Hospital has all its power cut off during the day. I make no comment on these facts, but I think the House and the country should know such facts as are in my power to give. One of these stations supplies the power at the cold storage in sonic of the warehouses in London, and if it is cut off—and there is a grave possibility of it—it will mean that the meat in these cold storages will go bad. I trust and hope that arrangements will be made which will obviate these difficulties. The Government realises its responsibility, and, if necessary, I shall ask the House to support the Government in whatever steps they may take to insure that these things are corrected.
      The food supply of London is going on quite satisfactorily. The milk supply, as hon. Members will probably know, is being thoroughly efficiently conducted under the arrangements made by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport. We have felt it necessary under these Regulations to take possession of Hyde Park, where the work is being
      298
      carried on, and I hope we shall have the support of Members of all parties in this House in carrying on, these vital services, which are just as necessary to the wives and children of the poor as they are to the wives and children of those who are not so poor. I hope the House will forgive me if I deal with a more debatable question—the question of protection. I feel that I am entitled to deal with this point because of the remark which I have already quoted from the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. I will read it again:
      "The major public services must also be continued, and the Government, any Government, all Governments, must give protection to those engaged in their legal occupations."
      That is the paramount duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. On my shoulders the protection of the community rests. It is a grave and heavy burden. We are using our utmost endeavours, and we shall continue to do so, to protect all those who desire to carry out their legal occupations. I have not yet made any special appeal for special constables, but 7,900 of the old special constables have been duty enrolled, and have turned out for duty. There were 3,035 new special constables enrolled yesterday and the day before. I propose to-night to ask the community as a whole to enrol in much larger numbers as special constables. It is desirable that the country should know that there are men and businesses, the docks, the provision of food, the provision of electric light and gas, and the transport services, which in great communities like London must be carried on if the whole State is not to be dissolved in dire confusion, and I appeal to the whole House to assist me in protecting those who desire to do their work That is the right and the duty of the Home Secretary in any Government, and in all Governments, and I am appealing to-night to any able-bodied men who can give their time—and, after all, everybody ought to be willing to give their time—wholly to the State in order to protect the community in a time of difficulty and danger like this. There is no other point on which I desire to make any observations in regard to these Regulations.
      Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with Regulation 22, which takes away the right of public meeting?
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need hardly say that I do not object to deal with any Regulation to which hon. Members may wish me to refer. Regulation 22 says that:
      "Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of holding any meeting will give rise to grave disorder"—
      It is only if the Home Secretary has reason to believe that grave disorder will arise that he can prohibit such a meeting.
      Mr. THURTLE: Read on.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am obliged to the hon. Member for having called my attention to this particular Regulation. I should have failed to have given the House some information had he not specifically called my attention to it. The police received information last night that the Deptford Branch of the Communist party, in conjunction with the National Unemployed Workers' Committee, and the International Class War Prisoners' Aid, were holding a committee meeting with a view of organising a mass procession, in which they estimated sonic thousands of men would take part, into the heart of London tonight. I was advised by the police that anything of that kind at the moment would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and acting under this provision I have directed the police not to allow that procession.
      One word more. It is to ask the country as a whole to view this difficulty, as the Prime Minister said two days ago, in a steady spirit. You will hear all kinds of alarmist rumours. I have heard from time to time of alarmist rumours. I heard three or four to-day which, if they had been true, would have been very unpleasant. There are rumours of riots here and there. They have not been true. There was one small one last night in Poplar, but it was a matter of no great importance. They are all greatly exaggerated.
      I want the country as a whole to stand firm in this grave crisis, not to be excited, not to worry about rumours they hear from time to time. The difficulties of the Government are great enough, without it being called upon to answer questions concerning rumours, which arise in all parts of the country. I heard
      300
      a rumour last night which on inquiry I found turned out to be a gross exaggeration.
      Whenever there is any real matter of importance, any real difficulty, I pledge my word to the House that I will keep nothing back from the House of Commons. I will answer, day by day, any questions which are put before me, and even if it is not put to me as a question, if there is any matter of real importance I will very gladly—and it is part of my duty as the Secretary for State responsible for these matters to do so—indicate to the House at the earliest possible moment every information of real importance as to what may take place throughout the country. The country is steady at the moment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will not mind if I read some passages from a work of his, a very good work, which I happened to come across some few months ago, and which I have kept until the occasion and the need for it arose. I will read these passages because I want the House to realise that, although I believe we shall pull through these difficulties, we are faced with what is, in effect, a general strike to-day. What I am about to read is the opinion, not of the present Home Secretary, but of the Leader of the Opposition on general strikes in a book upon "Syndicalism" written by him in 1912.
      "The general strike is not a weapon of reform, a means of raising wages, or of improving conditions, like the ordinary strike such as we know it. It is purely speculative, and is dominated by the ideas of revolution'.…The general strike.…works in a totally different way (to ordinary strikes). It empties markets, it raises prices, it stifles consumption throughout the whole community. And what does that mean? It hits the poor people heaviest the middle classes next, and the rich least of all. If surrender is, therefore, to come by social pressure, the programme works from exactly the wrong end, for the class that must surrender first is the poor, and the surrender of the poor does not mean the triumph of the revolution, but the collapse of the strike."
      May I quote one more passage showing the right hon. Gentleman's considered views on this subject.
      "The Syndicalists assume that when the general strike comes time will be on their side. Exactly the opposite is true. Time will be against them. As the days go, Society will organise itself against them because Society as well as the individual is moved by the Will to Live."

      301
      That is what I want to say to the House of Commons and to the country to-day. We arc faced with a grave position, and with grave difficulties, and the poorer section of the community are being harder hit than the more well-to-do section, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in that thought-out passage of his 12 years ago. Time is on the side of law and order; time is on the side of those who desire to carry on the country as it should be carried on, and I believe if we only stand fast we will succeed, and that it will not be very long before we see our way through our present difficulties.
      Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in any of his detailed references to the regulations which are dealt with in the Motion. I think it will be agreed that the proper time at which to refer to the Regulations will be when this general discussion is terminated, and that I understand to be the desire of the House. The Home Secretary has done his best to emphasise the need for the Regulations, and I noticed that he endeavoured to emphasise one point, namely, that with regard to the essential services. It is important, in view of what he said regarding the essential sort lees, that I should remind him that the other side—those with whom the owners and the Government have come into during the past day or two—cannot carry the whole of the responsibility if sufferings follow as a result of a policy which has been put into operation in connection with the essential services. I think the Home Secretary must be aware of a communication that the Prime Minister received, as late as Saturday evening, in which a very definite offer was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Offer?"] I repeat, a communication in which a very definite offer was made by those responsible, and those who were enabled to give the assistance to which the Home Secretary referred this afternoon. I hear interjections, and hon. Members seemed to ask, Was this an offer to the State—an offer to the Government? I say, "Certainly." We have been reminded more than once, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government are asking for volunteers in volunteers in an unorganised condition are good, volunteers in an organised condition for the essential services cannot be bad.
      HON. MEMBERS: Why do they not enrol?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Again, I must say that these interjections are no service, and it would be far better if hon. Members would hear all points of view.
      Mr. HENDERSON: It has been quite obvious now for eight or nine months, whether we like it or not, whether we think it right, or whether we think it wrong, that the position in which unfortunately we now find ourselves, was inevitable, if no settlement of the issue that was raised last July could be found Those who were conducting the negotiations were anxious all along to avoid disaster and I shall have something to say about the efforts they made during long and weary hours of striving, of which I was a witness night- after night. Though in no way responsible, I was there watching, and doing, as l have done several times during the lest 20 years, using all the influence I could and giving all the experience I have, to assist those responsible in trying to bring about an avoidance of this great disaster. They found that it was no longer possible to continue negotiations and—I say this very definitely and I want to impress it on the House and I challenge contradiction upon it from any horn, or right hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite—they were in no way responsible for terminating the negotiations. I was present on the Sunday night in the Board Boom of the Treasury when everything seemed going well, and when hours bad been spent in trying to get a proper formula.
      4.0 p.m.
      A little move had been made here and there, and we all thought, at one o'clock or. Monday morning that they were just about to get that slight, move forward which would have enabled us then to have called off the whole thing and to have got a settlement. I again say that there was no responsibility on the part of the negotiating committee for the break that took place between one and two o'clock. What is more, I want to say that overtures were made even on Monday. Some of us on this side realise the gravity of the situation. I am not sure that all hon. Members—I want to say this without arousing any passion—the impression that I had on Monday afternoon when our proceedings opened was that a large num-

      303
      ber of hon. Members on the opposite side did not realise — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I repeat it—to see the opening of a sitting where issues so grave were to be considered begun with the flag-waving that took place in this House, is something that I have never witnessed in the 23 years that I have been privileged to be a Member of this Assembly. I am taking this hope, that a different feeling obtains to-day. There are signs to-day that we all realise, as we all must realise, the seriousness of the position.
      I believe that probably the spirit that was manifested on Monday was influenced somewhat by a failure to believe that the issues involved were so vital, so affected the human interest of the great masses of the workers of the country, that they felt that those responsible—I mean the General Council of the Trade Unions Congress, that the executives of the unions that met at the Memorial Hall had taken on something that they could not bring to fruition, that they had taken on something and would find that their members would not respond, and that the whole thing would be a fiasco. Those of us on this side, at any rate two or three of us who had been privileged just to watch the strivings after peace, who knew something of the spirit that dominated the Memorial Hall Conference, believed—at any rate I believed—that no moment similar to this had been experienced in this country during the 42 years that I have been associated with the trade union movement. If our friends wanted to realise the full measure of the gravity of the situation they should have taken their minds back to, or should never have taken their minds away from, the attitude of the general public of this country last July, when the infamous demands of the employers were made. I state advisedly "the infamous demands"; they were so infamous that I believe the whole of the general public felt, and that there were very few Members of this House, wherever they sat, who did not feel that here we were having a challenge to human interests, a challenge to the very subsistence level that some of these employés in the mines had already been reduced to. I believe there never was a more nearly unanimous feeling behind the miners, behind any body of workmen, than that which existed in this country
      304
      when the notices for reductions were first posted last July.
      If all these things had been kept in mind, if it had been realised that there was an attack that. could not be justified, an attack that was totally inconsistent with the standard of our civilisation in this country; if we had never lost sight of that, there would have been no need for the Home Secretary to come along to-day and move his Motion. No, Sir. It is no use burdening the position. It is quite true that the Government appointed the Royal Commission; it is quite true that the Royal Commission reported; and it is quite true that when they had reported the Government called the parties together. How long ago is that? What took place afterwards? I hope that these things will be remembered. If you are to measure up the position properly, you cannot lose sight of the fact that three to four precious weeks passed between the issue of the Report and the serious handling of the negotiations, which took place only 10 days ago. Those three or four precious weeks which would have been invaluable had the negotiations proceeded immediately the Government brought the parties together. Oh! that we could have had three or four weeks, not three or four days, when we reached the position that we were in last Friday or early on Saturday morning! We were striving then as we had striven all along, but we found that we were fighting against time, and we never could get it away from our minds that we ought not to have been placed in the position that the three weeks had been allowed to go by when no effort whatever was made. If those three weeks had been properly utilised!
      Another point which the Home Secretary made and to which he seemed to attach a great deal of importance, I am not going to shirk. He referred to the position taken up by the Labour Government with regard to the Regulations. Yes, and I think he tried to show that the situation was exactly the same. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is in any way going to run away from his responsibility for the Regulations that were prepared in 1924, or from the speeches that were delivered in association with the then pending or threatened crisis. But what the Home Secretary omitted to notice, and what I have the pleasure of

      305
      reminding him and his colleagues of, is this—that the right hon. Gentleman to whom he referred more than once, and his colleagues who were responsible, so handled that position that the Regulations never became necessary. If the Home Secretary was so anxious to proclaim our failures, he might just have whispered a word about our success. Therefore, it does not seem to me that he has made out a very strong case with regard to our position in 1924. But, as I said at the beginning, I am not going to concentrate the attention of the House on these Regulations. We shall come to them one by one later, and we shall have our say upon them. But I am a little bit concerned at this attack that is being made so soon upon those with whom the Government have been in such close relations during the past week or two.
      References were made at question time to the new Government publication, the very interesting document called the "British Gazette." I would have thought that the Government would have hesitated before they launched this attack upon men whose praises they could not sound loudly enough only a few days ago, men like my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), who has worked, as some of us know, almost every moment night and day since this issue was raised. Yet he and his colleagues arc I he subject in the very first edition of this paper of a most bitter attack. One would have thought that, now that we all realise—this is a point to which I attach the greatest possible importance in anything I have said—the extent to which this policy that has been put into operation has gone, and, as it continues, is bound to become mote intensified in the sense of the suffering that will he entailed—one would have thought that the Government even now would have been prepared to have said what I know the responsible leaders on the trade union side have never ceased to say, "We are prepared to negotiate and to try to find a formula whereby the whole business could be terminated." It is no use our being told to-day that we are now in a state of war. I have seen these great national disputes in years gone by. I have seen similar Debates to this Debate. I remember the first national railway stoppage I would remind the House that the railway stoppage
      306
      of 1911 was such that, if it had gone on, it could have brought to bear on the community as a whole almost as great an amount of suffering and inconvenience as even a general strike could do, because our railway service is so vital and essential in carrying on the whole of the communications of the country. But even in those days, after a Debate such as we had on Monday, the Government of the day were prepared to talk and to see whether even then something could net be done. But this Government, oh, no! The present Government were unprepared to talk and to try to find a means of settlement!
      All that I have to say on the general position in this: If this is to continue to be the attitude of the Government, the position in this country in the next few days is going to be such as. I believe, will baffle the imagination. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Let those who say "Oh!" admit that they are prepared to go through the experience. [HON. MEMBERS: "Threats!"] I will allow the House to judge. I will allow those who know something about the position that some of us have taken in reference to other disputes to judge as to whether what I have said is not a prophecy, and has no threatening word in it. I am as alarmed about the position as any hon. Member on the other side of the House. I have striven to advise and to avoid this catastrophe as much as possible. I believe that all trade union negotiation experience dictates that even now this House should bend its energies to see whether we could not get to where we were at one o'clock on Monday morning, striving to get a formula. Honestly, I believe that at that hour if the news had not come through that a certain paper had been interfered with, and if that paper had been the "Daily Herald," we would have heard nothing about it. It ought to be the business of all sections of this House to strive to their uttermost to see whether now we cannot get to the position we were in then, and to see whether this cannot be settled by reason and not by force.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) in a discussion of the circumstances and conditions which have produced this emergency. I have already expressed my opinion in this House and outside on that

      307
      subject. I deplore the precipitancy which was shown in breaking off negotiations. I think it was a very serious and a very grave error. The Trade Union Council had only just intervened. It was known to everyone that they were most anxious to negotiate a settlement. They had very great difficulties, difficulties with those who were specially associated with the dispute. They were overcoming them, and I think it was in the interest of the nation that a little more time should have been given to get over those obstacles. It was a great pity that negotiations were broken off so suddenly. I have expressed my opinion before, and I do not intend to go any further with regard to that point. But I must say one word in reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the nation had a good deal of sympathy with the case of the miners. I think that is so. But that is the condemnation of the general strike. I believe that has obscured the merits of the miners' case. There was real sympathy with the miners—I felt it myself, and I know that I was only one out of multitudes of people who felt it—and it led people to believe that their means of livelihood had been suppressed beyond what was fair to people pursuing a very dangerous avocation. What has happened since has for the moment obscured that and provoked a good deal of sympathy on the wrong side. [Interruption.] What I mean is that it has for the moment taken away sympathy from the case of the miners That is what I mean, and perhaps my other phrase was unfortunate. That is why I said on Monday, and I still think it, that the general strike under the circumstances is a mistake.
      But what we have to discuss this afternoon is a question of Regulations. An emergency has arisen, and it is very difficult to exaggerate its gravity. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think he was using the language of menace. I know him and I have had a good deal to do with him in trade disputes, and I have never seen him intervene except in the interests of peace. He is the last man in the House who would use language that was threatening. When he made that statement, I think he was merely stating his conviction, and I may say, apprehension—an apprehension that is shared
      308
      by many of us. I do not take the view that so many take, that this is something that will pass away easily. The Government have got the whole resource of the community behind them, and public opinion in the main is behind them. [Interruption.] I am not referring for the moment to the merits of the dispute. In the question of maintaining order and the essential services in this country, public opinion is behind the Government. I have never had any doubt at all with regard to that.
      The Government have got all that behind them, but they must not underrate the forces on the other side. You have the trade union movement, which is more deeply rooted here than in any other country. The unions that have challenged this issue are, on the whole, the best disciplined and best organised, and, if I may say so, very ably led. Therefore, it is a very serious matter. They have got great powers of discipline over those who are under their authority. There is a loyalty to their union which has nothing to do, as I have discovered many times, with the opinion which any individual unionist has as to the merits of the case. It is almost like the loyalty of the Army. Whatever the soldier may think about the course of the war and the quality of his generals—and there was sometimes a good deal of division of opinion on those questions—they have only said, "Here we are in this organisation; we have sworn to obey the orders," and they will obey those orders.
      I have never credited the sort of assumption that the men will dribble back and throw over their leaders. It is this House that will settle this question, and I thank God it is here. It is essentially a British institution that always manages somehow or another to express the will of the nation. That will happen now. I think it is too early at present for the House to do so, because I think, not parties, but the nation does not realise what is happening. My only hope is that there will be no disorders, and, if this thing is carried out, it will be carried out with that restraint that British people always show in moments of crisis. Then, I think, commonsense will assert itself and something will be done to rescue us from something that is imperilling the future. Meanwhile, I am entirely with any Government that

      309
      equips itself with all the necessary powers to preserve law and order and to maintain the essential services of the country and to see that civilisation is not interfered with. I believe in my heart that my hon. Friends believe the same thing. They may criticise various sections of these Regulations, but that is not the question. The Government must be equipped with general powers to meet any emergency, whatever it is. What matters is not so much the actual wording of these Regulations. I do not think they go beyond possibilities. I do not go beyond that—but there are possibilities that have got to be provided against, and therefore I think we are right in taking the balance. What really matters is the spirit and way in which they are carried out.
      I would like to appeal to the Government that that is really vital. It is so important that we should not excite temper. This is a brave people and will not be stood upon. There are 4,000,000 trade unionists; they are flesh and blood just as much as we are, and, if something is done that is unfair, if the law has been strained against them, and anger and wrath will arise that will make it very difficult for conciliation ultimately to come, and, if temper is provoked, British industry will suffer for a long time for it. I therefore, appeal to the Home Secretary that everything depends upon the temper with which it is done. It should be done with tact and discretion and, above all, it should be made clear that these regulations should not be initiated for any party purposes. I say that, because there are one or two things that have happened which give the impression that there is desire rather to make party capital out of the situation instead of to act for the nation. [Interruption.] I am going to give reasons for that. I am appealing to the sense of fair play of the House. The Government now are not the Conservative Government for the time being. They are equipped by Parliament in the name of the nation to administer law and authority for the nation. They represent the nation and no party.
      There are two things to which I want to call attention from that point of view. The first is, and I think, in fact, it is the whole thing—the newspaper that
      310
      has been issued to-day. That is a Government newspaper. The Home Secretary has accepted responsibility for it, and rightly so. There are two things there which I think, ought never to have been there. First of all, there is an attack on trade unionists. It is a very injudicious thing, to say the least, to do at the present moment. What is the contention put forward? That this is an attempt to take advantage of an emergency in order to crush trade unionists. If that is believed, this will be fought right to the bitter end, and the dregs of that bitterness will not be drunk altogether by trade unionists, but by millions of people who depend on the industry of this country. It was very injudicious.
      The Home Secretary may believe it is right. But is it wise at the present moment, when this is practically the only paper, and the Government are issuing it on behalf of the nation, to include something in it that is an attack en an Act of Parliament which gave special powers to trade unions and a sort of hint that it was the Liberal Party who carried it. [Interruption.] I appeal for fair play at a time when I am supporting these Regulations, and I am supporting them, whatever I may think about whether Regulations 22 and 24 are very drastic. I am not going to draw any distinction between them. The Government must he equipped, but I do ask hon. Members to look at that last paragraph, with regard to the Trade Union Act of 1913. This is a Government paper, and I ask any fair-minded Member of this House, knowing that we are going to face a very grave crisis, when it is very important that the whole of the nation should be behind the Government and should feel that the Government are representing the nation, whether it was desirable to put in a controversial paragraph of that kind, and I think the general sense will be that it ought not to have been there. I do appeal to the Home Secretary to see that controversial matter of this kind is not inserted, when not merely hon. Members on these benches but hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House—and between us we represent the majority of the nation—[An HON, MEMBER: "No!"] Yes, we represent between us the majority of the nation, and I ask whether it is desirable that

      311
      paragraphs of that kind should be inserted and that advantage should be taken of an emergency in order to press forward political propaganda. I am not making the right hon. Gentleman directly responsible, but I do ask him that in future we shall see nothing of this kind occur.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I say at once that I quite appreciate the view which the right hon. Gentleman has taken? I do accept responsibility, of course, but until this moment I had not read the paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you not edit it?"] I did not. I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to the editor. I can assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the paper was published in a great hurry and that the Government have no desire to use it unfairly.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the assurance given by the Home Secretary. What we want is news, and not dope. It is not fair. Another suggestion I want to make is this: I think if news is to be given, it ought to be news conveying what in substance is said on behalf of all parties. I will show what I mean. [Interruption.] I should have thought honestly from the point of view of the Labour party, it was to the advantage of everybody that you should have a Press, and I have no doubt at all if conditions were imposed on the Press that there should be columns representing the Labour point of view—I have seen that done—given on their own responsibility, because it is fair in a great conflict like this that the Press should represent the position fairly, in news, showing the contentions on both sides. I do not believe, from what I know of the Press of the country, that if approaches were made to them from that point of view, they would refuse. However, that is another matter. I think it was a mistake to suppress the papers. It is public opinion that in the end will help us to get through. This is a democratic country, and I believe public opinion will help us to get through, but it is very difficult for public opinion to operate when the Press is completely kept out of action and there is no means of communicating what views are held and what
      312
      is happening. There is no doubt about that.
      The second point to which I wish to call attention is this: Last night there was a Debate in the House of Lords on the Regulations, and there was a statement made there by my noble Friend the Earl of Oxford, who speaks with unexampled authority and great experience, and who presented the case, I think, with great power—and. that was generally acknowledged—but there is not a word about that in this paper. May I point out that it is not that there is no space, for there is a whole paragraph given to monkeys and another to bearded lizards, and may I point out that there are quotations from the speeches of the Prime Minister? I am not objecting to that, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally would also get in. They would find it very difficult to suppress him—perhaps it would be better if they did—but I think they ought to give the impression of complete impartiality. They must accept, if I may say so, the responsibility, the special responsibility, which they have now. A Government always acts for the nation, always, but at the same time you cannot rule out the fact that every Government is a party Government; but in a state of emergency, whether it is war or civil dissension the Government then becomes specially a national Government, and I do ask that under these circumstances, when they come to deal with the Press, when they come to deal with the very drastic Regulations, when they especially come to deal with public meetings, they should act with discretion.
      It is quite true, as the Home Secretary said, that the power to suppress public meetings is only in a case where there is a danger of a breach of order. If I may say so, the sample which he gave is an admirable one. I think he was absolutely right in stopping that procession, for there cannot be any doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that otherwise it might have promoted a breach of the peace; but there must be public meetings which I think will conduce to order. For instance, the trade unions will naturally want to address their men, and I shall be very surprised if at those meetings the responsible leaders will not make an appeal to those

      313
      under their command to preserve order and not to do anything which is provocative. I should think that would be in their own interests, and, in fact, I am sure that it is not merely their inclination, but their interest to do so, and I do hope there will be no interference with meetings of that character.
      I simply got up to say that, as far as the Regulations are concerned, my colleagues and I feel that it is a state of emergency, and if the Government say they want these powers, not merely do we not take the responsibility of opposing them, but we do not believe it would be our duty to offer any opposition even to any Clause, because they contain powers which I can quite well understand a Government might, in the great contingencies which may be brewing at this moment, be called upon to exercise. But, above all, the fate of the nation is in their hands, and I hope, if I may say so, that they will conduct the proceedings with that temper, restraint, and impartiality which this Parliament and British Governments have generally shown in the past. By that means, I believe we will come through in a way which will reflect credit upon us among the nations.
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, by leave of the House, say one word? As the House realises, I am very busy, but may I say a word in reply to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman? I have no intention of stopping meetings of the kind to which he has referred. The House knows me. I am fairly good tempered, and it will be my aim and my object to administer these Regulations in the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to do.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: Who is the editor of this Government paper?
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is in commission at the present.
      Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: This is rather an important question regarding meetings. It is just possible that people who are constitutionally hostile to the conduct of meetings might threaten to make trouble. Will the Home Secretary see to it that if the object and the real genuine intention of the meeting is to give information and to help things, the meet-
      314
      ings will not be suppressed because a handful of people may have threatened to give trouble?
      Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The only object of taking this power is to suppress meetings such as that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite entirely agreed ought to be suppressed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or any of his colleagues think of addressing their friends, I have no intention of stopping anything of the kind, and I will add this. I want to get through this difficulty in a friendly spirit, and I will say to the House at once that any meetings that I think it necessary to restrict or to proclaim, I will at once report to the House of Commons, or, if the Leader of the Opposition likes to ask me in regard to any particular meeting, I will at once give him the information.
      Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for any responsibility for the first copy of the Government paper, because I can quite understand that he never saw it, that he did not know what was in it, and that he took it for granted that it would be all right. Therefore, I do not blame him, because I know the difficulties, but that must not follow from the second copy, and I want to ask him whether he is aware, whether his Department is aware, that the General Council had already, in their counter news to this—there is a counter "Workers' Bulletin" issued, of which the right hon. Gentleman's Department got all the news—is he aware and will he give equal publicity to the fact that they repudiate immediately and emphatically to all parties that this is a challenge to the Government, that they have issued instructions that anyone who invites or suggests insubordination or mutiny by troops or sailors is to be repudiated, and that, so far as they are concerned, whatever the result, they want to make it an industrial dispute and nothing else?
      Mr. LOOKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down if he is aware that the pickets in the Grays district are to-day stopping the food supplies?
      Mr. THOMAS: I do not know anything of the details, but I know that I myself was a party to a letter sent to the Government to the effect, that as far as the

      315
      trade unionists were concerned in the lighting, in the maintenance of hospitals, and in the food supplies, they offered, still offer, and are willing to co-operate in any way to supply those needs.
      Mr. BASIL PETO: May I ask the Home Secretary, with regard to one point raised by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to the absence from the Government newspaper of any report of Lord Asquith's speech, whether it was not owing to the very good reason that the paper was being set up in print at the time or before?
      Mr. HADEN GUEST: I want to associate myself with one of the remarks which fell from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he said there can be no victory. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that, in this dispute, whoever wins, as in the Great War, the suffering is very terrible, and I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to-night, in the spirit of that great faith which he professed, speaking from that bench on Monday, to take steps again, which have been asked for by my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary, for negotiations to be opened up. As a private Member on this side, as an individual not speaking in any official, semi-official or any capacity at all, except that of my own representation here of a constituency, I wish to ask the Prime Minister to realise that he and his party are not right in the conception that so many of them have formed of the nature of this dispute. On Monday the Prime Minister said, "Everything that I care for is being smashed to bits." If this dispute goes on, and force and violence come into our lives, then everything that most of us care for will be smashed. If the powers are used, as they may be used, foolishly, without proper control, with violence and with anger, then there will come such a disaster upon this country as is very difficult for us to contemplate.
      I am putting this matter as seriously as I am able, because with my own experience of large scale serious disturbances in Russia and in other countries, I know, perhaps, what the effect of a disturbance of this character may be. The responsibility is on the shoulders of the
      316
      Government, and nut on the shoulders of the trade unions. The Prime Minister has said that he believes in the supremacy of the House of Commons. I believe in the supremacy of the House of Commons, but if you appeal to force, you are not using the supremacy of the House of Commons you are using the supremacy of force. I believe it is quite easy for an army corps or two, a few regiments, with machine guns, and for battleships and so forth to cow this country into a state of submission, whatever happens, but if you do that you are destroying our political institutions, and I am afraid the temper of some of the Members on the other side of the House would wish you to do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "No.''] I am speaking from my heart. I have no diplomatic intention in my mind. I am afraid of the spirit of some of those who may be in charge of these operations. I am not afraid for myself. I am not afraid for my trade union and Labour party colleagues. We are not afraid of death or of wounds or suffering. Many of us went through the War from start to finish, and know how to face that kind of thing. What I am afraid of is that ill-considered actions of the Government, that people taking decisions rashly, without proper information, that hotheaded men without due experience—and there are, unfortunately, some at the present time—should precipitate at some point a catastrophe, and that a catastrophe should spread from that point over our country.
      I do appeal to the Government to realise that it is more necessary now than ever before really to understand what point of view of the Labour party in this matter is, what the point of view of the trade unions in this matter is, and not to take a wrong view. I could see on Monday that the Prime Minister was genuinely amazed and genuinely alarmed at the strike. I saw that the Prime Minister, although he did not express it, thought there was a. revolutionary intention behind this strike. To quote his own words, he regarded it as a threat to the Constitution. This is not a threat to the Constitution. The threat does not arise. The threat to our Constitution, to our State, and to our safety and security does not arise from this strike. It arises from the industrial conditions which have led to this strike. There is an old Indian

      317
      saying that the thrones of princes are undermined by the tears of the wretched, and if there is in this country at the present time a condition of great national emergency, it is because of the terrible wretchedness of so many of our people. It is easy in this House to forget the condition of the people. It is easy to forget that poverty is the ordinary lot of so many multitudes, and it is that which threatens, and not the action of the trade unions. But may I appeal to you —and I am putting it, I know, with a certain amount. of heat, because I feel in this matter deeply—to try to remember—a thing which is very difficult for you on that side to realise—that you only represent one aspect of the tradition of England. I see an hon. Gentleman raises his eyebrows. It is perhaps a new idea to him, but you only represent one aspect.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not use the word "you" across the Floor of the House.
      Mr. GUEST: I apologise. The party opposite does not represent more than one of those trends of historical tradition which go to make the tradition which we all love and revere. The tradition of the University, of the public school man, of the great public service, is a great tradition, which has done very great service in the past, and is still giving great service to the country. But there is another tradition in this country, a tradition which we on this side represent. It is the tradition or those whose education, until quite recent years, has been gained with exceeding great difficulty and exceeding great sacrifice in the night schools—the class which is now educated in the elementary school and the evening school, which goes at an early age to manual toil, which has always poverty as the certainty of its life, a sufficiency as its best reward, and the uncertainty of unemployment constantly hovering over it. The workers have attempted to escape from that condition of life, organising in the past a great cooperative movement. I would remind the hon. Member who raised his eyebrows just now that he only represents one side of this tradition, and that the great cooperative movement of this country, which represents a working-class organisation, another movement of society, is responsible at this moment for the
      318
      feeding of 12,000,000 of the population. That is a very great influence in our national life. So is the organisation of the trade unions. So is the organisation of the Labour party itself.
      5.0 p.m.
      I regret more than anything I can say that these conceptions and this tradition of life are foreign to so many hon. and right hon. Members on the other side, for it is vital to the consideration of this problem to realise that the present condition is not a challenge to the Constitution. It is a demand by the workers for equality of treatment, and that alone. The workers feel that the treatment of the miners by the mineowners was the treatment of a class considered inferior by the mineowners, that it was the treatment of one class by another from the standpoint of superiority and inferiority, and not from the standpoint of equality. Our conditions, although they may be gradually improving in this country, are not by any means improving rapidly enough. This difference divides us—and may I remind the hon. Member that one of those who drew attention to it was Disraeli—the difference between the world of which I am speaking now and the world which the right hon. Gentleman represents. The difficulty of understanding between those two worlds is so terrible, that I do not think we could occupy our time better at the present moment than by trying to realise that there are these two distinct points of view. You, on your side, too often have a feeling of superiority and power. We on our side too often have a feeling of distrust, and the only way to get rid of that is by an attempt at understanding. There is, too, the question of the treatment of the workers, who could receive a good deal mare justice than is evident at the present time. I understand that the Prime Minister considers the present moment is one of challenge to the constitution of the country. It is one of peril to this country. But it is not a challenge to its constitution. I have, if I may say so, the utmost respect and admiration for those great qualities which distinguish the Prime Minister. I believe that his insight is a very great asset to the country, and if I sit on this side of the House and not on that, it is because I feel that there are certain aspects of our life which the

      319
      Prime Minister does not see, does not understand, which, in fact, are outside his life; it is those things which trouble, and it is because of these that the workers at the present time are demanding equality of opportunity.
      I should like to hope that the Prime Minister might go a little further in his faith and in his practical idealism than he has done up to the present time. Let him make that faith a reality. Let him announce that he is willing to suspend the operation of the Emergency Powers Act until the two sides have had an opportunity of coming together again to reopen negotiations. I do not think that a Government armed with the powers it has needs fear any loss of dignity in any action which the right hon. Gentleman takes. I hope that there will not be on the opposite side of the House any idea that by taking such a step forward the Government is resigning its prerogative, and giving way to superior force. As I said earlier, we are not afraid here of the issue. What I do fear is not only the suffering to many, but what may be an irretrievable set-back in our constitutional development. I am very seriously afraid, indeed, of the use of force becoming established as an ordinary expedient, and being so used. I am very much afraid, indeed, of unforsecable reactions taking place as a result of the action which the Government are now forcing upon the country, and which will put us back, not only, perhaps, in trade and industry, but in constitutional development for many, many years.
      I ask the Prime Minister, who has all the powers of the State at his disposal and who cannot be accused of fear, to take a step forward at the present time and offer again to reopen negotiations. I ask this because I share, if I may say so, the belief of the Prime Minister that the highest and the noblest aspects of humanity will triumph if they are appealed to. I ask the Prime Minister to make this gesture and to suspend the operation of the Emergency Powers Act as an appeal to everything highest and noblest in the men of this land. I believe that if he does that there will be a response. I am speaking as an individual. I am speaking as a Member for the constituency of Southwark North, which is a wharfside constituency, and in which are
      320
      very poor people. I am afraid for those people. I see no necessity for the Government to take the drastic action which they are taking. I do not understand why this Government, with all the power it has at its disposal, did not come forward and take this step that I suggest. I believe that if they did we could get together once more and avoid, not only the suffering, but the torture, preserve the political structure of our country, and lay the foundation of real co-operation between both classes of the community.
      Is the Government sure that their operations and their thoughts on this matter are quite clear? Is the Government quite certain that there are none on their side of the House who are not longing for a. fight, and to get it over? I do not believe you can win in this battle, Whichever side comes out on top; and if this kind of warfare continues it will inflict such damage, not only moral, not only political, on our community, but it will for many, many years prevent any possibility of co-operation, and it would not be we on this side who have done it. We are only asking to be treated as equals, as men.
      Mr. BROMLEY: I should like to claim the indulgence of the House just for a few minutes to endeavour, as a member of the negotiating committee on the trade union side, to get the House to see the position in a mood less bitter and less hilarious than I noticed here on one day, or immediately following Question Time to-day. I want to say that any suggestion that this dispute is a challenge to constitutionalism or an endeavour to overthrow the Government is quite wrong. If there were anything in that line of thought, I should be the first to admit it. There is nothing in the way of a challenge to the Government, unless the Government admit that they took up a position to protect the interests of the mine owners, and preferred the degradation of the mine workers. If they take up that position, then we may have to admit that it may be a challenge to the Government. What I myself grieve about is as to what I saw here on Monday, and I want to use no offensive words. I thought that I saw on Monday a spirit of truculence and of Jack-bootism [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I may be wrong. I hope it was not so. But I thought I saw again this afternoon something of the same character.

      321
      Let me assure the House that we on our side do not minimise the magnitude of this matter and the tremendous possibility of our task. I am speaking for myself. Matters have been brought up against us, and quoted against us, and it has been suggested that we are bound eventually to be defeated. We shall not, however, go down without a, struggle. I would suggest to every hon. Member in this House that whatever the immediate development of our trade union organisation, and despite the effort to break it, there is something in the present spectacle of which hon. and right hon. Gentleman and every Britisher in and out of this House ought to be proud. Here you have a body of men working at certain occupations. If I may be quite frank to the House, let me say that if there were only two occupations left in the country, mining and burgling, I should do the burgling. Those who have descended the mines know the horrors of the appearance of it. Here was a body of men who know and understand the statistics of the killed and the suffering, which are tremendous; but I note that the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) when there is any hilarity in the House, with all respect to her—
      Viscountess ASTOR: I really cannot allow that to go by as a challenge when hon. Members on the other side say that we on this side of the House were hilarious on Monday. I was horrified when I saw the hilarity of some hon. Members opposite—
      Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. The Noble Lady is making a speech.
      Viscountess ASTOR: So far as my hilarity is concerned, I do not think any—
      Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Does the hon. Gentleman insist upon his point of Order?
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, my point of order is this: I understand the Noble Lady rose to a point of Order. My point of 'Order is: Is it a point of Order for the Noble Lady to make an explanation?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood the Noble Lady rose to a point of
      322
      Order, and as the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) gave way, she was entitled to make her explanation.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I only wanted to say that I think the House needs to keep steady. It is not quite right to say that we were in an hilarious mood on Monday. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of you over there were shrieking for blood on Monday!"] I only want to say that some of us were really horrified at the shouting and the noise of hon. Members opposite. We kept quite quiet here. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"]
      Mr. BROMLEY: I am very sorry for that little breeze because, believe me, we who have been through the negotiations for the last fortnight, who have had very scanty meals and very short time for rest and for sleep, are not taking this with great hilarity at all.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
      Mr. BROMLEY: I could not refrain from what I said. Of course I know the general attitude of the Noble Lady opposite, and I pardon her. There are some who do not realise, who have not the slightest conception of, the difficulties that we have to face. I think the House will bear with me when I ask hon. Members to realise that those of us who have been charged with these negotiations on behalf of the miners and the others have had a pretty strenuous time, and do not feel in especially hilarious mood.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Who does?
      Mr. BROMLEY: I judged from the way the Noble Lady took the attitude of her comrades that it was so. Hence I drew attention to it. I am afraid there are many people who are interested to see the trade unionists beaten in this affair. I am not blaming them, for by virtue of their birth and their bringing-up they may feel this. There are many of them officers of the Services who have had the use of much human material, and I do not think that their mentality can quite see the direction of things; but I suggest that in the spectacle before us there are some things of which every Britisher in this House ought to be proud.
      Here you have people suffering in a way I have indicated, and there are others supporting them so that they may get a subsistence wage, to say nothing

      323
      of a comfortable wage. They have been met by the terrible weapon of the lockout. You have men of security who are sacrificing, and men who are under a severe statutory penalty, men who are liable to a severe and heavy loss, men who are due shortly to retire on superannuation, men who have wages far above the miners, and they are supporting their comrades. If that is not the British spirit of which we heard so often in this House at one time, then I lack the understanding of what is! I am not one of those who say that the only spirit, or good spirit, that the British can show is that spirit which will cause them to rush off to war. A. noble spirit can be exhibited on other occasions.
      But what I was coming to was this. Even we who have quite a stiff upper lip at this moment are not standing on our dignity, and we are not above appealing to Members on all sides of this House. Sitting here I sometimes feel very much hurt by expressions from the opposite side of the House, as Members there are very often entitled to take umbrage at what is said on this side, but I am not yet satisfied that ail desire for fair play is extinguished in the minds of all hon. Members of this House, and so I would appeal to hon. Members to try to keep cool and calm, and to leave an atmosphere that may allow us to close, his terrible catastrophe as early as possible consistent with the honour of that large section of the British people whom we represent. it there is a spirit of truculence—I hope I am wrong—if there is a spirit of laughing at defeat, I again say that whilst we recognise that in the end, the resources of the State being so terrible as they are, we may be beaten, it will not be this week, it will not be next week, it will very likely not be the week after, and I ask everyone to consider the terrible damage that will be done to this State before that end comes.
      I am an old negotiator. I have taken part in many negotiations, and, whilst I pay a tribute of respect to the Prime Minister for his part in these negotiations, I am afraid that at the last he was moved by sinister hands, for I have never seen negotiations conducted as they were conducted from the other side before this dispute took place. I said quite frankly to representatives of the Govern-
      324
      ment before the decision of the Trade Union Congress had been given, that if it had been my own people for whom I was negotiating and we had had nothing but "No, no" and "Down, down," I would not have stood for 24 hours what we stood. We begged and pleaded and appealed, and I believe the Prime Minister himself had some realisation of our case; but again I say I fear there was not the desire for peace amongst some of his colleagues.
      I want to put something to the House, not, believe me, in a gibing manner and not in an unkindly manner, to let hon. Members opposite see how little things affect the psychology of people who are suffering. On the one side we had representatives of the starving miners, all feeling very jaded and very tired and feeling, rightly or wrongly, that were not getting a square deal. Mr. Herbert Smith and his colleagues were amongst them. Late in the evening two gentlemen came in who had not seen or heart anything of the negotiations before. They came in resplendent in evening dress. The House must not misunderstand me. I am not complaining. I like to see men and women dressed nicely and decently, and making the best of all those attributes with which Providence has endowed them—and I like to see it also for the men and women of my class. But look at the psychology of the thing! On the one side were men defending the wages of the mine workers from going down, in some cases to 5s. 6d. a clay, and opposite them, in very fine raiment, were men demanding that the wages should go down before there were any negotiations. I appeal to hon. Members to try to understand the psychology of the great movement that is now standing behind the miners and to realise that one cannot kill thought. We can kill everything else. Anything that has the power of government can kill everything—can shackle and burn and sear and brand and kill, but no power on earth can kill thought other than that power which gave it, and it is thought which is bringing this expression of sympathy for the miners.
      I have said, and I repeat, that the negotiations were the greatest travesty of negotiations that I have ever seen; and may I come back to this? If the Government as a whole say that we are

      325
      challenging them, then why? Is it not true, and have not figures been given in this House, showing that in a few years at the latter end of the War period sufficient profits were taken from the coal mines of this country to cover the whole value of the British minefields? Further, do not mining royalties, for people who risk nothing in the mines, run to some £10,000,000 per annum? If the Government say to men who are down and out: "We will not cover your trouble from the earnings of the minefields, which have gone to the capitalists, we will not deal with mine royalties or wayleaves," but come back to the old theory held by the employing class, that the only possible economy in industry is to be made out of wages—if the Government will accept that position, I will accept the charge that we are challenging the Government; otherwise, I do not. The negotiations could have been continued and, as has been said from the Opposition Front Bench earlier this afternoon, we believe that on that fatal Sunday night we were coming to such a formula—a bad word to use, but there is no better at the moment —which would have brought us together. It would not have saved the miners, unfortunately, but at least have removed that weapon of the lock-out from their heads, and have given the possibility of fair negotiations without a threat from those with power to those without power and we might have carried things to success. Personally I believe that we could have done so, but an opportunity was taken to tend the whole thing from top to bottom.
      I want to get away from that spirit. I regret that these Regulations have to be moved, because while recognising that a Government must govern—I do not get away from that idea at all: please do not let that be thought—I do earnestly appeal to everyone not to believe that there are threats in my mind. I should be a traitor to my people who are fighting if I used this hour for truculence or threats, and if I put things badly it is because of the lack of language, and not with intention, but I do want to point out that the statements in this news sheet which has been spoken of, and the tendency of the general propaganda to say that things are failing, and that certain things have not happened, are untrue. Why not speak the truth? Things are too tragic now for us to speak
      326
      otherwise. The first paragraph of this news sheet begins by saying:
      "The stoppage was by no means 60 complete as its promoters hoped."
      It has far exceeded our hopes, exceeded not only what we hoped for but what we asked for.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of services that were open. We have kept them open. We have sent men back to work, and we are now appealing to others not to leave duty. If we had accepted the situation in the jack-boot spirit which I thought was exhibited yesterday, remember that there are many hundreds of thousands more whom the General Council could call out. We are keeping safety going; we are keeping lighting going; and we offered to keep foodstuffs going. Although I think this is not a time for dignity, I am not going to suggest that the Government can come and bargain with the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, arid I am only saying this to try in my humble way to get the right frame of mind. But when it is suggested that services are running, that everything is going on smoothly and that things are improving, believe me, they are not. Suppose a few more omnibuses are running in London—I deny it, but suppose there are a few vehicles bringing a few clerks and girl typists into their dismal rabbit hutches in the offices of London. [interruption.] Yes, I am speaking advisedly. Four years ago I came to London seeking an office, when we moved our headquarters from the North of England, and I went through hundreds of offices that were empty, and I spent twice as much money eventually as I need have done in purchasing such a general office that our people could be in liveable conditions and have light and airy rooms.
      What I want to put is: Is there anyone who sanely understands the magnitude of this strike who believes that such few facilities as have been provided are having the slightest effect on the general situation? Think of the position in the North of England, where great industries are closing. Do not think that shooting will alter it, or that seizing people will alter it. There are 100 people prepared to step into the place of any one of us on the General Council whom you remove. I am told that shooing is

      327
      very unpleasant, and my skin is not bullet-proof. I am not challenging it, I am not welcoming it, I do not want it; but if there is a truculent spirit conducting affairs on the other side who says that will alter it, I say again, without challenge or threat, that it will not. This country is at a standstill, and undoubtedly the position will be worse, and whichever side is beaten or whichever side wins, how much will it be to the credit of anyone who has the power to create a sanity of feeling and a clarity of outlook which will leave negotiations possible!
      If I have trespassed on the indulgence of the House, I must say that the House, with its usual kindness, has listened with an attentiveness which I appreciate, and I would not have inflicted myself upon the House but for a feeling that a certain spirit was about—if I am wrong, I regret it. I want to sum up in these few words. Fear will not kill this thing. We are wrongly represented when it is said that we have deliberately done this, that and the other, because, I repeat, we have offered to work essential services. Not only was that offer not accepted, but it was ignored; there was not even an acknowledgment of our communication. We have sent men back to work who have come out. We are holding back hundreds of thousands of others with a greater power than many hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite realise, and for which, I am afraid, they may not give us the whole credit. This Press, the fact that these Orders may have to be put into operation, will possibly break all down, and the last position will be worse than the first. If it is to be a fight to the finish, God knows I regret it; but there are men on both sides of this House who, while they may regret a certain decision, yet if they believe from the bottom of their souls they are right, will not be stopped by regrets from going forward.
      If there is justice, if there is a need to be merciful to certain of our own fellow countrymen who are flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone, can we not say, "Let us even at this late hour come to a fair understanding, let us do them justice, even though we throw dignity and everything else to the wind"? If we cannot inspire that feeling, if the issue has to
      328
      be fought out, no one will regret it more than I shall. We shall go through with it. I believe the trade unionists are not challenging the Government. Do not try to make capital out of that, because we have no desire to damage our nation, which we love as much as anyone else. We desire to protect a large section of our nation which has suffered so long, and which we intend shall not suffer so much in the future. In conclusion, I appeal to the House all round to endeavour to create a better and a more truthful atmosphere, and to try to understand the position from the standpoint of the working people who have suffered so long, and who are now putting up a strenuous battle on behalf of those we believe to be downtrodden and degraded.
      Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: I rise, not to make a speech, but to offer a suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) referred to the attitude which had been adopted towards certain newspapers. I think it is necessary that the public should be informed upon all matters connected with the present industrial dispute. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion every reputable newspaper desired to publish every point of view, but that suggestion was not accepted by many hon. Members in the party opposite. On behalf of the directors of a group of papers with a circulation exceeding 10,000,000 weekly, I wish to say that we are prepared to offer to print in each division two columns of matter supplied by the Labour party unaltered, and we reserve the right to comment but not to alter so long as the matter published is in accordance with the law. This has been the practice of certain papers with which I have been connected for many years, and whenever there has been an election in a constituency where there is only one evening paper we have placed its columns at the disposal of all parties, and I am certain that all reputable papers will take the same line.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to take part in this discussion with a certain amount of trepidation. The issues involved are so tremendous that everybody should be extremely careful about every word that is uttered. The only claim I have to speak is that I can speak free from any party allegiance or party

      329
      passion, because I belong to no party in this House. Perhaps because of that, and perhaps because I have had a long service in this House, it will not be considered impertinence on my part if I make a small contribution to this Debate. I know there have been several speeches made from the Labour Benches above the Gangway by men who are deeply involved and more deeply involved than anybody else in this trouble, and yet I have not heard a word from them which was not in the language of reason and conciliation. I noted particularly a passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Henderson) indicating a desire and an eagerness on the part of himself and his friends to reenter the path of negotiation.
      Now, I put it to the House that what we all ought to do is to adopt as our motto, "Back from the battlefield to the council chamber." I ask the House, What advantage would it be to anybody that this struggle should go on? At the end it will only tell the same lesson as the Great War. Victors and vanquished will be equally affected by the appalling results of mutual slaughter and destruction. Is there a man in this House who does not realise that, whatever may be the result of this struggle, whether victory, or what is called victory, go to the trade unions or whether it go to the Government in office at the moment, it will be no real victory for anyone? Look at the conditions existing all round. You may talk about the dislocation of our industries, but the cost of this dispute may easily be more than the millons required to buy out the royalty owners and the millions required to reconstruct the whole mining industry.
      When I hear the word "reconstruct," I feel that I must call the attention of the House to the fact that we have had on this subject three or four Royal Commissions, manned by some of the greatest men in the country. They have pleaded time after time for a reconstruction of the mining industry, and yet that reconstruction has not taken place. After all the suffering and humiliation which the miners have undergone, a man must be without heart or reason if he can look upon such a situation without compunction. This situation can only be dealt with by frank
      330
      and honourable discussion on both sides. I object altogether to the position that people should issue ultimatums before they enter into the council chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members on the Government side cheer that statement, and probably they interpret those words in a different sense from my hon. Friend below the Gangway, but I interpret them as applying to both parties.
      On this question I must make another observation. I do not want to say a word against the Prime Minister because we all have great faith in his honesty, his energy, and his benignant and peaceful spirit, although our faith in him may have been a little shaken by the events of the last few days. I cannot, however, understand the delays which have taken place in regard to these negotiations. I cannot understand these delays either on the part of the miners or of the Government. I understand that up to a certain hour on Sunday night there was a possibility of peace, and hopes in that direction in the minds of the Labour representatives; and everybody knows there could not be a more reasonable conciliator or arbitrator than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I am told that there was a second opportunity for peace given to the Government on Monday, and also at ten o'clock on Monday night. The men who divide the two parties in this last disastrous war will he held to a heavy, if not a criminal, responsibility.
      Why do not the parties come together again? Is there some quest ion of dignity? What does the dignity of any man matter, however highly placed he may be, in the face of the disaster with which our country is confronted. I fully accept the position laid down that any Prime Minister would have to accept the responsibility of maintaining the food supplies of the people and the supremacy of Parliament, but never will I give any countenance to what I call the insane idea that any body of men ought to place themselves above the constitutional authorities of the country. None of these men has done so. I know there has been a. great response on the part of a large mass of people to volunteer for the service of the Government. But do not make any mistake about this, because there are great forces on the other side. Although the Government

      331
      may think it right to get together all the forces of the Empire to defend the constitutional authorities of the nation, it must not be overlooked that there is in the minds of a good many people a very uneasy feeling as to the conditions under which the miners suffer.
      Some figures were quoted the other evening by the Leader of the Opposition—figures which, I think, must have shocked every hon. Member in every part of the House. I would ask, how can this grand fabric of Empire be founded on dead men's bones? Therefore, in my opinion, this struggle is not the end of the struggle, and men are in a blind man's paradise who do not realise the dangers that lie before us if this struggle continue. The amount of support that my hon. Friends have got from so many people in this country is an indication of what I am afraid is now a very widespread feeling in the country—I do not say it is justified in all cases, but in many cases it is justified—that there is going to be a mass attack on the wages and the food and the homes of the people. I do pray that my poor humble voice may be listened to by all parties in the House in my plea that, by a united pressure upon the Government, dismissing questions of dignity, they may change, as I have said, the battlefield for the council.
      Mr. CLYNES: No one could find fault with the tone in which the Home Secretary, earlier in the day, submitted these Regulations for the consideration of the House, but I think the right hon. Gentleman must feel how real is the irony of fate which requires him to submit these Regulations, in view of his own past record in the matter of suggestions for sedition and disorder. As that is on the records of the House, I do not want further to emphasise it. Much can be said, at moments of threatened tumult, for proposals such as the Home Secretary has submitted, and we resist these proposed Regulations, not because we fail to recognise the duty of the Government or the possibility of the need for some of them, but because this is still an opportunity for suggesting alternative methods and for repeating arguments which are being used, perhaps, more outside this House than in it, as to the sustaining and earnest desire of those who have acted for Labour in this
      332
      matter to reach a settlement without a stoppage.
      I hope that this Debate will be continued in the tone and terms which, so far, it has followed, above all, in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and of my bon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley), who has made a most moving and, at the same time, matter-of-fact appeal to the conscience of the House further to consider this situation. No one could listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley without reaching the conclusion that the breaking-off of the negotiations was a. precipitate and calamitous step on the part of the Government. It is true that this matter had been before the mind of the public for, perhaps, 18 months or two years, but the truth is that, with respect to the actual exchange of definite proposals for reaching a conclusion and for coming to terms, the negotiations had only begun on the 30th April, and those negotiations had to be conducted under the threat of the lock-out notices that were then hanging over the heads of the miners.
      I have here a copy of the letter sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Miners' Federation, and it was in that communication that for the first time some definite proposals were made other than upon the hard-and-fast lines which had divided the two parties to the dispute during the preceding months. As that letter has already been published, I shall not trouble the House by reading it, but, as I have said, I hope we shall travel particularly in the spirit of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), for he well knows, as every other Member of this House should know, that in the end Labour cannot be beaten. It is willing to compromise, it is willing to settle. It may be defeated, it may go down temporarily, as it has done before, but, in the sense of being a rising and enduring factor in the economic and social life of this country, it cannot he beaten. I recall how, 25 or 26 years ago, the great engineering organisation in this country had its funds drained, and its members, in a sense, beaten to their knees by a powerful and well-organised body of employers,

      333
      but in a few years that defeat had been turned into a victory, the reverse had been effected of nearly doubling the membership of the organisation, and in a few years it had restored its power and authority and influence with the employers of labour.
      Are we to lose the lessons which history, ever repeating itself, teaches us in respect of these recurring quarrels? If we are to lose the lesson of history, let us at least face what is the outstanding fact in addition to the issue that is now before us. It is the fact that, after this dispute is ended, no matter who wins or how they win, no matter what the terms of the settlement or compromise may be, no matter what is the result in respect of all these sides of the question, the outstanding fact before us is that the problems of the coalfield which existed last week will be left to be settled afterwards, and those problems, being as they are, the property of us all, the mutual onus and equal concern of us all, will be intensified and aggravated the longer this unhappy quarrel goes on.
      I know that some hon. Gentlemen, if we are to judge by their personal manifestations and sometimes by what they say, suspect us of being possessed of some design to unsettle the country, to attack and overthrow the Constitution, to assail our established systems. We go the same way as any other party in the use of constitutional methods to secure improvements and modifications for the masses of tie people whom we represent. We appeal to the electors. Remember the last election, and remember how the men who in hundreds of thousands voted for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are now amongst the men on strike, and are not finding fault with us on this side of the House for having asked them, to vote for us, but are finding fault with us for not having asked them to rise earlier.
      It has been already proved in speeches on this side of the House to-day that, apart from there having been a full response to the strike appeal, the response has gone far beyond the claim or appeal that was made to the men to cease work, and hundreds of thousands of men have actually come out who were not required to do so at all; and let it be remembered that those millions of men who are on strike are a mixture of Labour men who
      334
      voted for us and of Conservatives and Liberals who voted against us. Perhaps I should also say, further, that most of these men are ex-service men, who fought as well for their country as they are now entitled to fight for the miners.
      We offer opposition to these Regulations because safety for the State does not lie in mere acts of repression, in merely strengthening the executive authority. National safety is to be found upon far different lines. This is no time for treating lightly any observation of a responsible Minister, but it was difficult to withhold a smile when earlier to-day the Home Secretary said he had directed that railways are a vital necessity. The truth is that the only men who can direct the railways are the railway workers, and there they will remain, so much valueless property, until their worth is restored by work. Accordingly, as I have said, we are not to seek the restoration of our system of locomotion or transport in any one of these Regulations for which the Home Secretary is asking support. We have no desire to stop essential services. I doubt whether before in trade union history so full an exception has been laid down as in this instance in the use of trade union powers, for when, provoked, as I allege and believe, to answer the employers' lock-out with the workers' strike, when that point had been reached, those who had the care and keeping of the course of events in their power said, "We must think of the hospitals, of the sick and ailing; we must think of the needs of the people in regard to food and light and essential services," and they offered in all sincerity, and with a view to maintaining to as full an extent as possible public business and the national life, to co-operate with the Government in respect of the maintenance of these national services.
      It may for the time being fit in with the temper of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to treat those offers with contempt, to conclude in their own minds that they will be able to do without them, but when they tell us that it is we who are interfering with the national services, we are entitled to answer and say that the first and the greatest of the essential services of this country, namely, the supply of coal, was interfered with, was, indeed, stopped altogether, by the lockout notices which were issued. We never

      335
      despaired, until the negotiations were actually broken off by the precipitate action of the Government, of reaching a settlement, harassing and difficult as was the labour of those who had to apply their hands to that task, and here I would like to say, as one who is somewhat acquainted with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), that I do not think that ever before in the history of industrial negotiations has a man worked so hard and with such effect as did my right hon. Friend throughout all these consultations. Now he, I suppose, according to this Government sheet, is to be regarded as the enemy of his country, as one who is seeking to throttle the life of the nation.
      6.0 P.M.
      I want, before I sit down, to make one further reference to this scandalous publication. If information is to be circulated, it should be, in the first instance, more in the fashion of news than views, and if views are to be circulated, they ought not to be of a partisan character, for I conclude that this so-called national publication is issued at the nation's expense. I will read to the House this concluding paragraph, after a reference to what trade unions were in former days:
      "Then the Trade Union Act of 1913 was passed by a Liberal Government, and from being at least on the surface a beneficent organisation whose funds were devoted to the needs of its members and its members only, the trade union of to-day is a vast political body spending its money to the end that the capitalist state may be overthrown."
      I welcome the admission that the trade union of to-day constitutes a vast political body. Events threw trade unions into political activities. They went most reluctantly into political activities. It was found that scarcely ever could a trade union get the meanest advance for its members without resorting to the arbitrament of a strike, and we thought by sending representatives to this House, and using constitutionally and peacefully the power that that political action might give, the standard of the workers' life and wage might be raised. We are perfectly entitled to take part in the political activities of our country. Shut workmen out of the right of taking political action, and you will drive them back upon the weapon of
      336
      revolution. It is the development of trade union influence which has strengthened the bulwark against revolutionary aims and tendencies.
      What is it that members of trade unions pay for this political purpose? I wish this paragraph were true. We denounce it because it is false in the main. The average contribution of the average trade unionist for this purpose is a farthing a week, and yet this lie is frequently circulated, not only in this disgraceful sheet, but from many a Tory platform and in many Conservative daily paper. Provocation to strike existed because the mine-owners would not withdraw the lock-out notices. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, at the close of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Monday night, put a definite question, it was not answered. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman who may speak later can afford a reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the view that the gates for negotiation were not entirely closed. There were still some open provided the strike notices were withdrawn—provided the strike did not take place—whereupon, rightly I think every Members of the House must admit, my right hon. Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does that mean also that the lock-out notices will be withdrawn? I hope we may return before long to that state of sanity which is more in keeping with our reputation for British common sense and that there will be no demand of a one-sided character, and that which one side asks for is a course which it must accede to the other. I can only repeat that we do not look for any benefit to the country from the mere passing of these Resolutions, and as I say it may be necessary for all of us to join together—and I hope we shall—in the maintenance of conditions of peace and order and law, I hope we shall see at the end of this Debate an end of the recurring charges that we alone are to blame for these troubles, and that all of us may find the path along which we can move to reach a settlement of this unhappy problem.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I can assure the House there is nothing I desire more than a peaceful and rapid termination of the present industrial and political unrest. I thoroughly agree with what has been said by several speakers from various points of view, that in these matters no victory for

      337
      either side is a desirable thing. We do not want, indeed, to have language imported from war used in these matters at all. You do not want to have winning or losing spoken of, except colloquially, for the purpose of saving trouble. In any really considered statement it should not be thought of as a thing in which one set of people triumph over another. But I am obliged to say I think, of all the things that make for peace, precision of thought and exactness of expression make most for it. We do not really get on, even by the kindest and most warmhearted appeals, if they do not clear up in some degree the situation in which we find ourselves, because after all, as I am sure right hon. Gentlemen on that bench believe, the Government, and humble persons like myself, and hon. Gentlemen opposite—all of us really honestly desire peace. We do not like having a strike any more than right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. I do not care about the mineowners and their interests. To begin with, there are really two disputes. Hon. Members appear always to treat the whole transaction as if it were one homogeneous whole. That is precisely one of the points on which I think no hon. Gentleman on that side, seeing things from a different point of view, can understand the position of right hon. Gentle-men on this bench. In our view the mining dispute is a trade dispute like any other, in which everyone must feel a great deal of sympathy for those who are in great difficulties, whose wages are threatened by proposals for a reduction. It is a trade dispute like any other, though much more important than most, about which doubtless there is this to be said on one side, and that on the other.
      But a general strike is not a trade dispute at all. It is an aggression against the community at large. Everyone suffers from a general strike. No one is better off for it. The rich suffer very much less than the poor. It is perfectly innocent persons in very humble circumstances who are most affected by a strike It seems to me very surprising that, with absolute sincerity in every tone of their voices, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Henderson), for instance, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, avow themselves the advocates of peace when they proclaim at the outset a general strike
      338
      against the whole community. We cannot reconcile the two points of view—the honest desire which, I am sure, they have to come to a friendly and equitable decision and the proclamation of the general strike. The two things do not fit together. The particular way in which the general strike is carried out is still more astounding, because this strike against newspapers is a thing which it is quite impossible to explain. It has nothing to do with mining nor with any trade dependent on mining.
      Mr. TAYLOR: It has all to do with the Tory majority here.
      Lord H. CECIL: Surely in order to score a party point off an opponent it is not legitimate to inflict the suffering that a general strike inflicts on the community. There is a reference to the influence of newspapers from the point of view of votes at an election.
      Mr. THOMAS: I was thinking of Ulster.
      Lord H. CECIL: One subject at a time. A general strike menaces the authority of Parliament.
      Mr. JOHN JONES: What right have you to talk about Parliament?
      Lord H. CECIL: It is impossible to suppose that that is to be treated as if it were an ordinary trade dispute. It is quite a different thing. It is an effort to force on the State a particular policy. This general strike is an attack upon the State. It is not a step in a trade dispute. It is for that reason that it seems to us so very unreasonable to say the general strike is not to be withdrawn except upon the settlement of the other trade disputes. It has been pointed out that you cannot withdraw the other notices—to speak with absolute precision they are not strictly lock-out notices. They are notices of termination of one agreement followed by proposals for another agreement.
      Mr. THOMAS rose—
      Mr. J. JONES: Do not answer him, Jimmy. He is only a Noble humbug.
      Hon. MEMBERSName!
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) must not make remarks of that kind. He will please withdraw what he said.
      Mr. JONES: I wish to say, Sir, after the arguments which the Noble Lord has advanced in this Debate, that I remember his past history.
      Hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter that can be argued in Debate, but not by means of the interruption which the hon. Member made. I call upon him to withdraw what he said.
      Mr. JONES: I will withdraw on the present occasion, with a view to a future opportunity of restating it in better language.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It will have to be better language.
      Mr. THOMAS: I do not wish to quibble about words. It is beyond question that there is common agreement on both sides, the Government side and the Labour side, that if nothing had happened the notices posted were tantamount to a lock-out.
      Hon. MEMBERS: No!
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not want the House to get, as I am afraid it is getting, into a heated state of excitement. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will avoid that, because it does not help forward any of the objects we have in view. I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, anyone calling me a humbug, or any other such expression. I am quite indifferent. Anyone is at liberty to attack me in the most violent terms they can find in the English language. I have been a Member of this House for a very long time, and I do not think that I have ever solicited the protection of the Chair against people who have made attacks upon me. I do not mind attacks in the least. I do not want to make any attack upon the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. My purpose is to clear up the disagreements that divide us.
      We do not on our side see that there is the slightest reasonableness in the parallel that exists in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members of the Labour party between the notices which have been issued in respect of the mines and the general strike against the whole community. They seem to have an entirely different opinion. While we are perfectly willing, with the utmost patience and
      340
      consideration, to listen to arguments on the merits of the mining dispute, we say that there is nothing to be said for the general strike. It is a pure attack upon the liberties of Parliamentary government and the freedom of the State. When complaint is made of the Government interrupting negotiations—it was only an interruption, because they were quite open to resume them when they could properly be resumed—because of the attack upon the "Daily Mail," it does really seem to me to be a most astonishing thing to have happened. The Government are not likely to view the "Daily Mail" specially from the point of view of thinking that it was of great importance to silence the "Daily Mail."
      Mr. LAWSON: It has not done them very much harm up to the present.
      Lord H. CECIL: Not because of good will on its part. It has done its best to do harm. It is not merely an important thing in itself, to try to muzzle the Press in a free country, but it is an extraordinarily significant thing, because it seems to me impossible to understand that it can be directed to any end except a revolutionary end. It would be easy to understand if the Trades Union Congress had put at the disposal of the miners all the strike funds they had at their disposal. That would have been an intelligible thing. That mark of sympathy would have been largely understood and sympathised with to some extent by those who did not agree with them, but to make a violent attack upon someone or something not connected with the mining industry, and to make an attack on the freedom of the Press, what can it mean? What can really be the mind behind it except the revolutionary mind?
      Mr. THURTLE: There was no violence involved.
      Lord H. CECIL: No violence, but revolutionary purpose is involved, and the destruction of free discussion. I cannot see that there is any fair or legitimate industrial object which that can possibly serve. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that if we are to have peace, the first step must be that the general strike must come to an end. There remains, of course, the old difficulty. I honour and respect the sincerity with which the arguments have been urged, but I do not think hon. Members make it easy when

      341
      they say that they were confronted with a new situation and that they had not time to consider it. That is, I understand, their complaint. The thing was contained in the Report of the Commission. That survey of the whole industry made certain definite proposals. The Government—not for the first time, because they did it some weeks before—recommended the adoption of the Report as the solution of their difficulty, not because they particularly liked everything in the Report, but because they thought they must accept it, after all the careful inquiry that had been made, as the best means of reaching a successful solution of the difficulty. In reply to that there have never been any kind phrases or conciliatory words used. There has been no substantial act of conciliation from the other side.
      Mr. THOMAS Mr. THOMAS indicated dissent.
      Lord H. CECIL: I am saying it as it strikes my mind. There does not appear to have been any step whatever taken, at any rate, in substance. I agree that all sorts of language have been used. I am not arguing the case of the mine-owners at the moment; I am dealing with the case as between the Government and the miners. The position of the mine-owners is obscure. They have reservations. If that were all, it would be open to the representatives of the miners to say, "We will have the Report, if we can have the whole Report. We will have the Report if you, the Government, will show us how we are to get over the immediate difficulty of the two or three weeks, or some other transitional period, which lie between us and the acceptance of the Report."
      Let me make a suggestion. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench are in close touch with those who understand the miners' point of view. They say, "We were on the point of arriving at a formula." That is, perhaps, rather an unhappy phrase, because it suggests an agreement in words which is not an agreement in reality. The 39 Articles represent a formula, but I am not sure that it would regulate successfully any industrial dispute. You want a formula to be such that each party means the same thing. Subject to that condition, if they have a formula, why do not they go to the Prime Minister and say, "Here
      342
      is a formula that would satisfy the miners. What do you say to it?" There is no difficulty—the door has not been shut—about approaching the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) will agree that the Prime Minister is a most conciliatory man, and most anxious to hear what there is to be said. But it is of real importance to that attitude of mind that we must get rid of the general strike, the stress of which is suffered, not by the Government, not by the mine-owners, but by quite innocent persons, whom no one can blame; people who have nothing to do with the dispute. Unless the general strike is got out of the way, how can we get any nearer to a friendly understanding?
      Let us avoid the language of war. Do not let us speak about people having victories, or beating one another. We do not want to beat anyone. Do not let us indulge, though we are all susceptible to it in these times, in excessive suspicion. Do not let us suppose that the Government or any of us want a campaign against wages, or to destroy trades unions. I do not want anything of the kind, and I am sure the Government do not want anything of the kind. Of course, some interested persons in all walks of life want certain things that are very unfortunate from the general well-being of the community. These people will not have their way if the people of goodwill and good sense come together. I do not want to encourage suspicion. I could have said a great many more things, which would seem very odd, about the management of trade unions, but I do not want to encourage suspicion amongst my own friends who, like other people, are very prone to it.
      Let us avoid the language of suspicion and let us avoid the analogy of war, which one is so tired of in these matters. Let us try, by common consent, to get the best settlement we can. No one is to blame for a good many facts of the situation. The real difficulty does not lie in what happened on a particular Friday night or Saturday morning. It lies in the economic difficulties of the situation. Let us try to make the best arrangement that we can in those difficulties. So, and only so, shall we get peace.
      Mr. THOMAS: It was not my intention to take part in the Debate, but the speech of the Noble Lord is very important. It represents a detached point of view, and it is the one real contribution that has been made to the discussion of our problem. In a few minutes, I will endeavour to answer it. I will give one analogy to the Noble Lord in reply to his question why the trades union support the miners. He may disagree with their methods. He may say that it would have been better to have supported them financially. I will not discuss that. I will give the Noble Lord one analogy from his own experience. Ulster took a certain view. They may have been right or they may have been wrong; it was their view. The Noble Lord and his friends thought it was essential that they should risk even a revolution to support Ulster. That is the analogy. I merely draw his attention to it in relation to his feelings of a few years ago. I leave it at that.
      Now I come to the other question. Let there be no misunderstanding. It was no formula. I say, even if it was the last word I uttered in this House, that at Eleven o'clock on Sunday night, not a formula, but the Prime Minister's own words, in his own writing, were in my possession as a means of settling, and I accepted it. Let the. House be under no misapprehension about that. I accepted it. When I say "I" I speak for the Trades Union Congress. Perhaps I had better use the word "we." We had not only accepted it, but we had taken the responsibility of saying, "Never mind what the miners or anybody else say. We accept it." That was at eleven o'clock on Sunday night. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What was it?"] The words that the Prime Minister had himself written down as being a common basis of settlement, not my words. [HON. MEMBERS: "What were they?"] The words were there. As to the "Daily Mail," we knew nothing about it. We knew nothing about any expression of opinion of the "Daily Mail" in its leading article or anything about that. When the existence of the country was at stake, a question about the "Daily Mail" ought not to have prevented us coming to an agreement.
      I know that the Noble Lord is sincere. He only wanted to know the facts. I have told him the facts in a few sen-
      344
      tences. The Noble Lord asks why did the Trade Union Congress support the miners? I answer him, because the whole trade union movement believed the miners were right. Just as the Noble Lord and his party thought that Ulster was right, and they risked their all in supporting them, so the Trades Union Congress thought the miners were right, and risked their all in supporting them.
      I will now repeat in the presence of the Prime Minister what I said on the other matter. I have just stated to the House that at eleven o'clock on Sunday night, so far as the General Council of the Trade Union Congress was concerned, which is the only body responsible for the general strike, we had already told the Prime Minister that we accepted the formula, that is the word used for the exchange of documents, and were prepared to take that risk. We knew nothing about the "Daily Mail" incident. It was after we had gone back—after having told you we accepted it, at eleven o'clock on Sunday night after we had told the Prime Minister that the exchange of documents between us, that is between the Government and the Trade Union Congress, was accepted—when we were going to tell the miners that we had done so, and whilst we were with the miners, that the "Daily Mail" incident happened, of which we knew nothing, that the negotiations were broken off. I am not arguing the merits of the "Daily Mail" incident; I am merely answering the Noble Lord. Like him, I do not want the word "war" used, because we are not fighting the Germans or anybody else. It is our own people, and when the end, whatever it may be, comes, we are all citizens of this country and we want to do the right thing.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I must apologise to the House for not being present, but I have a good deal of work to do, and it did not occur to me that on the Debate on the Regulations any point could possibly arise on anything that had preceded the introduction of the Regulations. I will give my recollection, which I do not think is different from the statement that has been made to you. The discussions which were going on were being held very privately, and what myself and my colleagues, that is, Lord Birkenhead and the Minister of Labour (Sir A. Steel-

      345
      Maitland) were endeavouring to do on our side was to get an assurance from the Trade Union Council that they felt confident, or some equivalent word, that a settlement could be arrived at on the lines of the Report. Some people may think that rather vague, "on the lines of the Report," but it meant in our minds acceptance, and we talked for hours on that point of acceptance. I do not honestly remember clearly whether or not it was stated that evening that those who were speaking to us were satisfied about that, but what I am clear about is that they were going to see the Miners' Executive on the Sunday and see if they could get such assurance from them that they could say to us that the miners accepted, as well as the Trade Union Council, because acceptance by the Council without the miners would not have been a sufficient guarantee for us The Trade Union Council were not plenipotentiaries, as the Minister of Labour said yesterday; they were acting for them.
      They went to see the miners about eleven o'clock, and what has been said confirms from another direction what I said in my speech on Monday. I was in a position of grave anxiety negotiating, as I have told the House, under a threat. I doubted the wisdom, but I ran the risk in the gravity of the situation. It was while the Trade Union Council were seeing the miners and while the Cabinet were considering, or rather let me say while I and my colleagues who had been to the meeting were explaining to the Cabinet what it meant, and what we hoped to, do, that we learned by telephone that the first active overt move in the general strike was being actually made, by trying to suppress the Press. We felt that in those circumstances the whole situation was completely changed. We felt that this was more than a threat. It was direct action, and direct action, in my view, of the worst kind, because it was suppressing, or trying to suppress, the possibility of the dissemination of news to the public. In those circumstances, and with infinite regret, we had to take the stand that we could go no further. It confirms what I think I said on Monday, that there was every hope of an agreement being reached which would have enabled us to continue discussions had it not been for the
      346
      declaration of the general strike. I think that is all I have to say.
      Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I have not risen to make a speech or to continue the Debate, but to say that so far as it was reported to me immediately afterwards the statement of the Prime Minister is perfectly correct. To me that was the sorrow of the whole thing. Let hon. Members visualise what was happening—and in regard to this formula the noble Lord knows that when he is up against a stiff proposition sometimes nine-tenths of the trouble is not to get agreement upon the substance but to get an agreement upon the words that are going to be the form of the substance. That was the difficulty on this occasion. The Prime Minister knew the mind of the representatives of the General Council. That is the first fact. He also knew that at that moment the General Council, having specially summoned the Miners' Executive, were in consultation with the Miners' Executive in a room practically next door to the room where the Cabinet was sitting. That is the second fact. Then the news of the "Daily Mail" incident appeared. There was never a question put to the people in the other room, "Do you know anything about this?" "Are you responsible for this?" "What action do you propose to take in regard to it?" There was no approach made of one kind or another. But when they were busy working out this formula, which was the form of a substance, a letter was received which says, "The whole thing is finished." After the consternation on the receipt of this letter was over my colleagues decided to send a deputation to the room next door where the Government representatives were sitting, asking really what this was all about and to explain the whole situation to them. When the deputation arrived at that room, they found the door locked and the whole place in darkness.
      I again ask this House, cannot you do something? I intended to take part in the Debate, especially after the references made to me by the Home Secretary. Will the House allow me to say this. I withdraw not a single word I wrote in 1912. I withdraw not a single word I said from that Box as Prime Minister in 1924. These are not the issues we are faced with to-day. I am standing as solidly by the

      347
      miners as any of my colleagues. The evil sands are beginning to run down. Is this House not going to supplement good will and common sense and see whether we cannot settle it? I want to warn you. I am not speaking for the Trade Union Congress. I am speaking for nobody. I have not consulted with my colleagues or my friends around me, but I am speaking from my own heart because I know—I believe I know and can visualise—what all this will mean as the days go into weeks and the weeks, though I hope not, go into months. So far as memory is concerned, they will. Although the men have said and the Government have said that there is to be no more appealing as far as they are concerned, I am an outsider, I stand apart. I am not a member of the Trade Union Congress, and therefore I am a little freer than some of my colleagues, and I can do things for which perhaps I may get blamed to-morrow by the Trade Union Congress. But I cannot let this opportunity go without telling the House what is in my heart, and, if it is rejected, well, I have done my best, and no man can do more.
      Lord H. CECIL: I do not, of course, want to make it public, but if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) has this formula, or knows of it, why should he not get it and send it to the Prime Minister?
      Mr. MacDONALD: The formula came from the Prime Minister.
      Lord H. CECIL: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he knows that that formula would be acceptable to the Trade Union Congress
      Mr. MacDONALD: What I would like to do is to get hon. Members to remember the situation. The formula came as a trial from the Government. The Trade Union Congress section said that they were prepared to accept it and do their best. It is rather difficult to say in a word or two precisely what the situation was. They were discussing it with the miners at the time. No one can say what the situation was, although we can all have our views, because right in the middle of the negotiations, when every man was striving to get a settlement, the letter came.
      Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Has it been agreed to?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No reply from the Government.
      Mr. AUSTEN HOPKINSON: I think I can answer the question. The trouble is that in this Debate now we seem to have gone off on a side issue. This formula has no effect whatever. On the Sunday evening in question the following statement was issued to the Press to be published in the Press the next day:
      "Mr. A. J. Cook, the Miners' Secretary, last night issued the following statement:
      'A number of incorrect or misleading statements have appeared since Saturday morning concerning the attitude of the Miners' Federation to any possible reduction in wages. In view of this, and in view also of many telegrams from districts and branches of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain asking for reassurance on this point, it is necessary to make clear that under no circumstances can the miners accept any agreement which lowers their standard of living. The delegate conference of the Miners' Federation last week, after receiving the unanimous reports of the districts against any reductions in wages, increase in hours, or district agreements, reaffirmed its unalterable opposition to any settlement embodying any of these proposals.' "
      I submit, therefore, that at this stage of the proceedings any discussion of this formula is absolutely useless. What that formula was—[Interruption.]
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have appealed to the House before. If hon. Members desire, as I believe they do, this discussion to proceed, let each one of them remember that every interruption they make in argument is only delaying and not promoting discussion.
      Mr. HOPKINSON: I am sorry that what I have just said may be a little controversial, but it seems to me that the House is rather wasting its time on a formula that it does not know and that has vanished in view of that absolutely unequivocal statement on behalf of the Miners' Federation. It was utterly impossible to carry that formula into operation in view of that statement. I would like also to refer to another point with regard to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). The Noble Lord seemed not to be fully informed. It has been said by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side, that it is exceedingly difficult to negotiate when lockout notices have been published. Although

      349
      I do not wish to use the tu quoque argument on so serious an occasion as this, it might fairly be asked whether in those districts where lock-out notices had not been posted the miners would also withdraw their notices. There are large districts in this country where notices have not been posted up by the owners. The miners, quite rightly for their own protection, put up notices terminating their own agreement. No threat was made any more by the miners than by the owners. In both cases they had to protect their legal position, because they would be liable for very serious damages for breach of contract. Just in the same way in those important districts where notices have not been posted by the owners, if the men had not handed in those notices they would have been liable to breach of contract. A lot of wasted talk has gone on with regard to the idea that it is impossible to negotiate with a threat hanging over the miners by means of the owners' notices when at the same time the owners were under threat. I do ask the House to drop these matters and endeavour to discuss the real point in this Debate which I think was very carefully observed by the Noble Lord. I do not put forward these points in any controversial spirit, but purely in order that the time of the House may not be wasted.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am at a little disadvantage in not having heard the earlier portion of the Debate, but there was a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) which I think is just not quite the right impression of the close of the proceedings in the evening. I might just correct also an impression which I think was formed by something said by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) before I came into the House. I understand he gave the House the impression that this was a Government document written out by myself that we were discussing. That is not quite the case. It was a formula that had been reached by discussion between the permanent officials and the members of the Trade Union Council in which we were seeking to get a kind of formula that might he agreed to when the Trade Union Council met the miners. That is the point. Then we were each of us to take this form of words and consult our friends. They would consult the Trade
      350
      Union Council and the miners. But on the morning some of the representatives could not be got because they had left London. I had been to the Cabinet and had heard discussion there. In the evening we considered it again.
      There is some discrepancy in the rest of the statement. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) seems to think there was some lack of courtesy in the way the negotiations actually broke down. They were broken because of the actual beginning of the general strike. [Interruption.] We wrote the reason in the document that was handed in, and we said that negotiations had broken down. We did not close the door to negotiations; we said no negotiation could take place until that general strike was called off. I may add this. I cannot remember whether I told the House on Monday—I think I did. I was so conscious of the attempt for peace that we had made together that I asked the representatives to meet me—instead of sending the document—that I might hand it to them in order that I might express my regret to them, that as has so often happened the work of the peacemakers had been killed by the action of the hotheads. I am quite sure that among those I addressed they felt it as strongly as I did. I say nothing more in this Debate in addition to what I said on Monday as to a general strike and all it means to any Government that may be in power. No Government in any circumstances can ever yield to a general strike. The moment that general strike is called off unconditionally the Government are prepared to resume negotiations to attempt to bring this matter to a successful issue.
      Mr. THOMAS: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman again, for the benefit of the House, this question? Is it not true that the formula that he referred to as being the work of the permanent officials was a formula that was acceptable to his side and ours? Secondly, is it not true that when the breakdown took place we knew nothing of the incident, we were not told of it, and, when we heard of it after the breakdown of the negotiations, we wrote and told him at once that we knew nothing about it and repudiated it.
      The PRIME MINISTER: On the second point what the right hon. Gentleman says is quite true. I think it is quite likely that he had no knowledge of the incident, But

      351
      that does not affect the fact. He may have repudiated it, but it showed that he had entirely lost control. With regard to the first point, certainly I and my friends accepted those words, or, to be perfectly exact, we should have accepted them had they been accepted to mean, to him, what we and the Trade Union Council were trying to make them mean, and we got the consent of the miners.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. WARNE: I want to address the House in the very fine atmosphere there is prevailing at the present time, and I want us to remember the statement that was made to-day that this matter, if it has to be settled, will have to be settled by the House of Commons. Now, I want to say that in my opinion we are watching the working out of one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell this country of ours, and the tragedy is all the greater, because everyone wants peace, and peace is not coming. Why has this crisis come about? It is well known that the workers of this country have had the idea, rightly or wrongly, that there was going to be a determined attack upon their standards of life. The miners believed that they were the first, people to be attacked. The general strike and the wonderful response that has come to the assistance of the miners are due to the fact that the worker believed that there was to be a general attack upon the standards of life of the workers of this country. We may be wrong, but I am just pointing out what is holding the working men of this country and the trade unions together, that idea that there is a general attack on their standards of life. What is the idea that is holding the other side at the present time? It is that the workers were going to make an effort against the constitution of this country.
      Let us try to visualise the two forces that are holding us and stopping peace from coming. Here, on the one side, is the fear of a general attack on the standards of life. The moment that it is resisted, the other side say, "Here it comes, what we always thought would be the case, the Russian method adopted by the working people in this country." The tragedy of the negotiations breaking off last Monday morning shows that that was the fear in the minds of some of the
      352
      negotiators on the other side. The moment that that silly act of certain men in a newspaper office was made known to some of the negotiators on the other side, they said, "The whole thing has to be stopped." Let us try to clear away the misunderstanding. I still agree with the Prime Minister that, unless there is goodwill, understanding and trust, we are not going to settle this crisis. Has it now become a question of outraged dignity on the part of some men? The dignity or the reputation of one or two men should be put by the board when you compare the sorrow and suffering that this thing will cause. My appeal is to the House of Commons, and especially to the younger men. Are we going to sit here quietly and see this thing work itself out, causing misery and suffering, knowing that in the end some settlement has to come? If it is a question of dignity, we say to the men on both sides, "Climb down a little bit and see if we cannot get the matter settled." Eventually a settlement will work out, to the benefit of both parties.
      There is a wonderful volume of opinion in this country that the miners are not paid well enough for the work that they do. I am not going to blame the mine-owners. Both the miners and the mine-owners are the victims of circumstances in which they cannot help themselves. The only people who can help the miners are the people of the nation outside. This House should see that, if a settlement can be found, even if it takes months to work out, a subsidy should be found to keep the miners on the standard of life that they were on before the strike began. You say that subsidies are wrong in principle. There is a good deal more objection to the finding of the money. What is happening? As this crisis goes on for weeks, or perhaps for months, what will it cost this nation? And still the mining industry will be in the same position then. We are asked to put aside passion and to appeal for common sense. I make my appeal in no party spirit, not as a miners' representative even, but as a Member of Parliament with sole responsibility to the nation in which I live. If we sit here and let this thing go on, the House of Commons will not be able to blame the Government or anyone else. We will have to take our full share of responsibility. I say that

      353
      if we stand by and see this thing work itself out, we will deserve all that can be said against us.
      The tragedy of it is that we have on one side the Prime Minister, a man who has made a reputation in his Premiership for bringing a better spirit in this country and for making for peace, and yet a man who in these negotiations has brought about one of the greatest industrial conflicts the country has had to face. On the other hand, we have the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), always suspected, very often by our side, of being too keen on peace in leading the industrial movement. He, too, is at the head of a movement which is part of the greatest industrial crisis that the world has ever seen. Cannot something be done? Has there not been some misunderstanding some where? We do not want to minimise the responsibility of the Government; we do appeal that party passions should be put for the moment on one side and that we should get off the battlefield back again into the council chamber and, eventually, get this crisis settled.
      Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member has just stated very fairly one of the great difficulties dividing us. It is a lamentable fact that, when negotiations were apparently almost completed and when, from the knowledge I have, I feel confident that peace could have been brought into the coal industry, these negotiations should have been broken off and the country precipitated into a crisis without precedent, into a conflict in which there can neither be victors nor defeated. Cannot a little common sense on both sides solve a difficulty which the nation does not want and which no leader in this House, and no responsible man outside, desires? It is a conflict that fills men like myself, who are in charge of great industries, with despair. Up to a certain hour of a certain night agreement was almost reached. Why is time always so hurried at the end and delay always so common at the beginning of such negotiations? Why cannot a little more time be given to solve the difficulty? Why cannot slogans be repudiated? There is nothing so foolish or so dangerous as to be able to make great phrases. They tie you up and you have to repudiate them. Some people who have made great phrases in the coal
      354
      struggle will have to find some way of coming down from their terms and conditions of inflexibility.
      We know that, had it not been for the precipitate action of some foolish people, we might to-day have industrial peace. The action of the Trade Unions Council, the most misguided action that that responsible body ever took, of announcing a general strike while negotiations were going on, was one which could very well have been postponed until negotiations had failed. It complicated the situation infinitely. The notices were given a long time before these negotiations. There was nothing new in those notices. It was the usual formula. As everybody knows, they were put up under a fortnight's rule. There are districts where the notices were given by the miners to the mine owners, and the mine owners did not refuse to go on with the negotiations. Hon. Members opposite do not understand one thing, that to the people outside this House this threat of a general strike is a challenge to citizenship. A young man said to me this morning, "I have fought four years in the War for this country, and will fight against this threat for four years longer in this country or leave it."
      That is the spirit you have generated. Cannot you understand what it means to free-born men to be told that you are going to take over the control of their food supply, and that they have to come to you for what they want? What does this mean to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have to tramp for miles through the wet to and from their business every day. How can that help the miners to get more money? How can it help the miners, to make life inconvenient—to make life a hell—for these people? How can you secure the ascendancy of the trade union movement by inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of workers? It is a most fantastic idea. Who are you hitting? Who are you trying to hit? Who do you think you will damage? It is not the man with the motor-car but the clerk and the typewriter girl who have to walk to work every day. How is that going to help and who is it going to help? Who are you going to starve if you starve anybody? It is not the man who can go to his country place where he can get plenty to eat; it is not the thousands of people who have left England for the Continent,

      355
      and who can go on living there for the next five years if necessary while you are carrying on your strike. No, you are going to starve thousands of working men and their families.
      What good is that going to do to your own movement or how is it going to help the miners? You are simply setting the whole country against the miners and against the trade union movement. I have worked with trade unionists all my life, and I think they have no complaint to make against me throughout my whole career as an employer.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: They have. I was in your country, and they complained to me.
      Sir A. MOND: We had our 50 years' celebration of Brunner, Mond and Co., and I was presented with a testimonial from the secretary of every trade union of the twenty represented in the employment of the firm expressing, unsolicited, their pleasure and appreciation of the way the company has treated them during all the time of its existence.
      Mr. B. SMITH: You were the first to reduce the wages of the chemical workers.
      Sir A. MOND: I have never reduced wages.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I must once more appeal to hon. Members to refrain from Interruption.
      Mr. KELLY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman state what is not correct?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the House to keep to the serious business in hand. I have already said that these interruptions are not helpful at all.
      Mr. KELLY: I am personally concerned, and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree with what I am going to say. I happen to be Secretary of the Chemical Trades General Industrial Council for the whole country and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, although I knew of that celebration to which he refers, he will not find my name on that testimonial.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think, on an occasion of this kind it would be unworthy of the House to pursuer further a personal of that kind.
      Sir A. MOND: All I can say to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is that I regret that fact. I realised that this is a grave national matter and not a personal matter at all. I was speaking in all sincerity and I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept my remarks in the spirit in which I am making them. In my opinion, they run very grave risk of damaging their own movement rather than helping it in this country by the action they have taken. I am certain the more they think of it, the more they will agree with me. Cannot we get back to what I would call a position of solution? Cannot you withdraw this menace which the Government are bound to meet with increasing severity every month. Cannot you rearrange the conference which was so near solution? Cannot some step be taken to bridge over the interval? It would be no unusual thing in the coalfields to work under a clay-to-day arrangement, while negotiations were pending. There is no reason why the collieries should not be carried on, at the present rate of wages, on day-to-day terms, while the Government prolong the subsidy until parleys are finished.
      We have spent £24,000,000 for nine months peace in the coalfields. Will anybody who is a business man tell me that the Government are entitled to say, "We will stop on a certain day and not another penny will we spend; we will run the country into a crisis like this when at the end of two or three weeks more at a small expense of this kind, a solution might be found." It is surely neither finance nor business nor common-sense to say so. Do not let us be frightened. Many people outside look on a subsidy as a terrible thing. I do not agree, and never have agreed with the idea that we should pay £24,000,000 for nothing. I think for that subsidy we should have achieved peace and not a conflict such as we have to-day. I think it would be equally foolish, having spent that money and having achieved the Commission's Report and having brought it near acceptance, for any Government to refuse to spend a little more money if it saw peace in front of it. It is not impossible. You have to disregard, and I say so deliberately, narrow-mindedness and obstinacy on both sides of the negotiations. But there are plenty of men, both on the owners' side and the other side,

      357
      who are prepared to make what I think are reasonable and national terms. The industry has to be reorganised. That has been said for years. It is common knowledge. I think reorganisation is neither so difficult nor so complicated as some would make it appear. To ordinary intelligent men of business the problem should present no insuperable difficulties.
      I say that if the Government stand behind the progressive elements in this industry, the elements that are prepared to support progress against reaction, and if they do not allow the obscurantists who are thinking only of themselves, and who are incapable of forward movement, to wreck the reorganisation of the industry, the Government will have the whole country behind them. The country cannot go on indefinitely tolerating every few years a hold-up of industry. The industry of this country will depart and decay if, every four or five years, you are threatened with a stoppage of this kind. Importers and buyers will lose all faith in your capacity. The financiers of the world generally and at home will refuse to go on developing and expanding the industries of this country and those engaged in that task will be only relieved to give up the unequal conflict, if they have to fight the competition of the world and the difficulties of modern business while at the same time they are stabbed in the back in their own country.
      Mr. HARTSHORN: I agree largely with what the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said about the desirability of commencing at a point where we can hope for some solution of this problem, because up to now there has not been a real, genuine attempt to bring about a settlement. Notwithstanding all the work that has been put into this problem by trade union leaders and the representatives of the Government, a settlement has been blocked from beginning to end by a decision reached nine months ago by the Coalowners' Association. I have been looking at the files of the "Western Mail," and I find, on 11th August, a letter there written by me relating to a publication from the Coal-owners' Association, and, if the House will excuse me, I will read one paragraph from that letter, which conveys what I want to impress upon hon. Members. It is:
      "The statement circulated by Mr. Philip Gee (an official of the Mining Association
      358
      of Great Britain), and published in your paper on Saturday last, is full of significance and very ominous. With unblushing effrontery he makes known the fact that the coalowners of Britain propose to devote the next nine months, not to a genuine effort, to get the mining industry out of the muddle into which they have brought it, but to conducting a propaganda, the object of which is to produce civil war in Britain. 'The Mining Association,' says Mr. Gee, 'has no illusions as to the possibility of a lasting settlement until the constitutional issue is faced.… It will be the endeavour of the Mining Association, during the respite purchased by Mr. Baldwin, to expose to the public the ramifications and activities of our English "Reds" the methods by which they control the Miners' Federation and other unions, and their policy towards industry and the State.'"
      There you have a declaration by Mr. Philip Gee, head of the publishing department of the Mining Association of Great Britain, that the isue they proposed to raise, and the issue which had to be decided before any hope of settlement of the wage question could be reached, was the constitutional issue of whether we were to be governed by a Soviet or whether Parliament was to rule. I say that the Coalowners' Association, by raising that issue, pursued a policy which has made a settlement of this coal problem quite impossible up to now. In everything they have done, they have had that object in view. All through the negotiations and in their evidence before the Coal Commission, day after day, they went on reading from speeches delivered by different people, all of which aimed at creating prejudice and showing that there was a constitutional issue behind the whole case. When they submitted their proposals for settlement, they presented the most remarkable set of proposals that has ever been submitted in the history of this country.
      Mr. HURD: They accepted the Report.
      Mr. HARTSHORN: No, they put down a definite statement that the only solution of the mining problem was to be found in the rates of wages, not merely of the miners, but of the railwaymen, the dockers and all the rest. By this means they created a general atmosphere, and all this procedure in my opinion was part and parcel of the programme and policy of the Mining Association. When we come down to the question of notices, what do we find? Without any discussion at all between the miners and the mine-

      359
      owners, the coalowners put up 14-day notices to dismiss all their men. Not a word of discussion or negotiation had taken place, but notices were put up on the 16th or 17th April to terminate contracts at 14 days, and nothing was said about the terms upon which they were to work until the 24th April, and then those were district terms. They were of such a character that it was quite impossible for anybody to begin to negotiate upon them. They were unthinkable terms, which even proposed that the men's wages should be less than those which obtained before the War. The Government came along and said: "You must not simply deal with district wages; you must bring forward proposals on a national basis." They went into a discussion, but when did they come forward with their first proposal? Not until the stoppage had actually occurred, and is it possible to conceive that in fare of a set of actions such as are now known to all of us, there was any sort of atmosphere existing in which it was possible, regardless of any effort that might be put into it by the most conciliatory set of negotiators, to effect a settlement of the mining problem or of any other problem?
      I think the time has come when we ought to give a real, fair, and square chance to the men who have to deal with and settle this problem and clear the boards altogether. Why should we not? I do not think there has been a, fair chance for a proper atmosphere at all up till now for bringing about a settlement. Instead of getting down to what has been done and to formulas that have or have not been agreed to, why should not we get back to where we were before the notices were put in at all? There had been no discussion of terms by anybody up to the time that the coalowners tendered their notices, and why should we not get back to that time? The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) said we had spent £24,000,000 on the settlement, as we have, and what have we to show for it? There can be no doubt that had the mining problem been dealt with in relation to the real problem that faces the industry, and had a scheme for solving the problem been drawn up and the £24,000,000 of subsidy treated as part and parcel of that scheme, we should have had by now a solution of the coal problem. We should have had
      360
      hopes, at any rate; we should have had a scheme in operation which, by a progressive process, would ultimately so deal with the real problem that is there as to have avoided a repetition of the kind of thing we have had up to now.
      That problem cannot be solved by a fight. The economic facts of the mining industry are of such a character that they cannot be fought out, and when people talk about fighting it out, they do not understand the nature of the problem. I wish I could go into it now, as I would rather be talking on the coal industry than on this subject, but most hon. Members who have given any thought to the real nature of the coal problem must be well aware that whatever happens by way of a strike or lock-out, however long the stoppage continues, whatever the position at the end of it is, nothing can bring about a solution of the coal problem that does not embody in the scheme a big system of re-organisation. A lot of people have suggested methods of solution, but the trouble is that we have got to a stage where everybody says that somebody else must do something before anything can he done. Why cannot we all agree to get back to the point where we started going wrong, back to where those notices were posted up? Surely it is net too much to ask this House that we should all agree to get back there. If that were done, I have not the remotest doubt that a solution of the coal problem could be found. We are not going to find it in increased hours or reduced wages. We shall have to find it in the re-organisation of the industry along tines which are now very clearly understood, but it will take time to do that, and it will require assistance from the State to enable that time to elapse before the real fruits and benefits of that scheme can be put into operation.
      We might just as well face that fact now as at any other time. We have allowed £24,000,000 to pass through this industry like water through a sieve, without having in any way changed the economic situation, without in the least degree having solved the problem or even touched it, and surely we shall not say now that we are not going to spend a few millions more in order to get down to business. There can be no sort of excuse for having pursued this matter as far as we have, and then to say that for the

      361
      future the thing will right itself. It is not going to right itself, and I sincerely hope that, even at this stage, when it appears to be a deadlock, we will get down to the simple fact that up to now there has not been a real, genuine effort to tackle the problem. The problem has not yet been handled, and that is very largely due to the fact that the impression seems to have developed, nine or twelve months ago, that behind the trouble in the coal trade there was a Red propaganda, a revolutionary movement. I am satisfied that all through the negotiations the coalowners had that at the back of their minds, and it has very materially hampered and seriously hindered any effective result accruing from the negotiations that have taken place. Unless we are to bury all that kind of feeling, unless we are to get a clear course, and to get back to where we were when we were attempting to negotiate, I think there is small hope of a settlement, and in the absence of a settlement, the Lord only knows how long this is going on, what is going to develop from it, and what the result of the stoppage will be.
      There is no bigger mistake that will he made than to imagine that, if this is to be a trial of strength, it is going to be speedily ended. That is not going to happen. Surely nobody in this House can contemplate a mere sitting down with folded arms, one saying to the other, "We are in one camp, you are in another; we can hold out much longer than you can, and our resources are much greater than yours. Go on as long as you like." If that is to be the attitude, I should say we have a couple of months of it in front of us—a very nice prospect for this nation. I do not think any of us can contemplate that without a feeling of horror. I do not think we can imagine or conceive what kind of social conditions will exist in this country or what may arise during such a prolonged stoppage. If we are not going to adopt that attitude, if we are going to use such common sense and brain-power as we possess, to try to effect a settlement rather than have a trial of strength, surely it is much better that we should get about that at once, and get the negotiating parties back at work. I do not think that, if they do get hack and get down to the real problem, they will find it in any way insoluble, and if there be a real determina-
      362
      tion on the part of the Government and the owners of the mines to find a solution, it ought to be done and done speedily.
      If it were done now, it need not be more than a couple of months before we get a proper reorganisation scheme in working order, which would enable the industry to begin to put itself right and to start a solution of the problem, because the coal problem is not one to which you can apply a solution to-day that will be effective to-morrow. Whenever it is applied, it will be a progressive solution, and I sincerely hope that wiser counsels will prevail, and that we shall agree that. it is necessary at this stage for some further financial assistance to he offered the industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how long?"] That is a matter that can very easily be determined if they will only get together to find out exactly what is required.
      Mr. HURD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered that.
      Mr. HARTSHORN: Whatever was offered, or whatever suggestions have been made, we, have now reached a deadlock. I am not going to discuss the merits of the offers that have been made. The real point of importance is that we should recognise two or three salient, facts. First of all, we cannot solve this problem without some further assistance from the State. That is a fact that we shall have to face either now or later, and the sooner it is recognised and put into operation, the cheaper it will be for all of us. The next thing is that whenever we apply a solution, it will take a couple of months to prepare a scheme and get it set into motion. That is the line upon which we have to proceed, and if the House would only bring the necessary pressure to bear or convey to the Government its desire that they should move on these lines, surely there is no loss of dignity involved. I should not fear any loss of dignity to suggest that this course should be pursued. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the strike order withdrawn?"] I have suggested that we ought to get back to where we were on the 16th or 17th April when the, notices were posted by the coal-owners. I have pointed out that up to that time there had been no negotiations on any terms, and, as a matter of fact, no terms had been submitted. Before any

      363
      negotiations took place, the lock-out notices were posted, and I say we ought to get back there, and, whatever were the terms and conditions prevailing then as to wages and subsidy and everything else, we ought to start there. If we do that, and, if you like, give a month in which to endeavour to effect a settlement, I think the State may yet be saved from all the possible consequences of a prolonged national stoppage. I sincerely hope that that line of action will be taken by this House, even to-day.
      Mr. B. SMITH: I beg to move, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "other than Regulation 6."
      Regulation 6 states:
      "The Minister of Transport and any other Government Department approved by His Majesty for the purpose, and any person duly authorised by a Department on whom powers are conferred by or under this Regulation, may grant to any person a licence to drive a motor car during the period for which the Proclamation of Emergency is in force, and such licence shall have effect as if granted under the Motor Car Act, 1903."
      I move the Amendment, because I think that Regulation 6 is entirely unnecessary. Anybody at any time can apply for a licence under the Motor Car Acts by a payment of 5s. in any part of the country. If, however, this Regulation is to mean the licensing by the police or the watch committees, then again I say it is unnecessary, for the Home Secretary, so far as London is concerned, and the watch committees, so far as the country is concerned, have powers already to grant day-to-clay licences for 24 hours. The strike, bad as it is, at least is a peaceful strike. Up to now, no single act of violence, to my knowledge, has taken place in the streets of this country. If that be so, the effect of incorporating Regulation 6 within the terms of these Regulations will mean the licensing of people to carry on the work of legitimate drivers, which will engender bad feeling, and undoubtedly strife will arise therefrom. For these reasons, I ask the House to accept this Amendment. There is, furthermore, the factor of putting on to these vehicles people who are not efficient drivers, and to the possibility of trouble on the road will be added the risk to the lives of the people. The fact is, that already the authorities can grant day-to-
      364
      day licences, and it seems to me that the incorporation of Regulation 6 will have the effect of taking, shall I say, the peaceful side out of the strike, causing disturbance and danger on the roads, and the second stage of the thing will be worse than the first.
      Mr. MARCH: I beg to Second the Amendment.
      I have known something about the conditions of road traffic for a great number of years, and I do not think the Government could be doing anything worse to cause friction and trouble than to pass such a Regulation as this. We have always been given to understand that there has been no difficulty for those people who require licences to obtain them, and, surely, there is going to be no difficulty in their being able to get them in the same manner as they have been able to get them for a number of years. As mentioned in the Regulation, licences are to be granted to have effect as if granted under the Motor Car Act, 1903. We have had 23 years' working of this Act, and even although there may be, as is suggested, a case of great emergency, the authorities who have been dealing with these licences are quite efficient and capable of dealing with them now, as they always have been. It would be the right thing to bring about that kind of feeling, which, I think, the Government are desirous there should be amongst those who have obtained their licences, that they have obtained them all in the same way, and that no preference, privilege or favour has been granted to certain people to obtain these licences.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The Government are unable to accept the Amendment, and I cannot help thinking the Mover and Seconder have brought the Amendment forward under some little misapprehension. They have said that they desired to move this Amendment because the powers to be granted would cause ill-feeling, would create hostility in the streets, and would make people feel that others were licensed to carry on the work of legitimate drivers. They said, further, that it would deprive the public of protection against inefficiency. The Mover and Seconder will realise, if they look at the Regulation, that it is not a Regulation affecting

      365
      licences for hackney carriage driving, and things of that sort, but a Regulation which permits the Minister of Transport and any other Government Department to grant a licence under the Motor Car Act, 1903, and that licence is granted at present without any power of anybody to ascertain whether the particular driver is efficient or not.
      Therefore, it is impossible to say that the granting of this power to the Minister of Transport and any other Government Department deprives the public of any protection against inefficient driving, because any inefficient driver can still pay a fee of 5s. to obtain a licence under the Motor Car Act. The only object of the Regulation, which, I think, is a harmless one, is that in times of emergency, and, possibly, even of disorder, it may not always be possible to get to the county council, or the county borough council, as the case may be,
      for immediate access to grant the licence when it is required. As numbers of volunteers are coming up to assist in necessary services, it might happen that it would be useful for the Minister to be able to allow people to drive tars at his disposal for the purpose of maintaining essential services of the country, without having to wait until the county council has power to deal with them. It may take some little time. It is not a power which will be very often used, but it is one which is thought useful, and it may, possibly, allay the suspicions of hon. Members opposite if f say it is a power reproduced from the Regulations in force in 1921, and from the draft which was prepared to be put in force by the previous Government in 1924.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 329.

      Division No. 206.]

      AYES.

      [7.55 p.m.

      Ammon, Charles George

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Potts, John S.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hardie, George D.

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      Saklatvala, Shapurji

      Barnes, A

      Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Barr, J

      Hirst, G. H.

      Scurr, John

      Batey, Joseph

      Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Broad, F. A.

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

      Buchanan, G.

      Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Cape, Thomas

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)

      Charleton, H. C.

      Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Cluse, W. S.

      Kelly, W. T.

      Spencer, G A. (Broxtowe)

      Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

      Kennedy, T.

      Stephen, Campbell

      Compton, Joseph

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

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Connolly, M.

      Kirkwood, D.

      Sullivan, Joseph

      Dalton, Hugh

      Lansbury, George

      Taylor, R. A.

      Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

      Lawson, John James

      Thurtle, E.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lee, F.

      Varley, Frank B.

      Day, Colonel Harry

      Lunn, William

      Viant, S. P.

      Dennison, R.

      Mackinder, W.

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Duncan, C.

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Dunnico, H.

      MacNeill-Weir, L.

      Welsh, J. C.

      Gillett, George M.

      March, S.

      Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

      Gosling, Harry

      Maxton, James

      Whiteley, W.

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

      Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

      Murnin H.

      Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      O'Connor, Thomas P.

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Groves, T.

      Oliver, George Harold

      Windsor, Walter

      Grundy, T. W.

      Paling, W.

      Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

      Guest, L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Mr. Warne and Mr. B. Smith.

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

      Balniel, Lord

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

      Ainsworth, Major Charles

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Blades, Sir George Rowland

      Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

      Barnett, Major Sir Richard

      Blundell, F. N.

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

      Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

      Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

      Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

      Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

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

      Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

      Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

      Bennett, A. J.

      Brass, Captain W.

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

      Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

      Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

      Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

      Berry, Sir George

      Briggs, J. Harold

      Astor, Viscountess

      Betterton, Henry B.

      Briscoe, Richard George

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Birchall, Major J. Dearman

      Brittain, Sir Harry

      Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

      Grotrian, H. Brent

      Makins, Brigadier-General E.

      Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

      Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

      Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Margesson, Captain D.

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

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

      Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

      Buckingham, Sir H.

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

      Meller, R. J.

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

      Merriman, F. B.

      Bullock, Captain M.

      Hammersley, S. S.

      Meyer, Sir Frank

      Burman, J. B.

      Hanbury, C.

      Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

      Burton, Colonel H. W.

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

      Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

      Harland, A.

      Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

      Caine, Gordon Hall

      Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

      Campbell, E. T.

      Harris, Percy A.

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

      Cassels, J. D.

      Harrison, G. J. C.

      Moore, Sir Newton J.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Moreing, Captain A. H.

      Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

      Morris, R. H.

      Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

      Haslam, Henry C.

      Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

      Hawke, John Anthony

      Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

      Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

      Murchison, C. K.

      Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

      Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

      Neville, R. J.

      Chapman, Sir S.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

      Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

      Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

      Christie, J. A.

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

      Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

      Hills, Major John Waller

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

      Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

      Nuttall, Ellis

      Clarry, Reginald George

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

      Oakley, T.

      Clayton, G. C.

      Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Holland, Sir Arthur

      Pennefather, Sir John

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Holt, Captain H. P.

      Penny, Frederick George

      Colfox. Major Wm. Phillips

      Homan, C. W. J.

      Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

      Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

      Perkins, Colonel E. K.

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

      Perring, Sir William George

      Cooper. A. Duff

      Hopkins, J. W. W.

      Peto, Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)

      Couper, J. B.

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

      Courtauld, Major J. S.

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Philipson, Mabel

      Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

      Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

      Pielou, D. P.

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

      Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

      Pilditch, Sir Philip

      Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

      Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Crawfurd, H. E.

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

      Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

      Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

      Hume, Sir G. H.

      Preston, William

      Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

      Price, Major C. W. M

      Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

      Huntingfield, Lord

      Radford, E. A.

      Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

      Hurst, Gerald B.

      Raine, W.

      Curzon, Captain Viscount

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Ramsden, E.

      Dalkeith, Earl of

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

      Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

      Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

      Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

      Rees, Sir Beddoe

      Davies, Dr. Vernon

      Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

      Davies, David (Montgomery)

      Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

      Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

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

      Remer, J. R

      Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

      Rentoul, G. S.

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

      Jacob, A. E.

      Rice, Sir Frederick

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

      Dean, Arthur Wellesley

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

      Dixey, A. C.

      Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

      Drewe, C.

      Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

      Ropner, Major L.

      Eden, Captain Anthony

      Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

      Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

      Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

      Kindersley, Major Guy M.

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Elliot. Captain Walter E.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Rye, F. G.

      Ellis, R. G.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Salmon, Major I.

      Elveden, Viscount

      Lamb, J. Q.

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

      Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Lister, Cunliffe- Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

      Sandeman, A. Stewart

      Fairfax, Captain J. G.

      Little, Dr. E. Graham

      Sanders, Sir Robert A.

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Livingstone, A. M.

      Sanderson. Sir Frank

      Fermoy, Lord

      Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

      Sandon, Lord

      Fielden, E. B.

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

      Ford, Sir P. J.

      Loder, J. de V.

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

      Forrest, W.

      Looker, Herbert William

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

      Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

      Lord, Walter Greaves

      Sheffield. Sir Berkeley

      Frece, Sir Walter de

      Lougher, L.

      Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

      Skelton, A. N.

      Gadie, Lieut.-Col Anthony

      Luce, Maj-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

      Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

      Galbraith, J. F. W.

      Lumley, L. R.

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

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Lynn, Sir R. J.

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

      MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

      Smithers, Waldron

      Gates, Percy

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

      Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

      Sprot, Sir Alexander

      Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

      McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

      Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

      MacIntyre, Ian

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

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      McLean, Major A.

      Steel, Major Samuel Strang

      Goff, Sir Park

      Macmillan, Captain H.

      Storry-Deans, R.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

      Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

      Grace, John

      McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

      Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      MacRobert, Alexander M.

      Strickland, Sir G.

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

      Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

      368

      369

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

      Winby, Colonel L. P.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

      Wallace, Captain D. E.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

      Wise, Sir Fredric

      Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

      Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

      Withers, John James

      Tasker, Major R. Inigo

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Templeton, W. P.

      Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

      Womersley, W. J.

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

      Watts, Dr. T.

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

      Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

      Wells, S. R.

      Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

      Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

      White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Thomson, Travelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

      Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

      Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

      Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

      Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.

      F. C. Thomson.

      Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "other than Regulation 18."
      8.0 P.M.
      This Regulation has reference to power to be given to the Post Office, to the Government
      "to direct that telegraphic messages of such classes or descriptions as he may prescribe shall not, be accepted for transmission."
      I want to submit to the House the fact that hon. Members on these benches have accepted without any opposition most of the Regulations in the leaflet which is before the House, and which have for their purpose the safeguarding of the food supplies, the prevention of hoarding, and the preservation of the essential services. That, I think, is an indication so far as we are concerned, that there is no desire to do anything to hamper the normal life of the community more than can be helped in the present condition of things. In fact, as I understand it, the General Council of the Trade Union Congress have intimated their willingness, nay, even their desire, to assist the Government in these very particular purposes.
      Amendments are being moved only to those Regulations which, it is felt, will aggravate the position, which will exacerbate the feelings of those engaged in this particular struggle. It is for that purpose that I am asking the Government to reconsider this particular Regulation. So far the employés in the various State Departments have remained at their posts; but there is a very strong feeling in these Departments as to the position of the other workers. Rightly or wrongly, there is running through them a feeling that this is a prelude to a direct attack upon the wages of all sections of the workers, including themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am in a position to know; therefore, I am talking in regard to what I know, and I do not think anybody would accuse me of being
      370
      an extremist. There is the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. Under this Regulation, if carried out, it would appear to those of whom I speak that advantage is being taken of the strong position in which the Government find themselves to weight the scales still more unfairly against the persons who are engaged in this particular matter. It will be permitted, apparently, to interfere with messages that may be construed as being of a seditious or even of an inflammatory nature, and possibly those of a quite peaceful nature, and for a pacific purpose. There are some of us who cannot help the feeling that there are some hon. Members of the Government who want this fight, and who have been trying to provoke it, and who are doing everything they possibly can to prevent it being fought out to the end as at present. I suggest that under the Regulations that the Postmaster-General has at present he can safely see that, nothing is done to imperil the safety of the realm. If this proposed regulation were allowed to pass it, will make the position of pass it like myself more difficult in the Post Office.
      In other Government Departments you will create fresh difficulties for the State where we do not want them. I suggest that the State could carry on under the normal Regulations and not do anything which is going to give the feeling that you are acting unfairly and without giving rise to what was referred to by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), which he deplored a little time ago, that the Government are bringing the appearance of war and a declaration of war into this matter, and against the people. Surely ire ought to do all we can to keep that sort of thing out! Pass, by all means. Regulations that are to ensure the food supplies of the people, the maintenance of the ordinary necessaries of life and the carrying on so far as we can of the

      371
      essential things necessary for civilised life. But for heaven's sake do not pass anything or bring in anything which will exaggerate more than at present the suggestion of war and give the impression that is in the minds of many that there are people who want to carry the fight out in the spirit of war. Rather let us eliminate this spirit and see if we cannot carry on this fight with at least as little bitterness as possible, and with a minimum of hardship.
      Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Here we have a service which is complete so far as externals are concerned. There is no trouble in the service so far, yet we are asked to pass a Regulation like this by the Government in the hope that by it they can make the people believe that there is really something the matter. If they want to do things that are real, why is it that they have the milk supply locked up in Hyde Park and have been broadcasting messages asking the dairymen to come and take it away because they cannot distribute it? Why are the milk cans in Hyde Park? Was it the brainy suggestion and arrangement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It seems to me that the Government are plunging along in their folly, and making Regulations for a service where there is no disturbance—a stupid Regulation! The Government are endeavouring to give cause for irritation in this matter. Only on Saturday afternoon some of the Labour Members, myself included, got a telegram to attend a meeting. It was dispatched at 1.15 and arrived at my house in Ealing four and a-half hours afterwards. I know that there were other telegrams that were delivered about the same place 20 minutes from the time of handing in. That is the sort of thing one gets experience of, and it shows exactly what is in the minds of some people. Then what about the telephones, and what about coded telegrams and cablegrams? Who in the Department is going to attend to these latter, and to determine whether or not they should be accepted? Will not this be another cause of delay and a disturbance to business? Whatever the Attorney-General may say in reply to this Amendment, I would suggest that we are only going to do
      372
      something which will cause and continue irritation.
      Sir HENRY SLESSER: I intervene for one moment only in the matter of the interpretation of this Regulation. I am sure the Attorney-General will agree with me that whatever Regulations we have should have an exact and certain meaning. I should like to know how this Regulation is to be interpreted. It says:
      "It shall be lawful for the Postmaster-General to direct that telegraphic messages of such classes or descriptions as he may prescribe shall not be accepted for transmission."
      Is it intended that this Regulation shall refer to individual telegrams, or only to classes or descriptions? If that is not so, then I think the Regulation is rather unfortunately worded. I am only asking for the sake of certainty on the point, and for fear that, if we give the Postmaster-General general power, these words would seem to assume a veto on telegrams of a certain kind rather than on other telegrams. I should like to know when the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers if he will tell us what exactly the Regulation means?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I intend to vote against the Government on this Amendment, and on every Amendment and Motion before the House in connection with these Regulations, and in a few sentences I will say why. I consider the Government are not doing all they can, and have not for the last three days been doing all they could, to bring about a peaceful solution of the present difficulties. They consider they have Labour down, and, in my opinion, they mean to crush Labour. For these reasons I will resist them in every way I can.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: After the conciliatory speech to which we have just listened one realises why it is that, unfortunately, some people outside are misled into thinking there is a deliberate attack on their wages or a deliberate attempt to crush trade unions.
      Mr. BATEY: So there is.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, and unfortunately there are people in this House who say the same thing.
      Mr. MAXTON: And people in this House who mean the same thing.
      Mr. LANSBURY: Mr. Baldwin said so.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) had better read the speech of the Prime Minister and try to imbibe a little of its spirit; but I turn from these mischievous observations to deal with the merits of the particular Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) asked me a perfectly fair question as to my view of the scope of the Regulations. I think he quite correctly and accurately stated what it is. It is a Regulation which empowers the Postmaster-General to direct that telegraphic messages of such classes or descriptions as he may prescribe shall not be accepted for transmission. That does not, in my view, and I think in the view of my hon. and learned Friend, permit the Postmaster-General to say, "I will not take this particular telegram or that particular one," but it does enable him to use the telegraph service as may be most important and expedient in the public service. May I give the House an illustration of the sort of thing I have in mind? Supposing it were the fact that it were necessary to send, as it very well might be, a large number of telegraphic orders with regard to food supplies, or with regard to stopping ships from leaving, or a variety of other matters, and supposing that just at that time there happened to have been, as there was only a day or two ago, a race meeting going on and a number of betting telegrams were likely to be transmitted. It seems to me quite reasonable that the Postmaster General should have the power to say, "We will not at present take any betting telegrams at all."
      Similarly, supposing there were, unhappily, as I hope there will not be, a serious strike breaking out, a pivotal strike breaking out in any particular area, it might be advisable for the Postmaster-General to say, "I will not take any code telegrams addressed to that particular district." It is things of that sort which I think are covered. I am only giving those as illustrations of what, I think, are covered by the Regulations; and although the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment accused this Government of being very stupid in inventing this Regulation, so as to make people think they were badly off when they really were not, I assure him that so far from this foolish
      374
      Government inventing it, we merely copied it from the Regulations in force in 1921 and the Draft which was proposed to be put in force by the Socialist Government in 1924. If it is folly, at any rate we did not originate it ourselves. I think the House will see that it is not only a harmless but a necessary and useful Regulation, and I hope, perhaps, the hon. Member who moved its deletion may possibly see that.
      Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to follow the learned Attorney-General in the somewhat provocative tone of his opening remarks, which contrasted very much with his conciliatory tone in his closing sentences, except to say this, that while all of us on this side know that the Prime Minister's appeals for peace have been well documented, there are also documents which indicate that that desire for peace was to be obtained on a starvation level. I myself quoted in this House, and it is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT—it was when the coal subsidy was being debated last year in the latter days of July or at the beginning of August—from a responsible Conservative newspaper, utterances of the Home Secretary, who in his opening speech on the Debate to-day seemed to indicate that he is now the strong man in charge of the situation. It was certainly his view then that the wages of miners and of other workers must be beaten down to starvation level if this country was to be restored to prosperity. And there are many speeches from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which can bear no other interpretation than that. There are any number of speeches on record in various newspapers and in the journals of this House saying that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite honestly, and perhaps sincerely, believe that the workers of this nation must pass through a period of starvation—most of them indicated it was a period of temporary starvation—before prosperity could be obtained. If that feeling is prevalent amongst the working classes throughout the country, as it is, for it has led to the very great solidarity of this stoppage, hon. and right Members opposite must not blame us on these benches, but must blame themselves if they now realise that those utterances were foolish and indiscreet.
      I do not believe that the strike has actually been precipitated because of

      375
      that belief amongst the working classes. We have learned to-day with a fair degree of accuracy that the general strike was only precipitated—I think this is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman on the other side—because the amour proper of a great newspaper proprietor was hurt. It seems to me a. shocking and disgraceful thing that the whole nation's services should be throttled, and that millions of people should be suffering tremendous inconveniences, and some of them enduring even definite sufferings, because one great newspaper proprietor, whom the public has recognised as suffering from megalomania, should say that his dignity is seriously affected.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This would have been in order on the main question, but I do not think I ought to permit a full discussion on each of these Amendments.
      Mr. MAXTON: I think that all through to-day's Debate there has been a fairly lavish interpretation of what order was, and. I am sure, Sir, that you do not hold the view which seems to prevail on the Government Front Bench that one may discuss any aspect of this dispute quite freely; may stick up lockout notices and nothing serious occurs; may even intimate the prospect of a general strike and nothing serious occurs; but that if one mentions and touches this sacrosanct thing the "Daily Mail" and its proprietor, then one has gone beyond the limits of human decency. That is one thing the House of Commons cannot allow. You may discuss the monarchy, you may discuss the common people, you may starve millions of people, but you must not touch the "Daily Mail." Now, Sir, you do not hold that point of view, and I only departed, as I admit I departed, from the strict discussion of this particular Amendment, because first of all my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) made a reference to it, and the Attorney-General followed him on that line. I have merely followed this a stage further. I am quite satisfied with the way things are going in the country, but I do not know that I am quite so well satisfied with the way things have been going on here. I do not want to dwell on the general question because I am not a prophet and I have no special
      376
      information, but I agree that in the ultimate end the will of the majority will prevail, although we may have different opinions as to which will be the majority that will ultimately prevail.
      This Regulation deals with the sending of telegraphic messages. If it is directed against the people who are running the strike, then it is quite unnecessary. Code telegrams have been referred to, but I can assure the Attorney-General there will be no code telegrams sent by the Labour party, because everything they will do in connection with this dispute will be absolutely above board, and any telegrams sent on behalf of the Labour movement will be as legible to read by the Postmaster-General and the Attorney-General as any ordinary telegram sent by a private individual in regard to social or commercial matters. There is no need to fear the unfair use of the telegraphic service by the Labour movement while the strike is in progress. I think it would be to the advantage of the Government if they were able to see on the telegraph form the nature of the instructions sent from one part of the country to the other. I think we have a right to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, whose chief is now engaged in trying to organise other things outside his Department, to tell us what is really meant by this Regulation and by issuing these instructions.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No instructions have been issued, and every telegram has been sent off.
      Mr. MAXTON: That shows how justified we are in asking for the dropping of this Regulation. Telegraphic messages are of great importance, but it should be possible for the members of the Trade Union Congress to be able to state that a successful agreement has been arrived at, and then it would be necessary to send out telegrams. May I point out, however, that the crucial telegraphic period has passed, and up to now it has not been found necessary to restrict any class of telegrams. What is the sense, under these circumstances, of putting down a Regulation of this kind, when there was no need for it in the crucial beginning days, and there is certainly no need for it until the crucial closing days? Whether that will be months or years hence I do not know, but if there has been no need for this provision up till now, why put it in at

      377
      all? The learned Attorney-General has declared that he and his colleagues have slavishly followed in this matter the model laid down by the late Labour Government, and I think, without any loss of dignity, the Attorney-General could quite easily leave out Regulation No. 18.
      Mr. MACLEAN: The Attorney-General seems very anxious to assure us of the harmlesness of this Regulation, and he has told us that all he desires is to empower the Postmaster-General to stop on certain occasions a large influx of betting telegrams. That might have been necessary during the crucial early days of this dispute, but now that particular fear has passed away. I am informed that betting is over for a period, because the racing season has stopped, and, therefore, I do not know what the Government mean by demanding such wide powers. After all, you do not describe in this proposal the particular class of telegrams which is going to be refused. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to mention betting telegrams, but there are many telegrams which have nothing whatever to do with betting, but deal with the stock market instructing brokers to purchase or to sell certain shares on the Stock Exchange. The Attorney-General has not referred to any stoppages of those particular telegrams, and he only refers to betting telegrams.
      There are many other telegrams to which no reference has been made and here in this Regulation you are giving power to the Postmaster-General to direct that telegraphic messages of a certain class or description that he may prescribe shall not be accepted for transmission. In the other Regulations certain other powers are being asked for, and they are clearly defined, but here we are asked to give wide and sweeping powers not so much to the Postmaster-General but more to the Government so that they may be able to issue instructions to the postal servants not to accept some particular class of telegrams. This is a "Daily Mail" Government run by Lord Rothermere, and they cannot get on unless their wonderful doings are reported in the "Daily Mail" which keeps them in the limelight and so they provoke this general strike. Is the Attorney-General as certain that he is correct in having these Regulations placed before the House
      378
      as he was when he ordered the deportation of the Irish prisoners? Does he realise that there may be a snag here that may land him into trouble ultimately, just as he landed himself and one of his colleagues in the Government into trouble, and an Indemnity Bill had to be rushed through this House to save them from being landed in heavy financial damages?
      It is not at all creditable to the Attorney-General to stand there and state that the reason why he considers this to be a good thing is that the Labour party in 1924 included it, and that the Coalition Government in 1921 had a similar Regulation in their Emergency Powers Regulations. Other Regulations were passed in the old bad days of the Irish party in this House, and emergency powers were given to the Government that only provoked trouble instead of preventing it. If the Attorney-General is going into past history in order to justify this Regulation, he can find a great many other Regulations 20, 30, 50 years old, which he could have defended or explained in just the same way. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, and his colleague also evidently enjoys the matter in the form of a joke. Let me assure them both that this is no joke. The circumstances that have provoked the Government into bringing forward these Regulations are not a joke. This is a serious matter, and it shows the mentality of the Government we have in this country when they treat an affair of this character as a matter for laughter. It was the same with the Attorney-General over the Irish question. He treated that lightly also; he treated it as a joke, and the Government of that day treated it as a joke, but he knows where it led him, and the Government of which he was a Member in the same capacity as he is to-day, as legal adviser.
      I suggest that he should withdraw this Regulation, or that, if he will not withdraw it, he should at least put into it the specific classes of telegrams that he desires to have excluded from transmission through the Post Office. If he does that, we shall know what is in it. But I am rather at one with my colleague the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he suggests that it may be to try and prevent telegrams being sent by the general council of the various trade unions, conveying instructions

      379
      from their people what to do, that has led to this Regulation being put in here. I hope the Attorney-General is not going to lead the Government into the same position as he has already led a past Government, but will withdraw this Regulation. I notice that the Assistant Postmaster-General is also treating this as a joke.
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): No.
      Mr. MACLEAN: He smiled, at any rate. I do not know whether he is happy in the fact that this Regulation is going to be passed, or that he will try to get it passed—
      Mr. WALLHEAD: They cannot all be Napoleons.
      Mr. MACLEAN: No, and there is not even a Mussolini on the Front Bench; he has gone away.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: There is the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon).
      Mr. MACLEAN: He is the castor oil provider. I appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General, not to prevail on his chief—because he has gone away and left his seat in the Post Office vacant, he has become a Director of Supplies, apparently, and the Noble Lord is left in charge of matters affecting the Post Office—I would ask him, if he has an eye to a brilliant political future career, not to be led aside by that evil influence sitting beside him, the Attorney-General, but to strike out a path for himself. I am convinced that he will rise superior to his evil environment so that this Regulation can be withdrawn.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: I was not surprised to hear the Attorney-General deprecating the allegation made from these benches that there was a general fear, based on very good grounds, behind the miners, that there was a general desire for a reduction of wages. We have listened to many Debates in this House, and, if there has been one class of men that has been attacked more than another, it has been the class of men who are in what are called sheltered trades. I have heard it suggested from those benches time and time again that all those who are in what are called sheltered trades and occupa-
      380
      tions ought to have and must have some reduction in their wages if the country was to regain its prosperity. I have heard unmitigated attacks made upon the railwaymen—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that none of the points which the hon. Member is now raising are connected with the question at issue. Perhaps he will confine himself to the telegrams at present.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: I was led into that because of the remarks of the Attorney-General, and I wanted to put my recollection of what has taken place, not only inside this House but outside. I should like to know whether this Regulation is going to stop Press telegrams, or whether members of the Press are going to be allowed to send about the country the kind of information that they desire.
      Viscount WOLMER: You have stopped the Press.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: The Press looms very big in this dispute. After all, this is the most disastrous industrial dispute that has ever occurred in this country in the whole of its history. It is likely to have the most disastrous results, and it is going down in history as the dispute that was caused by a newspaper—as a dispute caused by the "Daily Mail." The "Daily Mail" is a very disastrous paper so far as this country is concerned. It has cost us a great deal. It has cost us this dispute, and 26 years ago it cost us the Boer War. It was largely its lying telegrams that brought about the final rupture between ourselves and the Boer States. I think there should be a careful watch kept as to what telegrams the Post Office is going to transmit over its wires from the Press point of view. I think we ought to have an assurance that the telegrams that will be sent by those gentlemen who are exercising so maleficent an effect upon our national life at the present moment shall be carefully watched, shall be just as rigorously censored and as carefully connoted as the telegrams that may be sent by a trade union secretary. I think it is equally important that we should know that, and I should like to get from the Assistant Postmaster-General an assurance that, if this Regulation is put into force, it is not going to be directed against our side of the dispute—the trade union side of

      381
      the dispute—but that some attempt will be made to prevent Press agencies and members of the Press from using the public services in a way detrimental to the national interest, by the spreading of false information that is detrimental to the best interests of those who desire an end as soon as possible to this unfortunate dispute.
      Mr. LANSBURY: This is apparently giving a new power to the Postmaster-General, and I am wondering whether it is the same kind of power that someone exercises over people's letters. I think one or two questions have been asked, not during this crisis, but during ordinary times, about the opening of letters. I should very much like to know what is going to be the machinery in regard to these telegrams. Perhaps the Attorney-General, who appears to be the general utility man of the Government, ranging from electricity to law and every other subject under the sun, can tell us exactly how this business is proposed to be carried on. Who is going to be the censor? I do not accept at all that this is an innocent sort of proposition, because I am not sure that the Post Office authorities have not already got power to decide as to the rotation of telegrams and how they shall be dealt with. This looks perfectly innocent on the face of it, and from the sort of innocence which the Attorney-General spreads around him it looks as if it is quite innocuous, but the power could be used quite easily to prevent the dispatch of any Labour telegrams or anything Labour wanted to send about the strike, because it says:
      "It shall he lawful for the Postmaster-General to direct that telegraphic messages of such classes or descriptions as he may prescribe shall not be accepted for transmission."
      To say that means only a big batch of betting telegrams, or something of that kind, in the midst of this crisis is to ask the House to believe something that is quite unbelievable. The object of this power is quite simple in my judgment. It is to give the Home Secretary, and the Postmaster-General acting as his agent, the power, when they think an emergency has arisen, not to transmit telegrams of the Labour party or the trade unions in connection with the strike. To say that is not possible under this Regulation, and that it is not the object of the Regulation, is to ask me to believe some-
      382
      thing which, under the circumstances, is unbelievable. I remember quite well that years ago the practice of opening people's letters was looked upon with great horror. It is the custom now to open the letters of Communists and to interfere with people's correspondence, and apparently it is going to be the law, if this Regulation is passed, that you can even interfere with telegrams, whether coded or uncoded, and I think it is a monstrous thing to ask us to agree to it at this moment. I do not believe it is necessary. I do not believe the trade unions concerned in this issue will ever want to send a telegram to which any real objection can be taken.
      Commander BELLAIRS: It was done in the seamen's strike. Lying telegrams were sent to Australia to say that all seamen were on strike in this country. The head of the trade union said so.
      Mr. LANSBURY: That may or may not be; but I am certain, whoever sent that telegram, it was not the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, and I do not believe it was sent out by any authoritative body of trade unions. I have not the reference in my mind, and I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give it to me and perhaps I might clear it up as to who really sent it.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Mr. Havelock Wilson can tell you all about it.
      Mr. LANSBURY: I dare say he can tell me a great many things, but, as he is not in the House and has not made the statement, the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself had better undertake to confirm it and not call in aid someone who is not at present a Member. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, whatever any insignificant body of Communists or trade unionists may have done in the matter to which he refers, it is as nothing to the lying telegrams that were sent off or invented by the proprietors of the "Daily Mail" in reference to the Pekin massacres a few years ago which never took place at all. However, I do not want to be called off from the point I am trying to make, which is quite definite, and I want the Noble Lord or the Solicitor-General to tell us frankly what the power taken here is to be used for, and who it is who is going to say which telegrams shall he allowed to go through and which shall

      383
      not. If it is going to be the Postmaster-General or the Noble Lord who is going to say what telegraphic message is too dangerous to go forward, I will not trust them at all, because they are not lawyers and they cannot tell what is seditious and what is not and it is pretending to put a power in their hands which I am certain even this Government would not trust them with. This is a very great power that is going to be given them of rejecting telegrams, and I suggest that it is not the Noble Lord or his Chief who is going to determine this but the Home Secretary, and if that is so, I am confident that it is a power the Home Secretary ought not to seek to obtain in the sort of words that are put, in this Clause. Therefore, I hope hon. Members opposite will throw over the Government. for once and vote with us against this proposal.
      Viscount WOLMER: I can only repeat that the Section means exactly what it says. The Postmaster-General shall have power to direct that telegraphic messages of such class or description as he may prescribe shall not be accepted for transmission. The Attorney-General has pointed out the reason why that is introduced, and has also said this power has not yet been used. That is the case. In a crisis of this magnitude it is necessary, as the Labour Government themselves found, to take powers which are very wide. I am certain the house feels that in the circumstances of the case it is right that the Postmaster-General should have that power.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 301.

      Division No. 207.]

      AYES.

      [8.55 p.m.

      Ammon, Charles George

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

      Saklatvala, Shapurji

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

      Hardie, George D.

      Scurr, John

      Barnes, A.

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Barr, J.

      Hayday, Arthur

      Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

      Batey, Joseph

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Broad, F. A.

      Hirst, G. H.

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Bromley, J.

      Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

      Slesser, Sir Henry H.

      Buchanan, G.

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel

      Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

      Cape, Thomas

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

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Charleton, H. C.

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

      Cluse, W. S.

      Jones, T. l. Mardy (Pontypridd)

      Stephen, Campbell

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Kelly, W. T.

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Compton, Joseph

      Kennedy, T.

      Sullivan, Joseph

      Connolly, M.

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

      Taylor, R. A.

      Dalton, Hugh

      Lansbury, George

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

      Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

      Lawson, John James

      Thurtle, E.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lee, F.

      Varley, Frank B.

      Day, Colonel Harry

      Lowth, T.

      Viant, S. P.

      Dennison, R.

      Lunn, William

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Duncan, C.

      Mackinder, W.

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

      Dunnico, H.

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Welsh, J. C.

      Gillett, George M.

      MacNeill-Weir, L.

      Whiteley W.

      Gosling, Harry

      March, S.

      Williams T. (York, Don Valley)

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Maxton, James

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

      Murnin, H.

      Windsor, Walter

      Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

      Oliver, George Harold

      Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Paling, W.

      Groves, T.

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Grundy, T. W.

      Potts, John S.

      Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

      Guest, L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Barnett, Major Sir Richard

      Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

      Barns'on, Major Sir Harry

      Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

      Ainsworth, Major Charles

      Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

      Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

      Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

      Brass, Captain W.

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

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

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

      Briggs, J. Harold

      Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

      Berry, Sir George

      Briscoe, Richard George

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

      Betterton, Henry B.

      Brittain, Sir Harry

      Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

      Birchall, Major J. Dearman

      Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

      Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

      Balniel, Lord

      Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Blundell, F. N.

      Buckingham, Sir H.

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Harrison, G. J. C.

      Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

      Burman, J. B.

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

      Nuttall, Ellis

      Burton, Colonel H. W.

      Haslam, Henry C.

      Oakley, T.

      Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

      Hawke, John Anthony

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

      Campbell, E. T.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Cassels, J. D.

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

      Pennefather, Sir John

      Cayzer, Sir C. (Chaster, City)

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

      Penny, Frederick George

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

      Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

      Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

      Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

      Henn, Sir Sydney H.

      Perkins, Colonel E. K.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

      Perring, Sir William George

      Chapman, Sir S.

      Hills, Major J. W.

      Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

      Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

      Christie, J. A.

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

      Philipson, Mabel

      Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

      Holland, Sir Arthur

      Pielou, D. P.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Holt, Captain H. P.

      Pilditch, Sir Philip

      Clayton, G. C.

      Homan, C. W. J.

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

      Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

      Preston, William

      Cohen, Major J. Brunel

      Hopkins, J. W. W.

      Price, Major C. W. M.

      Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Radford, E. A.

      Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Raine, W.

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

      Ramsden, E.

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

      Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

      Couper, J. B.

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

      Rees, Sir Beddoe

      Courtauld, Major J. S.

      Hume, Sir G. H.

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

      Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

      Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

      Remer, J. R.

      Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

      Huntingfield, Lord

      Rentoul, G. S.

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

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Rice, Sir Frederick

      Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

      Hurst, Gerald B.

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

      Crawfurd, H. E.

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

      Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

      Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

      Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

      Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

      Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

      Ropner, Major L.

      Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

      Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

      Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Jacob, A. E.

      Rye, F. G.

      Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

      James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

      Salmon, Major I.

      Davies, David (Montgomery)

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

      Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

      Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

      Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

      Sanders, Sir Robert A.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Kindersley, Major Guy M.

      Sanderson, Sir Frank

      Dean, Arthur Wellesley

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Sandon, Lord

      Drewe, C.

      Lamb, J. Q.

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

      Eden, Captain Anthony

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

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

      Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

      Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

      Elliot, Captain Walter E.

      Little, Dr. E. Graham

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

      Ellis, R. G.

      Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

      Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

      Elveden, Viscount

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

      Skelton, A. N.

      Evans Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

      Loder, J. de V.

      Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Looker, Herbert William

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

      Fairfax, Captain J. G.

      Lord, Walter Greaves-

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Lougher, L.

      Smithers, Waldron

      Fermoy, Lord

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

      Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

      Ford, Sir P. J.

      Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

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

      Forrest, W.

      Lumley, L. R.

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

      Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

      Lynn, Sir R. J.

      Steel, Major Samuel Strang

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

      Storry- Deans, R.

      Frece, Sir Walter de

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

      Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

      Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

      McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

      Strickland, Sir Gerald

      Galbraith, J. F. W.

      Macintyre, Ian

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      McLean, Major A.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

      Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

      Macmillan, Captain H.

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

      Gates, Percy

      Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

      Tasker, Major R. Inigo

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

      McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

      Templeton, W. P.

      Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

      MacRobert, Alexander M.

      Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

      Makins, Brigadier-General E.

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

      Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

      Golf, Sir Park

      Meller, R. J.

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Merriman, F. B.

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Grace, John

      Meyer, Sir Frank

      Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

      Grant, J. A.

      Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

      Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

      Wallace, Captain D. E.

      Grotrian, H. Brent

      Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

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

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

      Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

      Moore, Sir Newton J.

      Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

      Moreing, Captain A. H.

      Watts, Dr. T.

      Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

      Morrison, H (Wilts, Salisbury)

      Wells, S. R.

      Hammersley, S. S.

      Murchison, C. K.

      White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

      Hanbury, C.

      Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

      Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)

      Harland, A.

      Neville, R. J.

      Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

      Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

      Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

      Harris, Percy A.

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

      Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

      386

      387

      Winby, Colonel L. P.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Womersley, W. J.

      Wise, Sir Fredric

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Withers, John James

      Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

      Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Margesson.

      Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "other than paragraph (4) of Regulation 19."
      This is a very dangerous paragraph. By these words we are clothing the police with enormous powers. It means that the police can go into any meeting and search any member in order to see whether he has any weapons of offence or any stone or other dangerous missile. It means more. It means that the police can stop any procession, and search men in that procession to see whether they are carrying firearms or ammunition or any other weapons of offence, any stone or other dangerous missile. This afternoon the Home Secretary said that the country was steady at the moment. We want the country to remain steady, but this is not one of the things that will help the country to remain steady. If a meeting is being held or a procession taking place, and the police stop the procession or enter the meeting in order to search the men, then the country will not remain steady under such conditions. This Regulation is not fair to the miners, and I am speaking now as a miners' representative. We have to remember that these Regulations were directed against the trade unionists who are on strike, but they were directed first against the miners.
      I notice on the front page that they were signed at Buckingham Palace on 30th April, that is last Friday, long before anyone knew there was likely to be a general strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am speaking for myself. On Saturday morning when I went to speak at a demonstration I did not know there was going to be a general strike. It was not until I took up an evening paper on Saturday night that I read there was likely to be a general strike, These Regulations were signed at Buckingham Palace on 30th April, on Friday, almost before the miners had ceased work and certainly before many of them were at the surface. Therefore, I submit we are justified in saying that this Regulation, along with the rest of them, is aimed at the miners. There is no body of men in this country who love to attend meetings more than the miners, and there is no body of men who
      388
      are less afraid to walk in a procession. It is not cricket, it is not fair on the part of the Government, to have this Regulation drafted last Friday and signed against the miners, Laying them open to be searched whenever they take part in a procession or attend a meeting. It is wise for the Government to remember that the miners are locked out at the moment, and they are out for the purpose of resisting poverty. In my own county in January, 1921, the wages of one of the best classes of men we have was 20s. 0½d. per shift.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I suppose the hon. Member is moving an Amendment.
      Mr. BATEY: Yes, and I am trying to give some reasons for it. I am trying to show that the miners have good grounds for joining in processions and. attending meetings, and one reason is the very big reductions they have suffered in wages.
      Mr. GREAVES-LORD: On a point of Order. Is there anything in this Regulation which forbids a miner or anyone else taking part in a meeting or procession unless he has firearms in his possession?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will come to the particular Amendment he wishes to move. I understand he refers to paragraph 4 of Regulation 19, and that he proposes to omit it.
      Mr. BATEY: Yes. I am proposing to omit paragraph 4 of Regulation 19. This Regulation, as I have said, is aimed at the miners principally, and the miners in joining in processions and attending meetings do so for the purpose of protesting against the low wages they are receiving. I was on the point of saying that hon. Members do not appreciate the big reduction in wages the miners have suffered during the last five years. In January, 1921, the strongest class of men were receiving 20s. 0½. per shift. That has been reduced to 9s. 8d. per shift, and now this class of men are being asked by the owners to accept 6s. 10d. per shift.
      Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Is there, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, any question involved here in regard to wages? As far as I can

      389
      understand the question is whether a man who attends a meeting or joins in a procession shall be allowed to have in his possession firearms, ammunition or any other weapons of offence, explosive substances or stones. The hon. Member's argument can only be relevant if the suggestion is that a man who has suffered a reduction of wages is entitled to curry firearms.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: On that point of order Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is not the hon. Member in order in arguing that this paragraph would not be necessary if it had not been for the immense reductions in miners' wages? Surely it is competent for an hon. Member to argue that this additional power sought by the Government would not be necessaray if the miners had not suffered these big reductions in their wages?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member's argument refers to more than the Emergency Powers Act or to this particular Sub-section.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Further to that point of Order. Firearms or explosives are in the nature of a miner's work and his day to day toil, and the argument of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was that this paragraph is specially designed against miners, and therefore the best way to keep it from referring to miners is to restore the miners' wages.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is rather a far-fetched argument.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member was submitting the fact that explosives and the carrying of stones is a common everyday occurrence with miners, and that therefore this paragraph is specially designed against miners. Is he not, therefore, perfectly in order to say that the restoration of miners' wages is the best way to obviate this kind of Regulation?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think wages have anything to do with it.
      Mr. BATEY: The miners attend these meetings and join in these processions for the purpose of protesting against the low wages they are receiving at the present time. When they attend a meeting or join in a procession to protest against low wages it is not fair for the Government to
      390
      make this Order that will make them liable to be searched if they are in a meeting or a procession.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is an Emergency Powers Act, and I must ask the hon. Member not to discuss the question of wages.
      Mr. BATEY: I am sorry I cannot go along that line, but I do not want to get into conflict with the Chair, so I will leave it. I want to make a very emphatic protest against this Order. It seems to me that this Paragraph 4 of Number 19 Regulation is altogether contrary to what we had a right to expect from the Prime Minister's prayers for peace. On Monday he indulged in his desires for peace, and not many weeks ago he stood there and prayed for peace—
      "Grant us peace in our time, O Lord," or something like that. This is a poor way in which to seek peace—take and put into Regulations words like this which will not- bring peace. A man can pray for peace as long as he has a mind, but, unless he is prepared to make some sacrifice for peace, he will never get peace. Certainly the last thing that words like this will bring to a man is peace. This Order is a great danger, and I want to suggest that we should except this paragraph.
      Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.
      As I understand the Home Secretary, speaking to-day, the object of these Regulations is that they do not impose any other obligations except those which are of the Common Law, with the exception that under the Common Law there is a certain procedure which is regarded as too lengthy, and that therefore summary jurisdiction is required. I think this paragraph goes a great deal further than that, and is in every sense a dangerous paragraph. I can quite understand that the Government might desire to have legislation against people taking part in meetings that they considered dangerous, but what about the innocent spectator? Another point I object to is this. I can quite understand objection to carrying firearms and pistols, but what about the "other weapon of offence"? What is it? As hon. Members will know. I myself have to go about with a stick! but a stick can on occasions be a weapon of offence, and if I attended one

      391
      of these meetings, although I might not be a member of the meeting, but simply there as a spectator, because I had a stick I might be liable under this paragraph to be impounded by a policeman, brought up, and subjected to the penalties imposed. It seems a very dangerous proposal, and I think it ought to be confined to persons taking part in the procession or meeting who are carrying firearms, and not as at present designed in its widest sense.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The objection of the two hon. Members is presumably only to that part of the paragraph which provides that a person attending a meeting with any of these lethal weapons shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) can be reassured as to miners taking part in processions. There will be no interference with their desire to hold meetings or take part in processions so long as they conduct them in a peaceful way without the use of weapons such as are described in this Regulation, which are likely to cause trouble, injury, and death. The Regulation is aimed at the prevention of the use of firearms, which I am sure hon. Members would deplore just as much as any Member on this side of the House.
      Hon. Members are well aware that when people attend meetings they are quite likely, according to whether they are emotional or not or responsive to eloquence, to become excited and possibly to use available materials or weapons for the purpose of expressing their opinions against any person against whom they may have a grievance. It is very desirable that people who expose themselves to the consequences of eloquence, inflammatory or otherwise, should not enter a meeting with any weapons which they might be tempted to use in a moment of heat against their comrades or foes.
      This Regulation is not aimed at any particular person or class of persons. It is aimed at all persons who fill their pockets with stones, and most ordinary and peaceable persons are not in the habit of carrying about pocketfuls of stones any more than they are in the habit of carrying pistols or other fire-
      392
      arms, or explosive substances. The House will agree that it is very reasonable that persons who do in an emergency of this character adopt extraordinary habits, which are quite foreign to the British character and temperament, shall be prohibited from attending meetings if they desire to indulge in habits of that sort. This is a protective Regulation which I venture to think in a state of excitement might possibly operate for the protection of miners themselves, as much as for any other portion of the community, and I hope the House will agree it is right to add this paragraph to the Regulations in order that the intention of the Regulation, which is to prevent the carriage as well as the use of firearms, may be complete and satisfactory
      Sir H. SLESSER: I think the real objection to the Regulation, as drafted, centres round the words "any stone." It is quite right and proper that people should be prevented from taking firearms into meetings, and where you have got a dangerous missile, you have a strong case, but the words "any stone," really, do seem to he going a little too far. First of all, a stone includes a pebble. I do not know if there is a single geologist in this House who can tell me exactly what constitutes a stone. A gentleman who is a geologist might have collected one stone as a specimen and then attend a meeting, not necessarily a political meeting, but a meeting of geologists, and he would not be quite safe, and might find he had committed an offence and made himself liable to be sent to prison. Would it not be sufficient to say "or explosive substance or dangerous missile," for a stone which is a dangerous sort of stone would come under the definition "dangerous missile"? Is a man going to be convicted of a criminal offence when he has not got a dangerous missile but merely a stone?
      The words "any stone" are to me the only objection; otherwise, this is perfectly proper. But I think it is going a little too far, when there may be even in the House at the present time some Member with a stone in his pocket which he uses for the purpose of packing tobacco down. This is interfering with the liberty of the subject. All I am asking is that after the words "explosive substance," we should read "or other dangerous missile,"

      393
      and leave out the words "any stone." Many perfectly innocent people attending meetings might find themselves guilty of a crime merely because somewhere in their pockets some very small stone is discovered. Then there is that class of persons called schoolboys who have stones in their pockets for perfectly innocent purposes, and who would be liable because they have stones in their pockets. I, therefore, do ask the Solicitor-General to give serious consideration to this paragraph, which is the only objection.
      Mr. MARCH: After all the hilarity we have had from the other side in connection with this matter, I am going to disagree even with regard to the missiles. I am a countryman, and, when I was a boy, we used to go round and pick up horse-chestnuts and put a lot of them on a string and throw them about. They were called "conkers," and they could be used as a missile no doubt. I also very frequently carry about an umbrella, which might be used as an offensive weapon or missile just as it suits the police or those who are going about wanting a job.
      We heard something to-day from the Home Secretary, who just lightly tripped over it, about there being some little disturbance near Poplar last night, but he did not say what was the cause of the disturbance. Probably inquiry is being made into it. The police were anxious for a row. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Well, you may say shame; of course, you would say so. There was a very big crowd of people round this corner watching what was going on. They did not go away immediately the police told them, and so the police thought they would try and shift them. They were asking for trouble, there is no doubt about that. The police ought to be told that they have got to use commonsense and discretion. I also notice there is something about the police going to arrest here and arrest there. I wonder whether some of those could not be arrested who were on this job in connection with this matter.
      People will attend meetings, and very often as they are walking along through the streets, not with the intention of going to one at all, they accidentally get to a meeting. That may seem strange to hon. Members, but you might be going
      394
      along Whitehall and possibly meet three or four hundred people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Full of stones!"] No, full of sense. You are walking along and you walk into the crowd. You may have no intention of going to the meeting, but are passing on to somewhere else, and you hear a meeting going on and you stop. There may be a row at that very moment, and it is usually the innocent ones who get clouted and not the guilty ones. Whenever there is a meeting on, and anything of that kind happens, I hope hon. Members who laugh will get there and get their share of it.
      We disagree with this paragraph. You have the previous paragraph which deals with firearms, and surely that ought to be sufficient. That being so, the Government ought to feel themselves fully at liberty to have this one deleted, because there are many things that can be brought up against innocent people having in their possession certain things which can be classed as "missiles," with no intention whatsoever of using them, and probably never having used them. If they are searched and such things are found on them, are they to be classed as being at a meeting for the purpose of doing some injury? I hope the Government will withdraw these words.
      Mr. THURTLE: The Solicitor-General has failed to deal with the material point made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). It is possible for people, quite casually, to become part of a public meeting, and I should like some definition of the phrase "attending a public meeting." If I am carrying a walking-stick, and going along the Embankment at night and I come upon a meeting of protest—let us say, against the fact that the "Daily Herald" has been raided by the police and its printing machinery taken away—and if I remain and listen to the speeches, am I then bringing myself within the meaning of the Regulation against carrying weapons of offence? According to the Solicitor-General's own explanation, that expression means any weapon which might be used in an offensive manner by an excited man in a crowd, and such a definition would cover even a walking-stick. It is even possible that a scholarly Member of this House—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for instance—might be walking along the Embankment, in the circumstances I sug-

      395
      gest, carrying a book. I believe that in the past the. Financial Secretary to the Treasury developed a habit of throwing books about and he might become part of a public meeting in the way I have explained. Would the right hon. Gentleman in such circumstances make himself amenable to this Regulation? The Solicitor-General should give us more assurance on this particular Regulation.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to have no answer from the Government?
      Mr. SULLIVAN: If we are not to have the definition for which we have asked, I should like to say a few words. I was astonished at the laughter from the other side which greeted the cases cited by Members on this side. I can give an instance from my own experience. I was crossing George Square in Glasgow on one occasion when I was batoned by a plain-clothes policeman. I was on my way to a county council meeting, and the officer in question had no right or authority to carry a baton, but when I complained to the inspector I got no redress, and apparently I was lucky that I was not arrested as a member of a riotous mob with which I had no sympathy, and of which indeed I had no knowledge. What happened to me could happen to any hon. Members. Everything depends on what one's conduct has been previously. A Conservative Member would have no difficulty in getting out of it, if he were found going to a meeting carrying a heavy stick, but a Member from our side might have more difficulty. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] I think we require to restrict the carrying of certain weapons. It is a good thing in this country that we have got. away from the practice, but the law must be applied equally all round. During the trouble
      in 1921 I had to save a colliery from being burned. There had been no trouble there until an official drew a revolver and fired it. Even the police reported that there was no likelihood of trouble had that official not used the firearm. His action led to a great amount of damage for which the men were not responsible, and he happened to get hurt in another way. No action was taken against him, and the police made much out of the fact that they could not find the "shooting iron" although they saw him use it. We must be careful in passing these restrictions to save the innocent. People who are intent on making trouble have to face the law, but people who are innocent, and who might easily be involved in these troubles, should be protected, and the matter is not one to be regarded humorously.
      Mr. R. RICHARDSON: In my own town I expect that the chief mischief into which the miners will get will be the playing of marbles. Many of the men will have pockets full of marbles, and I wish to know if these will be regarded as dangerous missiles and within the meaning of this Regulation. I myself have been playing marbles on the streets when the notice has gone out calling a meeting, and I have picked up the marbles and brought them to the meeting. Is a man in that position to come within the Regulation? I think this restriction goes much too far, and that it ought to be modified in the manner suggested. I trust the Solicitor-General will see the force of what has been said, and will not allow things to be treated as dangerous weapons or missiles which are not intended to be used as such.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 305.

      Division No. 208.]

      AYES.

      [9.45 p.m.

      Amman, Charles George

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Hardie, George D.

      Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

      Day, Colonel Harry

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      Barr, J.

      Dennison, R.

      Hayday, Arthur

      Batey, Joseph

      Duncan, C.

      Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

      Bromley, J.

      Dunnico, H.

      Hirst, G. H.

      Buchanan, G.

      Gillett, George M.

      Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. N. E.

      Gosling, Harry

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Cape, Thomas

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

      Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

      Chapman, Sir S.

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

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

      Cluse, W. S.

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Groves, T.

      Kirkwood, D.

      Compton, Joseph

      Grundy, T. W.

      Lansbury, George

      Connolly, M.

      Guest, L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

      Lawson, John James

      Dalton, Hugh

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

      Lowth, T.

      Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lunn, William

      Mackinder, W.

      Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

      Viant, S. P.

      Maclean, Nail (Glasgow, Govan)

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      MacNeill-Weir, L.

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Warne, G. H.

      March, S.

      Slesser, Sir Henry H.

      Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne)

      Maxton, James

      Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

      Welsh, J. C.

      Murnin, H.

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

      O'Connor, Thomas P.

      Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

      Whiteley, W.

      Oliver, George Harold

      Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

      Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Stephen, Campbell

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Stewart,-J. (St. Rollox)

      Windsor, Walter

      Potts, John S.

      Sullivan, Joseph

      Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Taylor, R. A.

      Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Scurr, John

      Thurtle, E.

      Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. A. Barnes.

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Varley, Frank B.

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

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

      Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Ainsworth, Major Charles

      Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

      Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

      Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

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

      Curzon, Captain Viscount

      Holland, Sir Arthur

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

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Holt, Captain H. P.

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

      Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

      Homan, C. W. J.

      Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

      Davies, David (Montgomery)

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

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

      Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

      Balniel, Lord

      Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

      Hopkins, J. W. W.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Barnett, Major Sir Richard

      Dean, Arthur Wellesley

      Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

      Barnston, Major Sir Harry

      Drewe, C.

      Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

      Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

      Eden, Captain Anthony

      Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb)., N.)

      Beckett, Sir Gervase

      Ellis, R. G.

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

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Elveden, Viscount

      Hume, Sir G. H.

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

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

      Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

      Bennett, A. J.

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

      Huntingfield, Lord

      Berry, Sir George

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Betterton, Henry B.

      Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

      Birchall, Major J. Dearman

      Falls, Sir Bertram G.

      Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

      Fermoy, Lord

      Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

      Fielden, E. B.

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

      Blades, Sir George Rowland

      Ford, Sir P. J.

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

      Blundell, F. N.

      Forrest, W.

      Jacob, A. E.

      Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

      Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

      James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

      Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Brass, Captain W.

      Frece, Sir Walter de

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

      Briggs, J. Harold

      Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

      Kidd, J.

      Briscoe, Richard George

      Galbraith, J. F. W.

      Kindersley, Major Guy M.

      Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

      Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

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

      Gates, Percy

      Lamb, J. Q.

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

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

      Buckingham, Sir H.

      Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

      Little, Dr. E. Graham

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

      Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

      Bullock, Captain M.

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

      Burman, J. B.

      Goll, Sir Park

      Loder, J. de V.

      Burton, Colonel H. W.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Looker, Herbert William

      Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

      Grace, John

      Lord, Walter Greaves-

      Campbell, E. T.

      Grant, J. A.

      Lougher, L.

      Cassels, J. D.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

      Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

      Grotrian, H. Brent

      Lumley, L. R.

      Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

      Lynn, Sir R. J.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

      Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

      Chapman, Sir S.

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

      Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

      Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

      McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

      Chilcott, Sir Warden

      Hamilton, Sir R.

      MacIntyre, Ian

      Christie, J. A.

      Hammersley, S. S.

      McLean, Major A.

      Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

      Hanbury, C.

      Macmillan, Captain H.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

      Clayton, G. C.

      Harmsworth, Hon. E. C, (Kent)

      McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Harney, E. A.

      MacRobert, Alexander M.

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Harris, Percy A.

      Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

      Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

      Harrison, G. J. C.

      Makins, Brigadier-General E.

      Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

      Margesson, Captain D.

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Haslam, Henry C.

      Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

      Couper, J. B.

      Hawke, John Anthony

      Merriman, F. B.

      Courtauld, Major J. S.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

      Meyer, sir Frank

      Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

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

      Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

      Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

      Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

      Crawfurd, H. E.

      Henn, Sir Sydney H.

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      398

      399

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

      Rentoul, G. S.

      Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

      Moore, Sir Newton J.

      Rice, Sir Frederick

      Tasker, Major R. Inigo

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

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

      Templeton, W. P.

      Moreing, Captain A. H.

      Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

      Morris, R. H.

      Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

      Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

      Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

      Ropner, Major L.

      Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

      Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

      Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

      Tinne, J. A.

      Neville, R. J.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

      Rye, F. G.

      Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

      Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

      Salmon, Major I.

      Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

      Nuttall, Ellis

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Wallace, Captain D. E.

      Oakley, T.

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

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

      Sandeman, A. Stewart

      Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Sanders, Sir Robert A.

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Pennefather, Sir John

      Sanderson, Sir Frank

      Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

      Penny, Frederick George

      Sandon, Lord

      Watts, Dr T.

      Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

      Wells, S. R.

      Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

      White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

      Perring, Sir William George

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

      Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

      Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

      Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

      Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

      Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

      Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

      Philipson, Mabel

      Skelton, A. N.

      Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

      Pielou, D. P

      Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

      Winby, Colonel L. P.

      Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Wise, Sir Fredric

      Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

      Smithers, Waldron

      Withers, John James

      Preston, William

      Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Price, Major C. W. M.

      Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

      Womersley, W. J.

      Radford, E. A.

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

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

      Raine, W.

      Steel, Major Samuel Strang

      Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

      Ramsden, E.

      Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

      Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

      Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

      Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

      Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

      Rees, Sir Beddoe

      Strickland, Sir Gerald

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

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Reid, D. D. (County Down)

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

      Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

      Remer, J. R.

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

      Bowyer.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, after the word "Regulations,' to insert the words "other than Regulation 20."
      10.0 p. m.
      This is the Regulation which deals with injury to property, and it appears to me that one could not have such a set of Regulations, especially imposed by a Conservative Government, without an attempt being made to strengthen the law for the protection of property. It is my view that there is already ample provision in our legislation for the protection of property. I am very sorry indeed that there is nothing to compare in that respect with regard to the protection of human life. If there were legislation as deeply concerned with the protection of human life as with the protection of property, there would be no industrial crisis to-day. It is a very striking contrast to see this emergency legislation with all these Regulations brought in because of the fact that there has been attempted the degradation of human life by the imposition of a miserable standard of living upon a class engaged in the most dangerous employment in the country. Paragraph (1) of Regulation 20 reads:
      "If any person injures, or does any act calculated to injure, or to prevent the proper use or working of, any public building, railway, canal, bridge,"
      400
      and so on. I think we have already individuals who have done acts calculated to prevent the proper use of various services. Already in this Debate to-day there has been very striking testimony to the fact that this crisis, this emergency legislation and this holding of services is the work of the "Daily Mail" proprietor, Lord Rothermere. I believe that the best thing the Government could do would be to act upon the first paragraph of this Regulation at once, and deal with this individual, who, from the statements made in this House to-day, is quite obviously more responsible than anyone for the fact that there has been this prevention of the proper use of those various services. I am surprised that the Government allow this individual to go on, especially in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a previous Debate, when he spoke so contemptuously about the message evidently sent by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth). There have been other things which have happened. I want to know from the Attorney-General why this action is not being taken, because it is very evident from the raid that has been made upon the "Daily Herald" premises that the whole of the people of this country have got to be drawn into this tremendous industrial

      401
      crisis, because the "Daily Mail" circulation has been going down, and the "Daily Herald" circulation has been going up. [Laughter.] Hon Members may laugh at the suggestion, but, according to the statements which every fair-minded Member of the House must admit, prove that he is responsible more than anyone else. I notice that one hon. Member shakes his head, but I referred to the fair-minded Members in the House of Commons, and the fair-minded Members of all parties. It was quite evident, that while those statements were being made previously in the discussion, on all sides of the House there was a sense of disapprobation that this individual should be using his powers in order to make these negotiations break down. Of course the whole tenor of that paper—
      Rear - Admiral BEAMISH: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to introduce a discussion about the "Daily Mail," when it does not enter into the subject at all?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I would invite the hon. Member to come to the purpose of his Amendment.
      Mr. STEPHEN: I want to submit to you, with all due deference, with regard to this point of Order which has been raised, the opening sentence in paragraph (1) reads:
      "if any person injures, or does any act calculated to injure or to prevent the proper use or working of, any public building."
      It is well known that there is no individual more responsible for preventing "the proper use or working" than Lord Rothermere, the proprietor of the "Daily Mail." I am quite willing, seeing that it has hurt the suceptibilities of the hon. and gallant Member that I should be making that point, to go on, and I want to know what the Government have got to say about the attack which has been made upon the property of the "Daily Herald." Why has this attack been made on the "Daily Herald"? Why has there not been the prevention of this attack upon the "Daily Herald"? So much for paragraph (1). I come to paragraph (2). I believe that a greater objection can be taken to this than even to para-
      402
      graph (1), in view of the conduct of the Government. It reads:
      "If any person approaches or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any such place as aforesaid with intent to do injury thereto, he shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations."
      I wonder if that would apply to the proprietor of a newspaper going into his own office to arrange for the publication of his own paper, to arrange for the publication in that paper of the malevolent, lying statements that are constantly in a paper like the "Daily Mail." The carrying out of such work in a paper would do so much to prevent the proper use of buildings or the settlement of a dispute like the present one that I would like the Attorney-General to tell us if, in the event of those papers being produced and the kind of articles occurring in them again such as occurred in preceding days, the Government would take action to close down the evil actions of such a proprietor. Then I want to look at it from the other point of view, that of the person who is perfectly innocent. In the first case, there is the intention to do injury, and in that case:
      "He shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations."
      That may be all very well, but when you come to consider how the intention to do injury is going to be judged one begins to have a certain amount of suspicion in connection with this case. It says:
      "Notwithstanding that no such act of injury is committed by him, he shall be deemed to be guilty of such an offence if by reason of his being in possession of any explosive or incendiary substance, or lethal weapon or dangerous missile—"
      Obviously, that is in in order to make it appear that this is a very natural provision, but note the words which follow:
      "or otherwise from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was to do such injury."
      It is this paragraph (2) that fills our minds with the utmost suspicion, and we shall require very grave assurance from the Attorney-General in connection with these words: "The circumstances of the case."
      If I were to be found in the neighbourhood of the printing office of the "Daily Mail" I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite, and possibly the Attorney-General, might say that I was there with

      403
      the intention to do an injury. If I was going to address a meeting in my own constituency, the Attorney-General and hon. Members opposite might say if I were near to some works in the division that I was there "with intent" because there might be members of the working classes blacklegging in that establishment, and therefore possibly I was there with intent to do injury.
      The whole point is that there is not one on these benches, and not even on the Front Bench opposite, safe, if the House is agreeable to give the Government powers under this Regulation. After all, there are real grounds for our suspicion. We have had experience in the past, and there is no hon. Member who has had experience who would like to be dependent upon what any Member of His Majesty's Government would say, for they might say in regard to his being in any place that it was "with intent." The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows from his past experience what might happen. He is a man respected by the whole of the citizens of Glasgow. Yet because the Coalition Government, which to say the least was just as respectable as the present, and just as honest, possibly not any more honest—or any more dishonest—found his action without any justification, he received the treatment he did. Our position under such a Regulation as this is that the Government can do the most obnoxious things to the most obnoxious of their opponents. Naturally, as their opponents in this House, we arc anxious to put difficulty in the way, and we are anxious to have fairmindedness from hon. Members on the other side.
      The boast is always made, we know, of the integrity of British Courts of Justice and that there is the same law for every man, for the rich and the poor, that there is one law for us all, but when a man goes into Court, a member of the working classes, you will find that he has very little opportunity in the way of defence compared with members of the well-to-do classes. We have had experience again and again in that respect. The whole history of the country from the beginning of the nineteenth century, are
      404
      a warning to Members of this House of what may be done under such a Regulation as this. Consequently we want from the Government assurances in connection with this matter. I know that the Home Secretary said that it was only a matter of having a swift trial, and so on. Everything is simple, we know, until the Government get the power.
      The Government's legislation in the autumn is an example of that where we got assurances in connection with unemployment insurance. I hope that fair-minded Members of this House opposite will agree to ask the Members of their own Government to act fairly in regard to their opponents in cutting out this closing part of this second paragraph and to replace it by something which will be much more to the point; which will give an assurance to Members on this side of the House that because we are opposed to the capitalist system we will not be struck clown by this legislation, in order to help, partly by regulation, the mine owners to impose longer hours and smaller wages on men who are far more worthy of respect than the owners. Consequently, I have pleasure in moving the deletion of Regulation 20. I hope the House, will agree with its deletion, and that the Minister representing the Government will reply to the points I have made.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to Second the Amendment.
      I agree with my colleague in the view he takes of the injury that may be caused to many innocent persons if this particular Regulation be carried into effect as it is printed in this pamphlet A. I want to ask the Government why it takes what they have termed a "state of emergency" in the country to make them bring forward this Regulation? The first phrase of it says:
      "If any person injures or does any action calculated to injure or prevent the proper we or working of any public building, railway, canal,"
      and so on. Prevent the working! The Attorney-General and other hon. Members know perfectly well that there are bodies of men, directors of companies and managers of associations, who for many years past have been preventing the proper working and use of canals in this country, but no such Regulation has been brought forward to be used against them. Now, however, that we have what

      405
      is termed a state of national emergency, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, and probably the Prime Minister, are under the impression that if some poor ill-clad working man is found in the vicinity of any of the places described in this Regulation—a public work, a canal, a railway bridge, a railway station, a level crossing—and if he is upon strike or associated in any way with the unions connected with this dispute, that he must be looked upon as a man who is there with intent.
      It will not be a question of his having done something, but of his being there with intent to do something. Who is to judge whether the man intends to do something or is merely passing that place on his way home? Is it to be the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary? I want to tell this House frankly that those two men are the very last in whose hands I would trust my character, or anybody else's. [Laughter.) Yes, that may cause laughter to hon. Members opposite, but the people who know me and amongst whom I live return me every time I stand; but if some of the hon. Members opposite were to go amongst people who knew them they would never be in this House. The Attorney-General and the Home Secretary—
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is away to his bed.
      Mr. MACLEAN:—are the two who are behind this particular Regulation, and if any individual is arrested, they will be looked upon as having moved the forces of the law to try that individual. I am going to say quite frankly, and I am certain the Attorney-General will take it that I am not casting any reflection upon him, that in any case in London where any individual is arrested he is probably the one who will appear as prosecutor, he is one of the individuals who will be paid for prosecuting that man, and as he is personally financially interested in this Clause he ought not to vote. There is a Standing Order of this House to that effect. Of course, that seems too funny for the Attorney-General. Law and politics in this House are all funny things to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are only in this particular thing as a game. Politics are only a game to them.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to come to the Amendment.
      Mr. MACLEAN: I have been drawing attention to the fact that if certain things are done in contravention of this particular Regulation, I he Attorney-General is one of the individuals who will be personally affected. I have pointed out that he receives fees for any prosecution he takes part in and ought not to take part in any Divisions. That, surely, is a legitimate argument. The second paragraph is very much along the same lines. Is says:
      "If any person approaches or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any such place as aforesaid with intent to do injury thereto."
      Again, I want to know who is to be the judge of what the intentions are? Again it is to be the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General who will no doubt instruct the Public Prosecutor with regard to these things. Surely, the wide powers contained in this particular Regulation in both parts of it are powers which ought not to be granted to any Government in circumstances that arise at the present time. This Regulation has to be considered in relation to the preliminary statement in the Preamble, where it states most emphatically that:
      "Provided also that no Regulations shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade, any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
      The whole of this Regulation is based upon the fact that we have an industrial dispute, and yet in the Preamble that is one of the things to be provided against. These powers are sought under circumstances of an industrial dispute, and, I submit, it is not consistent with the proviso in the Preamble to the Regulations which we are now discussing. I hope this House will take a broader view of the situation than it seems to be taking, and if hon. Members reject this Regulation it will show that they have an attitude of mind which one can admire. If they do not reject this particular Regulation, it will show that the Government have got into a state of panic and they have provided all these particular Regulations to safeguard themselves. No move is being made on the part of the Government to prevent members of their class from rushing to

      407
      Folkestone and Dover, to get away to Paris and to France, to escape what may be happening in this country. Special boats are running to convey the members of their class over to the Continent. They say they are not in a panic, but the very conduct of the members of their own class, and. the fact that they are trying to pass this Resolution, is an indication and a standing proof that they are in a state of panic. [Laughter.] It is all very nice to laugh in here. You go to Paris for the week-end and forget that the week-end is only from Friday night to Monday morning; you stay next week there—you have a long week-end. I hope the House will reject this Regulation and show at least that affairs in this country can be managed without putting the country under what is practically martial law.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I rise to oppose the Amendment and ask the House not to accept it, and I do so with the sincere desire to deal with any coherent objection; but, although I listened to the speech for 25 minutes of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and to the speech, not so long—about 10 minutes—of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), I find it very difficult to detect in their arguments any reason against this particular Regulation. The hon. Member for Camlachie began by saying that this only dealt with property, and the Conservative Government would introduce no Regulation about human life; but he forgot that the previous Regulation, which the Socialist party voted against, was to protect human life. He went on to discuss the misdeeds of Lord Rothermere and the "Daily Mail," and, indeed, Lord Bother-mere, like King Charles's head with someone else, seems always to drift into the hon. Gentleman's objections. In fact, however, this Amendment and this Regulation have nothing whatever to do with the "Daily Mail" or any other newspaper. Then the hon. Member for Govan objected to the Regulation, as far as I understood him, on two grounds. First of all, he said it was a Regulation which would redound to my financial profit, because I should be able to appear in the Police Court—
      Mr. MACLEAN: No. After all, the right hon. Gentleman might be fair. I did not put that forward as an argument against the Regulation passing, but as a reason why the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be the pilot of this particular Regulation in the House.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I am afraid the hon. Member was out of order; for what he purported to be discussing was not whether I should be piloting the Regulation, but whether the Regulation should be passed—
      Mr. MACLEAN: That is a matter for Mr. Speaker, and not for the Attorney-General.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And his criticism of the Regulation was based, if I properly understood him, upon the suggestion that it would be the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary who would have to decide whether a particular individual was guilty of some felonious intent or otherwise. I can reassure the hon. Member, and any other Member of the House who may have had any similar opinion, that it Is not the Attorney-General—who, by the way, does not as a rule appear in police courts—[Interruption]. An hon. Member interrupts to say it is the Central Criminal Court, but the object of this Regulation is that the procedure should be the summary procedure of a police court, and not the more lengthy and expensive procedure of a trial at the Old Bailey.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[The Attorney-General.]
      Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  STRIKE NEGOTIATIONS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should not have intervened had it not been for the fact that, after replying to the speech this afternoon of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) I discovered that I answered only a part of his speech

  409
  which he delivered when I was in the House, and that I had dealt incompletely with a part of his speech which he delivered before I came into the House. Before I proceed, I should like to say that I was not aware that this subject was going to be raised. I had no notice of it. I find that it deals with matters which took place at interviews which were of a confidential character. In these circumstances, in making clear my own position, I am bound to refer, as he did, to discussions that were conducted confidentially, and, as he has made a statement which I venture to think is incorrect, I am bound to substantiate my view of the case by evidence which, I repeat, is taken from a confidential discussion—a thing I am very reluctant to do, but I see no alternative. Let me read what the right hon. Gentleman said before I was able to be here:
  "Let there be no misunderstanding. It was no formula. I say, even if it is the last word I utter in this House, that at Eleven o'Clock on Sunday night not a formula, but the Prime Minister's, own words, in his own writing, were in my possession as a means of settling, and I accepted it."
  After I came into the House the right hon. Gentleman made a much shorter statement, which did not embody the words that I have just read about the statement in the Prime Minister's "own words, in his own writing," arid his acceptance of it. I think, perhaps, the confusion that has arisen in the Debate is but a proof of what I have before now alluded to, namely, the double risk which I ran, and ran willingly, in the cause of peace —the risk I ran by negotiating under the threat of a general strike, although I was not aware until later of the time at which the definite instructions had been issued to call out the men, and the danger of negotiating in confidential discussion, without the aid of shorthand notes. That I did, as, indeed, the other side did, deliberately, because it is well known to everyone who has taken part in negotiations of any delicate kind that you will make much more progress if you can get talking together in a small body with no thought of the outside world, which you must have to a certain extent if notes are being taken. You will make much more progress in that way than in the other.
  410
  The meeting which I and my colleagues, the Secretary of State for India, the Minister of Labour, and a permanent official, had with the right hon. Gentleman and the other representatives of the Trade Union Congress on Saturday night was concentrated upon the question whether another fortnight would be given to further negotiations, and whether in that time those negotiations would be fruitful. That, of course, meant a continuance of the subsidy, and it was the more essential to those who represented the Government to see where we were likely to he at the end of the fortnight, because, if there was a reasonable prospect of agreement being reached, there is no one in this House who would not have voted for a continuance of the subsidy for that time. On the other hand, unless there was, shall I say, a very fair chance of success—no one could guarantee a success to that issue being reached—then I doubt very much whether we could have got the assent of the House, and I doubt very much whether the Government would even have recommended it to the House.
  Our difficulty has been throughout the week that we have found it impossible to obtain either from the miners or from the Trades Union Council on their behalf, a full and free acceptance of the Report, with all its implications. The difficulty is that a full acceptance of the Report recognises that, given certain conditions of assurances as to immediately proceeding with the recommendations concerning re-organisation, the miners were to make some sacrifice, and we had never moved them from the position that they would not abate the present position either as regards wages or hours under any circumstances. That was the difficulty.
  The object of our discussion on the Saturday night was to see whether the miners' attitude on that particular point had been so far modified as to give us an assurance that a settlement would be reached at the end of a fortnight on the basis of the Report. It had already, as I have told the House more than once, been made plain that the Trades Union Council were not acting as plenipotentiaries, but as friends of the parties, and were unable to make a conclusive bargain without the assent of their principals. While we were glad to have this assistance, the consent of the miners

  411
  was an essential part of a real agreement being reached. The Trades Union Council, whatever they might do, were not in a position to take an ultimate decision. They might take their own decision, but they could not take a decision binding the miners without consulting the miners first. Eventually, the impression which I and my colleagues formed in order to report to the Cabinet the result of our meeting, was reduced to a formula, and J propose to give the House the terms of that formula, which were drawn up in the early hours of Sunday morning—
  "The Prime Minister has satisfied himself, as a result of the conversations he has had with the representatives of the Trades Union Council that if negotiations are continued, it being understood that the notices cease to operate, the representatives of the Trades Union Council are confident that a settlement can be reached on the lines of a Report within a fortnight."
  This was to be brought, on my part, before the Cabinet, and, on the part of the gentlemen who were meeting me, before the miners, to discuss with them and report to us; and they hoped that when we parted at that early hour they would be able to let us know some time later that they would get in touch with the miners at the earliest possible moment. Next day I called a Cabinet for noon, and got a message soon after that to the effect that it would be later in the day before an answer could be given, because the Miners' Executive, with the exception of Mr. Cook, had left London on the Saturday evening, for their districts, I presume.
  I have never, and I do not now, impugn the good faith of those who were negotiating with us, but it does show that those gentlemen who were negotiating with us on behalf of the miners were lacking in something when they were discussing with us on Saturday, and the representatives had already left London for the districts. As a matter of fact, it was not until Nine o'Clock on Sunday night before the miners' representatives were all back in London. They were telegraphed for, but as a- matter of fact it was Nine o'Clock on Sunday evening before negotiations could be resumed with the Trade Union Council. When we met, Mr. Pugh informed us that he and his colleagues accepted the substance of the formula which each of us
  412
  had taken away early that morning, but he desired, and his colleagues desired, to know what was the meaning of the phrase "confident that a settlement could be reached." Discussion on that point naturally developed almost at once into the old question of what assurances could be given that the unmoving attitude which the miners had up to then adopted would be changed; in other words, that they would accept fully the whole Report, and there was a good deal of discussion about that. My colleagues and I were most anxious at that time—although between the time that they had adjourned at about quarter past one in the morning and the evening when we met we had learned for the first time not only of the threat of the general strike, hut that telegraphic instructions had been sent out ordering the men out at a settled time—vet we were most anxious to make a final effort to obtain those assurances. But after long discussion, it was manifest that the uttermost point to which the representatives could go was indicated in a formula which was written down, in consultation with those gentlemen we were meeting, by Lord Birkenhead in his writing. I never wrote anything myself from first to last. We, all of us, had been working very long hours on end, and everyone knows that in negotiations where you have not got reference to shorthand notes' you cannot ever get a case, however honourable the parties may be, in which the recollection of details at this moment or that tallies exactly one side with the other. I wish to say that I differ materially in one or two respects from what has been stated in this House. The formula to which I now allude is as follows:
  "We will urge the miners to authorise us to enter upon a discussion with the understanding that they and we accept the Report as the basis of a settlement, and we approach it with the knowledge that it may involve some reduction of wages."
  I want the House to pay particular attention to that, because if, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) really meant Sunday night in the observations he made before I came into the House, it is that formula that he is referring to, and not the first one to which I have alluded, and that is the formula which, according to his own words, he accepted The hopeful impression which I had formed during the discussions on Satur-

  413
  day night were lessened during Sunday and lessened for this reason—and this is only a confirmation of what I have said in another speech: I had known on Saturday of the threat of a general strike, but we only knew on Sunday that the orders had been issued, making that threat definite. I was afraid on Sunday, especially when I heard that the miners were not in London, because, as I have said all along, it was the threat of a general strike which destroyed our negotiations, and destroyed the atmosphere we were in, because the moment the miners—and the miners are human just the same as I am—knew definitely that the strike was coming on in support of them, was it likely that they would move one inch from the position they had taken up?
  As the House knows, it was between the meeting on Saturday night and Sunday that events occurred which made the whole question of negotiation so infinitely more difficult—especially the position of the Government. When we separated, the Trade Union Council were taking that second formula to discuss with the miners. I do not know—nobody will know now—what chance that second formula had at. that moment of being accepted, but it is clear that when we withdrew at the same time as they did, and we got the news that the general strike had begun in the way I have described, by an attack on the liberties of the Press, we had reached a point when it was impossible for the Government to make any further progress. Let me remind the House of the concluding paragraph of the document which we issued that night to the body with whom we had been negotiating. We said this:
  "Before the Government can continue negotiations—
  There was no question of breaking off—
  "they must require from the Trade Union Committee a repudiation of this action"—
  action which had been condemned on that side of the House in the course of the first Debate—
  "we must have a repudiation of this action and an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the instructions for a general strike."
  Speeches have been delivered to-day by most responsible people connected with that Council who were within close distance of Downing Street at that time, and
  414
  it would have been a simple matter for them to have undertaken to repudiate these acts—I am sure everyone deplores it—and to have called off the general strike which has come in in the way of a settlement. But that was not clone, and I want to remind the House once more that there are two issues here, quite distinct, which people are apt to confuse. There is the miners' strike or lock-out or stoppage or whatever you may call it. That is one thing. On that negotiations can take place, were taking place, and, some day, will take place. But there is an entirely separate and dintinct thing. That is the general strike, and until that is out of the way all progress is blocked completely. It has been said in this House that those who organised that strike did not intend it to be a strike against the Government in fact, whatever the intentions, it becomes a strike against the Government of the day whether the Government be represented by me or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald)—whichever of us be here—and if so be it was not intended as a strike against the Government, how better can they show good faith in making such a statement than by saying that now they have found it is becoming that, they call it off so that negotiations may proceed.
  Mr. THOMAS: At no time during this week was there occasion for passion or temper, and there is still less at this moment. Therefore in giving what I hope to be an answer to the right hon. Gentleman and my version of the incident, I want first to say that much as I deplore the present situation, much as I strove to avoid it, hateful as may be the consequences, I would not regret those consequences so much as I would if, at the end, I was accused in any way of breaking confidence. I have been for too long engaged in confidential talks with general managers, and never once has there been a charge made against me that I broke confidence. It is necessary, therefore, to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the circumstances of this afternoon when he was not present. A large number on both sides of the House are here who were not present, and there are also some who were. I am much more concerned in one who is present now, the Noble Lord

  415
  the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) because he will at least confirm, or otherwise, my account of the circumstances which led up to what happened this afternoon. Like, the Prime Minister I had no knowledge—and neither had my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, nor my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary—of this incident, because neither of them dealt with it in their speeches, but the Noble Lord, taking a detached view as a Member of the House of Commons, gave his impression of what led up to this matter and concluded by giving the reasons why he supported the Government. In the course of his speech he said that, so far as he knew, and from all the information at his disposal, the miners had never deviated, and there was no hope of a settlement being arrived at on the merits of the Report. I am summarising his statement.
  11.0 P.M.
  A number of Members from that side cheered the statement and conveyed, at least to me—and I am speaking for myself—the impression that if that were the fact, the Government were justified in their action. So far, I hope I have correctly interpreted what led to the incident. If that be so, I then felt that if this dispute and all its consequences were to turn on that, that indeed was not my impression of the rupture, and I took the opportunity then to make the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. Having said that, it is perfectly true that there were no shorthand notes of what I would call the private conversation. It was neither the Prime Minister nor anyone from my side who suggested that. We both concurred in the view, and we concurred in it for this reason, that my experience of negotiations on disputes, with shorthand notes, is this, that people are generally more inclined to talk to the notes than to talk business.
  I was much more concerned with business than with notes, and, therefore, I readily and absolutely concurred in the suggestion, as did all my colleagues. Therefore, we started off free from the notes. The Prime Minister said that at two o'clock on Saturday morning we left, not with the terms of agreement, but with, to use a, phrase, a formula that represented the general view of what was
  416
  common agreement. It has been read out by the Prime Minister, but please let the House observe that it was not a formula or a document than was for our private use. It was a formula or a document that we had first to submit to the negotiating committee, then to the General Council, and then to the miners. Please observe, when you talk about secret documents, that it was a document, in substance, that had to be submitted to a Committee, then to a General Council of 24, and ultimately to the whole of the Miners' Federation. So that I put it to the House no higher than this, that at least indicates that it represented what would ultimately be, if agreed upon, the terms of a document mutually agreed. We left with that understanding, and I want to remind the Prime Minister of this incident. Having examined the document, we started to discuss procedure for the next day on the basis of the time-table. He said, "I have got my Cabinet to summon. They have got to endorse my view. You, gentlemen, on your side, have got to meet your people. When shall we meet?" Remember, I said, "Well, one can never gauge time-tables. We have got to meet the General Council: we have got to meet the miners, and one cannot say to an hour or two." But there was a sort of indication between us that at least about three o'clock in the afternoon we would meet—before, if possible—but it was understood that Downing Street would be communicated with.
  So far we are in agreement. This was now two o'clock in the morning. At nine o'clock our General Council met, and it is Perfectly true the first question asked when we met was this: Telephone to the Miners' Executive and tell them to be here about 12, because we will certainly want to consult them, it being agreed, and understood, by the Government, as well as us, that it was useless to agree to anything unless the miners themselves agreed. When we met, it is quite true we were told that the Miners' Executive had left London. I noticed some consternation when that statement was made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that I gave him, when we met at nine, the explanation, which he accepted, and it was this. The lock-out notices had

  417
  not been posted in all the districts. That was the method adopted by the coal-owners.
  There were some districts where no lock-out notices were posted, and other districts where they were. The miners' executive did not know this until Saturday night, and, therefore, rather than have confusion and chaos, they decided on Saturday night to go to those districts, so that they could inform them, not knowing anything that negotiations were likely to take place. They went to their districts, but immediately they got our telegram telling them to come back, they promptly jumped into cars or took train, and came back to London on Sunday. So far the House will observe there is common agreement. It is true we met at 9 o'clock, but it is equally true—and the Prime Minister can tell you—that it was 6.30 we asked you to meet us. Is that not; true?
  The PRIME MINISTER: You said you wanted some dinner.
  Mr. THOMAS: Let us be quite clear, because this is too serious for humour. At 6.30 we telephoned you to say we were ready then to meet you, and would await your convenience. At 20 minutes to 7 we got a reply, "Wait, and you will get the answer." I myself answered the telephone and said, "Then tell us whether we will meet before or after dinner, because it is better to know, so that everybody will know where they are." Remember, we had been at this not a few hours but the Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, 9 o'clock was agreed to. Very well. Let me put it to the Prime Minister that his memory is slightly at fault on this point. He has documents to which he can refer. He said, "I have looked upon the Trades Union Congress as a mediating body with no authority to take a decision."
  We are agreed on that point. That is true up till Friday. The Minister of Labour has got papers there—I am quite sure it was sent—and the effect of it was that from now this ceases to be a miners' dispute, and the General Council are empowered to act with all authority. The thing is clear in my mind, and I am speaking clearly. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman received a letter.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): May I just make this
  418
  statement. You told us then that you were empowered to act for the miners. We met that Saturday evening. We asked whether you have power to take a decision in the case of the miners, and we were told that you had no power to take a decision.
  Mr. THOMAS: I will now ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has got it there I know, to read us the letter he received.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I know sufficient of the circumstances. I remember perfectly well that the first question the Prime Minister asked your representatives was, "Are you empowered fully to speak on behalf of the miners, and take the decision on their behalf?" The answer was "No."
  Mr. THOMAS: Very well, I must now remind the right hon. Gentleman who has just heard his colleague say that so far as he knows it is on record. He knows perfectly well that it was in confidence that conference. Let me make this point I think there was common agreement on this point. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the letter and then give his interpretation of it.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will read the letter, and give my interpretation of it. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me his copy of the letter I will read it or he can read it. Here is the actual letter. This is to the Prime Minister, and is dated Saturday, 1st May:
  "Dear Sir,—I have to advise you that the executive committees of the trade unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, including the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, have decided to hand over to the General Council of the Trades Union Congress the conduct of the dispute, and the negotiations in connection therewith will he undertaken by the General Council. I am directed to say that the General Council will hold themselves available at any moment should the Government desire to discuss the matter further."
  That is the letter. We met that evening, with the full negotiating committee and with our full committee. Before, so to speak, the private and confidential meeting occurred, while the full committees on both sides were met there was an official reporter present to take down. This is what I have here:
  "The PRIME MINISTER: Well, Mr. Pugh, I received your letter. I understand from it that you have the authority of the

  419
  Miners' Federation to act for them in this, and negotiate for them if necessary.
  Mr. PUGH: To negotiate, Sir; but I think in the sense that we cannot negotiate independent of them.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Does that mean that if there were to be negotiations you would negotiate or they would negotiate, or representatives from both sides?
  Mr. PUGH: They will be brought into the negotiations, of course. I mean we cannot negotiate independent of them absolutely.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I just, wanted to be clear about that, because you said to hand over 'the conduct of the dispute and the negotiations,' and we read that to mean you were going to negotiate.
  Mr. PUGH: We are going to negotiate, yes.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is what I mean.
  Mr. PUGH: But not exclusively ourselves.
  Lord BIRKENHEAD: You cannot take the decision?
  Mr. PUGH: No, we cannot take the decision—the direction of affairs if you like we will put it, but before we came not the decision."
  May I just add that that was before the confidential part began?
  Mr. THOMAS: Having the notes in your hand, you will, I am sure, because we all want to do the right thing, read on, and you will then find another quotation. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, we are going to have it all out now. You will find another quotation which explains this—and I ask the House in fairness whether anyone on our side could have done any other thing. Of course, we were the negotiating body, but we would have been road, we would not only have been fools, but we could not have helped, unless in our negotiations we brought into consultation the people with the technical knowledge. [Laughter.] It does not matter. I merely state the facts. Now I proceed from that situation, which was the situation on Saturday to Sunday morning 2.30. I have explained the circumstances of the delay, and I come at once now to the point of breaking off, because this is the important point of the Noble Lord's speech. At nine o'clock we met the Prime Minister, who asked us about the delay. I gave him the explanation that I have now given to the House, and he readily and frankly accepted it Is that not true? We then proceeded to discuss the document, having, as he said, accepted it, accepted what he says was a
  420
  formula which common sense tells you needs explanation, and we proceeded to discuss points of explanation at 11.15. Then a note was brought to us by his secretary saying that the Miners' Executive had arrived. We then promptly said, "We need not go on discussing this any more; you want the miners' acquiescence.' I said, 'Certainly; but do not let us waste any more time because they have arrived and we will go upstairs; put it before them, and recommend it." We went upstairs; we started to discuss it with them, we were talking with them about half-an-hour or three quarters of an hour when a message from the Prime Minister came up to us saying that he desired to see us. I said, "Let us finish this point before we go down," not dreaming that there is anything else. It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about something else. I am talking of what happened, and the Prime Minister knows what I am saying is quite true. He sent his secretary up, and I said, "Let us finish this point." The secretary came back and said, "The Prime Minister wants to see you at once." We said to the miners, "Hold on. Let us go down," and we went down. I would not have accused the Prime Minister of having a wrong impression, but I ask attention to what happened subsequently.
  We went down. Lord Birkenhead and himself were present. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Gentlemen, I am sorry to say that our efforts for peace are unavailing. I have a letter to give you, but I feel in honour hound, having regard to all our efforts, at least to say a word to you personally." He said, "Something has happened at the "Daily Mail," and the Cabinet has empowered me to hand you this letter," and he said —and this is very important, because none of us knew what was in the letter he handed to us. We shook hands and he said, "Good-bye; this is the end." When we went upstairs the miners were then sitting there to agree with us.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will remember what I quoted earlier to-day. I said when I came in that our efforts were unavailing because what happens so often the men of peace have been defeated by the hot heads.
  Mr. THOMAS: That is quite true. We shook hands, and then took the letter, by which the negotiations were broken off. I read it, and it contained what the House knows. "And now," the Prime Minister said, "we ask immediately for a repudiation of this action," and what the Prime Minister did not tell you I had better now tell you. He did ask in the letter for a repudiation of something which he knows we knew nothing about, because we were in consultation at the time, and immediately we did repudiate it. Is not that true? Immediately we acquiesced in the Prime Minister's suggestion and said that we did repudiate it, and we actually went to the length of instructing a deputation to go down to the Prime Minister, but when we got down from one room to the other we were told by the attendant that everybody had gone to bed, the place was in darkness, and we could see nobody. Is not that true?
  I have given a fair and, I hope, unvarnished account. The House has heard it, and the Prime Minister has heard it. I have nothing more to say, except that, like him, I regret it. At one minute to 12 on Monday night I would have grovelled for peace; I would have grovelled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I hated war. Unfortunately, it was refused. The consequences no one can tell. Bitterly as I
  422
  am disappointed, keenly as I feel it, I am not going to allow passion or temper or even the wonderful response of our people, beyond all expectation, to allow me to bang the door against the peace which I hope will speedily come.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only want to ask a question. I do not propose to intervene at this stage, because we have had a very detailed account for the first time of very vital matters affecting this dispute, and it is very difficult for the House of Commons to take any of these statements without having an opportunity of seeing them in print. I shall be very sorry, as one who has taken part in a great many negotiations and knows the difficulties of expressions of opinion without having an opportunity of examining the statements. I should like to ask whether it would be possible in the course of proceedings to-morrow to have a discussion upon this subject, because two or three very vital discoveries and revelations have been made to-night of what took place.
  Mr. SPEAKER: When we have disposed of the Amendments to the Motion, we can revert to the Main Question, when that matter can be raised.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  PENSIONS AND PAY.
  PENSIONS AND PAY.
  TRANSFERRED DOCKYARD EMPLOYéS.
  TRANSFERRED DOCKYARD EMPLOYéS.
  STATUE OF SIR CHARLES BARRY.
  STATUE OF SIR CHARLES BARRY.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  PILOT QUALIFICATION.
  PILOT QUALIFICATION.
  PERSONNEL IN INDIA (PAYMENT).
  PERSONNEL IN INDIA (PAYMENT).
  AERODROMES.
  AERODROMES.
  IRAQ CANTONMENTS (TRADERS' ACCOMMODATION).
  IRAQ CANTONMENTS (TRADERS' ACCOMMODATION).
  LINCOLN METEOROLOGICAL STATION.
  LINCOLN METEOROLOGICAL STATION.
  TRACTION ENGINES (RUBBER TYRES).
  TRACTION ENGINES (RUBBER TYRES).
  BASINGSTOKE DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  BASINGSTOKE DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES (DUTY).
  MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES (DUTY).
  FOOD PRICES CONTROL.
  FOOD PRICES CONTROL.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL (COMPOSITION).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL (COMPOSITION).
  BRITISH WARSHIPS, DARDANELLES (SALVING).
  BRITISH WARSHIPS, DARDANELLES (SALVING).
  GREECE (COMMUNISM).
  GREECE (COMMUNISM).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INLAND REVENUE).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INLAND REVENUE).
  HOUSING (SMALL DWELLING ACQUISITION ACT)
  HOUSING (SMALL DWELLING ACQUISITION ACT)
  BRITISH REFINED SUGAR.
  BRITISH REFINED SUGAR.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL of DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
LEGITIMACY BILL.
Report of Amendments, which stood appointed for Thursday, May 6, put off till Tuesday, May 11.
ROYAL NAVAL ENGINEER OFFICERS.
The Notice of the Duke of Northumberland to call attention to the alteration in the status of Royal Naval Engineer officers effected by Admiralty Fleet Order 3241/25, and to move for Papers, which stood appointed for Thursday, May 6, put off sine die.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cranleigh District Water, Southwold Water, and West Surrey Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed. Bill referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Ministry of Health relating to Dunstable Water, Harpenden Water, and Heathfield and District Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed. Bill referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Thorn and District Water, Trowbridge Water, and Wokingham District Water, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed. Bill referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Hertford and Middlesex, and Watford, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed. Bill referred to the Examiners.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (JUVENILE SOCIETIES) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The EARL of BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the following Lords be appointed to serve on the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, and that the Committee have power to agree with the Commons upon the appointment of a Chairman—

Earl of Midleton.

Viscount Chelmsford.

Lord Harris.

Lord Lamington.

Lord Ampthill.

Lord Islington.

47

Lord Hardinge of Penshurst.

Lord Southborough.

Lord Clwyd.

Lord Meston.

Lord Olivier.

—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint eleven members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, in pursuance of the arrangement which was made yesterday I now rise to move the Resolution in relation to the Regulations which were laid before Parliament by His Majesty's command, and the Motion which I have the honour to move is: "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Orders dated the 30th day of April and the 3rd day of May, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act. That is, of course, the formal Resolution which is requisite under the Act in order that the Regulations should remain in force for more than seven days. They do not enact the Regulations. The Regulations are already in force in pursuance of the two Orders in Council, but they cannot remain in force for more than seven days unless this Resolution is carried in both Houses of Parliament, and it is for that purpose that I make the Motion.
The Regulations are in your Lordships' hands. They were in the Vote Office yesterday and I have no doubt they are on the Table now and are available to any noble Lord who wishes to peruse them. They consist of 39 Regulations which are strictly in conformity with the precedent which has been set on the previous occasion, that is to say, when this procedure was availed of in 1921. There is, however, in addition an extra Regulation which is on a separate paper relative to the Press and to printing. That provides that in the case of publications which are likely to cause mutiny, sedition or disaffection among any of His Majesty's Forces, or indeed in the civil population,
48
or which tend to impede, restrict or delay any measures taken for securing necessities or purposes essential to the public safety or the life of the community—that in all cases the police shall have special powers to take action against the publication in question and to prevent it: That Order has been considered to be requisite and therefore it is additional to the Orders passed on the last occasion. I thought, it right to explain to your Lordships exactly how the matter stands. I do not propose to discuss these Regulations, but of course it is open to any noble Lord to speak at large upon the subject in pursuance of this Motion, and in respect of any detailed matters upon which any noble Lord wishes to have information my noble and learned friend the Secretary of State for India is prepared to answer any point put to him. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act., 1920, by Orders dated the 30th day of April and the 3rd day of May, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has stated quite accurately the legal position. Under the Act of 1920 the Government have full power to bring forward these Regulations and the policy which underlies the action they take is a separate matter. That we discussed yesterday. I said all that I wished to say about it and I do not propose to add anything to what was then said. Without prejudice to what I said yesterday upon the question of policy, I am not desirous of offering any comment upon these Regulations. Whether some other of my noble friends may wish to draw attention to matters of detail is another question, but so far as I am concerned I do not desire to take up the time of the House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, we are about to consider and, I hope, approve the Regulations which the noble Marquess has laid before us to-day. I have read through them sufficiently to satisfy myself that I am not able to understand the whole of them in their working, but everything which I do appreciate seems to me to be

49
entirely right and I trust effect may be given to them. If I intervene for a moment, and it shall be for a moment only, it is from the standpoint of those who are having, in these days of difficulty and anxiety, some opportunity of gauging, directly or indirectly, the feeling and attitude of the great mass of public opinion, especially amongst the poorest classes, at the present juncture with regard to the question of the strike. I have not myself to do with the coal industry in any of its aspects, but I do have to do, in constant daily intercourse, directly or indirectly, with those, some of them as I have said of the very poorest, who are suffering already from the strike and who, if it lasts many days, will suffer in the most acute form.
What I am anxious to call attention to for a moment is the impression conveyed to all those with whom I have been in contact, who have been in hourly intercourse with people, who, although anxious and suffering, are showing at this moment a remarkably fine spirit of good humour and good temper. Except in a few isolated cases, which I see are notified in such news as we have got, there is a spirit of good humour and friendliness all round with regard to the strike, but it is accompanied by a sense of fear on the part of not a few—I think their view is a mistaken one—that if they were not to help and throw themselves on the side of those at present striking they would be tending to do something which would lower the standard of living amongst the poorest classes, not only in the coal industry but in other industries as well. I do not share that fear and cannot think that the result would follow; but it is necessary, if we are to understand the present situation aright, to recognise its existence. I find at present no group of people who are unfriendly in this particular matter, but I do find that there are men who are uneasy because they think that the result that I have mentioned may follow.
As regards the strike itself, I do not think that among thoughtful people there is very great difference of opinion as to its unwisdom and its mischievousness. To my mind it is simply shocking that it should be possible at this time of day in our country for a set of men who are a kind of oligarchy chosen in such a way that it is not very obvious that it rests
50
upon a broad popular basis, to make the extraordinary claim to exercise the powers of the Government as regards the control of the Press, the control of the country's communications and the ordinary living and well-being of the people. That, to my mind, is a condition of things so intolerable that every effort is needed, is justifiably called for and ought to be supported, which the Government may make to bring that condition of things as speedily as possible to an end. The thing does not seem to me really to bear discussion or to admit of argument, so obvious do the facts seem to be.
But there is something more than that. We must not let that thought blind us to the need of discovering, if it be yet possible, some mode of removing the fear that legislation, or lack of legislation, which may follow upon what is now being done, will have the general effect of lowering the standard of living among the poorest classes. The need seems to me to be acute at this moment for a general consideration on the part of the public at large, and not least among our poorest classes, of whether any action or inaction on our part makes us in some measure responsible for the arising of a condition which has resulted in the present' strike. The Government have everyone behind them in what they are doing; we admire the patience and skill which has been shown, as far as we are able to understand, in all the negotiations of the past and certainly the good temper and perseverance and the spirit which has characterised their action from first to last.
What I want to say is that everything that comes to one's notice each hour leads one to believe that the Government would have behind them an overwhelming weight of public opinion if they felt it to be possible, even at the risk of doing something illogical, something that appears inconsistent, to explore yet further the possibility of averting the growth which must arise soon of a spirit very different from that which prevails at this moment. At present the good nature and good humour with which the terribly severe conditions are received by most people are regarded as beyond praise. Can any one expect, when the pressure has become acute, as it will after a few clays or a week has passed,

51
that that temper will be maintained? And, if there be a risk of that temper being broken down, while it is founded on something which is a reality in their fear lest the standard of living should be lowered, we should have brought about a disaster which is greater in one sense than the strike itself if it came to the alienation of public feeling from the side on which it at present stands. Therefore I hope that every possible effort will continue to be made, even, as I say, with the risk of an apparent illogicality, to reach a solution on the part of those who have done so much already to carry the matter through. We want to see that they are undaunted in face of the present perplexity, as they have been persevering and untiring in their efforts hitherto.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have a question to put to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who, I understand, will reply on these Regulations. But, before that, I should like to say a word bearing upon what the most rev. Primate has just said. It is very satisfactory to hear what he says about the good humour of both sides at the present time, but I also think it is absolutely true that on the side of the council of the trade unions it is not a matter of interfering with the ordinary conditions of civilised life. They are actuated by a fear, which exists not only in this country hut has influenced very much countries abroad, and is reflected at the International Labour Office in Geneva—a fear lest the standard of living among the poorer classes should be lowered. The miners' conditions are extremely difficult and it is feared that they are peculiarly liable to be subjected to pressure, either to reduce wages or to lengthen hours.
I do not want to go into personal matters, but having been brought into contact with two of the large coalfields, South Wales and Nottinghamshire, I find in the one all the difficulties which have been mentioned affecting the export trade, while in the other the conditions are extremely satisfactory and prosperous. In Nottinghamshire, or at any rate in the mine that I know very well, there is not the slightest difficulty, and no question of bankruptcy. On the contrary, the profits are very satisfactory, and all that the mine owners desire is that things should go on in that particular mine as they are. They have put
52
up a notice saying that on no account do they intend to lower wages or to ask for longer hours and they hope that work may be re-started as soon as possible.
I think that the conditions of the industry as a whole have been somewhat exaggerated. We all know what was said in the extremely interesting and exhaustive Report of the Royal Commission, who admit, as everyone must admit, that certain mines could no longer be worked on ordinary economic terms, and therefore ask for a general reorganisation of the industry. I should have hoped myself that the Government might themselves have introduced a sort of Reorganisation Bill, showing their sense, at any rate, of the neccessity of their carrying out all the conditions of the Report of the Coal Commission, and then, when that Bill was published it would be time to pronounce an opinion if either one party or the other was not prepared to comply with all the conditions which it laid down.
I wanted to ask Lord Birkenhead this question. As far as I know, the common form of Emergency Regulations which were published, I think, in 1919, are all contained in the volume which I hold in my hand, that is, Emergency Regulations which are dated April 30, 1926. The noble Marquess has referred to another Regulation, dated the 3rd day of May, 1926, and I want to ask him whether that is not a new Regulation altogether. Has a Regulation in that form and in those terms ever been published before under the Emergency Powers Act? It may have been published.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is new.
LORD PARMOOR: The terms of it, I suggest, are extremely wide, looking at it as a new Regulation. I will not discuss the necessity for some such Regulation, but I want to call attention to the part of it which appears to me to go beyond any of the other Regulations and to have an exceptional character. First of all, it refers to any police constable, if authorised by an Order of the Secretary of State, entering into premises, and so on, if need be by force. The giving of a power of that kind can only be necessitated by very exceptional circumstances. It is beyond the power of a similar kind contained already in the Regulations which have been adopted before.

53
I want, however, to call the noble Marquess's attention to these words:
"enter…by force any premises or place suspected of being used for the purposes of printing, producing, publishing or dispersing any document, calculated or likely to cause"—
I do not object to the words "mutiny and sedition," but to this part of the Regulation—
"calculated to cause…disaffection among…the civilian population."
As to the other words, I agree with the necessity in regard to what is called mutiny amongst the troops and matters of that kind. But when you come to the question merely of disaffection among the civilian population, that is, surely, giving a very wide and indefinite power altogether. I have read these other Regulations through very carefully and I am not aware of any previous Regulation of a similar character.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Yes; if the noble and learned Lord looks at Regulation 21, he will find there is one which is verbatim the same.
LORD PARMOOR: Is it verbatim the same as Section 21?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: If that is so, what is the necessity for it?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It specifies a little more closely the matter of printing and publishing. As I understood the noble and learned Lord's point, it was in regard to that part of the provision which dealt with the civilian population. I do not wish to interrupt him, but perhaps he will be good enough to follow me.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: This is Regulation 21:
"If any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection among any of His Majesty's forces, or among the members of any police force, or any fire brigade, or among the civilian population, or to impede, delay or restrict any measures in"—
and so on, and then the provision follows.
LORD PARMOOR: May I point out why I think a distinction arises? I was aware of that provision and it appears
54
to me to go far enough. Paragraph (2A) deals with a different matter. It says—
"…enter…by force any premises or place suspected of being used for the purpose of printing, producing, publishing or dispersing any document…"
of this kind. That is a new power altogether. If you apply it to any member of the civilian population it appears to me to go quite outside what we have in Regulation 21. When I read Regulation 21 it appeared to me to be amply sufficient to deal with all difficulties likely to arise. However, I leave it. I did not want to go further than to raise my point upon it, and if the noble and learned Earl is going to answer me I shall be happy to listen to his explanation.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, may I say with regard to the use of the word "disaffection" that it is a very dangerous word indeed in this connection. When it is applied to the forces of the Crown or the Police it has a definite meaning. It means a disaffection towards His Majesty's Government, whose servants they are. In regard to the general public it may have the meaning of disaffection towards the Crown. But disaffection amongst private individuals is a, very dangerous and wide term. It is a term which has given rise to very great controversy in India owing to the fact that the word "disaffection" is used in Regulation 3, of which your Lordships may have heard, and under which anybody may be arrested and interned. I want to have a definite definition from the noble and learned Earl as to what is meant by, and what are the restrictions of the meaning of, this word "disaffection." It simply cannot mean that if one man publishes a thing which another does not like that is a cause of disaffection and is an offence. It cannot mean that to cause irritation among citizens by the publication of controversial documents is an offence. Actually, of course, it must be something in the nature of an offence which is properly prescribed in relation to His Majesty's forces.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, in considering these Regulations I do not think it is possible to shut one's eyes to the position in which we stand and, although it may not be strictly relevant to recall the circumstances in which the

55
strike arose, I think it is important for the purpose of considering these proposals, lest through weakness we may paralyse the hands of the Government or through zeal enforce Regulations that go beyond the necessity of the case. We are in the presence of what is called "a strike"; but it appears to me to be one of the most wanton and most reckless exercises of tyrannical power that this country has been called upon to meet for centuries. I have very carefully considered the circumstances in which this strike has arisen and I desire to say nothing about the conduct of the Government in the matter. However liable that conduct may be to criticism, now is not the time to criticise it. I wish, however, to say that I do not believe that by any power whatever could they have averted this disaster. I believe it was arranged almost from the first. None the less it would have been possible, I think, for them so to have conducted their negotiations as to have made more plain to the country than it is what was the exact issue upon which they parted from the miners' representatives and the trade union leaders. That is history. It is history which it may be profitable at some future date to examine. At the moment it is simply waste of time.
I hope I do not take an exaggerated view of the gravity of the position in which we stand. To my mind the declaration of a general strike is the gravest news this country has had to face since the eventful days of August, 1914. Everyone who values the ordered progress of this country and the removal of grievances by the use of honoured and constitutional means is bound to lend all the power and support he can to the Government in the difficult position in which they are placed. After all, in saying that, I have only said imperfectly what was said yesterday oy my noble Leader, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in words which I am certain met with the anproval of every member of your Lordships' House, and I can assure the House that I believe that not only did he, in words that we cannot emulate, express the view of every Liberal member in this House, but also of every member of the Liberal Party throughout the country.
So regarded, I am not prepared to enter into minute verbal criticism of
56
these Regulations. It is always possible to criticise matters such as this meticulously. I dislike that word, but it expresses what I mean. If, under these wide general powers, there are arbitrary acts which cannot be justified, this House at least will always be open for them to he criticised and it seems to me that that is the right course that, we ought to take. I do not think that any one who has had any experience of the feeling of the public in the last few days can fail to realise that, with good temper but with set determination, they are prepared to stand behind the Government in this matter. I believe that I can assure the Government that the nation will not fail them and I only sincerely hope that the Government's will not fail the nation.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether Regulation 21 gives permission not only for one man but for a number of people to engage in peaceful persuasion? If it does give that permission it seems to me to endorse one of those terrible forms of tyranny that has just been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord opposite.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, in answer to the last question it is not the present intention of the Government to interfere, in the matter raised by the noble Lord, with the existing law, although many of us took an unfavourable view of the proposals which now many years ago in this respect acquired the force of law. But I must make it quite plain that, being, as we are, at the beginning of an issue hitherto, happily, unexperienced in this country and groping our way, therefore, through perilous days, we can give no assurance at all that this will be the last of the demands that the Government will have to make upon Parliament. We shall make no demands in the shape of additions to the present Regulations which we have not satisfied ourselves, with our responsibility, that the safety of the State requires, but, equally, the moment we satisfy ourselves that any Regulation additional to those which are to-day upon the Paper is required, measured again in the same terms of the safety of the State in the wholly exceptional circumstances in

57
which we find ourselves, we shall not hesitate to come to Parliament for any necessary increase of our powers in any respect.
I do not desire, except so far as courtesy requires to those of your Lordships who have spoken, to tread again the general subject which last night engaged the attention of your Lordships. The most rev. Primate, as is his wont, in a conciliatory and thoughtful speech, has dealt, with many of the topics which are at, this moment in your Lordships' minds. My noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master, in a particularly helpful speech, pledging the Government the support, which we greatly value, of the large number of constitutional Liberals in this country, has given a message of encouragement to the Government in their difficult task for which it is proper that I should express at once the gratitude and the appreciation of the Government. I must, perhaps, be allowed to say this. Although knowing the difficulty of their position—I speak without any attempt at great severity—it is a little astonishing that the leaders of the Labour Party in this House, neither last night nor to-night, have found themselves in a position to inform this House whether they approve or do not approve of the unconstitutional development of what began as a purely trade dispute.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: We told you what we disapproved of yesterday very distinctly.
THE EARL OF MIZKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount says he told us what he disapproved of. There are many topics of which, in an imperfect sphere of humanity, many people approve, but we were, if I may say so without even a tinge of discourtesy, not interested in knowing in the abstract that of which the noble and learned Viscount approved or disapproved.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I gave it in the concrete.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If I am labouring under any misapprehension the noble and learned Viscount, I am sure, will very explicitly make the matter plain. I was left in great doubt, after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount last night, whether
58
or not he thought that the proclamation of a general strike was a justifiable action on behalf of the leaders of the Trades Unions.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not discuss it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That is the whole gravamen of my criticism.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What I pointed out was that by the conclusion of your official communication you had provoked it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount has really not made himself aware of the easily ascertainable chronological stages of this matter. I assure the noble and learned Viscount he has not. I will establish it beyond all disputation. The noble and learned Viscount is unwise to shake his head. He announces a negative conclusion upon matters which do not admit of a negative. Let me assure him that I will make the matter abundantly plain. While discussions and negotiations were taking place, upon which I am entitled to speak with some confidence because I happen to be one of the Ministers concerned in them—while those discussions were actually taking place those who sere charged with theta on behalf of the Government, of whom I was one, became for the first time aware that definite and positive instructions had been given in most of the principal trades and industries of the country to declare and carry out a general strike. The noble and learned Viscount upon that point then is, if he will allow me to say so, completely wrong.
I do not know how to argue this matter with the noble and learned Viscount. A moment ago he said that we broke matters off prematurely upon this ground. We have tried to make the attitude of the Government plain. We are not, we were not and we shall not be, prepared to negotiate as long as this threat to all constitutional government holds the field. I gather that the noble and learned Viscount entertains a different view. He will give me leave to say that he is still not in any way answering the criticism which I made a moment ago and it is that upon this point the responsible leaders of the Labour Party in this

59
House have not up to the present favoured your Lordships even with an expression of opinion. A trade dispute having arisen, whether the merits were on the side of the miners or whether the merits were on the side of the owners or whether the mediators, ourselves, made some great fault, I do not argue any of these points, but I say we are entitled to know from the representative leaders of the Labour Party whether they justify the employment of the weapon of the general strike.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That is not really the point. The point we raise is that the general strike was known of two days before these things happened. The coal owners' lock-out was known and the business of the Government was to continue mediating. Instead, they published this document and put an end to all chance.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount is far too accustomed to the use of precise language to be able in the first place to justify to himself the use of the term "lock-out." There is not and was not ever a lock-out. The term lock-out has a perfectly precise and well-known connotation. The circumstances of this case allow of no such connotation. I cannot allow the noble and learned Viscount to run out upon a statement that two days before, or three days before, it was known there was to be a general strike. It was not known two days or three days before. It was known, and known only, that certain statements had been made that there might be a general strike. Does the noble and learned Viscount really mean that if, at a meeting of trade union delegates, one leader or two leaders say there may be a general strike that is the same thing as the announcement that in fact orders have been issued for a general strike? A Government may very well prudently say we will not regulate our conduct upon vague threats which have not materialised and may never materialise, but the moment these threats have not only been made but specific instructions have been issued a wholly new situation arises. Not only that, but, as the noble and learned Viscount well knows, a commencement had actually been made in carrying out the general strike. Are we not entitled to know
60
whether the noble and learned Viscount is of opinion that as trustees of constitutional government in this country it was our business or was not our business to go on negotiating when once a general strike was in actual progress?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, go on negotiating to the last.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That is an astonishing doctrine from a great constitutional lawyer. We are face to face with the position in, which quite a different body is assuming the functions of government, is claiming to close down organs of the Press, is declaring a war not against the mine owners, not against those who undertake the unwelcome and unattractive task of mediation, but a war against society as a whole, against the poor clerk who is trying on a wet and foggy day to travel four miles to his task. In view, not of a threat but of that having been carried into execution, in view of what is taking place to-day when we are insultingly invited to accept a safe conduct from the strikers if necessary, are we to continue negotiations?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Certainly.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: We do not propose to do so. I tell you plainly that to whatever unhappy lengths this quarrel may be carried it will be ended and it will be ended only with the recognition alike in fact and in law that there is one Government and one Government only in this country.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, but what Government?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount says, "What Government?" I will reply to him in language which was used by one who was very recently his leader and who, though not a constitutional lawyer and not a former occupant of the Woolsack, held sounder language upon this question than the noble and learned Viscount holds to-day. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when he was Prime Minister, when he was charged with the responsibilities which to-day we support, held language very difficult to distinguish from that which I hold at this moment but very easy to distinguish from the doctrine

61
which the noble and learned Viscount has laid down. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when the tube railway menace was in operation, said:
"We shall do our best to advance public convenience while the dispute lasts…The first step that will have to be taken is to issue a Proclamation that a state of emergency exists. I hope that neither side will take that as being a threat or being provocative…The Government must be armed with the power which are required should the dispute spread, or should public convenience demand some action which can only be taken under the powers given to it after the issue of the Proclamation…The major public services must also be continued, and the Government, any Government, all Governments, must give protection to those engaged in their legal occupations."
VISCOUNT HALDANE: And he went on negotiating and averted a strike.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount says that he went on negotiating and averted a strike. The noble and learned Viscount's mind seems incapable of maintaining any contact with actualities. Were they confronted, as we are confronted, with a general strike? Does the noble and learned Viscount not see that that is the whole point he and I are discussing at this moment? So would we have gone on discussing en long as the issue had been confined to a single strike, but we have been confronted with a general assault on the whole principle of constitutional government. The noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to rise three or four times to correct an error if I made one, but he is not able at this moment—if he is I will give way to him—to state whether he and his colleagues on that Bench defend or do not defend the weapon of the general strike.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What we are concerned with is the conduct of the negotiations.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The conduct of the negotiations! My Lords, I have given as explicit an invitation to the noble and learned Viscount as any power of speech at my disposal enables me to formulate, and I leave the matter with the fact appreciated by everyone of your Lordships that although we have here some five or six former Ministers
62
there is not one who dare tell your Lordships he approves of the general strike.
Now, I will answer very shortly the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has put to me. There is, in fact, nothing in the new Regulations of substance which was not contained in either Regulation 21 or 33 of the old Regulations, but we did judge it expedient to collate these provisions in the new Regulation for a reason which I am hopeful may commend itself to your Lordships. We desired to collate them in relation to the printing, producing or publishing of documents. We are apparently drifting into days in which the nation will be dependent upon indirect and not particularly reliable sources of news, though I ought perhaps to inform your Lordships that, in spite of all the difficulties, the Government are taking steps to see that citizens in this country shall not be denied the opportunity day by day of knowing what is going on in the country.
We have already taken steps which we believe will be extremely effective in that direction and we are hopeful that we shall be able to guarantee, within one or two days, that not only in London but in the provinces every citizen who wishes to learn how this quarrel is progressing and, generally, how the nation is progressing will have the fullest sources of authoritative information open to him. But in the meantime we are bound to take notice of the fact that, by the action, of the trades unions, by the action, I suppose we may say, of the noble and learned Viscount and his friends, nearly every newspaper in this country—.Is that disputed?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No, no. The noble Earl has been trying from the beginning to start a new hare—
Several NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am not here to discuss the merits of this question. I said so yesterday. What I held to was the one issue that we had before us yesterday, and on that we get not a ward from the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But does the noble and learned Viscount really suppose that he can choose every

63
issue that your Lordships discuss? I assure the noble Viscount that he is wrong. Parliament is met here to discuss a very grave matter of public affairs. It is not for the noble and learned Viscount to say to Parliament: "This is the only issue that interests me." There may be many issues that interest the Government, that interest the Opposition in another place and that interest the public, but the noble and learned Viscount has not observed the very astonishing circumstance that he and his colleagues are completely marooned. They are not in the same position as the Front Opposition Bench in the House of Commons.
There the Front Opposition Bench, when they are asked whether they justify the general strike, do not say, "That is not the issue that we are raising," because they are sensible enough men to see that the issue is raised, has been raised by somebody, that it did not drop "like the gentle rain from heaven," that it proceeded from human agency and that they were the human agents. The noble and learned Viscount was recently the colleague of the very men who are to-day not only admitting their responsibility but glorying in it. We are asking the noble and learned Viscount whether he is one of those who are responsible for the suppression of the Press in this country. He says that this is not the issue that he has come here to discuss. Perhaps he will kindly allow me to discuss it and—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Say what you like.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: This is indeed a notable concession to the freedom of Parliament. The House may be grateful to one whom, I suppose, I may without offence call the mouthpiece in this House of the Soviet. We must indeed be grateful for the permission to a Minister to say what he likes.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am not questioning your right to say anything.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount questions nothing that I say but he utterly declines to take that responsibility which, if he is not prepared to face it, leaves him without any right to sit in this House as the
64
Leader of the Labour Party. We, at any rate, upon this point feel ourselves in no possible difficulty. We propose to invite Parliament, in another place and here, to pass any Regulation which we think it necessary to pass to meet a challenge which has never before in practice confronted the Government of this country. It can be defined in very simple language. It is whether or not the trades union leaders, in order to develop their own view of an individual trade quarrel, are entitled to place punitive and ruinous consequences upon every section of the population of this country who have nothing whatever to do with the original quarrel which, and which alone, requires the attention of society.
That indeed is a plain issue and, although we have not the assistance of the noble Viscount and his colleagues in reaching a conclusion upon that point, we have nevertheless felt bold enough and, give me leave to add, we have felt strong enough to form a conclusion of our own. We have accepted that challenge, we shall carry it through to the end and it will be ended, and will be ended only, by the assertion of the Constitutional doctrine that a trade quarrel has its proper context and ambit among those whom it concerns, whether they be employers or employed, and that the moment it claims to affect and punish and ruin the whole of society it can he and it must be restrained and corrected by authority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVI- SIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, it must, of course, be obvious to your Lordships that this Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House under conditions very different from those which prevailed when it was passing through another place. It must also be obvious that, owing to the present lamentable circumstances in the country, some of its provisions will be rendered, if not nugatory, at least inoperative, and that circumstances may play havoc with

65
others. Since, however, it is impossible at the present time to estimate what those changes may be, I think it is essential that I should move the Bill in its present form. I want to make one general observation about the Bill Before I deal with its provisions. Those of your Lordships who have read the Bill will be aware that it is a somewhat intricate measure, but it is provided with a commentary which, I trust, has made it clear to your Lordships, and I think that if there is any obscurity in the Bill it arises just as much from the difficulty of the subject as from the ingenuity of the draftsman.
I should like to make this further observation, that this Bill does not pretend in any way to cover the whole field of economy that has been dealt with by the Government this year. Special attention is directed to legislation, and the more valuable administrative changes and reductions are less noted than a Bill which has to run the gauntlet of both houses of Parliament. I want to make it quite clear that the economies and reductions of expenditure that may result from this Bill are a comparatively small portion of the deductions that have been made throughout the entire field of administration by the Present Government. I may mention that I myself am one of the sufferers from these deductions. In my own Estimates, for instance, which normally amount to something like £5,000,000, I have had to make reductions of something like £750,000. Considering the large portion of those Estimates which are practically fixed charges, your Lordships will be able to estimate the ex tent of the sacrifice that has been made in those particular Estimates.
I will give your Lordships a general sketch of the different clauses in this Bill, although I shall be quite ready to give a more intimate and fuller explanation when we come to deal with the clauses separately in Committee. I should like to say also that it is a rather remarkable circumstance that this Bill passed through the House of Commons without any amendment whatever, although I do not think that your Lordships ought to draw from that fact a conclusion that it altogether escaped criticism in its passage through the other House. As regards the first
66
clause, which deals with the National Health Insurance, as you will see from the Paper which has been circulated, the general proposal there is that the contribution of the Government towards benefits is to be reduced from two-ninths to one-seventh of the benefits in the case of men, and one-fifth of the benefits in the ease of women. May I say a word or two as to the justification for the action there taken by the Government? Since the Fund was originally established in 1911 very great changes have, of course, resulted, which have enured generally very greatly to the advantage of the approved societies and of the insured generally. Marty advantages have, of course, resulted from the 'War, many of them due to the direct action of different Governments in power during the fourteen or fifteen years which have elapsed.
First of all, and I am speaking from a financial point of view, heavy costs have fallen upon the State for the dependents of those who fell in the War, while on the other hand the reserve values of those who were killed in the War have liberated something like £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 in favour of the funds of the approved societies. Another fact which has contributed to the improvement in the position of the approved societies is of course the rise in the rate of interest. Through the rise in the rate of interest, so familiar to your Lordships, their incomes have improved by something like £2,000,000 a year, but it should lie observed at the same time that while that rise in the rate of interest has strengthened the position of the approved societies, it has, of course, enured to the disadvantage of the State, which has to pay 5 per cent. interest, instead of 3 or 3½ per cent., for the money which it raises. Further than that there is the increase in the rate of interest, which has enabled in so many cases approved societies to pay higher additional benefit, and that additional benefit itself attracts the State contribution of two-ninths, and therefore lays a heavier charge upon the finances of the State. Then again, the general health of the community, certainly amongst men, has largely improved during those fourteen or fifteen years. The result again is that a smaller charge as regards health benefits falls upon the approved societies. I think it

67
not unfair to say that a good deal of that improved health may be attributed to large sums spent by the Government on health, housing and other activities which have contributed to the improvement of health, which has itself strengthened the position of the approved societies.
It has been said that the State is not entitled to reduce its two-ninths contribution. I shall deal with that question in a moment, but quite outside this contribution to benefits of two-ninths the State has contributed, during the last fourteen or fifteen years, large sums which are quite outside any obligation under which it might have been placed by the Act of 1911. Those sums were very largely in connection with medical benefit and amount to something like £24,000,000, and if you were to argue strictly that this was a purely legal contract it might be argued, as some have argued, flat the State has given this £24,000,000 only upon loan, and is entitled to recover it from the approved societies. But again, and perhaps stronger than all, you have the Act of last year—the provision of the Widows and Old Age Pensions Act—which removes from the shoulders of the approved societies that immense liability which falls upon them for persons between 65 and 70 years of age—a time when the provision for sickness and so on would be the heaviest. Treating that as a capital sum, it is estimated that it has liberated or reduced the necessity for making provision by the approved societies, to the extent of no less than £37,000,000. So you have all these benefits—£37,000,000 and £24,000,000—enuring to the advantage of the societies, and due entirely to action of the State entirely outside the provisions of the Act of 1911, and not due at all to any action or good administration on the part of the societies.
Quite apart from other advantages I have mentioned, which have benefited the funds of the societies—the increase in the rate of interest and the deaths of those who fell in the War—the funds of the societies are in a far better position than could have been expected when the Fund was established. Again, as against the reduction of the Government contribution—and I am not giving the exact savings because they are all set out very clearly at the end of the Report—it is found that through the satisfactory position
68
of these societies it has been possible to reduce the percentages of a penny taken from the contributions of the insured persons and put into the Reserve Values Fund. That has liberated £600,000 a year for the societies, which, of course, can be spent in extra benefits.
It has been said that this is all very well as a justification, but that there exists some definite pledge on the part of the Government that they would retain that two-ninths contribution for the benefit of insured persons during the whole time in which the Fund is in existence, and that therefore, although it may be quite well to argue on general grounds that societies are in such a good position that you are entitled to take something back, as it were, for all the great extra benefits conferred upon societies, yet if it is a breach of a pledge that of course cannot be tolerated. I want to deal for a moment with the charge of a breach of pledge. First of all, there is no record anywhere produced that there was any pledge given that the State contribution would run for all time in the proportion originally fixed, and after all that is contradicted by the facts of the case, because already there has been a change in the proportions originally fixed in 1911. The State grant was originally two-ninths of the benefits in the case of men and one-quarter in the case of women. But in 1920, when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister, the proportion in the case of women was reduced from one-fourth to two-ninths. It is perfectly obvious that no one can know better than Mr. Lloyd George himself, who was the main author of that scheme, whether or not such a pledge had been given, and if such a pledge had been given it is incredible that the author of that scheme could himself have broken that pledge, as he would have clone by reducing the contribution in the case of women from one-fourth to two-ninths
LORD ARNOLD: Is it not the case that the arrangement was one which was mutually agreed to, and that therefore the noble Viscount's remarks have no point at all?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It does not in the least matter whether it was mutually agreed to or not. If there was a definite pledge that would have been a breach of

69
the pledge. What the State actually undertook to do in 1911 was to make such contributions from the Exchequer as to ensure that in the case of persons entering insurance at the age of sixteen the value of the benefits should be fully the value of the contributions payable by the insured person and his employer, and that the seine benefit should be payable at the flat rate of contribution to all persons entering insurance at the age of sixteen. This arrangement was secured by the State grant, and it will be more than maintained under the changes in the Bill. If your Lordships wish confirmation of that, you have only to look at the Actuary's Report, where that case is fully stated. So there is nothing magical about the two-ninths. The two-ninths at that time was taken to be merely the expression in words, or in a fraction, of the amount which was necessary to be contributed by the State in order to secure that everybody, whether entering at the age of sixteen or at a later age, would get benefits larger than the contributions. Under subsection (2) some arrears of grant amounting to £190,000 a year for the next five years will still he paid or carry benefits on the two-ninths basis.
The next larger point is on Clause 2, and that is the question of the charges for medical benefit. The effect of that clause is to throw foe full charge for medical benefit, 13 s. per person, upon the funds of the societies. The total of that is £2,300,000, and of this the Exchequer contribution is £400,000. The charge under the Act was 10s., including administration for medical benefit, the difference between the actual cost and the cost of 10 s. was borne by being thrown upon a fund containing the receipts from unclaimed stamps and other sources under the Act of 1924. This Act comes to an end in 1926. I believe the Fund has been very seriously depleted by these heavy charges, and therefore, as is only fair, the charges now come on the funds of the societies. You may say, indeed, that the funds of the societies were rather fortunate that for that period of years that difference between 10 s. and 13 s. has been thrown upon another fund, and not upon the funds of the societies.
I come to Clause 3, which deals with the positions of the weaker societies. As
70
your Lordships know, this scheme, though in one sense a national scheme, is also in another sense a scheme as between separate societies. Each of the different societies, of which there are no less than 8,000, I believe, has its separate account, its separate surplus or deficiency, and in some cases, owing to the fact, that very bad lives are insured in some of the societies, as, for instance, in the case of the glass-blowers and other unhealthy trades, the position of the societies is far less satisfactory. Something like five per cent. of them, I believe, if they are not in a deficiency, find a difficulty in paying the statutory benefits, and, in consequence of the further charges that may fall upon them, partly through the reduction of Government grant, and partly through the charge thrown upon them for medical benefit, which I have already explained, another five per cent., or up to another five per cent., may find themselves in some difficulty when the next investigation takes place into the funds of those societies, and the question of the surpluses to be declared is examined.
In these cases a special provision had to be made, and a sum estimated at about £1,000,000 during the quinquennial period 1926–31, that is to say, about £200,000 a year, to supplement their funds, is to he drawn from the Reserve Suspense Fund. The Reserve Suspense Fund is made up of the reserve values of those persons who have been once insured, and who have passed out of insurance and have gone into non-insurable trades. It is not a fund that was hitherto regarded as one that could be drawn upon by the societies in aid of benefits. It is thought that this fund will he quite adequate to bear this charge of £200,000 a year for five years, but, if it should not prove adequate, it is decided that the central funds should bear the burden of any amount which cannot be paid out of the Reserve Suspense Fund. Much has been, said about the surpluses of the societies. I should like to say that the surpluses of the societies now amount to about £65,000,000, and not one penny of those surpluses is to be touched. They will remain entirely in the hands of the societies, quite unaffected by the provisions of the present Bill.
Under Clause 4 there are one or two rather technical details. The general

71
costs of central administration, valuation, audit and inspection are borne by the State, and I believe they amount to something like £750,000. Under the provisions of this clause the cost of providing insurance stamps, and other business connected therewith, amounting to about £200,000 a year, is to be taken from the interest on the sums in the Stamps Sales Account. This represents interest on the money between the time the stamps, we will say, are paid for by the employers, and the time when these stamps are affixed to the cards and the cards are handed in and the amounts credited to the societies. As the Bill is at present drawn the first charge is going to be for the State for this £200,000 a year, and other balances in the fund will be used for assisting those who have fallen out of health insurance owing to unemployment, and also for making up some deficiencies in the Drugs Fund; but, by an Amendment which I shall propose on the Committee Stage I wish to reverse the order, to give priority to the Unemployed Persons and the Drugs Fund, and to place the Government last.
The next large question that arises, I think, is in connection with the treatment to be applied to the surplus of the Services Insurance Fund; that is to say, the Army, Navy, and Air Force Insurance Fund. Your Lordships may remember that this fund is established for insuring persons serving in the Services who do not join approved societies. If these men, when they have left the Services, cannot join approved societies they remain on the fund and it is in connection with that fund and its surpluses that I wish to explain the Government proposals. These surpluses now amount to about £1,500,000, and the Government proposes to apply £100,000 in a particular way for the benefit of those on the fund and to take for the Exchequer £1,100,000. That sum of £400,000 is to be expended in this way. It is to secure the average additional benefits paid by the societies to those men who remain on the fund after they leave the Services.
I should say that the Government really would be fully entitled to take the whole of the £1,500,000 because this fund is in a totally different position from the approved societies. If approved societies make a deficiency they have to pay for it
72
either by lowering their benefits or charging their members more in contributions. There is no analogy between this fund and the approved societies because in this case the Government itself guarantees the benefits. Therefore, if there is a surplus it is entitled to take it, and it is entitled, if it likes, to reduce its contributions because whatever it does is merely a book-keeping entry, and the Government itself is responsible that these benefits shall be paid to the men on the fund. After all, if it required any more justification I could easily show that these surpluses are not earned in any way by the men at present on the fund but are due to the fact that a good many people joined this fund during the War who did not take the trouble to explain that they were not insurable and passed out of the fund when they entered civilian life afterwards and their amounts have been credited to the fund.
Another important point in regard to that clause is this. At the present time those who pass out of the Army and join approved societies have to wait five years before they get the advantage of the additional benefits. Owing to the substantial margin that exists because of the amount of the Government contribution, it has been found possible to increase their transfer value so that they can enjoy those additional benefits in their approved societies and be treated, in fact, as if they had been members of those approved societies during the time they had been on the fund while they were serving as soldiers. So that these two substantial benefits are conferred both on the men who are in approved societies and those who remain on the fund after they leave the Army.
The next point of substance has reference to the question of unemployment. Here the contributions paid by the Government to the Unemployed Fund per man until the end of the extended period are to be reduced from 6¾d. to 6d., with corresponding alterations for boys and women. Fewer controversial points arise on this than are raised in connection with health insurance or the fund for sailors and soldiers. Unfortunately, the effects of this clause may be much altered by the circumstances through which we are now passing. The reason why—I am looking now to the past—it is possible for the Government to make this reduction in

73
contribution and make the fund solvent is merely that they estimated in June last that the number of persons on the fund would be 1,300,000, and those calculations, fortunately, up to the end of April at any rate, have been proved to be false. There has been a large reduction in unemployment, and in spite of the fact that the contributions were reduced in the case of the men by 2d., it was possible, owing to that large reduction of unemployment, to reduce the Government contribution from 6¾d to 6d. I should like to point out these two things—the provisions named in the Ace of last year under certain circumstances to increase the Government contribution to 8d. or even 9d. and the extent to which the unemployment funds have improved during eight or nine months through the reduction in unemployment.
I ought to mention two further points upon that. One is that the employers might have a grievance in that they did not have the first penny taken off their contributions instead of reduction being made in the Government contribution. They may have that claim. At the same time, though not granted at the moment, that claim has only been postponed, and it is hoped ultimately to bring down the contribution of employers, employed, and the Government to 6d. each. The Fund, generally, has been in a satisfactory condition and it is fortunate, perhaps, that it has been. Their borrowing powers are £30,000,000. The largest amount to which those borrowing powers have been exercised is £17,500,000. They have now been reduced by the end of the month to £7,500,000; so that with an income of £50,000,000 a year a debt of £7,500,000 cannot be regarded as anything very considerable.
Those points really exhaust the larger proposals in the Bill, and I think I can deal very quickly with the subsequent clauses. Clause 9 provides for one register of electors only in the year instead of two, and in order not to disfranchise electors the period of qualification is reduced from six to three months and £250,000 are saved which are shared between the Exchequer and the local authorities. I pass rather lightly over Clauses 10 and 11, which deal with the division of the issue of ballot papers and the reduction in the number of presiding officers and also with the stamping of the papers before they are handed to presid-
74
ing officers in polling booths. I understand that these clauses are now under consideration, and it is possible I may have to withdraw them when we come to the Committee stage. Nor need I dwell upon the re-arrangement of the polling arrangements for Orkney and Shetland.
Under Clause 14, which deals with the powers of the Board of Education to refuse to recognise expenditure by the authorities for the purposes of grant earning, doubt s, I understand, have arisen as to the areas and the limits within which the Government can utilise its power of reducing grants. There has been a good deal of criticism of this clause and I propose to introduce some Amendments in Committee. I deal with it, therefore, quite shortly. On the latter part of the clause, the Government can recover, by deduction from the grants paid to local authorities which have not training colleges, the amount of the extra grant of £70,000 given to local authorities which have training colleges.
Clauses 15 to 18 deal with the bankruptcy and companies winding up fees. Those fees are to be amalgamated and the surplus, leaving a good working balance, is to be handed over to the Exchequer. I understand that there is a surplus on the companies account and a deficiency on the bankruptcy account. In Clause 19 it is made clear that the Postmaster-General can have advertisements fixed by way of postmark on to letters and payment can be collected. I believe the estimate of the amount to be derived by the Exchequer from this is about £250,000 a year. Coming to Clause 20, as regards merchants' shipping fees, a running account is kept from April 1, 1923, and the fees are to be adjusted so as to cover one half of the fee paid services and no more. It is obvious that without a running account it would be very difficult to estimate the exact amount to be demanded in order to meet exactly one half of the services. That is a general description of the clauses, and I shall be very glad in Committee to go much more fully, if necessary, into some of the more intricate points therein dealt with.
I notice that two Motions are on the Paper, one representing the Labour Party and the other by the head of the Liberal Party, for the rejection of this Bill. I confess that I was not very much sur-

75
prised to see this Motion on the Paper in the name of the Labour Party, because this is an economy Bill and I do not think any body ever accused the leaders of the Labour Party of showing any undue or passionate enthusiasm for the cause of economy. But I was rather more surprised to see a Motion of this kind put down by the Liberal Party, because I understood that retrenchment was one of the most notable lines of their policy I should very much regret—indeed, I think we should all regret—if that device was to be erased from their banner and some new and sinister design was to take its place. I am not going to speculate as to what political importance is to be attached to the combination of the Labour and the Liberal Parties in an attack on this measure at this time, in this House, but I should like to make it quite clear to your Lordships that if this Bill is rejected, as these two Parties wish it to be, there will be thrown upon the taxes of this country something like £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 more than they hear at present. I submit to your Lordships that it is not a prudent thing at this time to add another burden to the overwhelming expenditure which we have to hear. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing the opinion of the limited number of members of your Lordships' House who have listened, as I have, to the whole speech of the noble Viscount when I venture to assure him that those who have listened to it are under a great debt of gratitude to him for his lucid and comprehensive survey. The noble Viscount has threaded his way, as far as I could judge, warily and adroitly through an unusually complicated jungle of technicalities. I do not, I confess at once, notwithstanding the somewhat pretentious title of this Bill—an Economy Bill as it is called—regard it, as a measure of first-class importance. I cannot speak, of course, for the Labour Party, but as regards the rest of us we are all in these days almost trumpet-tongued in our praises of economy. The noble Viscount expressed some kindly solicitude as to whether the
76
Liberal Party was going to erase from its banner the word "Retrenchment." Let me set him at ease on that score. We have no such intention and if we thought that the economies, or so-called economics, proposed by this Bill were the right or legitimate way of reducing public Expenditure, or of adding to public Revenue, we should be the first and among the most hearty of its supporters. But it is one thing to use the word economy, and indeed to profess an honest zeal for economy, and it is an entirely different thing to approve the steps which, under the guise and name of of economy, pursue that goal by what some of us at any rate regard as an illegitimate and a misleading road.
I am not going to detain your Lordships for more than a very short time, and I shall not attempt to traverse a large part of the ground which the noble Viscount has so ably and comprehensively covered. My objection to this Bill, and which seems to me to justify the suggestion made in my Motion that your Lordships should not proceed further with it, is founded upon one simple consideration, that for the most part the economies, or so-called economies, which are here proposed, are invasions upon the provision made by the State under the existing law for indispensable social services I am not going into the question of Orkney and Shetland, which the noble Viscount, I think may be wisely, reserved for consideration in Committee, nor am I going to deal with what seem to me very questionable provisions in regard to education, but I shall confine what I have to say, and it can be very briefly stated, to that which is in the forefront of the Bill in the early clauses, and which constitutes to my mind its really objectionable feature. I mean the dealing by the Bill with the State contribution—the proposed reduction of the State contribution to health insurance as regards both the two classes involved, civilians and members of the fighting Services.
As the noble Viscount says, they stand in different categories and I shall very briefly deal with them both. First of all, as regards the civilians. As your Lordships are aware, and as the noble Viscount has made clear in his survey of the past history of these matters, under the Insurance Act of 1911 there are three contributory sources to health insurance.

77
the employers, the employed—their contributions are left untouched by this measure—and the State, whose contribution will be substantially diminished. I cannot go into the distinction between men and women, but, roughly speaking, that contribution which has since the Act of 1911 been two-ninths—twopence out of ninepence is now, I think, reduced by this Bill to one-seventh. That is the net effect. I shall not go into the difference between the two sexes. It is substantially reduced from two-ninths to one-seventh.
Let me remind your Lordships that, during the long controversies which took place over the Act of 1911 while it was still a Bill being discussed in the House of Commons, that figure of 9d. and the relative contributions to that figure of the three, different parties, and particularly the contribution by the State, were the subject of acute and prolonged discussion, not only in Parliament, but between the Government of the day and those societies outside which go by the name of approved societies and whose support and co-operation both when the Bill was first launched and in all its subsequent stages will, I am certain be acknowledged to be of inestimable and indeed indispensable value. The figure arrived at, and in particular the contribution to the aggregate which should be made by the State, was fixed after many controversies, discussions and negotiations of every sort and kind between the Government and the approved societies.
I think that one of the great defects in the scheme which is now proposed by the Government is that they did not take the pains which we certainly did in 1911 to obtain by previous consultation and conference the assent, or at any rate the acquiesence, of those societies in the change which is now proposed. I dare say many of your Lordships have received, as I have received, communications from all parts of the country from people representing those bodies, and so far as I have been informed and to the best of my knowledge they are one and all unitedly opposed to the suggested reduction in the amount of the State contribution. I do not say that is conclusive, but it is a very material fact when you are changing a system which has been in operation some fifteen years.
The noble Viscount has referred to the change made by the Government of which Mr. Lloyd George was the head in the contribution as regards women. There was no change made then in the State contribution as regards men. That change was accompanied by other provisions. I will read from the Report of the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the 1920 Bill:—
"Under the Act of 1911 the State proportion of benefits (including expenses of administration) is fixed at two-ninths in the case of men and one-quarter in the case of women. A uniform grant, in future, of two-ninths (22·2 per cent.), applicable to both men and women, is proposed by the Bill …and in the case of women the effect of adding the Women's Equalisation Fund, which was created by the Act of 1918 and is now to be augmented, will be to make the State grant 26·5 per cent. of the benefits."
So really the effect of the change made in 1920 was not to diminish but to increase the proportion which the State contributed to the total sum. I may be reciting facts which are familiar to your Lordships, but they had to be brought into view. This 2d. out of 9d. contributed by the State was to be paid into a sinking fund which was in time to provide the same benefits as were given to young entrants into the scheme from the beginning, to provide for older people who would other wise have been uninsured. That, of course, would disappear in time and it was computed that this sinking fund would be paid off in about twenty years.
What was to happen to the 2d. which was originally contributed by the Government to provide for the accumulation of this fund when the fund and the purpose which it was intended to serve had ceased to exist? Was it contemplated that the Government contribution, I will not say should cease but should be diminished in amount? I do not make any allegation of bad faith, because I do not think allegations of that kind ought to be made unless they can be very clearly substantiated, nor was there anything in the nature of a conscious or even undesigned breach of faith. I hold very strongly to the view that in financial matters no Parliament can bind its successors. When I see proposals which I know this House will not have the opportunity of discussing or revising because they are part of the finance of

79
the year, when I see suggestions that you can stabilise particular taxes in terms of five or ten or fifteen years they simply excite in me a sensation of pure and absolute ridicule. Nobody can stabilise the finance of this country for two years, let alone for ten or twenty. Unless some definite assurance has been given and some vested interest created which it would be confiscation to disturb, every House of Commons must have the absolute right to revise from time to time, according to its own judgment of the altered circumstances, the provisions made by its predecessor.
But, while I am not making any charge of breach of faith, I think it is undoubted that it was contemplated that this Government contribution of 2d. should be continued after the sinking fund had played its part and been exhausted. It was to be continued in order that it might be made available for what are called in the Act, additional benefits that is to say, benefits additional to the medical and other assistance given to all the insured persons. These additional benefits are of very great value. I will not enumerate them because they are set out in the Schedule to the Act, but I think the noble Viscount will agree when I say that they may be comprehensively and accurately described as meeting the cost of preventive measures to reduce the amount of sickness, to supplement the actual provision of medical care where cases of sickness have arisen. I am not suggesting, nor do I think any one suggests, that by the result of the change people will be deprived of any benefits which they now enjoy. There are, of course, many cases in which the funds of the society are such that additional benefits are given. On the other hand, there are a large number of cases in which they are not. I am glad to think that probably the majority of these, societies are not only solvent but have assets largely in excess of what might have been expected, but a very considerable number of the societies are not in that position and cannot provide these additional benefits.
The prospective advantage in the shape of additional benefits which the continuance of the 2d. contribution by the Government would give will he, if not taken away, very seriously impaired by the reduction in that contribution. That
80
is a point which I think your Lordships may consider well worthy of attention. The total amount which is to be secured to the Exchequer by this reduction, so far as the civilian population is concerned, amounts, I think, to £2,800,000—a substantial sum, no doubt, though in the calculus which we have now adopted and which we are apparently invited to continue of regarding an £800,000,000 Budget as a legitimate amount for a normal year, this is a mere drop in the bucket. I submit to your Lordships that it was not worth while to alter this settled contribution that has gone on for all these years and which may, if it is continued, really tend largely to ameliorate the condition of the most necessitous of our people, for such a relatively trumpery addition to the Revenue of the year.
The other aspect of the case, although the amount involved is considerably smaller, is one to which, I confess, I attach even greater importance, and that is the method by which the Government proposes to deal with the sailors and the soldiers. This is a very serious matter. The amount involved, as I have said is not great. I think the noble Viscount told us that the accumulated fund with which he is here dealing amounts to £1,500,000, of which £400,000 is going to be applied in the manner that he described, so that the sum which, if the Government proposals are carried out, will actually accrue to the Exchequer is very little over £1,000,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is £1,100,000.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: Call it £1,100,000. What is the case for these soldiers and sailors? For every good reasons they were not brought within the scope of the machinery of the general scheme of national insurance. In the first place, they got their doctoring free as long as they were in the Service. They did not require medical benefit and therefore they had to be specially dealt with. They obtained, of course, a great many other advantages. Accordingly a different plan was adopted in regard to them. A certain amount of money was stopped from their pay, and the remainder of the fund was contributed by the State. In that way this fund, which now, after the deduction of £400,000, represents a little over £1,000,000, was built up and

81
its real object and, so far as I know, its sole object (apart from maternity benefit, on which a certain amount has been expended) was to provide that when these men left the services there should be enough to enable them to be accepted by the approved societies and to enter into the national scheme. That, I think, was the object of this special provision.
The fund has now accumulated to this figure, and it comes from the sources which I have described. To what is due the figure that it has at present attained? It is due, not to miscalculation by actuaries, but to the fact that so many of these men laid down their lives in the War, the result being, of course, that every man over the age of, say, twenty-one, twenty-two or twenty-three who lost his life in the field automatically by his death released the reserve value which would have been allotted to him, had he lived, when he left the Service and came to thirty or forty years of age. Here again I do not want to make exaggerated, still less any distorted, representation of what is proposed. That is the source from which this fund is derived and that is the reason why it has swollen to its present dimensions. It is, one may say, the result of the War and of the casualties sustained in the war.
It is perfectly true that there is now no one who has any legal title to the fund. It belongs to the State, and, without this Bill, it might technically and legally have been handed over to the Exchequer. I do not know that any statutory authority was needed for the purpose. But the question that your Lordships have to consider is whether this is a right—still more, whether it is a worthy and generous thing to do. What is the situation? As I have said, there is no legal claim, but there is a body of men who, it seems to me, have a moral and an equitable claim to be considered. There are over 20,000 men of the Navy and the Army who have contributed to this fund out of their pay in days gone by and who, owing to the condition of their health, due largely to that which happaned to them the War, cannot get into any friendly society; they will not be accepted. On the other hand, they do not receive pensions in the ordinary sense because, owing to the terms and conditions of the Pensions Warrant, which I am not for a moment criticising, their ill-
82
health—it may be tuberculosis or some other disease—cannot be proved to be directly due to service at any specific time in the War. These men are in this unhappy position. They are, for the most part, living in great poverty and with no possibility of any further assistance, except from some Form of charity.
I do make a very strong appeal to your Lordships on behalf of these men. Is it worth while to appropriate to the Exchequer, in order to patch up an artificial surplus for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, whether from improvidence or from misfortune (I do not say which) has outrun his income—is it worth while, is it a worthy thing, is it consistent with all our best traditions to take this small sum of £1,000,000 and put it into the Exchequer for that purpose when you might by reappropriating it—as I have said, there is no legal claim of any sort or kind—bring relief to these men who served you in the War and whose present condition is due, it may be not directly, to wounds not. traceable to any specific cause in their service in the War? These men upon every moral ground are entitled not only to consideration but to generous treatment, and ought not to be left dependent upon private charity.
I make this appeal most earnestly to the Government. Whatever they may do with the other parts of this Bill, they Should reconsider this part. I am perfectly certain, and I shall secure the assent of every member of this house when I say so, that if the Government had brought in a Bill—and legislation would of course be required—to appropriate this £1,000,000 or £1,100,000, lying loose at the disposal of the State, for the relief of these men, that Bill would have passed unanimously in both Houses of Parliament. Cannot your Lordships, having regard to the facts which are undisputed, definitely say that so far as this House is concerned these men shall not be left without the provision which this sum will give them—a sum modest I agree, but the mere expenditure of which in the way I have described will materially relieve their necessities, and give them some scanty independent provision for the future—instead of letting it swell the surplus in the Exchequer. I have moved the rejection of the Bill mainly because I feel so strongly that these clauses are not justified either by

83
our national necessities or, still less, by those large considerations of humane policy which ought to govern legislation in tins matter. I shall be very glad if we can receive some assurance from the Government upon this point, and if they can give that assurance I need not say that I should not press my hostility to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at end of Motion insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Oxford and Asquith.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Earl has subjected certain parts of this measure to severe criticism, and on behalf of myself and my colleagues on this Bench I should like to associate myself with what he has said. When this Bill came up for Second Reading in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke for nearly two hours, not only upon the Bill, but for the major portion of the time upon the whole problem of national Expenditure. He was, of course, perfectly entitled to do that. He was seeking to justify the Bill, and although I myself am not going to make a long speech, I should like, before coming to the provisions of the Bill, to make a few observations upon the question of economy, and upon the lamentable, and indeed almost incredible, failure of the Government with regard to it. Indeed, it is my duty to do that in view of the remarks of the noble Viscount at the conclusion of his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, with regard to the Labour party and economy. I will come to those remarks in a moment.
I begin by saying that this Government ought to be the last Government to talk about economy or to use the word economy. It is easily the most extravagant Government since the War. Every other Government, including the Labour Government, since the War has reduced national Expenditure. It was left to this Conservative Government to reverse that beneficial process and to begin once again the upward curve. Last year, their first year of office, they spent many millions more than the Labour Government had spent, and I cannot help thinking that it would be rather an advantage if, before making his remarks, the noble Viscount had acquainted himself with some of the elementary facts about national finance. This year—I will leave
84
out of account the coal subsidy; I wish to be perfectly fair and my case is so overwhelmingly strong that I do not need to refer to the coal subsidy—the Government in their Estimates are proposing to spend £9,000,000 more than the Estimates of last year. Let me give you one more figure, and I am not going to give you many, but I think this is one which certainly ought to receive some reply from the Government, if they are going to make charges as they have done.
Leaving out of account the coal subsidy, and also increases of expenditure due to the decisions of previous Parliaments—apart from those two things this Government has increased national Expenditure by about £15,000,000, and have done so very largely on their own initiative and not because of strong Parliamentary pressure or great popular demand. It is customary for a Government to defend itself upon those grounds—namely, that Parliament is making them spend. The present Government cannot do it in this instance. They have done it themselves and without countervailing retrenchments, and the Government cannot blame Parliament. On the contrary, it is for Parliament to blame the Government, and I am entitled to blame them. I am entitled to do so all the more because of the wholly unjustifiable remissions of taxation which the Government have given to the wealthy classes, and which have increased our financial embarrassments.
Last January the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Leeds and made a speech about economy. He used there very strong and studied words. He told his audience what the Government were going to do in their economy plans. Every Department, he said, would he affected, and everybody would be called upon to make sacrifices. Anybody who has more than an elementary knowledge of the national finances knows that any-talk of that kind, although it may evoke cheers from audiences at Conservative meetings, and may call forth commendation in the Government Press, is really mere rhetoric and has no relation to the facts as they are. None whatever, and the Chancellor found that out when he came to face the problem. He then discovered that in present circumstances three-quarters of the national Expenditure is not susceptible of any important

85
reduction at all, and therefore for the purposes of retrenchment, he found himself driven back upon a sum of £165,000,000, which he said was the potential area for retrenchment. I do not like to refer to back speeches, and do not often refer to my own, but I think am entitled to point out that that figure corresponds almost exactly with what I said last year during our economy debate. The position was perfectly evident to anybody who took the trouble to analyse the national accounts, and I think it is surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not do that before going to Leeds.
Of this £165,000,000, nearly £50,000,000, broadly speaking, is for the cost of administration, and that, owing to the way in which the axe has been applied, does not admit of any great reduction, arid so we are left with about £16,000,000, the cost of the fighting Services. That is where the Government have so signally failed. If they had made, or started making, a large reduction in the cost of the fighting Services this Bill would have been unnecessary, and if they would adopt that policy consider what an easy path they would have. They would be supported by the Labour Party. I have no claim to speak for the Liberal Party, but I think I am right in saying that they also would support any reduction of armaments. And therefore the Government have a perfectly clear path. The Opposition would not oppose, they would help, and if the Government would only do this they would go a very long way to get out of the present financial embarrassments of the country.
Last year, in one of the debates upon the Finance Bill, the noble Earl who has just spoken suggested as a means of effecting economy what is called rationing. If he meant rationing in regard to the fighting Services I should most heartily agree with him, though, even here, it could scarcely, I suppose, be applied pro rate, and in default of any qualification rationing has very often been understood to mean pro rata reduction. Rut I am sure the noble Earl could not have meant that rationing should be applied to education or the health services or the beneficial activities of the Minister of Labour. In the last resort rationing can only be applied in
86
any considerable and effective way to the fighting Services.
I am sorry the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is not here, because I have to refer to something which he said. The fact is that the Government have no scientific or consistent policy with regard to economy at all. They flounder about, now saying one thing and now doing another, and I really must say a word about the extraordinary spectacle which they exhibited in regard to the promised grant of £200,000 for the Civil Service sports grounds. It is quite true that in view of the way in which they are cutting clown social services it would not be consistent for them to make this grant now, but they should have thought of that before. The noble Marquess is a consenting party to this Bill, which is going to affect so adversely many of our poorer classes. He went to Birmingham on February 19, and, speaking at a dinner there—this was, of course, before the Government withdrew this promised grant—he is reported to have used these words:—
"He thought the old country could still bear the weight of providing proper amenities for the civil servants. A promise was a promise, and that sum was not promised for the first time this year, hut it was promised some time ago. Suddenly the country had wakened up to it. Of course it must he fulfilled."
That was too much for the stern economists of Birmingham. A very strong Press agitation was raging against this grant at the time, and they interjected cries of "No, no."
But the noble Marquess was not deflected from the path of strict virtue by these economists. Not at all. In fact, he reproved them. He said:
"He was afraid the very foundation of that uncertainty of which he spoke was that everybody should keep their word."
Thus reproved, the economists of Birmingham changed their minds and interjected, "Hear, hear." That was on February 19. Within one short week of that the noble Marquess, as a member of the Cabinet, was a consenting party to breaking this promise and to withdrawing this grant. The point is that, owing to their mismanagement of the national finances, the Government has been led to break its promises and to perpetrate all kinds of inconsistencies,

87
and it has certainly been led into a breach of faith. The noble Earl who has just spoken said he would not use that expression "breach of faith." Be seemed to think it was going rather far.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Hear, hear.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry the noble Viscount said that, because I shall prove to him, from one of his own colleagues last year, that the Government then took the view that what they are doing now was a breach of faith. Moreover, Mr. Lloyd George, his principal colleague in the House of Commons, was by no means so lenient as the noble Earl in his language. He did not content himself with describing this Bill as a breach of faith. He used the word "robbery."
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is his favourite word.
LORD ARNOLD: That may be, but it only shows the difference in language used by various members of the Liberal Party. I say deliberately that it is a breach of faith, and a breach of faith with some of the thriftiest and the most hardworking of our poorer classes. It is really scarcely necessary for me to elaborate that point at this juncture, though next week in the Committee Stage I shall have various quotations to give, of a very intricate character I admit, but to my mind they make it perfectly clear that this was a breach of faith. It was a very strange thing for the noble Viscount to say that there had been a change made in the Act before, and therefore there could be no breach of faith. He knows that that change made in the Act before was made by mutual consent, and if a change is made by mutual consent no one would be afterwards justified in charging a breach of faith.
Last year the Government already was very hard up for money, and a proposal had been made for raiding the surpluses of the health societies. Sir Robert Horne had already cast a predatory eye upon those surpluses, and it was expected that he would put before the Government a definite proposal for raiding them, but his courage failed him the more he went into it apparently. At any rate, when the debate came on he did not actually put forward such a proposal, and the Minister of Health, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in
88
replying to him, said this. This was only a year ago. He said:
"I am very glad to hear my right hon. friend"—
that was Sir Robert Horne—
"disclaim any idea of raiding these surpluses. That, in my view, would be interpreted, and I think with some justification, as a breach of pledges which had been given to approved societies."
That, I venture to say, is what I think the noble Earl rather left out of account in his observations. This is a breach of faith with the approved societies. That is one of the serious things about this Bill.
The Minister of Health went on to say:
"It has been expected that the reward of efficiency of administration on their part would be the power to use these surpluses in order to give additional benefits to their members, and to say to those who have exercised efficiency in their administration in the hope of obtaining these additional benefits, 'We are going to take away that which you have by your thrift and care accumulated,' would, it seems to me, he an unjustifiable procedure."
That is precisely what the Government is doing in this case, and what has happened in the meantime to make what was wrong last year right this year? Nothing whatever has happened, except that the Government is hard up for money, but that would be a very poor defence on a charge of breach of faith in a court of law. And whatever specious arguments may be used this is something which is not only mean and shabby but is a definite breach of faith.
The main defence of the Government in this matter is that the Pension Bill of last year justifies this Bill. That is their main contention. The Pension Bill of last year gave to the persons who are insured persons between the ages of 65 and 70 10 s. a week, and it relieved the health societies of the obligation to pay cash benefits to those persons between 65 and 70. Therefore, the Government say, there is no real case for complaint.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is only one of the points.
LORD ARNOLD: It is the main one.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, there are many other points.
LORD ARNOLD: I am trying to be as fair as I can, but cannot say every thing all at once. I have looked though the debates in another place, and I think I am putting it fairly when I say that that was their main defence. I think that is absolutely true; at any rate, it is one of their chief defences, so that there is nothing to justify the interruption, although I do not complain of it. Let us see what the position is. It is true that the. Pensions Act relieves the health insurance societies of paying, from 65 to 70, cash benefits which otherwise they would have paid. But the converse applies. If they are relieved it means that insured persons would not be entitled if they became ill to receive the benefits which otherwise they would have got. If your Lordships will go into the matter you will find in the case of certain unmarried men and widowers that what they will receive under the Pensions Bill is less than they would have got under the Health Insurance Act. That is a serious matter. By an Act of Parliament people are deliberately put in a worse position than they would have been in under a contract which in effect they had made with the state. That is what is conies to. I have no hesitation in saying that if any such proposal were brought forward in your Lordships' House in regard to certain matters which I could name it would be condemned in the strongest language permitted by the limits of Parliamentary expression.
Let me take another aspect of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "After all, they have not very much to complain of because the rate of interest has gone up." And the noble Viscount said that they are much better off than they expected to lie. It is true that the rate of interest has gone up, but that argument must not he used apart from its corollary, which is that the cost of living has gone up as well. Therefore, these people, as a matter of fact, are not better off, but worse off, than they expected to be. And even if that were not true, what a dangerous doctrine this is for a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer to use! Let us apply the same argument to interest on the 5 per cent. War Loan. At the time that Loan was issued those who applied for or bought it had no expectation whatever that prices would be such that the value
90
of their investment would in effect be increased as much as it has been. Owing to the fall in prices, even if the War Loan interest were reduced in the direction of 3 per cent., some of these people would be better off than they expected to be. But would your Lordships consider that a sufficient justification for the suggestion that the rate of War Loan interest should be reduced? I heard a noble Lord say "No." Then why do it in one case, and if you do it in the one case why not in others? In this matter the Government has set an extremely dangerous precedent.
I pass from that matter to the clause dealing with unemployment insurance. I will not discuss this clause at any length, but it virtually amounts to a breach of faith. At any rate, the Minister of Health used language which seemed to show that the Government were guilty of something very like that, because they are taking for the Exchequer money which the employers had a right to expect That is the position. This money was, in effect, promised last year to the employers. The Government is now taking it Indeed the Minister of Health pleaded guilty to the charge, but argued that, after all, what the Government are doing is done to avoid further taxation and, therefore, the employers have no grievance. Let us consider for a moment what those words imply. They imply—do they not?—that taxation is just as much a burden upon industry as a definite charge like the unemployment insurance payment. Indeed, I suppose that is the position of the Government. Again and again during the debates on the Finance Bill of last year words to that effect were used, words which implied that whatever the charges were, whether taxation, or rates, or wages, they were all equally injurious to industry. I should like to ask whether that is really the view of the Government. If it is their view, can they produce a single economist of note who agrees with that view? I should have no hesitation in challenging them to do that because I know that they cannot do anything of the kind. I will not, go into the unemployment figures to-day, but when the time comes I shall be willing and able to challenge some of the calculations upon which this particular clause is based.

91
The last clause about which I wish to speak and to which the noble Earl referred is that for taking money from the Army, Navy and Air Force Fund. The noble Earl covered the ground so fully that I need say no more than a word or two about it on this occasion. It is an extraordinary thing when all is said and done. Consider the position. Here you have a surplus of £1,500,000 and simply because the Government are hard up for money—nobody suggests for a moment that they would have done this had they not been hard up for money—they say: "We will leave you £400,000 and take £1,100,000, and because we are leaving you £400,000 you really have no cause for grievance." It is like giving a small boy a penny bar of chocolate while you steal his money-box containing sixpence. That is what it comes to. The Government have no moral right to this money.
As a matter of fact, when the noble Earl said that the money came owing to the deaths which had taken place during the War he rather under-stated the case. That, no doubt, is one of the chief causes, but there are others. There are five causes mentioned in the Actuary's Report as to why this money has accumulated, and I certainly feel that for the Government to take the money is absolutely unjustifiable even if it could be argued that the whole of it could not be used for the original purposes for which it was intended. No doubt, owing to those deaths a lot of it cannot be so used, and this is a clear case for applying the doctrine of cy-près mentioned by the noble Earl. In another place some of the Conservative Back Benchers supported the proposal that this money should be used for some of the men whose cases have been described by the noble Earl, particularly for the consumptives. But the Government would have nothing to do with it. They swept it aside simply because they wanted money owing to their mismanagement of the national finances.
In the course of his observations the noble Viscount rather prided himself on the fact that in another place no Amendment had been inserted in this Bill. That is an astounding statement to make. No Amendment was inserted, of course, because the Government would not permit it, and with their huge majority they can, if they wish, always ride down
92
any opposition. As a matter of fact, they had put down an Amendment themselves, but when the time came to move it they dared not do so. Why? Because they wanted to avoid a Report stage. The Bill had been subjected to such devastating criticism, to which there had been scarcely any adequate reply, that they meant at all costs to avoid a Report stage. Your Lordships know that even if only one Amendment is inserted in a Bill in another place there must be a Report stage. So they took the extraordinary course of intimating that Hey would not move their own Amendment, but that when the Bill came to your Lordships' House this particular clause would be struck out by your Lordships, or words to that effect. From what the noble Viscount said and in view of the criticisms made upon this proposal, I gather that almost implies, if it implies anything at all, that your Lordships' House is in the pocket of the Government and will do whatever the Government wishes. If it does not mean that, what does it mean? I rather gather that the Government hesitated about this course, because the noble Viscount did not say that they were going to do it, but that they might do it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: What is it that the Government are hesitating about?
LORD ARNOLD: The Government in another place intimated that when this Bill came to your Lordships' House two clauses would be deleted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And I have hinted what those clauses were.
LORD ARNOLD: Exactly. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to give me his attention he will see that I am not disputing that at all. The point is that he did not say definitely to-clay that this was going to be done. He said it might he done.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am always cautious.
LORD ARNOLD: I see. Then it is not that the Government are hesitating, at least presumably not it is that the noble Viscount wishes to protect himself against every possible contingency that may arise. It is the fact that what happened in another place was that the Government withdrew their own Amendment in order to avoid having a Report stage, and it is an extraordinary thing,

93
in view of those circumstances, that the noble Viscount should plume himself on the fact that no Amendment was inserted in another place. I cannot remember a Bill, as far as a somewhat long Parliamentary experience goes, which received less support from the followers of the Government in another place than this Bill. Hardly any speeches were made in its favour from the back Benches. The noble Earl is perfectly right. It is not really an Economy Bill. You are not helping, the country by this Bill, Taking a large view, you cannot help the country by cutting down the already small allowance which the poor have to help them when they are ill and to ward off illness. Nearly everyone recognises that that is not economy. The Government's followers in another place recognised that, and, as far as we are concerned, though we cannot stop the Bill passing, we shall vote against it. I honestly believe it is one of the most unjust Bills that has ever been placed before Parliament.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is evident that the absence of so many members of your Lordships' House shows that the thoughts of most of us are elsewhere and, in those circumstances, I shall not detain your Lordships very long in stating the reasons why it is that I dislike this Bill. It is, I confess, with a very real regret that I find myself opposing any Bill which is called an economy Bill. I have often said in this House that I am only too anxious to give His Majesty's Government support when they propose measures directed towards true economy anal when they have been asked to abstain from various economic measures even from the Benches behind me, I have refrained from giving my support to that because I thought the Government deserved my support in those circumstances. But here, in this measure, there is so little which is really concerned with economy, except the name, that I find myself unable to support them.
We know the anxiety with which His Majesty's Government have stated their desire for economy. The Prime Minister, in Brighton last year, said that the Cabinet, Committee over which he intended to preside himself would labour insistently in order to get economy, but
94
the result of the insistent labours of this Cabinet Committee is that the figures show an unfortunate increase. I will give the figures for the last three years, and will include those of the Labour Government. I will not deal with Estimates but with actual Expenditure, which is, I think, the fairest way, because it includes Supplementary Estimates, In 1923–24 the Expenditure was £788,000,000; in 1924–25, when the Labour Government were in office, the actual money expended was £795,000,000—no such diminution as the noble Lord who spoke last intimated had occurred. Facts are more important than words. In the year 1925-26 the actual Expenditure, including, of course, the coal subsidy, amounted to £826,000,000. I see no economy in this direction, and neither, I must confess, do I see that here is any tendency towards economy on the part of His Majesty's Government. I am entirely surprised that His Majesty's Government, have followed the bad example which was set them by the Government which preceded them. We do not expect that there should be great economy either from the Benches on my left or from His Majesty's Conservative Government.
In passing, I may say that nothing surprised me more in the speech to which we have just listened than the constant reiteration by the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government were making a breach of faith. I should have thought that the noble Lord and his colleagues were the last people to talk about a breach of faith so long as they give their tacit approval to the greatest instance of breach of faith in the constitutional history of this country. How can they talk to this House of a breach of faith and expect us to take them seriously? When we come to the Committee stage I do hope that the noble Lord will refrain from advancing an argument which certainly seems to me of the utmost hypocrisy coming from either him or from any one of his colleagues who are sitting upon that Bench at the present moment.
VISCONT HALDANE: What is this all about?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Viscount wishes to know what the breach of faith is it is that so many trade

95
unionists have left work without giving those notices which they were obliged to give. It is one of the gravest and most important cases of a breach of faith in the constitutional history of this country. Unfortunately, the noble Viscount gives it his tacit approval. I will return to my own condemnation of the Bill. I understand that the noble Lord does not care for me to refer to his Party's criticisms of the Bill. We have three matters which are specially affected by this Bill—education, health insurance and unemployment insurance. They are all matters which are particularly interesting to noble Lords sitting on this Bench. After all, it is education which is very largely connected in people's minds with the admirable work that was done by Mr. Fisher, the Warden of New College, while he was Minister for Education. Health insurance is for ever connected with the name of Mr. Lloyd George and unemployment insurance with the name of my noble friend Lord Buxton, who unfortunately is not in this House to-night.
I would ask His Majesty's Government, when they speak of economy, why they go in this matter to unemployment. Does my noble friend really say that there is true economy if it is merely taken off from the Unemployment Insurance Fund and put instead upon the rates? If these people, instead of getting it from one source are obliged to get it from the rates, it does not seem to me that there is any real economy for the people of this country. There is another question that I would like to put to the noble Viscount. We understand that last year there was a Committee appointed to go into the question of expenditure I think only upon the defence forces. It was presided over by Lord Colwyn. I wonder if the noble Viscount could give us any informaion in regard to the Committee's Report? Is there any chance that it will be published, or, if not, will the noble Viscount give us any reason why it should not be published? It was a very strong Committee. It consisted, I think, of Lord Colwyn, Lord Bradbury, and Lord Chalmers. We should all like to know what economies they thought were possible and desirable in the Public Services. It would be of so much value that I do hope His Majesty's Government may give us some intimation that this Report may be made public. So long as we see this large increase in the total Expenditure
96
of this country we have very little hope of those large economies which we wish to see in the total Expenditure of the country. We Liberals have always stated that we thought it very much better that money should remain in the pockets of the people of this country. Mr. Gladstone used the famous words that it was far better that it should fructify in the pockets of the people of this country and that they should be able to spend it as they liked. That is a sound principle to which we still adhere. We would far rather have it there than spent in taxes.
I can imagine that the noble Viscount might quite fairly taunt us with not making alternative suggestions of our own. Quite briefly, I would venture to say that I do think there are several directions, quite apart from armaments, in which something might be done. Your Lordships probably do not realise that at the instigation of the late Government no less than £2,750,000 is going to be given as a subsidy to beet sugar. We have lately learned how bad a thing a subsidy on coal may be, but this year a sum of £2,750,000—and it may be even greater in subsequent years—is going to be given to beet sugar, There are a number of new Departments which I think really might be subject to some consideration, new Departments which in the old clays were subject to the larger Departments of State and which now, having become independent, have naturally become larger. I need not go through the list of them—they will probably occur to the noble Viscount—but I think there are members of His Majesty's Government who might well consider a self-denying ordinance and ask themselves whether their existence as an independent organisation is still necessary.
So long as you have a Minister with his secretaries and assistant secretaries, with their typists, clerks, experts and messengers you have an almost unending source of expense. Your Lordships will remember the old saying,
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."
When you have these independent Departments existing you find increasing sources of expenditure. To take only one item, the rooms they have to occupy, you

97
will find that a considerable sum of money might be saved to the State if some of these offices were returned to the larger Departments of which at one time they formed part. These economies would appeal to me more if they had been accompanied by larger economies in ocher directions, if we could have saved, for instance, in armaments and there had been some real attempt to secure a larger economy. I recognise the fact that armaments to-day show a slight drop upon last year, but there is an increase upon the Estimates of the year before. In view of these facts, although my noble friend and I will not challenge the Bill or proceed to a Division, we do wish to take this opportunity of registering our disapproval of the measure.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, there is one point in connection with the Bill to which I wish to refer. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill alluded to an Amendment which he would propose at the Committee stage in connection with Clause 14. I am aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country in regard to the attitude of the Government in connection with expenditure, but what I do feel is that the views of local education authorities ought to be taken very carefully into account before the Amendment is: placed upon the Paper. I am hopeful that the Government will realise that the policy indicated by Circular 1371, which has been withdrawn, ought not to be perpetuated in a veiled way by Clause 14 as it is at present drawn.
Those of us who have done our utmost to encourage local education authorities to spend money in order to enable children to be properly educated and to see that their little ailments are attended to, feel that there is real danger of that work being restrained by the Board of Education under the powers conferred by this Bill. It is absolutely essential if money is not to be wasted on the children that their comparatively slight ailments should be attended to. Otherwise money will be wasted in trying to educate them. There are little illnesses, due often to dental troubles, adenoids and occasionally other ailments upon which I need not dwell, which really cause a waste of public money. It is necessary that local education authorities should be encouraged to deal with these ailments with a view to securing true economy.
98
There is a good deal more I might say, but in present circumstances I desire to give the Government as much support as I can I hope they will take into account the views of education authorities before introducing their Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes. I think that probably you would not thank me if I discussed the much wider question raised during the discussion of the whole financial policy of the Government. If I am asked to do so I shall be glad to deal with it on a proper occasion. The many points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, might be dealt with, I think, on a, general Motion. I will just answer very shortly a few of the points raised in the course of the debate. I must express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, for so fairly and so definitely putting an end to the idea that there was any sort of breach of pledge in the dealings of the Government with Clause 1. I thought the point would he settled by the great authority of the Earl of Oxford, but it was revived by Lord Arnold. I think lie will pardon roe for saying that if I had to consider weight of authority I should prefer to rely on the great experience and authority of the Earl of Oxford.
LORD ARNOLD: I quoted your own Minister of Health.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that point. The noble Lord quoted the Minister of Health, but did not say it was wholly irrelevant to the present Bill. He talked about raiding surpluses, but if he had only read this Bill and, if I may add, had listened to my speech, he would have seen that no surplus is raided. The whole of the surplus of £65,000,000, as I thought I stated definitely, will not he touched at all. Again I rely upon the great authority of the Earl of Oxford.
The Earl of Oxford made one or two points with regard to which I should like to say a word or two. With regard to the sinking fund which he said was built up partly by Government contributions and partly, I think, from the contributions of the people themselves under the provisions of the original Act of 1911, he said that when these reserve values had been paid off, or the sinking fund built up, the Government contribution, what-

99
ever it might be, would go towards the grant of further benefits. That is so and it is not altered by the Bill at all. On the contrary, when this period is over the Government contribution will still be paid and will still go to additional benefits. The only alteration is this reduction which is sufficient to meet all the original demands and fulfils, as it were, the conditions and provisions of the original Act. I rather regretted to hear the noble Earl say that £2,800,000 was a puny sum. That is not much encouragement to a Government that is trying to economise. I myself, with a humbler notion of finance, thought that £2,800,000 was really a substantial sum to be handed to the Exchequer.
I must thank the noble Earl also for the great fairness with which he stated the case against the Government on the two points of health and soldiers' pensions. There was only one point on which I think he may possibly have given a wrong impression to the House, although the matter was stated by him with fairness and accuracy. He referred to the number of men who are on the soldiers and sailors fund as 20,000. I think it is 23,000.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: 22,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Let that pass. He stated that there were many of these men who were getting disability and other pensions as a result of their sufferings in the War or of illnesses contracted during the War, but I think the House might have gathered from his observations the impression that these 22,000 men really had nothing to live on except the benefit they might get as members of the fund. But we must make a considerable deduction from this amount because a large proportion of that 23,000 are unfortunately men who have suffered owing to the effects of the War and who, in addition to what they are getting under these benefits, are also getting different classes of disability pension.
Let me make one further observation. The noble Earl in a very strong and moving argument, said that these surpluses have been built up out of the reserved values by these men who fell in the War and that they should be handed over to the men who are now on the fund. I quite admit that you
100
might build up a very strong argument on this basis, but I should like to point out that this surplus, though partially due to the reserved values of the men who fell in the War, is also due to a great many other causes, of which I stated one when I pointed out that those who entered the Army during the War and did not say that they belonged to uninsured businesses or occupations passed out and left their reserved values for the benefit of the fund. I am advised that, if you take the amount of the reserved values liberated by those men who died in the War, that sum is less than the £400,000 that is going to be reserved by the Government in order to increase the benefits and give additional benefits to those men who are already on the fund. I state that because I think that the noble Earl may possibly have given a slightly wrong impression.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I did not intend to do so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite certain that it was not intentional, but I thought that it might have given that wrong impression. I think I need deal only with two points made by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, because he says he will raise the matter again on Tuesday and if I do not answer any technical points now I will do so then. But the noble Lord made one point to which I do want to reply at once. He said that we were relying upon the £37,000,000 set free by the people between 65 and 70 years of age being put upon the Old Age Pensions and taken out of this insurance as a reason for making the reduction of £2,800,000, and he further remarked how hard it was that these people who were taken off one fund and put under the Old Age Pensions scheme should actually get less than they would have got if they had remained.
LORD ARNOLD: I said "in some cases."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am rather glad to hear that already, before I have answered the point, the noble Lord has made a considerable—
LORD ARNOLD: Will the noble Viscount do me the courtesy of letting me say that I made it perfectly plain. I used the words "in some cases" and I went on to refer to the case of

101
unmarried men and widowers. The point was put quite fairly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to hear it, because I was merely going to state broadly that the benefits granted by the Pensions Act to insured persons between the ages of 65 and 70 are three and a half times the total amount that they would have had under both health and unemployment benefits combined. That is the Actuary's Report, and certainly I think that the statement of the noble Lord opposite would have led the House to think that in going from one fund to another they were going to suffer I will not speak of the one or two particular eases that he mentioned but, broadly speaking, these people get three and a half times the benefit that they would have got if they had remained. I think that I have dealt with the specific points that were raised and I dare say that your Lordships will at this time of the evening excuse me if I do not go into the broad question of the whole financial policy of the Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived. Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Privilege Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
[From Minutes of May 4.]

RAMSBOTTOM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1).
  Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders in respect of the Petition for the following Bill have not been complied with:—
  Falmouth Docks.
  And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with.
  Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund.
  And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.
  Port of London.
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

FALMOUTH DOCKS.
  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Examiners Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the standing orders not complied with in respect of the petition for the

Royal Albert Hall Bill

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill, provided that the following provisions shall have been struck out from the Bill:—

1."The grant to the Council of the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences of the right to determine the amount of the seat rate in respect of seats in the Royal Albert Hall.

2."The imposition upon holders of seats who have compounded for seat rates under the Royal Albert Hall Act, 1876, of the liability to future seat rates."

Read, and agreed to.

WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee,
That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; Read and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Orders made on the 17th and the 24th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

CHORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.

ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday), read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOWMENT FUND BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation

ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.

And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the

Southern Railway Bill

ought to be dispensed with:

Read, and agreed to.

HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
READING UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next, 3.45 p.m.

INVERNESS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the Royal Burgh of Inverness:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.